It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Foreign policy expert says Bush has ruled out first-strike on Iran

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at New America Foundation and publisher of The Washington Note, claims that Bush is not (yet) on Cheney's side, who is in favor of attacking Iran.

Bush gravest concern is that the US might seize on an accidental incident such as a collision between a US and Iranian ship or a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran.


"A mistake in the Gulf where ships collide or US soldiers are attacked or Israel fires a low-level cruise missile attack against Natanz or there's a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran that results in the death of a high-ranking military or diplomatic official – any of these could spark a conflict," he said.

Of the indications that Bush has thus far tabled a preemptive strike, Clemons believes "the most significant is that the Cheney wing feels that Bush is not on their side and they're frustrated with that. The fact that the Cheney wing feels they need to tie Bush's hands, 'end run' the president and remove the 'diplomatic course' from the field of options in front of the President is an indication that Bush hasn’t decided to bomb."


The Chiefs unanimously opposed to taking the course of action Cheney & Co favors. When Bush asked them about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran, the military top stated that they couldn't guarantee a successful elimination of all Iranian facilities as the intelligence inside Iran is very limited.


But I do worry about the Cheney gang and the [Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps]/Ahmadinejad crowd in Iran trying to precipitate a spark that produces a very fast escalation that circumvents most of Bush’s national security decisionmaking structure -- and that kind of war is something we should worry about. That's what I think could happen.


And we better all worry about this Cheney and the gang that shares his radical ideas. Don't be surprised if Cheney - without Bush's approval - and maybe in co-operation with Israel would give approval for a false flag operation to provoke war with Iran.

Source


[edit on 20-9-2007 by Mdv2]




posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Increased CIA activity on the ground

RAW STORY has reported on alleged attempts by the Office of the Vice President to provoke Iran into a first strike situation as a pre-text for US strikes.

Managing Editor Larisa Alexandrovna reported in August on alleged new activities by the Central Intelligence Agency, seen by some to suggest US escalating its attempts to provoke Iran.

Clemons first revealed a battle between Cheney aides and those at the State and Defense Department in May. Supporting a pre-emptive strike, he said, was Cheney's office; opposing was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.

"The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles)," he wrote.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Cheney worries me greatly, because there is NO GAIN in attacking Iran,
even corporately, there's no profit to be made UNLESS u plan on another occupation, thus meaning contractors and oil fields.

So why does he want missile strikes against Iran?
What exactly is profitable in striking Iran?

...... something bigger is on the cards, striking Iran doesnt help cheney, yet he's pushing for it to occur.

Odd.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
So why does he want missile strikes against Iran?
What exactly is profitable in striking Iran?

...... something bigger is on the cards, striking Iran doesnt help cheney, yet he's pushing for it to occur.

Odd.


I think he profits from it greatly, even if we dont realize it. Everything evil in this world is done because greedy people want more money and power.

And I dont trust that Bush dont want a war. This seems more like a play to make Bush look more human, and then when they go to war, Bush can say that Cheney misunderstood his instructions or something like that.

USA wants this war to happen. Everyone who has followed the events during the last month or so should be able to feel it. USA are acting very aggressive, forcing other countries to act aggressively in return.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I dunno to be honest.
I think bush went along with Iraq, and has realised how much of a mistake it was to follow cheney's/wolfies advice.

AS for Iran? Bush knows if he commits to Iran, he'll be hung.
It will be a crime, and the USA will not succeed in neither Iraq nor Iran.
But has so much of an ego, he realises his name will be tarnished 1000x more than it is already.

Where as Cheney, seems to have the REAL united states government under him, and following him.

Cheney is the man behind the curtains obviously, im hoping George wont follow along again.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
People!!! They DONT HAVE to attack Iran. They can cause trouble elsewhere and BLAME IT ON IRAN.

I'm still waiting for the prophecy where "we" sink a large ship and blame it on Iran.
They will find the way, imo.
THEN they will attack. As it stands, they cant just go barging in right now and throw a few nukes. :shk:



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
problem there is, too many people expect it.
Iran would flat out deny it, make a major public fuss and even demand a UN investigation. The US wouldnt be able to hold all the evidence under 'national security' the world would demand transperancy.... people know this, so the government wont try to trick us into believing otherwise.
You cant fool the public twice, you wouldnt even try.

Iran dont want to be the starters, because history will judge very harshly on the next incident of this crisis.
They have no reason, time is their friend, they can continue nuclear work, Iraqi intervention and a buildup of defenses.

America cant attack, simply because of the outrage over Iraq, plus it would drive many more muslims against the US, if they activley invade 3x arab nations, America doesnt want to...

But Israel....

Some say Israel HELPED the US in making a major blunder by occupying Iraq. Some say Israel had prior knowledge of the 911 attacks, yet didnt figure out how to inform out governmnet in time.
Israel seemed very aggresive in Lebanon, over 1 kidnapped solider..
So what do you think they are planning, over Iran 'apparently' building nuclear weapons?

Israel will strike, with some new production weapon that happens to be like American atom-bunker buster's..
Iran will retaliate, and we will declare them a rogue nation.
We wont hit them though, until they start throwing vbieds at our troops near the greenzone.
We'll immediately state Iran did it, in response to Israel's attack, publically... then begin the raids.

This will occur over a 5 day period.
What happens after that, who knows?... but god save us!


The best case scenario?
Israel tells us behind closed doors, they are going in full guns blazing, and they cannot rule out the use of tactical nukes.
We have 7 days, to force Iran down, or Israel will take the reigns.
They will blackmail us!

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Its all very simple actually. If Iran would just provide full disclosure on their nuclear program then all of this can be avoided. If they would rather risk spending all that money on a program that will be ultimately destroyed anyway instead of spending it on their own citizens then it looks like they are going to reap what they sow.

It doesnt mean its right, its just a fact that folks are going to have to live with while they bitch about it.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
If there was ever a more deserving person for this websites attention it is the ever popular Dicky. The evil just oozes out of him, he has scared the s*&t out of me - has sincwe I first saw him on campaign in '00. A political Jeffery Daumer, lacking any redeemable quality ( at least jeffery came to realize his acts as cruel & sick). Dicks out trolling for his next victim before the last one (or two) gasped their last breath.. that man is PURE EVIL/ The Anti Christ !
( & I'm not religious, hate doctrine & dogma)



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Eurasia is much more reliant on middle-eastern oil then the US is.
That is and imho has always been the goal in destabilizing the region, gaining power over the oil thats needed by Europe, Russia and China.

Why do you think Russia and China oppose any attack on Iran and even consider (or actually do) to help defend Iran?



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

The fact that the Cheney wing feels they need to tie Bush's hands, 'end run'


Isn't this considered treason???



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Nope, its called politics, but your right, its pritty much the same thing.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
If a army private did an end run around his commanding officer, he'd end up the the brig and or court marshalled so why shouldn't cheney receive the same? Obviously I know that the answer is, the current administration is corrupt.

The most concerning thing to me is that Bush seems to be showing a glimmer of hope that we won't start another pointless war but cheney seems intent on violating his oath of office and starting the war regardless of the constitution and word of law.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join