Bush lied to American people on Iran's nuclear weapons program

My apologies for the lack of blogging--I've been pretty much disgusted by the past two weeks of news to the point where you just have to get away from it for a while. So I'm coming back with even more disgusting news. Here is the New York Times story, titled U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Now let us get into these three nice little news stories. First, Reuters story titled Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could undermine U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.

Tensions have escalated in recent months as Washington has ratcheted up the rhetoric against Tehran, with U.S. President George W. Bush insisting in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.

But in a finding likely to surprise U.S. friends and foes alike, the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."

Now let us get into the Washington Post story, titled A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy:

President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency.

And finally, here is the New York Times story, titled An Assessment Jars a Foreign Policy Debate About Iran:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here.

An administration that had cited Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy — as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago — now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach.

The impact of the National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion — that Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses — will be felt in endless ways at home and abroad.

And here is the video of President Bush claiming that Iran wants to start World War III. From YouTube:


President Bush has lied to the American people.

Strike on Iran would cause "all hell to break loose" in world oil markets

This is off The Washington Post:

A U.S. military strike against Iran would have dire consequences in petroleum markets, say a variety of oil industry experts, many of whom think the prospect of pandemonium in those markets makes U.S. military action unlikely despite escalating economic sanctions imposed by the Bush administration.

The small amount of excess oil production capacity worldwide would provide an insufficient cushion if armed conflict disrupted supplies, oil experts say, and petroleum prices would skyrocket. Moreover, a wounded or angry Iran could easily retaliate against oil facilities from southern Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz.

Oil prices closed at a record $90.46 a barrel in New York yesterday as the Bush administration tightened U.S. financial sanctions on Iran over its alleged support for terrorism and issued new warnings about Tehran's nuclear program. Tension between Turkey and Kurds in northern Iraq, and fresh doubts about OPEC output levels also helped drive the price of oil up $3.36 a barrel, or 3.8 percent.

Oil traders said that even if the chances of military conflict with Iran were small, the huge run-up in oil prices that would result encourages some speculators and investment funds to bid up the price of oil, adding a premium of $3 to $15 a barrel.

"It will be chaos. . . . I can't really see it," said Abdulsamad al-Awadi, an oil trading consultant and former executive at Kuwait Petroleum. "Having been in the marketplace for almost 30 years, I can't see a scenario for it. Or precautionary measures [that oil companies could take]. There are no precautionary measures."

"If war breaks out, anticipate that all hell will break loose in the oil markets," said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, a Washington oil consulting firm.

There is not much else to say here, except that a U.S. strike on Iran would certainly cause oil prices to spike well above $100 a barrel--perhaps $110 to $120 a barrel. And along with oil prices, you can expect gas prices to spike as well. The scary thing here is that we've got Vice President Dick Cheney practically demanding a U.S. strike against Iran:

Although the Bush administration is not openly threatening a military strike against Iran, the president recently spoke of needing to avoid "World War III," and Vice President Cheney said that the United States would "not stand by" while Iran continued its nuclear program. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said. Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Bush is "committed to a diplomatic course on Iran," but she added that U.S. patience is "not limitless and allies need to know that."

"These crises have a habit of bursting on the scene and leading to unforeseen places," [Deputy executive director and chief economist of the Center for Global Energy Studies Leo] Drollas said. "Everyone wants it not to happen, but it's like a crash happening slowly. You can see the two cars coming toward each other . . . There's an inevitability about it."

Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear

Is President George Bush really THAT delusional? This story is from Reuters News:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions.

Bush was speaking a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted Western pressure to toughen his stance over Iran's nuclear program, made clear on a visit to Tehran that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran.

At a White House news conference, Bush expressed hope Putin would brief him on his talks in Tehran and said he would ask him to clarify recent remarks on Iran's nuclear activities.

Putin said last week that Russia, which is building Iran's first atomic power plant, would "proceed from the position" that Tehran had no plans to develop nuclear weapons but he shared international concerns that its nuclear programs "should be as transparent as possible."

"The thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do," Bush said. "When we were in Australia (in September), he reconfirmed to me that he recognizes it's not in the world's interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon."

[....]

Stepping up his rhetoric, Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a "dangerous threat to world peace."

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

I'll be honest, I don't really know if President Bush is planning an attack or not here. I don't know if Bush will back up these threats with a military strike against Iran--I'm pretty sure that Vice President Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran, and the PNAC neocons want to attack Iran. What worries me here is that a U.S. attack against Iranian nuclear facilities could bring us into war with Russia--can you now say World War III?

Matthew Yglesias has a great analysis of Bush's statement:

Two points. One: This is inane. World War III? Against Iran? Really? Because Iran seems a lot like a medium-sized middle income country with few military capabilities rather than a near peer-competitor of the sort against which you might fight a world war.

Two: Note where Bush has placed the goalposts here. Not preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure what the significance of that switch is, but it seems significant.

Where is this country heading under this insane administration?

Here is the YouTube video of Bush's WW III statement:



Hat tip to TPM.

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

I found this Guardian story through Shakesville, and it is scary enough for me to post it as well. From The Guardian:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

There is a nasty, internal debate going on within the Bush White House as to whether or not the U.S. should attack Iran. In one sense, that is not surprising, considering that the debate falls down along the ideological battle lines that have been drawn between the realpolitiks and the PNAC neocons. It is even more interesting that the Guardian has identified the leaders between the two ideological movements here, with the realpolitiks being led by Gates and Rice, while the neocons are led by Cheney. But this is old news.

What is scary here is how the administration's thinking is shifting over towards a military confrontation with Iran--a move that Cheney advocates. This Bush administration is under a lot of political pressure, coming from a variety of sources. There is the administration's fight with Congress over the U.S. attorney firings, Scooter Libby's commutation, the intelligence failures, Harriet Miers, and the withdrawal timetables of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Bush administration has lost the PR-war regarding Iraq. The Iraqi government has failed to meet the political benchmarks set for determining the Bush administration's success in the war. Al Qaeda has regained its pre-September 11th strength. And a majority of the American public not only believe that the U.S. war in Iraq has been a mistake, but they've abandoned President Bush to a below 30 percent job approval rating. This is an administration that has retreated into a bunker mentality as it lashes out to blame everyone for its own mistakes. What is scary here is that President Bush may just be thinking that a U.S. attack against Iran would allow the White House to institute a "rally-around-the-flag" PR-theme in hopes of increasing President Bush's job approval ratings, and continuing the Bush war in Iraq until after President Bush leaves office in January 2009. So there is a PR factor here with the Bush administration's consideration of going to war with Iran.

There is also a time factor here. Vice President Cheney knows he has got less than 18 months to continue the PNAC neocon's dream of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. If Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran, then now is the time--both before 2008 presidential elections, and before a new president takes office. Consider this quote from the Guardian:

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.

Cheney knows that a Democratic president will not attack Iran, while the U.S. is still entangled in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Republican president is probably a little more nuanced. While a Republican president will certainly continue the U.S. war in Iraq, such a president may end up purging the executive branch of the PNAC neocons who have gotten the U.S. into the Iraq mess in the first place. The PNAC influence in the executive branch may have been somewhat diminished, but it still has a great deal of power within the hands of the vice president. So time is not on Dick Cheney's side here. If he is able to sway President Bush's thinking towards a military confrontation against Iran, I fear that the best time to attack Iran will be before this year is out. The key factor here is the 2008 presidential elections. A U.S. attack against Iranian nuclear facilities will most likely be air strikes conducted over several days. If President Bush orders a U.S. attack against Iran sometime in 2008, then such an attack becomes an election year issue that could cause even more problems against the Republicans--the air strikes may fail at taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran may retaliate by attacking U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf. There may be increased terror attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq. There may also be domestic outrage and anger against the administration by a majority of Americans who oppose such an attack. Right now, the issue of an American attack against Iran is a speculative issue. It becomes a whole new ballgame once President Bush orders the attack against Iran.

If President Bush orders an attack against Iran before 2008, there will certainly be political, economic and military consequences that both the Bush administration and the Republican Party would have to endure. But the thinking here would be that these are short-term consequences, just as the U.S. air strikes against Iran would take place over a few days. Americans may be outraged, but the Bush administration may be hoping that the outrage would subside as the White House PR-machine starts spinning that this is only a one-time U.S. attack, and that the Pentagon does not have any plans for a sustained bombing campaign against Iran, or any invasion of Iran. The outrage would be short-term and not stay current through the 2008 election season--the U.S. attack against Iran is done now, it is time to move on. And remember the PR-factor here where the Bush administration may also be wishing that a U.S. attack against Iran would create another rally-around-the-flag-and-president mood within the country to support the president, thus providing an uptick in the president's job approval ratings, and greater approval for the GOP presidential candidates.

Now this is all speculation here, and I could be completely wrong in my analysis. It is difficult to make sense of the internal debates taking place within the Bush White House--especially since this administration refuses to divulge anything except their own PR-talking points. What this Guardian story reveals is that there is an internal war taking place within the Bush White House as to whether the Bush administration will attack Iran. And at this point, Vice President Cheney has President Bush's ear towards provoking a military showdown with Iran. I don't believe that President Bush has signed the order for the U.S. to conduct air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. But I'm guessing that the order is sitting in the president's desk drawer, just waiting for the president's signature.

Sunday Times: US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

This is quite an interesting Sunday Times story:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

I don't know how accurate this story is, however we've certainly seen plenty of stories coming out where top Pentagon generals and retired generals have criticized the Bush administration's war in Iraq. Now the PNAC neocons want to attack Iran. There is an insanity here within this Bush White House, where the president and Vice President Dick Cheney are so willing to drag this country down into a complete disaster for....what? Salvaging Bush's failed "legacy?" I'm not sure I can calculate the political consequences of five top generals and admirals quitting in protest of a Bush attack on Iran--not only would it be a huge news story here, but there would be an incredible outrage in Congress against the Bush White House. And I can't even say what the American publics' response would be.

Another monkey wrench to toss into this mess.

Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring

This is off The Guardian:

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."

But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."

He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."

The Guardian points out that those preparations are well under way for a U.S. air strike against Iran. Not only is the aircraft carrier Stennis due to arrive in the Persian Gulf in the next ten days, but also that President Bush has been stockpiling oil reserves, and sending extra minesweepers and Patriot missiles to the Gulf region. But what I find especially chilling here is both the vice president's office and the AEI's role in pushing this attack. As for Vice President Dick Cheney, what can I say but that man is pure evil. But it also appears that the AEI is regaining its influence within the Bush administration. According to the Guardian:

One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and state department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran?

Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike.

"I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon "is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force."

Mr Bush is part of the American generation that refuses to forgive Iran for the 1979-81 hostage crisis. He leaves office in January 2009 and has said repeatedly that he does not want a legacy in which Iran has achieved superpower status in the region and come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The logic of this is that if diplomatic efforts fail to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment then the only alternative left is to turn to the military.

Mr Muravchik is intent on holding Mr Bush to his word: "The Bush administration have said they would not allow Iran nuclear weapons. That is either bullshit or they mean it as a clear code: we will do it if we have to. I would rather believe it is not hot air."

So while preparations are being made to engage in an air war against Iran, is there also a political war going on within the administration as to whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran? Is the Bush administration playing the same PR-game they played in running up the U.S. war with Iraq? I can't say yet. But it certainly is a disturbing trend with this administration.

NIE Report: Iraq is still a basket case

Would you look at this? The Bush administration publicized a summary of a new National Intelligence Estimate. This is off The Washington Post:

A new National Intelligence Estimate depicts an Iraq involved in a multi-faceted struggle among religious groups and sects and says that without a sharp reversal in the violence and changes among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurd leadership, the situation could further deteriorate.

The estimate, which represents the views of all elements of the intelligence community, presents a much grimmer picture of the situation in Iraq than the Bush administration has acknowledged in the past.

Here is the PDF file of the NIE summary.

The NIE report is rather devastating for the Bush White House. Here is the first key point in the summary:

Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism. Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006.

In other words, Iraq is pretty much screwed. The polarization between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are continuing. The Iraqi government is powerless to stop the ethnic violence. And in the next 12 to 18 months, "the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006." The violence will continue to increase, the war will continue grinding on, and young Americans will continue to come home in flag-draped coffins as the 2008 presidential primaries begin. The report claims that efforts must take place to reverse these conditions--specifically that the Iraqi Security Forces should become more loyal to the government, and Coalition forces "able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq’s population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin them process of political compromise necessary for longer term stability, political progress, and economic recovery." This certainly plays into the Bush troop surge plan. For without the troop surge, the Bush administration will claim that the Iraqi Security Forces will not be able to reduce the sectarian violence, resulting in the continued deterioration of the war. Even better, the Bush White House will link the coming Senate debate on the resolution opposing the troop surge as to increasing the deterioration of the war.

Of course, the NIE report goes downhill for the Bush administration. The devil is in the details. According to the NIE report:

Decades of subordination to Sunni political, social, and economic domination have made the Shia deeply insecure about their hold on power. This insecurity leads the Shia to mistrust US efforts to reconcile Iraqi sects and reinforces their unwillingness to engage with the Sunnis on a variety of issues, including adjusting the structure of Iraq’s federal system, reining in Shia militias, and easing de-Bathification.

Many Sunni Arabs remain unwilling to accept their minority status, believe the central government is illegitimate and incompetent, and are convinced that Shia dominance will increase Iranian influence over Iraq, in ways that erode the state’s Arab character and increase Sunni repression.

The absence of unifying leaders among the Arab Sunni or Shia with the capacity to speak for or exert control over their confessional groups limits prospects for reconciliation. The Kurds remain willing to participate in Iraqi state building but reluctant to surrender any of the gains in autonomy they have achieved.

The Kurds are moving systematically to increase their control of Kirkuk to guarantee annexation of all or most of the city and province into the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) after the constitutionally mandated referendum scheduled to occur no later than 31 December 2007. Arab groups in Kirkuk continue to resist violently what they see as Kurdish encroachment.

Nobody trusts anyone here. The Shiites don't trust either the Sunnis or the U.S., the Sunnis reject their minority status in Iraq, and the Kurds are taking over Kirkuk to control the oil reserves within the region. There is almost no way for the Bush White House or the Malaki government to get these three ethnic groups to reconcile. A Bush administration surge of 21,500 troops will not improve or reduce the security situation in Iraq--not with these three ethnic groups fighting each other for land, resources, ethnic cleansing, or against the Iraqi government and the U.S. occupation.

We've got some more fun with this NIE report:

The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethnosectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

Iraq is not in a state of "civil war." Iraq is in a state of something more complex than a "civil war." What could be a more accurate description of the state of something more complex than a "civil war" that Iraq is currently in? Anarchy? Chaos? Screwed?

And finally, this little paragraph is the most damaging to the Bush administration:

Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics.

In other words, Iran is not a major factor that is driving the ethnic violence taking place in Iraq. This completely contradicts the Bush administration's insistence that Iran is aiding the terrorists in Iraq. Remember President Bush's troop surge speech?

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. 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.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

In that speech, President Bush accused Iran of supporting terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and practically declared war on Iran. President Bush authorized an attack on an Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq, arresting five Iranians in the process. President Bush has ordered a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf. He has authorized that U.S. troops can kill suspected Iranian operatives in Iraq. And there have been several reports of the Bush administration planning for war with Iran. And while all this Bush White House war planning against Iran is taking place, the NIE report contradicts everything the Bush administration has accused of Iran of aiding the Iraqi insurgents. There is no diplomatic, foreign, or a security reason for the U.S. to go to war with Iran. There are, however, plenty of political reasons for the Bush administration to go to war with Iran--with the main reason being to shift American attention away from the disaster of Iraq to Iran, to continue American imperialism in the Middle East, or perhaps even to salvage President Bush's legacy as the father of the Global War on Terror. Take your pick. The NIE report continues to show Iraq as a complete disaster--a basket case. And this Bush administration has no clue as to how to resolve this war.

We're still walking over the cliff.

More big profits for Big Oil

This is off The New York Times:

HOUSTON, Feb. 1 — Exxon Mobil reported a record annual profit on Thursday but a modest decline in fourth-quarter earnings because of falling oil and gas prices. Meanwhile, its competitor Royal Dutch Shell reported an unexpected rise in quarterly earnings, a sign that the industry is still going strong.

The results followed reports by other energy companies in recent days that said easing commodity prices, declining refining and chemical earnings, rising steel and labor costs and higher royalties and taxes had hurt their bottom lines somewhat.

But the shortfalls at all the major companies, including Occidental, ConocoPhillips and Hess, have come after record or near-record previous quarters. With oil and gas prices on the upswing again in recent days, few analysts think the bonanza of profits that energy companies have enjoyed in recent years will end anytime soon.

Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, reported profit of $10.3 billion in the fourth quarter. That represented a decline of 4.3 percent from its record profit in the fourth quarter of 2005 and was Exxon’s first quarterly decline in almost three years.

But for the year, Exxon’s profit rose 9 percent from 2005 results to a record of $39.5 billion, the largest annual profit ever for an American company.

Oil prices for the quarter ranged between $55 and $63 a barrel, averaging just shy of $60. That represented a 15 percent decline from the third quarter and was less than 1 percent lower than the fourth quarter of 2005.

Oh dear! There were some shortfalls among Big Oil earnings caused by "easing commodity prices, declining refining and chemical earnings, rising steel and labor costs and higher royalties and taxes had hurt their bottom lines." Can't let the big profits for Big Oil fall even further--perhaps President Bush needs to start a new war in Iran to increase those oil prices? I apologize if this sounds rather cynical, but I am. I thought I would go in and look at the stock prices for Big Oil over the past five years--just a little comparison here. I've pulled the five-year stock price charts off of Marketwatch.

So let's start with Exxon-Mobile's five-year stock price trend:

Exxon's five year stock price trend. From Marketwatch

And now for some comparisons. Here is Chevron's five-year stock price trend:

Chevron's five-year stock price trend. From Marketwatch.

Here is Conoco-Phillips five-year stock price trend:

Conoco-Phillips five-year stock price trend. From Marketwatch.

Here is Occidental's five-year stock price trend:

Occidental's five-year stock price trend. From Marketwatch.

And finally, here is Royal Dutch Shell's two-year stock price trend. According to the Marketwatch company profile, "Royal Dutch Shell was incorporated in England and Wales on February 5, 2002, as a private Company under the Companies Act of England and Wales 1985, as amended. On October 27, 2004, Royal Dutch Shell was re-registered as a public Company limited by shares and changed its name from Forthdeal Limited to Royal Dutch Shell." There are actually two classes of shares for Royal Dutch Shell--Class A shares and Class B shares. The stock quote and chart is for Class A shares. You can find the stock quote and chart for Royal Dutch Shell Class B shares here.

Here is the two-year stock price trend for Class A shares of Royal Dutch Shell:

Royal Dutch Shell's Class A shares two-year stock price trend. From Marketwatch.

So what does all this mean? The interesting trend here is that as President Bush started his war in Iraq, the stock prices of Big Oil companies have risen dramatically--increasing two or three times the value of what they were five years ago. The Iraq war has certainly made Big Oil very rich, as we can see with both the NY Times story on Exxon's profits, and the trends in the Big Oil stock price charts. But now let's continue into the Times story:

Oil prices in 2006 averaged $66, $10 higher than the year before, according to a recent Citigroup report on the energy industry. Oil prices reached a high of $77 in July, but they have declined to the low-to-mid $50s due to generally warm weather and the perception of easing tensions in much of Middle East since then.

The Times story is reporting that oil prices have leveled off, due to warmer weather and the perception of easing tensions in the Middle East. This leveling of oil prices has caused a drop in quarterly earnings for Exxon, and perhaps the rest of Big Oil. The "perception of easing tensions in much of the Middle East" could be a result of oil traders factoring the U.S. war in Iraq into oil prices. What bothers me is that we're seeing tensions increase again--this time between the Bush administration and Iran. President Bush has authorized U.S. troops to kill suspected Iranians inside of Iraq, he has sent another carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and attacked an Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq. And finally, there are reports coming out that the PNAC neocons have been planning a U.S. attack against Iran for the past six years. If the United States does go to war with Iran, what is going to happen to the price of oil? What will happen to the price of gas here? What will happen to Big Oil's profits and stock prices over the next two years, if the Bush administration is embroiled into both a war in Iraq and Iran?

Newsweek Poll--Bush at another new low

Here are some more poll numbers from Newsweek:

Jan. 27, 2007 - President George W. Bush concluded his annual State of the Union address this week with the words “the State of our Union is strong … our cause in the world is right … and tonight that cause goes on.” Maybe so, but the state of the Bush administration is at its worst yet, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans. Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who’d prefer the GOP to remain in the White House.

Public fatigue over the war in the Iraq is not reflected solely in the president’s numbers, however. Congress is criticized by nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Americans for not being assertive enough in challenging the Bush administration’s conduct of the war. Even a third (31 percent) of rank-and-file Republicans say the previous Congress, controlled by their party, didn’t do enough to challenge the administration on the war.

So Bush is now at a 30 percent job approval rating for the Newsweek poll. A 58 percent majority of Americans wish that the Bush presidency could just be over now. And an even more interesting number is that 64 percent of Americans are now criticizing Congress for not being more assertive and challenging this Bush presidency. The American people want out of Iraq. So far, they've been giving the Democratic Congress the benefit of the doubt with more positive poll numbers over that of the Republicans. But what this Newsweek poll shows is that even the American public does not have infinite patience. If the Democrats in Congress cannot find a way to get out of Iraq, then even the Democrats could find themselves in trouble during the 2008 presidential elections.

Now some thoughts on President Bush. One thing I've certainly noticed over time is that as his job approval numbers continue to drop, the more belligerent and stubborn Bush has become regarding his policies. Consider this Washington Post article regarding the Bush administration's escalation of war talk with Iran:

President Bush said today he has no intention of sending U.S. forces into Iran, but he vowed to "respond firmly" if Iran steps up a campaign that the United States charges is aimed at killing U.S. troops and derailing democracy in Iraq.

Bush told National Public Radio that he is willing to do "whatever it takes" to protect U.S. troops in Iraq from what the White House says have been attacks with weapons supplied by Iran.

[....]

"We'll wait and see whether it's a positive development or not," [White House Press Secretary Tony] Snow told reporters in a news briefing. However, "to the extent that anybody, including Iranians, are smuggling weapons, bringing in fighters, killing Americans, trying to destabilize the democracy in Iraq, we will take appropriate measures to defend our troops and also to defend the mission," he said.

[....]

Asked how the Bush administration views Iranian activities inside Iraq at present, Snow said, "Right now, what we are seeing is some evidence that the Iranians have been involved in activities that have led to the deaths of American soldiers and also the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. And to the extent that that kind of activity continues, we will respond appropriately."

President Bush has consistently refused to negotiate with Iran, while increasingly escalating the tensions between the two countries over this past month. The Iranians have refused to back down. And as a result, the Bush White House continues increasing their threats to Iran. You could almost say that this Bush White House is acting like a belligerent bully throughout the world. And the lower this administration sinks in its job approval ratings, the more stubborn the administration becomes in refusing to negotiate or compromise its own misguided, hard-lined ideology, lashing out against everyone that will not submit to their demands.

Bush White House planning a six-year escalation of war with Iran

I found this on Raw Story:

The escalation of US military planning on Iran is only the latest chess move in a six-year push within the Bush Administration to attack Iran, a RAW STORY investigation has found.

While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror. Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA’s own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq’s insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.

The motivations for an Iran strike were laid out as far back as 1992. In classified defense planning guidance – written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz, and ambassador-nominee to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad – Cheney’s aides called for the United States to assume the position of lone superpower and act preemptively to prevent the emergence of even regional competitors. The draft document was leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post and caused an uproar among Democrats and many in George H. W. Bush’s Administration.

In September 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) issued a report titled “Rebuilding America's Defenses,” which espoused similar positions to the 1992 draft and became the basis for the Bush-Cheney Administration's foreign policy. Libby and Wolfowitz were among the participants in this new report; Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent figures in the Bush administration were PNAC members.

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security,” the report read. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. . . . We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.”

This approach became official US military policy during the current Bush Administration. It was starkly on display yesterday when Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns noted a second aircraft carrier strike force headed for the Persian Gulf, saying, "The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region."

It is like the PNAC neocons didn't just want to go to war with Iraq, but also with Iran. The PNAC neocons have been planning this thing for six years--perhaps even longer with their desire to remake the United States as not just the sole super-power in the world, but also an imperial power in the Middle East. They refuse to engage in any type of negotiations or diplomacy--it is either submit to our demands, or we will destroy you. The PNAC neocons have remade the United States into the Middle East School Bully. What they don't understand is that they can't get away with this forever--someone is going to stand up and punch that school bully hard in the nose. And right now, that somebody is going to be Iran. This is a war we can not win.

Read the entire Raw Story article. It is disturbing. You might also want to check out the timeline.

Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in Iraq

I don't know what to say here. This is off The Washington Post:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.

But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."

"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.

The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons.

[....]

The White House has authorized a widening of what is known inside the intelligence community as the "Blue Game Matrix" -- a list of approved operations that can be carried out against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. And U.S. officials are preparing international sanctions against Tehran for holding several dozen al-Qaeda fighters who fled across the Afghan border in late 2001. They plan more aggressive moves to disrupt Tehran's funding of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and to undermine Iranian interests among Shiites in western Afghanistan.

In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.

Talk about an escalation by the Bush administration against Iran. We're sending another carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf. We've attacked an Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq--which was authorized by President Bush. And finally, President Bush has made two ultimatums against Iran--once during the president's surge speech, and again during the SOTU speech.

Here's President Bush's ultimatum against Iran in his surge speech:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. 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.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

That sounds like a declaration of war against Iran. Here's the ultimatum in Bush's SOTU speech:

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al-Qaida in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans ... kill democracy in the Middle East ... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

This is not as overt as the president's surge speech, but still the message is clear--the United States will probably attack Iran unless Iran dismantles its nuclear weapons program. In the SOTU speech, Bush linked the Shiite insurgents to taking orders from Iran. Therefore, the U.S. has the right to take the Global War on Terror against Iran. And now we have this latest WaPost story saying that U.S. troops can now fire and kill Iranian operatives inside of Iraq. While the Bush White House claims that this order applies to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, intelligence officers, and not Iranian civilians and diplomats, who can tell if a particular Iranian is a member of the Revolutionary Guard or a diplomat when that Iranian is dressed in civilian clothes? It seems to me that this order is more of a shoot and kill first, then ask questions later.

This gets even better. Continuing in the WaPost:

Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Officials said Hayden counseled the president and his advisers to consider a list of potential consequences, including the possibility that the Iranians might seek to retaliate by kidnapping or killing U.S. personnel in Iraq.

Two officials said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, though a supporter of the strategy, is concerned about the potential for errors, as well as the ramifications of a military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian troops on the Iraqi battlefield.

In meetings with Bush's other senior advisers, officials said, Rice insisted that the defense secretary appoint a senior official to personally oversee the program to prevent it from expanding into a full-scale conflict. Rice got the oversight guarantees she sought, though it remains unclear whether senior Pentagon officials must approve targets on a case-by-case basis or whether the oversight is more general.

The departments of Defense and State referred all requests for comment on the Iran strategy to the National Security Council, which declined to address specific elements of the plan and would not comment on some intelligence matters.

So apparently Hayden of the CIA was a big proponent of this plan--especially if American forces can raid Iranian consulates and gather intelligence papers regarding Iranian operations in Iraq. Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. I certainly have to wonder whether those senior administration officials were the PNAC neocons, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, or Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. These guys seem so intent on confronting Iran to abandon its nuclear program--and Iran is not backing down. But it gets better. Condi Rice is now starting to worry that such a program of American soldiers being authorized to kill Iranians might just cause a confrontation between the United States and Iran--but she's still supportive of the program. So we have some unnamed senior official appointed to oversee the program as a means for avoiding a full-scale conflict. Now here's the real fun part:

Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program.

We can pretty well guess who the advocate of this "kill Iranians" strategy is. Vice President Cheney is one. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley is probably another. Wolfowitz could be a third, or perhaps even Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The WaPost provides even more Bush administration names to this policy:

The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Officials said a group of senior Bush administration officials who regularly attend the highest-level counterterrorism meetings agreed that the conflict provided an opening to portray Iran as a nuclear-ambitious link between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the death squads in Iraq.

Among those involved in the discussions, beginning in August, were deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams [Another PNAC member], NSC counterterrorism adviser Juan Zarate, the head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, representatives from the Pentagon and the vice president's office, and outgoing State Department counterterrorism chief Henry A. Crumpton.

The neocons are really pushing this escalation against Iran. And they are doing it in the most sickening way:

At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."

Two weeks later, Crumpton flew from Washington to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa for a meeting with Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East. A principal reason for the visit, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the discussion, was to press Abizaid to prepare for an aggressive campaign against Iranian intelligence and military operatives inside Iraq.

Information gleaned through the "catch and release" policy expanded what was once a limited intelligence community database on Iranians in Iraq. It also helped to avert a crisis between the United States and the Iraqi government over whether U.S. troops should be holding Iranians, several officials said, and dampened the possibility of Iranians directly targeting U.S. personnel in retaliation.

"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there.

But some officials within the Bush administration say that targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, and specifically a Guard unit known as the Quds Force, should be as much a priority as fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Quds Force is considered by Western intelligence to be directed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to support Iraqi militias, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In interviews, two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis and the Guard to the "SS." They also referred to Guard members as "terrorists." Such a formal designation could turn Iran's military into a target of what Bush calls a "war on terror," with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention.

President Bush was originally open towards diplomacy (also known as negotiations) with Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program. But the neocons didn't like that. So the neocons have convinced President Bush that a better policy of escalation against Iran was preferable to diplomacy--specifically comparing the Iranian government to the Nazis, and the Revolutionary Guard to the "SS." Where have we seen that strategy before? Iraq? Saddam Hussein compared to Adolf Hitler? But it is not about stopping Iran's nuclear program:

"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there.

It is all political. It is all about pushing Iran's buttons to start a war with the United States. It is all about creating a third war in the Middle East, to shift the American public's attention away from the failed war in Iraq so they can support this new war in Iran, and perhaps even salvage Bush's presidential legacy. We have warmongers in this Bush White House. They will do whatever they can to keep whatever control the U.S. has in Iraq--especially regarding the oil reserves--and will attack whatever nation they can in order to keep U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. There will be a U.S. war against Iran. Iran will not back down against the U.S. This war will take place once the Stennis carrier group is positioned in the Persian Gulf area--perhaps in early March.

It will become a total disaster for the United States.

U.S. diplomat tells Iran to back off in Gulf

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C, Stennis steams out of the naval base at Kitsap Bremerton, Wa., on Tuesday on its way to the Gulf. Master Chief Jerry Mclain / AP

This is off MSNBC News:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington’s way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.

Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was “not possible” until Iran halts uranium enrichment.

“The Middle East isn’t a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn’t a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That’s why we’ve seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region,” Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.

“Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us,” Burns continued.

Iran is in a standoff with the West over its defiance of U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is aimed solely at generating energy, but the United States and some of its allies suspect it is geared toward making weapons. The U.N. imposed limited sanctions on Iran last month.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran is “ready for anything” in its confrontation with the United States.

Iran conducted missile tests on Monday, the first of five days of military maneuvers southeast of Tehran.

[....]

The American aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and several accompanying ships are heading toward the Gulf to join an aircraft carrier group already in the region, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Stennis is expected to arrive in late February.

The Stennis’s arrival in the Middle East will mark the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq invasion in 2003 that the United States has had two carrier battle groups in the region.

The U.S. Navy said Tuesday that the minesweeper USS Gladiator arrived in the Persian Gulf, one of six such ships — four American, two British — now plying the Gulf for anti-ship mines. U.S. officials have long said Iran was likely to block busy Gulf shipping lanes in a conflict.

So, the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis is heading out to the Persian Gulf to join the Eisenhower. The Stennis will be in the Gulf by late February. U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns is rattling sabers against Iran, demanding that Iran halt its nuclear program before any negotiations between Iran and the U.S. can start. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the U.S. to go "F#@$" itself by conducting Iranian missile tests. And the president will be making his SOTU speech tonight--with his own harsh words against Iran.

We're heading towards another war.

Is the Bush administration planning an all-out war with Iran?

A general view of a uranium processing site in Isfahan, 340 km (211 miles) south of Tehran, in this March 30, 2005 file photo. U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi.

I found this through Americablog, so I went to the original Reuters source:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.

"I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure," which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in Iraq, which could be confined to that country.

President George W. Bush has stressed he is seeking a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

But he has not taken the military option off the table and his recent rhetoric, plus tougher financial sanctions and actions against Iranian involvement in Iraq, has revived talk in Washington about a possible U.S. attack on Iran.

I will be honest here. I don't know if President Bush is that certifiably insane enough to start an all-out war with Iran, or not. I certainly can't trust anything the Bush administration says because I've heard so many lies, marketing and PR-spin from this administration. And since the war in Iraq has been a disaster, that events in Iraq and the Middle East have spiraled out of control for the PNAC officials inside this administration, and that George Bush is now worried about his presidential legacy, I can see this Bush White House starting a new war with Iran in order to shift our attention away from the failed disaster of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That scares me.

Rice Says Bush Authorized Iranians’ Arrest in Iraq

Talk about an out of control president. Now it appears that President Bush was planning to go to war against Iran several months ago. This is off the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — A recent series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq was authorized under an order that President Bush decided to issue several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

“There has been a decision to go after these networks,” Ms. Rice said in an interview with The New York Times in her office on Friday afternoon, before leaving on a trip to the Middle East.

Ms. Rice said Mr. Bush had acted “after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity” among Iranians in Iraq, “and increasing lethality in what they were producing.” She was referring to what American military officials say is evidence that many of the most sophisticated improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.’s, being used against American troops were made in Iran.

Ms. Rice was vague on the question of when Mr. Bush issued the order, but said his decision grew out of questions that the president and members of his National Security Council raised in the fall.

[....]

The White House decision to authorize the aggressive steps against Iranians in Iraq appears to formalize the American effort to contain Iran’s ambitions as a new front in the Iraq war. Administration officials now describe Iran as the single greatest threat the United States faces in the Middle East, though some administration critics regard the talk about Iran as a diversion, one intended to shift attention away from the spiraling chaos in Iraq.

In adopting a more confrontational approach toward Iran, Mr. Bush has decisively rejected recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that he explore negotiations with Tehran as part of a new strategy to help quell the sectarian violence in Iraq.

In the interview on Friday, Ms. Rice described the military effort against Iranians in Iraq as a defensive “force protection mission,” but said it was also motivated by concerns that Iran was trying to further destabilize the country.

President Bush is completely out of control here. He will say anything he wants, do anything he wants, break any domestic or international law, and lead this country into war and ruin.

You know what is really scary here? The Bush administration refuses to specifically say when President Bush issued the order to go to war with Iran--instead saying some vague reference of the order was issued "several months ago." What I would like to know is if this order to go to war with Iran was issued before the Iraq Study Group's final report was published on December 6, 2006. Because if the decision was made before the ISG report was published, then the Bush administration not only rejected the ISG recommendations for negotiation with Iran, but they never had any intention of seriously reviewing or adopting the ISG recommendations--the Iraq Study Group was dead even before the commission's first meeting started.

The second thing that scares me is this little line--Ms. Rice described the military effort against Iranians in Iraq as a defensive “force protection mission....” What is a "defensive force protection mission?" Listening to Rice spin this gobblygook, while looking at the events of the past four days--President Bush's warning to Iran in the surge speech, Bush's authorizing the U.S. to go to war with Iran, the U.S. raid on the Iranian consulate, the sending of another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf--makes me question whether the Bush White House decided to go to war with Iran in order to stop a war with Iran. Look at the latest Bush White House marketing spin here--Administration officials now describe Iran as the single greatest threat the United States faces in the Middle East. Sound familiar? Let's change the country from Iran to Iraq, and you'll get this nostalgic marketing theme of four years ago: Administration officials now describe Iraq as the single greatest threat the United States faces in the Middle East. We've certainly heard that theme before--Iraq is developing nuclear weapons, Iraq is a haven for terrorism, Iraq was responsible for September 11th, Saddam is an evil dictator, Iraq is now a serious threat to the United States, and we don't want a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud. We had to go to war with Iraq in order to stop a war with Iraq, to neutralize this single greatest threat to the United States that never existed. And now President Bush is forcing us to be be spoon-fed this same, stale marketing crap on Iran? Now we have to go to war with Iran?

The Bush White House is filled with war mongers.

Now for some congressional fallout on Bush's "surge" speech--It's not pretty

There has been a lot of news going on for the past three days regarding President Bush's surge speech, and the growing possibility of a U.S. war with Iran. I have not looked into the Congressional reaction to this president's surge speech--at least until now.

Now the Democrats response to Bush's surge speech was pretty straight-forward. According to this Fox News transcript of the Democratic response by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to President Bush's surge speech:

At the end of October, President Bush told the American people: Absolutely, we're winning the war in Iraq. He spoke those words near the end of the bloodiest month of 2006 for U.S. troops.

Tonight, President Bush acknowledged what most Americans know: We are not winning in Iraq, despite the courage and immense sacrifice of our military.

Indeed, the situation is grave and deteriorating.

The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of the civil war that has engulfed that nation.

Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction.

In ordering more troops to Iraq, the president is ignoring the strong advice of most of his own top generals. General John Abizaid — until recently, the commanding general in Iraq and Afghanistan — said, and I quote, "More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future," end of quote.

Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost.

It's time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. And the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the lives of more than 3,000 of our soldiers. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we've paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.

And we have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We've given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government.

We Americans, and a few allies, have protected Iraq when no one else would.

Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions which will bring an end to this bloody civil war, disband the militias and death squads, create an environment of safety and opportunity for every Iraqi, and begin to restore the basics of electricity and water and health care that define the quality of life.

The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie ahead. And they must know that, every time they call 911, we are not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers.

As Congress considers our future course in Iraq, we remain committed, on a bipartisan basis, to providing our soldiers every resource they need to fight effectively and come home safely.

But it's time to begin the orderly redeployment of our troops so that they can begin coming home soon.

When the Iraqis understand that America is not giving an open- ended commitment of support, when they understand that our troops indeed are coming home, then they will understand the day has come to face their own responsibility to protect and defend their nation.

Thank you.

In other words, there are no more open-ended commitments in this war. The Iraqis had better start standing up to take responsibility for their own security. The Democratic response was a serious warning to the Iraqi government, rather than the Bush White House--we better see some success from the Iraqi security forces in quelling the sectarian violence, or we're going to pull out.

But there was also a warning to the Bush White House--you've been given four years in this war to help Iraqis stand up, so that we can stand down. And so far, everything this administration has done in this war has been a failure. The price has been too high. If the Bush administration cannot find a way to stabilize Iraq, then it is time to pull the troops out, and bring them home. If the Iraqis fail again to stand up, then it is time for us to pull out--no more 911 phone calls! As for the Bush troop surge, the Democrats believe that the plan will fail--President Bush is taking a more confrontational approach in this latest plan, rather than going with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, establishing negotiations, increased training of Iraqi security forces, creating benchmarks and withdrawal timetables. So it is not surprising that the Democrats would be opposed to the Bush surge plan. Here are some of the responses from Democratic senators on Bush's surge plan. This is through the New York Times:

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut accused the administration of letting American soldiers be used as “cannon fodder.” Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the chairman, called the president’s new strategy “a tragic mistake” and said the plan “is more likely to make things worse.” Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, and a former supporter of administration policy, said he could no longer back the president.

“I have not been told the truth,” Mr. Nelson said. “I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth.”

But what is even more amazing is the Republican responses to Bush's surge plan. I'm going through several news articles here, with ABC News, CNN News, MSNBC News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Let's continue with the New York Times story reporting the Republican side:

Perhaps surprisingly, the language changed little when it was the Republicans’ turn. “You’ve clearly heard the skepticism that has been expressed this morning by so many of my colleagues, and for good reason,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, noting that he previously went along with the president and “bought into his dream,” demanded the administration “do a much better job” of explaining its strategy. A smattering of applause erupted when Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska warned that Mr. Bush’s new plan would be “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”

But it gets worst. The sharpest exchange on the Bush surge came from Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska as he ripped into Secretary of State Condi Rice on the surge speech. Here is the MSNBC News story on the confrontation:

In a heated exchange with Hagel, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, Rice disputed his characterization of Bush’s buildup as an “escalation.”

“Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?” Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush’s Iraq policy, asked. “Would you call it a decrease?”

“I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,” she said.

Hagel told Rice, “Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control.”

She disputed that Iraq was in the throes of a civil war. To that, Hagel said, “To sit there and say that, that’s just not true.”

Even Ohio Republican Senator George V. Voinovich attacked Rice. In the MSNBC News story:

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said Bush could no longer count on his support.

“You’re going to have to do a much better job” explaining the rationale for the war, “and so is the president,” Voinovich told Rice. “I’ve gone along with the president on this and I’ve bought into his dream and at this stage of the game I just don’t think it’s going to happen.”

The Republicans are deserting Bush--and it is not just like rats jumping off a sinking ship here. It is even filtering into the Republican presidential candidates with Republican senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. This is off the Wichita Eagle:

Sen. Sam Brownback came out Wednesday against President Bush's call Wednesday for a surge of 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," Brownback, R-Kan., said while traveling in Iraq. "Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."

Brownback had previously supported a short-term surge of troops if it could help achieve long-term political stability, which the Bush administration has said it hopes a troop surge will help achieve.

But Brownback rejected that argument after meeting this week with several Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and U.S. military commanders.

"I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shia are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other," Brownback said.

So what does all this mean? President Bush's troop surge plan is being rejected outright by the American public, the Democrats in Congress, and now the Republicans in Congress. The WaPost story really sums it up here:

Lawmakers said they have little confidence that the Iraqi government has the capacity to deliver on promises to take the lead in cracking down on violent militias and providing security in Baghdad, as the president's plan contemplates. Democrats and Republicans alike said they are concerned that Bush's plan, announced Wednesday night in a nationally televised prime-time address, is too little and too late and does not appear very different from previous efforts to secure the capital.

[The] ferocity of the congressional condemnation dismayed the White House, which had hoped to rebuild an element of bipartisan consensus around Bush's plan. It was further indication that the new Democratic Congress is headed toward a series of potentially epic clashes and floor votes over the conduct and funding of the nearly four-year-old war.

Congressional skepticism is being fueled by the public: A majority of Americans oppose Bush's decision to send more troops, and only one in three said the plan will probably make victory in Iraq more likely, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Graphic showing public opinion poll on President Bush's troop surge speech. From the Washington Post

The Republicans have learned their lesson here. We've seen the poll results showing the American public turning against both President Bush and the Iraq war. We've seen how last November's midterm election results became a referendum for the Bush war, where the Republican Party was trounced with loss of both houses of Congress. And even after this Bush surge speech, the Republicans can see that 61 percent of Americans oppose the Bush surge plan. To continue blindly following this president down this Iraqi disaster could jeopardize their own political careers when they face the American voters again in 2008--President Bush no longer has to face re-election in 2008. That is why the Republicans are staying away from this surge plan.

Of course, not everyone is opposed to the Bush troop surge plan. President Bush can count on two reliable war hawks--Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, and Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. In this Washington Post story:

A day after Bush's proposal was pelted with bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008, said he supports the plan. He tried to shift the burden to war critics.

McCain said those advocating the start of a troop withdrawal, which includes many Democrats, "have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq. If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."

McCain is playing a very high-stakes game in trying to shift himself further to the right of President Bush as a way to court the hard-lined conservatives in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In this MSNBC News story:

McCain seems to be launching his 2008 campaign by taking the role of foremost advocate of sending significantly more troops for long-term deployment to Iraq.

“There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops: to be of value, it must substantial and it must be sustained,” he declared in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank that is home to some of the most hawkish strategists on Iraq.

Just to make sure everyone in the overflow audience got the point, McCain repeated that phrase: “it must substantial and it must be sustained.”

And finally, there is Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of the Bush war from the start. He is a war hawk. According to this Raw Story article:

Tonight, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee, came out in support of President Bush's plan—already underway—to send over 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

"I applaud the President for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," Lieberman said in a statement acquired by RAW STORY. "There is no more difficult decision that a President can make."

However, Lieberman characterized the troop surge as a necessary strategic change in what he characterized as a "vital" fight to ensure our national security. "No objective is more worthy," he added, "than aiding a struggling democracy and supporting brave moderates who are in a life and death struggle against totalitarian extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran."

Lieberman, who has a history of taking hawkish stances on foreign policy issues, remains one of the most vocal of the few Democrats still supporting the war.

That is a round-up of the political fallout from Congress regarding President Bush's surge speech. I'm sure that over the next couple of weeks, we're going to see even more Bush officials spending time on Capitol Hill trying to convince anyone to support this surge plan. The problem for the Bush White House is that nobody is listening to them.