Syria, North Korea, Iran? What are US Intentions?

" Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."

Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.

Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.

In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat." "  Tyson in Wapo.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is increasingly clear that Cheney and the War Party side of the Israeli establishment are pushing what is left of the Bush Administration toward a new war in the Middle East (oh, sorry, in MSM parlance "the Greater Middle East). 

Shoval, the former Israeli ambassador here, said the other day something to the effect that Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are the major sources of evil in the world.  My!  My! A clearer example of an inability to mentally separate one's own interests from those of others could hardly be found.

"Cheney and the Israelis." That will be the subject matter or title of some future piece of popularizing history.  Perhaps it will prove impossible to get it published.  What is the source of this affinity between Cheney and the Israeli Right?  He has his "1% solution."  They have their unwillingness to live with any sort of ambiguity in foreign relations or deterrence.  What is this "love affair" based on?

Unless the ground level pictures displayed around Washington were faked somehow, it is probable that Syria was building a reactor out on the Euphrates.  It seems that they were building it with help from North Korea.  The North Koreans usually do such things for money.  This was a foolish thing for both those countries to do.  Why?  It enables the propaganda of their enemies without providing any real benefit for themselves.

As David Albright has said; "One small reactor does not equal a nuclear weapons program."  Where is the refining plant for the by-products?  Where is the program for engineering and building the weapon itself?  Where are the delivery systems?  Were the Syrians going to stick their home made "nucs" on the ends of the North Korean SCUDS that they have?  That would be interesting to see.  Probably not even the most hysterical Israeli strategic thinker believes that. 

Now we have Mullen and Gates beating the drum against the Iranians.  I have been traveling a lot lately in my own country and it is clear to me that many, many people in the USA are not in a position to resist propaganda spread in the MSM and by people like Mullen and Gates.  "Guns of August?"  Or maybe some other month?  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480.html

Comments

[Charles I]

"it is clear to me that many, many people in the USA are not in a position to resist propaganda spread in the MSM and by people like Mullen and Gates."

So it would seem; it would seem the Republic is thus lost. Enjoy the rebate before you give it back at the gas station - its the driving season!

Zanzibar - the implication is get your wheelbarrow ready for hyperinflation, and the best preparation is to own a non-urban, non-grid-heatable home with garden and water access amongst people you know and somewhat trust.

[m. savoca]

after watching the US government video and related narration, which can be found at the bbc web site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7366658.stm

i am inclined to believe that our case against syria was convincing.

i am a strong critic of the Bush Cheney administration and the lies they propagated in the run up to the war in Iraq.

so i would appreciate if someone would review the reporting at the BBC web site. and critique.

given the info available to me so far, i support of the administrations position.

[Cieran]

M. Savoca:

so i would appreciate if someone would review the reporting at the BBC web site. and critique.

There are plenty of good candid overviews available on the web. For example, Andrew Foland has been doing some excellent work, which is summarized here:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/27/syriana

I particularly recommend reading Professor Foland's investigations, because (as the Colonel does here at SST), Dr. Foland gives due attention to the all-important epistemological aspects of this story.

[Altoid]

Why is Cheney so much in line with the Likud/neo-con clique? A good question. Well, he's reputed to be something of a libertine in private life so I don't buy the religious thing.

What I would point to are these: his devotion to executive power, which he has declared had been usurped by Congress (!) in the Nixon days; his apparent self-image as a man ruled by necessity and fact and unswayed by emotion or public opinion; the Israelis' self-portrayal as the ultimate "hard men" ruled by state necessity and unswayed by human weakness. (The IRA reference is deliberate.)

In other words, they are birds of a feather. And they share this, an opinion that the people living in the area have no reality or humanity. Cheney comes at this view largely because he's a natural-resources extractor of the late 19th century ilk, for whom the job of local rulers was to keep the local vermin out of the way so the really important enterprises could continue.

His role in this administration is Grima Wormtongue, functioning like a chief of staff who defines problems for the decision of a chief executive. But the poor sap of a CEO can't see how he's being manipulated by an astute combination of obsequious flattery and barely-concealed contemptuous bullying; a nice little s&m kind of relationship.

On Iran, could it be that the goal of any campaign would be simply to sever communications between the gulf region and Teheran? In other words, to Iraqify Iran and attempt to destroy its unity as a state? IIRC, the reputed sites are mostly in the middle of the country, and it would deny oil revenue to Teheran, something Cheney and the Likudniks have wanted to do.

No occupation needed, just chaos created and a power center in the region destabilized.

Outrageous oil prices would follow and justify the most severe repressions in the Gulf to clear the way for exports from Iraq. If troops could be found it would justify occupation of the south, but who would do it? And would it really be necessary? Expensive oil does wonders for some peoples' blind trusts, after all.

I wonder who might see themselves as benefiting from that?

[Babak Makkinejad]

m.scova:

Please take a look at Juan Cole's site:

http://www.juancole.com/

and look for the comments on this topic half-way through the page.

If this were indeed a nuclear site, Syria, as an NPT signatory, was entitled to it - she only needed to declare it when and if she were about to introduce nuclear fuel into that facility.

For US, a signatory of NPT, to try to justify the actions of a non-signatory of NPT against the purported nuclear facilities of another NPT signatory is just plain foolish; in my opinion.

Is it now the policy of the people and government of the United States that there are Nulcear Good Guys and Nuclear Bad Guys? Is NPT dead? And IAEA is about to be dismantled?

I would be much obliged to you if you could kindly take the trouble of explaining what it is that you support.

[inquire]

I'm not sure if this has come up in the discussion yet, but do you think the promotion of Patreus to centcom is in anyway pertinent in the push to attack Iran?

[different clue]

I don't understand why Gates is doing this. I thought Gates was supposed to be Baker's man (and therefor Poppy's and the whole Grey Establishment's man) in the White House. He
was supposedly sent over there to be Dubya's thinking-brain dog and preventer of bad bets like a
recreational attack on Iran.
And now he is catapulting the propaganda for a recreational attack on Iran?
What does it mean?

[Binh]

"Guns of August?" Or maybe some other month?

January 2009. Nice way for Bush to hand off the presidency to Obama or Hillary, no?

[Curious]

In my opinion, this conversation about Syria reactor is completely useless. (so what if it is real or not. makes no difference strategically.)

It doesn't take nuke for Syria to win against Israel.

All they need to do is transform their military from traditional tank+infantry, to light infantry + semi robotic drone. (that is to say, hezbollah + light industrial base + small group of drones)

This will enables hezbollah/Syria to attack Israel fuel depots and electric plants. Whereby changing the dynamic considerably.

So what if Israel can fly F-16 and bomb the entire Lebanon. There is nothing to bomb except large civilian buildings.

so, once fuel depot/amunition dump are damaged. Tanks/motorized vehicles logistic become very problematic.

And Israel army practically collapse into bunch of guys with guns 100 miles from home with no support.

On top of that. Once hezbollah can build fiberglass submarines. All Israel coastal cities are toast. (chemical plants, refineries, ports, cargo ships, etc)

again, so what if Israel has the fastest destroyers. Hezbollah just going to paddle their fibreglass submarines and saunter into Israel water. There isn't a single thing they can do.

So... Who cares about the nuclear reactor. It's irrelevant to military balance. If I were Israelis general, I would be more afraid of Syria start developing effective UAV bomber and giving it to hezbollah.

[John Howley]

Iran-Europe gas deals alarm US
By Daniel Dombey in Washington, Anna Fifield in Tehran,and Haig Simonian in Zurich
Published: May 1 2008 03:00 | Last updated: May 1 2008 03:00

The US and its allies are worried that the sanctions regime against Tehran is under threat from a possible new wave of European investment in Iran's strategically important gas sector.

Tehran has already concluded gas deals with Chinese and Malaysian companies - ending a protracted lull in investment in its energy sector - and has alarmed Washington by reaching an agreement with a Swiss group.