Iran 201

NEWS DISSECTOR May 21, 2008
REPORT: BUSH TO ATTACK IRAN, RETRACTED, BURIED

Hill Sweeps Kentucky…Obama takes Oregon and has 1/2 of pledged delegates… Oil up to $130 a barrel BUT could rise, experts say, to $200 a barrel.. Recession said to cost New York 59,000 jobs. Families living in cars have special parking lots in California. More below.

US PLAN TO ATTACK IRAN REPORTED, DENIEDCHINA QUAKE ANGERING/UNITING COUNTRYECONOMIC PAIN GETS DEEPER IN THE USA
The White House on Tuesday denied a published report in Israel that said President Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term in January. Bear in mind, when ideas like this are leaked-even when later denied-they become part of a psychological war game, perhaps to provoke the Iranians and get them to spend more on defense, or send a signal to hawks that this attack will happen-just not now.
If you remember the period before the war in Iraq, there was lots of back and forth about diplomacy, all to conceal a decision that already had been made. My hunch is that an attack will follow some incident, yet to be provoked or created, that it would help sell it to the public.
A media campaign is a vital part of any war plan and Bush has to be seen as acting only in the last resort-perhaps after some American soldiers are killed in Iraq allegedly with Iranian arms, or after some Iranian "defector" reveals their secret plan for world conquest that must be rebuffed.
Its not what officials say that matters, its what they do, As I have been reporting, there is a US covert aggression under way inside Iran right now. US generals are accumulating "evidence" of Iranian intervention and weapons. The scenario is being put together. There is a pattern here. As native Americans supposedly used to say-or perhaps still do-"white man speak with forked tongue."
HERE'S THE STORY
A story in the Jerusalem Post quoted a "senior official" there as saying that Bush plans to attack Iran in the coming months. The story says the unidentified official claimed that a "senior member" of Bush's traveling entourage made the statement about attacking Iran in a closed meeting. Bush was in Israel last week.
The article also says the unnamed Bush official said that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney "were of the opinion that military action were called for."
When the White House issued its denial-not dissimilar to denials initially vis a vis Iraq, what did the Jerusalem Post do. Danny Postel tells us:
THEN THE STORY WAS DROPPED
Danny Postel writes:
There was an article on the Jerusalem Post website this morning titled "'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'" which was widely circulated on various listservs; the White House issued a denial of the story - interestingly, the Jerusalem Post, rather than simply run a follow-up piece reporting the White House's denial, or expanding the existing article, seems to have outright replaced the original piece with a new one: the link for the original piece (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) now yields the new, substitute piece with the title "White House denies Iran attack report". Where is the original piece? I can't find it online anywhere else in its original form, though
RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL SAM GARDINER IS MONITORING THIS:
The Strategy. President Bush laid down the US red line on April 10th: …if "Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners." The plan a few weeks ago seemed to be for a strong case to be made that the evidence points to Iran, as the first step. Then a formal warning, probably already in draft, would be issued by the Administration. Following that, the next incident could justify an air strike against the training camps inside Iran.
This White House strategy is very similar to the Johnson strategy in Vietnam. Three aircraft carriers were in place in the South China Sea, a familiar set up waiting for an incident. A US advisor camp was targeted on the night of February 7, 1965. The next day the White House announcement was: "United States aircraft struck at North Vietnam early today in response to what President Johnson called 'provocations ordered and directed by the Hanoi regime.'" One can almost hear the same kind message coming from President Bush.
In a prophetic statement that ought to be a warning to the President and Vice President, Johnson went on to say that day that his strike was limited and was not meant to signal a general expansion of the war.
FORMER CIA ANALYST RAY MCGOVERN: ON IRAN
Attack Iran Trash the Constitution
Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the "Mids" thought it was to the commander in chief.
ANOTHER POSSIBILITY: WAR TALK A DIVERSION FROM THE NEW PLAN BETWEEN THE US AND ITS CLIENT STATE
Iran's Press TV reports:
"The US and Iraq might sign a so-called 'Strategic Framework Agreement' covering economic, political, cultural and security issues.
Although the agreement will have significant political impacts for the region it has drawn little media attention.
The agreement which would pave the way for a long-term US military presence in Iraq could significantly change the balance of power in the Middle East and destabilize the already tense region.
Needless to say this new "Plan," if true will make US withdrawal form Iraq a joke.