Is Condoleeza Rice Really Our Last Best Hope?
10.04.2006 04:56 | DISPATCHES
Is the shaky secretary of state, reeling from yet another assault on her credibility, all that stands between us and war with Iran?
"They wouldn't dare."
"Congress would never approve it."
These are typical reactions to reports that the administration is considering -- champing at the bit is more like it -- an attack on Iran. Actually, they're normal responses to a harebrained scheme. Come to think of it, isn't that how we felt before Iraq?
If invading Iraq was unthinkable, then attacking Iran is unimaginable. But anyone who doubts the administration's intentions need only read Global Research's October 1 report. "The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean," founder Michel Chossudovsky writes in the introduction. "Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war."
Then the author, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, points out that we're lulled into sleep by the long build-up to a military campaign, which can take years. But look at what's in the process of being deployed: The Enterprise Strike Group (supporting the nuclear aircraft carrier of the same name), the Eisenhower Strike Group (supporting the nuclear battleship of the same name) and the Expeditionary Strike Group 5.
These include ships like destroyers, war frigates, battle cruisers, attack submarines, U.S. Navy supply ships, a fighter squadron and, last but not least, a helicopter anti-submarine squadron. Supposedly the deployment is to support existing operations (like fighting those pesky Taliban submarines).
One strike group will be stationed in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, the other in the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, our European allies and NATO will be deploying ships to the Eastern Mediterranean.
Those of you who favor a massive strike on Iran, or can live with its prospect, please note that it won't resemble the Gulf War or Iraq. Along with incurring increased attacks on our troops in Iraq, neither will those of us stateside escape unscathed.
We won't necessarily die at the hands of terrorists, but our fates may be almost as bad. The US will go to extraordinary lengths to keep the oil shipping lanes open. Still, you can expect $150 a barrel oil, which means the economy will tank. In other words, you may lose your job and, like, your ability to support your family.
Condoleeza Rice seems to be the only actor in the administration pursuing a diplomatic solution. However, her embarrassing 9/11 Commission testimony about the presidential briefing warning the president of Al Qaeda was bad enough. But she also blew off the warnings of George Tenet and his henchman Cofer Black on July 10, 2001, as reported by Robert Woodward in "State of Denial."
Is leaving the fate of the world in the hands of someone as untrustworthy as Secretary Rice all that's left to us?
If we're not ready or willing to raise a militia to throw the scoundrels out, we still have one humble tool at our disposal: calling our congressmen. For those of you who think it's useless, it's more effective than email (useful, too), equal to or better than a letter, and at least as important as voting.
Very few citizens actually call their congressmen. Let's assume that, for one reason or another, you don't. Here's how:
Congressional Phone Call Primer (or Refresher Course)
First, to make it easy, all congressmen have "representatives are standing by" expressly to take your calls -- what's more, they're often just kids. If you don't know who your representative is go Visi.com. For phone numbers, CongressMerge.com.
Have your statement ready. In this case: "I'd like to urge the senator [or representative] to oppose an attack on Iran."