[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

16 Things That Everyone Needs To Know About Violent Far-Left Revolution In Los Angeles

Undercover video in Arizona alleges ongoing consumer fraud by Fairlife

Dozens arrested after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday

Looking for the toughest badasses in the city (Los Angeles)

Democrat Civil War Explodes: DNC Chair Threatens to Quit Over David Hogg

Invaders waving Mexican flags, pour onto the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles

Australian Fake News Journo Hit By Rubber Bullet In L.A. Riot

22-year-old dies after being unable to afford asthma inhaler

North Korean Bulsae-4 Long-Range ATGM Spotted Again In Russian Operation Zone

Alexander Dugin: A real Maidan has begun in Los Angeles

State Department Weighing $500 Million Grant to Controversial Gaza Aid Group: Report

LA Mayor Karen Bass ordered LAPD to stand down, blocked aid to federal officers during riots.

Russia Has a Titanium Submarine That Can ‘Deep Dive’ 19,700 Feet

Shocking scene as DC preps for Tr*mp's military birthday parade.

Earth is being Pulled Apart by Crazy Space Weather! Volcanoes go NUTS as Plasma RUNS OUT

Gavin, feel free to use this as a campaign ad in 2028.

US To Formalize Military Presence in Syria in Deal With al-Qaeda-Linked Govt

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling Free Palestine Slogan as Anti-Semitism

Two-thirds of troops who left the military in 2023 were at risk for mental health conditions

UK and France abandon plans to recognise Palestinian state at conference

Kamala Backs LA Protests After Rioters Attack Federal Officers

Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox partners move ahead with Knesset dissolution plan

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine: Zelensky will leave the country

Man protesting Paramount ICE raid added to FBI's Most Wanted

JUAN O SAVIN- The Plan to Capture America

US Manufacturing By State: Who Gains Most From 'Made In America'?

Rickards: The Truth About Fort Knox And Gold Leasing

Los Angeles Warzone: "Insurrectionist Mobs" Attack Cops, Set Fires, Block 101 Freeway

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video)

‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over This’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities,


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: Must Read: Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran
Source: inteldaily.com
URL Source: http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=8641
Published: Nov 6, 2008
Author: Peter Symonds
Post Date: 2008-11-08 10:52:16 by bluegrass
Keywords: None
Views: 2058
Comments: 115

On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.

The article entitled “New Beltway Debate: What to do about Iran” noted with a degree of alarm: “It is a frightening notion, but it not just the trigger-happy Bush administration discussing—if only theoretically—the possibility of military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program… [R]easonable people from both parties are examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.”

Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.

A key member of the Center’s task force was Obama’s top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, who is well known for his hawkish views. He backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—and signed up as a foreign policy analyst for Fox News.

The Bipartisan Policy Center report insisted that time was short, declaring: “Tehran’s progress means that the next administration might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It rejected out-of-hand both Tehran’s claims that its nuclear programs were for peaceful purposes, and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by US intelligence agencies which found that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The report was critical of the Bush administration’s failure to stop Iran’s nuclear programs, but its strategy is essentially the same—limited inducements backed by harsher economic sanctions and the threat of war. Its plan for consolidating international support is likewise premised on preemptive military action against Iran. Russia, China and the European powers are all to be warned that their failure to accede to tough sanctions, including a provocative blockade on Iranian oil exports, will only increase the likelihood of war.

To underscore these warnings, the report proposed that the US would need to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf. “This should commence the first day the new president enters office, especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, [and] emplacing other war materiel in the region,” it stated.

In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”

Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.

Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.

Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.

As the New York Times noted on Monday, Obama defense adviser Richard Danzig, former navy secretary under Clinton, attended a conference on the Middle East convened in September by the same pro-Israel think tank. He told the audience that his candidate believed that a military attack on Iran was a “terrible” choice, but “it may be that in some terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice”. Richard Clarke, who was also present, declared that Obama was of the view that “Tehran’s growing influence must be curbed and that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” While “his first inclination is not to pull the trigger,” Clarke stated, “if circumstances required the use of military force, Obama would not hesitate.”

While the New York Times article was muted and did not examine the reports too deeply, writer Carol Giacomo was clearly concerned at the parallels with the US invasion of Iraq. After pointing out that “the American public is largely unaware of this discussion,” she declared: “What makes me nervous is that’s what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.”

Giacomo continued: “Bush administration officials drove the discussion, but the cognoscenti were complicit. The question was asked and answered in policy circles before most Americans know what was happening… As a diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in those days, I feel some responsibility for not doing more to ensure that the calamitous decision to invade Iraq was more skeptically vetted.”

The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles again underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and McCain were purely tactical. While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia—including the use of military force against Iran.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 98.

#6. To: Ferret Mike, a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)

You're either suckers or worse, you're down with Obama and his NeoLibs.

Which is it? ; )

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-08   12:09:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: bluegrass (#6)

I knew Rahm Emanuel would play a key role in President Obama's Administration quite a while ago.

Obama wants someone whom he can trust his back to and this guy has the potential to be a really good chief of staff. As long as he is true to his word about ditching the hyper partisan mode of doing things.

I really like Rahm Emanuel. He is going to do a good job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHX-g1FtaMs

Ferret Mike  posted on  2008-11-08   22:38:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Ferret Mike, Lady X, Cynicom, christine (#35)

Obama wants someone whom he can trust

Is this comedy night?

Ol' Rahm turned tail and fled Clinton when the going got tough.

Trust? That doesn't exist in the Oval Office.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-08   23:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: bluegrass, Ferret Mike, Lady X, Cynicom, christine (#40)

Obama wants someone whom he can trust

Is this comedy night?

Ol' Rahm turned tail and fled Clinton when the going got tough.

Trust? That doesn't exist in the Oval Office.

It better, and I think that's why Obama chose Emanuel. He'll hopefully cool his partisan ways, but he gets stuff done.

Trust is essential in all cooperative endeavors.

Recalling the original thread, I think, I see this Iran war stuff as the kind of rumor that folks who want to find trouble put out so they can beat up on somebody, trumpet their own views. Rumor mills can be fun but I think this is a dead end.

The tone of an article here makes it seem like Iran nukes are our problem to solve, which to some extent it is since Bush did so poorly at it... "pre- conditions" vs. preparation, hmm?

Europe, Mid-East and Asian countries have a much bigger stake in this drama. A US team sent in to support their efforts, rather than stymy them, is all that needs doing... low-key, not needing to lead, mending fences, be in the background. I don't think this is a priority issue right now, and anyone who has listened to Obama has to know he's not going to commit us to yet another mid-east war anytime soon, eh?

salemguy  posted on  2008-11-09   23:30:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: salemguy (#48)

and anyone who has listened to Obama has to know he's not going to commit us to yet another mid-east war anytime soon, eh?

And Obama wants to expand the Army by 100,000 men for what reason????

Cynicom  posted on  2008-11-09   23:33:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Cynicom (#49)

And Obama wants to expand the Army by 100,000 men for what reason????

In case you haven't noticed, there are way to many National Guard people deployed, for one, and the military is at its capacity, some say beyond....

I think it's widely agreed that more troops are needed, if only to get us out of the hole Bush dug for us.

salemguy  posted on  2008-11-09   23:38:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: salemguy (#50)

if only to get us out of the hole

I do not recall Obama saying we would withdraw from the Middle East. Perhaps I overlooked it.

Also we already have many thousands of troops in Japan, Korea and Guam doing nothing, odd we need another 100,000. And they are all regulars.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-11-09   23:41:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Cynicom (#51)

I do not recall Obama saying we would withdraw from the Middle East. Perhaps I overlooked it.

Huh? A major element of his campaign was to get out of Iraq... in 16 months. Now, whether or not it's 16 months, that's a commitment to leave Iraq, though I doubt we'll be completely out anytime soon, as with Japan, Korea, Germany, etc....

Yeah, we ought to reduce our military presence in a lot of places, depend on good diplomatic and business relations rather than military on the ground.

Good point, though, maybe O will move to redeploy some underemployed troops from other international bases?

I'm concerned about Afghanistan, personally, think his strategic focus there is appropriate, the mix of stuff with India and Pakistan crucial, the tasks daunting... it'll be interesting to see what emerges. Sure seems more troops are necessary there, not a good sign other countries are waffling on that.

salemguy  posted on  2008-11-10   1:49:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: salemguy (#52) (Edited)

I'm concerned about Afghanistan, personally, think his strategic focus there is appropriate, the mix of stuff with India and Pakistan crucial, the tasks daunting... it'll be interesting to see what emerges. Sure seems more troops are necessary there, not a good sign other countries are waffling on that.

No one successfully occupies or subjugates or as modern day armchair warriors are wont to say "pacifies" Afghanistan for long. Do some reading of history of Afghanistan and you'll see what I mean. The geography is inhospitable to foreign troops - mountains and caves and cold - and the native peoples are very tribal oriented and ferocious and 9 feet tall. We should get the hell out of Afghanistan as soon as we can - just like the waffling other countries are planning to do.

And India does not need our help with regards to Pakistan. And Pakistan is another country we should stay the heck out. We did enough meddling by undercutting Mooshie's gov't. He was the only ally with a brain we had in that nation teeming with Islamacists. We need Pakistan to have a stable gov't - even if we don't care for the gov't - because if Pakistan falls the world has a big problem. And the best way to keep the gov't stable is not to violate Pakistan's sovereignity and making the Pakistani gov't look weak and foolish to Pakistanis.

The "daunting task" is for our gov't to defuse extremists' hold on Muslims. It's daunting only because our gov't is comprised of sold-out, bribed, and blackmailed politicians and they don't want to do the following:

a. stop favoring Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Either the USA needs to be an honest peace broker or we need to stay out of the conflict and let other nations that can remain neutral - Switzerland and Russia? - help broker peace in that region. Because everytime Israel allows more illegal settlements to be built or anytime time the IDF kills innocent Palestinian civilians - the extremists like AQ win 1000's of new recruits to their organizations

b. we need to get our military out of nations that have Islamic sacred sites - like Iraq and Saudi Arabia - by desecrating these Holy sites, we are showing contempt to Muslims' religion.

c. we need to stop supporting cruel ME dictators like the House of Saud and Mubarrek and the Jordanian Prince.

Read Michael Scheuer's articles and books and you'll get a prescription for defusing extremists' terrorism against the West. Scheuer quite rightly states that invading and occupying Muslim nations is pointless - it's just playing wack-a-mole and creating other extremists in so doing.

We need to change our foreign policy in the ME - that's how we can most effectively attack the root cause of Islamic extremism.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-11-10   11:55:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: scrapper2 (#56)

No one successfully occupies or subjugates or as modern day armchair warriors are wont to say "pacifies" Afghanistan for long.

I agree, scrapper. The big problem is we're there now (thanks to Dubya) and extracting ourselves is difficult. We gotta deal with it, though I'm not sure negotiating with the Taliban is feasible, and because of the way Pakistan is being used, I don't see a way around dealing with them.

I don't think we can just walk away -- we broke it, now we have to figure out how to fix it, hmm?

Hopefully, most US troops will be out of Iraq in 2010. That's a start.

Aren't US troops out of Saudi Arabia now?

salemguy  posted on  2008-11-10   23:01:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: salemguy (#66)

The big problem is we're there now (thanks to Dubya)

Thanks to Dubya and the Jewish power structure, you mean.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-11   0:33:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: bluegrass, cynicom, scrapper2 (#70) (Edited)

Jewish power structure?

Pray tell, bluegrass, how this differs from American power structure?

For all of you who seem to be hung up on Jews, I suggest you come up with a more pertinent, present and less bigoted problem. Everybody's scrapping with everyone else over ancient ethnic or religious differences in the ME. Israel, whose occupation is despicable, btw, is but one issue.

I agree that no ME country wants a US military presence, and don't think a training contract is a standing presence in Saudi Arabia (link info on which was not accessible...). Thus we are not present in most places cited.

The problem that probably pisses people off more is necessary commerce and business presences the US has foisted of late. We've been engaged in corporate facsim, imo. Using Bush government pressure and the great American marketing machine, we've managed to piss off the world.

Hopefully, Obama can calm people down some, get all of us to feel less paranoid and fearful, and hateful... head us more positively, with the wind.

salemguy  posted on  2008-11-17   21:13:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: salemguy (#76)

Naive, very naive.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-11-17   21:19:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Cynicom (#77) (Edited)

Naive, very naive.

Thanks for your judgment, cynic. Now how about you make some sense?

I think you might be surprised at the impact a President can have come February- March, though you might have a problem appreciating that.

salemguy  posted on  2008-11-17   21:23:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: salemguy (#78)

Hopefully, Obama can calm people down some, get all of us to feel less paranoid and fearful, and hateful... head us more positively, with the wind.

This is your statement not mine. It shows a total lack of understanding of history and current reality. Hoping is for the naive when it comes to politics.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-11-17   21:26:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Cynicom (#80)

Hopefully, Obama can calm people down some, get all of us to feel less paranoid and fearful, and hateful... head us more positively, with the wind.

I disagree, cynicom. Perhaps you are not old enough to have experienced the Ike calm and optimism, or the Kennedy and Johnson enthusiasm, the Reagan revolution?

Presidents and their style and focus can most assuredly affect history, and present circumstances, substantially.

We're coming off a somewhat sick guy, let's give the new guy a chance.

salemguy  posted on  2008-11-17   22:59:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 98.

#100. To: salemguy (#98)

We're coming off a somewhat sick guy, let's give the new guy a chance.

Sie sind krank im Kopf.

Beendigen Sie die Kommunisten  posted on  2008-11-17 23:01:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: salemguy, Cynicom (#98)

Perhaps you are not old enough...

Are you kidding? Cynicom invented dirt.

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-17 23:01:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: salemguy (#98)

I disagree, cynicom. Perhaps you are not old enough

I am a child of the depression, remember it well, pushing 80 years olde, first vote cast was for Ike.

Seen a lot of wars, lost family and friends in places we never heard of. Politicians lie, all of them. Hope is for the naive.

Delivery is what counts, not more war for whatever reason. Obama is owned and operated just like the rest, he will do as he is told.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-11-17 23:03:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 98.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]