U.S. Plans June Attack On Iran

Category: Americas, World Affairs Topics: Conflicts And War, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War Views: 7150

Scott Ritter, who appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail in February 2005 in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. 

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations. 

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. 

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism. 

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%. 

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh. 

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act." 

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration. 

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians. 

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing. 

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com. 

Mark Jensen is a member of United for Peace of Pierce County. http://www.ufppc.org/

  Category: Americas, World Affairs
  Topics: Conflicts And War, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War
Views: 7150

Related Suggestions

The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Older Comments:
Chicken-hawks have ruled the USA for quite some time now. So why is this article shocking?

These arm-chair warriors in the Pentagon make me sick. Sitting in their comfortable chairs they rattle their sabres, rationalize and justify not just invading and occupying a soverign country but they openly rob the country of its oil and even its historcal treasures, rape, pillage, torture and murder its people without any regard for international laws or human decency and worst, like a band of common criminals they not only justify their criminal acts but even protect their own by making their own laws as they go along. They use their minority soldiers namely the blacks and latinos as cannon fodder and when these poor fools are brought back in body bags, they pin some lousy medal on their dead corpses with a cynical almost insulting salute before they are dumped 6 feet under - that is for those lucky ones whose bodies are brought back in one piece. There is no honor here. There is no justice here. There is no humanity here. This is the war waged by some very clever devils who have hijacked our constitution, our rights and our freedom under the false banner of democracy and patriotism, to suit their own plans. These are the same wicked and evil people who use religion and the holocaust as an excuse to imprison, murder and rob an entire nation of Palestinians of their land and property. I do not feel patriotic when I see the American image accurately depicted as mad, murderous lunatic Huns. I fear, for I know from what I have seen in Vietnam and Korea, that those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Scott Ritter? That's a thoughtfull. I don't think he would be part of much anything. This lowdown seems not very credible to me. However, an attack on Iran is possible but not probable. USA still needs to clean up her mess in Iraq. Iraq was a trial and error sort of thing for the US military. In my opinion, they failed. There are 3 aspects to support my opinion. 1) The imense number of civilian casualties. 2) The despicable war-crimes at Abu Ghraib and other places, like Falujah to name one. 3) The incapability of the US forces to deal with the insurgeants. There are 3 supportives that an attack on Iran won't happen. 1)An attack on Iran would alianate USA more from the Europeans to whom Iran is an oil supplier and you never know what havoc an infuriated Europe could cause in the global economy. 2)The world is not ready to deal with another hypocritical motive to strike a sovereign country, right after the bogus reason for invading Iraq. Meaning that the sympathy factor, already to an unprecedently low, will turn into sheer hatred in the Western Hemisphere. 3) Starting hostilities with Iran would be moronic politics, not that the president wouldn't be qualified for the job, he's qualified alright, but the implications would be catastrophic not only to the US economy but to her politics in the region. What would the majority Shia in Iraq say about their brothers, East of Tigris being slaughtered? These are the reasons and points that in my opinion would not actualize an Iranian aggression as soon as June.