No.

Here's what ABC had this morning. Bush authorizes American troops to attack Iranians in Iraq. He believes Iranians supply high tech IED's to insurgents. 70% of American casualties are from IED's. True

People hear this. Iranians are supplying the IED's that cause 70% of our casualties. Not true.

Yet I have not seen one stinking report of an Iranian actually caught supplying IEDs to insurgents. (I suspect it's possible some Iranians have indeed supplied munitions, not necessarily as a national policy, but even if they had, it would be understandable. Would we supply arms to Mexico if China had invaded?).

The point is that stories like the above have not made mainstream news outlets where an overwhelming majority get the information they believe. The information presented on these outlets is carefully worded so it can't be called an outright lie, but leads people to believe untruths.

And things like the above article get circulated in small groups like ours.

I did inhale.

...between tasking TF145 with going after Iranian assets in Iraq and launching an attack an Iranian nuclear program. You may not believe the stories about Iranian involvement in Iraq, and there's certainly some ambiguity about the precise boundaries of that involvement, but there's been constant and consistent coverage of the issue. Most notably of late has been the two guys that they snagged from the SCIRI compound who were allegedly carrying documentation concerning the movement of munitions. One might also note the recent story in the main Iraq thread giving specific details of decent scale weapons movement from Iran over an extended period. More relevantly, what the public is being told about this matter is far less important than what the domestic and international intelligence communities think, and whether they'll speak out in the absence of evidence.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

The key point Don was making isn't whether Iran is supplying IED's, it's that what Americans are seeing in their media is:

1) Iranians are attacking our troops.

What they aren't seeing is:

1) Iran is laughably far from nukes.

Remember, the rest of the world, before the Iraq war, though Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and the Americans did. You simply cannot judge what Americans think by looking at what the international media like the Observer writes. Americans don't live in that media universe.

One of the biggest mistakes that analysts make is to think that because they are shoved full of information from multiple sources, that other people are. It leads to all sorts of errors (which I've made myself on occasion.)

...public makes is that the decision to use military force is informed by their opinion. This administration in particular does not care about public opinion prior to an attack - it does care whether it can justify such an attack based on intelligence and in my estimation, in the absence of the intelligence community doing something totally suicidal, it cannot. As I said, everyone's seen this movie already and they know what the sequel has in store - and they ain't gonna sign off on it.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

They spent a huge amount of effort making the case for Iraq, including a full propaganda push and intimidation of the CIA analysts, to get info to justify the war.

They may be willing to go to war without public opinion on their side, but they do want justification or they wouldn't have gone through all that.

Who is the everyone who's seen this movie before who need to sign off on it, who won't? Bush and Cheney are quite clear that they need no one's permission for it - the President's inherent powers as command-in-chief are sufficient, in their view (as is the AUMF).

See, the thing is, a lot of people at the elite level, including many major Democrats (Reid, Edwards, Clinton, for example) are giving Bush cover by taking the threat seriously and saying things like ALL options must be on the table.

If you accept that Iran is attacking American troops and that it's going to have nukes soon and that the only way to stop both those things is to attack, which a lot of the elites do, then it isn't a big step to the attack.

If your opinion matters - which unless you're willing to have a constitutional showdown with the President, it doesn't. And Congress ain't there yet on a showdown. It may get there - but it may not get there soon enough. And I really doubt Bush thinks they have the guts (they've certainly never shown any in the past, so why would he?)

...for a second term and concerned about "legacy" I think the administration cares not a fig about public opinion. I do believe that they do care what the IC has to say about the Iranian nuclear program, for the simple reason that that's the only basis for their action that actually does matter - and I think a whole bunch of NIOs now know what it means to keep quiet when the administration's cherry picking, and I can't see them doing it again. If the IC continues to say the things that they have been saying vis-a-vis the timeframe and capacity of that program to the committees, I think the administration is going to find selling the notion of positioning enough forces to carry off the "heavy" strike option a non-starter (two carriers ain't gonna do it - I think you're talking about 2-3 months worth of build-up). Conversely, I think they could carry off a STRATCOM option, but they can't deal with the fallout from it - the direct retaliation from Iran after that type of strike would be considerable.

As to the refusal to take the use of force off the table, I don't see it primarily as giving cover. Sucky as it sounds, that's what one needs do if one wishes not to hand to the next administration an Iran that's made more progress and is more entrenched on weapons development. Pressure's what's causing them to evaluate how much they really want that program and how developed they need the nuclear option to be in order to meet their security needs. If that means forgoing using a political tool against Bush, then so be it.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

I think the administration cares not a fig about public opinion.

Of the people, by the people for the people?

I did inhale.

As I said, everyone's seen this movie already and they know what the sequel has in store - and they ain't gonna sign off on it.

Manufacture a casus belli through other means to generate a situation where troops are demonstrably in harms way. At that point the IC will be forced to support it - even if mutedly kicking and screaming.

You don't need the support of the IC to generate a provocation that will force an Iranian response. All you need is a few ideological fellow travellers installed in key places.

For that matter, with that many Iranian and American units cheek-to-jowl, it could go there by mistake or misinterpretation - just as it occasionally came uncomfortably close to during the Cold War with Soviet and US units maneuvering too close together while shadowing each others' exercises.

I think the IC (and State) actually see the importance of disarticulating the various issues as I suggest downthread. They are not going to be left holding the bag a second time.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

imagining that during the opening chess moves of an unfoilding military conflict with Iran, an actual shooting war, that anyone but a tiny handful in the IC is going to do anything that undermines the US effort - or that could even be remotely interpreted as such.

...between what they'd do if the current campaign against Iranian operators in Iraq hots up inside Iraq and an actual strategic bombing campaign against the Iranian nuclear program. Not least, the IC knows that stuff being pulled against Iranians in Iraq is likely to be met with counterforce against American interests in Iraq (I have some real suspicions about that abduction raid that got pulled a couple days back - oppo capabilities seemed to increase real sharply there). Strike at the Iranian homeland, the IC knows that the gloves will come off and we're likely to see retaliation well beyond the confines of Iraq and potentially into CONUS.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

I'm thinking the casus belli might emerge as something new; for example, as an event in Iranian coastal waters that's rather murky and about which there will be several different competing narratives simultaneously issued vying for dominance.

(I have some real suspicions about that abduction raid that got pulled a couple days back - oppo capabilities seemed to increase real sharply there).

Yeah. Me too. "Message received, Georgie"? Actually, I wondered that about the RPG strike on the embassy in Greece. I'm not sold on the explanations we saw in the press.

We've also seen a couple of downed choppers lately, one from what witnesses called a "rocket" (the difference between a rocket and a missile escapes many).

You think we'd send arms to Mexican insurgents fighting Chinese invaders?

I don't doubt that some weapons have entered Iraq.

We have no fucking right whatsoever to be in Iraq. Period.

Nor to attack Iran.

I did inhale.

...of this? I'm telling you in my estimation what the situation is, not assessing its morality.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

I'd be willing to bet there are more verifiably American arms being used to attack Americans than there are Iranian.

arms and explosives caches that were looted. Do they really need outside materials?

..."they" are. I could well imagine a situation where Sunni affiliated groups had significantly more success looting materiel than did some of the Shia affiliated groups.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

Most notably of late has been the two guys that they snagged from the SCIRI compound who were allegedly carrying documentation concerning the movement of munitions.

That was incredibly careless of them, wasn't it? I mean, to go into an enemy-occupied city carrying actual hard-copy documents that would rise to the level of arguable casus belli with a world superpower.

I read one report early on that claimed they were carrying receipts for the weapons, demonstrating a highly unusual concern for frugality over operational security.

Unbelievably sloppy, that, isn't it? Incredible. Quite a piece of luck.

Maybe we should all take a look at these putative documents; after all, surely the Iranians know what's on them already.

...play thusfar and where they were in the country (i.e., who they were affiliated with and in what compound), hell yeah I can see it. You got any idea how hard it is to run any sort of campaign like this without writing something down? Document exploitation is a key element of int for a reason.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

I'm saying "it's yet to be proven reasonably conclusively that they do". Based on hard-earned recent experience I no longer trust claims of that sort on their face without proof.

It is no more or less unthinkable that such documents might actually exist than it is that no such documents exist - or ever existed - and they simply lied. Absent more conclusive evidence, I don't place one or the other at a higher probability.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/009707.php

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

what it comes down to may be this:

What happens if this administration decides that it WILL attack Iran regardless of what the rest of the country and government thinks? JustPlainDave appears to think that the major players will make a move to stop this because they've seen this movie before and don't want another disaster. Ian leans the other way and thinks that there won't be enough of them with enough power to stop it and that a fair amount of the elite STILL wants another war. There's plenty of evidence for both sides, and the link just above certainly shows that Bush is at least going through the motions again.

So, let's take it as a given that, if he could have his way 100%, Bush would launch a strike on Iran--all signs in his administration seem to point this way. Can he be stopped if he decides to order such a strike? Who would stop him and how? Or can the President just go over everyone's heads and order a strike directly? Has the unitary executive advanced that far?

...Community is going to stop the administration from attacking Iran, if that's what they decide to do. What I think the IC will do is refuse to provide the justification for that attack, by refusing to assess that the Iranians are anywhere close to producing a weapon. It's my belief that if the administration tries to play a program = imminent weapon shellgame again they will begin to leak like the USS Collander in the name of ensuring the continued existence of the IC. They simply cannot take being the fall guy for this type of thing again - it'd make the the Halloween Massacre look like a light round of after-school detentions. In the absence of the IC signing off, I don't think that the administration has the political horsepower to build the level of consensus required for time required by the "heavy" option, and I don't think even they are stupid enough to go for the STRATCOM option in the timeframe they've got left before their mandate expires (the Iranians won't be far enough along for such an attack to be justifiable).

One thing that I would point out to everyone on the possibility of any attack on Iran's nuclear program is that if the problem is that Bush is trying to blur the boundaries between the situation in Iraq and any nuclear weapons program in order to justify an attack, maybe the correct strategy isn't to play into that but rather to vocally insist that the two issues be consistently disarticulated. Beat the guy like a drum for ignoring the strong and repeated suggestions that they actually talk with Iran about the security situation in Iraq. Playing it the way that it has been thusfar would seem to me to make the desired blurring rather easier.

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

can he be stopped if he decided to order such a strike? Who would stop him and how?
I'd say Mutiny

Secondly, I have it on good authority that the UK military will not agree to an attack. All three branches of the US military oppose it also.

Mutiny was discussed before and should be considered an option in the current debate.

4/29/06
Information Clearing House
By Dennis Morrisseau

Just this past week there was a flicker of information or rumor across the internet that a number of senior U.S. Military officers had threatened to resign if the Iran Operation comes on, as it now looks like it will. In addition, it was said that DoD was treating the communication of the threat to resign as a "mutiny". (Against civilain authority was the Administration's spin.) If, in fact, such a thing did occur, it is indeed a mutiny in my opinion. One I have been expecting for quite some time. The Administration's planned attack on Iran following upon the Bush/ Cheney disaster in Iraq is indeed likely to stimulate a mutiny among our armed forces.

you would think they would learn from Bush that staying the course is stupid

Only the US hawks can save the Iranian president now
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001703,00.html

Ahmadinejad is failing to deliver for the poor and losing support, but he could yet survive because of the international threat :

snip

Much to their irritation, not only has Ahmadinejad singularly failed to consolidate and extend his political base, the recent municipal elections saw his faction defeated throughout the country. Traditional conservatives and reformists reorganised and hit back, ingeniously using technology to work round the various obstacles placed in front of them. Now, over the past weeks, with biting weather, shortages of heating fuel are further raising the political temperature, while his political opponents point to the burgeoning international crisis for which the globetrotting president seems to have no constructive answer. Talk has turned to impeachment.

Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world.

There can be little doubt that US hawks will interpret recent events as proof that pressure works, and that any more pressure will encourage the hawks further. Yet the reality is that while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks are his best friends. Ahmadinejad's demise, if it comes, will have less to do with the international environment and more with his own political incompetence. There is little doubt that it will take more than a cosmetic change to get Washington to listen to Iran. But the real question mark, as the Baker-Hamilton commission found to its cost, is whether Washington is inclined to listen at all.

- EOM