As we start another week, we find the Bush administration working diligently on plans of what, and how to handle the Iran situation. The
Washington Post reports that the administration has been in a number of Top Secret meetings dealing with this very topic. Read on>>>
President Bush and his team have been huddling in closed-door meetings on Iran, summoning scholars for advice, investing in opposition activities, creating an Iran office in Washington and opening listening posts abroad dedicated to the efforts against Tehran.
It seems that the Bush administration is looking to topple the ayatollahs of Tehran, is this the opportunity that they have been waiting for, or are we just reading all of the language coming from this administration wrong? Are they going to tell the people of the United States that this is to stop a great menace in the region or will they be truthful for once, and lay the cards on the table?
As we have seen in the past from their actions that Bush and company prefer to lie to the world, and do what they feel is in their best interest, and not that of the nation.
The administration has been careful in the wording not say they want a regime change in Iran, but last week during a Senate committee hearing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came close to calling for a regime change when during her testimony she said,
We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," Rice said, "We do not have a problem with the Iranian people. We want the Iranian people to be free. Our problem is with the Iranian regime."
Two weeks ago the Resident and Vice Resident, held a meeting with members of the Hoover Institute, a republican think tank that is well known their influence in developing Bush's economic policy. Currently there are 8 Hoover fellows on the Defense policy board advising Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
After the meeting,
Esmail Amid-Hozour, an Iranian American businessman who serves on the Hoover board said, "The message that we received is that they are in favor of separating the Iranian people from the regime,"
Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush's first term was among those pushing for engagement said, "The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy,"
So there is little if any doubt that we are looking at a confrontation with Iran, and the only things that we don't know for sure is;
- When?
- Why ? [What the reasoning will be.] With most of the world knowing that there is a currency change planed by Iran to the Euro. Also that Israel is setting back waiting to attack Iran, I don't think the administration wants to risk Iran not having nukes or the capability to develop them in the near future. {with in a year or two.}
- How? [With the US troops spread thin there is no way that this administration can think that a land occupation can be feasible. An air strike would be the only feasible way.]
- Who? Who would initiate the first strike? Israel, with US support, or the European allies?
- And this is the big question, "Will it be Conventional or Nuclear?" In my eyes and in the eyes of many others, this is a legitimate question. These madmen in the White House feel that a controlled limited nuclear strike is a possibility, and the Neo-Cons that back them agree.
So you can bet the ranch that there will be some kind of confrontation with Iran, and they will fight back. Also we need to worry that we can sustain any economical ramifications that occur from it.
This might be a good time if you have a God, you might want to ask him for a big favor.
ABA