Think Progress » Top Cheney Aide: 2007 Is ‘The Year Of Iran,’ U.S. Attack ‘A Real Possibility’ — And this will accomplish what? We aren’t spending enough money? Iraq wasn’t BIG enough?
Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney’s national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 “the year of Iran” and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.
When I first saw that picture, I thought he was wearing a black turtleneck.
What is the symbolism of the hand gesture?
There are two symbolisms to the hand gesture.
The Hawaiian one is “I love you.”
The Italian one is the horns of the devil.
Take your pick!
Its probably inevitable at this point. Its up to the Democratic Congress to put a stop to this. We’ll see if they are up to the job. Frankly, I dont think so, just my opinion. sigh.
Soooooo, Bush is saying he loves the devil. 🙂
Listening to the news yesterday, I heard the report that the Administration “has no plans for attacking Iran”.
So.. when has that stopped them?
J/P=?
Personally, I think he’s just rockin’ out.
It appears the Bush administration doesn’t believe Iran would retaliate against American interests worldwide if attacked. An attack doesn’t necessarily mean a physical attack. How about attacking our financial markets and economy by closing the Straight of Hormuz? That’s all it would take to bring life as we know it to an abrupt halt. The Bush administration is playing fast and loose with our very livelihood. These neo-cons are more dangerous than anybody imagined.
no, no, no…. it’s for “Hook ‘Em, Horns!” i.e. the Texas Longhorns, mascot of the University of Texas, located in Austin, where the Bushettes went to college….
As a grad of UT (’83) it is a bit sickening to see Bush flashing my beloved Longhorns sign everywhere. it’s not like HE ever went there… (no relatives to pull strings for him at UT, I suppose, so he had to go be a poser at Yale…)
What this story lack is analysis. The current assumption made by most pundits about Iran’s leadership is that they are operating without a lot of constraints. This is false, there is growing unrest towards the ruling party and recent elections & public protests show this trend. The worst thing the U.S. could do is to launch a overt operation against the country, as this will give more credit to the current leadership’s rhetoric of “America & Israel causes all our troubles.”
The Bush Administration knows this and will act accordingly, as they are rational individuals. Saying that a military attack is a “real possibility” well alright, does that mean that there is a “real” 5% chance it will occur? I’d place my money on this probability. Also, there is a larger “real possibility” that diplomatic efforts will work out, as they have begun to with N. Korea. The current lack of access to U.S./E.U. credit markets is hurting Iran’s infrastructure investment heavily, and will continue to be a better weapon than conventional arms.
whoever thinks USA is going to attack iran should wake up already
do you ACTUALLY know what country u are talking about?
thats not some iraq or afghanistan this is actually a country with an army
there airplanes, tanks and now russian AA weapons. there is no way they are doing this. they might help Israel with weapons tho, or fast bomb attack
3 words Military Industrial Complex, War is profit. More war, More money. Its that simple.
That’s the “wolfpack” sign. Kevin Nash and Scott Hall back in the early days of the nWo.
Wake up and smell the napalm Igor.
I am not the only one who thinks that the more they say they are not going to attack Iran, the more they really want to, and will find any way to do so.
They told us over the weekend that some IADs originated, or had components that came from Iran. What about the ones that have components from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other places? How come they are only telling us about the ones from Iran? Could it be because they plan to attack Iran?
Why have we been building up naval forces there? Just for fun? I don’t think so Igor.
igor- How long did Iraq and Iran fight that war, what was it, ten years? How long did it take us to defeat their military? 10 Minutes. Get back in your cave igor.
Has anyone taken a look at the world map in the Iran area lately?
Now look at it carefully and put a mental thumb tack on every nation that we are either allies with or have troops in.
Now once you’ve done that look again at Iran. Now THINK Napoleon.
Now after all of that think to the election of 2000 and when asked both Gore and Bush stated that Iran and North Korea were the two greatest security threats to the US.
Cursor_
Defeat whose military? Mark 15? Do you think our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being killed by the Tooth Fairy? Virtually all the insurgents of any flavor got their original training in the Iraqi Army. Just because they’re also bright enough not to drive up and down the main drag in HumVees — doesn’t make them non-soldiers.
If you think the divided citizenry of Iraq surprised Uncle Sugar’s doughboys, you ain’t seen nothing if the neocon nutcases try to occupy Iran. Every student and independent working at taking the imams out of power — will unite with the government against imperial crusaders.
#11. Iraq had all of those things in 91. A lot of good it did them.
how would this be a problem? Iran would pwn the americans there, it would escalate, muslims and christians world wide would choose sides, further escalation, then we would all die.
end of story.
oh ps – the buddists would be all thats left, and have a strict isolationist policy
#18:
And we had almost 1,000,000 guys in the area when it went down. Who we gonna use now Einstein?
Listen our troops are great – the best in the world right now, but even Bruce Lee could only fight guys one at a time.
I should amend my statement – Our troops were great before the “big Dick” Cheney and “Chicken” George killed the military.
Israel will handle this. It will not be pretty, and they’ll need tactical nukes to do it.
17. I agree. If you read igors’ post he was talking about organized military, as was I. Fighting the insurgents is another thing altogether. Go back and read 11. There military hardware isnt the problem, its the aftermath that is the problem and the reason we cant “win” (whatever that means.)
Everybody seems to treat this as a potential 2nd Generation war. Iraq has already proved it’s a 4th Generation war. Read up on William Lind (good starting point is Wikipedia; just search for William Lind). Lind concluded that the state no longer has a monopoly on warfare and attempts to treat modern wars as WWII affairs will fail. We’ve already lost in Iraq and the numbskulls in charge don’t even know it, or anyway won’t admit it.
Or look into Martin Van Creveld’s “Transformation of War.” He’s an Israeli military historian. He describes a decline of the nation-state with no reduction in organized violence – and states that get sucked into low-intensity conflicts (like guerrilla wars) lose. They buy all these expensive weapons and outfit huge numbers of soldiers, and lose.
These writers aren’t fuzzy-minded liberals or loony lefties. They’re conservatives, mostly trying to think of ways to serve their states effectively in the face of new realities. Quick, somebody tell the neocons.
Now our geniuses in charge want to make it all okay by launching a 2nd Generation attack on Iran, with all its wealth and armaments? #17 is right – all we’d do is unite the population and the government against us.
Numbskulls is too mild a word. Good lord, I’d hope the US military would stop them if congress won’t (and they probably won’t).
Mark,
So we’ve won the war in Iraq? Wow, your drugs are good. I wasn’t aware that we had taken control. We defeated an already depleted and disorganized Army. Don’t you think that Saddam’s years in power…the various military campaigns, the brutal violence to his own, and the issues with multiple factions within his country (some of which he was “at war” with for decades) weakened any defense he may have had?
Iran is not Iraq. It is full of Persians….and they have been well trained over the years. It’s a whole different situation. It’s a DIFFERENT COUNTRY. Until the Shah was thrown out, we had a huge military presence in Iran and trained great numbers of their personnel, many of whom are high level officers, now. (Remember, it’s a border country to the USSR, look at the map. We had great numbers of CIA, and other OPS, as well as military in the country. We installed the Shah as leader, and used him and his country as a puppet. This is not forgotten.) In the meantime, they have aquired a great amount of hardware, and are well trained as an army. It’s a very intelligent group of people….and they haven’t been systematically “ethnically cleansed” ..such as what happened in Iraq by Saddam. It’s a whole different ballgame..and going into attack…would be downright idiotic. Our Army is suffering a huge morale problem, it’s already worn out, and it’s under-manned. If we attack Iran, Korea would (most likely) find that as an opportunity to attack us…as it’s always a good idea to attack your enemy when you enemy is over-extended.
It would be a mistake to attack Iran on whim. And, hawks, such as yourself, should get out of the house more, and try reading some.
meetsy- What the fuck are you talking about. I never said we won the war in Iraq. I said we defeated their military such as it was, at that time. Defeating the insurgency is something totally different but just as effective for them. If you bothered to read my post, you would know that. I agree with practically everything you are posting here. Sorry if you misunderstood, I thought it was quite clear what I said.
Having said that if the Persians are such a great army, why couldnt they defeat Iraqs “MILITARY” after 8 years of conflict. Sheesh.
10. “The worst thing the U.S. could do is to launch a overt operation against the country, as this will give more credit to the current leadership’s rhetoric of “America & Israel causes all our troubles.””
totally agreed. Iran, unlike Iraq, is a real country. Its people are genuinely patriotic. If attacked by the US or Israel they will rally to the flag.
“The Bush Administration knows this and will act accordingly, as they are rational individuals. ”
I am less sure of this. Cheney is pushing an air attack on Iran. They are politically free to do so – at 35% approval, they have no where to go but up and no third term to worry about. And the thousands of suicide bombers the Iranian Revolutionary Guard can send into Iraq will soon be some other administration’s problem.
The damn thing is, even handwaving away the consequences for the US in Iraq – (1) by recent accounts, the Iranians are several years away from being able to produce more than trivial amounts of weapons-grade fissile material. The shutting down of AQ Khan’s network hammered their capabilities. So there is no rush; and (2) even if there was a rush, Iran’s major facilities are, by most accounts, hardened and highly resistant to air attack. So any attack could wind up being largely ineffectual – even if the Iranians were close to making a bomb.
So it could be unnecessary and ineffectual, as well as worstening the US’s position in the region.
Wait … this is all sounding VERY familiar …
With all due respect for President Bush, the picture is an obvious fake. I’ve never seen the President dress like that. And we all know that Bush doesn’t need to hand gesture the horns of the devil when his policies are devilish all by themselves.
#27 – WHAT due respect? He isn’t due any. He has no respect for the presidency or anything else (except his big oil cronies).
#28. I was being sarcastic. Didn’t I say that Bush policies are satanic?
#3, When I was a kid, that hand sign meant Bull Shit. Usually, it was the back of the hand that faced the opponent.