The Coming War Against Iran

The Coming War Against Iran

st
This is an excellent summary of the main evidence for a buildup towards an eventual war against Iran


Thursday, 25 January 2007
By Daan de Wit

Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran.

The Coming War Against Iran

By Daan de Wit

01/25/07 "ICHBlog" -- - Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran.


Bush and Cheney have less than two years to go in their current role and want to go down in the history books as the heroes of the Pax Americana, as the men who managed to conquer the Middle East and its oil, as the men who took full-spectrum dominance seriously, while in their own country booking successes through exorbitant profits for the military-industrial complex and the realization of radical legislation. The prelude was long and the path was full of obstacles, but the goal of a third great war - a war with Iran - is increasingly within sight. Dan Plesch in The Guardian sums it up in one sentence: 'All the signs are that Bush is planning for a neocon-inspired military assault on Iran'.

'Americans don't have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush's "surge" speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East', writes Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan. 'Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush's nationwide address, NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said "there's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue — in the country and the world — in a very acute way"', writes Robert Parry. Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, himself a presidential candidate for 2008, says: '"The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran," he said, adding that the Bush administration is "treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on".' ING Wholesale Banking warns in their report [PDF] Attacking Iran that the financial markets could be in for 'a heavy shock' in the event of a preemptive attack on Iran. The report is practical as well; under the heading 'Top trades in the event of an attack on Iran', advice for buying and selling can be found, such as: 'Buy Oil and Gold, Sell industrial commodities'. Meanwhile the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is letting it be known that he disposes over the same devotion as his adversary Bush: '"Today, with the grace of God, we have gone through the arduous passes and we are ready for anything in this path," state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Thursday'.

Speculation over the beginning of the attack on Iran
In reference to the American raid on an Iranian consulate in Irbil, Northern Iraq, in which five Iranians were taken into custody, John Pike of Global Security points to the presence of two aircraft carriers in the Gulf (other warships are steaming in that direction) and to the surge-speech by George W. Bush, in which he announced that Patriot missiles would be deployed in member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), like Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia. 'Iran has denounced the Patriot deployment as part of U.S. plan to turn Arab countries into a front line of protection for Israel', writes Associated Press. Bush: 'We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.' Pike speaking to CNN: '[...] It's looks to me like the United States is, at least, raising its capabilities in preparation for possible military confrontation with Iran."' Pike considers it a strong possibility that this confronation will take place this year, and has even published a 'Countdown time line' with potential dates on which an attack is likely. In Pike's opinion, February of 2007 is a genuine possibility for a strike on Iran. February is also the month in which Ahmadinejad will be announcing progress with their nuclear program, and will also mark the end of the sixty-day period given to Iran in UN resolution 1713 [PDF] to bring an end to their nuclear program. On February 21st, the IAEA will deliver a report on Iran, something which Israel and the U.S. will again be able to seize upon when pointing to Iranian negligence.
The editor-in-chief of the Arab Times is expecting an attack before April: 'U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the Gulf.' The Arab Times is basing its opinion on only one source. ING Wholesale Banking writes [PDF] in the preface to their report on Iran: 'We outline a scenario in which Israel attacks 5 or 6 of Iran's nuclear facilities in late February or March 2007, with strikes that may be completed within hours, days or at most weeks.'
What could also hasten an attack on Iran are two divergent realities, namely that the announced Tor-M1 air defense system is now being delivered to Iran, and that Bush's comrade-in-arms Tony Blair will be stepping down this year. In a recent announced that he wants to make more money available for the British army.

Banks putting Iran under pressure
The latest news doesn't portend anything good, but those who read between the lines can see that other preparations are also being made. Comparable to an extent with the No Fly Zone War, which preceded the latest war against Iraq, Iran is being softened up in advance: 'While people are concerned with Iraq and the gathering armada in the Persian Gulf, United States has been quietly carrying out a not so covert economic war against Iran', writes Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar. 'The attack on Iranian economy started in earnest in early 2006. United States began putting considerable pressure on international banks and financial institutions to cut their ties with Iran. Countries also were pressured to reduce their economic contact with Iran. [...] Governments, companies and financial institutions are under intense pressure to terminate all dealings with Iran. But so far Iran has managed to sustain, albeit with great difficulty, its oil industry and financial institutions functioning.' Little by little banks are severing their ties with Iran: '"The reason: oil transactions are in dollar assets. To the extent that any banks have to convert their assets into dollars, they must use U.S. facilities and can be subject to U.S. sanctions", says Stuart Eizenstat, former American Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs to Michael Hirsh, who writes: 'Recently the Iranians have countered, threatening to do business in Euros, but one by one, European banks are falling under U.S. pressure as well. On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal reported that Commerzbank, Germany's second largest, will stop handling dollar transactions for Iran—making it the last European bank to agree to do so.'

Anti-Iranian propaganda
An argument often used against Iran concerns the aggressive pronouncement by its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinjehad that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Jonathan Steel, columnist for The Guardian, has subjected this statement and the translations thereof to further investigation. He has inquired with the BBC, among others. Steel: 'As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they [the BBC] had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October. Here is what the spokesman told me about the "off the map" section: "The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history". [...] So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.' Steel makes it clear that Ahmadinejad expressed a wish for a different government in Israel, not the destruction of Israel; 'He was not making a military threat'. The Jewish community in Iran isn't itching to flee either: only 152 of the 25,000 responded to calls from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
Then there is also the statement by Ahmadinejad in which he denies the Holocaust, that the Holocaust would be a myth. Kein Krieg! checked into it and it appears that Ahmadinejad is critical of the exploitation of the Holocaust. So the subject of his feelings on this is not the Holocaust itself, but rather what he sees as the exploitation thereof. From his statements it would be more proper to infer that he acknowledges the Holocaust - not that he denies it. This is the complete inverse of his words, which was corrected by Kein Krieg!, but has already done its propagandistic job in the minds of the public at large. And speaking of propaganda: 'The American Jewish Committee took out a full page ad [PDF] in The New York Times showing Iran in the center of concentric circles, including all the Middle East and beyond, asking: "Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe?"' Ex-Premier and leader of the Likud party Benjamin Netanyahu: "The year is 1938 and Iran is Germany," said Netanyahu, reiterating his message from last month in Los Angeles.' Whereby it was noted: 'Except that 2003 was also 1938, when Natanyahu said the same thing about Iraq. [...] And while he's calling Mahmoud Ahmadinjad Hitler these days, in the past he had bestowed that honor on Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat.' Cheney is operating on the same wavelength as Netanyahu: '"So the threat that Iran represents is growing," he [Cheney] said, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Mr. Hussein', writes The New York Times with subtlety.

Criticism of the neoconservative plans for Iran
Should it come to war, then the advice of Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, could end up being heeded. He is pleading for the impeachment of Bush as a way to prevent the war. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a presidential candidate for 2008, is threatening impeachment if Bush declares war on Iran. The criticism by Roberts is in line with that of Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who warns that Bush could order a 'Gulf of Tonkin type situation', i.e. a false-flag operation, as an excuse to attack Iran. The Republican Senator Chuck Hagel: '"I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it (last) Wednesday night"', who together with two Democrats and a Republican has introduced a resolution opposing the plans of President Bush. The White House even dragged Al Qaida into it in order to take the sting out of the criticism. Bush: 'Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on 60 Minutes brushed aside Congress as irrelevant. "I fully understand [the Congress] could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." Asked if he had sole authority "to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," Bush replied, "In this situation I do, yeah."'
Republican Rep. Walter Jones is determined to carry through on his resolution H.J. Res 14: 'Our constitution states that--while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars--only Congress has the power to authorize war', to which The Nation adds: 'Such a basic expression of the separation of powers should be obvious. But with the Bush Administration, one never knows.' The Wall Street Journal sees the seething criticism of Bush's plans as well and writes: 'Of more concern to U.S. lawmakers is the potential that these U.S. actions against Iran could escalate. Under one possible scenario, U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria in pursuit of suspected insurgents or their allies, or use alleged Iranian activities inside Iraq as a pretext for a wider assault on Iran. The fear is that any such military activities could ignite a wider conflict." The potential for sparking a wider conflict is great," said Trita Parsi, an Iran analyst and president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington. "I think that if we're going for a confrontation with Iran, the pretext will be Iraq."' Nicholas Burns sees it from a different perspective: 'Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said the administration is seeking to counter Iranian provocations across the region as part of a broader strategy. "Iran needs to learn to respect us," he said. "And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."'

War against Iran: Bush and Cheney have nothing to lose.
The decisions that Bush announced in his speech followed the replacement of the generals who were critical of some of the Bush policies, John Abizaid and George Casey, and John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence. This makes it clear that the neoconservative wind, after all the scandals and the dramatic turn of events in the war in Iraq, hasn't died down yet. Mainstream critic Keith Olbermann writes [video]: 'Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" - only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.' He compares Bush to the drunk who, beaten to the ground, asks who the next one is that wants a beating.
Bush and Cheney are again determined to defy the criticism in order to carry out an almost endless War against Terrorism: '"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term', says Cheney. War is not a means but an end in itself. Insurgents in Iraq aren't the problem, but those who oppose the war certainly are. But those critics are out of the way now: The critical generals have been replaced and the voice of the people along with the the opinions of the soldiers in Iraq are being ignored; discussions with Iran and Syria are being rejected; Patriot missiles are on their way and could intercept an Iranian counterattack following an Israeli and/or American attack; the warships in the Gulf could respond to these attacks by bombing Iraq with full force; the announced troop escalation in Iraq could eliminate Iran's potential trump card - attacks on Americans in and around the Iraqi Green Zone; the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Olmert (following the debâcle in Lebanon) are doing very poorly in the opinion polls, thus a spectacular attack by Israel, followed by America, could likewise render spectacular results for the status of both heads of state. Bush and Cheney have taken a beating, but they have not been defeated. Moreover, they have nothing to lose.

The Coming War Against Iran - Part 1 - 14
http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/407.html

Letter on Coming US attack on Iran

This letter was sent to the Brandon Sun, Brandon Manitoba


The Coming Attack on Iran


For some time now there has been a concerted campaign by the US to create negative attitudes toward Iran in tandem with a number of moves that prepare for an attack against it.

Reports of Iran meddling in Iraq are constant. Although hard evidence is noticeably absent, numerous anonymous intelligence experts and US officials complain of Iranian networks operating in Iran and of providing sophisticated IED devices that the Iraqi insurgents are supposedly incapable of producing. The US has gone so far as to raid a prominent Shia politician’s compound and nab five Iranians. It went even further and raided an Iranian “consul” in Erbil. It also pursued an Iranian to the Erbil airport where the raiders were confronted by Kurdish guards. In spite of the fact that these raids violated the sovereignty of Iraq and offended the government, the US is continuing this aggressive policy against Iran even at the same time as the Iraqi government is trying to develop co-operative relationships with both Iran and Syria.

The US is also deploying more naval forces in the Gulf including nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. These forces are obviously directed against Iran. Furthermore, US planes have been flown to Turkey to take part in “exercises”. The surge as well can be seen as part of a build up of troops in Iraq to quell any surge in Shia attacks should the US bomb Iran.

The reasons for an attack on Iran are not completely clear but certainly prevention of Iran from development of a nuclear bomb is one factor. This aim is strongly supported by Israel itself already a nuclear power. A final aim may be for Bush to claim a victory in destroying Iran’s nuclear power as well as preventing Iran’s “meddling” in Iraq, and thus winning a key battle in the “war against terror”. The attack will also call attention away from the mess in Iraq. This policy assumes that Iran will not risk an all out response to any attack. At most the US expects only limited reactions that can easily be contained. As with policies in Iraq, the assumed results are unlikely to have much resemblance to the real results.

US nuclear submarines ready for attack in Gulf

This is more evidence of a buildup in preparation for a possible attack against Iran.




Russian Admiral Says U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran
Global Research, January 16, 2007
Mosnews.com - 2007-01-15
Photo — MosNews Archive
U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon’s military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.“The presence of U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region means that the Pentagon has not abandoned plans for surprise strikes against nuclear targets in Iran. With this aim a group of multi-purpose submarines ready to accomplish the task is located in the area,” Admiral Baltin said.He made the comments after reports that a U.S. submarine collided with a Japanese tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.“American patience is not unlimited,” he said. “The submarine commanders go up to the periscope depth and forget about navigation rules and safety measures,” the admiral said. Currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the Persian Gulf area, he said. So far they only control navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and in the Arabian Sea, he said. They might receive different orders in future: to block off the Gulf of Oman, that is the Iranian coast, and, if need be, launch missile strikes against ground targets in Iran, he said.


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.To become a Member of Global ResearchThe CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com© Copyright , Mosnews.com, 2007 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4492
© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.caWeb site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005

Naval buildup in the Gulf: British contribute

The Times
January 16, 2007
Allies 'go after' Iran as beefed-up naval force sails for GulfRichard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
West warned of accidental war
Tehran sends goodwill message
NI_MPU('middle');
Region under pressure
Britain is joining an American military campaign to blunt Iranian influence in Iraq and the Gulf.
In a move likely to heighten tension in an already volatile part of the world, US forces have been ordered to detain Iranian agents in Iraq and to strengthen substantially America’s military presence in the Gulf.
Two Royal Navy minehunters have arrived in the Gulf to reinforce a naval frigate on patrol in the area.
“We are going after their [Iran’s] networks in Iraq,” Zalmay Khalilzad, the outgoing US Ambassador to Baghdad, said. The aim was to change the behaviour of the Islamic regime in Tehran, he added.
Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, accused Tehran of “very negative behaviour”.
Twice in the past few weeks US forces have detained Iranian officials in Iraq, first in Baghdad and last week in the northern city of Arbil.
America has accused the Iranians of supporting militant Iraqi groups. Iran insists has insisted that all those detained were performing normal diplomatic duties. Although Mr Gates was recently an advocate of opening dialogue with Iran, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group, he told a Nato meeting yesterday that now is not the time to talk. Tehran’s behaviour justified America’s decision to beef up its presence.
“We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in the area for a long time into the future,” said Mr Gates.
The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December.
It will be joined by the USS John C. Stennis carrier group. This is the first time since the invasion of Iraq four years ago that the US has deployed two carrier strike groups in the Gulf at one time.
In addition, President Bush has ordered the deployment of an air defence battalion equipped with Patriot missile batteries to protect America’s Gulf Arab allies from possible air attack from Iran.
Britain’s contribution is two minehunters HMS Blyth and HMS Ramsey, which will remain in the Gulf for an unusually-long two-year mission to keep shipping routes open in the event that Iran attempts to block oil exports.
The White House has insisted that it has no plans to take military action against Iran. But Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, described the build up as an evolving strategy to confront Iran’s “destabilising behaviour”.
Dr Ali Ansari, an Iranian expert at the University of St Andrews, said that the escalation could have serious consequences.
“There is a distinct possibility that the current cold war could turn hot,” he said. “This is an accidental war waiting to happen. Even with the best will in the world crises are not easily managed. Before you know it you can lose control of the situation.”
In spite of Iran’s defiant stand, there were reports yesterday that Tehran wanted to ease tensions with Washington. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad reportedly sent a letter to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asking him to relay a goodwill message to Dr Rice, who arrived in Riyadh last night.
The US military build-up is seen as an attempt by Washington to ease concerns among its traditional Arab allies in the region, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, whose leaders have spoken out repeatedly against the danger of Iran extending its influence across the Middle East.
The Iranians and their Shia Muslim allies are regarded as the main beneficiaries of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
In Lebanon Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, has emerged as the most powerful military force in the country. The Arab Gulf states are also concerned that Iran will try to foment unrest among their large Shia populations.
Of greater concern is Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Yesterday Tehran announced that it was stepping up its uranium enrichment programme, which many fear could be a cover for producing highly enriched uranium, the fissile material needed to build an atomic bomb. Last month the United Nations Security Council called on Iran to halt its enrichment work and imposed limited sanctions against Tehran.
The Iranians said that they were pressing ahead with the programme and planned to have more than 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium at the heavily fortified plant at Natanz in central Iran. Referring to Iran’s refusal to accept repeated international calls to stop elements of its nuclear programme, Mr Gates said: “My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems, then there might be opportunities for engagement.”

NI_AD('Skyprint');

Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd.This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website .

Escalation against Iran

There was an attack not just on the "consulate" in Erbil but also on the airport, the latter leading to a confrontation with Kurdish guards. Also , the compound of the Shia politician Hakim was raided with more Iranians nabbed there. All of these actions are highly provocative. Not only do they taunt the Iranians they also are highly offensive to the Kurds and especially the Shia who want good relations with Iran.



Escalation Against IranThe Pieces Are Being Put in PlaceBy Col. Sam Gardner 01/16/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on January 16. It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has just been deployed to Korea.This has to be called escalation. We have to remind ourselves, just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran. Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we’ve read the United States has special operations troops operating inside Iran.Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, two weeks ago we found out the United States is supporting arms for Abbas. Just as Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon we’re now learning the White House has approved a finding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside Lebanon. Just as Iran is supporting Syria, we’ve learned recently that the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.We learned this week the President authorized an attack on the Iranian liaison office in Irbil.The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran. Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise. Equally as clear, the Iranians will read what the Administrations is doing not what it issaying.It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-ledgroup whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff. The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran. Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.Sam Gardiner is a retired colonel of the US Air Force. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College.

Gulf buildup directed at Iran

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Gulf buildup aimed at Iran
Not a word about democracy here just the typical PNAC doctrine of the projection of American might in the region and determination to protect US interests. Oil is not mentioned!

Iran target of US Gulf military moves, Gates saysMark Tran and agenciesMonday January 15, 2007Guardian UnlimitedThe US defence secretary, Robert Gates, at today's Nato press conference. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPAIncreased US military activity in the Gulf is aimed at Iran's "very negative" behaviour, the Bush administration said today.The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."
Posted by ken at 5:54 AM 0 comments
Labels: Gulf buildup, Iran, Iraq war