British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes

[tpsbmam]

Source: Telegraph (UK)

British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.


A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies.

.........

"Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said.

"Petraeus has put emphasis on America having to fight the battle on behalf of Iraq. In his report he can frame it in terms of our soldiers killed and diplomats dead in attacks on the Green Zone."

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml

[SteinbachMB]

1. FWIW

I heard Sean David Morton say that on April 6, 2008, tomorrow, there will be a nuclear incident between the US and Iran, with many tactical strikes in Iran. I heard it on KOA in Denver on Thursday night.

However, I'm not holding my breath.

[C_U_L8R]

2. Ominous but we've heard it before a few times.

I think the Chimp is all alone in the world now... and he could
end up doing the Mussolini if he attacked another country.
That's not to say he won't.

[Doctor_J]

4. That might be what is needed here

:shrug:

[peacetalksforall]

6. Why do you and many, many others keep referencing Bush? Cheney is

the person working for the barons and other countries to 'win' the ME? And we know what winning means to them.

[Amonester]

8. Very telling. (that pic)

Looks like they're all asking themselves if hitler did the little reincarnation thingy in chimpy...

[IsItJustMe]

33. Great picture. I think it capures the essence of where Chimp has brought us to a lonely place in

the world.

[youngharry]

60. Hilary and staying in the race

I think it is an important piece of the puzzle that the real reason Hilary is staying in the race is that she and Bill have knowledge that Bush will strike Iran. Therefore her position on Iraq will be confirmed as the correct position (not Obama's), along with John McCain.

She needs to hold on until the strikes against Iran happen. This will change the political balance of the primary.

WATCH IT HAPPEN.

[bluesmail]

79. there's no moon this week

might be a good time for a 'sneak attack', as if.

[tanyev]

3. Only a few more months to introduce that new product.

[Doctor_J]

5. True. If they do it now it would distract people from Clinton v Obama

Once our nominee is set, they will probably roll out the new product.

[leftchick]

7. gee, ya think?

If the Brits were seriously concerned about this they would be getting all of their troops out of Iraq pronto. But then they seem to care for their soldiers about as much as the US. :(

[Amonester]

9. Indeed.

They're not even going after their (already forgotten) poodle for all the blood he wasted with his obvious (and proven) lies...

Very telling too.

[bluerum]

10. So this is what the Basra fiasco was about - to prove that Iran's politcal

and military presence in Iraq much stronger than previously thought.

It's not about helping a country to weak to govern itself, with no infrastructure, under military occupation being led by a puppet government. It's about picking a fight with the country next door wanting to take over the country with no infrastructure, under military occupation and being led by a puppet government.

[Muttocracy]

45. sounds like it

hmmm, so they'll try to use this to counteract other reports that the role of Iran has been exaggerated...

[The Stranger]

11. Nancy (to the tune of "Mandy")

Oh Nancy,
We watched as they geared up for more war,
And we needed you that day,
Oh Nancy,
You fucked us and kept us from impeaching,
And you fucked us all away . . .

[bronxiteforever]

12. Makes the Fallon matter clearer now

:(

[DemoTex]

22. Adm. Fallon certainly pegged Petraeus: "Ass-kissing little chicken-shit."

Fallon told Petraeus (in March 2007) that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chicken-shit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/

Fallon knew full well that the last thing this country needs is another Bu$hco sycophant in Iraq. But that is what we have in Petraeus. Seems that Bu$hco has almost totally succeeded in reducing the general officer corps to the lowest common denominator.

[Mika]

34. The start of a Petraeus presidential campaign?

An ass-kissing little chicken-shit would make a perfect repug/dlc candidate.

[Muttocracy]

44. thanks for posting that

It's from before I joined DU and I'm always glad to get caught up!

[bronxiteforever]

55. Great Info!-thanks

[rucognizant]

23. It was crystal clear...........

to me the day Fallon "resigned"!
Interesting.I am a first born; have always been one step ahead of the crowd............. In years past, that meant I was ahead of the design trends, which was a positive for business. (art/design).
These days I'm ahead of the crowd perceiving political situations....but the art design crowd ( and BUYERS) is functioning out there in some fantastical, never never land, other galaxy!
"Nothing to see over there; look at this adorable little cartoon figure."

[bronxiteforever]

54. n/t

:wtf:

[Gonnuts]

13. Before it's too late ...

Fallon resigns, troops are amassing along Iran border, naval fleet is now up to pre-Iraq invasion force, Gen BEtrayus spewing lies, cheney scampering all over region making deals, all the usual suspects banging war drums, M$M conspicuosly ignoring the fact that we may be attacking Iran with NUCLEAR weapons WITHIN A MONTH!!!

Forget elections, economy and everything else surrounding your little sheltered lives, if we allow bush&co to attack Iran ALL BETS ARE OFF! WAY OFF! AND BUSH WILL ATTACK IF WE DON'T STOP HIM NOW!!!

Everything is in place. The military, all the secret presidential dictates which will turn this country into a total dictatorship/police state overnight and all that is needed is an excuse such as anything bush can call a "national emergency". (false flag operation - dirty bomb?)

Listen - these cretins have already gotten away with murdering over a million people starting with murdering 3,000 of our fellow citizens and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE - so please tell me why they shouldn't keep "staying the course"?

This might - is- the most import issue of the day and we need to do everything - beyond just calling and writing our ineffectual so-called representatives - it's time - past time - for massive civil disobedience!!!

Folks, I can't emphasize enough or list all the horrors that will unfold if Iran is attacked and we must wake from our slumber and stop this with every fiber of our body and soul.

[indepat]

14. Whatever junior wants, junior gets for it's embedded in the American psyche that a 'puke

president must get everything he wants, be it unconstitutional, illegal, inhumane, fiscally absurd, whatever. And as lagniappe should this occur, we'll likely get martial law, cancellation of elections and everything that goes with it. And it couldn't happen to a lovelier bunch of coconuts. :D

[jorhead]

16. so what do we do

Well what exactly should be done about Iran, It's not like they any interest in being our friends, and ignoring the problem can't be done forever.

[Amonester]

19. "not like they ?have? any interest in being our friends"

is it what you meant?

[Amonester]

28. May I say: With "friends" like these, who needs any enemies?

http://stpeteforpeace.org/us.iran.timeline.html

~snip~

U.S./Iran Timeline, 1953-present
A chronology of key events:

1953

In 1953, under orders from President Eisenhower, the CIA organized a military coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Britain, unhappy that Iran nationalized its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove Mossadeqh.

http://stpeteforpeace.org/us.iran.timeline.html

[BulletproofLandshark]

43. Clearly, they must be bombed out of existence for not playing nice.

:sarcasm:

[SOS]

57. Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq are funded by Saudi Arabia

What the US should not do is attack the wrong country again.

[justinaforjustice]

64. Any Country with Oil is the "Right" Country to Attack.

We didn't attack Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction or because it was helping Al Qaeda, but because it had massive oil fields. We are not going to attack Iran because it is has a nuclear program or is fomenting terrorism in Iraq. Shiite Iran is an ally of the present Shiite Iraqi government and other Shiite forces in Iraq. Iran strongly opposes the Sunni opposition within Iraq and the Sunni Al Qaeda. It is U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia, which is funding the Sunnis. The only reason Bush-Cheney wants to attack Iran is to control its oil.

Cheney and his neo-conservative Project for a New American Century friends are insatiable, they intend to attain "total world dominance" by controlling the world's oil resources. See the www.pnc.org website for documentation of their plans. No country with oil is safe.

Next we will hear U.S. claims that Venezuela is building a nuclear bomb and amassing bio-chemical weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. State Department and its media allies are already falsely claiming that Venezuela is funding Colombian terrorists, even as Bush-Cheney pours pour money into Colombia to support its narco-trafficking, anti-union military and death squads.

Congressman Conyers, the Bush-Cheney criminal cartel must be impeached BEFORE they invade Iran and kill hundreds of thousands more innocents. Impeachment after they attack Iran will be too late.

[bamacrat]

71. Yet gas prices only rise, fast.?.?

[newspeak]

75. gas prices won't go down

it's who controls the oil. The oily corporations are into screwing us as much as the Iraqis--nothing personal though, it's just business.

You know, for the past seven years, I keep running in my brain "Thou shalt not steal or covet thy neighbors property"--"Thou shalt not kill." I'm not a born again, but I feel shame and a loss of honor in the actions that have transpired. It seems that "loyalty" has trumped "honor" in this country--so devastatingly sad. :cry:

[bamacrat]

81. But greed as a status symbol has trumped all, and thats bad.

[H8fascistcons]

62. What should be done?

First welcome to DU. First of all before anything is done don't believe anything the criminal Fascist republicans say. Start over and get the real facts not Fascist lies, then consult with the rest of the world. If Iran was such a threat why did Ahmadinejad visit with Malaki in Iraq and why have they agreed on joint banking ventures. Bush can't leave Iraq because they have not secured the oil sharing production agreements, it's all about stealing oil...

[wordpix]

77. Impeach the bastards so Commanders AWOL will be so busy with their lawyers

they won't have time to bomb, bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

Then get a Dem into office.

[indepat]

66. What we can do is what is constitutional, lawful, humane and fiscally responsible. 'pukes have set

in motion fiscal and tax policies that have increased the national debt eight-fold in some quarter of a century and have unleashed a pre-emptive war that has killed more than a million citizens, made millions more refugees and millions more orphans, all according to learned estimates and McShame is prepared to stay there 100 years (or until almost all their oil reserves have been harvested almost solely for the benefit of four big oil companies)? What we should do is the right thing, not the destructive, fiscally-irresponsible, belligerant, bellicose extreme right-wing thingy. Of course that's just my opinion and I might be wrong. :D

[ooglymoogly]

27. I will second that!!!!! nt

[Gonnuts]

59. I forgot to mention most important!

March 30th bush ordered all banking transactions canceled with and warned any country's bank throughout the world that if they did business with Iran they'd be accused of "money laundering" in an attempt to shut down Iran's economy. It's as much as declaring war.

DO WHATEVER IT TAKES - BUT STOP THIS ATTACK! - it is going to happen if WE don't stop them ...

[jaybeat]

65. Yup!

False-flag attack



Martial law via private contractors



A new fascist government

(Now wonder the canceled "Jericho"--fiction getting to be a little too close to the truth.)

[Mustellus]

15. "Pearl Harbor" Iran NOW!!!

We need to "Pearl Harbor" Iran now! When the Japaneese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, it meant that we would never fight back.

Since the Japaneese attacked first, Pearl Harbor meant that we would not mobilize.

Pearl Harbor meant that we would not declare war.

Pearl Harbor meant that we could do nothing.

Attack first, so that Iran will not be able do do anything against us!!

"He who Ho-haaaaa's first, gets in the only Ho-haaaaaaa!"

[Amonester]

21. Halliburton operates in Iran despite sanctions

Halliburton operates in Iran despite sanctions
How do U.S. contractors legally do business there?

U.S. businesses find work in Iran
March 7: U.S. companies have been banned from doing business with Iran, but Halliburton and other American companies continue to work inside the country. How? NBC's Lisa Myers examines.

Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
• Profile
By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit
updated 12:24 a.m. CT, Tues., March. 8, 2005

It's just another Halliburton oil and gas operation. The company name is emblazoned everywhere: On trucks, equipment, large storage silos and workers' uniforms.

But this isn't Texas. It's Iran. U.S. companies aren't supposed to do business here.

Yet, in January, Halliburton won a contract to drill at a huge Iranian gas field called Pars, which an Iranian government spokesman said "served the interests" of Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752/


Get a clue.

[IsItJustMe]

35. Whatever.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. We're already seeing the public falling into line

Indicated by that recent poll that shows Americans consider Iran one of the greatest threats to us. If Petraeus does testify that way, and of course it will be shown repeatedly on the TV news shows, then the panic will rise -- and so, probably, will McCain's poll numbers.

That poll also showed Americans viewing Iraq as one of our top enemies, which I'm still astonished by.

[goforit]

18. Patreaus can't even hold down one city in Iraq....He's a General? Wata Putz!!

[Gman]

20. Fallon didn't call him the ass kissing little chicken-shit for nothing

he will kiss whatever asses he needs to and be the perfect little chicken-shit to ingratiate himself to get anything he wants. And he'll do it even if it means killing more innocent civilians and sending soldiers needlessly to die.

[DemoTex]

25. Actually, Petraeus ingratiates himself to get anything his puppeteers (Bu$h/Cheney) want.

Petraeus is the quintessential sycophant.

[ooglymoogly]

24. The name "Betraeus" was indeed prescient and we have much to fear from

these Nazi's as the ruthless evil they do plays itself out. The catastrophic viciousness of this Typhon will be written in the blood of millions in the annals of history, long after, when the pug rewrite is corrected. kr

[sam sarrha]

26. i wish there would be an International Fleet blockading between us and Iran to stop it

[brindis_desala]

29. This is propaganda horseshit

"The humiliation of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki by the Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in fighting in Basra last week triggered top-level warnings over Iran's strength in Iraq."

Maliki is the one being backed by Iran. Don't swallow the press' manure.

The Bush administration is supporting the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI) and the Badr militia, which are aligned with the Iraqi government, against Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/30/graham-badr/

[grytpype]

30. Didn't Iran stop the war in Basra last week? Iran is doing a lot more for stability than we are!

[kitty1]

68. All the more reason to bomb them. Cheney et al are insane!!

[kitty1]

69. They can't stand the idea of Iran brokering peace and influencing

events over there. The Govt knows that it will only be a matter of time before Iran situates themselves in a prominent position of power over there, and the American military masters are eventually shoved out of the picture. There is no way that they will tolerate Iran being a a strong power broker in the ME.
Cheney seems to be desperate for some Saudi backing, that is probably the reason for his recent visit there. He needs them on board right now, or they may find themselves cornered over there.
Syria certainly won't give the U.S. the time of day right now either right now.
Again, we'll start seeing the scripted provocation in a few short weeks that will lead to a military confrontation with them. A major explosion in the Green Zone or at a Saudi embassy will be set up soon. Something along those lines. I guess the Blackwater crew will be busy boys pretty soon.

[jonnyra]

31. An attack is coming

Of that I have no doubt. The question is what will be the response of Americans? The appropriate response is for a million Americans to descend on Washington and demand that Bush, Cheney, Rice and every other fascist be removed...forcibly if necessary...from the white house and capitol and held on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Im thinking Romania in the early 90's when the people rose up and put an end to a sick and violent regime. Bush ending up just like Ceausescu would be a fitting end to the evil bastard.

An attack is coming people...the fascists have nothing to lose and everything to gain from an attack on Iran. A nation who has done nothing to us and is no threat what so ever...just like Iraq. When this attack happens it will truly be the end of the world as we know it. And America and Americans will be solely responsible for the economic, ecological and humanitarian nightmare that will unfold as we stood by silently while a rogue administration of evil doers ransacked the world and killed indiscriminately...America will never recover from the actions of these murderous thieves. Never.

[shadowknows69]

36. Spot on

And I don't think they're positive that McCain is going to win so it might be sooner rather than later.

[IsItJustMe]

32. Our country can take only so much of these war mongerers.

[Karenina]

39. You AND the rest of the world!

[Strelnikov_]

37. An attack on Iran could result in the collapse of the US

The Iran attack has been marketed to the US populace as another 'shock and awe' event in that there may be some loss of US military, but overall it carries a risk similar to that of the attack on Iraq.

Problem is, there is a scenario where an attack on Iran could result in the collapse of the United States economy. The resultant violence and starvation could result in the deaths of millions.


My estimate of the current script the 'actors' are using is as follows:

- The US (neocons) conduct 'limited' airstrikes on Iran, hitting mostly military and 'nuclear' (empty shell) sites. The purpose is to galvanize the US politicians as the article notes, and to provide cover to the failed Iraq policy and distressed US economy. Basically, Goldstein (Iran) is not playing along, so we need to stir the pot a bit.

- Iran (Supreme Leader/Assembly of Experts) know that the US cannot invade, and the air strikes will have to be 'limited' in nature to avoid a backlash in the Muslim world. They plan on playing this like Hizbollah in '06. That is, take the strikes, respond militarily in a very measured way as a show of resistance, and promote themselves as having resisted the 'crusaders' attack, thus making them the rightful leaders of the Ummah.


The problem is, war tends to go off script (WW I was to be over 'before the leaves fall', Iraq II, etc.).

All it would take is for a US naval commander or Revolutionary Guard officer to go off script (overreact) to trigger a conflict that would knock half of the worlds petroleum export capacity off-line essentially overnight.


The Kaiser, the Czar, the Habsburgs etc. did not survive the conflagration they started. Could the Republican Party be next?

[Strelnikov_]

38. Part 1 - Operation Muah'dib

All data 2005.

- The Persian Gulf represents nearly 50% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The vast majority of this resource passes through 8 to 10 major facilities (one facility in KSA alone processes 60% of its petroleum, you know, starts with a ‘A’).

- If Iran is attacked in such a way as to threaten the continuity of the regime, they could use their substantial missile inventory in taking out these facilities (I do not believe they will target Israel, as it would have no strategic purpose, and is out of range, whereas targeting the gulf energy infrastructure would strike a mortal blow against the attacking western economies, in particular the US, as I discuss below).

- The US imports ~ 12.4 Mbbl/dy (60% of total consumption) of petroleum which represents around 29% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The next largest petroleum importers (Japan 5.2, China 3.1, Germany 2.4, South Korea 2.2, France 1.9) all have substantial dollar reserves and are significant exporters of finished goods. Basically, we will be outbid on much of what remains of the worlds petroleum export market post attack, as these countries use their export capacity in finished goods to purchase petroleum from Russia, Nigeria, Norway, and Venezuela.

- In the weeks following destruction of the Persian Gulf oil export market, the US will probably see 2/3rds of its imports sold to higher bidders or embargoed, leaving the US with about 60% of the petroleum supply we had pre-attack.

- Approx. 42% of US petroleum is used for personal transport, 22% for commercial transport (trucks that carry food to the stores, etc.). I will leave it to the reader as to the impact a nearly overnight loss of 40% of the US petroleum supply will have to the economy (not to mention the impact due to the collapse of the petrodollar system).

- Russia, India and China will take a pass. Russia stands to make a fortune. And if all the gulf petroleum goes off line, they become the worlds sole energy superpower. China and India will dig in (as they consume much less petroleum), weather the storm, and emerge in a position to snap up all those production contracts that will no longer go to US multinationals for rebuilding the gulf.

- In conclusion, Iran is not toothless. We can physically destroy the country of Iran. There is a good chance they can destroy our economy and begin the process of petrocollapse, ultimately leading to the destruction of a greatly weakened US in a few decades.

So, who wins?

He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing - Muah'dib

[Strelnikov_]

40. Part 2 - The Spice Processing Facilities

The following represent 50% of the worlds petroleum export market. Probably at no time in history has so much critical infrastructure been thus concentrated. Consider the capabilities of modern weapons, and that these facilities would be staffed by an angry populace. Two possible attack vectors, same result.

Abqaiq alone processes 60% of KSA's petroleum.


Dona (Kuwait)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&ll=29.364822,47.804432&spn=0.106818,0.15295&t=k&z=13&om=1

Mina Al Ahmadi (Kuwait)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&ll=29.049192,48.148699&spn=0.053574,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Khiran (Kuwait)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=28.692169,48.373661&spn=0.053758,0.076475&z=14

Ras Ali Khafji (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=28.404613,48.531933&spn=0.053905,0.076475&z=14

Al Jubayl (Ras Tanura Complex) (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=27.079303,49.645329&spn=0.10913,0.15295&z=13

Najmah_1 (Ras Tanura Complex) (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=26.800171,50.022812&spn=0.109401,0.15295&z=13

Najmah_2 (Ras Tanura Complex) (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=26.659579,50.128212&spn=0.109536,0.15295&z=13

Abqaiq (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=abqaiq&sll=25.626669,49.004517&sspn=3.535873,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.935045,49.68039&spn=0.027556,0.038238&t=k&z=15&om=1

Ras Laffan (Qatar)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.915207,51.588879&spn=0.055121,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Ruwais (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&om=1&ll=24.123882,52.726822&spn=0.112018,0.15295&t=k&z=13&iwloc=addr

Mina Jabal Ali (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.008617,55.059099&spn=0.055537,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Khawr Fakken (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.310123,56.370077&spn=0.0277,0.038238&t=k&z=15&om=1

Al Qurayyah (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.198922,56.357932&spn=0.027726,0.038238&t=k&z=15&om=1

Al Liwa (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=24.483634,56.623106&spn=0.055851,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Mina al Fahl (Oman)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=abqaiq&sll=25.626669,49.004517&sspn=3.535873,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=23.602728,58.416388&spn=0.014039,0.019119&t=k&z=16&om=1

[Strelnikov_]

41. Part 3 - The Spice Trade

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html

All in Mbbl/dy

Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2005

Saudi Arabia 9.1
Russia 6.7
Norway 2.7
Iran 2.6
United Arab Emirates 2.4
Nigeria 2.3
Kuwait 2.3
Venezuela 2.2
Algeria 1.8
Mexico 1.7
Libya 1.5
Iraq 1.3
Angola 1.2
Kazakhstan 1.1
Qatar 1.0

=====

Above represents 39.9 Mbbl/dy of 42 Mbbl/dy world export market
18.7 Mbbl/dy of above in Persian Gulf region

Top World Oil Net Importers, 2005

United States 12.4
Japan 5.2
China 3.1
Germany 2.4
South Korea 2.2
France 1.9
India 1.7
Italy 1.6
Spain 1.6
Taiwan 1.0


Top World Oil Consumers, 2005 (Domestic production in parans.)

United States 20.7 (8.3 - 40%)
China 6.9 (3.8 - 55%)
Japan 5.4 (0.2 - 4%)
Russia 2.8
Germany 2.6
India 2.6
Canada 2.3
Brazil 2.2
Korea, South 2.2
Mexico 2.1
France 2.0
Saudi Arabia 2.0

[Strelnikov_]

46. Fallon postscript

Fallon is no pacifist, as there are none at that level.

History shows that there are two types of commanders, the professional (Rommel, Guderian) and the political (Jodl, Keitel).

The professional determine that a 25% risk of Iran destroying half the worlds petroleum export market as too high to engage in a war of choice.

The political fall in line with the politicians that only see a 75% chance of success.

[SquireJons]

42. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz....

The merit of the testimony will be about as water tight as swiss cheese... without the cheese. I could go into details about the weakness of their claims, for instance American arms in the hands of Israeli's, but what's the point?

The salient fact is that the Democrats control both the House and Senate. Nothing can happen without their compliance, and if they comply now, then the game's over. They can't hide behind 911 anymore.

So the only option for Bu$hco would be a preemptive strike. Quite a gamble, both domestically and internationally. The military doesn't want it and most of the true believers are out of govt jobs. If they pull this now it would truly be a handful of men (and Condi) against the world.

[tpsbmam]

53. And you think after what we've seen that ShrubCo wouldn't use a

preemptive strike. I feel the need to remind here that Bush has claimed that the Iraq resolution gives him the right to do anything he wants without consulting Congress first. Read Sy Hersh:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact



If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

......

The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. “They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official told me.
..........


When Cheney was GHW Bush's Sec'y of Defense, he urged Bush not to go to Congress re: Persian Gulf War. You think he's better now, that sick fuck?

And, if I recall correctly, the Bush administration has argued that the Iraq resolution gives him broad war powers, including authority to attack Iran since, according to their lies, Iran is interfering in Iraq. I'll look that one up.


http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm (the whole memo can be found at the link)

Yoo Memo (this is one of the reasons that any legislator who voted for Kyl-Lieberman was enabling Bush when it comes to attacking Iran):

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

[SquireJons]

73. I don't disagree with your concerns or rational

But I don't think they can get away with it. Yes, they can order the military to conduct strikes. All Presidents have that authority, as they should imo. But ultimately, they would have to justify it in the court of national and world opinion. Short of another "Pearl Harbor style incident," they could never get that support.

So the question becomes, will Cheney authorize a false flag operation against US interests sufficient to enrage the public? I'm on the fence about that, but if it doesn't happen, I don't think they can pull it off.

In fact, short of a direct attack on US targets that can convincingly be connected to Iran, I'll bet that there would be a revisit of the Saturday Night Massacre, in which a number of top officials resigned rather than implement an obviously illegal action. I think many of the military commanders would resign first, causing even more problems for Cheney/Addington, and the few remaining neocons.

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. British (Officials) fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes

Source: telegraph

British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.

A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies.


The outbreak of Iraq's worst violence in 18 months last week with fighting in Basra and the daily bombardment of the Green Zone diplomatic enclave, demonstrated that although the Sunni Muslim insurgency is dramatically diminished, Shia forces remain in a strong position to destabilise the country.

"Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said.

"Petraeus has put emphasis on America having to fight the battle on behalf of Iraq. In his report he can frame it in terms of our soldiers killed and diplomats dead in attacks on the Green Zone."

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml

[opihimoimoi]

48. The General is a war guy...he looks at it militarily...the strikes in Iran can lead to

unintended consequences...like a real HOLY WAR...

Is this the real focus?

Upping the ante?

That way Bush will be President forever?

[LakeSamish706]

50. "That way Bush will be President forever? More like King" I've been thinking and saying this for...

a while now. I think this will be the way to rule out an election, and make sure that these guys remain in the WH.

[opihimoimoi]

51. Many peeps here and elsewhere have sim thoughts Fears...It been done before in other Nations

A Coup of some sort...

And, its been primed with the passage of powers making it possible....

Should an event happen of any magnitude affecting America by terrorists...The president will have FULL CONTROL over our asses.. including making him able to suspend elections, etc....

This is bad shit...

[wordpix]

78. Bush pResident forever? OMG, there will be a 2nd revolution first

[Windy]

49. I went to a talk given by Scott Ritter recently. He thinks that we will air strike Iran

either in June or the fall. This revelation certainly fits his timeline.

[Ichingcarpenter]

52. Reports: B-1 Bomber crash was shot down by a F-16

According to these reports, an American B-1 Lancer supersonic strategic nuclear bomber based out of the United States Ellsworth Air Force Base, and which bills itself as, "The "backbone" of global engagement for the 21st century", attempted to ‘deviate’ from its assigned flight path over the Persian Gulf Nation of Qatar by rapidly descending for what these reports state is ‘typical’ for these types of aircraft when engaging in combat.

When contacted by US Air Force officials stationed at Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, these reports continue, this B-1 nuclear bomber ‘squawked’ what is called a ‘CIA Identification Code’, and not, what Russian Military Analysts say, was the correct code for American fighter aircraft over flying Middle Eastern Nations, whereupon it was ordered to land or face an ‘immediate’ shoot down.

Russian Military intercepts of US Air Force communications, during this incident, portray a chaotic scene where after refusing to change its course, American Military Officials ordered a US F-16 Fighter Jet to ‘strafe’ the B-1 nuclear bomber, but then a US Naval Carrier, stationed in the Persian Gulf, ‘ordered’ its fighter jets to attack those of the US Air Force.

As US Air Force Commanders launched more of their fighter jets into the air against their own Naval Forces, the B-1 nuclear bomber was reported to have been hit by cannon fire from the F-16 fighter jet, after which it changed its course for an ‘emergency’ landing at the Al Udeid Air Base and which upon landing ‘exploded’. These reports state that no further hostilities between the US Air Force and its Navy counterparts during this incident occurred.

American propaganda media sources, though acknowledging the destruction of this B-1 nuclear bomber, have failed, so far, to complete their fabrication of this incident into the final coherent form they deem suitable for their citizens, and as we can read as reported by the Dakota Voice News Service, and as we can read:

"The Rapid City Journal is confirming that the B-1 bomber which was involved in the incident in Qatar earlier today was from Ellsworth Air Force Base here in Rapid City.

[tpsbmam]

56. Link? TIA! n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

63. Debunked..

I just trace the story down and it doesn't have legs yet, except through
dubious sources, some of it I had to translate from Russian sites
I'm not calling it off, but won't link it until I do more research.

[CONN]

58. Petraeus cannot defend the green zone....

With all the US military might he has under his command and a US-trained and -armed Iraqi army. The attackers lob rockets from the streets and roof tops from Baghdad neighborhoods around the International Zone.

This guy is competent to expand the war?

Could you imagine any country attacked by armed insurgence using US weapons deciding to attack us? (Not now, but if the USA's current management continues to weaken us)

[SpikeTss]

61. Strange terminology the Telegraph is using

Why do they use phrases like 'Iran strikes' or 'US attack on Iranian military facilities'?

The correct words are exactly like this: It's a war of aggression Bush and his henchmen and -women are planning.
Bush, Rice, Cheney and the rest of these war criminals belong to The Hague, right now before they destroy what is left of their great country.

Why are we letting these criminals remain in office? They are mass murderers. Really, NOTHING else.

[opihimoimoi]

67. To FOOL is to RULE......they keep Foolin us....and for some reason, we let um

[roamer65]

70. The attack on Iran = The October surprise.

[lovuian]

72. Someone STOP this MADNESS

they are going to totally destroy America

[newspeak]

74. why, isn't that special

I'm getting rather tired of this bullshite!!!! Let's see? 15 of 19 alleged hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, the Brookings Institute Iraqi terrorism report shows that those crossing over from Saudi Arabia are actually causing a lot of the civilian bombings, but it just happens to be Iran that's the greatest threat--why * must really be smart because he just happened to mention Iran as one of the evil ones after 9/11. Yet, it seems that certain countries who may have more to do with the violence gets a pass. We forgave Pakistani debt, but Gen. Mahmoud (sp) from Pakistan apparently wired money to Atta--we transport members of the House of Saud and the Bin Laden family out of the country, but now it seems that some of those terrorists may have been housed by them. But, Iraq has WMDs, Iraq is dealing with Al qaeda, Iraq must be liberated. Iran is causing the violence in Iraq, Iran is a theocracy that must be liberated, Iran is seeking nukes. Well, Pakistan has nukes, Pakistan is involved with BCCI, Pakistan maybe politically teetering. Like I said, most of the 9/11 hijackers are from SA--SA has one of the worst human rights records. Women vote and drive in Iran--not in SA.


It seems that something really smells.

[Amonester]

80. It's the smell of... O i L

Cheney's pals' O i L

putrefying :puke:

[wordpix]

76. note to BushCo: al Qaeda is loving this

al Qaeda recently stated it will sit back and let the US and Iran, al Qaeda's two worst enemies, go after each other. And then, aQ will go after the winner.

"Bring it on!"---Commander AWOL

[samsingh]

82. they are - would this not be illegal