Today's Article
Even as he admits
Iraq has slid into
'civil war'.
Iraq has slid into
'civil war'.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
U.S. Intel Chief Beats 'Fear Drum' On Iran
By Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 28th, 2007
Giving statements that sound suspiciously like those which drove America into a false war in Iraq, the head of
US intelligence told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that Iran is determined to develop
nuclear weapons, and could produce one by early to mid next decade. He even made sure to follow the
now-worn "fear script" to the letter by calling the 'Iran matter' a "very dangerous situation."
Retired admiral Michael McConnell--the new director of national intelligence--followed the script through to
the letter, saying Iran was also a concern to the United States beyond its nuclear aspirations.
Iran's rising oil income and the recent relative successes of its surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah has extended
the country's social and military reach in the Middle East, he said.
Those who can remember the parade of falsehoods which led to the war on Iraq may play a little game here:
every time McConnell--or any other Bush Administration official--says the word "Iran", feel free to mentally
insert the original word "Iraq" back into the administration's "fear script." You may peruse some initial results
below:
"We assess that Iran (Iraq) seeks to develop nuclear weapons and has shown greater interest in drawing out the
negotiations rather than reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution," said McConnell.
"This is a very dangerous situation as a nuclear Iran (Iraq) could prompt destabilizing countermoves by other
states in this volatile region," he added.
"While our information is incomplete, we estimate that Iran (Iraq) could produce a nuclear weapon by early to mid
next decade," and so on.
But even as he dusted off the Iraq script for Iran, McConnell felt compelled to admit that security in Iraq itself is
"moving in a negative direction" and added that the term "civil war" aptly describes elements of the conflict there.
"Unless efforts to reverse these conditions gain real traction during the 12-18 month time frame.. we assess that
the security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter half of 2006," said McConnell.
McConnell admitted to committee members that "the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the
Iraqi conflict," including the hardening of sectarian divisions and population "displacements."
Since no one except neo-conservatives want another Iraq on America's hands, Congress has decided it will
run a "preemptive strike" of its own in response to the recent administration warcries on Iran.
A bill (H. R. 770, or the "Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act") is currently working through the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and Select Intelligence
(Permanent Select). If passed by Congress, it will "prohibit the use of funds to carry out any covert action for the
purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an
imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for
congressional authorization."
The bill cites a number of findings to back up its request, which include:
- "Numerous bi-partisan commissions and study groups, including the Iraq Study Group co-chaired by James
A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, a 2004 working group established under the Council on Foreign Relations and
co-chaired by Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and a 2001 Atlantic Council of the United States Working
Group, co-chaired by Lee H. Hamilton, James Schlesinger, and Brent Scowcroft have called for various forms of
dialogue and engagement with Iran in order to achieve United States strategic interests in the Middle East
region."
- "The Iraq Study Group Report states `Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy that led to
chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state', and therefore, the Government of the United States
should build upon this mutual interest to develop a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran concerning
deteriorating conditions in Iraq, which can become a basis of broader future United States-Iranian engagement."
- "Any military action designed to eliminate Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons would run the significant
risk of reinforcing and accelerating the desire of the Government of Iran to acquire a nuclear deterrent and
compounding nationalist passions in defense of that very course, and would most likely also generate hostile
Iranian initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Will the bill run its rightful course, become law and finally rein in the "cowboy president"? Only time--and the work
of concerned citizens--can make sure of that.
By Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 28th, 2007
Giving statements that sound suspiciously like those which drove America into a false war in Iraq, the head of
US intelligence told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that Iran is determined to develop
nuclear weapons, and could produce one by early to mid next decade. He even made sure to follow the
now-worn "fear script" to the letter by calling the 'Iran matter' a "very dangerous situation."
Retired admiral Michael McConnell--the new director of national intelligence--followed the script through to
the letter, saying Iran was also a concern to the United States beyond its nuclear aspirations.
Iran's rising oil income and the recent relative successes of its surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah has extended
the country's social and military reach in the Middle East, he said.
Those who can remember the parade of falsehoods which led to the war on Iraq may play a little game here:
every time McConnell--or any other Bush Administration official--says the word "Iran", feel free to mentally
insert the original word "Iraq" back into the administration's "fear script." You may peruse some initial results
below:
"We assess that Iran (Iraq) seeks to develop nuclear weapons and has shown greater interest in drawing out the
negotiations rather than reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution," said McConnell.
"This is a very dangerous situation as a nuclear Iran (Iraq) could prompt destabilizing countermoves by other
states in this volatile region," he added.
"While our information is incomplete, we estimate that Iran (Iraq) could produce a nuclear weapon by early to mid
next decade," and so on.
But even as he dusted off the Iraq script for Iran, McConnell felt compelled to admit that security in Iraq itself is
"moving in a negative direction" and added that the term "civil war" aptly describes elements of the conflict there.
"Unless efforts to reverse these conditions gain real traction during the 12-18 month time frame.. we assess that
the security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter half of 2006," said McConnell.
McConnell admitted to committee members that "the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the
Iraqi conflict," including the hardening of sectarian divisions and population "displacements."
Since no one except neo-conservatives want another Iraq on America's hands, Congress has decided it will
run a "preemptive strike" of its own in response to the recent administration warcries on Iran.
A bill (H. R. 770, or the "Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act") is currently working through the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and Select Intelligence
(Permanent Select). If passed by Congress, it will "prohibit the use of funds to carry out any covert action for the
purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an
imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for
congressional authorization."
The bill cites a number of findings to back up its request, which include:
- "Numerous bi-partisan commissions and study groups, including the Iraq Study Group co-chaired by James
A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, a 2004 working group established under the Council on Foreign Relations and
co-chaired by Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and a 2001 Atlantic Council of the United States Working
Group, co-chaired by Lee H. Hamilton, James Schlesinger, and Brent Scowcroft have called for various forms of
dialogue and engagement with Iran in order to achieve United States strategic interests in the Middle East
region."
- "The Iraq Study Group Report states `Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy that led to
chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state', and therefore, the Government of the United States
should build upon this mutual interest to develop a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran concerning
deteriorating conditions in Iraq, which can become a basis of broader future United States-Iranian engagement."
- "Any military action designed to eliminate Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons would run the significant
risk of reinforcing and accelerating the desire of the Government of Iran to acquire a nuclear deterrent and
compounding nationalist passions in defense of that very course, and would most likely also generate hostile
Iranian initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Will the bill run its rightful course, become law and finally rein in the "cowboy president"? Only time--and the work
of concerned citizens--can make sure of that.