[And if we don't invade this year, it won't matter much after that. We'll be in the worst case scenario. And President Bush will be reviled as America’s worst President – the one who through inaction cost us our freedom.]
I've been saying this since 9-11. Major hints have been dropped all along that the Sunni Al Qaeda leaders are being harbored by Iran, which though Shiite, agreed with Al Qaeda about eliminating the current socalled "pro-American" regimes.
I initially thought this Iran regime change was scheduled by Rumsfeld for 2003, with Iraq scheduled for 2002.
Here are some theories I have:
1) I've long said that President Bush seems to be prolonging the war (by not attacking Iran) in order to keep the Republicans in power (based on the principle that the most left wing government in British history was elected by a seemingly ungrateful public when Churchill actually achieved victory over the Nazis, removing the reason to fight the right with the right). My impression has been that, when we allow Iran to remain an enemy, American South Park Conservatives will be forced to park their rumps firmly in the Republican camp for the rest of their lives...never being able to negotiate on other issues because the liberals would always remain crazy.
2) Based on my contention that the primary reason for the Iraq War was to give the Sunni Muslims a more dire enemy than the USA (the Shiites), I have also assumed that the reason Bush has allowed a threatening Iran to remain in power after 9-11 is to magnify the Shiite threat to Sunnis.
The Shiites now control over 2/3 of the Middle East and the Shiite Iraqi Army is getting better and better every day. Soon it will be able to retake Mekka for Shiite Islam. That would be Al Qaeda's worst nightmare (more than if the USA nuked Mekka).
My problem with this theory is that, 3 years after checkmating the Sunnis by liberating Iraq...too many Sunnis still do not "get it" that they will need to become best friends with the USA in order to get the USA to protect the Sunnis from the Shiites that we put in power. It would be like the German Nazis continuing their Werewolf insurgency even after the Berlin Airlift in 1948! In fact, the government of Shiite Iran has been PAYING the Sunni insurgency to keep killing US soldiers (an act of war) because, under this theory, the Iranian government believes someone in the Bush administration is overly enamored of this concept of "let's force the Sunnis to be friends with us again before we deal with the Iranian threat."
Imagine if the Soviet Union paid the Nazi insurgency to continue killing US soldiers in 1947 so the Germans wouldn't finally unite with the USA against the Soviets. That is what is happening today in the Middle East.
Instead of waiting for Sunni leaders to finally start indoctrinating their publics to finally see the danger of a nuclear powered Shiite Iran, I would recommend that we blackmail the Sunnis leaders into doing that now and offering to send troops into Iran as well. The refusal of the Saudi Royal Family to do this could cause them to be considered a target if Iran uses already existing nukes on us or American civilians in the battle. I am very concerned that the top Al Qaeda leadership is residing in Iran and that a significant of the Saudi Royal Family is backing them.
3) Another theory is that we have never been able to invade Iran since 9-11 because we even had credible evidence back then that terrorists already had a nuke emplaced in at least one American city...or that Paris or Moscow were under such a threat...and that this threat to Paris or Moscow was responsible for these "allies" having had to pretend that they were agains the liberation of Iraq.
If this is the scenario...I can see why the Bush administration would hope to just try to foment a revolution in Iran...but if this is done while more and more nukes are infiltrated into the USA and European cities...then this is a truly nightmare scenario.
Theory #4 is that too many Republicans aren't behind the 7 or 8 regime changes that Bush announced in September 2001 would have to occur in this war. Like the Democrats, these people seem to be waiting for another 9-11 before they will finally get on board for what 9-11 made clear needed to be done.
Unfortunately, I believe theory #3 is what is going on. Chirac's statement today only makes me more concerned that Paris is under a horrible nuclear threat right now. Why else would he so vehemently announce TODAY that he is prepared to wipe out places like Pakistan and Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia (who else could he have been talking about)?
What suddenly crawled up Chirac's trousers?
Bush would love to take out the Iranian regime. The thing stopping him is the international left and our home grown Dems and their relentless defeatism and isolationism. That is potent enough politically that he does not think he can afford direct Iranian action, if he can avoid it.
The international left called for EU-led diplomacy, so he let the EU have the lead on the matter. He was giving them rope, certainly. His way of clearing the irresponsible opposition is to give them responsibility and make it clear to everyone they have nothing to offer.
Chirac is simply preparing the French public for his acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons. He intends to support Russian stall tactics, to avoid any referral of Iran to the UN and any meaningful sanctions, let alone actual military action. Since this means Iran will get nukes and France will have helped them do so, this opens Chirac up to charges of world-historical irresponsibility and utter lack of any coherent policy on Islamic terrorism and proliferation.
His attempt at a policy is the fall-back one of deterrence. Since he can't stop Iran from getting nukes, he wants to make clear France's policy is to respond to nuke terrorism with its own nukes, if and when France itself is ever hit with them. This means if anybody else is hit by terrorist nukes, France will sit on its ass. And if terrorists are merely getting the ability to hit people with nukes, France will sit on its ass and encourage everyone else to do likewise, and also collect large bribes.
The policy will blow up in their face as soon as several terrorist states have crossed the proliferation barrier. Because then, they won't have any idea what the return address for their retaliation, is supposed to be. But Chirac doesn't care about that, he figures he will be dead by then anyway. And maybe the US will stop things in the meantime, or that shitty little country will (hopefully getting itself nuked in the process, perhaps).
The important thing is to get the embarassment of being humiliated by Iran's outright defiance off the front page. And to do so without crawling to the Americans and admitting their were right, which would be at least as humiliating. Avoiding humiliation without actually getting off their ass, is of course the lodestar of French policy in all things.
I never heard Chirac say such a thing. Maybe the rioting was a diversion to plant a nuke in the city if what you say is true?
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/01/purchase_of_nor.html
"A little-noticed story from late 2005 could prove quite significant as conflict with Iran draws closer. On December 16, the German newspaper Bild reported on the German secret services' claim that Iran had bought 18 disassembled BM-25 missiles from North Korea....Reader Timothy Thompson, who is always able to provide keen insight into weapons systems, comments on the missile purchase:
[The BM-25 missiles that Iran purchased] can easily be launched from [a] freighter modified with launch tubes and blast channels. They give Iran a projection of force capability far beyond the 2000-3000 km range of the missiles. It is possible -- though not confirmed -- that Iran may not use the BM-25's but only bought them to get the R-27 rocket motors for a missile of their own design."
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060119-075725-6399r
"Tehran plans nuclear weapon test by MarchWASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran.
The Foundation for Democracy citing sources in the U.S and Iran offered no further information.
The FDI quotes sources in Iran that the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force have issued new orders to Shahab-3 missile units, ordering them to move mobile missile launchers every 24 hours in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the U.S. or Israel. The order was issued Tuesday, Jan. 16.
The group says the launchers move only at night, and have been instructed to change their positions "in a radius of 30 to 35 kilometers." Prior to the new orders the Shahab-3 units changed position on a weekly basis. Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamadan province, within striking distance of Israel. Reserve mobile launchers have been moved to Esfahan and Fars province."
So the mullahs gave those orders on January 16, and Chirac's speech was delivered on January 18 or January 19.
Note the prediction in the article above:
"It is possible, and in my opinion has already happened, that Iran has purchased enough nuclear materials from North Korea to fabricate a few nuclear weapons and facilitate the following strategy. Iran could minimize the duration of a “window” of vulnerability to pre-emptive American or Israeli attack between their first nuclear tests (or announcement that they have nuclear weapons), and possession of enough nukes to deter attack, by postponing the announcement and/or first tests until they have a full-speed production line going – everything from enriching fissionables to weapons-grade and fabricating those into nuclear weapons, to stocks of finished nuclear weapons. At that point most or all of the latter will likely be of North Korean origin, but those will be quickly outnumbered by made-in-Iran ones under final assembly at the time of the announcement. I believe this is the plan Iran is following, and that the announcement will come late this year."
Late this year looks optimistic now.