Does anyone still believe the US will launch a full scale invasion of Iran?

[robertpaulsen]

I'm not talking about an airstrike to bomb their nuclear facilities, either through Israel or on our own. I'm talking about a full scale ground invasion to ensure "regime change". Just curious if anyone believes this will occur before Bush leaves office and why. Because I used to think so, but now I don't.

If Bush accepting Bolton's resignation isn't enough to make you believe that regime change in Iran hasn't been put on a permanent backburner, look who Dumbya is shaking hands with today:


Bush's Meeting With A Murderer
Robert Dreyfuss
December 04, 2006

President George W. Bush meets today with Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the turbaned leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shiite fundamentalist party that is strongly tied to Iran. In so doing, the president is meeting with someone who, perhaps more than anyone else in Iraq, is responsible for trying to destroy Iraqi national unity, prevent national reconciliation among Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian mix, and push Iraq into civil war. Al-Hakim, who was virtually Fed-Ex’d into Iraq by the Pentagon in March 2003, was a mainstay of the Iraqi National Congress, led by neoconservative darling Ahmed Chalabi throughout the 1990s. And today al-Hakim controls the SCIRI militia, the Badr Brigade, the Iraqi interior ministry and many of Iraq’s feared death squads. Not to put too fine a point on it, Hakim is a mass murderer.

What’s stunning about Bush’s encounter with al-Hakim is that it occurs precisely at the moment when critically important bridges are being built across Iraq’s Sunni-Shiite divide—bridges that al-Hakim is trying to blow up.

During a stop in Amman, Jordan, on his way to the United States, al-Hakim point blank tried to torpedo the idea of an international conference that might bring together Iraq’s various factions. Such a conference was explicitly proposed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week, who offered to host it. A similar conference, or one like it, is likely to be part of the recommendations that will be issued on Wednesday by the Iraq Study Group, the panel co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton. But al-Hakim trashes the idea. “It is unreasonable or incorrect to discuss issues related to the Iraqi people at international conferences,” said the Shiite radical. “The proposal is unrealistic, incorrect and illegal.” (It is, of course, perfectly legal.)

It is not the first time that al-Hakim has tried to undermine reconciliation efforts. During repeated attempts by the Arab League to organize a conference that would bring Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders together with representatives of the armed resistance in search of an accord, al-Hakim almost single-handedly destroyed the idea. And it is al-Hakim, whose SCIRI controls much of Iraq’s south, who is the driving force behind efforts to create a separatist Shiite-run state in Iraq’s south.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/04/bushs_meeting_with_a_murderer.php

If Dumbya were truly interested in fomenting regime change in Iran during his remaining two years in office, this is not the man you want to stab in the back. Which is exactly what invading Iran would accomplish. Dumb he may be, but I think Poppy's men are forcing him to acknowledge the political reality that while he and his neo-con friends may want to invade Iran, the painful truth is that they can't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. No.

But then again, I didn't think they'd be stupid enough to do it with Iraq either.

[Warpy]

4. I'm with you. I'm very guarded about this one

because any sort of bombing of any facility in Iran will instantly be blamed on both the US and Israel, even if it's later found out to be a Sunni Iraqi or Kurdish attack. It would cause the Farsi army that's been massed at the border with Iraq for over four years to cross the border.

However, I don't think even Fuckwit is stupid enough to declare another unilateral war. It's one of the three conditions that would cause an immediate impeachment.

[Old and In the Way]

15. Well, it could start with bombing Iran.

In turn, Iran escalates attacks on the US military in Iraq, which escalates into more attacks on Iran. Before you know it, we have a real crisis and a need for 100's of thousands of more troops to defend and augment the troops we have in Iraq. Who knows how this Pandora's box could be opened? The joker in the deck is George Bush and what he's willing to do in the remaining to years. Personally, I think he's quite willing and capable of lighting a match in the gas filled region.

To your point, it could be a Sunni action (Dick Cheney, just what did you talk about last week with the Sauds?) that'll provoke a full scale war with Iran. A major 9/11-type event in Iran and it's off to the races.

[robertpaulsen]

25. Major 9/11-type event. That would be my worst fear.

Without it, there will never be popular support for any increase in troops anywhere in the Middle East, regardless of escalation of violence. But the exception to that rule would be another New Pearl Harbor. If that were to happen, all options, and I do mean all options (martial law, the draft, etc.) would be on the table and the American public would support any kind of retaliation.

[Old and In the Way]

27. I think Warpy might be on to something.

I wondered what the real reason for Cheney's quick visit to Saudia Arabia was all about. I wonder if he is trying to convince the Kingdom to start the war by doing something in Iran? The Sunni's will be in a bad shape if the Shia take complete control of Iraq....could Cheney be looking to enlist Sunni help in jumpstarting a conflageration in the ME? It would certainly change the domestic politics and the Sauds would have a vested interest in seeing Iran drawn into a hot war with the US. I hadn't really thought about the Saudi stakes in Iraq, but they have to be concerned with a Iran dominated Iraq.

[robertpaulsen]

28. HOLY SHIT! I just had a horrible tinfoilish thought.

Not only does Saudi Arabia have the political motives you mentioned as far as not wanting to see an Iran/Iraq Shia alliance, but there is that hidden economic incentive called OIL. If the entire Middle East broke out in armed conflict, what would the price of oil rise to? $120 per barrel? $200 per barrel?

Here's my tinfoilish thought. Robert Baer had a variation of this scenario, where al-Qaeda blows up Ghawar and other major oil fields in Saudi Arabia. But why wait for al-Qaeda when the Saudis could run a false-flag operation that they would blame on them anyway? That way the conflageration of the Middle East gets started on their terms, to their (and the neo-cons) economic and political advantage. :tinfoilhat:

[Old and In the Way]

31. Exactly....it's a 3-fer for the House of Bush~House of Saud

1) They get the US OK to draw in Iran on behalf of this administration's interests to go hot and change the domestic dynamic here instantaneously.
2) They get the oil spike advantage and I'm sure a crippling of Iran's oil infrastructure would make this a long term value proposition for SA.
3) A US-Iranian war will only help SA ME influence, divert radical fundies away from the House of Saud, and protect/promote Sunni interests in Iraq as a buffer state.

scary thought indeed. But I really don't know why else Cheney goes to SA last week. Kuwait may be part of the opening move in this orchestration.

[Strelnikov_]

33. Thats Why Russians Dressed As Jihadi's Will Take Out Abqaiq

No competitor, no problem.

Imagine how much that FSU crude and natural gas will be worth if the Persian Gulf region descends into anarchy.

How's that for some tinfoil.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. I feel the same way. I'm glad that I was (apparently) wrong. n/t

[cynatnite]

3. I never thought he would...

bush is insane, but I don't think he's completely stupid.

[acmavm]

8. I never thought bush** would start any shit with Iran either. I just

figured it would be cheney, the same guy that's been calling the shots up until 11/7.

With him put on a leash, I'm breathing a little easier now in regard to Iran and some Shock and Awe (although I'm sure they had a cute new name for killing Iranian civilians).

[tridim]

5. No, but the asshole in chief might still lob some missiles at them

in his efforts to maintain perpetual war and perpetual massive profits for his defense pals.

[blues90]

6. I don't know what to think or who to trust

I have heard the Iraq study group is composed of a bad bunch with keeping the war going their objective .

I don't know who makes up the so called shaddow government but I do feel there is one behind all this .

Bush backed into a corner along with cheney can bring out anything at any time .

As you can see I am sort of lost here .

[etherealtruth]

7. Not likely ...

However, I put nothing past the Chimp and the evil cabal. After the midterms I do feel less apprehensive about it, though.

[China_cat]

9. I think he realises that he wouldn't get away with it

now. He no longer has a rubber stamp congress and even quite a few of those who supported him before are not likely to any more.

[Az]

10. How

With what?

All George has succeeded in doing is demonstrating to the world just how limited our military actually is and how such tactics are not the solution for world problems any longer.

[iconoclastic cat]

11. Not any more! I did, though. This election most likely stopped that plan. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. No. After the Iraq debacle? They'd commit them all to an institution...WHERE THEY BELONG!

No way. Not now. Not since the Democrats won Congress and will be investigating them for the LIES about Iraq.

[seemslikeadream]

13. It's just that I hear Saudi Arabia and Iran

may be drawn into Iraq. Isn't this all out of georgies hands now? Who's side will he take, if need be? Maybe not full scale but it is a pandora's box georgie has opened.

[seemslikeadream]

22. Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/wirq03.xml&site=5&page=0

Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 3:00pm GMT 04/12/2006



The gulf's two military powers, Sunni-Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, are lining up behind their warring religious brethren in Iraq in a potentially explosive showdown, as expectations grow in both countries that America is preparing a pull-out of its troops.


A pool of blood and a damaged vehicle after a bomb blast in Baghdad


The Saudis, America's closest allies in the Arab World, were reported be considering providing anti-US Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support and even arms - as Iran already does for Shia militia in Iraq - in an article last week by Nawaf Obaid, a senior government security adviser.

Riyadh is alarmed that Sunnis in Iraq could be abandoned to their fate - military and political - at the hands of the Shia majority. Indeed, President George W Bush dispatched his vice-president Dick Cheney to Saudi last weekend after the kingdom demanded high-level consultations about their concerns. They told him that Iran was trying to establish itself as the dominant regional power through its influence in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Although a Saudi government spokesman yesterday sought to play down Mr Obaid's view as personal, saying it "does not reflect in any way the kingdom's policy and positions, which invariably uphold the security, unity and stability of Iraq with all its sects", Riyadh has also expressed its fears about Iranian's regional power play to other Western states.

Alarm in the traditional homeland of the Sunni branch of Islam deepened last week as it emerged that some senior US intelligence officials and diplomats are urging the Bush administration to abandon stalled attempts to reach a compromise with Sunni dissidents in Iraq and adopt a controversial "pick a winner" strategy instead, giving priority to Shia and Kurd political factions.

[robertpaulsen]

23. Pandora's box indeed. Have you read this thread & interview?

Nir Rosen: Iraq's civil war will spread for decades to Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2813230

From today's DemocracyNow! It looks as if the neocons will get exactly what they wanted - a destabilized, weakened Middle East.

AMY GOODMAN: And what would happen if the US just withdrew troops?

NIR ROSEN: The same thing happening now, the civil war would continue. At some point Shias will make a move, a large move against the Sunnis in Baghdad. You’ll find a day when there are no Sunnis left in Baghdad. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are of course panicking about this, and they are hoping that the US will in some way arm or support Sunni militias. It’s hard for me to imagine that Sunni nations in the region will stand by and watch Sunnis pushed out of Baghdad. And Baghdad becoming really a Shia city. Because there is this Sunni terror of the Shia threat. So you'll see greater support from Saudi Arabia, from Jordan, perhaps from Yemin, from Egypt, for Sunni militias. Funding, things like that. And the civil war will spread and become a regional one. And I think Jordan will cease to exist as it does now. Eventually, because you'll have the Anbar Province of Iraq joining somehow--you already have one million Iraqi’s in Jordan at least. You walk down the streets of Jordan, you hear Iraqi Arabic as much as any other kind.

<snip>

NIR ROSEN: ...I don’t think American can do much good in the region and they can probably continue to do a little more harm.

<snip>

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Nir Rosen, in speaking with people, in speaking with many Iraqis and living there, what you think needs to be the solution right now.

NIR ROSEN: There is no solution. We’ve destroyed Iraq and we’ve destroyed the region, and Americans need to know this.... We destroyed Iraq. There was no civil war in Iraq until we got there. And there was no civil war in Iraq, until we took certain steps to pit Sunnis against Shias. And now it is just too late. But, we need to know we are responsible for what’s happening in Iraq today. I don't think Americans are aware of this. We've managed to make Saddam Hussein look good even to Shias at this point. And what we’ve managed to do is not only destabilize Iraq, but destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. This is going to spread for decades, the region won’t recover from this, I think for decades. And Americans are responsible.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think troop withdrawal now, if not an answer, a necessity?

NIR ROSEN: Troop withdrawal, if I was an American, then I would want troop withdrawal, because why are Americans dying in Iraq? Every single American who dies in Iraq, who is injured in Iraq, dies for nothing. He didn’t die for freedom, he didn’t die to defend his country, he died to occupy Iraq. And if withdrawal the troops you’ll have less Americans killing Iraqis. Everyday the Americans are there they kill innocent Iraqis, they torture innocent Iraqis, and the occupy Iraqis and terrorize Iraqis.


Thanks to IndyOp for the OP.

[seemslikeadream]

24. Thanks for the reminder robertpaulsen

yes I did listen to that interview, absolutely

NIR ROSEN: There is no solution. We’ve destroyed Iraq and we’ve destroyed the region, and Americans need to know this.... We destroyed Iraq. There was no civil war in Iraq until we got there. And there was no civil war in Iraq, until we took certain steps to pit Sunnis against Shias. And now it is just too late. But, we need to know we are responsible for what’s happening in Iraq today. I don't think Americans are aware of this. We've managed to make Saddam Hussein look good even to Shias at this point. And what we’ve managed to do is not only destabilize Iraq, but destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. This is going to spread for decades, the region won’t recover from this, I think for decades. And Americans are responsible.




4, Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq
Posted by seemslikeadream on Mon Dec-04-06 03:28 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/wirq03.xml&site=5&page=0

Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 3:00pm GMT 04/12/2006



The gulf's two military powers, Sunni-Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, are lining up behind their warring religious brethren in Iraq in a potentially explosive showdown, as expectations grow in both countries that America is preparing a pull-out of its troops.


A pool of blood and a damaged vehicle after a bomb blast in Baghdad


The Saudis, America's closest allies in the Arab World, were reported be considering providing anti-US Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support and even arms - as Iran already does for Shia militia in Iraq - in an article last week by Nawaf Obaid, a senior government security adviser.

Riyadh is alarmed that Sunnis in Iraq could be abandoned to their fate - military and political - at the hands of the Shia majority. Indeed, President George W Bush dispatched his vice-president Dick Cheney to Saudi last weekend after the kingdom demanded high-level consultations about their concerns. They told him that Iran was trying to establish itself as the dominant regional power through its influence in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Although a Saudi government spokesman yesterday sought to play down Mr Obaid's view as personal, saying it "does not reflect in any way the kingdom's policy and positions, which invariably uphold the security, unity and stability of Iraq with all its sects", Riyadh has also expressed its fears about Iranian's regional power play to other Western states.

Alarm in the traditional homeland of the Sunni branch of Islam deepened last week as it emerged that some senior US intelligence officials and diplomats are urging the Bush administration to abandon stalled attempts to reach a compromise with Sunni dissidents in Iraq and adopt a controversial "pick a winner" strategy instead, giving priority to Shia and Kurd political factions.

[kitty1]

29. You're so correct. It's all about divide and conquer; Lebanon

and Israel were just a pretext to the powder keg to come.
The U.S. and Israel have been successful in splitting up Lebanon's groups (or so it seemed) Hezbollah is stronger than ever there.
Now Iraq is experiencing infighting amoung it's factions. In time Israel and the U.S.are hoping to accomplish the same thing with Iran and Turkey. It's all part of Rice's speech in Lebanon regarding the "New Middle East"
The U.S., U.K. and Israel want to carve up the ME with newly defined borders eventually, to gain control of the EurAsian resources.
The recent ban on U.K. and U.S. financial dealings in Iran are part of the process to destabalize things there. Sanctions come into play as well. A confused and destablized nation is a lot easier to control.

[blues90]

14. I don't think bush and his gang care about elections

He has his war on terror to do what they want and still until jan to do anything they decide will keep them in power . We still have the Military commissions act that shreaded the constitution to deal with .

There are so many things to fix and so little time that I can't feel calm until bush is out along with cheney .

I fear the middle east is about to explode soon with now way out of this or to prevent it since it has gone on so long and now spread out with fleeing Iraqis .

[seemslikeadream]

18. 2.3 million have fled the violence in Iraq

what problems will this cause?

[LynneSin]

16. What worries me is that Iran will become another Laos/Cambodia

Where technically there is no US involvement but who knows what they're doing and not telling us

:cry:

[blues90]

21. that's the part that concerns me

There is so much we don't know that is some sort of secrete OP .
I read last week that there were two more ships that dealt with subs headed out to Iran that had only the purpose of dealing with Iran .

Things like this are hidden from the public as well as the house all this underground military crap going on .

Is it not true to a point that the repugs and bush thought they could loose the elections and they certainly don't intent on being removed from power now , not without a fight at least .

I don't know what the result would be if they did decide to attack Iran as far as politics are concerned . Before Jan is the time they have left to try to pull this off and as I said , I can't find one reason to have faith they won't try something in dec . I know we have heard this all before with the oct surprise and the nov surprise .

There is so much shit going on I can't get my head around it .

[seemslikeadream]

37. “This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2753952

[dysfunctional press]

17. it would be a suicide mission.

we just don't have the manpower for something like that.

and i doubt that the rest of the world would be at all pleased.

[Strawman]

19. Not any more. If they had won the elections, possibly

You're right. He can't. Iran would have to unambigously provoke it and that provocation would have to be credible to Democrats and Republicans.

[seemslikeadream]

20. KUWAIT MULLS WAR WITH IRAN

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/november/11_17_2.html


ABU DHABI -- For the first time, Kuwait has openly examined the prospect of an Arab war with Iran.

Officials said Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council were headed for a confrontation for control of oil resources in the region. They said Kuwait has discussed the need for a strengthened GCC alliance that could defend against an Iranian assault.

"The GCC countries and Iran are on a collision course," Sami Al Faraj, director of Kuwait's Center for Strategic Studies, said. "The Iranian mentality does not regard GCC countries as their equal."

On Nov. 14, the strategic center conducted a simulation of a GCC crisis with Iran. The simulation was sponsored by the Kuwaiti Interior Ministry and included a scenario of a hostile Iran that sought to attack or destabilize Kuwait, nearly half of whose population is Shi'ite.

[robertpaulsen]

26. Thanks for that link.

This goes hand in hand with the destabilization of the region that we all anticipated in our February 2003 protest where we tried to stop this war before it started!

We need to make sure we nominate a candidate in 2008 who we know will not waver from a commitment to extricate our troops from that region.

[Strelnikov_]

34. I Assume We Extricate After We Make A Significant Dent In Our Oil Demand

Say down to 12 M bbl/dy from the current 21 M bbl/dy?

The societies in Diamond's 'Collapse' did not look like that much fun. I would rather not roll the dice on the stability of the region after we pull out.

[robertpaulsen]

36. That would mean having a 2008 candidate aware of Peak Oil.

There's only one potential candidate who has spoken out to date about Peak Oil: Al Gore. He's really the only one out there prepared to scare America into reality.

[Orsino]

30. And wouldn't it be odd...

...if we ended up owing thank-you notes to George "Macaca" Allen and Foley?

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Not one bit n/t

[sofa king]

35. I'm giving a guarded, "whew."

However, I think that history--and only that history which escapes the revisionist clutches of this most dishonest regime--will likely show that the plan was in the works and everything was set up to go. A couple of weeks ago would have been just about the perfect time to do it, but like a lock-picker stumbling on the last tumbler, it didn't happen.

It was all there: the double-helping of carrier battle groups, the extra MEUs suddenly on station, cooler weather, a new moon, the British moving troops out of Basra.... Something was definitely up.

There's still one thing to watch for, and that's exfiltration of specialized ground troops during the December new moon. Let us hope no CH-53s are lost after "straying into Iranian airspace" during that time.

Just to complete the tinfoil hattery, that last tumbler in my mind was the November 7 election, which I think was rigged to shave five to seven points off of the Democratic candidates, but which proved far too little to prevent the people from overwhelmingly speaking. Just as I said before the elections in 2004, the Republicans only had to get close enough to steal it; this time, they didn't even get that.