Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Fiona: “Indeed, Paul. Perhaps taking their cue from Senator Nick Minchin's recent "simplifications" of Australia's own electoral legislation.”

Unfortunately, for this person I have never heard of him. I would doubt he is known for creating anything. Perhaps he should improve his game? I know both the Prime Minister, and the guy going up against him. Is this guy a chance of being the boss?

Fiona, you would make an excellent Judge. Have I said that before?

Fiona: Like most MPs, I am sure that Nick (who was a year ahead of me at Law School – hence my preparedness to use his given name) has a leadership baton in his knapsack. As to his chances, however, I am no Sibyl…(and no judge either – but thank you for the compliment).

Pyotr Goncharov, political commentator for RIA Novosti, writes today that:

The U.S. administration has come down on Iran twice in the past three weeks.

...

Bush had never been so outspoken about an alert for a military operation against Iran.

... The Sunday Times related information from Dr. Alexis Debat, Nixon Center director of the terrorism and national security program. He mentioned a plan the Pentagon had allegedly drawn for air-raiding 1,200 targets in Iran to cripple its army within three days.

To all appearances, the plan is not sheer fiction. First, such an operation would be the most effective, from the military point, of all options known for today. Second, it is so typical of the U.S. to make plans known well beforehand and in ample detail to dampen enemy morale and warn civilians to avoid casualties.

...

What will come of the threats? Certain European Union political emissary experts on U.S. policy in the Middle East think an American military operation against Iran is quite plausible unless Tehran offers Washington a choice.

Christopher Hitchens (author of 'God is not great') said in his interview with ABC's Tony Jones on Lateline last night:

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: And he could have added there's an additional dimension to that tragedy, which is that we don't know the exact figures. Many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tending to be the more qualified and gifted ones have fled across the border into Jordan and Syria, so large parts of the country are being abandoned to the most backward and fearful elements.

One could go on and say one reason why Baghdad is quieter than it was the same time last year is that last year the business of ethnic cleansing was at its height, and the Shiah militias more or less succeeded in imposing their will on a large part of Baghdad. Of course they've got a bit quieter because they've got what they wanted.

Quieter conditions? Should be just what Alexander Downer wants to hear. I'd like to watch Downer discuss Petraeus' report with Hitchens, or with Ali Allawi, who said recently:

ALI ALLAWI: I mean, trust is probably the wrong word to ask me. I mean, have met General Petraeus. I know him, I think he is a fine officer, but you can't really disconnect his passing engagements and involvement with Iraq. He was responsible for the training of the Iraqi army for nearly a year, more than a year, and I think the ends result shows for it, that we did not have the kind of unified, strong military that we had expected. Given the amount of resources that were expended on it. I think also, in some ways, he may have been to some extent, responsible for allowing huge mismanagement and corruption to take place within the Iraqi defence establishment. Now of course, he says that he had other things to do; fight terrorists and train the army. But I think you have to look at his career in the context of his overall stay in Iraq, rather than this last few months when he basically inherited a surge strategy. The jury is still out, I think, as to whether he is a successful ... or he can be considered a successful commander or not.

But Downer's our man in Iraq:

But that night in his hotel in Dubai, Downer is infectiously up-beat, almost euphoric. Cradling a whisky and puffing his trademark fat cigar, he exclaims: "What a day. I mean what an amazing, exciting day. Why would I want to do anything else?"

A suggestion (pardon my French) - balayeuse des écuries.

Eliot Ramsey:

He must be sending them to Iran.

 Indeed.  Not before 2009 though.

There are moves afoot (I believe not commented on here) to split the Electoral College vote in the largest state (California). This would be a huge advantage for any near future Republican candidate. Now by coincidence where do you think the largest American-Iranian(Persian) population resides? Although many (if not all) would have a dislike for the current Iranian leadership it would be unlikely any (including many other Californians) would like to see Iran bombed to pieces.

What wicked webs political parties weave.

Fiona: Indeed, Paul. Perhaps taking their cue from Senator Nick Minchin's recent "simplifications" of Australia's own electoral legislation - disenfranchisement in one easy step...

Craig Rowley , if you had posted the open democracy link others may have read quotes such as:

There are, equally, many arguments against this - not least a recognition among the more thoughtful sections of the American military that once a war with Iran starts, it will (like the war in Iraq - even if the wars will have a very different character) continue for years.

Since the end of the war with Iraq in 1988, the Revolutionary Guard has acted as an "army within an army", with its own barracks, recruitment and logistical organisation; it also runs its own businesses. Many Iranians regard the organisation (even in a muted and cautious way) as demonstrating a particular brand of corruption. This is registered within and around the Revolutionary Guards as a sense that the force has "gone soft" since the revolution's early, heroic days and the war with Iraq, and lost much of its support and status as a result.

The logic of the United States's reassembled narrative about the situation in Iraq and its own role there is increasingly to depict Iran not simply as a problem in relation to Iraq, but as a problem in its own right. This may indeed appear to have a certain political convenience as the elections of 2008 approach. In other respects, the period ahead is starting to look ominous.

Pretty much all the things I have been saying. We are, though, all completely within our rights to create our own reality.

A tip: Not posting links gives one the idea to go the extra yard, and read all the material. Google is indeed a handy beast in this regard.

Here's some more on the unfolding scandal about the freelance French journalist, Alexis Debat, who scammed the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News service with a fake interview with Barak Obama, in which Obama is supposed to have said that Iraq was "already a defeat for America" that has "wasted thousands of lives."

Obama says no such interview took place.

The US ABC News checked out the stories Debat had worked on -- either as an on-air commentator, researcher or source -- and found no inaccuracies, network spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said. But in light of the Obama debacle, reported yesterday by ABC.com, a second review is underway.

Debat also contributed regularly to Politique Internationale,

ABC's chief investigative reporter, Brian Ross, said he asked Debat for a copy of his Sorbonne doctorate after a French official contacted the network through the embassy here.

The doctorate has not been awarded, though Debat has completed a thesis.

Debat said some French officials were "trying to take me down and discredit my reporting" because they were embarrassed that he was breaking stories on CIA covert operations.

Debat said he voluntarily resigned after failing to produce the PhD and that he is cooperating with the ABC inquiry. "I welcome the scrutiny," he said. "I stand by 100 percent of my reporting."

He's resigned from the Nixon Centre.

Imagine saying "Iraq is already a defeat for the USA"?

Craig Rowley asks:

Nice item on the bigger picture, Craig. Have something along those lines, but a little later.

Fresh from appearing before Congress,  Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker had a chat with the Washington Post.

Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, coming off two days of congressional
testimony, told the Post that the administration was building support
for a third United Nations resolution that would impose harsher
sanctions against Iran. He accused Tehran of pursuing a "fairly
aggressive strategy" on the ground in Iraq, according to the Post.

So a "fairly aggressive strategy" on the ground is part of a case for harsher sanctions. Mmmmm. What then, would an illegal invasion ushered in by "Shock and Awe" warrant? The temptation is too great, I have to say he lacks a sense of irony but not that ability to exhibit gross hypocrisy.

Then there's this bit:

"We know what you're doing in Iraq. It needs to stop," Crocker told his
Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, he said in the Post interview.

Cough, cough.

On the spinning theme, there is this breaking story.

There's a huge new media scandal
breaking this morning, and the headline so far -- that a much-used
consultant to ABC News published a phony interview with Barak Obama --
may well be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The news about now ex-ABC consultant
Alexis Debat (left) is just dribbling out, but I'm surprised people
haven't been connecting the dots. This post will seek to connect a
couple of them.

Simply put, Debat -- a former French defense official who now works at the (no, you can't make these things up) Nixon Center
-- has also been a leading source in pounding the drumbeat for war in
Iran, and directly linked to some bizarre stories -- reported on ABC's
widely watched news shows, and nowhere else -- that either ratcheted up
fears of terrorism or that could have stoked new tensions between
Washington and Tehran.

 Gareth Porter and the Logic of Dominance.

If the Bush administration launches an attack on Iran, the reason won't
be that Iran was about to obtain a nuclear weapon. The real reason will
be that United States, as the world's only superpower, wants to
establish clearly that it -- not Iran -- is the dominant power in the
Middle East. That would make us all less secure, but the insistence on
asserting dominance in the Middle East is the essence of the Bush
administration's policy.

That quest for dominance over all other states in the Middle East can be traced back to the 1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance,
drafted by Paul Wolfowitz's staff at the Pentagon -- Zalmay Khalilzad
and Scooter Libby. It said, "[We] must maintain the mechanisms for
deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional
or global role".

For the neoconservatives and their allies, that has meant that Iran
could not be allowed to emerge as a power centre in the Middle East. Of
course the Bush administration has had cover their designs in a fog of
propaganda portraying Iran as the worst thing to come along since
Hitler. But at least one insider in neoconservative circles has been
honest enough to reveal the real problem the hawks in the
administration have with Iran.

Bush speaks Bush speak. 

WASHINGTON - President Bush, defending an
unpopular war, ordered gradual reductions in U.S. forces in Iraq on
Thursday night and said, “The more successful we are, the more American
troops can return home.”

Yet,
Bush firmly rejected calls to end the war, insisting that Iraq will
still need military, economic and political support from Washington
after his presidency ends.

Or "let someone else try to sort out the mess I made". 

“Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on
Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in
preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East,” the president
said.

Preventing chaos? He's well and truly in his bubble.

In a prime-time national TV speech, President George W. Bush said this on Iran:

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

Where is the evidence of these so-called "Iranian-backed militants"?

A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran.

Where is the evidence of the so-called "destructive ambitions of Iran"?

If we were to be driven out of Iraq, ... Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region.

Where is the evidence of the so-called "efforts to gain nuclear weapons" (and how does that trump the IAEA's statement that “the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear material at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.")?

To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

Where is the evidence that governments of Iran [and/or Syria] are involved in efforts to "undermine that [Iraqi] government"? How does the Bush administration explain away the statements by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki that he was "perplexed" at anger among US politicians over his co-operative approach with neighbouring Iran?

Craig Rowley says

Paul Rogers in OpenDemocracy points out that the heart of the United States's autumn flurry over Iraq is to shift focus towards Iran:

The fallout of the war in Iraq has helped to make the George W Bush administration one of the least popular in US political history. The domestic political repercussions are a matter of intense debate and speculation as the campaign for the presidential and congressional elections in November 2008 gets underway.

 

It is likely that the outcome of the elections will be greatly affected by the progress of United States efforts in Iraq and the experience of its military forces. The most recent of a number of assessments of the US's current predicament - the reports, and testimony before Congress, of General David Petraeus (the US military commander in Iraq) and Ryan Crocker (the US ambassador there) - have drawn intense media coverage in this respect.

There is a danger here, however: too narrow a focus on the domestic political implications of the Iraq imbroglio creates a tendency to ignore the fact that Iraq (and the US story there) is only one element in a broader regional picture (see Volker Perthes, "Iraq in 2012: four scenarios", 11 September 2007). If the accumulated US effort in Iraq is seen in this light, a deeper logic might be discerned in which not Iraq, but Iran, is coming to play a central role in United States calculations.

 

Paul Rogers then sets out how this underlying shift is apparent in five recent developments:

The first component is the transformation of a complex insurgency in Iraq into a simplistic war against al-Qaida. President Bush and others have repeatedly identified the insurgency within Iraq as being al-Qaida-inspired.

 

...

The second part of the narrative is the highlighting of the military "surge" strategy, the deployment since February 2007 of six successive contingents of additional US forces on a monthly basis.

 

The third part is the Petraeus report and congressional hearings.

The fourth part of the narrative highlights the prospect of a withdrawal of some United States forces by 2008 as a further indication of military progress. Any such move is unlikely to be substantive; Petraeus himself anticipates a US military presence in Iraq for up to a decade, and expects that - even allowing for such a withdrawal - there will be no decrease in the troop numbers that were in the country prior to the surge.

 

The fifth part is laying all the blame on the Iranian regime.

Richard:  It's time for everyone to start treating each other with a touch more civility,  Bob, Paul, Craig, Geoff, are you able to do that?

Actually Richard when one is called a "fool", "ignorant", and without credibility, for doing nothing more than voicing an opinion - this is not very civil. I would think that I have the right to correct any such claims. People have to learn in a free society to live with opinions that do not suit their own biases. That is something I would consider to be healthy situation to be in.

I do not believe Iran will be attacked. Actually I find the suggestion of such an attack completely ludicrous, and without any foundation. It would be a completely idiotic move for the United States to make in the foreseeable future (one that the USA will not make). The amount of opinion piece links will not change my mind on the matter. And of course I will be correct in my assertions up until any attack does take place. Which I suggest will be a rather long time in coming.

I have never, nor will I ever seek advice on what is or is not credible from certain posters. I' am surprised a certain poster would ever think otherwise. On that point he does not hold an opinion I would ever take seriously. I feel it necessary to clear up any confusion about that matter.

The point I am most curious about is why any person pushing this attack line would see any advantage in doing so (unless Republican). I would think the current Iranian enemy is of great advantage to the Republican Party. Ever reliable to come out with a crazy statement or three, every couple of months, as if right on call. A healthy harvest still to be reaped from them over the next few years I would suggest.

Bob Wall

Not all opinions are of the same value. For example, an opinion based on ignore of fundamental facts such as in your ignorance of the command structure of the US military, would seem of little or no value.

The head of the command structure of the US military is the President of the United States. If you understood American politics you would know due to political imperatives, Petraeus holds more weight than his position would imply. Probably a reason for the alleged serve dished out by Fallon.

Also, an example of such ignorance undermines the credibility of any other assertions you make.
 

Actually, there has not been any credibility undermined excepting in your mind. You are the person making the assertion about credibility. You are of course free to believe any assertions you read (or not believe as the case may be) as I am free to pay little attention to yours. Obviously none of your attack on Iran posts have came to any fruition. 

You should ask a question of relevance such as why I believe Iran will not be attacked? That would have been a worthy question.

Richard:  It's time for everyone to start treating each other with a touch more civility,  Bob, Paul, Craig, Geoff, are you able to do that?  

The American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin is at it again helping the neocon propaganda campaign along (like he did in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq).

This time, as seen in his Iran News Round Up in the NRO, in order to target Iran he's taking shots at the IAEA's ElBaradei.

 

There is a reason for the neocons relaunching a concerted propaganda campaign (as correctly predicted by George Packer) and it is clear to anyone following the US/Iran stand-off.

The neocon campaign comes ahead of the crucial meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which started today in Vienna.

Mohamed ElBaradei has greeted the recent accord between the IAEA and Iran as “a significant step forward“.

On August 27 the IAEA announced it had cleared Iran's plutonum experiments. They had been labelled by the US as major evidence of Iran’s weaponisation programme, but the IAEA is  satisfied that they were not part of such a programme.

In the same statement, the IAEA said, “the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear material at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”

So Iran is doing what it is expected to do to see the sanctions imposed on it lifted and the US needs an excuse to impose "additional measures".

Paul Morrella, you wrote:

I will advise you to make at least an attempt at being a touch well-mannered if you wish me to answer any of your questions.

My original question, which you chose not to answer but rather went to matters totally unrelated to my question, was:

But is he the man who would be in charge of an attack against Iran?

Perhaps, if you choose, you can explain why that should draw your above comment.

As you have decided to give advice, I would suggest that answering the question asked is good manners.

You wrote this:

You have an opinion, and that is all you have. It is of no more importance than any other person's.

Not all opinions are of the same value. For example, an opinion based on ignore of fundamental facts such as in your ignorance of the command structure of the US military, would seem of little or no value. Also, an example of such ignorance undermines the credibility of any other assertions you make.

Craig Rowley

Fallon apparently thinks Petraeus is "an ass-kissing little chickens**t".

How classy.

Unfortunately your "unnamed source" fails to mention that the American people through opinion polls have made their feelings known. There is an election coming up in 2008 if you were otherwise unaware. Little Dicky Cheney and the other musketeers are not in contention. I have put my money on the line with my predictions (through investments). I suppose your "internet prediction pride" is on the line. I know what I find to be more valuable.

Every single day minus "debtonation day" and the apparent up-coming attack on Iran; is a good day for me. I have had a lot of those since posting here.

Bob Wall

Nothing else was asked. So, please try again.

I' am not a student, and you certainly are not my teacher. I will "try again" when I feel like "trying again". I will advise you to make at least an attempt at being a touch well-mannered if you wish me to answer any of your questions.

You have an opinion, and that is all you have. It is of no more importance than any other person's.That I choose not to attach much importance to your opinion is also my right.

Paul Morrella, perhaps you would like to answer the question I asked you which was based on statements you made. To remind you:

But Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US troops in Iraq, demurred at the idea of an expansion into Iran.

Clearly the reason there will not be any attack on Iran in the foreseeable future. David Petraeus is clearly in charge of the current operations.

...

If Petraeus does not wish for an attack on Iran (all indications are he certainly does not), there will not be any such attack.

My question was:

But is he the man who would be in charge of an attack against Iran

Nothing else was asked. So, please try again.

If there is an attack on Iran by American forces (and the risk of that is higher again now), then Admiral William Fallon, Commander of Central Command, who has direct responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle East, will be the one to decide who is in charge of the attack.

Fallon apparently thinks Petraeus is "an ass-kissing little chickens**t".

Bob Wall

But is he the man who would be in charge of an attack against Iran?

There will not be any attack on Iran. Iran is helpful to the Republican Party. Iran has been more than helpful ever since the unfortunate Jimmy Carter. Iran the Swiss watch that is predictable, and always on time.

 

Paul Morrella, you wrote:

Clearly the reason there will not be any attack on Iran in the
foreseeable future. David Petraeus is clearly in charge of the current
operations.

But is he the man who would be in charge of an attack against Iran?

But Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US troops in Iraq, demurred at the idea of an expansion into Iran.

Clearly the reason there will not be any attack on Iran in the foreseeable future. David Petraeus is clearly in charge of the current operations. All opinion polls point to this being something the American people wish to see. Both Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress are at a very low ebb. The Democrat controlled Congress at the lowest since coming to power in 06.

This has given hope to future Republican candidates. For the most part they are grasping it with open arms. They certainly will not do anything to damage the cure. This also leaves Democrats such as  Obama in a tenuous situation. He now has to go after Petraeus, something that is indeed fraught with danger.

If Petraeus does not wish for an attack on Iran (all indications are he certainly does not), there will not be any such attack. All things now must be seen through the context of the 2008 election.

Craig Rowley asks:

Richard:  Damned if they don't, damned if they do, it seems. 

Exactly. So Syria, which is has been technically at war with Israel for at least thirty years, and which along with Iran supports Hezbollah, is presented as the innocent "victim" of Israeli "aggression" because of an IDF fly-over of its territory in pursuit of a murder-bomber outfit.

In the same way as CNN, which is otherwise a pariah on the Left and not fit as a news source at the Information Clearinghouse, is quoted as an authoritative source at the Information Clearinghouse in evidence of the said "aggression".

Round and round they go...

Yesterday, on Israeli ynetnews.com:

US officials are mulling a military assault on Iran's Islamic regime after a recent decision by Germany to withhold support for new sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to heed international calls to halt nuclear work, Fox News reported Tuesday.

Germany is one of three EU nations, along with Britain and France, that are leading efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program through diplomacy and sanctions.

Fox News reported on its Web site that German officials said during a meeting with Iranian delegates in Berlin that Chancellor Angela Merkel will no longer support further sanctions against Iran by the United Nations Security Council, leading Bush administration officials to believe that sanctions are dead.

Germany would however would "privately welcome, while publicly protesting," a US bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Who else will "privately welcome, while publicly protesting," an attack on Iran?

Craig, an article from Haaretz on the Israeli action against Syria.

Sami Moubayed on Israel/Syria. 

Fox on Iran attack plans.

According to Fox News,
advisers are telling the White House that diplomacy has failed to stop
Iran's nuclear program, and as a result officials are making plans to
attack Iran as early as next summer.

"A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any
new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in
Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the
Islamic regime," Fox reported on Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney told Fox, "Since Germany has backed
out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. ...
They've forced us into the military option."

 

Well, to be expected that they'd join the chorus. As would a certain Senator.

Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman, among the US Senate's fiercest hawks, has once
again asked for the expansion of US invasion into Iran.

"Is it time to give you authority, in pursuit of your mission in
Iraq, to pursue those Iranian Quds Force operations in Iranian
territory, in order to protect American troops in Iraq," Lieberman
asked at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US troops in Iraq, demurred at the idea of an expansion into Iran.

Tougher sanctions at least. 

About 100 top AIPAC activists lobbied Congress to pass Iran sanctions bills.

The executive committee of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's met this week in Washington.

AIPAC staff told the executive committee that a comprehensive bill
that would expand existing sanctions against Iran and restrict the
president's ability to waive them was likely to pass in the U.S. House
of Representatives by October, but that the Senate version was not
likely to be heard soon.

Justin Raimondo on the "surge to Iran". 

He mentions Barack Obama unfavourably in the piece but Obama is reported to be delivering a speech ....

We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that
the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran
and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for
diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct
diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear
- from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our
support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

More voices like that are needed, and actions to back the rhetoric.

 

 

Israel Today:

Israeli and international media outlets confirmed this week that Israeli warplanes infiltrated deep into Syria last week and either bombed military targets or gathered intelligence.

...

Israel Channel One News' well-connected senior military correspondent reported that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) had “definitely carried out an attack” deep inside Syria last Thursday. The reporter said there were no details regarding the target, but noted that it must have been large and very important to risk having Israeli fighters downed inside enemy territory.

The New York Times:

After days of silence from the Israeli government, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes inside Syria last week, the first such attack since 2003.

A Defense Department official said Israeli jets had struck at least one target in northeastern Syria last Thursday, but the official said it was still unclear exactly what the jets hit and the extent of the bombing damage.

Hey, did everyone notice that the link to the site quoting CNN about the Israeli "air strike" on Syria is Information Clearing House - which proudly boasts its supplies "news you won't find on CNN"?

Richard:  Damned if they don't, damned if they do, it seems. 

Can anyone link me to a source showing that Israel bombed Syria?

You know? Syria? The mob that car bombs Lebanon?

Richard: I just googled "israel bomb attack syria" and here's the first thing I found (from 2003)

(CNN) -- Syria on Sunday called for the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel's airstrike against what Israel called a terrorist training camp inside Syrian territory. Israel said it acted in self-defense after a suicide bombing that killed 19 people.

As in the header for this article, Craig:

The proxy war: UK troops are sent to the Iranian border: 

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.

 ...

The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.

Very risky indeed. Remember the warning of accident, miscalculation or misunderstanding even without deliberate provocation.

Gary Kamiya - The real lessons of 9/11.

This piece looks at why the US went into Iraq - from a fundamental level:

 ...

The real reason that Congress cannot bring itself to end the war in Iraq, and incredibly, may be prepared to start another one in Iran, has little to do with benchmarks or body counts. The real reason is that even after the Iraq debacle, the American establishment -- meaning the government and the mainstream media -- has not questioned the emotions and ideology that drove Bush's crusade.

Read on.

Damien McElroy is in the Qandil mountains reporting for The Telegraph. His latest report is Kurdish guerillas launch clandestine war in Iran and look who is helping with this attack on Iran:

In the Qandil mountains, signs of a conflict gathering momentum are easily found.

 

US army helicopters are reportedly used to shuttle officers to regular meetings with Kurdish fighters.

There is a landing pad complete with spotlights near Mr Karayilan's headquarters, while four-wheel-drive vehicles belonging to a US private security contractor, are easily seen.

PKK officials say privately that its fighters have left in recent months to join cells inside Iran.

But Mr Karayilan, an apparently jovial figure who delights in the literal translation of his surname, Black Snake, suggests that the US has so far done too little for the Kurds.

Makes it highly hypocritical for Petraeus and Crocker to be carrying on about use of proxies.

Craig, according to CNN it was more than an incursion into Syria airspace by Israeli aircraft last week.

And on chatter about Iran, let us not forget the AEI. Michael "Forgeries R Us" Ledeen has a new book to push. Not all he wants to push.

Angela, that missile situation is very fishy. I look forward to your follow ups. But what did the crew think? "What are those things under the wings?" "The engines." "No, those other things." "Christmas decorations?" "Too early." ...

Over to Mechanistic Destruction ... now for some Iraq stuff.

 Craig Rowley:

Why not run with the headline that US miltary bases and spy posts on Iran's borders heighten Gulf tensions?

I thought the reason would be self-explanatory.

One group plays Brittany, and the other Kylie. If tensions continue Achy Breaky Heart will mean war! I have doubts civilization will ever recover; obviously the "sensible" press shares the exact same doubts.

What's the Iranian Air Force been up to now?

According to Israel's DEBKAfile:

 

Western intelligence circles maintain that it is vital for the US and Israel to establish the location and gauge the effectiveness of Pantsyr-S1E air defenses in Syrian and Iranian hands...

 

Hence, the Israeli air force breaching international law last week with its flights into Syrian air space:

 

The purported Israeli air force flights over the Pantsyr-S1E site established that the new Russian missiles, activated for the first time in the Middle East, are effective and dangerous but can be disarmed. Western military sources attribute to those Israeli or other air force planes superior electronics for jamming the Russian missile systems, but stress nonetheless that they were extremely lucky to get away unharmed, or at worst, with damage minor enough for a safe return to base.

 

The courage, daring and operational skills of the air crews must have been exceptional. They would have needed to spend enough time in hostile Syrian air space to execute several passes at varying altitudes under fire in order to test the Pantsyr-S1E responses. Their success demonstrated to Damascus and Tehran that their expensive new Russian anti-air system leaves them vulnerable.

 

Just a few years ago we had a WMD scare based upon cooked intelligence knocked up by fraudsters and other disreputables, which was then shepherded by people who should have known better. Apparently this caused a war.

Strange world.

Israeli news outlet DebkaFile reports that after completing naval maneuvers in the Bay of Bengal, two US aircraft carrier strike groups are enroute to the Persian Gulf to join the USS Enterprise. One carrier is the USS Nimitz and the other the USS Harry S. Truman. They are scheduled to arrive before the end of September. So, clearly the Bush administration has decided to rattle its own sabres (despite its rhetoric) and engage in gunboat diplomacy yet again.

More of the predicted propaganda rollout

Bibi is back to making Hitler and Chamberlain analogies to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iran - Netanyahu: We're in 1939:

The opposition leaders compared Iran's President Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, saying, "A year ago, I said we are in 1938, and Iran is Germany. Well, it's 1939 now. Hitler first embarked on a world conflict, and then attempted to gain weapons of mass death. Ahmadinejad is going about it in the reverse order. And in the intermediate period, he is using proxies... while waiting until the nuclear program is complete," Netanyahu warned.

 

Petraeus and Crocker are trying to lay blame for the mess in Iraq on Iran - Petraeus says Iran weapons flow into Iraq rising:

 

"It appears that that is increasing and we do not see a sign of that abating," Petraeus said of weapons flows, citing increased attacks by one type of roadside bomb technology and rockets that U.S. military officials link to Iran.

Text of Crocker's Testimony to Congress:

"Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state, as General Petraeus has noted."

It's interesting that Petreus and Crocker don't highlight the news that the US are to build a military base on Iraq-Iran border by November:

The base, with living quarters for some 200 soldiers, will be built six kilometers (four miles) from the Iranian border and will likely be completed by November, Major Toby Logsdon, the US officer overseeing the project, told the Journal, without giving a location.

Meanwhile in Britain, The Telegraph is being very selective with its headlines - Iran spy post heightens Gulf tension:

The US military says that the spying post, build on the foundations of a crane platform sunk during the Iran-Iraq war, is equipped with radar, cameras and forward facing infra-red devices to track the movement of coalition naval forces and commercial shipping in the northern Arabian Gulf.

...

US forces have responded by establishing their own listening post, positioning it on an oil platform just across the maritime border between Iraq and Iran from the Iranian position. The two spying posts are now monitoring each other’s activity.

British naval personnel who have recently served in the Gulf have told The Sunday Telegraph that tensions between the Americans and the Iranians have soared, with both sides heavily involved in espionage and counter-espionage operations.

Why not run with the headline that US miltary bases and spy posts on Iran's borders heighten Gulf tensions?