Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War in Iran 'probable'

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 2:22 PM on October 9, 2006.


The Iranian Chalabi emerges...

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Chris Hedges, former Middle East bureau chief for the Times (and a man of understated but firm faith) responds to the news that the aircraft carrier Eisenhower has been deployed to the Persian Gulf:

The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.

War with Iran—a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East—is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks.

Meanwhile, over at Motherjones.com, Laura Rozen profiles the Iranian Chalabi. In case you've been quarantined for half a decade, Ahmed Chalabi was the disingenuous criminal on the pentagon payroll, advising high-level administration officials -- and certain NY Times reporters -- on the "real" situation in Iraq. You know, the one that required an invasion.

Richard Perle, one of the aforementioned officials in league with Chalabi, has, according to Rozen:

"an exile leader he wanted America to know about: Amir Abbas Fakhravar, 'an Iranian dissident student leader who escaped first from Tehran’s notorious Evin prison, then, after months in hiding, from Iran.'

"Fakhravar, Perle wrote, had believed George W. Bush’s promise to Muslim dissidents that 'when you stand for liberty, we will stand with you.' Now, as the administration was mulling whether to negotiate with Iran, Perle worried that 'the proponents of accommodation with Tehran will regard the struggle for freedom in Iran as an obstacle to their new diplomacy.'

Or: talking to Iran might ruin a perfectly good war.

Rozen points out how this particular dissident, as with the original Chalabi™, has been cherrypicked to produce the most damning recommendations for regime change in Iran:

Iran’s best-known dissident, journalist Akbar Ganji, rejected invitations to meet with administration officials on a recent U.S. visit, and asked instead to see the United Nations’ Kofi Annan and Noam Chomsky. 'I advocate change of the regime in Iran,' Ganji told me in July. 'But that regime must be changed by Iranians themselves.'

By all accounts, Fakhravar appears to be a petulant and opportunistic child, jailed for nonpolitical offenses looking for attention. He's clearly found it in America's chickenhawk community.

Oh look, election day is coming. (Truthdig, MotherJones.com)

Digg!

Tagged as: iran, neocons, war, foreign, policy

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger
Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad?
Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.
Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
How Does This Make Any Sense?
Posted by: SteveB on Oct 9, 2006 4:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know, that's not a question you're supposed to ask when contemplating the actions of the Bush administration.
But attacking Iran just a few weeks after North Korea tests its first nuke? WTF?
They got away with this once (we were attacked by a Saudi hiding in Afghanistan, so obviously we must invade Iraq!)
How would they sell it again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why would they need to sell it...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 9, 2006 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has become quite obvious that

A. Bushco. has no idea what the military is and is not capable of because they are a bunch of draft dodging chickenhawks.

B. They will let Iraq go to hell... likely with our troops still there... the second something more "important" to them comes along.

C. They want seriously to get into a nother war.

D. They are failing completely at their goals of controling world politics (see the Wolfowitz doctrine) and are seeing their belicose rantings and occupations throw the world into a spiral of fear that is exacerbating the very problems they supposedly want to solve.

E. They are complete fucking idiots. W.orthless should be impeached.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They made us do it... (Remember the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, etc)
Posted by: kwalla on Oct 9, 2006 8:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this could be a bluff, show of power or a feint, but it's also an excellent opportunity to taunt Iran into attacking (say, for instance, if one or more US ships enters Iranian waters). Here we were, just innocently minding our own business, when suddenly the Iranian Navy fires on our ships. We had no choice...

Don't forget (the real story of) the Maine and the 'incident' in the Gulf of Tonkin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

W for worthless-and Worst
Posted by: Ellie1 on Oct 10, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. will leave a legacy as the WORST president in American history-if he doesn't destroy the country and the world first. Are you proud now, you WORTHLESS Republicans? Hey Conservasaurus, where are you defending this piece of sh__? Too busy molesting children with your fellow Grand Old Pedophiles?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's October, isn't it?
Posted by: oneyedjack on Oct 10, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world's a safer place because Georgie, Dickie and the gang that can't shoot straight are in the white house. All I want to know is that when the 'rapture' happens, can I sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The Killing Keeps Marching Along"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 10, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...For it's Hi, Yi, Yee!, drag out the war ma-chin-er-y,
an election is just around the bend–
Hey!, Hey!, Hey!
Let's blow up Iran, and do everything we can,
To make a world full of wars, without end!

. . .Here we go again, folks. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrified yet?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 10, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hedges' piece is seriously frightening, especially on top of so many others. Ritter, in particular, has been vindicated on Iraq like no one else. He says its coming down, too.

Is there any way to stop it at this point? Being dragged into Armageddon behind this idiot does not appeal. (Cheney, or somebody in the clique, is actually pretty smart. What are they thinking?) It's too late for impeachment, or anything electoral: the attack is likely to be before the election, or in defiance of a new Congress - it they even try to stop it: top Dems have been trying to out-hawk W on Iran.

Our only real hope is the military itself. I never thought I'd be calling for a military coup, but now is the time. They signed up to defend the country, didn't they? Took an oath to the Constitution? Turns out the real enemy is giving them orders. Bad deal.

Is there someone out there who can appeal to the military to refuse to carry out an attack on Iran, and be heard? We see multiple reports that they are reluctant - some of them are actually sane - so it might even work. Has to be more than just a sacrificial lamb like Ehren Watada. If you know of someone like that, even just a family member on one of those Navy ships, please contact them. If you have suggestions, post them.

We don't have much time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrified yet? Posted by: willymack
» RE: Terrified yet? Posted by: oregoncharles
John MacMurray
Posted by: jbgoode on Oct 10, 2006 9:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last January I had lunch with Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector. According to him, invading Iran was a done deal with the neo-cons running our government; that's why John Bolton was muscled into the UN, to denounce Iran's lack of cooperation, the UN's lack of cooperation, and finally to whine that the US was forced to go it alone. Note here that Iran has complied with all aspects of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed (unlike other countries), but that's beside the point. The neo-cons wanna do it, just like they (being the Project for the New American Century loons) tried to sell Bill Clinton on invading Iraq.

Per Mr. Ritter, the letter is written, and Mr. Bolton is just waiting for the opportune time to use it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]