CentCom Expected to Shift Focus to Threat From Iran

[Rose Siding]

What to think of a NAVAL officer, Pacific Commander Admiral William Fallon, being appointed to run Central Command, theater of two current ground wars (Iraq and Afghanistan)? "A general reorientation of our regional policy toward a confrontation with Iran," suggests one correspondent. So too another reader noted this excerpt in a version of that NYT article that ran last night but is now apparently no longer there:

Military officers and Pentagon officials said that Admiral Fallon would represent a shift in focus for the Central Command, as he would bring expertise in maritime security operations more than land operations. As the Iraq security operation matures, the focus for Central Command is expected to shift toward countering the threat from Iran. In that capacity, the military's role focuses on maintaining regional presence through naval forces and combat aircraft and conducting maritime security operations like interdiction of vessels believed to be carrying banned weapons materials or suspected terrorists, in addition to preparing for combat contingencies.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005383.html

The article is up again here but the language has become a bit more opaque:

Admiral Fallon would be the first Navy officer to serve as the senior officer of the Central Command, which is managing simultaneous ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Fallon is regarded within the military as one of its stronger regional combat commanders, and his possible appointment also reflects a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power, a mission that relies heavily on naval forces and combat airpower to project American influence in the Persian Gulf.

[Roland99]

1. The Dems better stand strong against continued hijacking of our nation by Batshit Insane ideologues

like Michael Ledeen.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. K&R - the writing is on the wall...

:kick:

Also, see my post on this subject...

[Rose Siding]

5. Freaky, isn't it? To see this appt with the simultaneous appt of the

leadership replacements in Iraq who favor escalation that lasts 2 years, is very frightening.

[BOSSHOG]

3. "Threat from Iran" is bush's "war on christmas"

Made up shit so people who believe stuff instead of know stuff can call themselves martyrs. The fact that more American kids will be slaughtered because of this nonsense does not concern bush or his fellow "christians."

[annabanana]

4. They are already on message:

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r

Netanyahu then said Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

There are signs this is already happening in Washington. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika decided the ousting of Saddam Hussein had to become an integral part of the "war on terror." Eventually 60 percent of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, even though there was no link between the two. Today, the Bush-Cheney team faces the same spin scenario: how to weave the global war on terror and the Shiite powers that be in Iran. This one is relatively simple: Iran trains and funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories.

Anticipating the new line, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) referred to "Iran and al-Qaida" on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday program on CNN. That Iran is Shiite and al-Qaida Sunni becomes irrelevant in the new game plan that will most probably lead to U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2007/08. Can a Democratic Congress be bypassed under a blanket authorization already secured to hunt down transnational terrorists wherever they may be hiding?

The "neocons" who work closely with Netanyahu on what could be the next phase of a nascent regional war in the Middle East, say Bush has the authority to take out Iran's nuclear threat. Because it has only one purpose -- to take out Israel. One Hiroshima-type nuclear weapon and Israel ceases to exit.

[Bitwit1234]

6. Can anyone answer this question??

My representative in congress has repeatidly assured me that bush can not do anything in Iran without their approval and they are not going to give it. Suppose bush goes ahead and starts his war with Iran what can congress do...arrest him and his staff for treason.

[seemslikeadream]

7. He already has his war on terror

maybe that includes whatever the hell he wants to do? :shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Then all hell should break loose in Congress

and across America.

Bush doesn't have the support or power anymore to dare to attack Iran. It would be suicide.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Your representative is dead wrong.

Bush can do anything he wants, he just has to report to congress that he did it, and congress has to authorize his actions within 60-90 days. So the lunatic can bomb the crap out of Iran, send a nice note to congress that says 'look at me I'm bombing the crap out of Iran' and 60-90 days later he might have to stop.

I say might as I believe that the lunatic and his insane cronies will ignore the war powers act of 1973, will claim prior authorization under the IWR and other idiocy that congress passed after 9-11, and will force the issue into the court, a court which they think they control.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I thought this appointment odd as well.

I've grown weary of the endless 'bombiran' prognostications. I realize that Cassandra was ultimately right of course, it just sure is taking the insane assdouche in the white house a long time to push the button.