Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran - By Scott Ritter

[CHIMO]

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.

There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was
going.

The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.

That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5FCF4A-FBF6-443A-93A9-5E37C43FDE0B.htm

Some more of the story.

[Carolab]

1. June 2005. Mark your calendars. n/t

[necso]

2. If we are talking about

attacks that are mostly air attacks (planes, missiles), then June is not an unreasonable date.

I have seen other references to June as the "decisive date" or the "point of no return" for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program. Of course, one suspects that this timing, if not the whole line (that this is a threat), is complete bullshit, so maybe the date will slip. And military plans do slip sometimes more or less of themselves -- and sometimes they slip because the assumptions on which they are based don't pan out in a timely manner -- or are completely delusional (like sometimes the plans themselves are).

And there is the Israeli strike on Saddam's nuclear program as an historical example. The Israelis could be expected to see the Iranian program as being as threatening to them as Saddam's (or even more so). They could also be expected to hope to see this "problem" taken care of in the same manner; a manner that could, theoretically at least, prove effective, if only for a time. (But true effectiveness may not be so easy in this case, or even possible -- and that, in itself, is reason for carefully considering any potential military action -- to say nothing of other potential consequences, like exploding oil prices and possible Iranian retaliation.) And Israel has stated that the Iranian nuclear issue (nuclear program if not nuclear weapons program) is one for the US to handle (for some time anyway -- or so I seem to recall).

Bolton going to the UN isn't a good sign either. This guy isn't a hard liner, he's an extremist nut-job. And there is a considerable difference.

[necso]

5. Oh,

and potential dates of more readily tangible substance than this "decisive date" are such dates as nuclear fuel is delivered to target sites -- or the dates that these sites go "hot".

These dates would certainly be desirable to attack before, but whether or not any of them amounts to a "decisive date" is another matter. "Better before date" may be more descriptive -- in the grim logic of such things.

And the real plan could be something else -- like an Israeli and/or US attack at any time.

[KG]

3. the mainstream media did not 'sleepwalk', the lustily cheered on the

march to the clusterfuck in iraq.

shameful.

[anarchy1999]

4. Oh holy s! There is just not about anyone I respect more than Mr. Ritter!

Damned it!

Why are there not enough of us to care enough to stop this insanity. A very good friend used to say to me "embrace the insanity". He is gone now, lost to us, thanks to the VA and a very rich dad, 150 Xanax a month were not enough to keep him sane, but that's a whole 'nother story.

[bemildred]

6. So, umm, I guess it's nice of us to let Iran know the date.

This does seem like an excellent reason for Iran to
support continued ugliness in Iraq and the Spring offensive.