A pre-election attack on Iran remains a possibility

President Bush still believes the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons – and so do the Israelis. So for journalists to assume that neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran before the November election could constitute another failure of imagination. Cato’s Leon Hadar suggests questions the press should ask the presidential candidates about what they think the American response should be to various scenarios in the region – including a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like alleged provocation.

By Leon Hadar
LeonHadar@aol.com

Since the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was issued at the end of the last year, much of the reporting and analysis in the MSM has been promoting the conventional wisdom in Washington: That a U.S. attack on Iran is now “out.”

The Bush Administration had been warning that it might use its military power to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But with U.S. intelligence agencies making it clear that Iran wasn’t developing nuclear weapons, the administration had suddenly lost its casus belli. Without one, the conventional wisdom suggested, President Bush would not be able to mobilize American and international support for an attack on Iran, which in any case would have been a very costly operation.

And yet, even as this conventional wisdom was taking hold, the following events also took place:

1. Reports from Israelduring Bush’s recent to the Middle Eastsuggested that the president made it clear he didn’t consider the NIE a reliable source of guidance as far as his policy towards Iranwas concerned. It was not difficult to conclude based on reports quoting “sources” that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to be marginalizing the significance of the NIE – recalling a similar kind of disdain they exhibited towards the conclusion of the Iraq Study Group. In fact, based on Bush’s behavior then – increasing the number of U.S. troops contrary to the recommendation for establishing a timeline for a withdrawal – members of the press should be considering the possibility that he is just as likely to act against Iran as he was before.

2. The incident in the strategic Strait of Hormuzduring which Iranian speedboats buzzed three USnavy ships and the Pentagon said that US forces were “literally” on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats. That incident should have led journalists to put the scenario in which the United States strikes Iranian nuclear sites on the backburner – and instead consider the possibility that a military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf could take place as a result of (a) a provocation by the Iranians (b) a provocation by the Americans or (c) a misunderstanding.

3. Israeli officials also dismissed the NIE conclusions. Moreover, the Israelis expressed concern that Washington seemed to be losing its will to confront Iran and warned that they might have no choice but to launch an Osirak-like unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear installation. Neither officials in the Bush Administration nor Republican or Democratic lawmakers in Congress have challenged Israel’s right to take such a unilateral action, especially against a regime whose leaders have disputed the legitimacy of the Jewish state and even made Holocaust-denying statements. The media should consider the possibility that the Israelis could take action – and that since they believe that a Democratic administration would not be quite as supportive of the Israeli position as the Bush administration, they could decide to take action against the Iranians before or after Bush leaves office.

So here are some of the questions American journalists could be asking the likely Democratic and Republican presidential nominees:

Q.  The recent incident in the Strait of Hormuzhighlighted the danger that provocations by either side or just misunderstanding could ignite a Tonkin-Gulf-like military confrontation between the U.S.and Iranthat could degenerate into an all-out war. Do you believe that President Bush has the legal power to retaliate militarily against an alleged Iranian provocation without Congressional authorization?

Q.  Are you concerned about a so-called “surprise” in a form of a Tonkin-Gulf-in-the-Persian-Gulf that could affect the outcome of the election? Have you or your aides raised this issue with officials in the administration or discussed it with your colleagues in Congress?

Q. Under what circumstances can President Bush count on your support if he decides to strike Iranbefore the election in November? Under what circumstances would he not have your support?

Q. The Israelis have also warned that they could take a unilateral action and strike against Iran’s nuclear sites if the U.S.and the international community fail to prevent the Iranians from pursuing their nuclear military program. Should the president demand that Israelget U.S.permission before deciding to strike Iran’s nuclear sites? What should the consequences be if Israelattacks without U.S.permission?

Q. Would you agree to supply Israelwith bunker busting bombs to help it destroy the Iranian installations?

Q. Can the Israeli government count on your support if it decides to strike Iranbefore the election in November?

Interview financial expert: more expensive, less to spend, riots in the streets

You have to figure on riots and rebellions taking place, especially in the big cities. Some countries may see revolutions, the Mediterranean countries in particular. At that point government buildings could be set on fire and government employees attacked. You have to consider these kinds of scenarios. In any crisis situation you're going to have people who revolt. In order to see what can happen in a crisis situation we have only to look at what happened in Argentina. People went from being middle class one day to finding themselves below the poverty line the next.

read more

'Credit crisis caused by fighting wars and short-term vision'

What we now have is stagflation - stagnation versus inflation. And where we'll soon find ourselves is hyperinflation. [...] Keynes' idea was that if you go into debt, you have to pay it off in good time. It was never his intention to say, 'We've gone into debt, and as long as everything's okay we'll go deeper into debt'. [...] This paper money then went into circulation, and the gold was used as backing for the weapons industry, at which point an arms race started first between France and Germany, followed later on by all other Western countries.

read more

The facts behind the fiction of the Lebanon war of 2006

read more

Webster Tarpley in Amsterdam, July 22nd: Historical changes in false flag terrorism

As students of the manipulation of the political and social process by intelligence agencies through false flag terrorism and through other forms of covert operations, we need to be aware that the intelligence agencies are not Johnny one note, but rather change their tactics as the world political and economic situation evolves.

read more

'Buy gold, rent a house and in the end move to a warm country': financial expert

I've already hedged my own capital by putting 10% of it into gold. I've already transferred my pension into raw materials and raw material shares. I sold my house in 2002, and I've been renting since then. As far as pension funds go, we're currently advising that a minumum of 10% of pension assets be put into gold.

read more