Iran: Syria as a distraction

The US statements about the UN investigation into the Hariri assassination need to be looked at in the context of Iran.

The US hopes to build international support for action in Syria, then use that momentum for action in Iran.

However, the US has already drafted speeches and plans to move without regard to the UN. The US hopes to mobilize the world, then discredit them, and put the US above international accountability.

* * *



Are the US statements about Syria believable? The statements are about priming the pump for action against Iran.

* * *

Iran: What is the US up to?

Scott Ritter claims US Ambassador to the UN, John R. Bolton, has pre-written a speech to ignore the UN Security Council and call for unilateral US actions to deal with Iran.

Speaking on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, Ritter stated that Bolton had already had his speech written designed to condemn the UN Security Council over their inaction with Iran.

Ritter was not clear when this speech would occur, but believes it is linked with the Bush Administration's effort to discredit the IAEA and move the Iran issue out of the IEA into the Security Council.

* * *

It appears as though Ritter's concerns are related to the pre-Iraq-invasion planning. Ritter as weapons inspector had access to volumes of data showing the actual Iraqi WMD efforts were in no way consistent with the Bush Administrations' claims.

Ritter has received recently more vocal public acclaim for his outspokenness prior to the Iraq invasion, some which regard as unlawful.

* * *

As part of the Iraq propaganda, many believe the Bush Administration launched an effort to retaliation against outspoken critics of the war, including Valerie Plame.

Special counsel Fitzgerald has launched a website and it appears indictments will be posted within a matter of days.

The Bush Administration appears to have gone into defensive mode, and some Administration personnel have specifically suggested that personnel inside the Bush Administration resign.

It remains to be seen how, in the wake of the likely Fitzgerald indictments, the US will be able to move against either Syria or Iran.

It's not likely that either the Congress or the international community will ask for closer vetting of the US allegations in re Syria in the wake of the Fitzgerald indictments.

Some view the likely indictments as the needed pause to reflect on whether the Bush Administration is reliable when it comes to making claims, accusations, or organizing for military campaigns.

To date, the American involvement in Iraq stemmed from poor planning. It is likely the same flawed planning and assumptions in Iraq and Katrina will weave their way into efforts against Syria or Iran.

* * *

It is unclear whether the Bush Administration could successfully launch a ground campaign into Iran. What is far more likely, given the stretched US ground forces, are surgical strikes from various regions.

It remains unclear whether the Fitzgerald indictments would call into question the Bush Administration claims about the Iranian efforts, or prompt a rethinking of the Congressional relationship with the President in matters of war.

What is clear is that the President in early 2005 did verify that the DoD was making progress in having in place by June 2005 plans to use military force against Iran.

Whether the EU with other nation is successful in gathering evidence about Iran’s nuclear development program remains unclear.

Bolton appears to be pushing to have the issue moved out of the IEAA and put into the UN Security Counsel.

It is likely that the US, as it did in Iraq before the invasion, has orchestrated another line of evidence to justify military action.

* * *

However, lost in the debate is the issue of: If Iran truly is as much of a threat as we are asked to believe, why was Iraq invaded first?

* * *

It is likely that the same pre-Iraq-invasion ruses revealed in the Downing Street Memo are going on with Iraq.

It remains to be seen whether the EU or the US are successful in getting Iran to open up or whether there are plans, as in Iraq, to get Iran to reject any effort, thereby prompting calls for overt military action.

* * *

Regardless what does or doesn't happen in Iraq, it is clear that the regional stability is spiraling down.

The US, on top of this problematic security situation, does not have enough troops in the region making an air campaign the more likely option.

At worst, the US could move troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq to support a ground invasion, but this would leave these regions with less security.

* * *

Given Secretary of State Rice's testimony looking favorably at military force, it seems likely the Bush Administration is serious about relying on military action, even if there are no forces or supporting resources to sustain that effort.

It is likely he CIA and DIA have already briefed the President on the risks of expanding the theater of options, and it appears likely the President is moving on a timeline related to the Iranians, not the American ability to support these ground operations.

It is not likely that the US will be able to sustain ground movements from Iraq to Iraq. There are currently not enough troops in Iraq to maintain stability, and it is not plausible to believe that US forces can maintain security in Iran for any length of time.

* * *

Given the Indian-Pakistani earthquake, it does not appear the Bush Administration can rely on Pakistan for immediate support to invade Iran. Also, given the Russian support of the Iranian nuclear program, it is not likely the Russians will support US troops launching raids from Russia into Iran.

It is more likely that the strikes will come from Uzbekistan, Diego Garcia, and the southern secured Air Fields in Iraq, and Turkey.

* * *

The Americans have yet to account for what happened in the pre-Iraq invasion. The Downing Street Memo raises questions which Fitzgerald may raise.

The current distraction of Syria appears to be a ruse to justify more international military action. If the US can get the world to work on Syria, despite a problematic UN report, it is likely few will be willing to speak out about American adventures in Iran

Whether America finds or destroys any actual nuclear programs remains to be seen. What is clear is that so long as the Fitzgerald indictments do not translate into substantive impacts on Administration personnel, there's nothing in the way of this Administration from widening the war.

Even if it has nothing to do with either the war on terror or actual imminent threats to America.

* * *

We've entered an age when countries that simply choose to exercise their sovereignty run the risk of having that sovereignty violated, whether it be by invasions, smearing, or threats of military strikes.

The Bush Administration is not going to stop. Congress does not appear to have the inclination to stop them, regardless the financial burden, legality, or facts.