Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 27, 2007

Attack On Iran Starting Soon?

Now I have to confess that I do get a bit nervous about an imminent start of a war on Iran.

Maybe inducing nervousness is what is intended and nothing immediate is planned, but  there are some actions done that make a war now likely, even if unintended. Some ominous signs:

Tony Blair is hyping the capture of some British soldiers that crossed or did not cross some undefined border to Iran to check for possibly smuggled cars. Why are cars "smuggled" into Iraq the Brits' business anyway? Didn't Bremer's economic laws allow for free imports?

The New York Times today delivers a long piece about alleged Iranian support for some bombs in Iraq - no news, lots of words and no proof at all. So why print this now at all?

Some Russian Col.-General last week said that a U.S. attack will start on April 6th. Today the Russian news agency RIA Novosti cites a Russian military intelligence officer:

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

The same time the U.S. is starting

its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

Over 100 planes in the confined international air space of the Persian Gulf is a guarantee that some accidents and/or mis-navigations will happen.

With the public prepared through some outrage about the British sailors, wouldn't that be a fine excuse for Cheney to launch a real full fledged attack?

Posted by b on March 27, 2007 at 19:37 UTC | Permalink


hmm, from TAI

Something is afoot. I am not sure what it is, but I think there is something being hidden here.

Posted by: annie | Mar 27 2007 19:57 utc | 1

totally crazy:

now, let's see if i have this right. u.s. invades iraq to oust saddam who had nothing to do w/ 911. this leads to shia "revival" freaking out saudi and gulf sunni dictators whose petrodollars have fueled salafi/wahhabi/deobandi extremists now murdering shia everywhere and killing u.s. troops and the solution to all this is to invade iran using nuclear issue as convenient pretext.

you'd almost think this was about oil or something as indelicately instrumental as the expenditure of capital in a war without end. or something. in any case, there's not much here that looks anymore like geopolitical "strategery." this iran obsession is just bizarre. even if iran declares cooperation w/ u.n. and switches from uranium enrichment to kitten rescue, we'll bomb em/. because they're iranians. just the way it is.

we should just bomb the fuck out of texas and call it a day.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 27 2007 21:03 utc | 2

this is a neocon wetdream. israel wants iran taken out. sorry, that's just the way i see it. until the neocons are purged the citizens of the US and the ME are held hostage to these genocidal policies. the neocons and the oil guys are in kahoots. this is insane. really, i don't know what else to say.

i started out here w/some semblance of illusion to rationality, but now i really think i have completely succumbed to the thought that there is total evil in these people.

Posted by: annie | Mar 27 2007 21:56 utc | 3

Chavez asks world to halt alleged planned US attack on Iran

Caracas, March 26: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has called on nations around the world to help stop what he says is a planned US attack on Iran.

Chavez, speaking one day after the UN Security Council voted to tighten sanctions on Iran over Tehran`s refusal to curtail its nuclear programme, cited a Russian press report which purportedly details the time and place of an attack on Iran by the United States, which he has dubbed "The Empire."

"The Empire is moving aircraft carriers and has been moving troops on Iran," said Chavez, speaking on his broadcast programme "Hello, Mr President" yesterday.

Hopefully the world "will halt this imperial craziness of attacking whomever it pleases. Hopefully the Congress of the United States, the United Nations and the most powerful countries of the world can halt this madness of the American empire," said Chavez.

Today it may be Iran, Chavez said, "but tomorrow it could be Belarus, Venezuela, or anyone they dislike."

Chavez is a close ally of Cuba`s Fidel Castro and a vehement critic of US President George W Bush. He hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Caracas in January.

Bureau Report

Also, China shifts to euros for Iran oil today.

China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude worldwide, began paying for its oil in euros late last year as Tehran moves to diversify its foreign reserves away from U.S. dollars.

The Chinese firm, which buys more than a tenth of exports from the world's fourth-largest crude producer, has changed the payment currency for the bulk of its roughly 240,000 barrels per day (bpd) contract, Beijing-based sources said.

I think that Iran has perhaps 2000 missiles with conventional warheads targeted directly at the Green Zone.

Only about a 5 minute flight from Iran and could do some heavy damage.

If indeed we do this, you can bet an attack abroad will be parallel with a major round-up on dissenters at home.

Those not lucky enough to get a cot in the camps, best be prepared for the abrupt shit storm shift in the economy.

Would you like some turnips with your
irradiated cabbage soup, comrade?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 27 2007 22:05 utc | 4

This is getting progressively more worrisome. There's a lot of hardware in a small area and it seems that another Neocon 1st strike war is a possibility. But I doubt very much if Bush could get away with this. Every move of his is questioned, there is no public trust of his party outside of a shrill few, and there's been too little targeted propaganda to gain the grass roots support of the the average American citizen. What has come out is a trickle, not a flood, and that only from the expected sources. And revolutions are not created by the latest Fox New Report or the New York Times for that matter. But if there is a concentration of "breaking stories" about some Iranian first strike danger, then I'll start to worry.

Right now America has neither the heart, the money nor the man power for another invasion/occupation. Maybe they'll be some kind of carrier strike followed by rapid negotiations, but even that will have long term political consequences for the bushbots. Nukes? I doubt it. I am afraid to even consider the consequences of that! I am crossing my fingers that the Neocons are not as filled with hubris, stupidity and blood lust as they were four years ago. But there is a reasonable chance that I will be disappointed!

And in the tradition of Cato, "And having this said, Texas must be destroyed!"

Posted by: Diogenes | Mar 27 2007 22:14 utc | 5

now i really think i have completely succumbed to the thought that there is total evil in these people

I have been desperately trying to not allowing myself to think that thought but I am lately hard pressed to not confess denial.

I recently finished reading Derrick Jensen, “End Game I & II” and Ward Churchill’s “Pacifism as Pathology”. I have been trying my best to refute what the data and analysis seems to purport.

I guarantee WE don’t like the implications.

And then uncle reminds me that I don’t think I’ll ever really want a cot in their camps and when the shit spews I’ll settle for just the turnips from my back yard (if I still have one).

Posted by: Juannie | Mar 27 2007 22:39 utc | 6

the iranians need not worry about blair - about the worst he will do is to attend more regularly his christian prayer group

as a valet - he is incapable of any action - independant or otherwise

if i was iranian i would not be particularly concerned with the pathology of these criminals - they are losing on almost every count - an invasion of soverign iran - would be game set & match

we watch the madmen in the whitehouse but i imagine they are not at the extremes of their madness

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 28 2007 0:36 utc | 7

I doubt that they are mad enough to attack Iran, or perhaps it is just my hopes talking.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Mar 28 2007 0:50 utc | 8

I don't think directly attacking Iran is in the 'plan'.

I think they are working for a big game of "let's you and him fight" - and the US is currently doing covert operations in Iran (via PKK and maybe others) - on Democracy Now! today. And, per Hersch, the US is covertly funding extremist Sunni groups in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. And pushing all Sunni Arab countries into fighting Iran and Shi'as, in a covert manner. Today I also heard that Iraqis are turning against "al Qaeda" in Iraq and bush/cheney is pleased. And, they armed Fatah to fight Hamas..... stirring up trouble in Lebanon.....

They just want everyone over there to fight everyone else, in order to make them all weaker and unable to continue any control of the oil. Plus, they get to make and sell LOTS OF MILITARY HARDWARE to all the players because they are so scared.

so, I think a direct attack on Iran is out, continuing sanctions, fear-mongering, covert operations and helping the Sunni Arab countries fight Iran in Iraq ---- ALL PART OF THE PLAN.

And yes, they are evil. Evil little blood-sucking vampires.

Posted by: Susan | Mar 28 2007 1:06 utc | 9

regardless of what anyone thinks, by far the biggest reason why an attack on Iran has not happened is because the Iranian capacity to respond is not disputed by just about anyone who has been paying attention.

and if there is an attack on Iran, the desired outcome will not be for a quick knockout. Rather, a more drawn out sequence of responses & counters will be favored. This one calls for a new blue-print. And it might be a preyty reasonable plan but for the fact that the Iranians know something about chess. After all, they invented the game.

maybe its just hoping, but it just would'nt make any sense to attack Iran.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 28 2007 2:00 utc | 10

I wish folks wouldn't use the term "making sense", like someone here knows what that refers to. You keep forgetting that they don't give a goddamn about the people anywhere - merely power control blah blah. Do you remember that these sewer rats stole the goddamn white house - twice in fact. Who the hell has ever stopped them from stealing or destroying anything. Building, creating...ah..that's a different story...

Said sewer rats want to Balkanize the ME. Saudis similarly interested. What's to stop them...Destroying after all is easy...remember their "creative chaos"... Granted part of this is psy ops, ...

Posted by: jj | Mar 28 2007 4:05 utc | 11

i keep coming upon excerpts from military doctrine that one of the first things you never do is make a threat that you aren't willing to back up. otherwise, your enemies will call your bluff & you've lost your ability to use threats in the future.

but, hey, what do these nuts care about rules anyway?

Posted by: b real | Mar 28 2007 4:14 utc | 12

Or will Impeachment come first - or will the threat of it push them into an attack? This simply cannot be discounted in the calculus. I wouldn't pay this much attention, except that this is from the damn CBS website, which reprinted it from, unbelievably, The Nation!!! Could it be getting serious, kids? Impeachment Threat Is Real

I won't excerpt, 'cept to note that even Blitzer & right-wingers are discussing it. What I don't get is why is Chuck Hagel so impt? He's a new kid, it's not like Barry Goldwater. Also, as head of an electronic voting machine co - ES&S or Sequoia - he rigged his election, so you'd doubly think he'd have to keep his mouth shut. But since Wash. runs on Blackmail, does he have the goods on others, giving him a lot of power & protection.

Posted by: jj | Mar 28 2007 4:41 utc | 13

slothrup :

That's the first time I've read a posting of yours that I can simultaneously fully understand and fully agree with!

But you are kidding about bombing Texas, right?

And of course I do agree with your appreciation and enjoyment of Cecil Taylor, et al.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Mar 28 2007 5:35 utc | 14

For some years I've argued on this blog that the U.S. (c)would'nt attack Iran for all the obvious reasons. But, more recently the likelihood seems all too plausible, given the disintegration of options in Iraq along with the administration itself. At this point the administration has blown its domestic credibility to such an extent that an Iraq style propaganda initiative to gin up support is impossible. However, with the days ticking away until the next presidential campaign gets underway, the administration is vexed with the problem that the war in Iraq will be deemed a double failure by enabling Iranian expansion on top of loosing Iraq. Recent U.S. pressure on the Iraqi government, re-Baathification, arresting Iranian diplomats, Iranian IED complicity, and etc would confirm the administrations alarm over the possible abject worst case scenario as its historical legacy -- enabling Iranian expansion. And as windows of opportunity to rectify the situation (in Iraq) continue to slam shut, an attack on Iran look more and more like the last glimmer of light in the tunnel of darkness, ignoring even that glimmer of light is the proverbial headlight of an oncoming train. But, it is after all the game of chicken, and its friendly fowl cousin, escalation, that this administration is predicated upon, and dedicated to till the end (or so they posture) the single remaining hope emerges as Iran -- the sole source of all problems middle east. So like a honey bee stings they will risk the mock death and go out in glory of defense and attack Iran....and leave the hapless democrats with a national security and foreign policy disaster they will not in a million years hope to resolve....thus proving their utter incompetence at being "american".

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 28 2007 8:43 utc | 15

And to drive the point home, all the major democratic candidates are already on the record with their anti-Iranian rhetoric, and not unlike the Iraq authorization bill, have branded themselves "senator Kerry, reporting for service"-- before they're even elected.

Posted by: | Mar 28 2007 8:57 utc | 16

We're seeing right now the biggest bait game in recorder history, something that will make Cannae and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 look like amateur work.

Russian and Chinese leaders met very recently, and no one took any notice? Both seems to distance themselves from Iran to some extent and to allow US to put tougher sanctions on Tehran.
Add the US military build-up and the fact that everyone knows Bush badly wants this showdown.
And now the US are stupid enough to have fake maoeuvres right at Iran's doorstep, right in that rathole which is the Persian Gulf.

Oh dear, the US military is so fucked.

Russia and China have absolute confidence the US army will end up being annihilated in the Gulf. If Iran is hit badly and ends up being seriously damaged is probably of far lesser importance here. The results are that the Persian oil will be there, will be off American hands for the next decades, and the whole area will be close to US direct intervention for a very long time. A few mio dead Iranians won't matter much for Putin and Jintao.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Mar 28 2007 11:47 utc | 17

Cannae and the Franco-Prussian War? Good call.

Lately I've wondered how many Neoocon publications have a Cecil Rhodes pin-up as a center fold to keep them excited!

And in the tradition of Cato, "And having this said, Texas must be destroyed!"

Posted by: Diogenes | Mar 28 2007 12:15 utc | 18

Blair and Bush have an overwhelming need to remind us that they (in their faithful service to Likud and Halliburton) are still running the show. This they can only do by "going to war" (as they so quaintly call it), and doing so with dispatch--because soon they will have to pass the baton of our ghastly charade to their obliging and like-minded successors.

Melville on the American Civil War (1866): ... a war whose implied end was the erecting in our advanced century of an Anglo-American empire based upon the systematic degradation of man ("Supplement" to Battle-Pieces--1866).

Posted by: alabama | Mar 28 2007 14:50 utc | 20

don't get me wrong. there's a few good things about texas: 13th floor elevators, barbara jordan, ornette coleman, c wright mills, the gila monster. most of these are dead and gone. so, yeah, let's nuke texas. the monster will survive.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 28 2007 15:21 utc | 21

Nothing will happen.

This capture of Brit soldiers story is trivial, gives both parties the leeway to sound off about bagatelles - a sure mark of posturing, the testing of power relations on a point where the ultimate outcome is symbolic, but of no real concern, nobody cares about those soldiers. What the outcome is (soldiers gvien back, soldiers killed - that won’t happen) is just a mini test case, which will fizzle out to no conclusion.

Contrary to the kidnapping of ‘one’ Israeli soldier, Gilat Shalit, which provided the excuse for bombing the hell out of Lebanon.

‘Kidnapping’ seems to be in vogue, replacing ‘suicide bombers.’

Maybe the old mantra of people being so evil, fanatic, disrespectful of life; saying that ‘terrorists’ aim to kill themselves along with a lot of others, is phasing out because of its absurdity. No terrorist would ever do that. Of course, some suicidal, desperate young people may have been co-opted and handsomely paid to die. Another myth or MSM media hoax bites the dust? Not that the sheeples will notice.

US hawks see strikes on Iran as less likely now>Christian Science Monitor

-didn’t read it all.-

Sub-prime mortgages, anyone?

I do take annamissed’s arguments at 15 to heart. There is another side to the coin, though:

Just think what the US and Iran could accomplish together. Some will be thinking along those lines.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 28 2007 16:21 utc | 22

Just think what the US and Iran could accomplish together

yes! but at the expense of the old sunni power. in any case, it'll be ugly and bloody with or w/out u.s. intervention(s).

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 28 2007 17:10 utc | 23


Nothing will happen.

Are you kidding it's already happened.

Does anyone else get the sneaking suspicion that we are being played by all concerned? i.e, America, Iran and Britain. Is it possible that BushCheneyco and factions within Iran are working together to work the people? Of all three countries? Much like how We/they worked the back channels over the Carter fiasco? Behind the scenes for Ray-gun?

All sides won this one. They made bank.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 28 2007 17:31 utc | 24

I'll say it's already happened. Don't know about where you live, but where I live oil prices have gone through the roof in recent weeks.

Posted by: jj | Mar 28 2007 18:08 utc | 25


Al-Quds al-Arabi prints on its front page a summary of a news-item in the Russian news agency Novosti yesterday, which said Russian intelligence has noted unusual activity by US forces on the Iraq-Iran border, consistent with preparations for a combined air-land attack on Iran. (Previous reports have talked about an air attack; this talks about an air-land attack). The unnamed Russian intelligence official said the US hasn't yet decided on the timing of the attack, which would depend on calculations for "bringing Iran to its knees while minimizing [US] losses".

Posted by: annie | Mar 28 2007 18:28 utc | 26

the chances of land attack are zero, but they may be preparing to try to limit number of Iranians coming into Iraq. xUS army has nothing left, but Iran has huge army - I heard some figure of ~1M.

Posted by: jj | Mar 28 2007 18:47 utc | 27

btw, from the #26 link

De-reconciliation: Chalabi version

Al-Hayat says the director of the existing Iraqi government DeBaathification agency, Ali al-Lami, is bitterly critical of the announcement earlier this week about a proposed new De-Baathification law. (Lami's agency is headed by Ahmed Chalabi). First of all, al-Lami said, this was not done in coordination with the existing agency, in fact he said we were as surprised as anyone by the announcement. Second, in terms of content, it would give Baathists "free rights" that they didn't even enjoy under Saddam. And finally, he said the effect of such a law would be to revive the Baathist schemes to re-take control of the government, and would ultimately increase violence instead of diminishing it. And al-Lami added the announcement appeared to have been timed to coincide with the end of the term of office of the American ambassador Khalilzad.

is this bizarre or what. actually it isn't bizarre at all, it is just the US switching sides hanging the shiites out to dry.

jeez, they will do anything to stay in iraq. the absurdity. if they are going to fling the government over to the baathists why don't they just get out of the way and let them do it themselves. what, are they going to take credit for the resistance prevailing now? this is turning into a fellini!

Posted by: annie | Mar 28 2007 18:47 utc | 28

sorry, i forgot my italics. of course this is me editorializing starting w/"is this bizarre.."

Posted by: annie | Mar 28 2007 18:49 utc | 29

all hell is breaking loose

"Iraq Police Go on Killing Spree" is the title TIME magazine put on this story. here's what i want to know, militias sanctioned thru the occupation authorities have been on one long massive killing spree since 04, and msm decides to cover it again now?

Posted by: annie | Mar 28 2007 19:00 utc | 30

Uncle, the market reacts. IT additonally has the power of making its reaction into some kind of ‘gospel’, requiring reaction.

Bankers are being very reassuring. (In CH. Pathetic really. I was in a bank today...)

Things are getting edgy. Yes.

But IT (the market) is but a reflection of late alarm after ignoring many signz. (sic). IT makes money form ups and down, crises; long live the grand globalised casino.

Piggy backers. Johnny come latelies. Profiteers. Mindless gamblers.

Oil prices have gone up and down and sure it is getting spiky, volatile, mostly up in the past two years.

That is because of tight supply or unmet demand or whatever the economists call it. (Peak oil...)

Besides that, we are being played, for sure. How exactly we will no doubt find out! ;)

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 28 2007 19:07 utc | 31

"former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines.

"Fake Maritime Boundaries
I have been unpopular before, but the level of threats since I started blogging on the captured marines has got a bit scary.

It is therefore with some trepidation that I feel obliged to point this out.

"The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

"But there are two colossal problems.

"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

"B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

"None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position."

When I spoke with the former Ambassador he told me how dumbfounded he is by the way in which the mainstream media continues to treat this dispute.

The BBC for instance has already interviewed a supposed expert regarding the map, who vouched for its authenticity. But the point is, as Craig Murray, points out, how can such a map exist if the subject of boundaries has never been settled between Iraq and Iran? Turns out the expert had been referred to the BBC by the British Ministry of Defense--who also turned out the plan.

Sounds like the rerun of a bad movie we've already seen."


Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 29 2007 0:11 utc | 32

a boundry here, a boundry there. pretty soon you got yourself a country, mister.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 29 2007 2:10 utc | 33

Thanks for post, R'Giap. I recommend that barflies bookmark Murray's site, as he regularly has impt. stuff to say; but kudos to HuffPo for carrying him. link

Posted by: jj | Mar 29 2007 2:37 utc | 34

This from, March 30, 2007, 3:56 PM
US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave…The advice came from officers with US Central Command 5th Fleet HQ at Manama, who spoke of security tension, a hint at an approaching war with Iran. Arab sources report the positioning of a Patriot anti-missile battery in Bahrain this week; they say occupancy at emirate hotels has soared past 90% due mostly to the influx of US military personnel. They also report Western media crews normally employed in military coverage are arriving in packs.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Nimitz group is composed of the Princeton guided-missile cruiser, four guided missile destroyers – the Higgins , Chafee , John Paul Jones and Pinckney . The strike force is armed with two helicopter squadrons and a special unit for dismantling sea mines and other explosive devices.
Earlier, DEBKAfile quoted intelligence sources in Moscow as predicting that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations codenamed Operation Bite has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. Missiles and air raids will conduct strikes designed to be devastating enough to set Tehran’s nuclear program several years back.

Of course this could be all propaganda considering the source, but so many signs all pointing towards trouble.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 30 2007 18:56 utc | 35

The comments to this entry are closed.