I just received an anonymous e mail which contains some juicy information. The message notes that The American Conservative will run a story in its upcoming October 9th issue by retired CIA agent, Philip Giraldi. In the article, Giraldi reports that the White House has overcome resistance, well-chronicled in Sy Hersh’s New Yorker stories on this subject, from the Joint Chiefs to a military assault on Iran:
The White House has overcome resistance from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has ordered plans to attack Iran after the November Congressional elections.
President Bush has made it clear, both publicly and privately, that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capability and that he intends to take direct action, whatever the consequences would be. It is well understood at the White House that if a naval and air assault is required in lieu of effective international sanctions that modify Iranian behavior there will be severe damage from Iranian retaliation. The US Navy has been tasked with developing contingency plans to keep the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf open while Air Force planners have been tasked to destroy presumed nuclear sites and to cripple Tehran’s offensive capabilities.
Though I can’t attest to the accuracy of the information provided by my source, the report seems credible and in accord with much previously known information about the Bush Administration’s approach to Iran. It’s also in accord with what I know of Giraldi’s previous writing on this subject.
What could throw a wrench into Bush’s plans for Iran is a Democratic victory in Congressional elections. Though the Dems have been spineless and weak regarding Iraq, one would hope they’d learned their lessons in falling for Bush’s lies about Saddam and not drink the Kool Aid once again. If the Democrats win one or both Houses, then they could hold hearings on whatever shenanigans Bush has planned for us regarding Iran. I don’t think the American people are going to go for another Middle East military adventure. But then again, you don’t often lose when you bet on the cluelessness of the American voter. After all, a majority clearly reject the American occupation of Iraq, yet we’re still there and will be there for the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, I’m still seeing acid flashbacks of Slim Pickens riding the A-bomb to oblivion in Dr. Strangelove. Wouldn’t it be appropriate for Don Rumsfeld to play the Slim Pickens role if they drop the big one on the mullahs?
Dan Sniderman says
Sadly Rumsfeld as Slim Pickens is not a joke – as so well discussed by Digsby extensively and very convincingly on his blog.
The Cheney Administrations clearest goal is to transform the view of America that 90 percent of Americans held. Values held since the founding fathers formed this nation that lead to belief that things like torture and wiretapping without warrants are against the very fabric of what this nation stands for.
The neo-cons abhor the concept that a nuke is any different from any weapon and that they shouldn’t be used with inpunity. This they want to change – and Iran is where they want to change it. Iran is triple the size of Iraq with a much better equiped and larger military. We clearly don’t have enough troops in Iraq – so how do you carry about a military operation without more troops?
Simple:: Nuke ’em!
The neo-cons seemed to have bought into the philosophy of 1920’s military theoretician Guilio Douhet who believed that carpet bombing of civilian urban areas would shatter civilian morale and cause them to push their governments to surrender. Despite the fact that every war since WW2 has proven the opposite (so well displayed by the North Viet Namese)
Most people in this country (the world) who haven’t “Drank the Kool-aid” of the neo-cons know what would happen if Iran is conventionally bombed by the US
But a nuclear attack? The world will rally against us like they did for us after 9/11. I can’t think of a worse disaster.
The Democrats are morons for not running on this. Raise the nuclear issue now. Force the Cheney administration to rebuke it (which I doubt they would) – or be forced to deny it in twisted complicated language.
This would force the terms of debate on Democrats terms. Which is what Rove does so well. I don’t understand why the Dem’s are afraid of it.
Richard Silverstein says
Did you mean to link to a specific Digby post above? I can’t figure out which post you were referring to. Gotta link by any chance?
Dan Sniderman says
I’m not sure if the problem is on my end (one of my consulting clients modified my laptop and I need to re-image it – but that requires mailing it Corporate in Minneapolis which I am reluctant to do) – but I can’t search the archives – I hope to get this figured out one of these days and will post the link.
Much of it it based on Sy Hersh’s articles (I believe there were two) in New Yorker about the Cheney administrations nuclear ambitions.