In a very
thoughtful diary discussing my article regarding concerns over a possible Iran conflict, the diarist - with respect - misinterpreted the facts of my article. I would like to clarify the points of the article. According to the diarist:
"Rawstory has reported that two US aircraft carriers are steaming toward the Persian Gulf to join the one already there. Unspecified military scuttlebutt, says the site, tells of a coming attack on Iran, as early as June of this year. Within seven weeks from today."
We did not report that an attack was coming or that it would occur in June. What we reported is as follows:
"
Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US
may be preparing for a military strike on Iran."
With regard to June, here is what we reported:
"an air strike on Iran could be doable in June of this year, with military assets in key positions ready to go and a possible plan already on the table." In the same article, we also reported that
"Speculation has been growing on a possible air strike against Iran. But with the failure of the Bush administration to present a convincing case to the UN Security Council and to secure political backing domestically, some experts say the march toward war with Iran is on pause barring an 'immediate need.'"
AND
"The UN source also says that a military analysis suggests that no military action should be undertaken in Iran until spring of 2007"
AND
"Like Gardiner, Aftergood has heard similar claims with regard to a June strike, but has not been able to confirm them independently."
AND
"Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works."
In other words, there is enough concern that people want the information out there, but that does not mean that this WILL happen or that it will happen in JUNE. The carriers were mentioned to us and we verified their plans. Again, this does not mean that is an imminent attack is near, but it does mean that experts are concerned, including Gardiner, and feel that this concern should be shared with the public.
That said, you may want to consider a few more items in the article that are highly important:
-The DOD is using MEK, which is a terrorist organization, as a special ops force in Southern Iran (we reported here).
From the recent article we learn
-There was no Presidential finding for the US of MEK
-As recently as March, the MEK killed 22 Iranian officials
Is this legal? That is what staffers on the Hill are attempting to figure out, but this does not appear to be legal on the face of it.
Finally, other things to consider:
-http://www.newyorker.com/...
-http://www.rawstory.com/...
-http://www.pakistanlink.com/...
-http://www.dailyindia.com/...
--Larisa Alexandrovna / Managing News Editor / Raw Story