Spinning On Schedule

It's now safe to say that the administration's post-Labor Week scheduled Iran campaign is in full swing.

The kick-off happened last month after the U.S. announced its decision to label Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a "specially designated global terrorist the first military branch of a government to be named for such a list, making the decision highly unusual.

The designation becomes less unusual and more useful when you consider that such a move would grant the administration authorization to use military force without Congressional approval, which would mean that if Bush wanted to launch an attack on Iran, say, tomorrow, he's already pre-approved.

And so, with deed in hand, the administration marches on: today it was announced that the U.S. will build its first military base on the Iran-Iraq border and has plans to create fortified checkpoints on roads that lead to Baghdad from Iran. General Lynch, commander of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, also said that the base would serve as part of the administration's new "central component" to hinder the smuggling of advanced weapons from Iran into Iraq, which the U.S. has contended and the New York Times' Michael R. Gordon promoted as being responsible for "a third of the combat deaths suffered by the American-led forces."

To further spin statistics in favor of an Iran attack, General Lynch added that 48 of the advanced roadside bombs Gordon spoke of in his New York Times article had been used against his troops in central and southern Iraq, and were responsible for nine US soldier fatalities. Another attack with 46 Iranian-made rockets was successfully foiled, he said.

Rounding out the PR blitz was the widely-anticipated Petraeus report, which included this quote on Iran from the Iraq military commander: "It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Quds force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."

This transparency on the part of the Bush administration to shift blame away from its own Iraq foreign policy disasters and onto Iran is insulting at best, and dangerously reckless at worst, at a time when we can seldom afford to be either.

Comments

[Zenobius]

Good post. The remark that declaring the IRGC a terrorist organization gives President Bush the authority to attack Iran with prior Congressional authorization makes sense of this move, and makes it more than a little worrisome.

The Inter-Press Service also had a report yesterday on neocons meeting at the AEI to promote war with Iran.

Welcome to HuffPo - hope you have a long and effective career.

[altohone]

All the statements on Iran are repeated without any proof... and are going unchallenged.

It seems that the media, Congress and most Americans have learned nothing from the very recent history on how we got into the disaster called Iraq.

I wonder where all the conservatives are who attacked Bill Clinton for wagging the dog?

Pat Buchanan was on McGlaughlin Group Sunday predicting a full court press this fall by the neocons for an attack on Iran... they leaked their plan to prime the pump I guess.


You failed to mention the court verdict fining Iran billions for the bombing in Lebanon.
It completely ignores that we launched an airstrike in Lebanon to retaliate against those who actually carried out the attack.

It does however set a precedent whereby the victims of the Shah, or Pinochet, Noriega, etc. can now sue the US for actions taken by proxies we've funded.

That's not to say proof of Iran's involvement was presented... but the precedent has been set.

BTW- I love your name Azadeh... had the biggest crush on a girl in HS with your name... don't come across it often.

[protagonia]

Bill O is a Judas.

He is leading us to harm.

[bhumikaghimire]

neocons at fox news..o'reilly and the gang are leading the media's spin schedule..yesterday ron paul tried to talk some sense to bill o'reilly(reigning god of mindless war lovers) but he failed!! people like o' reilly want US to attack iran..it is one way to keep up "shredding the constitution" to promote these SPY States of America!!

[oldpotsmuggler]

If someone would sponsor a Bill prohibiting the use of military force against Iran (phrased, of course, in appropriately delicate language), we would be able to smoke out those members of Congress who are just too blood thirsty to receive continued support from the political left. There is still time to be able to mount a campaign against at least some of these folks next year, but the chance is slipping away.

One would hope for passage of such a measure to be a slam-dunk, but it would seem to serve a very valuable purpose at this juncture to start making politicians get on the record. If we could start to test these matters openly it would almost certainly emphasize the fact that we have no satisfactory way forward except to start with the sort of clean slate that would be created by holding The Second American Constitutional Convention.

[jaber]

Thanks for your post.
Not sure if writings like this catches the sleepy sheep mentality of the crowd over in the US. When would people really start waking up to even a glimpse of fact checking?

[Neuromancer13]

Pot to Kettle: "You're Black"

Oh the hypocrisy. How often has the US intervened in other people's wars? Let's see, off the top of my head there was Afghanistan (vs USSR), Panama, Haiti (on numerous occasions), Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, (OK, pretty much all of Central America and the Caribbean at one time or another), Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iran (restoring the Shah), Cuba... you get the point.

So to threaten the Iranians for doing what we have repeatedly done (and still do), is , I suppose, our right in the great game of realpolitik, but we have no right to righteous indignation.

Besides, I believe that most of these "advanced IED's" are actually shaped charges, which are WW2 technology, and could be produced by high-school shop student with a lathe.
http://ask.metafilter.com/56883/The-real-story-behind-Iranian-IEDS

EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) are a different story, and would probably come from outside the country; even so, think 'Afghanistan' and 'Stinger Missiles'. Did the Soviets have the right to nuke us in the early 80's over that?

BTW Clear & timely post.