Bolton: Striking Iran ‘Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do’

Last night I wrote a diary which I really didn't expect to get much attention:

Scott Ritter - "virtual guarantee" of Iran strike

I was heartened that it ended up on the recommended list and got a lot of comments.  Today I stumbled across two more indications that the Bush administration is determined to attack Iran before the elections.  

The first is the one the title mentions.  Over at Think Progress, Bolton: Striking Iran ‘Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do’.  

Yesterday morning, Fox News interviewed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton to discuss whether America is close to striking Iranian targets, as new reports indicate the Bush administration is drawing up plans for a "surgical strike." Bolton said that while there are "obviously risks associated" with a strike on Iran, the risks of not doing something are "far higher" at this point.

More:

Bolton — who has previously claimed that the "mullahs in Iran" want a Democratic president in 2008 — responded:

I think they’re dead wrong on this. I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do. Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.

This dovetails nicely with a story I reported on a few nights ago, United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp.

Hm, looks like somebody is sure planning on bombing an Iranian "training camp" in the near future.  

More from this article:

The US military is drawing up plans for a "surgical strike" against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.
(snip)
"If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan," said one source, referring to a frontier province.

They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.

"The fighting could escalate".  No shit sherlock.  

By the way Khustan is where most of Iran's oil wells are located.  I'm sure that's a coincidence.

Okay, the other screaming hair-on-fire sort of detail is something I can't believe I missed: (Oh yeah, I was extremely busy working and having a life.  Imagine that)

Iran dumps U.S. dollar for oil trades

Yes, you read that right.  Iran has decided that the dollar is "a worthless piece of paper".  And they are now going to conduct all of their oil transactions in currencies other than the dollar.  Now let's face it, THAT'S the "threat" from Iran, not their aluminum tube collection.  

"The dollar has totally been removed from Iran's oil transactions," Oil Ministry official Hojjatollah Ghanimifard told state-run television Wednesday. "We have agreed with all of our crude oil customers to do our transactions in non-dollar currencies."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the depreciating dollar a "worthless piece of paper" at a rare summit last year in Saudi Arabia attended by state leaders from OPEC countries.

(snip)

Iranian oil officials have said previously that they were shifting oil sales out of the dollar into other currencies, but Ghanimifard indicated Wednesday that all of Iran's oil transactions were now conducted in either the euro or yen.

"In Europe, Iran's oil is sold in euros, but both euros and yen are paid for Iranian crude in Asia," said Ghanimifard.

Iran's central bank has also been reducing its foreign reserves denominated in dollars, motivated by the falling value of the greenback and U.S. attempts to make it difficult for Iran to conduct dollar transactions.

So there you have it.  Two more nails in the coffin of peace.  

Sit back and grab the popcorn and hope you don't have to buy much gasoline in the future.  

UPDATE:  Almost forgot a couple of things:

You know, if the Bushies time this right, it's gonna be "Obama who?" and "elections?  We're having elections?"  Because the "news" media will be all about Our New War and the old War Hero who's gonna deal with this little mess.  If you think that's paranoid, I'll refer you to MeteorBlades diary of earlier today, Fox Military Propagandist Promotes Terrorist Murder in which retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney not only expresses a desire to commit terrorist acts within Iran, he sorta lets slip the real motivation behind all this bullshit:

McInerney:   And then I would start moving U.S. carrier battle groups into the region, as well as some of our stealth aircraft, just to make sure they understand, don't try to kick off a major insurrection come October and September, October to impact our elections. They are deliberately ratcheting up and we’ve got to counterattack.

Uh, yeah, just who exactly is trying to "impact our elections" with this nonsense?  I think we all know the answer to that.  

•  tip jar

  and I'm going to bed, 10:47 PDT.  :)

  by Inky99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM PDT

  •  How else will we be in Iraq for 100 years?

    I mean the only way McCain's prediction comes true is if we use Iraq as our staging area for the battle royale with Iran...

    by HKHeadhunter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:08:11 PM PDT

•  actually,

  the "most prudent thing to do", for me at least, would be for me to kick walrus 'stache square in his neocon nutz and tell him to shut his motherfucking pie hole.

  that would be rather prudent. at least it would be somewhat satisfying.

  wait. why exactly is anyone listening to this pathetic assclown again?

  "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

  It's time: the albany project.

  by lipris on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:53:53 PM PDT

  •  the same reason

    that george bush and dick cheney are still in the white house.

    Noboby's kicked them out yet.  Nobody thought it was "prudent" to impeach them.  

    by Inky99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:57:32 PM PDT

•  Thank you, as always Inky, for keeping THIS

  slice of reality in our field of vision.

  The candidates are not talking directly about this, nor have they been asked, as far as I know, by "journalists" in the TradMedia.

  Damn it all---

  by Samwoman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:55:06 PM PDT

  •  you're welcome

    I think the only way to prevent this is if enough people call them on it.  It probably won't work, but at least we will have tried something.  

    by Inky99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:05 PM PDT

    •  Exactly--In 2003 I was optimistic that with

      every rally I went to, Bush would have to reconsider was with Iraq. (How TERRIBLY naive!!!)

      Fool me twice--uh uh--No. Not gon' happen.

      Your diaries on the matter provide the emotional fuel to, not just speak out, but YELL OUT!!

      by Samwoman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:14:14 PM PDT

•  Iran created its own oil trading market

  the Iranian oil bourse.  Let me put my tin foil hat on my head, for I think the oil is the thing here.  Add to that the incredibly shaky position of the GOP, and you've got a two-step system for continued neocon domination.

  (1) Invade Iran, and
  (2) Wave flag.

  This situation is scary.

  by bubbanomics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:55:50 PM PDT

  •  Iran has OUR oil!

    and we want it!

    Hey, that's why we overthrew their country in 1953.  The CIA, led by Kermit Roosevelt, overthrew their democratically elected leader when they nationalized the oil companies, kicking out the likes of British Petroleum.  

    Now, they dare to quit trading in dollars?  Punishment must follow!

    by Inky99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM PDT

    •  1. Place your head firmly between your legs

      2. Kiss your ass goodbye.

      I've seen bumperstickers back in TN:  How did our oil get under their sand?

      I reiterate.  This situation is scary.

      by bubbanomics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:06:05 PM PDT

  •  why a tin foil hat?

    Oil is and has long been at the economic foundation of the world's economy.  Rather, it takes a tin-foil hat to believe the administration's BS.

    by shock on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:24:26 PM PDT

  •  Question

    Wasn't Saddam Hussein planning to open an Iraqi bourse just before the decision to invade was "forced" on America?

    by Spoc42 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:00:35 AM PDT

    •  Yes, he did threaten to convert the exchange

      from dollars to Euros and refused to back down prior to the war.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:14:49 AM PDT

•  Iran Halts Talks With U.S. on Iraq

  http://www.nytimes.com/...

  Interesting read that goes along with this story. Bottom line, and we all know it, Iraq all over again. No proof of Iran involvement in Iraq, just alot of smoke from "Officials."

  Reminds me of WMD's.

  by Kronos Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:55:50 PM PDT

•  Whenever Bolton begins a sentence with

  "I think," as in

  I think they’re dead wrong on this. I think this is a case ...

  Just stop right there, don't read further, or you will gouge your eyeballs out with pencils or some other nearby projectile.  

  by Mother Mags on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:58:21 PM PDT

  •  I'd rather gouge out his.

    But I'm a peaceful man; I'll settle for gettin' his butt at the defendants' table on trial at the Hague.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:00:24 AM PDT

  •  I have a question

    Since when has Bolton been thinking? I have always thought he was a sock puppet for BushCo, mouthing their crap.

    OT: Bolton bullshits so much, I'm surprised that his moustache isn't a deep brown in colour.

    by Spoc42 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:03:31 AM PDT

•  Meanwhile, on Larry King, yes,

  I know he's an idiot, but I can't get MSNBC so CNN and Fox are my choices, he kept repeating, over and over, that Hillary said that she would "obliterate" Iran if Iran "destroyed" Israel.  Geez, man, this is your job, such as it is, can't you at least read the quotes you are talking about?  Pathetic.

  And then there's Lanny Davis, but at least he knows he's lying, and doing so for money.  I can't stand him either, but at least he knows what he is doing.

  by DrJeremy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM PDT

•  This is surreal.

  It really serves to highlight the importance of this election, for those who haven't been keeping score at home. At the risk of cliche, the tipping point is steadily approaching. If McSame wins the presidency, our country, our troops, and tens of thousands of people in three separate Middle Eastern countries will be utterly fucked. And given the past couple of weeks, it's no longer clear that a similar scenario won't arise should Clinton somehow win.

  Someone outside of this corrupt administration has to somehow broker an understanding with Iran before the shit hits the fan. BushCo will make another war a reality if they go unchecked. Get Jimmy Carter in there. In fact, Obama is already reaching out to Nigeria. Dare I suggest he appeal to Ahmadinejad directly? To hell with how the "politics" plays among the media and hardliners. He might as well act like the president now; we haven't had one in seven years.

  by differance on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:16:15 PM PDT

•  We are dangerosly close

  to kicking off WWW III. Do they think Iran is just going to all us to perform "surgical strikes"? If the U.S. performs surgical strikes has anyone ever said how they think Iran will respond. Here is what Iran has said in the past what they would do if they were attacked.

  1. Bomb the Hormuz strait.
  2. Bomb Israel.

  Bombing Iran dosen't leep America safer and isn't in our best interest.

  by adamchaz on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:22:27 PM PDT

•  "worthless piece o' paper"?

  Them is fightin' words.

  by Sarge in Seattle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:50:50 PM PDT

•  Why does he got so much airtime?

  Oh, he is "controversial". Thank you "reporters", there are some real news out there.

  Bolton is nuts, totally nuts.

  by allmost liberal european on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:53:01 PM PDT

  •  Because Mideast War and Empire are MSM Core

    policy.

    by Gooserock on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:31:50 AM PDT

  •  Because Mideast War/Empire is Core MSM

    policy.

    by Gooserock on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:33:17 AM PDT

•  A few months ago...

  I was part of a small delegation representing MoveOn that met with Congressman Dave Reichert to express our concerns about the possibility of an attack on Iran.

  His response?

  Foreign policy is set by the president, not Congress.

  Which was much more polite than "fuck you".

  But not so much different in substance.

  Darcy Burner is Reichert's opponent.

  Please help with a small (or not small) contribution via my personal fundraising page.

  Thanks,

  Sarge

  by Sarge in Seattle on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:08:04 AM PDT

•  NPR pushing the attack Iran frame

  today they had a report about Iran's opposition groups and how they are the victims.
    NPR podcast:Iran's Dissident Crackdown Sparks Exiles' Fears
   These opposition groups include  terrorist groups, funded by you and me, who have killed thousands in Iran, including schoolchildren.
    The end of NPR's report said how the ex-pat Iranians who have spoken out and organized against the regime have been tracked down and killed, assassinated in in Great Britian, and Europe.

    This image serves the Neocon agenda well by framing this as 'Iran is capable of finding these people anywhere and assassinating them, they therefore are an enemy and you shouldn't be worrired about the collateral damage and cost if we attack them, after all, they could Attack You Too.

     The terrorists and the Iran regime's political enemies aren't always the same people, and for NPR to run this story (which I only heard the end of, is , to me, indicative that they want us Volvo liberals to think the worst of the Iranian leadership, so as to mitigate the effects of our terrorism against their population, and the 'collateral damage' on their civilian population.
    From gjohnsit's diary:We are already at war with Iran

   I should note that the PEJAK is the least offensive of the terrorist groups your tax dollars are going to support. On the extreme is the   (Army of Allah). ABC reported how the CIA was funding this group more than a year ago. They are as much terrorist as a terrorist group can get, including the bombings of girls schools .
   According to Tariq Jamil, chief of the Karachi police, "Jundullah has close ties with Al-Qaeda." He's not the only one to claim that.

    John Bolton, Michael Ledeen, Swift Boat Vet's Jerome Corsi are all working to create this image of Iran as an evil empire, and they and their minions are getting just such propaganda planted wherever compliant uncritical media can be formed.
    Maybe I'm being too tough on NPR,they had a story linking McSame with Hagee, 'the new Pastor problem'. They also had a story examining the Iran arms in Iraq issue, and didn't hold the Iranian govt resposible...yet.
      NPR has a sorry record in regards to our occupation and invasion of Iraq, now they are maybe adding the Iranian blood to their credits.

  by KenBee on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:16:08 AM PDT

  •  National Propaganda Radio

    The guy who took over NPR in 1998 is an old propaganda hack.  From Voice of America et al.  Most "liberals" who listen to it have no freaking idea how bad it is.  

    by Inky99 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:12:08 AM PDT

•  What about strikes on the UN building?

  by jfern on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:32 AM PDT

•  First of all,

  It has been pretty clear to anyone who is not a neocon or extreme right wing kool-aide drinker that Bolton 'bolted from reality' long, long ago.  Why he still has a voice is beyond me, absolutely!

  And now to the real crux.  According to Bolton and others, the US must strike Iran because; (1) Iran supplies weapons and materiel to Shiite insurgentst, and (2) Iran trains Iraqi Shiite insurgents inside of Iranian national territory.  Does any of this strike you as a bit odd, that these accusations, even if true, are made within a moral vacuum?  Oh, and Iran might be trying to achieve nuclear weapons.

  Well, it seems that the US supplied weapons and training to the mujhadeen 'insurgents' in Afghanistan, during the Soviet 'occupation' (very similar to the US occupation of Iraq, I think).  The US supplied arms and materiel (and other support)for an invasion of Cuba, the 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco.  The US has supplied arms, materiel and training throughout Latin America... and Southeast Asia.  And there is the bravado to claim a right to agression against Iran, considering that Iraq is more important to Iran, sharing a common border, yet conviently 'forget' the far-flung adventures of the US, sometimes in support of insurgencies, and sometimes in backing despotic governments?

  As to the nuclear weapons issue, where is the proof?  Yes, Iran obviously has a nuclear program, but there is an absolute absence of hard evidence that it is a weapons program.  And it would be nice if Bush, Bolton, etc., remembered that peaceful uses of nuclear energy are within Iran's rights, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Which, btw, Israel is no such a signatory, has a 'nuclear program', and has a nuclear arsenal, without censure or reprisal!

  I am not saying for a moment that Iran may not represent a threat of sorts, but it certainly is not the threat that BushCo portrays, and it is one best dealt with diplomatically and with mutual talks, not bravado by a 'Codpiece' and those who would (again) rush to war, with neither justification nor thought as to the consequences.

  by wgard on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:45:57 AM PDT

•  Even Bill Moyers....

  ... mentioned in his opening verbal essay that the USS Lincoln has been deployed to the Mideast - the same carrier on which Chimpy McFlightSuit landed in a plane and from which he gave that infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech five years ago.

  http://www.pbs.org/...
  Bill Moyers Journal, 2 May 2008

  It's the first video in the selection.

  Over a year ago when the drums of war were first being mentioned regarding Iran, I did read that Iran was at that time going to go to euros for their oil bourse, and more than one author tied the Iranian oil bourse to a US invasion (some tied the Iraq invasion to their oil bourse going to euros, too).  As noted in more recent articles regarding the NIE estimates and that Iran is NOT building nuclear warheads at their nuclear power plants (they're selling their oil, not using their own oil to fuel their power plants, so that's why the nuclear power plants: to provide electrical power for their citizens).

  Let's hope all the war predictions have been wrong.  But I'll be surprised if they are....  The only thing up in the air now is whether or not Congress Critters would vote in favor of a war resolution over a "threat" that is no direct threat, only the "threat" to the economy when Iran goes completely to euros for their oil bourse.

  It always comes back to oil and money for US oil corporations.....

  by NonnyO on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:05:04 AM PDT

  •  Oh, and PS: Bolton

    I don't think Bolton's ever been replaced at his previous recess appointment at the UN, and keeping Congress in session during breaks keeps Dumbya from replacing him and/or re-appointing Bolton - as well as keeps Dumbya from making any other recess appointments.

    If we have a UN representative now, I've not heard who it is.  I'd be just as happy if Bolton went into permanent retirement and kept his lying mouth shut.

    by NonnyO on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:10:07 AM PDT

•  There are many things

  I would ascribe to Bolton however, prudence would not be among them.  There is so much static and just plain trash cluttering up the "news" that I would bet my next paycheck most Americans will be totally surprised when all this happens.  Damn......

  by luckylizard on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:21:31 AM PDT

•  I called the White House Monday

  to let them know I am not convinvinced by their arguments. I used wgard's points I picked up from yesterday's diary (or see comment above). This could also be used:

  http://ipsnews.net/...

  If Bolton, McInerney and the rest of the neo-cons are trying to convince us striking is the prudent thing to do let them know we remain unconvinced:
  [phone].

  by hoplite9 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:44:16 AM PDT

  •  But did you vote for Bush in 2000 and/or 2004?

    If not, your opinion doesn't matter anyway.

    by catnap1972 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:48:59 AM PDT

    •  If their surrogates

      are talking about a strike on Iran they obviously are feeling the need to convince somebody, or else they would just do it. They've been floating these ballons out for a long time and some degree they've all been shot down. If they show a need to convince this country, let's try to thwart that need. Take care of all opportunities.

      by hoplite9 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:06:31 AM PDT