The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back.
The Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships.
This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system.
While such an attack could be expected to unleash a wave of military violence all over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere against American forces and interests and against oil wells, pipelines and loading vacilities, as well as a mining of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with a resulting skyrocketing of global oil prices, the real goal of this new war by the U.S. would be ensuring Republican control of the House and Senate.
It seems increasingly clear that the Republican Party is going to lose its grip on the House of Representatives, and that it may even lose control of the Senate, barring some dramatic October Surprise by the president. So far, the surprises have been working against Republicans, with the Foley sex scandal, the evidence that Abramoff's bribery reached right into the inner sanctum of the White House, and the deteriorating U.S. position in Iraq.
With the number of House seats reportedly "in play" now rising from 15 to 30 and now 50, President Bush is looking at the possibility of a blow out Nov. 7 that could see him facing a Democratic Congress bent on revenge for five six years of systematic abuse.
Bush has committed a long string of impeachable crimes against the Constitution, the Republic and the American people -- everything from lying to the Congress and the 9-11 Commission, obstructing an investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, abuse of power, violation of federal laws like the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, dereliction of duty and criminal negligence, and war crimes. He can expect a Democratic Congress to call him to account for at least some of these crimes, whatever House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may say today.
This means that the worse things look for Republican chances in November, the greater the likelihood that a desperate President Bush will order a disastrous attack on Iran -- one that would have the country enter into a third, even worse, war even as it is currently busy losing two others. But Bush and his gang of cronies don't care about initiating a disaster. They're focussed on the disaster that will hit them if they don't turn around the November election. Sacrificing the country or its young men and women in uniform, or the lives of innocent Iranians, is not a concern, any more than it was when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.
Clearly such a war would be an act of madness, and yet we know that the plans, already drawn up, are being updated and fine-tuned now by generals and admirals whose twisted sense of patriotism has them giving primary loyalty to a demented commander in chief instead of to the Constitutional and the people of the United States, to both of which they swore an oath to protect.
I hope I am wrong about all this, but the sailing of the Eisenhower, which had been pushed forward recently by about a month by the Pentagon for clearly political reasons, makes me think I'm right. A key will be what happens with the Enterprise carrier strike force, which has already been on station in the Arabian Sea for six months, where it has been launching air strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq targets. Ordinarily, such deployments last six months and then the carrier group returns to base for resupply and for R&R for the crew. If the Enterprise is held over for a longer deployment, after the arrival of the Eisenhower, we will know that something serious is planned.
What is deeply troubling here is the total silence on the part of the Democratic Party opposition. Not one Democrat in Congress, and as far as I know, not one Democratic candidate for Congress -- not even anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in Connecticut -- has demanded an answer from Bush and the Pentagon for the obvious military buildup around Iran, or about published reports that the U.S. already has special forces in side Iran backing the terrorist organization MEK, and selecting targets for U.S. bombardment.
If and when the U.S. attacks Iran, leading to a predicable -- if temporary -- rallying around the flag by the American public, and to an upset win by incumbent Republican congressional candidates, Democrats will have only themselves to blame for the debacle.
But it will be the American people -- and especially the people of Iran -- who will be the victims of this treacherous deed and this treasonous failure of will.
Dave Lindorff is co-author with Barbara Olshansky of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office [0]" (St. Martin's Press, June 2006). His work can be found at
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
Not true
10.10.2006 12:17
Paul Edwards
Well... what exactly isn't true?
10.10.2006 14:26
So what exactly isn't true in the article? What point are you trying to make -- that preperations for war with Iran are not happening and that there is not going to be such a war? If you are then please provide some evidence that this is the case -- it would be very welcome news indeed...
A couple of points that the article above doesn't make are that:
(1) It is often that case that when an election is looming and there is an unpopular war going on it is common for troop numbers to be *reduced* to try to boost ratings. The opposite is happening now, dispite that fact that the Iraq war is more unpopular than ever in the US.
(2) Recently the British troops abandoned their biggest base in Iraq in order that the tooprs could move up to the Iranian border.
These article have more details on the buildup to war:
The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks
nowar
The Yorkshire ranter
10.10.2006 15:27
sceptic
Interesting...
10.10.2006 15:47
There will be no attack on Iran this year
Perhaps The Yorkshire Ranter is right -- I hope so, but some things have been missed -- if the US are planning, at this stage, to simply have a big shock and awe bombing campaign then I think they have the resources for this -- for example The Yorkshire Ranter seems to have missed the plan to use ICBMs (perhaps with nuclear war heads...?):
"In October [2005], the [Air Force Space] command also launched a one-year study to evaluate options for a “prompt global strike” capability. One concept floated frequently is replacing some nuclear warheads on ICBMs with conventional warheads so the missiles can be used to attack targets anywhere in the world on short notice. Approximately 30 minutes would be the maximum flight time required."
And:
Reuters: Rumsfeld eyes ICBMs in terror war
"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday warned North Korea may pose a threat as a weapons seller to terrorists and that America would consider taking the nuclear warheads off intercontinental ballistic missiles so they could be used against terrorists."
Also The Yorkshire Ranter knows that the British deployment to the Iranian border has been done under a false pretext:
Yet no conclusion is drawn from this... What are the troops doing there?
And why has there been no reduction in troop deployments in the run up to the 7th November election? Bush is facing a tough battle to keep control of Congress and having some media pr along the lines of "we are winning and we are reducing troop numbers to prove it" would help him...
nowar
Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse
10.10.2006 16:03
The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. 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.
Those in Washington who advocate this war, knowing as little about the limitations and chaos of war as they do about the Middle East, believe they can hit about 1,000 sites inside Iran to wipe out nuclear production and cripple the 850,000-man Iranian army. The disaster in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli air campaign not only failed to break Hezbollah but united most Lebanese behind the militant group, is dismissed. These ideologues, after all, do not live in a reality-based universe. The massive Israeli bombing of Lebanon failed to pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 70 million people? As retired General Wesley K. Clark and others have pointed out, once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters, cruise missiles and iron fragmentation bombs on Iran this is the choice that must be faced—either sending American forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war or walking away in humiliation.
nowar
ICBMs ...
10.10.2006 18:47
They don't have the accuracy [c.e.p. of more than 100m]. This doesn't matter with a nuclear warhead; it does with a conventional one.
Secondly, their payload is relatively small - nukes are minaturised these days.
Thirdly, they are horrendously expensive.
Fourthly, there simply aren't enough of them to do signficant damage.
Fifthly, no one is going to launch ICBMs without notice. Other nuclear states are going to get very very nervous about something like that. Who is to know whether they are conventional or nuclear armed - until they hit their target?
As for an attack on Iran - the US military are barely coping in Iraq. The idea they could take on yet another country is laughable. Even if Rumsfeld suggested it to the Chiefs of Staff, they'd tell him where to go very quickly. One aircraft carrier is not going to be able to conquer a country like Iran. For that, you'd need helicopters, tanks, and a hundred thousand foot troops. yes, they are in Iraq. But they do rather have their hands full there.
sceptic
But if...
11.10.2006 00:37
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
nowar
false flag?
11.10.2006 19:16
I pass these thoughts along uncritically, because I have no insider knowledge. What is interesting, but potentially contrived so that it lends the predictions greater credibility, is that the US are not above using false flag operations to initiate a particular policy - e.g. world domination, entering WWII - and that losing an aircraft carrier like Eisenhower would produce significant shock among the population, enabling the MSM to declare that the US is under attack (can't you just see the headlines on CNN and BBC2?) and for the politicians to stand looking all solemn (unless Georgie is in a schoolroom again?) and to tell us that we "have no alternative but to retaliate with extreme prejudice" for the good of world peace and safety (naturally!). The US is, IMO, itching to punish N Korea for flagrantly testing its nuke. They probably want also to show China a thing or two to make them back away and show how much their nuclear weapons development programme has progressed since the US design blueprints were stolen in the late 90s by a Chinese mole in Los Alamos. The US would also be wanting to take Iran out quickly and seize control of the region - and they will have to revert to their old tactic of "shock and awe" ... and it doesn't get that much more aw(e)ful than a nuke explosion, does it?
Also, there is the little niggling thing that I have been curious about for a while now. With the huge fiscal investments in weapons research - electronics, sound, HAARP (
dr jeckyl