Are We Already At War In Iran?...

...That is a question many bloggers are trying to figure out.

Digby looks for clues... He posts an excerpt from a CNN interview last week with the retired Colonel Sam Gardiner in which he indicates from what he's heard that secret, pre-war military actions are already quietly underway in Iran. This wouldn't, of course, be surprising. There have been numerous stories to indicate that the U.S. began similar actions in Iraq in 2002, months before war was officially declared. Here's the key section from that interview-

CLANCY: Well, Colonel Gardiner, from what you're saying, it would seem like military men, then, might be cautioning, don't go ahead with this. But what are the signs that are out there right now? Is there any evidence of any movement in that direction?

GARDINER: Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way.

CLANCY: Why?

....

GARDINER: The secondary point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year. I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, "Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units."

He said, quite frankly, "Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans."

The evidence is mounting that that decision has already been made, and I don't know that the other part of that has been completed, that there has been any congressional approval to do this.

My view of the plan is, there is this period in which some kinds of ground troops will operate inside Iran, and then what we're talking about is the second part, which is this air strike.

Digby concludes-

I really think it's possible that Bush and Rummy have already got a secret war going on, one that has not been revealed to congress in any form. It's designed that way. Bush is not going to fire Rummy --- he can't. He's already committed himself to this thing. This could be the ultimate action of the unitary executive.

That last point is one that has been mentioned a few times... the idea that the President's belief in the unitary executive means that he can take on any military adventure he chooses, no matter the Congress or the public says otherwise. He would not be in the wrong to do so, under this theory of power. Ignore that one of the reasons Richard Nixon almost got impeached was because of the secret war he started in Cambodia. President Bush and his advisors (Yoo, Gonzales, etc.) have spent years laying the 'inherent authority' groundwork to give him unlimited powers as 'Commander-In-Chief'. Laws requiring warrants and court oversight of surveillance and spying? Not for this President. The new congressional ban on torture? Not for this President. Oversight requirements in the Patriot Act renewal? Not for this President. And so on and so on. And every time, Congress got steamed at first and then- like the rubberstamp pansies they are- gave up and resigned themselves to their fate. And so if they are waiting for the President to come to them for congressional authorization for whatever he's doing or planning for Iran, they are very naive. He doesn't believe he needs their authorization; he has his own already which he believe trumps all else. The President's belief is that wartime (a very vague term, since a war on terror is by definition vast and continuous) gives him unlimited power, as long as he can somehow justify what he does in the name of 'protecting' us.

We've seen reports that the White House was prepared to go into Iraq without seeking a congressional resolution. They believed they didn't need it- after all, Congress had already authorized him to fight the war on terror and Iraq, Iran, and any country Bush decides can be squeezed into those parameters as he sees fit. When he realized he had the votes without doubt, he opted for the resolution for the sake of appearance. If he has doubts, and he should, that a resolution for force in Iran could pass, he will simply proceed without Congress and maybe- if they're lucky- keep them in the loop as he goes. That's the benefit of being a military dictator the unitary executive.

Digby also has a follow-up, with even more evidence from numerous sources painting the picture that there is more happening here with Iran that meets the eye. As Richard Clarke and Steven Simon said in the NY Times op-ed I linked to yesterday, "the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling."

Firedoglake also analyzes the latest news findings.

It is also my belief that all of this is what is prompting all these generals to speak out against Rumsfeld now. Why now? Why not after Abu Ghraib? Why not before the '04 election? Why not right after Iraq began descending into civil war? The only new situation that could have prompted all of this is the firing up of action and planning toward Iran. Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article featured plenty of anonymous quotes from military figures expressing great concern and panic over what the White House and Pentagon are planning. Most likely, these generals (already disgusted at seeing Rumsfeld having disgraced the U.S. military for a generation) are frightened at the prospect of Rummy leading this country into a preemptive nuclear nightmare that could cause war to break out all over the Middle East... if not even beyond the region.

While this is not something most Americans would be quick to admit or accept, the people currently running this country are madmen. They are delusional, they believe they have unlimited power, and they won't accept or acknowledge their countless failures when it comes to fulfilling the military agenda they came into office with. Iran is a genuine concern (I wrote about my concerns with this situation back in January), but they are not the imminent threat, like they also said Iraq was, that the White House wants us to fear. In dealing with this, there is a right path, a wrong path, and an insane path. Not surprising the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld group wants the latter. While it is comforting that it seems most Americans see how insane the idea is- shouldn't the President win one of his two wars before starting a third?- the President has never cared what anyone thinks. He doesn't govern by the Constitution polls. He listens to God and/or his gut. Whether this war does or doesn't happen is solely to his discretion.

Jeebus help us all.

[PS- Think this is some kind of liberal paranoia? That's how they blew us off about Iraq in 2002/2003 too (and like then, liberals/critics are being accused now by the Bush cultists of 'undermining' the President in wartime). How'd the facts turn out on that? You're welcome.]

[PS- Watch National Review's Jonah Goldberg and AmericaBlog's John Aravosis debate Iran and leaks.]