Media obsesses over possibility of war with Iran

Interesting cover article for this week's Newsweek replete with an alarmist tone, high octane headline ("Blowup? America's Hidden War with Iran") as well as unsourced rumors from administration officials. So what is the actual likelihood of the US launching a military attack against Iran? I would have to say, even after reading this sensationalist reporting, that the odds are still pretty low.

Of course, Bush and Cheney will keep pointing an accusatory finger at the country's leaders, blaming them for arming the insurgency next door in Iraq (a totally BS claim, as Asia Times Online's excellent reporting proves) and will continue to claim it cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but at the end of the day our military forces have been stretched too thin, Bush's approval rating is hovering around 30% and the Neoconservatives have been proven to be inveterate liars and incompetents. So there's no way we're going to go after Iran next, right?

From the article: "At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran . . . but the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous."

Sounds pretty damning to me.

There is also some helpful retracing of the recent history between the US and Iran that has already been heavily reported and accepted by Western audiences: the financial and political support Iran's leaders gave the coalition to help stabilize Afghanistan in 2001 after the fall of the Taliban, the Bush administration's slap in the face to the regime just a few months later by labeling it part of the "Axis of Evil" and Cheney's refusal to allow then-Secretary of State Colin Powell from engaging with the regime diplomatically.

I don't really consider Newsweek to be a particularly credible source of intel regarding Bush's plans for dealing with Iran, and would feel more comfortable relying on the reporting of, say, Seymour Hersh over at the New Yorker, but even he seems to have jumped the gun regarding Iran. For example, check out this article in New Yorker over two years ago that claimed a war against the regime was inevitable (I suppose he might unfortunately be vindicated in the next two years, but I think it is increasingly unlikely). Amy Goodman, interviewed the reporter over at AlterNet, lending credence to his claims of a secret Neocon cabal aimed at launching an invasion on the sly.

Look, I'm just as guilty of jumping the gun regarding the imminent and "inevitable" US military attack on Iran, writing about the topic off and on for the past two and a half years.

If you are actually interested in what former governmental and regional experts think about the prospect of war with Iran, you can gain some further insight by this article by Ken Silverstein. It's part one in a three-part series evaluating the possibility of war. And for more mainstream media coverage of the US's naval buildup off the shores of Iran, and its likely impact, check out this pieve from NBC News written last December.

According to one of the regional experts Silversrein interviewed; "There is a real possibility that George Bush will order a military strike on Iran before he leaves the White House. The signs include: the build-up of Navy forces in the Persian Gulf, the capture of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, and the appearance of Undersecretary of State Nick Burns and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England at a security conference in Israel with pro-war elements of the Israeli military. Also, the administration has armed Iran's Arab neighbors with Patriot missiles. The Pentagon halted all sales of spare parts from its recently retired F-14 fighter jet fleet because of concerns they could be transferred to Iran. Moreover, the U.S. military has accused people at the highest levels of Iranian government of supplying increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents. All signs point to a coming confrontation between the United States and Iran."

The same expert offers readers the following sober prediction: "If the United States attacks Iran, the consequences would be disastrous. It would produce a wave of patriotic solidarity with the theocratic regime in Iran, even among those young Iranians who are fiercely critical of the mullahs, and another tidal wave of reaction around the world, especially among Muslims. Within Iraq, Bush's policy has led to an increase in sectarian fighting, so an attack on Iran would be seen as anti-Shiite as well as anti-Iranian. As of last year, for the first time, a majority of Iraqi Shiites support armed attacks on U.S.-led forces, and if the United States attacks Iran, Iraqi Shiite militias will direct their anger at American soldiers and military personnel."

Writing at GlobalResearch.ca, journalist Deniz Yeter speculates Bush plans on triggering an "accidental conflict" as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" against Iran (see update below). As far as conspiracy theories go, this one is backed up with pretty solid research and is semi-plausible in my opinion. As part of its evidence, the article cites Hillary Mann, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2004, eho claims Bush is looking to provoke a conflict. Yeter aso offers some historical examples where the US has similarly goaded and provoked conflicts, including the Mexican-American War (1846), the Spanish-American War (1898), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964) aming many others.

Finally, Reuters reports that a senior government official is calling Condi Rice on the carpet for lying about her supposedly never seeing a proposal offered by Iran to begin talks with the US back in 2003. The official, former National Security Council member under Rice Floyd Leverett, stated that this offer was serious and similar to Nixon's famous offer to China to hold diplomatic talks back in 1972.

According to Leverett, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a discussion about the Iranian proposal, was frustrated at the time because he "couldn't sell it at the White House", demonstrative evidence the offer in fact had been discussed by Bush and/or Cheney.

Update: Deniz Yeter was kind enough to forward me the link to an updated version of his excellent article. I highly recommend it.