NeoCons Warned By Central Command Chief To Shut The Hell Up Over Bombing Iran

Darryl Mason
Thursday, November 15, 2007

The head of the United States Central Command is now using key financial media to directly warn NeoCon warpigs to drop their 'Bomb Iran Now' campaign.

The American military resistance to NeoCon plans to expand their chaos and destruction in the Middle East has now leaped out of the alternative media and into the headlines of the world's financial press :

The Pentagon is not preparing a pre-emptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers.

Admiral William Fallon, head of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times that while dealing with Iran was a “challenge”, a strike was not “in the offing”.

The continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go,” he said.

“Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to get them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective. Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice in my book.”

...his comments served as a shot across the bows of hawks who are arguing for imminent action. They also echoed the views of the senior brass that military action is currently unnecessary, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort.

Adm Fallon declined to comment specifically on whether the US rhetoric was feeding the speculation, but said that “generally, the bellicose comments are not particularly helpful”.

 

As we always say, read the front sections of the newspapers, by all means, but if you really want to know what's going on in the world, always take a look at the business and financial pages.



In another story in the same edition of the Financial Times, Admiral Fallon says :

“It seems to me that we don’t need more problems...It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking about this topic.”

Admiral Fallon is now issuing warnings, as the head of Central Command, to the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, Murdoch media Iran War cheerleaders like Bill Kristol and washed up former NeoCon diplomats, who now populate Fox News 'chat shows', like John Bolton.

The Financial Times, more widely read by international bankers and economists than the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg, has all but officially launched a 'No War On Iran' campaign in recent days, with the story on Adm. Fallon's warning to NeoCons just one recent example.

While the regularly psychotic op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal enthusiastically tries to promote the NeoCon case for War On Iran, virtually all of the rest of the world's financial media is actively opposing such military action, knowing full well what such a war will mean for the economies of China, India, the United Kingdom, Japan, north and south Asia and Australia.

While commentators and opinionists in the corporate media of the United States fall over each other to attack Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, much of the international media either ignores his utterances and vitriol, or reports his comments soberly.

Like the Financial Times, the world's wire services will today pump out Chavez's warning of oil hitting $200 a barrel if War On Iran becomes a reality, without echoing the NeoCon propaganda.

OPEC nations usually leave it Chavez to issue such warnings to the rest of the world, and particularly to the United States and Israel. It is a rare day, though it does happen occasionally, when OPEC nation leaders take Chavez to task for his oil-price related declarations and warnings. Don't expect any of them to shout down Chavez over this :
Chávez, Venezuela’s president, has warned that oil prices could reach $200 a barrel if the US invaded Iran.

Mr Chávez also suggested that Opec should become a more important player in geopolitics, and finance social development programmes for poor countries in areas such as literacy, health, education and housing.

The oil cartel should “go beyond just energy, it should have the appearance of politics – even more so given the context in which this summit will take place”, he said.

...the Venezuelan president reiterated his long-held view that oil prices would hit $100, although he believes that Opec should attempt to stabilise prices at that level “for several years”. This “should prompt developed countries to moderate their consumption”.

However, an even greater leap could be possible, he warned. “If the empire [the US] decides to invade Iran, surely oil prices could go as high as $200 a barrel.”

He offered to mediate between Washington and Tehran to ease tension, but added that “no one has asked us for help”.

The Venezuelan president also repeated a long-standing threat to cut off oil exports to the US should it decide to attack his country. Caracas is already pursuing a policy of gradually reducing its exports to the US in favour of China.


The United States currently takes about half of Venezuela's total oil production.

Another story from the Financial Times paints in great detail the now open dissent from key senior Pentagon and military leaders against NeoCon plans for a new war against Iran :

Of particular importance are the US military’s deep reservations about a pre-emptive attack on Iran, largely because of the uncertain consequences that would result. In addition, pragmatists have replaced hawks among Mr Bush’s closest colleagues.

“There is no doubt that an element in the government wants to strike Iran,” says retired General Joseph Hoar, a former head of Centcom, making an apparent allusion to Mr Cheney. “But the good news is that the secretary of defence and senior military are against it.”

Anthony Zinni, another former Centcom chief, says even a limited American attack could push Tehran to retaliate in a number of ways, such as firing missiles at Israel, Saudi oilfields and US bases in Iraq, mining the Straits of Hormuz and activating sleeper terrorist cells around the world. “It is not a matter of a one-strike option,” he says, voicing his worries that Iranian retaliation could pull America into a protracted conflict on the ground. “It is the classic question of ‘And then what?’”

Gen Zinni issued similar warnings before the war in Iraq and was paid little heed. But this time things are different. In particular, a number of the military’s most experienced officers echo his misgivings.

“We’re in a conflict in two countries out there right now,” Admiral Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the joint chiefs, told the New York Times last month. “We have to be incredibly thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third country in that part of the world.”

Gen Hoar casts doubt on the effectiveness of any attack, arguing that the US military may not have the “proper” weapons to destroy deeply buried sites and that Washington lacks good intelligence on Iran’s nuclear sites, including the existence of any clandestine facilities.

The US military are not going to allow their forces to go to War On Iran, regardless of what President Bush orders them to do. More and more military chiefs are voicing their opposition and stating why such a war cannot be waged, even openly admitting their forces may not be able to cope.

This is an open resistance by senior military leaders against the NeoCons. It's been building for years, but now it's hitting the headlines.

At the same time, the NeoCon 'War On Iran' cheerleaders are getting more hysterical and shrill, as they slowly realize they will never get their War On Iran. Not without an horrific attack on the United States that they can blame on the Iranians.

The NeoCons are now verbal terrorists, helping to push up the price of oil with their endless demands for air strikes on Iran and warnings of chaos to come, causing scares and uncertainty in global oil markets.

It is clear that President Bush, with the help of Secretary Of State, Condoleezza Rice, is now trying to distance himself from the very NeoCons who helped thrust him into power, and fully backed and promoted the invasion and occupation of Iraq. His "World War III" comments caused shock and outrage across the world, and you can expect to see President Bush reign in his Iran rhetoric in the weeks to come.

The threat of terror in the United States may now not just be coming from Islamists, but from the NeoCons themselves, who are sounding more psychotic with every passing day and just about ready to stop at nothing to get their War On Iran before President Bush leaves the White House in January, 2009.

Who else in the world, bar Osama Bin Laden, talks so frequently, so threateningly, of civilian bombings, including the use of car bombs, against supposed enemies instead of diplomacy?

Email This Page to:

 


PRISON PLANET.com     Copyright © 2002-2007 Alex Jones     All rights reserved.