Two Triggers – Not in a Roy Rogers' Kinda Wayposted by Bill Arnett @ 1:52 PM Permalink
As if there weren't justifiable cause for concern with the bush/cheney maladministrations machinations in pumping up the rhetoric against Iran, now comes this article from BBC News, where sources of BBC have revealed both an attack plan and the two triggers to be used to trigger the attack on Iran.
From the article:
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.… [Of course, it is exceedingly difficult to persuade people with whom you stubbornly refuse to talk. Bill]
…But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.…
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies. [And for which there is not a single scintilla of evidence to support the accusation. Bill]
Alternatively… a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.… [Hence the recent allegations of attacks by Iranians. Bill]
…The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says. [No kidding. Bill]
…Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Catastrophic consequences, backfire badly, words the bush/cheney maladministration seem to live by.
It was bad enough knowing bush was once again "cooking the intelligence" on Iran to manufacture casus belli to attack yet another Muslim country perched atop all that oil. But in this case, by expanding their "justifications" triggers (excuses really) it gives bush/cheney the phony semblance of cover for the decision to attack Iran.
Right now our highly vaunted military, already a tissue-thin paper tiger and extended almost to the breaking point is being beaten in Iraq (no reasonable person can honestly say we're winning).
An attack on Iran, which has real weapons systems [Not imaginary WMDs like Iraq. Bill], a hugh highly trained army, and which now claims that if attacked they can "forever close" the Straits of Hormuz, through which about three-quarters of the world is shipped, would indeed be catastrophic.
bush will already go down in history as the first president to lose two wars simultaneously.
Let's not let him go for the trifecta. He (bush) is a lousy gambler.