WHY DOES THE US WANT TO ATTACK IRAN?

Israel, and the Israel-Firsters/Zionist Extremists within the Bush/PNAC Regime (www.newamericancentury.org) are the ONLY people clamouring for an invasion of Iran, and supporting the illegal, covert operations currently being conducted in both Iran and Syria - their next target of Aggression to follow.

Can you back that up?

It's not because of Israel, it's because of the oil, there is some good stuff on this here:

 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=18

And of course the dollar also...

 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CLA20060210&articleId=1937

"Can you back that up?"

Certainly.

Look at the coverage in the MSM. These are the ONLY groups clamouring for war with Iran.

that'll be a 'no' then.

Israel, and the Israel-Firsters/Zionist Extremists within the Bush/PNAC Regime (www.newamericancentury.org) are the ONLY people clamouring for an invasion of Iran, and supporting the illegal, covert operations currently being conducted in both Iran and Syria - their next target of Aggression to follow.

This is no big secret. If you examine any of the recent calls for war, you will see that only groups aligned with Israel, and its proponents in the criminal Bush/PNAC Regime, are calling for war. Everyone else seems to be calling for calm, and exercising caution on the issue, given these groups' penchance for, um, fibbing about such things ...

Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran

By BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Former CIA analysts

The peace movements of the entire world should be in crisis mode right now, working non-stop to prevent the U.S. and Israel from starting a war against Iran. (See the James Petras article in CounterPunch on December 24, 2005 titled Iran in the Crosshairs for the best summary of the present situation.) The reckless and unnecessary dangers arising from such a war are so obvious that one wonders why normal political forces in the two aggressor countries -- both of whom love to glorify themselves as democracies -- would not prevent such a war from happening.

 http://www.counterpunch.org/christison12292005.html

The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties

By Kathleen and Bill Christison
Former CIA Political Analysts
CounterPunch
December 13, 2002

Since the long-forgotten days when the State Department’s Middle East policy was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the Arab world has increasingly become the purview of officials well known for tilting toward Israel. From the 1920s roughly to 1990, Arabists, who had a personal history and an educational background in the Arab world and were accused by supporters of Israel of being totally biased toward Arab interests, held sway at the State Department and, despite having limited power in the policymaking circles of any administration, helped maintain some semblance of U.S. balance by keeping policy from tipping over totally toward Israel. But Arabists have been steadily replaced by their exact opposites, what some observers are calling Israelists, and policymaking circles throughout government now no longer even make a pretense of exhibiting balance between Israeli and Arab, particularly Palestinian, interests.

In the Clinton administration, the three most senior State Department officials dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process were all partisans of Israel to one degree or another. All had lived at least for brief periods in Israel and maintained ties with Israel while in office, occasionally vacationing there. One of these officials had worked both as a pro-Israel lobbyist and as director of a pro-Israel think tank in Washington before taking a position in the Clinton administration from which he helped make policy on Palestinian-Israeli issues. Another has headed the pro-Israel think tank since leaving government.

The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office.

 http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/neocons.html

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

I'll let anyone interested browse Counterpunch and decide for themselves what their agenda is:

 http://www.counterpunch.org/

In other words, you can't actually address the subject.

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

And there are many more sources, including the mainstream media, who support the simple concept you seem unable to grasp. Israel, and those aligned with militant Zionism, are the ONLY people clamouring for another War of Aggression.

Certainly, oil and money are other considerations, but Israel is the main proponent here. The other considerations are simply what they've used to gain the support of the people who profit from conflict.

I'll leave it to the reader to evaluate the motives of the author inthe context of the sites they are disseminated from.

In other words, you can't actually address the subject.

Questioning Motives, without any explanation, and without addressing the subject, is nothing but more empty Disinformation.

Keep in mind that this is widely reported in the corporate press as well.