IRAN IS UNDER US ATTACK NOW!
Amy Goodman in Democracy Now! 17 April 2006 | 18.04.2006 16:50 | Analysis | World
Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner says a military operation has already begun inside Iran. Gardiner says, "It's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran."
Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have reported the US has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. President Bush dismissed the reports as "wild speculation." But evidence continues to emerge the US is preparing for a possible attack. On his online column for the Washington Post, defense analyst Wiliam Arkin said the Pentagon has been working on contingency studies for an Iran invasion since at least 2003. Arkin said the studies were conducted under directives from Donald Rumsfeld and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair General Richard Myers. British military planners have reportedly taken part in one Pentagon "war game" that included an invasion of Iran.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, is a retired Air Force Colonel whose area of expertise includes helping to stage these war games. In 2004, he conducted a war game organized by The Atlantic Monthly to gage how an American President might respond, militarily or otherwise, to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. What was your conclusion?
Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force Colonel. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, AirWar College and Naval War College.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now by retired Air Force colonel, Sam Gardiner. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College. He speaks to us by phone from Virginia. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
COL. SAM GARDINER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to talk about another issue that’s making news from the Pentagon, and that’s Iran. Both the New Yorker magazine and the Washington Post have reported the U.S. has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. President Bush dismissed the reports as wild speculation. But evidence continues to emerge that the U.S. is preparing for a possible attack. On his online column for Washington Post, defense analyst William Arkin said the Pentagon has been working on contingency studies for an Iran invasion since at least 2003. Arkin said the studies were conducted under directives from Donald Rumsfeld and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, General Richard Myers. British military planners have reportedly taken part in one Pentagon war game that included an invasion of Iran.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, you're a retired Air Force colonel. You’ve taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, as well as the Air War College, the Naval War College. One of your areas of expertise is helping to stage these war games. In 2004 you conducted a war game organized by the Atlantic Monthly to gauge how an American president might respond militarily or otherwise to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. What was your conclusion?
COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, let me say something first about a war game. It's a little bit like Dickens in A Christmas Carol, and that is, you go out in Christmas future and you muck around, then you come back and say, “What did I learn from being there?” And I would summarize that by saying by being in the future, by going through how the United States might attack Iranian nuclear facilities, I have to tell you that there is no solution in that path. In fact, it is a path towards probably making things in the Middle East much worse. It's not a solution to either stopping the Iranians or spreading democracy in the Middle East or getting us out of Iraq. It's a path that leads to disaster in many dimensions.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what a war game is?
COL. SAM GARDINER: Sure, well, the idea is simply that rather than staying in the present and looking to the future, can we project ourselves into the future? Let me just use an example. Let's say that we wanted to explore what would happen if we were to conduct a strike against Iran. The way you would address that is you would begin in this group of people who know the situation, you'd say, ‘Okay, the attack against Iran occurred two days ago. We now know that the Iranians are beginning to look for options by having Hezbollah attack Israel. What do we do? What’s our response to that?’ And then you sort of look at the response in that future hypothetical, and you do that through a number of cases.
And you can even turn it around and do it from the Iranian perspective, which is, if you were the Iranian supreme leaders and this is what the United States did -- and we can sort of know that, because we know from the Washington Post article and from the New Yorker article what’s being planned -- so you can look at it from the Iranian perspective and say, ‘How would we respond if the United States were to do this kind of thing?’
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to retired Air Force colonel, Sam Gardiner. You were quoted on CNN on Friday night, saying the question isn't if we would attack Iran, that military operations are already happening. What do you mean?
COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military -- or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already --
AMY GOODMAN: Keep it below what?
COL. SAM GARDINER: The CNN line. In other words, I don't want this to appear on CNN, okay? That was his guidance to the military, you can begin to bomb Iraq, but don't let it appear on CNN. You're catching your breath.
AMY GOODMAN: Yeah.
COL. SAM GARDINER: I think the same thing has happened, and the evidence -- let me give you two or three evidences. First of all, the Iranians in their press have been writing now for almost a year that the United States is involved inside Iran conducting and supporting those who conduct military operations, attacks on military convoys. They've even accused the United States of shooting down a couple airplanes inside Iran. Okay, so there's that evidence from their side.
I was in Berlin three weeks ago, sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I asked him a question. I read these stories about Americans being involved in there, and how do you react to that? And he said, oh, we know they are. We've captured people who are working with them, and they've confessed. So, another piece of evidence.
Let me give you a couple more. Seymour Hersh, in his New Yorker article, said that there are Americans in three locations operating inside Iran. Another point. We know that there is a group in Iraq, a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, that crosses the border from Iraq into Iran, and they have taken credit for killing numbers of revolutionary guard military people. And the interesting part about that is, you know, we tell the Syrians, ‘Don't let that happen. Don't let people come across the border and stir things up in Iraq,’ but we don't seem to be putting any brakes on on this unit. So, you know, the evidence is pretty strong that the pattern is being followed.
Now, the question that really follows from that is “Who authorized that?” See, there is no congressional authorization to conduct combat operations against Iran. There are a couple of possibilities. One of them is that it's being justified under the terrorism authorization that occurred in 2001. The problem with that is that you would have to prove a connection to 9/11. I don't think you can do that with Iran. The second possibility is that it's being done under the War Powers Act. I don't want to get too technical, but the War Powers Act would require the President to notify the Congress 60 days after the use of military force or invasion or putting military forces in a new country under that legislation, and the President hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran. So it's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran.
Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have reported the US has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. President Bush dismissed the reports as "wild speculation." But evidence continues to emerge the US is preparing for a possible attack. On his online column for the Washington Post, defense analyst Wiliam Arkin said the Pentagon has been working on contingency studies for an Iran invasion since at least 2003. Arkin said the studies were conducted under directives from Donald Rumsfeld and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair General Richard Myers. British military planners have reportedly taken part in one Pentagon "war game" that included an invasion of Iran.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, is a retired Air Force Colonel whose area of expertise includes helping to stage these war games. In 2004, he conducted a war game organized by The Atlantic Monthly to gage how an American President might respond, militarily or otherwise, to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. What was your conclusion?
Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force Colonel. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, AirWar College and Naval War College.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now by retired Air Force colonel, Sam Gardiner. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College. He speaks to us by phone from Virginia. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
COL. SAM GARDINER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to talk about another issue that’s making news from the Pentagon, and that’s Iran. Both the New Yorker magazine and the Washington Post have reported the U.S. has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. President Bush dismissed the reports as wild speculation. But evidence continues to emerge that the U.S. is preparing for a possible attack. On his online column for Washington Post, defense analyst William Arkin said the Pentagon has been working on contingency studies for an Iran invasion since at least 2003. Arkin said the studies were conducted under directives from Donald Rumsfeld and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, General Richard Myers. British military planners have reportedly taken part in one Pentagon war game that included an invasion of Iran.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, you're a retired Air Force colonel. You’ve taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, as well as the Air War College, the Naval War College. One of your areas of expertise is helping to stage these war games. In 2004 you conducted a war game organized by the Atlantic Monthly to gauge how an American president might respond militarily or otherwise to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. What was your conclusion?
COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, let me say something first about a war game. It's a little bit like Dickens in A Christmas Carol, and that is, you go out in Christmas future and you muck around, then you come back and say, “What did I learn from being there?” And I would summarize that by saying by being in the future, by going through how the United States might attack Iranian nuclear facilities, I have to tell you that there is no solution in that path. In fact, it is a path towards probably making things in the Middle East much worse. It's not a solution to either stopping the Iranians or spreading democracy in the Middle East or getting us out of Iraq. It's a path that leads to disaster in many dimensions.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what a war game is?
COL. SAM GARDINER: Sure, well, the idea is simply that rather than staying in the present and looking to the future, can we project ourselves into the future? Let me just use an example. Let's say that we wanted to explore what would happen if we were to conduct a strike against Iran. The way you would address that is you would begin in this group of people who know the situation, you'd say, ‘Okay, the attack against Iran occurred two days ago. We now know that the Iranians are beginning to look for options by having Hezbollah attack Israel. What do we do? What’s our response to that?’ And then you sort of look at the response in that future hypothetical, and you do that through a number of cases.
And you can even turn it around and do it from the Iranian perspective, which is, if you were the Iranian supreme leaders and this is what the United States did -- and we can sort of know that, because we know from the Washington Post article and from the New Yorker article what’s being planned -- so you can look at it from the Iranian perspective and say, ‘How would we respond if the United States were to do this kind of thing?’
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to retired Air Force colonel, Sam Gardiner. You were quoted on CNN on Friday night, saying the question isn't if we would attack Iran, that military operations are already happening. What do you mean?
COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military -- or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already --
AMY GOODMAN: Keep it below what?
COL. SAM GARDINER: The CNN line. In other words, I don't want this to appear on CNN, okay? That was his guidance to the military, you can begin to bomb Iraq, but don't let it appear on CNN. You're catching your breath.
AMY GOODMAN: Yeah.
COL. SAM GARDINER: I think the same thing has happened, and the evidence -- let me give you two or three evidences. First of all, the Iranians in their press have been writing now for almost a year that the United States is involved inside Iran conducting and supporting those who conduct military operations, attacks on military convoys. They've even accused the United States of shooting down a couple airplanes inside Iran. Okay, so there's that evidence from their side.
I was in Berlin three weeks ago, sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I asked him a question. I read these stories about Americans being involved in there, and how do you react to that? And he said, oh, we know they are. We've captured people who are working with them, and they've confessed. So, another piece of evidence.
Let me give you a couple more. Seymour Hersh, in his New Yorker article, said that there are Americans in three locations operating inside Iran. Another point. We know that there is a group in Iraq, a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, that crosses the border from Iraq into Iran, and they have taken credit for killing numbers of revolutionary guard military people. And the interesting part about that is, you know, we tell the Syrians, ‘Don't let that happen. Don't let people come across the border and stir things up in Iraq,’ but we don't seem to be putting any brakes on on this unit. So, you know, the evidence is pretty strong that the pattern is being followed.
Now, the question that really follows from that is “Who authorized that?” See, there is no congressional authorization to conduct combat operations against Iran. There are a couple of possibilities. One of them is that it's being justified under the terrorism authorization that occurred in 2001. The problem with that is that you would have to prove a connection to 9/11. I don't think you can do that with Iran. The second possibility is that it's being done under the War Powers Act. I don't want to get too technical, but the War Powers Act would require the President to notify the Congress 60 days after the use of military force or invasion or putting military forces in a new country under that legislation, and the President hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran. So it's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran.
Amy Goodman in Democracy Now! 17 April 2006
e-mail:
gallirose1@tiscali.co.uk
Comments
Hide the following comment
US - IRAQ POLICY - IRAN POLICY - VENEZUELA POLICY - ALL THE SAME - IRAN STRIKE
01.03.2007 14:34
US POLICIES ARE FAR TOO CLEAR! - MADE TO LOOK NOT SO CLEAR...?
The UK MEDIA ignores your REAL IMPENDING URGENT comments at their peril.
The BRITISH "subjects" under BLAIR dictatorially imposed policies are not listened to.
The effective way to shut up BRITISH people is to falsely brand them as "RACIST"
That is why it is VITAL to NOT vote for the LABOUR PARTY on 3 MAY 2007
BLAIR betrayed Britain
BLAIR initiated a WAR based on blatant LIES
There were no WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION as BLAIR well knew.
That is why BLAIR was determined to shut up Dr David Kelly. [the expert witness re Iraq]
Yet is it not the case that cold blooded state "unlawful killings" [only the BLAIR legal executive can bring a prosecution for an unlawful killing - only if BLAIR is out of power is this possible] have a way of surfacing at inopportune times?
Remember the "suicided" Roberto Calvi on 19 June 1982 found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge, very close to the DPP office of the CPS in London at Ludgate Hill - look more closely this was NO "suicide".
It was an "unlawful killing". Was not Roberto Calvi indirectly linked to Silvio Belrusconi who was "put in power" on 27 April 1994 with "a little help" from the Vatican Bank - Banco Ambrosiano of Milan, it was Italy's largest private bank - linked to the US Franklin National Bank in New York which was "collapsed" in 1974 - its unaccountable links were to Freemasonry - "Cosa Nostra" - Vatican (Chicaco born {Catholic Archbishop} Paul Marcinkus who died last year - he enjoyed sovereign immunity as governor of the Vatican state - with the questionable links of Silvano Vittor, his "bodyguard") - US government (the US were pleased with the result of "their" right wing government) - with a loss of over $1 Billion.
What appears as a simple suicide is more - far more that that.
The City of London Police first said it was a mere "suicide".
After 'pressure' they changed "the reason" of death.
Why would a person who wanted to commit "suicide" put masonry in his pockets?
[Clue: Masonry = Freemasonry!]
Why would a person who wanted to commit "suicide" put dollar notes in his pockets?
[Clue: Dollars represented those he had taken]
Why would a person who wanted to commit "suicide" do it on Blackfriars Bridge?
[Clue: Blackfriars Monastery that had been nearby represented the place where those guilty of embezzlement in the Middle Ages would go seeking sanctuary, penance and absolution - before punishment]
How would a person who wanted to commit suicide tie his wrists with ropes - which were bound together behind his back??? [Clearly it was NO suicide!!!]
Reality - he did not commit suicide - he was "suicided" - it was a very clear code to others!
Is it not the case that its consequences are still felt very much to this day???
[What happened then, is not unlike the evidence surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly - it was no suicide - if you care to check the evidence!]
BLAIR who indirectly controls the flagship Housing Association in this country for gerrymandering purposes betrayed the good tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.
Instead of supporting them or ensuring they were listened to, ensured all the directors are members of the Labour Party. He uses unaccountable QUANGOs as Housing Corporation and unaccountable QUANGO Audit Commission to monitor the policies of multiculturism whilst unaccountable taxpayers money obtained from 'stealth' indirect taxes are poured in to a totally discredited unaccountable untransparent organization.
Blair put in the ex Labour Party Secretary Tom Sawyer. From him his protege took over Gerard Lemos.
Blair made him LABOUR PARTY government RACE ADVISER.
He was made Commissioner of the QUANGO Audit Commission.
He was made Commissioner of the Civil Service.
He was made Deputy Chairman of the QUANGO British Council under Neil Kinnock's Chairmanship.
Blair has used unaccountability and corruption like no other prime minister before him.
All members of the Legal executive are all members of the Labour Party and very close Blair friends.
Blair has totally sacrificed the concept of the RULE OF LAW.
Blair has totally sacrificed the concept of the independence of LAW from POLITICS
Blair's wife should not be practising as a senior QC [Cherie Booth of Matrix Chambers] if her husband indirectly ensures legal patronage through his Labour Party pals.
Blair's wife should take cases as they come [TAXI CAB RULE] instead she supports cases of national political consequence - such as the wearing of HIJAB
Blair's wife [Cherie Booth] is a founding member of Matrix Chambers in Gray's Inn, London with Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions (based on her recommendation) the offices from which she continues to practise as a barrister. Matrix was formed in 2000 specialising in human rights law, though members also practise in a range of areas of UK public and private law, the law of the European Union and European Convention on Human Rights, and public international law.
Cherie Booth-Blair specializes in employment, discrimination and public law and in this capacity has occasionally represented claimants taking cases against the UK government. This way she can "add value" to her husband's arguments. DEVIOUSLY CLEVER!!!
Cherie Blair has appeared in a number of leading cases. A notable example before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was concerned with discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. See, ECJ Case C-249/96, Lisa Jacqueline Grant vs. South-West Trains Ltd.
Mr Blair controls the police by controlling the Home Secretary which controls the police.
Mr Blair controls the police from his appointment of Met Police Commissioner Sir Iain Blair.
Mr Blair controls the legal executive of the UK from its head, appointed by him, Lord Chancellor (LABOUR LORD Charles Falconer - ex Blair flatmate), Attorney General (LABOUR LORD Peter Goldsmith), Director of Public Prosecutions (LABOUR KNIGHT Ken Macdonald).
BLAIR put in to management at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST (NHHT) his MI6 agent Jonathan Buchanan who was involved in the dodgy dossier with John Scarlett. None of the tenants of the flagship Housing Association are listened to or consulted.
BLAIR set up a DEVIOUSLY CLEVER scheme whereby all legal complaints from tenants of the flagship Housing Association go through the Borough LAW CENTRE paid from central government and local government funds. Yet a director on the Board is manager of the Law Centre. Have tenants not been robustly informed that the law centre will NOT take the landlord to court no matter the strength of the case?
Look at the photos of the directors of NHHT. Look for a Director called "BEVERLY B R O W N" who is a member of the Labour Party and a member of the CRE. Yet she is the very same woman who is the manager of the Hammersmith & Fulham Law Centre. The Law Centre for the Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
Blair does NOT want these FACTS printed in the Blair controlled media.
The indigenous people of the flagship controlled Housing Association are put in slum hovels in DISGUSTING DISREPAIR.
Look at the words of Greg Hands MP for Hammersmith & Fulham [with tenant's support he was able to oust the Labour Party sitting MP] at Prime Minister's Question Time. He made it quite clear that NHHT is a discredited unaccountable puppet that is out of control.
Further, it is involved in the deliberate confrontation and harassment of good tenants.
Any legitimate complaints are not responded to by the management of Notting Hill Housing Trust. They do NOT consult. They just bully. They CONFRONT.
Beheadings are an effective remedy in Iraq and Iran - SHARIA law will therefore come to Britain - if the LABOUR PARTY are supported.
DO NOT SUPPORT THE LABOUR PARTY.
DO NOT SUPPORT THE ELECTIVE DICTATOR BLAIR.
BLAIR has betrayed the good tenants of the flagship unaccountable Housing Association in this country - Notting Hill Housing Trust.
The good tenants of Notting Hill Housing Trust ensured the LABOUR PARTY were kicked out of local government in Hammersmith & Fulham after 38 years.
The good tenants of Notting Hill Housing Trust WILL ensure the LABOUR PARTY WILL be kicked out of CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
The LABOUR PARTY has housed certain people with priority whilst others it has abused and used wicked discrimination against.
The Chief Executive of the flagship Housing Association is Ms KATE DAVIES.
According to the evidence, has she not been been the architect of this confrontation and harassment from day 1?
Overwhelming documents make this point a FACT!!!
The bad seeds of LABOUR PARTY LORD Tom Sawyer ex Chairman of Notting Hill Housing Trust and ex General Secretary of the Labour Party put in place at 27 Hammersmith Grove, Hammersmith in 1998 by TONY BLAIR - LABOUR PARTY leader.
If the LABOUR PARTY puppets had any sense they would consult their good tenants but they are all FOOLS - they do not listen - like the Blair elective dictator that indirectly controls Notting Hill Housing Trust.
That is why the LABOUR PARTY are FINISHED!
3 MAY 2007
3 MAY 2007 - ELECTIONS IN SCOTLAND, WALES, ENGLAND - 3 MAY 2007
3 MAY 2007
john