| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| War clouds on the horizon. | |
| 2007-09-16 | |
| Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail. Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran. Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action. In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories. A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon. The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same". He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq." Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics. Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney. The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias. Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials. Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad. The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran. A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President. The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board. "Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with." The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war". Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill. The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen. The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran. "One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets." | |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #9 Actually, it's a good plan. The immediate problem is Iran is meddling in Iraq without cost to them. They have to be shown there is a cost and it really doesn't matter if the right or wrong RG bases and weapons factories are bombed. The Iranians are almost certain to escalate and try and block oil shipments. The rest of the world will panic at the propect of oil shipments stopping and come on board quickly for military action to keep the Gulf and Hormuz open. Except Russia of course, who will be the big winner if oil shipments are cut off. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-09-16 23:44 |
| #8 I saw an AP article in my local paper today referring to an informal survey around the country: both pro- and anti-war, Republicans and Democrats, believe we will remain in Iraq well beyond the start of the next presidency. The numbers quoted ranged from three to ten years. The article went on to say that "scientific surveys" put the majority of the population against the war. But, that doesn't really matter if both sides of the argument believe we won't pull out precipitously regardless. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-16 22:31 |
| #7 it is his decision - not hers and not the Vice President's - whether the United States will go to war. True enough. But in a time when the CIA openly sabotages the sitting president, when the Dems call an honorable man like David Petraeus a betrayer, what is official and what is workable may be two different matters. Unfortunately. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-16 22:00 |
| #6 Iff I'm reading Dubya intentions correctly he desires PERMANENT PREVENTION, not timely temporary delays, via Iran's acquisition-dev of nukes. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-16 21:53 |
| #5 Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action. Condescension combined with ignorance. These are not British cabinet ministers elected to Parliament and representative a Parliamentary factions. These are appointed officials serving at the pleasure of the President. I am certain President Bush respects and admires Rice but it is his decision - not hers and not the Vice President's - whether the United States will go to war. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-09-16 19:01 |
| #4 When did the Telegraph become like the New York Times? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-16 18:28 |
| #3 RWV, the Tories have always condescended to Americans. Check the Telegraph's coverage of UK officers' snide comments about US tactics in Iraq vs. their 'softly softly' policy in Basra, from a couple years ago. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-16 17:18 |
| #2 Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics. Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney. Critical, ineffective and unreliable? The humiliation! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-16 14:18 |
| #1 What in heaven's name has happened to the Telegraph? It used to be a semi-respectable paper. Of late it reads more like the Weekly World News. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-09-16 12:32 |