US War with Iran: Bagdad Offensive and Accusations Against Iran Intensify; US Attack on Iran Expected
by William H. White
April 30, 2008As we conclude in our April 7, 2008 report, "the Bush administration is likely to throw more resources at the US military's now weakened Shiite flank and proceed as though it succeeded. So we expect the Bush administration:
to continue to back its now diminished Shiite partners by increasing operations against and laying siege to the Mahdi Army controlled areas of Baghdad;
to quickly rebuild/reinforce its offensive capabilities around Basra before resuming operations against the Mahdi Army there;
to maintain an overall state of conflict and anti-Iranian environment in Iraq, especially increasing the frequency and volume of apparently baseless accusations that Iran is underwriting attacks against US coalition forces, much as the Weapons of Mass Destruction theme was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, meeting requests for evidence with new accusations, which the media dutifully report without qualification."
Since then events have continued to build toward a US attack on Iran, with little movement away from war, after a brief period of cooperation between the Iraqi and Iranian governments to arrange a cease fire in Basra, the situation continues to deteriorate, including repeated US accusations against Iran as well as Moqtada al-Sadr's threats of a reciprocal escalation for the increasingly bloody siege by US and Iraqi government forces of the Shiite ghettoized slum, Sadr City, in Baghdad.
Event Summary:
While we do not discuss specific military deployments, the Bush administration continues its build-up of air, naval and special operations forces in theater, with a flurry of visits by US defense officials to "allies" whose bases or air space would be needed to support the attack on Iran.
Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran, as reported by CounterPunch's Andrew Cockburn on May 2, 2008, "Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."" This indicates the predicted Iran-Iraq border operations have been given a green light.
US and Iraqi government forces have laid siege to approximately 3 million people of Sadr City, a mostly Shiite slum in Baghdad, the US command claiming it only wants to stop rocket attacks on the Green Zone, when in fact the US began the offensive in March, long before there were any rocket attacks from Sadr City, while the Mahdi Army had been observing a six month long cease fire. Shiite Iran, which has attempted to mediate a cease fire in Baghdad, as it had in Basra, has repeatedly objected to the US offensive. The US operation, where Shiites supporting the US occupation of Iraq are attacking Shiites opposed to the US occupation, is turning this vast slum into a ghetto, as it is increasingly cut off from the rest of Baghdad and subject to daily military assault, creating a profound provocation of Iran that is essentially invisible to the US public.
US has issued repeated threats against the Iranian government, including radio broadcast to Iran by Bush noting, "And the Iranian people have got to understand that the United States is going to be firm in our desire to prevent the nation from developing a nuclear weapon..."
Another two naval incidents, one in the Persian Gulf where a US military chartered cargo vessel, Western Venture, fired warning shots at approaching unidentified small boats without known injuries or damage. While adding to regional tensions and increasing oil prices, the incident is likely not a provocative act by either side, but rather much like the other incident at the entrance to Suez Canal, where a boat borne local vendor was shot to death by personnel aboard a US military chartered vessel Global Patriot.
Iran remains confidant a US attack is unlikely, which is unfortunate because it may lead to ill advised actions or inactions on the part of the Iranians; however, it is also likely that such statements are being accompanied by Iranian defense preparations, perhaps including assistance with its air defense systems provided by Russia, easily observed by US reconnaissance, as a warning to the Bush administration.
Promotion of General Petraeus, replacing Admiral William Fallon as head of U.S. Central Command, or Centcom, which oversees US military activity throughout the Middle East. The US Congress is expected to rubber stamp the promotion, placing this very political, can-do general where he can do the most harmful bidding of the Bush administration.
Pictures recently released by the US of Syrian site bombed by Israel on September 6, 2007 appeared to have been doctored [additional analysis]. In addition, there has been a concerted effort to link North Korea to Syrian site, and, in likely short order, to Iran as well.
A New Casus Belli: "Iran Is Killing US Troops"
It now appears the Bush administration has augmented and subordinated the nuclear issue and naval incident as casus belli to the "Iran is killing US troops" propaganda offensive, which immerged with the invention of the so-called "Special Groups" by the US military command, first mentioned by the US Military Command in Iraq on July 2, 2007. They took on new life at the end of March 2008, as reported by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on March 26, 2008, when military spokesman Major General Kevin Bergner, as part of the US Military's effort to "document" Iranian sponsored operations in Iraq, revealed these "Iranian-supported Special Group criminals" were apparently and suddenly everywhere.
Within a month, hundreds of stories in the US corporate media reported all about these "Special Groups", almost without exception identifying them as Iranian trained and fielded. The NYTimes reported by April 24, 2008 that, "73 percent of fatal and other harmful attacks on American troops in the past year were caused by roadside bombs planted by so-called 'special groups.'” according to "Senior officers in the American division that secures the capital." As far as can be determined no credible or even plausible evidence for such groups has been presented by the US Military command in Iraq, let alone by any independent verification of such claims. Instead, in a pattern similar to the run up to the invasion of Iraq, questions about these claims, when raised, are ignored and "answered" with repeated or additional claims.
By the time General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before the US Congress in early April, the "special groups" were an established element in the alternative reality maintained by official Washington and corporate media. In addition, the ever compliant Congress allowed the two to testify for just a single day before the Senate and another day before the House committees in a mockery of oversight, during which not much was made of the question as to whether these claims about "special groups", even if true, legally justified attacking Iran under international law.
It is highly likely arrests of "Iranian agents" and weapons store seizures of "Iranian weapons" will continue, along with operations along the Syrian and Iranian borders with Iraq as well as possible naval incidents. So now the Bush administration has several hair-trigger items poised to "provoke" the US into "defending" itself by attacking Iran. By the time time the attack comes, the US corporate media will be asking why it took the US so long to "react."
Timing of Attack on Iran
From our April 7, 2006 report: "Nothing, including a collapse of the Iraqi government, is likely to change Bush's determination to "hit" Iran, although the depth and duration of the attacks might be attenuated by a set of early failures. In fact, attacking Iran could very well lead to the collapse in one or more governments in the region, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Israel."
While the attack on Iran might well depend on chance, logistics, weather, and Russian acquiescence, we believe a key element relates to the nature of the new Imperial Governance of the United States, wherein Bush will make a personal decision when to attack, and he is not likely to attack before the wedding of his daughter on May 10, 2008. Of course, he might arrange the triggering incident to take place shortly after the wedding in a further pretense at "surprise" on his part. Whatever other elements need fall into place, it is unlikely Mrs. Bush would put up with her husband ruining her daughter's wedding with a war she knows her husband alone will decide to start and can well put off.
Since we continue to believe the attack will likely come before the end of May, or, at the latest June, we think it is likely the attack will come between May 11, 2008 and June 30, 2008. If not, then with near certainty before the US elections in November. Should the attack not come before Bush leaves office, the chances of a major attack on Iran would be greatly diminished, no matter which of the three remaining major candidates takes office in his place, even if potential war provoking incidents between the US and Iran were to occur. And this is why the Israel Lobby is pressing Bush to act before it is "too late."
There is, of course, the possibility that this build-up is part to a bluff to intimidate Iran, but we consider this unlikely. Most fundamentally, what is the demand the US is making upon Iran as part of such a bluff? Iran's nuclear program, whatever its pretenses, is so far from the weapons grade enrichment US nuclear weapons experts can assure US policy makers is required: The 90% plus enrichment required for nuclear explosive devices of minimal yield efficiency, compared with Iran's claimed but unlikely 3% enrichment, indicates that "threat" is baseless and the bluff is pretense.
On the other hand, an example of this gaming of war fears recently occurred, as reported by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on April 13, 2008 when Bush joked about fears of a war between the US and Iran, while at the same time issuing the usual litany about "all options being on the table" and "first effort is to solve this issue diplomatically", exactly the same phrases used before the invasion of Iraq. One need only recall this is the same man who, as governor of Texas, was reported to have jokingly mimicked the pleas for mercy from a death row prisoner days before for her execution.
Nature of Attack on Iran
The nature of the expected attack on Iran is unknown, as is the likely Iranian response. While such attacks have been long planned, it is likely the limitations on US resources, objections by corporate and financial interests, by the EU and especially by Russia, as well as the private intentions of Bush and Cheney will interact in ways not fully understood, even by those nominally in-charge. The US Congress is not expected to play any significant role in the decision.
Given a decision to attack, two fundamentally different starting points seem equally plausible: 1) a minor casus belli and then a sudden, massive US attack on a wide range of Iranian industrial and military targets, followed by a US call for a cease fire; 2) a series of escalating attacks, first against "special group" support areas along the Iran-Iraq border or Iranian naval assets, depending on the casa belli selected, followed by series of US actions and Iranian reactions, leading eventually to attacks on a wide range of Iranian industrial and military targets, followed by a US call for a cease fire.
These attack "options" have at their core the baseless assumption, apparently held by the administration, that events can be controlled once hostilities commence, whereby the neo-con ideologists hope to leave office with the US at war with much of the Middle East, without having to actually fight a real large scale, resource depleting, continuing global struggle, while at the same time using the rhetoric of the global war on terrorism and disruptions cause by the US-Iran conflict to justify the establishment of an increasingly repressive police state in the US, relentlessly undermining civil liberties and thereby intimidating the US population into accepting the policies demanded by the "war on terror."
The main objective of all this appears to be a fait accompli, leaving the next administration with a region-wide tar baby, with Israel the only remaining "friend" in the region, otherwise populated with outright enemies or alienated former allies. With Israel positioned to attempt an alliance with the Kurds upon the expected partition of Iraq, following an inevitable US withdrawal. Again, as with the invasion of Iraq, the US planning is front loaded, focused on the mechanics of military operations, with little or no thought given to what happens next, let alone second or third order consequences, except the general intention to take maximum political advantage of the resulting crisis.
Coup d'état by National Emergency
While the following prediction is admittedly both extreme and disheartening, it seems the most likely consequence of the Bush administration's taking maximum political advantage of the crisis they created: A major US attack against Iran will ignite a US-Iran war, which in turn will almost certainly result in grave global economic and political consequences as well as the most serious political and economic destabilization of the United States since the Civil War. As part of which the Bush administration can be expected to undertake a coup d'état by national emergency, declaring martial law in the US and rounding up thousands of domestic political enemies into detention camps. The legal, extra-legal and other institution elements are now in place for such an action, and logistical preparations for martial law continue. We expect the declaration of a national emergency to occur with a month or so of the outbreak of war with Iran, possibly following mass protests, economic destabilization, or other convenient pretext.
Again, with now familiar recklessness, the possibility that events might well spin out of control seems to have alluded the Bush administration, where the focus this time is on the mechanics of implementing martial law rather than its consequences, even though a failed coup might well result in the arrest, trial, and execution of administration officials for treason. Given the possible detention of at least tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of US citizens to maintain control on one hand and Bush administration's mortal peril on the other, the resulting struggle will likely exasperate the predicted political and economic destabilization of the United States, and this is why we expect these events, once begun, would likely include the largest scale acts of repression and insurrection since the US Civil War, during the next several years it will take to resolve the situation into either a fully established police state or restoration of constitutional governance.
Beyond the damage to the US society and infrastructure, the international consequences of such events are really beyond prediction, except it is likely to result in a global boycott of US goods and, in the near term, a wider war in the Middle East as well as an increased lack of US attention to and participation in international efforts to address serious global issues such as climate change along with its related short falls in food and energy production. As a possible alternative, faced with such consequences, including their own impoverishment, the US ruling elites might well turn on the Bush administration upon its declaration of a national emergency, resulting in a swift and far less damaging resolution.
Prognosis Summary:
Our overall assessment remains largely unchanged from our March 10, 2008 report New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely:
"The more significant Iran's response or the more disruptive the economic and political consequences, the more likely the attack on Iran would be combined with or be followed by a formal declaration by Bush of a national emergency, possibly affecting US national elections, resulting in a de facto coup d'état and the most serious destabilization of the United States since the civil war. While these risks would normally result in swift dismissal of such a plan of action, unfortunately such an attack on Iran would be consistent with Bush's history of striking out at those who impede or criticize him as well as his willingness to take radical actions because of an apparent failure to appreciate the institutional and systemic costs involved.
While there is some chance of stabilizing the situation early in the sequence of escalating events, this would require the concerted efforts of responsible US, Iranian, and international governing authorities, provided Bush can be persuaded to halt the attacks, the Iranians to limit their response to within their borders, and the rest of the world's governments and populace to respond with sufficient restraint. But history gives small comfort about such a turn of events involving nations with irresponsible leadership and substantial resources."
Taking Action:
These reports are not intended to be an academic exercise, but rather as a warning and a call to create an alternative outcome. One possible alternative to Bush's war with Iran is for every concerned American to contact the US Congress to demand, REPEATEDLY, that Congress do its duty and stop Bush from starting a war with Iran: This government has nothing to fear, except your courage to join in spirit those who stood upon Concord Bridge and fired a shot heard around the world, this time within the law to protect the law itself.
Now is our time to act.
---> Call your representatives in Congress regularly until Congress acts to control Bush by:
Vote a binding resolution demanding Bush obtain authorization from Congress before any attack on Iran, no matter what the circumstances;
Restore Posse Comitatus Act by enacting US Senate Bill S.513 and US House bill H.R. 869;
Repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and restore habeas corpus for all by enacting bill H.R.3835;
Hold impeachment hearings on Cheney; write to John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to urge hearings be held on House Resolution 333 introduced by Rep. Kucinich in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on November 6, 2007; and, to House Speaker Pelosi to demand she end her "impeachment is off the table" dictum, a de facto suspension of the impeachment clause of the US Constitution;
Include in relevant appropriation bills wording such that no funds can be spent for a declared national emergency, except upon a vote of Congress to invoke, if congress is in session, and to continue such emergency only upon a continuing resolution by Congress every 30-days;
Congress should hold in contempt the head of any department or agency of the executive branch, including the White House, for failing to respond to subpoena; and withhold some or all funds and appointments from those departments, when such subpoena is found to be enforceable by the courts;
Establish an office of special prosecutor, to be appointed by and answerable to a federal district court, with independent funding directly from Congress, to investigate high crimes committed by any member of the executive branch while exercising their official duties, including issuing or obeying illegal orders resulting in torture, murder or kidnap or violating a treaty to which the US is a signatory, where such violation prescribes capital punishment or imprisonment of up to 10 or more years;
Amend the US Constitution to limit president's pardon authority, so no pardon may be issued by a president for: himself, vice-president, or any person working for the executive branch, except members of the armed forces, for crimes committed during the president's term in office; or, for any person under indictment, at trial, or appealing conviction for the offense to be pardoned; or, for any person under subpoena, impeachment or on trial by the Congress. Presidential pardons should be acts of merciful forgiveness and belated restoration, not obstructions of justice, license for ongoing criminality, nor payment for services or favors rendered.
In addition to contacting Congress, each of us can act lawfully, as individuals and together with others, to halt this drift toward tyranny:
Inform yourself, such as learning about the Ten Steps to Shutting Down a Democratic Society.
Writing to editors, calling radio and TV stations to demand serious coverage of this issue;
Talking to your family, friends and co-workers;
Joining in public protests in support of democracy in America;
Supporting members of Congress, such as Ron Paul, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich, who have acted to control Bush/Cheney and restore the rule of law;
Making defense of democratic governance a campaign issue by demanding other candidates for public office speak up;
Lobby members of Congress indirectly through their contributors;
Joining non-partisan organizations dedicated to stopping our government's worst abuses of power, such as the American Freedom Campaign and the American Freedom Agenda;
Since the so-called two party system is a one party system pretending to be two, register as an independent and evaluate candidates without regard to party affiliation;
Write-in "None of the Above" when no listed candidate for an office is worthy of support; and,
Study the issue of corporate power, including its control over our economy and government and corporate media censorship.
Support Shirley Golub who is running against Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic Primary on June 3, 2008
Contacting Us:
The author welcomes suggested updates, links, or other comments, which can be sent to comments. Please note that this is a nonpartisan effort, so we are open to link suggestions about sites of interest across the political spectrum wishing to preserve our democracy and secure the blessings of liberty. If you want to speak to the author, kindly send your request with contact information to contact author. If you wish to send anything by mail, please address it to:
Concord Bridge Coalition
PO Box 1497
East Dennis, MA 02641-1497In the media:
The Expanding Police State (Excellent conference, with three talks)
The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein
Kurt Vonnegut on current politics
Bush's Impeachable Crimes, and the Growing Risks of Martial Law by Dave Lindorff
Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America
Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine" & "No Logo" interview
Program about using clergy during martial law
Further reading:New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely by William H. White
Martial Law, Concentration Camps, and Fascism: Are These Real Concerns To Americans?
"Rule by fear or rule by law?" San Francisco Chronicle February 4, 2008 by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
The Kakistocracy Exposes Its Hand by Edwin Vieira
Police State America - A Look Back and Ahead by Stephen Lendman
Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline by PhilLeggiere
Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006 by James Bovard
Gangs of America - The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, by Ted Nace
Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann
Congressional Research Service Report - National Emergency Powers
"Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy" by Charlie Savage
"The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein
President Bush thinks of another way to end democracy by "Hume's Ghost"
Operation Falcon and the Looming Police State by Mike Whitney
Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Bush Makes Power Grab - And Response by chattanoogan.com
The Bush Push to Militarize America by Jerome Corsi
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law by Frank Morales
Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters by Steve Watson
The "Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf
Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
McWane, Representative Davis? Who's McWane? [Effective Lobbying] by ralphlopez
------------------------------------------
Note to Reader: Given our conclusion that an attack on Iran is likely before the end of May, it seems appropriate to release near-term assessments of events as they develop, rather than waiting for additional data and time for a more mature appreciation of the situation.
This document is updated frequently, see the Most Up-To-Date Version available at its originating site.
Contact Us with comments at: Comments, especially if you have information that contradicts our data or assessments.
Copyright © 2008 William H. White All rights are reserved; except, permission is granted for anyone to copy and distribute this document on the WEB. ~ The author asks that links in the text be retained.
Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit