Friends, Wow! So many responses. It seems lots of folks have been thinking about these same questions, and have some savvy insights to offer. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 07:32:42 -0700 From: marc bombois <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? To: •••@••.••• It's also possible that the quagmire is exactly what the bosses want and that Rumsfeld has succeeded, that public opinion simply doesn't matter anymore and that Rumsfeld's fall will be merely window-dressing. Is the Pentagon actually over-stretched? How can we know? Meanwhile, the miltary superbases in Iraq are well under way as well as the giant embassy in Baghdad. The original plan may be unfolding beautifully. I think we need to beware of the notion of elite incompetence. If ever their plans go awry, I suspect their immediate response is to ask "How can we turn this to our advantage?" -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert E. Reynolds" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:51:51 -0400 The US acted in Iraq on the basis of a SC resolution by interpreting it as authorizing military action even though it didn't. It was based on the " serious consequences clause". They knew they could not get a second resolution so they went ahead without it. This time they are insisting that the resolution clearly state that it is a "Chapter Seven" resolution. That would allow them to again unilaterally wage war on the basis that Chapter 7 allows for the use of military force. As with Iraq, apparently both the US and Israel have covert groups in Iran already doing targeting and sabotage. So clearly this time they are looking for a legal basis for military action and avoiding charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Iraq venture is a failure, and Afghanistan is starting to slide back into chaos. So how do they put backbone into the PNAC and NSS plans for world domination? If they fail in Iraq and Afghanistan who will fear us? I would suggest that the logic of the crazies is to make Iran an example by using nuclear weapons, thus demonstrating that to defy us is to risk extermination. These are the people who in the first Bush administration were proponents of a preemptive strike against Russia and they believed that they could survive a nuclear war. So threats of the use of nuclear weapons have to be taken seriously. The problem with world domination is that once you embark on such a course there is no turning back without risking a devastating defeat. How do you back away without appearing weak and vulnerable to a preemptive strike? So I think they will risk WWIII and attack Iran. Recently "Foreign Affairs" had an article discussing the deterioration of Russia's missile and nuclear capabilities and suggesting that this makes them vulnerable to a preemptive strike. Russia made note of this. As you know Russia for sometime has been rearming and modernizing its nuclear and missile forces. Gen. Ivanov on a number of occasions has said "We know who the enemy is", and I do believe he meant us. If we go against Iran and ignite a conflagration in the ME, will Russia and China standby? If we use nuclear weapons can they afford not to calculate what the consequences might be if they wait for us to preemptively strike them? Should they strike first? The media is once again marching in lock step with the administration. For instance both the Washington Post and NY Times wrote stories about the IAEA report that characterized it is such a way as to support drastic action against Iran. The problem is that the IAEA report had a restricted distribution (SC etc) and thus what is the basis for such characterizations? Who are their sources? Bush never backs down, is no doubt crazy, maybe drinking and doing drugs, and is supported by a wide spectrum of crazies, from neo-cons to fundamentalist Christian Zionists. Anything is possible. bob ----- hi bob, You've identified a number of key considerations. I question two of your assumptions however. The first is about Bush. I don't think he's involved in any decision making. The way I read it, Cheney is CEO of the current administration, Rumsfeld has been his chief of staff, and Bush serves as a face for people to love or hate. Bush's craziness serves as a public explanation for dastardly US actions, but is not the actual cause. The second is about 'appearing weak'. Geopolitics is not like an Old West drama, testing the nerve of dueling gunfighters. It's more like a chess game. Strength and weakness are measured by what pieces you hold and where they're positioned. If the US chooses to abandon a flawed attack and consolidate its pieces, that would be considered by the other players to be a sign of wisdom, not weakness. imho, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "CyberBrook" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: What do you think is going on? Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:33:00 -0700 As much as I think they want a full-scale invasion of Iran, and have undoubtedly plans for it, they know that they are bogged down in Iraq, much more so than they believed they would be, and therefore don't have the personnel, money, or materiel to effectively carry it out. Iran is also much stronger than Iraq was. That said, an air campaign is entirely possible and, some say, inevitable, targeting nuclear and certain military, defensive, and administrative sites. We know it won't be in August, a bad time to bring out a new product, they've told us, and November might be too late. We'll see.---Dan ------- Hi Dan, I certainly agree that any attack would be an air attack, more like Desert Storm than an occupation. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "they". It is important in this discussion, I suggest, to distinguish between the neocons on the one hand, and long-entrenched US elites on the other. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerold Hubbard" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:53:57 -0500 Dear Richard; I feel like Iran won't be attacked, wholly, as things stand. If things change, then this option could be back on the table. The US will not get Russia or China to back a UN resolution of sanctions against Iran. Russia is arming Iran. It will not be a cake walk for the US in Iran as it was in Afghanistan or Iraq. The drones which have played such an important role in Iraq and Afghanistan, will BE of NO effect in Iran as Russia is giving them the equipment to detect them and shoot them done. They only travel at about 150 miles per hour which would make them a duck shoot for the proper equipment. What may happen, is Israel maybe used to bomb specific targets in Iran. This would be a real probability. Iran would have no way to vent their anger, nor would Russia or China; unless large numbers of civilians were killed in this operation. Bush is on his way out, at least as far as a voice of power and imperialistic demand. 36 representatives are signing onto a petition to have him impeached. The religious right, who was the main force behind his imperialistic actions, are getting beat up BIG TIME! They have taken religion out of it's comfort zone and put it up for detailed examination by the best minds. And their philosophy is being shot full of holes!!! The elite few, who are calling the global shots, will need not only a new Rumsfeld, but a new president as well. The elite few will have to try another deceptive avenue to cover their ambitions towards world imperialism and world colonialism. Thanks for all your information and thoughts; Jerold Hubbard, USA -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Meria Heller" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 08:07:25 -0700 I think the new fuhrer intends to hit Iran. I also think Iran will then hit Israel, then this war will become global due to the interchange of $$$ from globalization. Bush is on his way out, but that's not enough. He needs to be tried in a Court of law along with the rest of his administration. Meria -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 09:35:09 -0700 From: Caspar Davis <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? To: •••@••.••• You may well be right, but I think there is pretty wide understanding that Rumsfeld is joined at the hip with Bush and Cheney. It looks like all or nothing to me. I also think Russia and China are having something to say about Iran. Iranian oil is important to China. Caspar -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:43:09 -0400 From: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? To: •••@••.••• Dear Richard, To steal from Monty Python, I see it is now "Time for something completely different." The Media are burying the Lemmings in a blizzard of "Bird Flu" hysteria. It is all over the TV. Then we have the States trying to discuss Gay Marriage (go with your strengths). And, don't forget the huge massive IMMIGRATION MARCHES!! Iran doesn't make the front page anymore. Diana ----- Hi Diana, Interesting view. I suppose any shift away from Iran in the popular media might indicate an abandonment of invasion plans. The less attention to Iran, the less a change of plans would be seen by the US public as a backdown by Washington. Americans do typically see things as a battle between Old West gun slingers; that's a central theme in the US version of the Matrix. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:33:40 +0200 (W. Europe Standard Time) From: "Earl" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? Richard, I, too, have been a bit baffled by all of this. I stated a couple of times in the past couple of weeks that something just doesn't make sense; you elaborated on this quite well. It could be the original plan is being scrapped. When there was no attack by the end of March, and maneuvers at the UN weren't progressing quickly, I started questioning as well. It could also be that, seeing the increased resistance going into Iran and the trouble his administration is experiencing, that another "Pearl Harbor" is deemed necessary, delaying the original plans. And that one could be nasty and the timing a surprise. Bush might make the ultimate gamble, seeing his failing regime and go the the "Hail Mary". There was an article about that a day or two back. I've been having trouble coming up with meaningful political commentary lately because of all this. It's like waiting for something to drop, not quite knowing what that is. Or, as you say, it might just mean that the real elite are stymied for the moment, as they were when France and Holland said "No", but this is even bigger. But rest assured, something will happen, sooner or later. And if nothing happens this year, they can also ridicule the independent news sources for being off base. A large part of this scenario also is the U.S./world economy and the strength/weakness of the dollar. The pieces of the puzzle are likely all on the table; I just can't fit them together. Glad I'm not the only one who's scratching his head. [in a follow-up message...] I just ran across an article that may explain what's been going on lately. Since I also commented on it in my blog (just now), I thought you might want to see those comments also. <http://politicsinternational.web-log.nl/>http://politicsinternational.web-log.nl/ ------- Hi Earl, A wise person gets all the questions on the table before trying to put answers together. Well done. I fully agree with your conclusion that another Pearl Harbor - another 911 - would be a necessary first step in any plan to attack Iran. Such an incident would be essential to minimize domestic and international condemnation. There is an alternative scenario - based on a unilateral Israeli strike - but that would be much more problematic in the current world scene. The question then is whether the neocons will be able to obtain an authorization from real power holders to carry out such an incident. This refines our considerations, but it only pushes the question back one level without answering it. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:26:26 EDT Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? To: •••@••.••• Richard, I believe your "rethinking the mess" scenario is what is going on. Both sides are evaluating their strategy. I believe that Israel has seen how incompetent the Washington Likudniks really are, and prefers they stay out of the picture until called for; that Rumsfeld and his cohorts are now ready to accept the advice of the military that has probably told him that it will take a million or more troops to successfully ma ke a ground attack and occupation of Iran----a number that the military doesn't have without shutting down many U.S. posts around the world, and won't have without a draft; that Bush's favorable ratings are so low that he will get little support at home for any kind of attack on Iran, and which may even result in an impeachment for previous crimes; that an air strike against Iran has less certainty of producing good results than bad, among which is the possibly of Saudi Arabia's switch to China as its protector, etc. In reviewing strategies, Iran likely sees itself as having the upper hand at the present. It has as much as invited the U.S. to make its move, and has already stated that it will retaliate against Israel which it is probably capable of doing. Israel isn't sure, one way or the other. Looking at the standoff as I believe Iran sees it, Iran's position on the nuclear issue is about the same as China's position on economic issues. China can cause the U.S. economy to collapse whenever that would be in the best interest of China. The problem is, all the world's nations will suffer with a U.S. collapse. I believe the problem will be resolved by the next administration making a deal with Iran. In exchange for a nuclear free Middle East, the U.S. will agree to defend each country in the Middle East from the others and Israel will settle for what it has, or even its original borders, rather than pursue its dream of a "Greater Israel", and the U.S. will withdraw its forces from Iraq with the agreement of some sort of reparations. I believe that kind of a deal could be made any afternoon next week were the Washington Likudniks willing, but will have to wait until the present errant clique is history. But who knows? All we can do is to make guesses and argue their logic. Tom ------- Hi Tom, A very interesting perspective, but I think you are to some extent mixing wishful thinking with analysis. Any kind of peace plan for the Middle East would go against everything the US has ever stood for. (I'm speaking in terms of real history, not the Matrix). rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Hollings" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: What do you think is going on? Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:35:15 -0400 Organization: Institute for Professionals in Taxation Richard -- You pose a really interesting question. Here are some factors that I think will play a role: I think we can assume that the powers behind the throne are aware of the Bush administration's striking incompetence. He has weakened US hegemony and damaged their global project. I think that they will see fault with Cheney & Rumsfeld as much as with Bush -- after all it seems Bush gave them free rein and he is even less qualified than they. As a result, they will want to replace all of them, but how or when are unknowns. Brzezinski, a lieutenant of the Rockefeller's and Trilateral founder, has come out against war with Iran (as well as with the way things were conducted in Iraq.) His "chessboard" project is badly botched and I wonder if it will be recoverable. Perhaps a recovery plan will involve more power-sharing in Europe and Asia. This will take time and a new team to execute, and likely he (and the interests he presumably speaks for) would be opposed to any initiative with Iran that risked creating even more problems. I expect that there is a schism between Bush and Cheney. I think that Bush's recent trip to visit the Hoover Institution is evidence that Condi is coaching him and arranging for a little remedial education -- but, from the hawks that briefed him there, I do not see a major change. The upshot is that Bush will be more hands-on as he attempts to rescue his presidency. A lot depends on how he defines this, but, given his personality, I think it likely that he will pursue some vision that he thinks history, not current popular opinion, will vindicate. Public pressure is mounting for Bush to withdraw from Iraq, but a Shia majority in Iran and near-majority in Iraq do not bode well. Some sort of alliance or merger of those two countries along Shia lines would result in a more formidable regional power that would threaten our vital interests (oil). I do not think Bush would allow this to happen. This might be mitigated by either destroying Iran (as was done in Iraq in 1991), or by economic sanctions, or by keeping troops in Iraq. So, there is even more reason to go after Iran than there was before the Iraqi invasion. Of course, Russia and China are opposed, but there is little that they could do in the short-term, other than a self-destructive economic war on the dollar. This represents a continuation of the neo-con game plan and is consistent with the current "preemption" policy in the National Security Strategy. I can imagine that Bush is being told that it was never promised that Cheney's "long war" was going to be easy. A wild card is the group working under James A. Baker to develop a strategy for Iraq. Given his resume, one might expect that he was chosen to make things work in the political dimension internationally. The major wild card is how the American public can be brought along. Another terrorist event might help. The Air Force is primed to bomb Iran within 24 hours of a terrorist event in the US, so it could (mostly) happen within one news cycle. A key consideration is whether a wartime presidency would again sell to the US public and whether this would serve to maintain an impeachment-proof Congress after November, or, whether the strategy might work in reverse. There is a growing 9-11 truth movement, and I have seen what I think might be efforts to blunt its effect in the media. The stakes are getting higher, but Bush is a gambler. My 2 cents. Peter Hollings ------------- Hi Peter, Good thinking, except I think you're exaggerating the importance of Bush's personal role. He can be sacrificed, if that's the plan, and there's nothing he can do about it. His role in history is of interest only to himself. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:22:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Leo Klausmann <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? To: •••@••.••• I've been thinking about this question as well. All the mainstream media outlets in the usa have promoted anything that happens on the Iran issue to headline news, whether its refusal to stop enrichment (again and again), the military exercises, the effects of sanctions, etc. The BBC has even been running a very in-depth series this past week on the political history of Iran, I've learned a lot of interesting tidbits from it. What's most unique about the situation is that the geopolitical realities that people who pay attention to alternative media have known for at least two years are leaking through. For instance, last week the white house demanded that Russia stop arm sales to Iran, even though I read about the air-defense system sale planned for this summer last november; or just yesterday Iran announced that they would immediately strike Israel with all their munitions the second the first bomb falls on them (that's always been the geopolitical reality of attacking Iran, but now the mainstream media jumps on it like its breaking news). Considering all this, it would have been wiser for the neocons to stage a second 9-11, a false flag attack that would play into Cheney's order he made last year, which was that the military should strike Iran as soon as the next "terrorist attack" occurs within the usa. Now that more and more people are waking up, and more and more geopolitical realities are in the news, its going to be a lot harder to rush in and nuke the whole place, which is the only way that Iran could be prevented from doing too much damage to assets in Iraq and Israel. I'm still not convinced that the Elites have totally given up on Bush and the neocons; plus, getting rid of Bush before 2008, when our electronically-rigged "voting"system will get the next guy in office anyway, would be such a fiasco that I think most, if not all, brainwashed "patriots" would find it truly disturbing. However, not attacking soon means that the air-defense system will likely be in place in only a few months and China will be even stronger and well-prepared. Perhaps the scenario of Israel becoming soon fed-up with the slow UN sanction and using all of the bunker-busters it got from the USA to assault Iran is likely; that might just depend on if the Elites think that most people will buy the hogwash that the Israeli military acts independently. --- Hi Leo, Thanks for your observations. It's interesting that Diana (above) seems to be watching a different media than you are, as she observes a downplay of Iran news and you see the opposite. I agree that Israel does not act without Washington's approval. I think everyone knows this except segments of the US public. Certainly Russia, China, and Iran understand the reality. For this and other reasons, a 'unilateral' Israeli attack would be much more problematic than an approach based on a second 911. It is possible however that Israel would break with tradition and actually act on their own, playing the role of General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. The outcome of that scenario is very hard to predict, and the risk to Israel would be formidable. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sonia Corbett" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:01:37 +1200 You could be right! Do you read Michael Ruppert's website? His recent speech "The Paradigm is the Enemy" puts Iran into global context - http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042706_paradigm_speech.shtml Regards, Sonia Corbett, New Zealand. -------------------------------------------------------- From: X To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: What do you think is going on? Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 Richard You echo thoughts I have entertained for some time. After two hundred 50 years of an WASP Anglo-Saxon elite rule that is convinced it is the Chosen People of God, the US old boys establishment is not about to turn things entirely over to a gang of gangsters like Perle, Wolfowitz Feith, Bolton, if they cannot deliver. Rumsfeld was given the job of harnessing these war hawks to the WASP task of securing total control of energy in coming period in Mideast. He used the neocons to do so and their Israel apparatus. It proved a colossal failure and now endangers the entire empire. The Generals' revolt is one manifestation of the old guard establishment reaction. The PUBLICATION in Harvard's website of the Mearsheimer Walt paper shortly after the de facto firing of Harvard President Larry Summers; The Abramoff scandal which takes aim at the money channel between Tel Aviv, Las Vegas and Bush is another. The US Special Prosecutor indictments which soon will hit Karl Rove, new emerging sex in the White House and GOP scandals: are as I see it all part of how the old WASP elite deals with those who don't deliver. These guys are not amateurs at the game of power. -------------------------------------------------------- From: "SHRIKUMAR" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Reply to your query on Iran Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 21:55:02 -0400 Dear Mr. Moore: The buzz in the US is that the US Military is in an advance state of preparedness for attack. We contacted Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow's office in Washington D.C. and were told to expect war at any time. However, given the low ratings and the predictable outcome of the UN deliberations it appears implausible that Russia and China both will switch over to the US position. The option of Nuclear attack is still on the table as stated by President Bush himself a few days ago...but there is substantial opposition within the armed forces as revealed by Seymour Hersh's The New Yorker Article. Israel however is not bound by such consideration. It has bunker buster nuclear bombs. Can the Jewish state use them without a wink from Washington? It is anyone's guess. As of now, September is the most likely date of attack...close enough to elections and a desparate gamble to change the equation. Oil politics is very much ruling the real deciders! Iran's real crime is that it is the 2nd largest producer of oil. Any threat of disruption of its oil supply makes billions for the oil companies. If average citizen of the US was as concerned as the immigrants of the US who had massive demonstrations on May lst and earlier...they can certainly change the policies of the US. Will they? Peace activists in the country atleast some of them are active and trying to awaken the people...it is very slow and no one seriously believes that with Iraq situation being so bad that US will be foolish enough to act in Iran. But that is what we thought the last time. I will investigate further and we plan to go and meet Cindy Sheehan and see if she will speak out against Iran Attack. My sincere appreciation for all your efforts for Peace. Regards, Sincerely, Shrikumar Shrikumar Poddar 2601 Cochise Lane Okemos, Michigan 48864-2055 517-337-7888 -------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Lowry" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: What do you think is going on? Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:18:39 -0700 I have long been curious why no one has asked how it happened that all the "intelligence" services of the "free west" came to the wrong conclusion about Iraq's possession of WMD. I read one account about how Saddam developed weapons-making systems that could be quickly activated but without actually incurring the large cost of establishing production lines and inventories. The few weapons that were produced in systems development were squirreled away in Syria, that story goes.... I have long felt that the "losers" of the cold war, the intelligence services of the former Soviet Republics, didn't quietly go away. They conspired to strip us of the title "the world's only remaining superpower." Saddam had become a buddy of theirs after we double-crossed him over Kuwait, and lured us into the current situation. We fell for it. Now that we are in this mire, Iran (and Korea) pop up to remind us just how limited our power really is. I believe Russia and China will (quietly) assure us that if we start using nukes (again) it will be all-out war with them, which the mathematical models show we lose. Certainly no one wants that, and if Bush is truly mad, the generals have shown they can act out of conscience. Imagine, one of the Mississippi freedom riders hoping for a military coup to save the USA! --- Hi John, Interesting observations. I don't see any evidence, however, that intelligence services came to wrong conclusions. It seems in fact that the neocons had to go to considerable lengths in order to ignore the intelligence they were getting. rkm -- -------------------------------------------------------- Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.••• Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Blogs: cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/ for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/ Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/ Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html
