Strategy Paper Reveals Bush won't Attack Iran

[katty]

cont'd: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33692

(*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.)

POLITICS-US:
Strategy Paper Reveals Bush Won't Attack Iran
Analysis by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Jun 20 (IPS) - In every statement on Iran, officials of the George W. Bush administration routinely repeat the party line that "the president never takes any option off the table".

Despite the constant invocation of a possible military attack on Iran, however, a little-noticed section of the administration's official national security strategy indicates that Bush has already decided that he will not use military force to try to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

Instead, the administration has shifted its aim to pressing Iran to make internal political changes, based on the dubious theory that it would lead to a change in Iranian nuclear policy.

News coverage of the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) issued Mar. 16 emphasised its reference to the doctrine of preemption. But a careful reading of the document reveals that its real message -- ignored by the media -- was that Iran will not alter its nuclear policy until after regime change has taken place.

The NSS takes pains to reduce the significance of Iran's obtaining a nuclear capability. "As important as are these nuclear issues," it says, "the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran.

NSS doc:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

[cliss]

1. This is amazing news.

But not completely unexpected. I remember a few months back, when Bush beat the war drums day and night, 24/7. That fool just about gave a lot of folks a coronary, here at the DU.

So the whole time those fuckers were just bluffing.

Stan Goff wrote the same thing: it's unlikely that the US will attack Iran. He said we could count on our immediate self-destruction if we did.

[katty]

4. yes, I like Stan Goff piece on Iraq (non)attack...the whole of them

are cowards-and bush is the biggest coward-bully of the pack.

[yurbud]

2. "We're not gonna attack I-ran until after the fake terrier attack"

[joe_shmoe]

3. god I fucking hope this is true - just in case....

-- Sign this petition against military action against Iran --

It is with grave concern that I observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn /


thanks,
J-shmoe

[cliss]

5. Joe...because you've been asking for a

long time & you've been very persistent, I'm going to sign your petition. (If every Dem worked this tirelessly, we wouldn't be in the trouble we're in) I mean that. I'm impressed.

In case you're interested, read this very interesting article from my favorite writer, Stan Goff.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012706_bombing_iran.shtml

Bombing Iran? Don't count on it.

[joe_shmoe]

6. I love Stan Goff and read this article

And I think if there was a different group in power other than the Neocon Nazis I would be more apt to believe him.

These people seem to not operate in any normal form of reality so I still think there is a massive possibility of a war w/ Iran.

I'm just a little man in a big world so I sure hope Stan is right.

Thanks for signing the petition.

take care,
Joe

[agincourt]

7. Russia and China would resupply Iran militarily,

that would leave us in bad shape. Also the Iranians helped Reagen and Poppy out in a pinch when Carter was trying for a second term. GOPigs always remember favors. We didn't need another war but what is revolting is that the peace is from outside factors, not the will of Americans.

[Boo Boo]

8. Duh. The policy is regime change. Always has been. That does not

mean that Iran will not be attacked. The policy toward Iraq was the same: regime change. Iraq was attacked. The excuse was WMD, but policy was regime change. If Iran is attacked the excuse will be WMD, but the policy is still what it has always been: regime change. The question of whether or not Iran is attacked boils down to whether or not the admin thinks it will work, and whether or not they think they can get away with it. The quote from Hadley in this piece essentially makes this point, so I don't really understand the certitude of the author's position.

I think an attack on Iran has become much less likely.

[joe_shmoe]

9. Damn - I pray this is right

But I'm not so confident w/ thse Neocon Nazis are holding all the keys to the drivers seat.