Back Door Sources In The Intelligence & Military Communities Confirm Plans For Syria & Iran

Official Dismisses Iran Policy Reports: Articles on Possible Airstrikes Are 'Ill-Informed,' White House Says

The White House and President Bush are denying plans for airstrikes and invasion plans regarding Iran and Syria. But conversations with military contacts have indicated that the intelligence and military communities are actively playing out, evaluating and planning scenarios for military actions against Iran and Syria. While these may only be theoretical exercises that are often played among these communities to determine feasibility of different invasion and defense scenarios, it seems odd that these exercises are dealing primarily with surgical pre-emptive strikes and reactions regarding Iran and Syria. One of the problems that keeps surfacing is the logistics of supplying personnel, supplies, weapons, ammunition and transportation to fight a four-front war.

We can say a four front war because we have the physical occupation of Iraq, the fight against insurgents inside Iraq, and, in the case of any surgical pre-emptive strike in the region, the matter of reinforcing the Iraqi border with either Iran, Syria or both. The fourth front would be the reaction from the rest of the Islamic nations--as well as Islamic militarist groups in the Middle East--to the strike. We could almost assuredly count on reactions from Hamas, the Islamic Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda and militia groups formed in all nations in the region. One could also expect that the Iraqi border with Saudi Arabia would need to be protected from additional reinforcementds for insurgents and terror-minded Islamic militarists.

So while Bush and his cohorts, including the Brits he has in his pocket, are jumping up and down denying any such plans, and being dismissive of such reports, the reality is that these issues are at least being discussed and articulated. Given that Bush has demonstrated his proclivities for lying, misleading and manipulating us into positions that commit our troops to illogical and unethical actions, why should we believe him or his cohorts. The fact that he doesn't have international support has not stopped him from execution of his pre-determined ideas and agendas in the past, what would be different now?

The Bush administration said yesterday that its priority is to seek a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, amid reports of stepped-up planning for possible U.S. airstrikes.

A senior administration official played down prospects for military action, calling the reports "ill-informed," but stopped short of an outright denial.

Iran accused the United States of waging a "psychological war" out of desperation.

The U.S. official spoke after a New Yorker magazine article said Washington was stepping up planning for a possible bombing campaign against Iran, despite publicly pushing for a negotiated settlement.

The Washington Post, citing unnamed U.S. officials and independent analysts, also reported that the administration was studying options for strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy. The newspaper said that no attack was likely soon and that many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor strong doubts about whether such action would be effective. But it said the intent was to show Iran the seriousness of Washington's intentions.

According to the senior official, "The president's priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a problem the entire world recognizes." The official added, "Those who are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal defense and intelligence planning are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told BBC Television yesterday that a U.S. military strike was "not on the agenda" and any idea that Washington could use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran was "completely nuts."

Iran insists it wants nuclear technology only for power generation. Washington believes that Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, and the United States refuses to rule out military options to deal with what it says is one of the world's biggest threats.

Appeals from the United States for sanctions on Iran have been frustrated by the reluctance of Russia and China, fellow U.N. Security Council veto-holders, to take such action.

The New Yorker article, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, said Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler" and sees "regime change" in Tehran as the ultimate goal.