Petraeus Points To War With Iran

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by KevinB, Apr 11, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Petraeus Points To War With Iran

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    11/04/08 "WND" --- - The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.

    Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.

    Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."

    These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."

    Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?

    "President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."

    Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:

    "Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"

    "It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.

    The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

    Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.

    The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?

    Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:

    "My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.

    "I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."

    Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.

    In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

    Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.

    Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.

    Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.

    Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.

    And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.

    This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.

    Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.

    The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.

    With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.

    No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
  2. Patrick J. Buchanan is by no means a liberal, so his take is interesting. Don't know where US will get resources for such a war, and why they think it would be short.
  3. They think it will be short, and most probably will because a long drawn out war would cause too much vietnam era style riots/demonstrations and they know what to do diffrently now.
  4. For the same reasons they thought the war in iraq would be short.

    Looking at the situation in America, there wont be a war with Iran unless there is a 9/11 type instigating event.
  5. Well, the war in Iraq is not shaping up to be 'short', what makes you think an attack on Iran would be?
  6. however, the actions of iran can only be described as an act of war, lets be honest, the invasion of iraq scared the living piss out of the iranians due to its initial success - three weeks to knock over a country, impressive work in anyones book. Sadly the whole occupation thing went a bit pete tong. Support of terrorist groups actively seeking to kill american soldiers, the US only has so much patience and George W has bugger all to lose now.
  7. Provoke the other side until they fight back. Then crush them for being warlike. It has worked for years. I wouldn't be surprised if a suitable event was blamed on the Iranians some time soon. Iran is the gleaming strategic jewel for the USA. It has been for decades. They also want revenge for the Iranian Hostages crisis. Why did we go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq really? So Western forces could surround Iran and play the waiting game. Within 5 years time our infantry will be doing 3 block warfare in Tehran. Then watch the Islamic nutters go absolutely insane. You think they're pissed off now?!!
  8. You may be right, as long as some Middle Easterners of some type are involved. :roll: Americans somehow thought Iraq was tied to 9/11 and no amount of discussion could convince most that it was not - that Iraq was a secular, albeit brutal dictatorship that regarded bin Laden as an enemy.
  9. Poison D, a man who studies his Iraq-Iran war history.....

    If they can mobilise 20,000,000 against Iraq, just think what they can do against people they're really pissed with.

    Thank fcuk this clown in Casa Blanca is going shortly.
  10. Ironic hearing that from a walt who thinks that the IRA are a benign force in Ireland. Useless CNUT
  11. They weren't benign, don't think I ever said that. But nor were who they were fighting. I doubt the UDA/UFF would have understood anything else.

    Anyway, back on topic, Saddam was no threat, actually helped stabilise the region to a degree.
  12. Hasn’t the lesson from "eeyrack" been learned? Poking our noses into things we should not have done (thank you mr bLiar), why not leave the f#ck alone, and let them get on with whatever it is they do?
    There will be absolutely no backing from the UK general population into getting involved in this.
  13. My God Kevin, are you saying Saddam had a good effect on the country/region? how? by starting two wars? by killing thousands people from minorities. By bring his oil rich country tothe knees. Whilst enriching himself beyond belief...although the reasons for getting rid of him was not aimable ... but I guess in this case its a means to an end.

    PS: Hope people aren't getting delusions about Iran being scared. you cant scare people who want you to kill em so that they can go to heaven! the Israelis couldn't handle iran's minions(hezbullah), who says they can handle the masters?

    rant over.
    edited for text speek.
  14. I am saying that what has getting rid of him accomplished for the average Iraqi? Nothing. Sounds as if most are worse off now than they were under him. A lot like Yugoslavia after Tito died.