More Indications US Planning Air Strike in Iran

The American and Israeli war drums are sounding. War with Iran is threatened. This is the new years hottest story with daily changes occurring. Iran said on Sunday it had developed machinery to separate uranium from its ore in it's drive to acquire independent nuclear technology. The one face-saving out offered Iran by the US was dismissed. This Russian proposal was that it conduct uranium enrichment in Russia for Iran as a way out of an impasse in talks with the EU. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani said it was not logical for any country to entrust its energy security to another state.
Clearly, Iran is headed towards joining the nuclear club. The propaganda instrument of the Iranian resistance [to be taken with the grain of salt reserved for the Chalabi's of this world], National Council of Resistance of Iran, has published a description of the Iranian nuclear "plot".

Tehran is building nuclear-warhead capable missiles with help from North Korean experts in a vast underground complex, Iranian opposition sources said Monday. The project was initiated at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1989. The plan involves dozens of immense tunnels and facilities built under the mountains near Tehran.


"North Korean experts have cooperated with the Tehran regime in the design and building of this complex," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting, and a former representative of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. "Many blueprints of the site have been prepared by North Korean experts."

Meir Dagan, the chief of Israel’s Mossad spy agency has warned Israeli legislators:

"Iran will not be satisfied with producing fissionable material for one bomb but will continue to produce large quantities of such material for more bombs.” Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset committee, said: "Iran is capable of getting a bomb in a year or two. And if it does, there will be a new Middle East – black, dangerous and threatening the world over.” Dagan called for an intensification of international diplomatic pressure on Iran.


But Aharon Zeevi, Israel’s chief of military intelligence, said the current lack of pressure can be blamed on the Europeans. "I had meetings with senior officials in Europe,” he told Uri Dan. "And their position is, why should we fear Iran’s nuclear weapons? After all, we lived under the nuclear threat after World War II. "And besides, either you or the Americans will solve the problem.” Zeevi has said that a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be "difficult but not impossible.” But he told the Yediot Aharonot daily: "It is not the time nor place to talk about military action as the diplomatic route is still the order of the day.”

Indeed, today Bill Frist, Republican Senate Majority leader asked America to act now to thwart Iran's nuclear threat:

A multinational sanctions regime might begin with an embargo on technologies that Iran can use in its nuclear program. If these sanctions prove ineffective, the program might escalate to include a ban on arms sales and penalties for suppliers. Further sanctions could include limits on the export of civilian technologies, such as machine tools, that have military applications, and, eventually, the full spectrum of measures the United States has in place to isolate Iran and persuade its rulers to give up their nuclear ambitions. If we let Tehran develop nuclear weapons covertly while IAEA negotiations slog forward, Iran's theocrats will have little reason to negotiate with anyone. The United States needs to act before a regime that has denied the real Holocaust unleashes another.

In Aljazeera.Net, General Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, rules out the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations in the near future saying that the threat to Israel is Iran in possession of nuclear weapons. Clearly, that does not sound like an Israeli position. This sounds more like disinformation.
While both Israel and the US leaders explicitly call for negotiations with a threat of sanctions, Iran has already rejected the only offer the US and the EU has endorsed: enriching uranium in Russia. It seems to me that all of this is an attempt to prepare a military option, sending mixed signals to Iran and warning allies. Lets back up and put these events in context. I don't think the go on open hostilities has been given.
Last week, an article written by Udo Ulfkotte in Der Spiegel reported Washington was preparing its "closest allies", meaning Turkey and Germany, for the likelihood of an air assault on Iran. CIA Director Porter Goss, on a visit to Istanbul, was reported to have asked Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to support the air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military installations by stepping up the exchange of intelligence. The strikes were alleged to be "an option" that could occur in 2006. Furthermore, Goss is alleged to have given Turkish security services three dossiers that prove Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda. According to Winds of Change.NET, the Turks refer to a different element that is in common usage in the US. What they are "referring to here is the various Kurdish Islamist groups that once banded together under the aegis of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan during the early 1990s but have since splintered into a number of different factions, one of which was Ansar al-Islam. Ansar al-Islam evolved into Zarq-awi's group in Iraq. Back to Watching America's report on the Der Spiegle article:

In addition, there was a fourth dossier focusing on the current state of Iran's nuclear weapons program. According to information from German intelligence sources, the CIA director assured the Turkish government that it would be informed several hours ahead of any attack, and also green-lighted almost simultaneous Turkish attacks on camps in Iran run by the PKK, the Kurdish separatist organization. This go-ahead appears rather strange since the PKK runs its camps out of northern Iraq and has no such installations in Iran.


[...]Two weeks ago, the current head of the Turkish Army and likely future military Chief of Staff, Yasar Buyukanit, was himself in Washington. Afterwards, he declared that relations between the Turkish and U.S. Armies are once again excellent. This is noteworthy, since General Buyukanit is one of the hawks in the struggle against the PKK, and in the past he has often spoken on the record about the necessity of marching into northern Iraq. That is, unless the U.S. and the Iraqi Kurds prevent the Kurdish separatists from planning and carrying out attacks on Turkey.


[...]Regardless, the Turkish government has consistently spoken out against any military action versus Iran as well as against Syria. For on the Kurdish question these three governments form a united front, and refuse to countenance the idea of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Thus, here there appears to be no convergence of interests between Washington and Ankara. However, if the U.S. is planning a missile attack on Iran, then Turkey needs to be either actively or tacitly on board.


Erdogan and the Turkish military are, however, extremely apprehensive about the consequences for the entire region should the U.S. actually act against Iran. Western experts are also loath to guarantee that any strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be successful. On the contrary, an attack would likely not achieve its goal of stopping the nuclear program, and also wind up strengthening support for President Ahmadinejad.

However, Ulfkotte and the publisher Der Spiegel is called a questionable source however, with a reputation of sensationalizing the news. And there is also the possibility that it's disinformation that could be from any number of sources.
Then I tripped over an article from TheKurdistani.com:

On various occasions, a delegation consisting of senior Israeli diplomats have sought to hold high-level talks with Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in relation to the formation of an independent Kurdish state in Southern Kurdistan. Not only Talabani has expressed his grave opposition to the set forth accord but also released some classified information related to Kurdistan’s national security to Iran and Turkey. Escalating ties between president Talabani and Tehran is also beleaguering Washington. In his recent remarks, Talabani’s endorsement of Iranian president has further caused the Bush administration to feel more dubious about his bent unto Iran.

Now why would the Iraqi Kurds claim the Israelis were wanting to talk about an independent Kurdistan, a dream the Kurds have had for many years, and then point out the current Iraqi President, who also happens to be a Kurd, rejects those discussions while pursuing better relationships with Iran? Unless it's all too true. And if it's true, it would suggest the Israelis and likely the Bush Administration has given up on a united Iraq and is seeking to isolate the Iranians from any attempt to settle with the Kurds. Israel and the US might see the Kurds as an ally in an invasion of Iran.
The US has been conducting Black Ops in Iran and Air Force overflies since at least 2004. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been talking about Iran at least since February of 2005. Members of Congress,

Reps. Bob Filner, D-Calif., Tom Tancredo, R-Col., Dennis Moore, R-Kan., and staffers for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, addressed a convention of Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) supporters today in Washington. The MEK has been listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department since 1997, but some in Congress and close to the Administration want the group to be removed from the terrorist list. Even President Bush has called the MEK a "dissident group."

Here is an article with surprising allegations from March of 2005 in Aljazeera.Net written by Scott Ritter, the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq. You may remember Scott Ritter as the former Gulf War Marine who alleged interference by the CIA in his attempt to direct the UN arms searches prior to Gulf War II.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations. It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organization, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.


But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. To the north, in neighboring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran. The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilizing indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.


But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran. In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence. No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated. A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer and a veteran of the first Gulf War. He served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years. As an expert on arms control, he has addressed governments around the world as well as being a frequent guest on radio and TV talk shows. In the lead up to the attack on Iraq, Ritter openly questioned whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. He is the author of "Endgame" and "Frontier Justice: WMDs and the Bushwhacking of America."

This is not the kinda guy you'd expect to be an alarmist. However, I remember him telling a story of how the US was sabatoging his efforts to find WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion and he was clearly an angry man on a mission to discredit the Bush Administration. I Googled "Azerbaijan" and could find no other indication of the US base there. They are still locked in a conflict with Armenia still occupying 17% of their country! Certainly they'd have an interest in getting support in their effort to get back their territory. But it would seem to be a questionable place for the US to set up a base and start an invasion of Iran.
While the US could make a mess of Iran's infrastructure in short order, it certainly can't stop a nuclear effort without an outright invasion. Bombing would likely strengthen the hand of Ahmadinejad, the loud mouth President of Iran. In fact, I suspect that was his plan all along when he lashed out at Israel in a bid to consolidate power. Iran doesn't worry about casualties in war. They readily trade bodies for political gain. And so it is with Ahmadinejad.
With Special Ops stirring up oil rich southwestern Iran, as well as areas adjacent to Azerbaijan, and nine Iranian soldiers who went missing from their post close to Iran’s border with Pakistan, one has to wonder about most any news in Iran that might suggest a point of internal conflict. Here we have a report that the Mullahs are crushing trade unions and Iran’s Tudeh Party is leading the opposition to that move. It would appear the Mullahs are moving to consolidate power, but perhaps they are seeking to stifle any dissent in the face of internal and external pressure.
Today, we have a good analysis of the strategic situation involving the US and Iran from Stirling Newberry at The Agonist. Text formating is mine. Bold refers to points with which I agree, italics are placed for items with which I disagree.

The political ramifications of Iran as a deterrent state with a deterrent force are not in the direction of a fear of an expansionist Iran. Unlike North Korea, the current regime has no demonstrated propensity to desire expanded territory. It does fund ideologically sympathetic groups, including state sponsored terrorism. However, the consequences for Iran of sponsoring atomic terrorism are such that it would not do so. Instead, the consequences of Iran developing a deterrent force are two fold. The first is that it would be another proliferating nation. It has a demonstrated propensity to proliferate. Second, the US would no longer be able to deal with Iran as a non-nuclear nation. That is, American ability to threaten Iran would be sharply limited.


The potential responses are three: one can talk, one can bribe, or one can bomb. The possession of a deterrent force reduces the possibility of the third, so offensive pre-emptive or preventative attacks are a wasting asset. This "use it or lose it pressure" is undoubtedly forcing the Bush executive to act precipitously. Bombing is already of limited value, because Iran has an economic deterrent - stop selling oil, and gain OPEC approval for an embargo on the US. The economic consequences of which would swiftly bring an end to any US regime that attempts to bomb without compelling reasons and substantial results. The current US administration does not have the first, and has a track record of not producing the second.


Bombing might also not produce a significant delay in Iran's coming into possession of a deterrent force. Iran could, if the threat level escalates high enough, pull the fissiles from its exposed points, shield them, and assemble a deterrent force from the fissiles produced. It could then rebuild the reactor in a more survivable location, and become a declared power. All that bombing would do is generate hostility, and force Iran to declare earlier rather than later.


Talking has two parts: one is positive extension of friendship, the other is threats, and pressure from international bodies. So far both have proven to be of relatively limited value in dealing with Iran. It is not just the long term hostility towards the United States of the current regime - reciprocated in spades from Washington - but the general belief in Iran that the United States is on the run in Iraq and economically. Iran, as long as there are US forces in Iraq, has a response to any US threat - arm insurgents and radicalize Shia in Iraq. An Iraq that falls apart with US forces in it will deliver unacceptable casualties rapidly.


The third option is the most acceptable. Iran, unlike many other states, is not a top to bottom ideological state. In fact, the current regime holds power, to some extent, based on the threats from the United States. A secularizing Iran would, then see the possession of a deterrent force as necessary, but would see leveraging it as counter-productive. The best route for the United States is to undermine the ideological regime which is willing to pour vast resoures in pursuit of a strategic deterrent, when no such deterrent is seen as needed by the general population.


However, the high probability is that Bush will up the pressure, and use the cover that it is to give the European and Russian efforts more teeth, and then execute on threats at that point where there is domestic political advantage to be gained. That is, as with Iraq and the GWOT, he will double cross his allies in pursuit of his internal objectives in the United States.


As such, since bombing does not advance US long term interests significantly, and there is a regime in the United States with the demonstrated propensity of turning chronic problem into explosive crisis so that it can profit from the chaos and confusion, the only stance available to the US public and to allies is to be vocal in opposition to the use of military force against Iran unless certain bright lines are crossed. Because of the demonstrated propensity by the Bush executive to lie about when lines have been crossed, the body making this determination must be independent of the US, and spelled out emphatically each and every time a declaration is made to Iran to persuade it that there are consequences for failing to cooperate.


The compellence issue raises its head: given the fragile economic state of the West with respect to oil, many compellence options are off the table. Since compellence requires the ability to resist any counterstrike from the compelled, US policy makers must begin to realize that re-establishing the basic conditions of compellence, as soon as possible, are an urgent necessity, not a luxury. These include terminating involvement in Iraq, moving the US economy off of energy dependence for its monetary basis, and re-establishing credibility in the integrity of its international diplomacy.


Iran is not a threat, and on the other hand it is. That is Iran does not yet possess a deterrent force, but the point where it can be prevented from acquiring one is rapidly closing in. While Iran will not deploy a credible deterrent for at least three years, the point where it cannot be prevented from doing so is coming up within the next 12 months, and may already have been passed.


The Bush executive will want to act before the realization of the point of no return has sunk in with global policy makers and the public. As soon as the inevitability of a deterrent force Iran is accepted, there will be no political will to create animosity towards a future deterrent state. The time there will be sufficient "proof" to launch strikes is, paradoxically, the point after which Iran cannot be stopped from reaching DFC - deterrent force capability. In short, Bush will wait through the rest of 2006, and only bring escalating pressure on Iran militarily in the latter half of the year, when it is useful politically, and act in 2007, when he needs both the access to liquidity in the form of defense appropriations, and the political cover for domestic objectives such as funnelling FICA taxes into the stock market.

Let me take these items point by point. First I'll address those with which I disagree.

"no demonstrated propensity to desire expanded territory."

In the conventional sense, this is true. The Iranian Army isn't going to march across the border to conquer a state. But it has shown it's ability to build stable alliances with it's neighbors and to facilitate and fund viable and loyal organizations that can project it's agenda both politically and with guerrilla tactics. e.g. Hizbollah. They have also been sending supplies to the Lebanese Army.

the consequences for Iran of sponsoring atomic terrorism are such that it would not do so

I don't think Iran is too worried about being a pariah. Besides, allegations of arming atomic terrorists is far from a smoking gun. The Bush Administration has no credibility world wide. The Iranian army had no hesitation to send hundreds of thousands of adolescents to certain death in human wave assaults against Saddam's invasion. Why would they be too worried about a limited nuclear attack. Certainly world opinion will keep the US from doing much more than use a few nuclear bunker busters. They are certainly not worried about a ground invasion from the US bogged down in Iraq. Bombing and commando raids may well set back the the Iranian nuclear effort, but it can't stop it. Any stirring up of the dissident populous is likely a decade away from a successful insurrection. Besides as Newbury says:

The third option is the most acceptable. Iran, unlike many other states, is not a top to bottom ideological state. In fact, the current regime holds power, to some extent, based on the threats from the United States. A secularizing Iran would, then see the possession of a deterrent force as necessary, but would see leveraging it as counter-productive. The best route for the United States is to undermine the ideological regime which is willing to pour vast resoures in pursuit of a strategic deterrent, when no such deterrent is seen as needed by the general population. and All that bombing would do is generate hostility, and force Iran to declare earlier rather than later. and but the general belief in Iran that the United States is on the run in Iraq and economically. Iran, as long as there are US forces in Iraq, has a response to any US threat - arm insurgents and radicalize Shia in Iraq. An Iraq that falls apart with US forces in it will deliver unacceptable casualties rapidly.

Iran has an economic deterrent - stop selling oil, and gain OPEC approval for an embargo on the US.

Why would OPEC follow up with an embargo? OPEC is dominated by the Sunnis, sworn enemies of Iran.

In short, Bush will wait through the rest of 2006, and only bring escalating pressure on Iran militarily in the latter half of the year, when it is useful politically, and act in 2007, when he needs both the access to liquidity in the form of defense appropriations, and the political cover for domestic objectives such as funnelling FICA taxes into the stock market.

The 2006 elections is an accident waiting to happen for the Republicans. If Bush is inclined to maximize the political advantages of another war, early fall in 2006 would be the best time.
Now for my agreements.

The first is that it would be another proliferating nation. It has a demonstrated propensity to proliferate. Second, the US would no longer be able to deal with Iran as a non-nuclear nation. That is, American ability to threaten Iran would be sharply limited.

While Iran will not deploy a credible deterrent for at least three years, the point where it cannot be prevented from doing so is coming up within the next 12 months, and may already have been passed. and The Bush executive will want to act before the realization of the point of no return has sunk in with global policy makers and the public. As soon as the inevitability of a deterrent force Iran is accepted, there will be no political will to create animosity towards a future deterrent state. The time there will be sufficient "proof" to launch strikes is, paradoxically, the point after which Iran cannot be stopped from reaching DFC - deterrent force capability.

Let's face it. The US can't hope to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability without EU/NATO military support, probably Sunni oil and financial support and an unpopular draft in the US. No limited incursion will have any hope of success and would throw Iran into chaos and likely take it's oil off the market. I just don't see that happening.

As such, since bombing does not advance US long term interests significantly, and there is a regime in the United States with the demonstrated propensity of turning chronic problem into explosive crisis so that it can profit from the chaos and confusion, the only stance available to the US public and to allies is to be vocal in opposition to the use of military force against Iran unless certain bright lines are crossed. Because of the demonstrated propensity by the Bush executive to lie about when lines have been crossed, the body making this determination must be independent of the US, and spelled out emphatically each and every time a declaration is made to Iran to persuade it that there are consequences for failing to cooperate.

This paragraph contains the jewel of the article. In retrospect, the Bush Administration had multiple agendas for the invasion of Iraq. At least one of these was to create chaos to disguise another means to dump future tax dollars to it's chronies like Haliburton. Bush can't be trusted to monitor any line in the sand drawn for the Mullahs. A verifiable limit is necessary. Iran can't be expected to act as a deterrent state. Iran, China, North Korea, and even the US are quite capable of using their nuclear weapons in limited action when sufficiently provoked. The US is VERY likely to use nukes if it acts against Iran. It doesn't have any other viable option. That will only solidify the hold of the Mullahs on Iran and create another generation of terrorists hungry for American blood.