Will the October Surprise be a war with Iran?

[Poiuyt]

I had heard talk a couple of weeks ago about this happening. Now with Iran saying that they might pre-emptively attack the US to prevent a pre-emptive strike from us, it seems like it's becoming more likely.

I hope I'm being silly about this, but when I put on my tin foil hat, I think that Bush/Rove are behind this warning from Iran. Nothing would get the American public more riled up than an attack on the US from Iran.

[DaveFL99]

1. Rove doesn't need a real war

just a demonization of a new enemy and the rally round the flag effect that comes from the talk of war

[PatriotGames]

2. Nothing would shock me at this point.

[tom_paine]

5. Exactly. If the Busheviks started the mass arrests and "relocation" camps

with the help of the Freeeprs, it wouldn't shock me in the least.

I might be a little surprised it happened so fast relative to what I though but ALL Totalitarianism eventuallys reaches the same end.

[havocmom]

3. If attack on Iran is the Oct. surprise, martial law and draft will be the

surprise for Nov. Doesn't Iran have like 6 time as many people as Iraq? And the resources with which to defend itself?

Gads, I hope the military brass is brassy enough to realize they need to lock the neocon junta-men up in a closet if they start talking seriously about attacking Iran.

[nickinSTL]

4. attacking Iran would be a horrendous mistake

I hope enough of the military would understand this.

Without the military, say goodbye to war in Iran and any chance of martial law.

[EstimatedProphet]

6. Why on earth would THEY attack US?

As if it were possible for Iran to pre-emptively attack the US and take us over! Even as over-extended as we are, they won't attack us because they know we'll still have plenty of force to counterattack.

[Kinkistyle]

9. They mean pre-emptively attacking troops in Iraq.

Iran has no means of formally attacking the U.S. mainland aside from box-cutters on planes. Lets get something straight here - Iraq is now the 52nd state (UK is the 51st).

[Ravenseye]

12. Poor Canada...

The used to be the 51st state...now just because they don't go along with us once, they get moved down below Iraq...

It's a sad day for Canadians. ;)

[peacetalksforall]

14. But we are the 2nd state of Israel.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Sure, but...

I understand the idea that they will defend against an attack. I still don't understand, or at least I think it's strategically idiotic, that they would pre-emptively attack our forces in the region. This would only serve to further our idea that we must dominate the Middle East.

[Kinkistyle]

20. Fight for its life?

The U.S. showed that it is willing to invade and occupy a country regardless of what the world thinks and regardless of what the leaders of the country do. Iran has the means to defend itself, it knows that the U.S. military is seriously over-extended, it realizes that Muslims all over are incensed about the U.S., and it is run by radical clerics.

[EstimatedProphet]

23. Again, no argument, but:

Iran has got to know that we will counterattack if they attack us, even if we are overextended in the region. Bush is talking about withdrawing troops from the rest of the world for the middle east; I just don't think they would give him extra fuel for the fire and do something that he could point to and say "See? I tod you we need to bring in more troops!"
In other words, they may believe that we intend to attack, or they could go and do something that would guarantee we attack.

[xchrom]

7. obl in a ribbon

[zeemike]

8. It depends on Kerry

And how he is doing in the polls as to how sever the October surprise is.
And it may not require a full war to achieve the desired effect. Precision bomb attacks on nuclear facilities could do just as well as the media shows the burning buildings and military commander gives his presentations to the press.

[Comicstripper]

10. Nope

Not gonna happen. troops are too steched as it is. it would only bring criticism after two unsuccessful wars and hurt bush.

[yellowcanine]

11. October surprise may be a "Tet" offensive in Iraq by the insurgents.

And it will hurt Bush, not help him. You heard it here first. (actually credit to George Will! for this).

[Strelnikov_]

13. An October Attack Would Most Likely Be On Bushehr Nuclear Facility

The following is an article that addresses October in Iran.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch%202004.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=238&rnd=350.2308468584926

I don't know if the above 'source' is 'reputable' or not, but an Israeli response to the possibility of Iran producing plutonium is consistent with past pre-emptive actions.

I have also seen speculation in other articles that Israel does not have the capability to pull off the attack without U.S. assistance. Therefore, I think the implication that something is up with a U.S. response is consistent for the following reasons:

- U.S. has much greater capability to pull off the attack, and the current U.S. administration has been marching in lockstep with the Sharon government.
- Perception in the administration that the backlash against the U.S. would be less than Israel.
- The current administrations willingness to use military/security issues for political gain.

Fueling of this facility is scheduled for next year. The administration could argue that the timing of the attack was due to an accelerated fueling schedule at the facility (to destroy the facility before it is a radiation hazard). This will also be the reason they could use for not going to Congress for authorization, citing the 'imminent' nature of the threat (where have we heard that before) and the need to maintain secrecy.

The operation would be the kind of 'safe' air-power display that politicians are so fond of. The strike would probably be made with F-117's and B-2 bombers (the F-117's were forward deployed to S. Korea last month on an exercise).

There were 5 CSG's currently deployed to Asian-Pacific region as part of 'Operation Summer Pulse' earlier this summer (which is unprecedented per media reports). I have not seen any reports on where these groups currently are, but that is a lot of firepower just for an exercise. Some naval aviation would probably be required in the above type of operation to provide air cover in the event Iran attempts to retaliate against U.S. forces in the Gulf region.

I just think there are still a lot of diplomatic options to be explored regarding this issue. Do we really want to further stir up an already stirred up hornets nest. I hope that before the administration makes some ill-advised political move they consider the following words:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

Sir Winston Churchill

[peacetalksforall]

16. This sentence from above says everything as far as the right wing's

attack on all of us inside and outside the U.S. This is how they manipulate everything....

quote

The current administrations willingness to use military/security issues for political gain.

unquote

[leeman67]

15. Never happen

I just think cooler heads would prevail and realize it would be our complete undoing. Our military is just stretched way too thin now as it is, and short of using nukes, it wouldn't be the conventional "cakewalk" that we saw initially in Afganistan and Iraq. And if we do use nukes, look for the rest of the world (Europe, Russia, China et al) to feel threatened enough to finally attempt to take us down. It could be WWIII, for real.

The neo-cons have only so much influence, I would hope. I do expect an October Surprise of some sort, but don't think it will be anything so major. The polls are so close, it won't have to be.

I'm still nervous about the GOP convention and the kind of media coverage will be given to the protests. All it takes is a few wacked-out anarchists to do something really stupid and Fox News, CNN, etc. will pounce. The story won't be how angry New Yorkers and citizens in general are at BushCo. It will be, look at crazy these anti-Bush nuts are, and gee, anyone who is anti-Bush must be equally crazy and "hate 'Murka", including Kerry and all the Democrats. I really hope I'm wrong, but I've seen how things have been reported on and handled since 2000, and I can just see it coming.

[peacetalksforall]

17. One of the people I detest the most, the guy that rotates between

FOX & NBC & CNN, Adm James Woolsey - was on this morning softening us up for a war on Iran. A lot of you don't like to listen to those propaganda shows, but they are useful for sensing and revealing their plans for the world.

They've been doing this for awhile. I'm sure the troop redeployment is part of it.

WHAT IS SO HORRIBLE FOR WE CITIZENS is that everything that they do is our fault. We let those people rise up. We were blind to things that didn't come together right - traitorous relationships with all kinds of leaders of other countries that resulted in massacres of the little people, predatory banking policies against the people, broken treaties, payola to leaders in the form of aid that never made it to the people, selling nuclear supplies and technology to leaders of countries one day and making them our enemy the next, the possibility that they are part of the street drug problem, the support of corporations in the rape of lands and slave labor. We caused the problem in those countries and we can't control it - so these neo-cons want to make money on the attempt to control it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Air strikes by us, or by/with our Israeli surrogates.

It would be almost perfect for Bush and Sharon. Both could crow about fighting "newkular terrorism" to an adoring public. This after putting on a stern face and demanding that Iran allow full inspections and voicing the "threat" that Iran poses.

After the bombing both could strut and smirk and trot out the pilots and talk about the heroism of "our" troops in preventing the destruction of 'Murka and Israel.

The Democrats could look solemn and talk about "more" diplomacy before giving their OK to more money for "defense", and Sharon could install some more settlements and blow up some more "terrorists" in Palestine.

Of course, nothing will be said about Israel's WMD or their contributions to "regional stability".

[LeftHander]

21. I agree....I think the only hope of re-election is all out war....

With bombs and missiles flying all over the middle-east.....

Now we know why troops are being pulled from EUrope and Asia...to prepare to be redeployed in the MIddle East...and because once we attack Iran Europe will no longer be our ally. We will abandon Korea. The real enemy now is the Muslim workd according to Bush. We will be come the Axis power in World War III.

Iran is being backed into a corner by the US, Isreal and old guard Saddam/US loyalists.

Remember we HELP IRaq fight against Iran. There are many folks in Iraq that would like to see Iran fall into U.S./Iraqi control.

Given what this Administration and the neocons have done already it should not become a shock that they will attack....They can will do it.

[ASanders84]

22. If Bush declared war on Canada

I still wouldn't be shocked.

[michigandem2]

24. They sure are beating that drum

it has crossed my mind but goign to war with Iran doesn't sound like it would get many more rallied behind bush when the view on the war is starting to go south...
nothing surprises me though, these guys are capable of anything

[KoKo]

25. Does Israeli Army have enough troops to help us fight in Iran? If Bush/

Cheney/PNAC decide they need to take out Iraq's capabilities to fire on Israel, wouldn't it be logical for us to join with the Israeli forces if we had to go in and "mop up" after a bombing?

If they have enough troops then that takes away the biggest hurdle of "where do we get more troops to fight in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. I don't know if Blair would be up for joining along, but he might. :shrug: It would certainly open up the Middle East.

[G_j]

26. shipment of 100 F16-1s to Israel

.. a few snips from a good article


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=6039

The Next Imperial Lunacy
Super-bully going to Iran?

by Aseem Shrivastava

<snip>
The Republican National Convention in New York City begins on August 30. A victory in Najaf, unlike the fiasco in Fallujah, would lend some cheer to the Bush-Cheney ticket. Al-Sadr’s capture or killing would bring a smile of hope to Republican faces, anxious as they are with the fallout of Michael Moore’s film. Better still would be a full-scale attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in an appropriate week before the November elections.

And that is what the shipment of 100 F16-1s to Israel and the stab at Najaf are about. They are meant to provoke Iran’s ruling Sh’iite theocracy into some form of military retaliation, which would give Bush the ideal pretext to attack Iran. There are already murmurs in the media (BBC, for instance) that there are Iranians fighting in Najaf. Hazim al-Shaalan, defense minister in the Iraqi stooge-government declares, "Iranian intrusion has been vast and unprecedented since the establishment of the Iraqi state."

That is also what the global "realignment" of US troops is all about. London’s Financial Times reports this weekend that 70,000 US troops are being asked to move, mostly from Europe. It is ominous when troops stationed in Germany since 1945 are going to be needed elsewhere. Where?

When one considers the history of faked incidents created by the US to start a new war – the sinking of the USS Maine in 1898 and blaming it on Spain and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 for which the North Vietnamese were held responsible, come to mind, not to speak of Saddam himself being lured into Kuwait in 1990 (as the Senate hearings revealed) – it is far from unlikely that Iran will be inveigled into a war.

<snip>