Get Your War On: Bush Plays Casus Belli Card Against Iran
by Chris Floyd
by Chris Floyd
DIGG THIS
That there
will be war with Iran is now virtually guaranteed. The Bush Administration
set out a clear casus belli over the weekend in two stories
masterworks of warmongering propaganda appearing in
two major bastions of the "liberal media." The argument
for this new war buttressed with "facts" that as
usual went unchallenged by the corporate scribes is actually
stronger and cleaner than the collection of conflicting mendacities
that led to the invasion of Iraq. It is vain to hope that the Democrats,
who have themselves demonized Iran with such ferocity, will stand
against the call for the new war when it comes, in the terms now
being established by the Administration.
The war drum
sounded on
Saturday morning in the New York Times in the
person of that ever-reliable conduit of dubious intel, reporter
Michael Gordon, who played a key role in disseminating White
House falsehoods in the run-up to assault on Iraq, but who, unlike
his colleague in collusion, Judith Miller, has paid no professional
price for uncritically conveying the lies of war-machinators to
the American public. In the course of a report telling us how George
W. Bush personally ordered American forces to put the squeeze on
"Iranian networks" in Iraq, Gordon and co-writer David
Sanger passed along the word from Condi Rice that Iran is directly
involved in the "increasing lethality" of insurgent attacks
on U.S. soldiers.
This report
in the NYT the agenda-setter for the national corporate
media provides the highest- level "confirmation"
of
a Friday report by CBS that relayed again, uncritically
specific numbers of American dead and wounded from what "U.S.
military figures" said were Iranian-supplied weapons:
"According
to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have
been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices
manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes
and along the Tigris River."
You can't get
any plainer than that. According to the Pentagon and the U.S. Secretary
of State, Iran has already killed 198 American and British soldiers
and wounded more than 600. What president would be denied approval
either beforehand or after the fact for military action
against a country that was actively slaughtering American troops
in combat? This goes far beyond the potential "threat"
from Saddam Hussein that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
If even the possibility of an attack by an unfriendly country is
regarded by the Bush Faction as legitimate grounds for a military
assault, how much moreso is the actual killing of Americans by a
foreign power?
Make no mistake:
this is the marker that has now been put down; this is the card
that's been laid on the table. The Bush Administration has openly
accused Iran of killing American soldiers in Iraq. Again, this is
a charge far more resonant, far more effective as a pretext for
war than anything offered during the successful stampede to invade
Iraq. Even a president as weakened and isolated as Bush is at the
moment would be able to get support for an attack on a state that
was "killing our soldiers in the field."
And once again
the Bush Faction's masterful use of the corporate media which
many thought had utterly deserted them after the November electoral
debacle is shown in how the two most prominent members of
what is laughingly known as "the liberal media" are being
used to establish the casus belli against Iran: the New
York Times and CBS. Despite their reputations of speaking truth
to power reputations not always (but mostly) undeserved
both media mavens obligingly delivered the Regime's propaganda payload
in reports that offer nary a demur or a nano-second of skepticism
about the claims being offered.
Yet as
Kurt Nimmo reminds us, the "sophisticated improvised explosive
devices" that are causing the "increasingly lethality"
in Iraq mentioned by Rice are in fact based on Anglo-American technology
deployed by the UK security services during its dirty war with the
IRA. In the mass infiltration of terrorist cells by the UK "security
organs" so reminiscent of Don
Rumsfeld's plan, now implemented, of
"fomenting terrorism" by infiltrating American agents
into violent groups and goading them into action the IED
technology fell into the IRA's hands, which then provided it to
groups around the world. What's more, as Nimmo notes, all of this
was reported in October 2005 by the UK's Independent
on Sunday, which wrote:
"
soldiers,
who were targeted by insurgents as they traveled through [Iraq],
died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams.
The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on
by the security services in a botched 'sting' operation more than
a decade ago
. This contradicts the British governments
claims that Irans Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents
to make the devices.
"The
Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing
devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security
guards, were initially created by the UK security services as
part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles
in the early 1990s. According to security sources, the technology
for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using
technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the
IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice
by British agents."
Nimmo goes
on to note that:
"In
fact, the devices were made in America. 'In late 1993 and early
1994, I went to America with officers from MI5, the FRU and RUC
special branch. They had already sourced the transmitters and
receivers in New York following liaison with their counterparts
in the FBI,' Kevin Fulton, who infiltrated the IRA in the Newry
area while being handled by the Force Research Unit, told [Ireland's]
Sunday Tribune
in June, 2002. Fultons trip was confirmed by the FBI, according
to Matthew Teague, writing for the Atlantic. The Independent on
Sunday 'has also spoken to a republican who was a senior IRA member
in the early 1990s. He confirmed that Mr. Fulton had introduced
the IRA to the new technology and that the IRA shared this with
'like-minded organizations abroad.'"
Now, it may
well be that Iran has made a pact with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq
to supply them with high-powered IEDs at the same time that
Iranian-backed Shiite parties and militias (a.k.a. the Bush-installed
Iraqi government) are carrying out mass ethnic cleansing operations
against Sunni strongholds. Maybe the Sunni insurgents promised not
to use any of the Iranian weapons against the Shiites who are destroying
them. And hey, maybe the Iranian-connected, Shiite-led Iraqi government
is fully on board with this deal by its Tehran mentors to supply
deadly weapons to the Shiites' deadliest foes in order to kill the
Shiites' main protectors, the Americans. This at any rate is the
scenario you have to swallow in order to find the Bush Regime's
assertions credible. (And in a remarkable and telling instance of
projection, the usual unnamed Bush officials also told the credulous
clerk Gordon that "Iran is engaged in a policy of 'managed
chaos' in Iraq" a phrase that pretty much sums up the
entire four years of the Bush rapine in Iraq.)
In any case,
the sophisticated asymmetrical weaponry being used against Americans
in Iraq need not have come from Iran; it has been around for a long
time, and originated in the heart of the "Coalition" itself:
yet another piece of deadly blowback from the dirty wars of the
security organs that have done so much to shape the hell that afflicts
us all today. But the media amnesia that has already sunk the Independent's
revelations full fathom five and the unquestioning, uncritical
retailing of unconfirmed assertions by an Administration of proven
liars clearly bent on more war means we are being plunged
blindly once again into monstrous, blood-soaked folly.
January
15, 2007
Chris
Floyd [send him mail]
is the author of Empire
Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.
Copyright
© 2007 Chris Floyd
Chris
Floyd Archives
|