War with Iran Likely As Bush OKs Israel's Attack Plans

Sunday, July 13, 2008 7:19 AM

Article Font Size

The Sunday Times of London reported this weekend that "President George W. Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down." The Times report quoted a senior Pentagon official as its source.

With increased resistance from the Pentagon and the November elections closing in, the White House may be choosing its next best option in dealing with Tehran: to have Israel launch strikes on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.

The paper said Bush has told Israel it has an "amber light" to proceed.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the paper quoted a U.S. official as saying.

Military experts are not sure that Israel's military forces can do the job. Iran has dispersed its nuclear program sites around the country, and some weapons facilities are said to be deep within the earth. The U.S. has special bunker-busting bombs that could destroy such underground laboratories, but Israel does not.

Iran has made clear it will retaliate against Israel and the U.S. if either nation attacks it. Last week, Iran's military demonstrated its reach by firing nine long- and medium-range missiles -- including the modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which can easily strike Israel from western Iran.

Political factors may be playing a role in strike plans for both Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Bush is in lame-duck status, and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, the front-runner to win the presidency in November, says he favors the use of diplomacy over force when dealing with Iran.

Olmert is facing a political crisis as corruption charges threaten his hold on office. Some Israeli political analysts say Olmert may order an attack on Iran to bolster his political standing in Jerusalem.

The Times cited one of Olmert's closest friends as quoting the prime minister: "In three months’ time it will be a different Middle East.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scary proposition, that one. Yet, both Olmert and Bush seem hell-bent on destroying the world. President-elect Obama (I say this because the media seems to have already elected him) thinks that diplomacy will work better than brute force. My opinion? Doesn't really matter, but I think the only thing that the Iranians will understand is getting their asses handed to them. Brute force is the only thing they really understand. Theirs is a culture of conquest, that much is clear. Look at the history of their religion, their country, their neighbors. Brute force simply works with them.

Their religion was penned by two authors transcribing the history of their prophet, Mohammad. He was a fierce and mighty warrior, killing thousands, and his religion was used to whip into the Arabian Peninsula, those who didn't subscribe to the new religion were not left alone, they were not exiled, they were killed. Neighboring countries faced the same treatment, and soon, the entire fertile crescent was going Muslim (Moslem, in the words of the time).

The Muslim world is wanting to expand, wishing for an Islamic world Caliphate, one religion commanding the entire globe. This is no secret. They want to be the only religion, period. And in their world, the only religion is also the only government, which goes back to my earlier assertions that "religion is the world's oldest form of government".

They are making deep inroads into the Western world, using our own legal system against us to make certain that anyone speaking up against Islam is either silenced or jailed. They have a big foothold in Europe, with France and the UK nearly falling to the "Moslem Horde"...it's like the Crusades in reverse. They have a beachhead in the US, with the Detroit area seemingly the epicenter of their US operations. Yet, it's illegal to say anything against Islam. You can say things against Christianity or Judaism all you want, but the minute someone says anything against Islam, they labeled a racist bigot, and a lawsuit is slapped upon them.

I'm not against freedom of religion, except where that religion requires cutting off the heads of non-believers. I believe that people should be free to make up their own minds and hearts as to their personal faith, and having the freedom to make an informed choice is part of that equation. Islam doesn't make that distinction, it's either convert or die.

Now that I have that out of the way, let's talk a second about the upcoming war in Iran. I've been saying for quite some time that this would happen sooner than later, and this seems to be the case. We already have our battle lines drawn, and now it looks like coordinated efforts are being made to accelerate the process. Bush has nothing to lose by going to war in the final months of his presidency, and Olmert faces a crisis at home, being seen as the weakest leader in Israel's short history. gone from the scene are all the strong Israeli leaders, having been of the last generation, and mostly dead by now. This new generation of leadership is of the "appeasement" and "negotiate peace" types. It's been shown time and time again that the Arab mind cannot and will not be appeased, nor do they wish for peace. The only peace they will accept is the total subservience of the world to the Koran (Q'oran, Q'uran- however you want to spell it). So we're being conditioned in the West to accept our new Muslim masters, and Israel's Olmert is trying to save face amongst his people by bowing up against the Iranian Crescent. He has nothing to lose, survival of Israel itself notwithstanding, and the respect and admiration of his country to gain. Bush has nothing to lose, being the lame duck he's always been, and massive profits to gain in his waning days as leader of the "free" world. Is there a choice here that I'm not seeing? He has basically told Israel, "Go ahead and attack Iran, and if you need a little help, we have a carrier battle group over there anyway.

Geographically, the war makes sense. From the west, we already have bases in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, to the east, we already have bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To the north, we have bases in Turkey, and can use our assets in Germany as an insulated command post. Should be a classic "pincer" move, right? Something tells me that this won't be the case.

Hang on for a wild ride, it's quite possibly the end of the world as we know it!