http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/2007/10/paul-donnelly-sicks-fbi-on-elmo.html

Lower taxes, reduced energy industry regulation, drilling in ANWR, and the end of tariffs on ethanol figure prominently.

I'm genuinely surprised it doesn't also say: ban abortion, ban gay marriage, encourage torture of immigrants and foreigners living in foreign countries.

Oh, and end Social Security. It goes without saying that we can't survive an energy crisis unless we do that.

Watch. Al is going to think Kevin is serious.

Gas was sub $1.00 in Clinton's last year. It's been up to $3.00 and change under Bush.

But why would a bunch of Texas oil men and women (remember Condi had an oil tanker named after her) who are close family friends with the Saudi Royals [and who receive generous campaign contributions from the energy industry] want gas prices to go higher? It just can't figure it out.

No, wait, I think I figured it out. What surprises me is that no one else in the MSM seems to have ever linked the two, if only as a happy coincidence.

Oh hey, and another happy coincidence, the vice president's former energy firm also makes a lot of money subcontracting to the US military. Why, you'd almost think they planned the Iraq war all along!

Oh wait, didn't Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, say just that in his book? He said the Bush administration was talking about invading Iraq from day one, and even had maps up suggesting how contracts for servicing Iraq's oil infrastructure would be divided up among various US corporations.

Fortunately, unlike Iraq, we don't have any good reasons to attack Iran. Oh wait, it turns out we didn't actually have any good reasons to attack Iraq. There were no WMDs. But Iran DOES have a nuclear program.

But surely this administration would weigh the long term consequences and repercussions of an attack on Iran... oh, wait, they won't be in office long enough to suffer the political consequences, will they?

Perhaps public opinion is enough to restrain Bush? Oh, right, his ratings have pretty much hit rock bottom. World opinion? His sense of human decency?

Ah, crap - we're pretty screwed, aren't we?

And to make it even more screwed up, if people actually READ the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), they would see that Iran, as a signatory to it, has every right TO develop peaceful nuclear energy. The IAEA's JOB is to make SURE, through inspection, that it IS peaceful. To date, even WITH the Additional Protocol we blackmailed the UN into passing, the IAEA has ZERO evidence of wrongdoing.

... all of which forced Bush to flat declare that we would not honor the NPT and Iran would never be allowed to develop what they are, by rights and treaty, able to develop.

The world? Silent once again.

The skill at the people inside the Administration at 'programming' the 'right' answer is amazing.

I would assume they wired Heritage to write that conclusion. It smacks of a not uncommon blue chip consulting assignment, where the client is quite emphatic about what the conclusion of your study will be, it's up to you to collect the data and make it fit a pre determined conclusion.

So Heritage was programmed to conclude attacking Iran would not devastate the US economy or oil market.

The State Department has declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation. That would be the equivalent of the Iranians declaring the Texas Rangers and the FBI a terrorist organisation.

Mysterious 'off the record' briefings about copper bowls, spun in Iran, which become IEDs in Iraq.

(Seymour Hersh) The focus of the attack shifts from the Iranian nuclear facilities (which are scattered, hard to hit, and the Iranians are not as far along as we had thought) to 'terrorist' facilities ie the Revolutionary Guard.

Just like with the Iraq war, you can see the chain of logic and evidence for war with Iran being neatly lined up.

I really think it's war. The best timing would be a new moon, before the Iowa Caucuses. Capitalises on the US advantages in night flying and night special forces operations, and avoids the accusation that this is entirely political.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001112

Speaking From Experience, Part II: Former CIA official expects war with Iran
DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED September 4, 2007

Until recently, I thought the odds that the United States would attack Iran were less than fifty-fifty, but the chances of a military confrontation are clearly growing (as my colleague Scott Horton has been reporting on for some time). Earlier this year, I asked a former CIA official, who was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War and served in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, if he though the administration was planning a military strike. “I don’t think the administration is about to carry out military action,� he told me. “The military does not want to do this. We will lose planes if there is a massive air strike over Iran. We’ll have pilots killed and captured.�

Yesterday, I called the official—who speaks with me only off the record—and he now believes a military strike is likely. Here are his comments, which I offer not as an endorsement of an invasion, but because of his knowledge and insights into what might lay ahead:

It looks like a military strike is in the works and I base that on two things: observable fact and the rhetoric emanating from the White House. There’s a lot of movement of troops and materiel into the region–it’s stuff the United States can’t hide. It’s a huge expense to put Navy battle groups in the Gulf and we’ve got three of them there. We’ve also moved new fighter planes to Guam amidst much public fanfare. You can plainly see the upturn in US Naval activity in and around the Norfolk Naval installations. The movement of ships, re-supply, ammunition loading and general level of activity is high.

The Naval facilities and the ammunition loading areas are well known, and the activity is readily visible, especially at night. There’s a stream of ships coming in to load up and when they take off new ones come in. There’s only one part of the world where all that stuff is heading. Also, everyone I know who would be involved in an attack on Iran–pilots and other air assets–is gone. Normally some of them are around but now all of them are away at the same time.

The other evidence of a likely strike is all the harsh talk from the White House. President Bush has been talking about Iran a lot more recently, and he put the Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorist groups. Whatever you think of the president, he has said he won’t let Iran move forward with its nuclear program. I’d take him at his word.

And it’s doable. The only part of the military that’s not stretched to the limits in Iraq is the Air Force. It will be a multi-day, multi-target air campaign–not ‘Shock and Awe,’ which wasn’t shocking and didn’t awe anyone, but a savage blow struck against President Ahmadinejad. We shouldn’t hit Iran’s Navy or Air Force but target the nuclear sites and the Revolutionary Guard. A measured response helps Ahmadinejad because he’s saying the Americans won’t attack, or can’t hurt, Iran. A disproportionate response will be hard for him to explain to the Iranian public.

There isn't a lot of rational reasons to attack Iran - it would be a catastrophe; economically, environmentally and from a humanitarian point of view. I, for one, didn't sign up to be an accomplice to mass murder. Thousands of innocent Iranians will die in any sort of mass bombing campaign.

But, this Administration has shown time and time again, that logic, rationality and compassion do NOT enter into their decision-making process, or "deciding" as Dubya would put it. So, it probably will happen, since Democrats have shirked their Constitutional duty to impeach an out-of-control Chief Executive.

But there aren't any three carrier groups in the Gulf; there is one. This rather kiboshes the whole story.

Wow. That's a lot of sarcasm to face first thing on Friday morning.
OT, it may be too late to stop the annoying Britishisms "at the end of the day" (I blame Madonna), "wanker", and my personal liberal blogger unfavorite "spot on".
But "boffin"? This must be stopped immediately before it gains any traction. I'm talking to you, KD.

Any increases in violence and oil prices are good for the Cheney-Bush administration and the family businesses.

I love that part about drilling in ANWR helping to alleviate oil market disruptions due to bombing Iran. It's perfect. I suspect that we also need to extend copyright and patent protections out to 400 years, too. And put AK-47s into the hands of teachers. And overturn Griswold. And ban the NEA.

Crap. Had I even looked at the comments, I'd have seen that I was waaaay late to the party on that aspect.

Didn't the Heritage Foundation say the same thing about Iraq? How'd that turn out?

Not to like, ya know, be sensible and propose something worthwhile or nothing, but urging Senator Reid to schedule an immediate Senate debate on Webb's bill might actually ACCOMPLISH something.

Or we could follow Elmo's example.

Michael Gass: Of course Iran has the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy (and there should be more of that, for all its faults at least carbon emissions are reduced.) The problem, as stated overtly at least by Condi et al, is the nuclear weapons issue. In theory (correct me if I'm wrong) it shouldn't be too hard to tell the difference if the Iranians allow monitoring, since the number of centrifuge cycles for the former is so much less than to get the high-enrichment for the latter. Or maybe, could we talk them into using the thorium process, which I don't think can be used for weapons at all?

Kevin quotes the Post:

A U.S. military strike against Iran would have dire consequences in petroleum markets [...] 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 [...]

And that distruption of oil supplies would occur against the background of peak oil. Journalist Tom Whipple writes about the recent Association for the Study of Peak Oil annual conference in Houston:

The most ominous development for countries such as the U.S., which must import most of its oil, is the emerging concept of "peak exports" which was discussed by several speakers. Peak exports simply means that oil-producing countries are using more and more oil at home - leaving less to sell abroad. Moreover, sentiment is starting to develop in many nations that they must save some oil for future generations, not just sell it to the foreign devils as quickly as possible.

This clearly means that major oil importers will face a shortfall in their ability to obtain oil many months or years sooner than they had been anticipating. The fall in the amount of oil available for purchase is likely to drop much more quickly than declines in production. When world oil exports fall, if they have not started doing so already, effects are likely to sharp and painful.

[...]

The peak oil problem is not that most of us don't recognize a transition is coming - if for no other reason than reducing our dependence on "foreign oil" - it is that we don't recognize that the transition will come soon and will inflict more economic pain and social dislocation on the American people than we have experienced since the Civil War or perhaps ever.

Thus the message from Houston was "it will be soon and it will be bad, very bad," much sooner and much worse than 99 percent of the American people realize.

[...]

What we in America have not yet begun to grasp is that numbers like this imply the near total demise of the private internal combustion powered automobile. Your local gasoline station is at the end of the distribution pipeline and is the most likely to be cut off. If gasoline available for distribution in the U.S. were to fall from 9 million barrels a day to the order of 5 million through a combination of declining production and declining exports, it is not hard to figure out what would happen when the government gets around to prioritizing uses.

Food production and distribution would come first, then public health (clean water, sewage, sanitation, medical services), then public safety including the armed forces, and finally some level of economic activity that uses petroleum products.

Thirty seconds of pondering this situation should leave you with the idea that there will be very little gasoline available for your gas station to sell to you. For sure, there will be a lot fewer gas stations around ten years from now and you are not going to like the prices.

The Dick Cheneys of the world are well aware of all of this as they plan their war of unprovoked aggression against Iran. They are not really that concerned about ensuring the steady flow of oil that the US economy requires, let alone with facilitating a transition to the post-oil era that will be as painless as possible; rather they are primarily concerned with ensuring that as much as possible of the profit from "producing" the oil goes to their ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies -- especially during the inevitable era of dwindling supply and growing demand, when those profits will be even greater than they already, unimaginably are.

It's all about the oil. Every aspect and every action of the Cheney/Bush administration's so-called "foreign policy" in the Middle East needs to be critically examined in the context of the two major existential threats to modern human civilization, both of which are directly related to the use of oil (and coal & natural gas): anthropogenic global warming, and the depletion of the fossil fuels themselves.

The Cheney/Bush people know what's going on with both of these matters. Their wars of aggression in the Middle East are part of their end-game.

Call me crazy, but has the conversation really shifted to an examination of the finer points of the logistics and cost/benefits of ATTACKING A COUNTRY THAT POSES NO THREAT WHATSOEVER TO THE UNITED STATES? Has the BushCo narrative really shifted public consciousness so effectively? This administration is openly threatening, AGAIN, a sovereign country which has limited agency even in its own geopolitical region. I know the realpolitik; I'm asking the larger question of WHAT HAVE WE BECOME, and the only answer that presents as congruent to the evidence is corporate-authoritarian tyranny, aided and abetted by a soulless and spiritually decrepit populace. King Leopold would be proud.

craigie: Additional policy prescriptions (banning of abortion, gay marriage, and torturing of immigrants and foreigners) will be issued in a second paper. Theirs (the heritage guys) is difficult work. And the fenny snake fillets, newt's eyes, frog toes, bat wool and dog tongues, adder forks and howlet wings necessary to provide mystical, er, empirical, information and conjure, er, formulate policy are not a dime a dozen. The ingredients are rare. As rare as the synaptic activty that occurs among conservative idealogues.

Conrad's ghost:
Actually, no, the public does not want a war with Iran. But who cares what the public wants?

The conversation has been "shifting" because it's directed by people who want war and has nothing to do with what actual Americans want to happen.

Crap. Had I even looked at the comments, I'd have seen that I was waaaay late to the party on that aspect.

Glad you didn't, because your post (and the preceding ones of similar theme) made me laugh.

http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=270138

I know you guys don't actually, like, DO anything useful, but fwiw, this is what I think we should support (Clinton just signed onto the bill):

"Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without congressional authorization. The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of military activities.

"I have taken great care in the preparation of this bill to ensure that it will not in any way prevent our military forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such as Iraq and in the international waters off Iran's coast. The legislation allows American forces to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks that might be initiated from Iran, as well as those that might be begun elsewhere and then carry over into Iranian territory. I have also excluded operations related to intelligence gathering.

"The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress...."

Jim Webb, Senate floor, March 7

Elementary Aquinas, folks: the best way to fight evil, is to do good.

Urge Reid to schedule debate and a floor vote.

The formula of traumatic events used to introduce an economic and/or social program is straight from the pages of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

There is a difference between this and the invasion of Iraq. At that time Bush had the fig leaf of a coalition. At least there was a group of countries playing lip service to his goals. This time there is active push back from most everyone else.

Any notion that we can quickly ramp up oil production from new fields like ANWR is a pipe dream. It takes years for such a field to come on line and even then we have no field in the US that could cover more than a few percent of our daily use.

Yeah, those oil guys in the White House would just hate it if oil prices went up. But they're patriots, so they're willing to take one for the team and suffer through the horror of massive increases in the price of the commodity they sell.

Oh no, Brer Fox, don't throw me in that there oil patch. Oh no.

Too tired for snark this morning.

Just glad to see that the MSM is finally reporting the obvious.

Ok, I got a bit of snark:

I'd always wondered whatever happened to all the morons who conjured up wacky alternative theories of value to explain why the dotcom bubble was not actually a bubble. I now see that they are employed at the Heritage Foundation.

(wicked smile) Oh, what the hell -- none of y'all have ever calculated that the ONLY way to bring Putin down is oil prices?

And conversely, it's the only thing propping him up.

Conrad's Ghost wrote: "I'm asking the larger question of WHAT HAVE WE BECOME, and the only answer that presents as congruent to the evidence is corporate-authoritarian tyranny, aided and abetted by a soulless and spiritually decrepit populace."

I call it neo-fascist corporate feudalism.

The essential attributes of the populace that "abet" this condition are ignorance and passivity, and the corporate-owned mass media are very successful at maintaining both. Why wouldn't they be? They have billions of dollars to spend, the most advanced and powerful mind-control and brainwashing techniques ever developed at their disposal, and virtually complete control over most of the information sources (e.g. broadcast and cable TV networks, radio stations, major newspapers) from which the vast majority of Americans get the vast majority of their information.

The malevolent cybernetic architects of "The Matrix" in the sci-fi movie of that name have nothing on corporate America when it comes to manufacturing a seamless and all-enveloping but utterly phony reality in which the people dream away their existence, while providing fuel for the vast machine that enriches the masters as it devours the world.

...ATTACKING A COUNTRY THAT POSES NO THREAT WHATSOEVER TO THE UNITED STATES?

You have to look at this from the perspective of the Cheneybunker.

The country of Iran itself poses no threat.

The existential threat to the Republic is Democratic control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. That and maybe that court in the Hague.

Attacking Iran is the best way to forestall the threat. The Democrats will collapse like a yard-sale card table. Actually cancelling the elections for the duration of the emergency won't be necessary. -- the Democrats will neuter themselves for the asking

And hey, if it triggers WWIII or anything, it's still better than the (President Hilary) alternative. The State exists to serve the Party, and if the Party is destroyed, the State loses it's raison d'etre.

It's a plan for an American civil-war-by-proxy, just like Iraq.

(wicked smile) Oh, what the hell -- none of y'all have ever calculated that the ONLY way to bring Putin down is oil prices?

Don't know I've actually come right out and said those words, but I have at least danced around the edges of it.

Valuethinker posted on October 26, 2007 at 4:24 AM:

"...And it’s doable. The only part of the military that’s not stretched to the limits in Iraq is the Air Force. It will be a multi-day, multi-target air campaign–not ‘Shock and Awe,’ which wasn’t shocking and didn’t awe anyone, but a savage blow struck against President Ahmadinejad. We shouldn’t hit Iran’s Navy or Air Force but target the nuclear sites and the Revolutionary Guard. A measured response helps Ahmadinejad because he’s saying the Americans won’t attack, or can’t hurt, Iran. A disproportionate response will be hard for him to explain to the Iranian public..."

No can do, Kimosabee. Any such strike will need to take down the Iranian's assets in air defense and coastal defense. That means it will be targeting the Iranian Air Force and Iranian Navy. It can't be avoided. If the strike occurs, its need for success will demand that strikes be made against all Iranian military assets. Otherwise, the Iranians will be unopposed in establishing a siege line on the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off American supply into Kuwait and oil transport out of the Gulf.

The trouble with this topic is that we're all guessing. Will bombing Iran trigger WW3? Will failing to bomb Iran trigger WW3? (That's not impossible. Failing to bomb Germany in the early days of Hitler allowed WW2 to happen.) Is there a way to stop Iran's nuclear development without military action? Will Iran voluntarily choose not to build nuclear weapons? Would a nuclear Iran be responsible or a "loose cannon"?

It seems to me that most world leaders say an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be unacceptible, but they're not doing anything to prevent it. So, I'm afraid we will soon find out what the impact of a nuclear Iran is.

Now, who would want the oil price to drop?
The Saudis? The recent upswing in price hasn't changed their lifting costs.
The US? The increased prices make drilling in places like ANWAR much more viable.
Canada? The oil price has boosted the C$ as they are the largest exported of oil to the US.
Feel free to continue the list with winners and losers and then see which countries have both the desire and the capability to want to bring Putin down.
In addition, our hard-line rhetoric against Iran just gives Putin another way to move to drag the 'stans back home.

Maybe Putin is in one of those lesser evil categories the US government is so fond of. What's one more dictator?

ex-liberal is afraid: "It seems to me that most world leaders say an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be unacceptible, but they're not doing anything to prevent it. So, I'm afraid we will soon find out what the impact of a nuclear Iran is."

This nutso administration is doing everything it can to make sure that the only avenue to what it calls "prevention" is war. For a little context on where we're headed and whom we've screwed, take a look at what Leverett and Mann have to say (thanks, Lambert).

It's not simply that "we're all guessing". We're guessing because the administration has deliberately and systematically blinded, deafened, and lobotomized itself. The reason Cheney can sleep through what's important is because he's boiled the neocon program down to its sticky, malodorous essence. Two responses for every question: (1) "Me want more!" and (2) "Kill!"

LULZ.

(Kevin, this kind of humor isn't your strong point. I'd lay off it.)

Boolaboola: This nutso administration is doing everything it can to make sure that the only avenue to what it calls "prevention" is war.

I don't think that's fair. The Bush Adminstration allowed the Eurpean nations to take the lead in trying to get some sort of economic sanctions that would convince Iran to stop their nuclear development. Maybe that wazs a mistake. Unfortunately, the Europeans have had little success. The UN has been ineffective, as usual.

If you want to blame anyone for encouraging war against Iran, blame China and Russia.
They've worked to vitiate international economic sanctions, thus making it difficult or impossible to stop Iran's nuclear development without warfare.

ex-liberal is afraid: "It seems to me that most world leaders say an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be unacceptible, but they're not doing anything to prevent it. So, I'm afraid we will soon find out what the impact of a nuclear Iran is."

They said the same thing about Israel, India and Pakistan. Nuclear proliferation is unnecessary, but when Third World states run by tin pot dictators lust for big weapons, it's something to put the fear in his neighbors and/or helps keep international busybodies, like the U.S., at bay.

Alex

When the reporter talked to the CIA guy, there were 3 carriers in the Gulf region. A carrier group can cover over 500 nautical miles a day, steaming, so 3 can be back in the region in less than 2 weeks.

Praha

I've not worked out how to do quotes in this version of html? That was a quote from the CIA guy in the cited article.

If you read Sy Hersh, there is speculation the focus is shifting from the nuclear installations, to the counter IRG mission. Because of the problems in hitting the nukes and because the justification has shifted from nuclear weapons (which they seem to be a long way from making) towards their role in Iraq.

I tend to agree with you that an attack, at least on Iranian naval installations, seems likely. To prevent them closing the Straits of Hormuz.

But the truth is the Iranian AF will head for cover. It will be gone in 24 hours, the bits that aren't buried.

....Failing to bomb Germany in the early days of Hitler allowed WW2 to happen..... .ex-lax at 11:26 AM

By trying to frame the issue as one of a country exercising its right to develop nuclear power as an existential threat to the US is typical of this failed administration's fear and war tactic.

These arguments work with bedwetter chickenhawks, but are laughable in their distortions.

...If you want to blame anyone for encouraging war against Iran, blame China and Russia....ex-lax at 1:07 PM

... The Bush Adminstration allowed the Eurpean nations to take the lead in trying to get some sort of economic sanctions that would convince Iran to stop their nuclear development. Maybe that wazs a mistake. Unfortunately, the Europeans have had little success. The UN has been ineffective, as usual.
~ex-liberal

Yeah, after ALL the unstinting "cooperation" and relentlessly cordial "diplomacy" by the Bush Reich, how COULD this have gone so wrong?? 8_(

Well, here's ONE particularly strong hint:

"Why worsen the situation by threatening sanctions and bring it to a dead end? It's not the best way to resolve the situation, by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."
~Vladimir Putin, statesman and sorely needed counterbalance to the "world's only [rogue] superpower"

Well said, Mister Putin! Ex-liberal, go out and buy yourself a CLUE.

Re: http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/2007/10/paul-donnelly-sicks-fbi-on-elmo.html

Amerikanist: I've encountered decrepit right-wing weasels in my day, but you fall FAR short of any semblance of "character" with that remarkably craven response to a mere email.

"STALKING"??? What a Piece Of Work!