Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[Dig]

Put all news on Iran Here!

First Topic:

Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be ‘Delighted’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/22/bolton-arabs-delighted/
This morning on Fox News, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton continued his drumbeat for war against Iran. Adopting Bill Kristol’s argument, Bolton suggested that an attack on Iran depends on who Americans elect as the next President:

I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don’t think they will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it. And they’d have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor.

Bolton gamed out the fallout from an attack on Iran. He claimed that Iran’s options to retaliate after being attacked are actually “less broad than people think.” He suggested that Iran would not want to escalate a conflict because 1) it still needs to export oil, 2) it would worry about “an even greater response” from Israel, 3) and it would worry about the U.S.’s response.

Bolton then concluded that Arab states would be excited if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran:

I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

Watch it:



Bolton has said he is backing John McCain because he would handle the Iranian nuclear program in a “stronger” way than the Bush administration.

[Dig]

EX-CIA Agent Ray McGovern: Iran attack coming soon

Stephen C. Webster
Published: Sunday June 22, 2008
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McGovern_Iran_attack_coming_soon_0622.html


In a new editorial published by AntiWar.com, former CIA officer Ray McGovern states that he believes "a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall," when the Bush administration and allies in Israel will launch attacks against Iran.

"This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy," writes McGovern. "Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details."

McGovern further references what former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls Bush's "bubble."

"By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his huge staff continue to control the flow of information to the president," McGovern elaborates. "... Think back on the White House press conference of Feb. 28, when Bush was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline.

"'Wait, what did you just say?' the president interrupted.' 'You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?...That's interesting. I hadn't heard that,'" states McGovern.

He ultimately concludes that a handful of senior military officers have been key in preventing an attack on Iran thus far, though their numbers are thinning thanks to administration efforts.

Finally, McGovern calls on Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, to "do what must be done."

"Does Conyers not owe at least that much encouragement to those courageous officers who have stood up to Cheney in trying to prevent wider war and catastrophe in the Middle East? Scott McClellan has been quite clear in reminding us that once the president decided to invade Iraq, he was not going to let anything stop him. There is ample evidence that Bush has taken a similar decision with respect to Iran – with Olmert as his chief counsel, no less.

"It is getting late, but this is due largely to Conyers' own dithering," he resigns.

[Dig]

June 20, 2008
Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Us?
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/
by Ray McGovern

Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe and pox – in the form of air and missile attacks – begin.

This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details.

Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:

"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."

Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and bluster?

A member of Olmert's delegation noted that same day that the two countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian threat."  So bring 'em on!

A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the U.S. or Israel?

You say you missed Olmert's account of what Bush has undertaken to do? So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges for including the quote in his article of June 8, "The Iran Trap."

We can perhaps be excused for missing Olmert's confident words about "Israel's best friend" that week. Your attention – like mine – may have been riveted on the June 5 release of the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding administration misrepresentations of pre-Iraq-war intelligence – the so-called "Phase II" investigation (also known, irreverently, as the "Waiting-for-Godot Study").

Better late than never, I suppose.

Oversight?

Yet I found myself thinking: It took them five years, and that is what passes for oversight? Yes, the president and vice president and their courtiers lied us into war. And now a bipartisan report could assert that fact formally; and committee chair Jay Rockefeller could sum it up succinctly:

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

But as I listened to Senator Rockefeller, I had this sinking feeling that in five or six years time, those of us still around will be listening to a very similar post mortem looking back on an even more disastrous attack on Iran.

My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) issued repeated warnings, before the invasion of Iraq, about the warping of intelligence.  And our memoranda met considerable resonance in foreign media.

We could get no ink or airtime, however, in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) in the U.S. Nor can we now.

In a same-day critique of Colin Powell's unfortunate speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003, we warned the president to widen his circle of advisers "beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

It was a no-brainer for anyone who knew anything about intelligence, the Middle East, and the brown noses leading intelligence analysis at the CIA.

 Former U.N. senior weapons inspector and former Marine major, Scott Ritter, and many others were saying the same thing. But none of us could get past the president's praetorian guard to drop a memo into his in-box, so to speak. Nor can we now.

The 'Iranian Threat'

However much the same warnings are called for now with respect to Iran, there is even less prospect that any contrarians could puncture and break through what former White House spokesman Scott McClellan calls the president's "bubble."

By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his huge staff continue to control the flow of information to the president.

But, you say, the president cannot be unaware of the far-reaching disaster an attack on Iran would bring?

Well, this is a president who admits he does not read newspapers, but rather depends on his staff to keep him informed. And the memos Cheney does brief to Bush pooh-pooh the dangers.

This time no one is saying we will be welcomed as liberators, since the planning does not include – officially, at least – any U.S. boots on the ground.

Besides, even on important issues like the price of gasoline, the performance of the president's staff has been spotty.

Think back on the White House press conference of Feb. 28, when Bush was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline.

"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?...That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."

A poll in January showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans were expecting $4-a-gallon gas. That forecast was widely reported in late February, and discussed by the White House press secretary at the media briefing the day before the president's press conference.

Here's the alarming thing: Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are ill-prepared.

The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball game between St. Helena's High School and Mount St. Ursula.

Cheney's Brainchild

Attacking Iran is Vice President Dick Cheney's brainchild, if that is the correct word.

Cheney proposed launching air strikes last summer on Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who insisted that would be unwise, according to J. Scott Carpenter, a senior State Department official at the time.

Chastened by the unending debacle in Iraq, this time around Pentagon officials reportedly are insisting on a "policy decision" regarding "what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks," according to Carpenter.

Serious concerns include the vulnerability of the critical U.S. supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad, our inability to reinforce and the eventual possibility that the U.S. might be forced into a choice between ignominious retreat and using, or threatening to use, "mini-nukes."

Pentagon opposition was confirmed in a July 2007 commentary by former Bush adviser Michael Gerson, who noted the "fear of the military leadership" that Iran would have "escalation dominance" in any conflict with the U.S.

Writing in the Washington Post last July, Gerson indicated that "escalation dominance" means, "in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs."

The Joint Chiefs also have opposed the option of attacking Iran's nuclear sites, according to former Iran specialist at the National Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has close ties with senior Pentagon officials.

Mann confirmed that Adm. William Fallon joined the Joint Chiefs in strongly opposing such an attack, adding that he made his opposition known to the White House, as well.

The outspoken Fallon was forced to resign in March, and will be replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus – apparently in September. Petraeus has already demonstrated his penchant to circumvent the chain of command in order to do Cheney's bidding (by making false claims about Iranian weaponry in Iraq, for example).

In sum, a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall.

Controlled Media

The experience of those of us whose job it was to analyze the controlled media of the Soviet Union and China for insights into Russian and Chinese intentions have been able to put that experience to good use in monitoring our own controlled media as they parrot the party line.

Suffice it to say that the FCM is already well embarked, a la Iraq, on its accustomed mission to provide stenographic services for the White House to indoctrinate Americans on the "threat" from Iran and prepare them for the planned air and missile attacks.

At least this time we are spared the "mushroom cloud" bugaboo. Neither Bush nor Cheney wish to call attention, even indirectly, to the fact that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last November that Iran had stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 and had not resumed it as of last year.

In a pre-FCM age, it would have been looked on as inopportune, at the least, to manufacture intelligence to justify another war hard on the heels of a congressional report that on Iraq the administration made significant claims not supported by the intelligence.

But (surprise, surprise!) the very damning Senate Intelligence Committee report got meager exposure in the media.

So far it has been a handful of senior military officers that have kept us from war with Iran. It hardly suffices to give them vocal encouragement, or to warn them that the post WW-II Nuremberg Tribunal ruled explicitly that "just-following-orders" is no defense when war crimes are involved.

And still less when the "supreme international crime" – a war of aggression is involved.

Senior officers trying to slow the juggernaut lumbering along toward an attack on Iran have been scandalized watching what can only be described as unconscionable dereliction of duty in the House of Representatives, which the Constitution charges with the duty of impeaching a president, vice president or other senior official charged with high crimes and misdemeanors.

Where Are You, Conyers?

In 2005, before John Conyers became chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, he introduced a bill to explore impeaching the president and was asked by Lewis Lapham of Harpers why he was for impeachment then. He replied:

"To take away the excuse that we didn't know. So that two, or four, or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, 'Where were you, Conyers, and where was the U.S. Congress?' when the Bush administration declared the Constitution inoperative...none of the company here present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity [or] say that 'somehow it escaped our notice.'"

In the three years since then, the train of abuses and usurpations has gotten longer and Conyers has become chair of the committee. Yet he has dawdled and dawdled, and has shown no appetite for impeachment.

On July 23, 2007, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, and me that he would need 218 votes in the House and they were not there.

A week ago, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers' committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment proposed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who sat on Judiciary with Conyers when it voted out three articles of impeachment on President Richard Nixon, spoke out immediately: "The House should commence an impeachment inquiry forthwith."

Much of the work has been done. As Holtzman noted, Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment, together with the Senate report that on Iraq we were led to war based on false pretenses – arguably the most serious charge – go a long way toward jump-starting any additional investigative work Congress needs to do.

And seldom mentioned is the voluminous book published by Conyers himself, "Constitution in Crisis," containing a wealth of relevant detail on the crimes of the current executive.

Conyers' complaint that there is not enough time is a dog that won't hunt, as Lyndon Johnson would say.

How can Conyers say this one day, and on the next say that if Bush attacks Iran, well then, the House may move toward impeachment.

Afraid of the media?

During the meeting last July with Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Yearwood and me, and during an interview in December on "Democracy Now," Conyers was surprisingly candid in expressing his fear of Fox News and how it could paint Democrats as divisive if they pursued impeachment.

Ironically, this time it is Fox and the rest of the FCM that is afraid – witness their virtual silence on Kucinich's very damning 35 Articles of Impeachment.

The only way to encourage constructive media attention would be for Conyers to act.  The FCM could be expected to fulminate against that, but they could not afford to ignore impeachment, as they are able to ignore other unpleasant things – like preparations for another "war of choice."

I would argue that perhaps the most effective way to prevent air and missile attacks on Iran and a wider Middle East war is to proceed as Elizabeth Holtzman urges – with impeachment "forthwith."

Does Conyers not owe at least that much encouragement to those courageous officers who have stood up to Cheney in trying to prevent wider war and catastrophe in the Middle East?

Scott McClellan has been quite clear in reminding us that once the president decided to invade Iraq, he was not going to let anything stop him. There is ample evidence that Bush has taken a similar decision with respect to Iran – with Olmert as his chief counsel, no less.

It is getting late, but this is due largely to Conyers' own dithering. Now, to his credit, Dennis Kucinich has forced the issue with 35 well-drafted Articles of Impeachment.

What the country needs is the young John Conyers back. Not the one now surrounded by fancy lawyers and henpecked by the lady of the House.

In October 1974, after he and the even younger Elizabeth Holtzman faced up to their duty on House Judiciary and voted out three Articles of Impeachment on President Richard Nixon, Conyers wrote this:

"This inquiry was forced on us by an accumulation of disclosures which, finally and after unnecessary delays, could no longer be ignored...Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to do what must be done is the price of remaining free."

Someone needs to ask John Conyers if he still believes that; and, if he does, he must summon the courage to "do what must be done."
 

[PaladinRoden]

Thanks for the information Sane...it seems Bush will stop at nothing to have his war for profit continue with Iran. I'm afraid their is no one left at Government that has the ability to stop Cheney and Bush from achieving what they want. So many laws have passed giving Bush unconstinutional powers that it would take much more then asking a senator or representitive to stop it.

What scares me the most about attacking Iran is the blowback. You have to understand that the majority of the middle east is muslim and though they stood by watching Iraq fall, I"m sure many countries around Iran and the rest the middle east will not allow the US to continue down the war path and take out Iran. This could possibly be the spark that starts World War 3. As the dominos fall it will eventual pull Russia, and China in the skirmish and you are looking at a ground war and possibly nuke destruction by Russia and the US. And if we get into a war with Russia that last for years you might be looking at a December 21st 2012 end of the Myan calander with a push of a button when one side decides that if its going to lose a war it will take everyone with them and push that dreded red button and end it for everyone. God Help Us.

[chris jones]

Mr. Ray Macgovern is strait talking honesr, informed and hell bent on stoppping this regime.
All men of high profile need the true patriots of this nation to gather in mass and display our inegrity and honor. If not, if we sit in our homes and wait for the miracle that will not come.
Or we suffer the consequences of the physcotic, sociopathic,deceivers, who deek to take down our nation, commit genocide, risk the ww3, as they build and fortify their empire and the fortunes. We, the public do not sit at their table. We are excluded, we are patriots, they are parasites.
R.M> Quote:
This could possibly be the spark that starts World War 3. As the dominos fall it will eventual pull Russia, and China in the skirmish and you are looking at a ground war and possibly nuke destruction by Russia and the US. And if we get into a war with Russia that last for years you might be looking at a December 21st 2012 end of the Myan calander with a push of a button when one side decides that if its going to lose a war it will take everyone with them and push that dreded red button and end it for everyone. God Help Us.

[bigron]

Coming war against Iran: Increasing Anglo-American pressure on Turkey


By Cem Ertür
 
Global Research, June 21, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9407


Covering the period of March-June 2008, this article will try to highlight the political pressure applied by the US and UK governments on Turkey in view of their war plans against Iran. It is complementary to an earlier article titled "Will Turkey be Complicit in Another War Against Another Neighbour?" [1]

"[The Middle East] is capable of a very bright future:… a place of innovation and discovery, driven by free men and women. In recent years, we've seen hopeful beginnings toward this vision. Turkey, a nation with a majority Muslim population, is a prosperous modern democracy. Afghanistan under the leadership of President Karzai is overcoming the Taliban and building a free society. Iraq under the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki is establishing a multi-ethnic democracy." -- US President George W. Bush (World Economic Forum, Sharm el Sheikh, 18 May 2008) [2]

Turkey was the last stop of US Vice President Dick Cheney's tour in the Middle East in March. Coverage of the event by the Turkish press gave the impression that Mr Cheney did not make any demands from Turkey's President, Prime Minister or Chief of General Staff, concerning the US foreign policy in the Middle East and/or Afghanistan. Given the increasingly evident Anglo-American hostility against Iran on all fronts, this wasn't very plausible. In fact, all the evidence since then suggests otherwise.

Shortly after Mr Cheney's visit, the US-based RAND Corporation published a report on the US-Turkish relations:

"Given its growing equities in the Middle East, as well as the current strains in U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkey will be even more reluc-tant to allow the United States to use its bases in the future, particu-larly the [U.S.] airbase at Incirlik, to undertake combat operations in the Middle East… Turkey is unlikely to support U.S. policies aimed at isolating Iran and Syria or overthrowing the regimes in either country." [3]

Frequent visits by senior US officials continued after Mr Cheney. In April, US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Gregory Schulte commented on Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missile:

"Shahab-3 could strike most of Turkey and the Middle East, and the longer-range missiles would reach deeper into Europe." [4]

The following month, in a conference held in Washington, Ambassador of Turkey to the US Nabi Sensoy echoed Mr Schulte:

"Iran has run 'clandestine (nuclear) programs for more than two decades,' and those programs are 'a threat to Turkey as well as to the U.S.' " [5]

QUEEN ELIZABETH'S IMPERIAL VISIT

In a press conference with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan in April in London, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said:

"Bilateral relations are deep, excellent and sincerely felt… Turkey had a pivotal role to play on regional issues, such as the conflict in Iraq and concern over Iran's nuclear programme." [6]

The following month, Queen Elizabeth II and Mr Miliband held a state visit to Turkey. On May 13, she gave a speech at the state banquet in Ankara:

"For us, Turkey is as important now as it has ever been... Abroad, Turkey is uniquely positioned as a bridge between East and West at a crucial time for the European Union and the world in general... [Mr President Abdullah Gul], you are playing a key role in promoting peace, political stability and economic development in some of the world's most unsettled areas." [7]

Both statements were eerily reminiscent of Tony Blair's speech three months before officially launching the ultimate invasion on Iraq:

"I think this is a very important and exciting moment for the European Union and for Turkey and I believe we have an historic opportunity to send the clearest possible signal that the European Union wants Turkey inside the European family as a full partner." [8]

Yet again, according to the Turkish and international media, this was just a friendly visit by the Queen which had no agenda other than supporting Turkey's accession to the European Union. Listening to a Quran recital with her head covered in a mosque located in Bursa (which is the first capital of the Ottoman Empire), moved even those who are otherwise deeply anti-religious.

Equally symbolic, but more revealing was the reception she held for Turkish President Abdullah Gul [9] on board of a Royal Navy aircraft carrier in Istanbul [10]. In fact, HMS Illustrious was on its way back from the 'Operation Orion 08', which was a multi-national naval exercise conducted in the Persian Gulf to rehearse a possible war on Iran. [11] [12]

Back in October 2007, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his British counterpart Mr Gordon Brown had signed the 'Turkey-UK Strategic Partnership Agreement'. The following items on this document reveal the striking similarity between the UK and US foreign policy on Turkey:

· "Enhanced co-operation on the terrorist threat posed by PKK, … Al-Qaida and other associated extremist groups." · "Support for the UN Security Council process on Iran, including for full implementation of any measures imposed." · "Further co-operation between the UK and Turkish armed forces and mutual support in NATO fora." · "Co-operation… to ensure that NATO can fully implement the deliverables agreed at the 2006 Riga Summit." [13]

It is also important to remember what the UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is widely considered as the successor to Mr Brown, said on the fifth anniversary of invasion of Iraq in March 2003:

"I think the war itself was a remarkable victory. It went better than most people expected." [14]

The following statement a month earlier makes his stance on prospective Anglo-American wars crystal clear:

"I believe discussion about the Iraq war has clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep concerns at the mistakes made. But my plea is that we do not let divisions over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy… In the 1990's … the left seemed conflicted between the desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means. In fact, the goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project; the means need to combine soft and hard power." [15]

US PRESSURE SHIFTING INTO HIGH GEAR

In early June, 'The U.S.-Turkey Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses' came into force:

"The Agreement provides a comprehensive framework for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and Turkey under agreed non-proliferation conditions and controls." [16]

On June 5, The White House announced the nomination of the Deputy National Security Advisor James Franklin Jeffrey as US Ambassador to Turkey. In his earlier capacity as the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Mr Jeffrey had a prominent role on Iraq policy and was co-chairing the now defunct Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group [17]:

"The infamous Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) created in early 2006, integrated by officials from the White House, the [US] State Department, the CIA and the Treasury Department, had a mandate to destabilize Syria and Iran, and bring about 'Regime Change'. " [18]

The same day, during his visit to the US, which also included his participation to the Bilderberg Meeting (for the fifth time [19] ), Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan held a press conference with his US counterpart Condaleezza Rice:

"Question: Madame Secretary, what do you expect Turkey to do -- increase pressure on Iran beyond the UN sanctions?

Rice: All member states have an obligation to carry out the terms of those resolutions and to use whatever offices they have with the Iranians to insist that the Iranians carry out the obligations that the UN Security Council has imposed.

Babacan: Turkey is implementing the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. As long as the international community has one unified stance, Turkey [would also be] implementing those decisions." [20]

Again on the same day, back in Turkey, the Chief of General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces Yasar Buyukanit's opening speech at an international symposium in Istanbul, titled "The Middle East: Its Uncertain Future and Security Problems", was even more straightforward:

"Until mid-2003, Iran has built nuclear installations and conducted uranium enrichment work secretly from the International Atomic Agency (IAEA). It approved inspections by the IAEA, but didn't implement this through a constitutional process. Iran needs to inspire trust that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes entirely. Iran's adoption of sensible policies, which will prevent new problems arising in the region, is very important in terms of restoring a peaceful and stable Middle East." [21]

However, Mr Buyukanit was not forthcoming when asked a question about a recent press report on Turkish Armed Forces' plans to extend the scope of "Irregular Warfare Units", which function as a "counter-guerrilla" force. The report reveals "highly secret preparations on covert struggle methods to be used in an operation which will be conducted together with our armed forces in the event of a violation of our country's territorial integrity by an enemy force". [22] Mr Buyukanit replied:

"This is a very old concept from the Cold War Era which is no longer valid: If, within the context of NATO-Warsaw Pact, Turkey were to be invaded by the Soviets, then there would be resistance in occupied areas. This is over, we currently don't have such structure as there is no need for it. In fact, who would invade Turkey?" [23]

Despite the evasive language, it is clear that Mr Buyukanit is referring to Article V of the NATO Charter, [24] which states that the members of the Alliance must consider coming to the aid of an ally under attack. According to the RAND Corporation report cited earlier:

"Turkey is the only NATO member that faces the threat of outside attack (Iran, Syria). It is thus very concerned that Article 5 (collective defense) remains a core Alliance mission and that emphasis on crisis management [does] not weaken the Alliance's commitment to collective defense." [3]

Whether Article V will be resorted as a justification for war is yet to be seen... Another RAND Corporation report released as early as 1992 reveals how old and consistent such propaganda is:

"The [1991] Gulf war and its aftermath have simply confirmed and re-inforced emerging perceptions about the regional ambitions and ex-panding arsenals across Turkey's borders, not least the growing threat from weapons of mass destruction... The prospect of a revived Iraq posing a conventional and unconven-tional threat to Turkey is an obvious source of concern in light of Turkey's prominent role in the coalition against Baghdad… Above all, Turkey faces longer-term security risks from Iran, with its competing aims in Azerbaijan and active interest in nuclear and bal-listic missile technology, and Syria… The United States, both bilaterally and through its role in NATO, will remain the best guarantor of Turkish security in relation to the most dangerous risks facing Turkey over the longer term…" [25]

On June 17, Turkish daily Hurriyet reported the following exchange:

"Recently [outgoing] U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Ross Wilson visited the Turkish Minister of Energy [Hilmi Guler] asking him to discontinue the energy projects with Iran. The Minister of Energy rejected the request on the basis of a lack of an alternative source. When Wilson suggested buying energy from Iraq, the Turkish minister expressed his pessimistic opinion about Iraq being an alternative, indicating that Iraq had no gas reserves. He said, 'A bird in the hand is better than two birds on a tree.' In response, Ambassador Wilson stated 'in a short time, the bird may burn with the branch it is sitting on' " [26]

Two days later, in an interview with the Turkish daily Aksam, Israel's Ambassador to Turkey Gabby Levy claimed that Iran's weapons is a threat to the entire Middle East. [27]

On the other hand, in another recent interview with the same newspaper, US Congressman Mark Kirk presented a different strand of disinformation which aims to comfort an ever more anxious and sceptical public in Turkey. He argued that since the rejection of the March 2003 parliamentary motion (allowing US troops to use Turkish soil to invade Iraq), Turkey's significance has decreased by 90%. When asked what the US would expect from Turkey in the event of an attack on Iran, he said:

"The US would expect Turkey not to interfere with anything. Just like Belgium." [28]

Meanwhile, a US-sponsored political engineering process has entered its last phase, warning the entire political spectrum in Turkey to toe the line. It is relentlessly trying to ensure that a fully compliant government is in power before launching the next Anglo-American war on Iran and possibly on Syria.

NOTES

[1] Will Turkey be complicit in another war against another neighbour?

by Cem Ertür, CASMII, 24 February 2008

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4153

[2] President Bush Attends World Economic Forum

by George W. Bush, Whitehouse.gov, 18 May 2008

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080518-6.html

[3] Turkey as a US Security Partner

by F. Stephen Larrabee, RAND Corporation, April 2008

http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG694.pdf

[4] United States and Turkey: Strategic Allies for Global Challenges

by Gregory L. Schulte, U.S. Department of State web site, April 29, 2008

http://vienna.usmission.gov/080428_turkey.html

[5] Turkish Ambassador to U.S. Calls Iran "a threat to Turkey as well as to the US"

by Andrew Cochran, Counterterrorism Blog, 19 May 2008

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/turkish_ambassador_to_us_calls.php

[6] Britain praises "excellent" ties with Turkey in London talks

Monsters and Critics, 14 April 2008

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/uk/news/article_1399838.php/Britain_praises_&quotexcellent"_ties_with_Turkey_in_London_talks

[7] Text of The Queen's speech at the State Banquet in Turkey, 13 May 2008

British Monarchy web site, 13 May 2008

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page6254.asp

[8] Blair presses for Turkey's EU membership

BBC News, 12 December 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2567451.stm

[9] International Visitor Leadership Program Alumni.

U.S. Department of State web site

http://exchanges.state.gov/education/ivp/alumni.htm

[10] Illustrious welcomes The Queen for Istanbul Royal Reception

UK Ministry of Defence web site, 16 May 2008

http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/historyandhonour
/illustriouswelcomesthequeenforistanbulroyalreception.htm

[11] 5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle

Information Dissemination, 10 May 2008

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/05/5th-fleet-focus-order-of-battle_10.html

[12] Carrier deployment adds to Iran war fears

PSCA International, 2 November 2007

http://www.pscainternational.org/news_story.asp?id=4281

[13] Turkey UK Strategic Partnership 2007/08

British Embassy web site, 25 October 2007

http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket
/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1107296213134&a=KArticle&aid=1188506830446

[14] Building peace in Iraq harder than expected, says Miliband

by Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian, 21 March 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/iraq.iraq

[15] 'The democratic imperative' Aung San Suu Kyi lecture by Rt Hon David Miliband

by David Miliband, British Embassy web site, 12 February 2008

http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Miliband,0.htm

[16] Statement on U.S.-Turkey Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation (123 Agreement)

by Sean McCormack, US Mission to Italy web site, 2 June 2008

http://italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=/file2008_06/alia/a8060302.htm

[17] US unit works quietly to counter Iran's sway

by Farah Stockman, Boston Globe, 2 February 2007

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/01/02/us_unit_works_quietly_to_counter_irans_sway/

[18] "Islamic Terrorists" supported by Uncle Sam: Bush Administration "Black Ops" directed against Iran, Lebanon and Syria

by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 31 May 2007

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=5837&context=va

[19] Bilderberg 2008 Attendee List

American Free Press

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bilderberg_list_2008.html

[20] Remarks With Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan After Their Meeting

U.S. Department of State web site, 5 June 2008

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/06/105690.htm

[21] Buyukanit'tan onemli tespitler

Ihlas Haber Ajansi, 5 June 2008

http://www.iha.com.tr/Haber/detay.aspx?nid=24215&cid=8&haber=Buyukanittan-onemli-tespitler

[22] Genelkurmay'in yeni kontrgerilla plani

by Mehmet Baransu, Taraf, 2 June 2008

http://www.taraf.com.tr/haberv.asp?HaberNo=9362

[23] Buyukanit'tan Ilimli Islam aciklamasi

Hurriyet, 5 June 2008

http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=9105243

[24] The North Atlantic Treaty

NATO web site, 4 April 1949

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

[25] Bridge or Barrier? Turkey and the West After the Cold War

by Ian O. Lesser, The RAND Corporation, 1992

http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2006/R4204.pdf

[26] ABD'de konusulan Turkiye-1

by Nagehan Alci, Aksam, 9 June 2008

http://www.aksam.com.tr/haber.asp?a=120570,11

[27] 'Turkiye'de sistem cok guclu, bu krizi de kolaylikla cözer'

by Nagehan Alci, Aksam, 19 June 2008

http://www.aksam.com.tr/yazar.asp?a=121357,10,5

[28] The Black Sea oil fields may make Turkey energy independent

by Emrullah Uslu, Jamestown Foundation, 17 June 2008

http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373153
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[renegade357]

McGovern says this every other day. And he is partially right. They want to attack Iran but President Cheney has been thwarted several times and lets hope his plans are thwarted again.

[Mythandariel]

I wonder if that General who said he was sending out a petition to force Bush out of office was the real deal? Other wise, it will fall to us to do something to bring this death march to a halt.

[Biggs]

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room

IRAN WAR RESOLUTION COULD BE PASSED BY HOUSE AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK

Posted By: GoldenEagle <Send E-Mail>
Date: Monday, 23 June 2008, 10:51 p.m.
Rec'd following email from Antiwar.com:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=126812

Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to 'Stop Iran's Nuclear Program' and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

The bill's key section "demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

"Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran" can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, "According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to 'pass like a hot knife through butter' before the end of June on what is called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial."

Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran.

Footnotes:

H. Con. Res. 362
Introduced: May 22, 2008
Sponsor: Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362

S. Res. 580:
Sponsor: Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Co-Sponsors:
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Kent Conrad [D-ND]
Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]
Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]
Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-580

It's a Slippery Slope to War

Over the last three weeks, 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President Bush “initiate an international effort” to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran.

Such a blockade imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be widely construed as an act of war. Some congressional sources say the House could vote on the resolution, H.Con.Res. 362, as early as next week.

http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951

[Biggs]

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room

IRAN WAR RESOLUTION COULD BE PASSED BY HOUSE AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK

Posted By: GoldenEagle <Send E-Mail>
Date: Monday, 23 June 2008, 10:51 p.m.
Rec'd following email from Antiwar.com:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=126812

Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to 'Stop Iran's Nuclear Program' and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

The bill's key section "demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

"Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran" can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, "According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to 'pass like a hot knife through butter' before the end of June on what is called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial."

Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran.

Footnotes:

H. Con. Res. 362
Introduced: May 22, 2008
Sponsor: Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362

S. Res. 580:
Sponsor: Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Co-Sponsors:
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Kent Conrad [D-ND]
Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]
Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]
Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-580

It's a Slippery Slope to War

Over the last three weeks, 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President Bush “initiate an international effort” to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran.

Such a blockade imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be widely construed as an act of war. Some congressional sources say the House could vote on the resolution, H.Con.Res. 362, as early as next week.

http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951

[menace]

House appears likely to vote on a bad resolution early next week. If you oppose starting a war with Iran then we must act now to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 362.
 
This resolution has 169 co-sponsors, including 77 Democrats and 92 Republicans. The resolution calls on President Bush to . . .
 
Create an international blockade of Iran to prevent it from importing the refined gasoline it needs to run its economy 
Subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspections 
Tighten economic sanctions against Iran   
Violate international treaties by prohibiting Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travelling abroad. 
 
If another country took such actions against us, we would consider it an act of war. In addition, passage of this resolution would end negotiations with Iran in Baghdad that the administration has recently signaled it was prepared to resume.
 
House Concurrent Resolution 362 is a major step toward war. It would reduce the opportunity for a negotiated settlement with Iran, and even worse, President Bush could take this resolution as a sign that he has Congressional support to attack Iran before he leaves office. 
 
Look, we don't like Iran's government any better than anyone else does, but we do like the Iranian people, and they like us (America). An attack on Iran could turn the Iranian people against us, and further cement the Iranian government in power. It would also further radicalize the Muslim world and increase the threat of terrorism. 
 
Our government overreacted to the supposed threat of WMD in Iraq, and now it's doing the same thing with Iran. Our so-called leaders seem never to learn. They just careen from one disaster to the next. So the real leadership must come from us.
 
Please send a message to Congress today promoting expanded negotiations with Iran. Use your personal comments to ask your representatives to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 362
 
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=54

[Biggs]

An attack on Iran could turn the Iranian people against us, and further cement the Iranian government in power. It would also further radicalize the Muslim world and increase the threat of terrorism.

wow, talk about understatement of the week

[TheGoodFight1984]

oh crap.

and so it begins.

[bigron]

Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week

June 23, 2008 in Iran by Eric Garris |
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/23/iran-war-resolution-may-be-passed-next-week/

Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

The bill’s key section “demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.

Thanks to Geoffrey V. Gray for this submission.

[Optimus]

WTF?!!!


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apCnFN6vBdBQ&refer=home
By Camilla Hall

June 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. has no knowledge of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Lieutenant Stephanie Murdock, a Fifth Fleet spokeswoman, said.

``To our knowledge there has been no bombing activity in Iran or on its nuclear sites,'' Murdock said in a telephone interview from the Persian Gulf.

``It's not something we have any knowledge of at this time,'' she added.

A spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, speaking on condition of anonymity, said by telephone that the army wasn't aware of any incident involving Iran.

There was speculation in financial markets earlier today that Iran's nuclear facilities had been attacked.

[bigron]

where there is smoke there is fire........HUH??

[bigron]

U.S. Has No Knowledge of an Attack on Iran (Update1)

By Camilla Hall

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apCnFN6vBdBQ&refer=home

June 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. has no knowledge of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Lieutenant Stephanie Murdock, a Fifth Fleet spokeswoman, said.

``To our knowledge there has been no bombing activity in Iran or on its nuclear sites,'' Murdock said in a telephone interview from the Persian Gulf.

``It's not something we have any knowledge of at this time,'' she added.

A spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, speaking on condition of anonymity, said by telephone that the army wasn't aware of any incident involving Iran.

There was speculation in financial markets earlier today that Iran's nuclear facilities had been attacked.

To contact the reporter on this story: Camilla Hall in London at chall24@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 24, 2008 06:38 EDT

[bigron]

Oil near $138, Iran denies rumoured attack

 UPDATED 24 Jun 2008 | 12:55   
 http://www.moneybiz.co.za/business_in_africa/Oil_near_$138_Iran_denies_rumoured_attack.asp
 
 
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil rose for a third straight session on Tuesday to more than $138 a barrel, boosted by a rumoured attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, which was denied.

"This is just a rumour. No attack against Iran's nuclear facilities has taken place," a senior Iranian nuclear official said.

U.S. crude for August delivery was up $1.17 at $137.91 a barrel by 1234 GMT, after settling up $1.38 on Monday. It hit a record high of $139.89 on June 16.

London Brent crude was up $1.23 at $137.14 a barrel.

Tension over Iran's nuclear programme has played a big part in oil's rise to record levels near $140 a barrel.

The European Union this week imposed new sanctions on Iran, including an asset freeze on its biggest bank.

Western powers suspect Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil exporter, wants to make nuclear arms, but Tehran denies this.

Friday's New York Times quoted U.S. officials as saying Israel, which is believed to have nuclear weapons of its own, had carried out a military exercise, apparently as a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Analysts are worried heightened tensions between Iran and the West could threaten the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow waterway separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula through which roughly 40 percent of the world's traded oil flows.

NIGERIA STRIKE

Nigeria's senior oil workers union began a limited strike at Chevron offices on Monday. The stoppage has not disrupted production yet, but it has added to concerns about further disruption to supplies from the OPEC nation, where militant attacks shut 340,000 barrels of daily production last week.

"The market is focusing on the immediate impact of this Nigerian attack that reduced production," said Tony Nunan, risk management executive at Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Corp.

Supply disruptions in Nigeria have helped push U.S. crude up by more than 40 percent this year.

Kuwait, one of the few OPEC members with spare capacity, will increase its oil output by 300,000 barrels per day starting mid-2009, and would spend $55 billion on oil projects in the coming five years, state news agency KUNA reported.

Kuwait's pledge follows a meeting of top energy policy makers in Jeddah at the weekend to discuss record prices, where Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, said it would pump more oil.

The view of OPEC is still that there is no shortage of oil and that record prices are due to other factors, including the weak U.S. dollar and funds seeking new investment areas.

Chakib Khelil, president of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, said: "As far as fundamentals are concerned I think we have equilibrium between supply and demand."

The dollar will remain in focus ahead of the U.S. Federal Reserve's interest rate decision on Wednesday. The Fed is expected to leave interest rates unchanged, which could be bearish for the dollar and supportive for oil.

U.S. weekly data on crude oil inventories are also due on Wednesday. Crude stocks are likely to have risen for the first time in six weeks last week, as imports rose for the second week in a row, a Reuters preliminary poll showed.

The poll showed forecasts for a 200,000-barrel rise in crude stocks last week, a 1.4 million-barrel gain in distillates and a 400,000-barrel rise in gasoline inventories.
 
 

[bigron]

Tuesday June 24, 2008

Iran denies market talk of strike on atomic sites


By Parisa Hafezi
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/24/worldupdates/2008-06-24T190552Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-342079-1&sec=Worldupdates


TEHRAN (Reuters) - A senior Iranian nuclear official denied on Tuesday rumours of a strike on the country's nuclear sites that had unsettled financial markets.

"This is just a rumour. No attack against Iran's nuclear facilities has taken place," the official told Reuters, days after a report that Israeli jets had rehearsed a possible strike on the Islamic Republic.

In Jerusalem, an Israeli army spokesman told Reuters on Tuesday: "We are not aware of any such incident in Iran."

The New York Times on Friday quoted U.S. officials as saying Israel had carried out a large military exercise, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The report of the Israeli manoeuvres has raised speculation about a possible attack on nuclear sites, which Israel and the United States say Iran is using to master technology so it can build nuclear weapons.

Iran denies the charge and insists its nuclear ambitions have the peaceful aim of generating electricity.

Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action if that route fails.

In response to Tuesday's rumour, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain denied there had been any U.S. military strike against Iran.

"SEVERE ANSWER"

Following the market rumour, commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Mohammad Ali Jafari warned the "enemy" over the consequences of any attack on the Islamic state, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"If the enemy makes a strategic mistake (by attacking), the Revolutionary Guards are fully prepared to give a severe answer to the enemy," IRNA quoted Jafari as saying.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards was set up after the 1979 Islamic revolution to protect the clerical ruling system and revolutionary values. It answers to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's top authority.

It has an estimated 125,000-strong military with army, navy and air units. The Corps also is in charge of Iran's most advanced missile systems like the Shahab-3 with a range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles), which analysts say can reach Israel.

European stocks fell sharply and oil firmed on Tuesday on the back of the market talk of an Israeli attack, reflecting nervousness about growing tensions in the Middle East.

Israel bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and an Israeli air raid on Syria last September razed what the United States said was a nascent nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility.

The chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, said on Friday a military strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into a fireball and prompt Tehran to launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons.

Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has described Iran's nuclear programme as a threat to its existence.

Earlier this month, Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told an Israeli newspaper an attack on Iran looked "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of United Nations sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential.

(Additional reporting by Jerusalem and Manama bureaux)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters

[bigron]

I have a feeling that this blockade resolution is
totaly linked to Israels bombing Irans nuclear facilities !!!

[Cobra]

Pure speculation to make money.
You can bet the rumor was spread by a group of speculators who positioned a good chunk of money beforehand in the right places and made some money as a result of the scare.

[Optimus]

With oil prices going back up to around $138/barrel, it's looking like a propaganda scare tactic to manipulate the market. But I'm no expert on markets.

[bigron]

agree with you guys

this is market manipulation !!!!

We must though keep watching as there is a feeling
that with the blockade an attack will come with it !

[Beefcake]

I think a Blockade is an act of war.  I even think sanctions are newspeak for a type of blockade.  Its one thing to disguise a blockade in a term like sanctions but to enact a physical blockade and actually use boats to stop supplies to a country that is pretty bold indeed.  Sad part is i think the Iranian President is NWO too so its just his people that will suffer.

[chris jones]

Iraq is bad enough. In fact its an abomination. Against whatever this nation stood. Founding fathers use to hang traitors, now we are to bow to them.
The USA has murdered over a million people, families, innocnets.
How many enemies  are we developing.
Wars money and power, so is domination of soveriegn nations by means of invasion, illegaly. Lies upon lies.
We the peons can but make educated guesses as to the explicit points of this planed invasion. We can be certain Israel will be the tip of the spear. Mossad will have a field day, and so will our CIA contracted MERCS, and black op specs..
This is a set up, if not on land this blockade will find its gulf of Tonkin, smokescreens, and deceptions. God how I hate these creatures.

[Freeski]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DEB20080623&articleId=9437

An Iran Attack Scenario - A Catastrophe
The finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iran
By David DeBatto
6-24-8

Global Research Editor's note: We bring to the attention of our readers David DeBatto's scenario as to what might occur if one of the several  contingency plans to attack Iran, with the participation of Israel and NATO, were to be carried out. While one may disagree with certain elements of detail of the author's text, the thrust of this analysis must be taken seriously.
 
"Israel has said a strike on Iran will be "unavoidable" if the Islamic regime continues to press ahead with alleged plans for building an atom-bomb." (London Daily Telegraph, 6/11/2008)
 
"Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany joined President Bush on Wednesday in calling for further sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program." Mr. Bush stressed again that "all options are on the table," which would include military force. (New York Times, 6/11/2008)
 
We are fast approaching the final six months of the Bush administration. The quagmire in Iraq is in its sixth painful year with no real end in sight and the forgotten war in Afghanistan is well into its seventh year. The "dead enders" and other armed factions are still alive and well in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan again controls most of that country. Gas prices have now reached an average of $4.00 a gallon nationally and several analysts predict the price will rise to $5.00-$6.00 dollars per gallon at the pump by Labor Day. This, despite assurances by some major supporters of the decision to invade Iraq that the Iraq war "will pay for itself" (Paul Wolfowitz) or that we will see "$20.00 per barrel" oil prices if we invade Iraq (Rupert Murdoch).
 
One thing the Pentagon routinely does (and does very well) is conduct war games. Top brass there are constantly developing strategies for conducting any number of theoretical missions based on real or perceived threats to our national security or vital interests. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq, but the Bush administration chose not to listen to the dire warnings about that mission given to him by Pentagon leaders, or for that matter, by his own senior intelligence officials. Nevertheless, war gaming is in full swing again right now with the bullseye just to the right of our current mess ­ Iran.
 
It's no secret that the U.S. is currently putting the finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iranian nuclear and military facilities. With our ground forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of the most likely scenarios involve a ground invasion. Not that this administration wouldn't prefer to march into the seat of Shiite Islam behind a solid, moving line of M1 Abrams tanks and proclaim the country for democracy. The fact is that even the President knows we can't pull that off any more so he and the neo-cons will have to settle for Shock and Awe Lite.
 
If we invade Iran this year it will be done using hundreds of sorties by carrier based aircraft already stationed in the Persian Gulf and from land based aircraft located in Iraq and Qatar. They will strike the known nuclear facilities located in and around Tehran and the rest of the country as well as bases containing major units of the Iranian military, anti-aircraft installations and units of the Revolutionary Guard (a separate and potent Iranian para-military organization).
 
Will this military action stop Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons? Probably not. It will probably not even destroy all of their nuclear research facilities, the most sensitive of which are known to be underground, protected by tons of earth and reinforced concrete and steel designed to survive almost all attacks using conventional munitions. The Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard will most likely survive as well, although they will suffer significant casualties and major bases and command centers will undoubtedly be destroyed. However, since Iran has both a functioning Air Force, Navy (including submarines) and modern anti-aircraft capabilities, U.S. fighter-bombers will suffer casualties as well. This will not be a "Cake Walk" as with the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the Iraqi Army simply melted away and the Iraqi Air Force never even launched a single aircraft.
 
Not even close.
 
If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War II.
 
That's just the opening act.
 
Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated and large scale effort. Widespread and grisly casualties effectively paralyze the nation, a notion once thought impossible. Iran's newest ally in the region, Syria, then unleashes a barrage of over 200 Scud B, C and D missiles at Israel, each armed with VX gas. Since all of Israel is within range of these Russian built weapons, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and virtually all major civilian centers and several military bases are struck, often with a result of massive casualties.
 
The Israeli Air Force orders all three squadrons of their F-16I Sufa fighter/bombers into the air with orders to bomb Tehran and as many military and nuclear bases as they can before they are either shot down or run out of fuel. It is a one way trip for some of these pilots. Their ancient homeland lies in ruins. Many have family that is already dead or dying. They do not wait for permission from Washington, DC or U.S. regional military commanders. The Israeli aircraft are carrying the majority of their country's nuclear arsenal under their wings.
 
Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties.
 
The day after the invasion Wall Street (and to a lesser extent, Tokyo, London and Frankfurt) acts as it always does in an international crisis ­ irrational speculative and spot buying reaches fever pitch and sends the cost of oil skyrocketing. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iran, the price of oil goes to $200.00 - $300.00 dollars a barrel on the open market. If the war is not resolved in a few weeks, that price could rise even higher. This will send the price of gasoline at the pump in this country to $8.00-$10.00 per gallon immediately and subsequently to even higher unthinkable levels.
 
If that happens, this country shuts down. Most Americans are not be able to afford gas to go to work. Truckers pull their big rigs to the side of the road and simply walk away. Food, medicine and other critical products are not be brought to stores. Gas and electricity (what is left of the short supply) are too expensive for most people to afford. Children, the sick and elderly die from lack of air-conditioned homes and hospitals in the summer. Children, the sick and elderly die in the winter for lack of heat. There are food riots across the country. A barter system takes the place of currency and credit as the economy dissolves and banks close or limit withdrawals. Civil unrest builds.
 
The police are unable to contain the violence and are themselves victims of the same crisis as the rest of the population. Civilian rule dissolves and Martial Law is declared under provisions approved under the Patriot Act. Regular U.S. Army and Marine troops patrol the streets. The federal government apparatus is moved to an unknown but secure location. The United States descends into chaos and becomes a third world country. Its time as the lone superpower is over.
 
It doesn't get any worse than this.
 
Then the first Israeli bomber might drop its nuclear payload on Tehran.
 
David DeBatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, Iraqi war veteran and co-author the "CI" series from Warner Books and the upcoming "Counter to Intelligence" from Praeger Security International.

[bigron]

'Iran conflict could open Pandora's box' 


24/06/2008 05:00:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=133608

 
 Jordanian King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein says creating any conflict with the Islamic Republic is like playing with Pandora's box.


"Iran poses issues to certain countries, although I have noticed over the past month or so that the dynamics have changed quite dramatically. For the first time, I think Iran is less of a threat," King Abdullah of Jordan said in an interview with Newsweek.

The Jordanian King went on to urge a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue, arguing that the region has already suffered 'enough crises'.

"We're a country and a region that supports dialogue as opposed to conflict. If there is conflict with Iran, I'm not too sure where this is going to lead us. I think you're playing with Pandora's box," he added.

When asked if Jordan was 'willing to live with a nuclear Iran', King Abdullah proposed that the world should 'engage with the Iranians', warning that a military strike on Iran would only elicit a reaction from the country.

"I don't think that we can live with any more conflicts in this part of the world," King Abdullah concluded.

The West accuses Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program and uses the claim to drum up support for a military strike on the country. Tehran, however, persists in its position that its nuclear activities are aimed at peaceful applications and argues that as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it is entitled to enrich uranium under the UN nuclear watchdog regulations.




-- AJP

 

[bigron]

IRAQ:
Whoever Wins, They Lose

Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail*
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42937


BAQUBA, Jun 24 (IPS) - Iraqis seem divided on who they would like to see as the next U.S. president, but few believe that either will end the occupation.

"The U.S administration has committed a big mistake in Iraq," Adil Ibrahim, a local physician in Baquba, capital city of Diyala province, located 40 km northeast of Bagdhdad, told IPS. "We hope that whoever wins the election, the new administration can mend the huge mistakes of this one."

Some wish for Barack Obama to win because he claims to represent a great change in the history of the United States.

"Being a black man, he definitely carries different thoughts about the world," Ali Hussein, a city employee, told IPS. "We sympathise with him since he has some kind of Muslim origins. He may view Arabs in a new and different way."

Adding to this view, Naser Mahdi, a secondary school teacher, told IPS, "I feel he is totally different. The world needs new blood in rulers, and we hope that he might decrease the dominating authority of the United States."

"Because the result of the race affects the lives of Iraqis, I wish that a Democrat could win the round in order to give Iraqis a better future," schoolteacher Khalid Abid told IPS. "We still hope to be viewed with care and consideration. Things surely must change in Iraq after the elections."

But Abdulla Hamid, a city resident, expressed deep concern over Obama's recent speech at the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.

"What hope is there in a man who wears the Israeli flag and calls for a Jewish state with a unified Jerusalem," Hamid told IPS. " Obama clearly couldn't care less about the Palestinians and the Arabs."

Hamid referred to the fact that Obama appeared at the speech with a lapel pin comprised of both the U.S. and Israeli flags. In his speech, Obama's call for a unified Jerusalem omitted Palestinians' demands for their share of Jerusalem, which is a sacred city for them too.

Like most U.S. citizens, most Iraqis are not familiar with U.S. foreign policy. While Obama, the Democratic presidential hopeful, calls for a shift in the U.S. policy in Iraq, neither he nor his Republican rival, John McCain, talk about changing the National Security Strategy of the U.S., or the military document Joint Vision 2020, which calls for "full spectrum dominance" of the world by the U.S. military by the year 2020.

'Full spectrum dominance' means not just total control of land, air, and sea, but also of information and of space.

"The U.S. strategy is firm and unchanging," a political analyst at Diyala University told IPS on condition of anonymity, given widespread fear of U.S. forces. "It makes no difference whether one wins or the other. The general strategy is well established, and is never affected by the changing of the president."

"I do agree with this point of view," local merchant Abdul-Rahman told IPS. "During the nineties we wished that Bill Clinton would win in order to stop the economic sanctions that caused us so much suffering. When Clinton became president, sanctions remained as they were, and even worsened."

At that time, the majority of Iraqis had wished for Clinton to be president, but year after year of sanctions left them embittered.

Barak Obama has made public statements that he will withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. But his advisors speak of plans to keep at least 60,000-90,000 troops in Iraq, and at least until 2013, the year his first term in office would end if he is elected.

Many Iraqis appear to be skeptical of the promises made by Obama.

"I'll believe the troops are gone from Iraq when they are no longer on our streets and their warplanes no longer bomb our homes," a local merchant told IPS. " All politicians are liars, even school children know this."

(*Ahmed, our correspondent in Iraq's Diyala province, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East). (END/2008)

[IridiumKEPfactor]

http://wcbstv.com/national/israel.iran.attack.2.755478.html

IAEA Chief: Iran Could Make Nuke In 6 Months
 CBS News Interactive: About Iran
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CBS) ― The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Iran could create a nuclear weapon in six months.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei spoke on Al-Arabiya television on June 20, discussing Iran's nuclear program, and the potential for the Middle Eastern country to produce a nuclear weapon.

"If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least, considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...It would need at least six months to one year," ElBaradei said.

"Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon," he said.

His interviewer then asked "If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months to produce [nuclear] weapons?"

The IAEA chief answered, "It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon."

The ElBaradei interview was conducted one day after reports emerged of a large-scale military exercise by Israel.

U.S. officials said they thought the Israeli exercises were meant to warn Iran of Israel's abilities to hit its nuclear sites.

ElBaradei also warned that he will resign as chief of the UN nuclear agency if Iran is attacked by any country.

"I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike...If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend," he said.

"The reports this week of Israeli military maneuvers, which took place in early June, provoked the IAEA warning," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Pamela Falk, who is based at the U.N., "because atomic energy chief ElBaradei has been pleading with Iran to accept a new package of incentives before another round of sanctions would be imposed."

"The problem in the region is that, as time passes and the clock is ticking on Iran's uranium enrichment program, there is a fear that Israel will act, as it did in Syria last year, to attack at least one of Iran's nuclear facilities," said Falk, who was in Saudi Arabia earlier this week.

"Israel is evidently the most threatened by the last IAEA report, which concluded that there are unanswered questions about Iran's ability to eventually develop nuclear weapons," said Falk, "so it is elBaradei himself who produced the report that is making Israel nervous."

Meanwhile, Iran is reiterating its decision to continue enriching uranium, calling Western pressure to suspend the work "illogical."

The statement by a government spokesman came as Europe waits for Iran's formal answer to an international package of incentives designed to rein in its nuclear program.

Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted Iranian spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham on Saturday as saying that his country will respond to the package at a convenient time.

The package would give Tehran economic incentives, and the chance to develop alternate light-water reactors, in return for dropping the uranium enrichment.

(© 2008 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

[bigron]

Iran: EU 'Carrots and Sticks' Won't Stop Our Nuke Pursuit


Tuesday , June 24, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370562,00.html

TEHRAN, Iran —

Iran said Tuesday that additional sanctions by the European Union will not affect Tehran, while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed the formation of a special court to punish the world "tyrants" for their attempt to thwart Iran's nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying to a group of judges that "a court should be formed to try and punish all world criminals who invade the rights of the Iranian nation," according to the state IRNA news agency.

Iran considers its nuclear ambitions — which the West claims mask weapons making — as an inalienable right. Tehran has dismissed Western claims and contends its uranium enrichment is only meant for electricity production.

Known for his anti-Western rhetoric, Ahmadinejad also denounced the West for "issuing a verdict" in the absence of Iran.

Ahmadinejad's remarks were his first following a move by the EU which on Monday approved additional financial and travel restrictions for Iranian companies and individuals — including the country's largest bank, Bank Melli Iran.

The Iranian leader did not elaborate on where or how the world powers should be punished for sanctioning Tehran.

Also Tuesday, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in a statement that the "carrot and stick policy" by the 27-nation EU bloc won't stop Iran's "pursuit to realize its nuclear rights."

Hosseini said the new sanctions would only damage European interests in Iran. A copy of his statement was made available to The Associated Press.

Referring to the new sanctions as a "narrow-mindedness decision" by the EU, the statement quoted Hosseini as saying that "it will not help create a suitable atmosphere for a diplomatic solution" to the nuclear dispute.

Meanwhile in Brussels, the EU released on Tuesday a list of those sanctioned, updating the restrictions first adopted in 2007 and including 15 new names and 20 new companies the EU says all have links to developing Iran's nuclear program.

Most notable among the newly sanctioned, the Bank Melli, allegedly provided or attempted to give financial backing to companies involved in procuring goods for Iran's nuclear and missile programs, the EU said.

Earlier in June, the EU unsuccessfully proposed a package of economic incentives in return for an end to Iran's uranium enrichment program.

Tehran officials have scorned the proposal, although Iran has also said that both sides could start talks on it since the proposal has "common" points with the Iranian one, presented by Tehran in May but which the West said fell far short of meeting international demands.

The U.S and many of its allies demand suspension of Iran's nuclear activities since they suspect Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon program.

The U.N. Security Council has also demanded Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a prelude to talks on its nuclear program.

But Tehran insists it has a right to enrich uranium for nuclear energy under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has shrugged off three rounds of U.N. sanctions.

[chris jones]

Desert storm.

Now why am I mention something of old news you probably wondering.
Sadam invaded Kuwait, this was an age old conflict. Whos got the oil, whos tapping whos oil with horizontal drilling, etc, etc.
Suprise they told us, Iraq is invading Kuwait. WOW, HOLY JUMPING BEANS.
How many eagle sattelites have survellance on the Middle east. Funny they did not see an army, when they can read licence plates from space. A cook for an oil company I met was feeding the hungry recon Iraqis begging for food at his mess hall, 2 weeks before the invasion.
The woman who blew the whistle about the US having foreknowledge was gagged, and held under room detainment.
So much for truth.
We all know the invasion of Iraq was a sham, all the propaganda from on high instilled terror into the American people. Then along came anthrax letters, kill mail. Funny the guy doing this left the coutry, was allowed to.

Now Bushmaster and the Elites that control this globe have Iran in their sights, the allies they call themselfs. Now whats the spin this time, well what else, money, power, and ultimetly invasion, if Iran does not give in which they will not.
Aghanistan, they will fight till the last man is standing. They are pros, born and raised to defend their homeland against invaders for centuries.
Israel will reap benefits you can bet your bottom dollar for what its worth.
Al but the brainwashed living in the bubble of illusion know 911 was covered by the regime.
Ron is probably thinking, here he goes again rambling away, I have to, I think because I'm trying to get to a point.
The regime in this country is a dictatorship, if the constitution had been invoked, if our Government officials had any spine whatsoever, each and every member of Bushmasters group of swill would be in chains this minute. That tells me our congress is either soldout or have defiled the Constitution, their oath of office and the American people, Allow me to include the Military in that statement and any other oath taken FED Agency..
Due to the lack of honor and oath in congress, we are at war and have killed a million or more civilians, families etc. About 7,000 Americans sons and daughters, and aprox. 37,000 wounded. The reaminder of this nightmare is we are headed for a super depression, and suffering. If any Cit. beleives we will all be rich and famous from this abomination, he may join the NWO with my foooken blessings.
Now that this regime has accomplished several phases  to their plan, lets see, we are bankrupt, gas prices and heating fuel costs will cause deaths, why, people can not afford to live in a house with a mortage and eat, the American dream is American pie and the plate is empty.
So, again, they have raped this county, stolen our funds, we are in debt for about 9 trillion and it keeps going, we are at war in two countries that I know of, a million innocent human beings have been massacered, including men, woman, chidren, and infants. Due to the result of radiactive substances used on bullets large numbers of deformed infants are being born, and civilians are dying from the effects, to include our guys and gals in uniform.
They have made fortunes on this war, litteraly stolen billions and billions of our tax money, and all based on deception and lies.
They have trampled on our constitution, our rights,and our very suvival in the near future.
Now they cry oil shortages, a blatant lie to fook our personel economy, and bring us to our knees.MONEY$$
If black ops sets up Iran for Invasion after this fooken blockade, and the fuse is lit, it most likely will be Israel that begins the shitstorm. Or the blockade will be attacked by the boogey man.
Result, WWIII. Nice huh, involuntary servitude, or draft, take you pick.
Well folks, why march, *why not*. Anyone have another solution, because the only time in American history we have been heard is in Mass and with reason, look back and prove me wrong please.

Does any one truly beleive that Iran is so stupid , they are building nuclear weaponry. Do they have a death wish, do the familes in this nation want to be bombed into oblivion.

I ask you, the newbe to this site, does it appear to be the America you were tutored to believe in. Or is this a nation controlled by parasites getting all they can get, money, power, control and the ability to remove our freedoms, whats left of them.

Our birthright has been removed, we are not in the twighlight zone yet, but were getting there. This is the takedown of the American base,very well planed, organized and in the works for decades.

Their empire grows stronger each passing moment and our rights diminish on an equal basis.
Congress has shut us out of the democratic equation, with the exception of the very enlightened human beings in office who fight tooth and nail to impeach these monsters.
Our founding fathers of this once great nation were but 5% of the population, of course that changed when people united.
Child labor laws, marched.
Womans rights marched.
Veterans rights, marched.
Unionist marched.
Vietnam protestors marched.
MLK, equal rights marched.
How about us. Rambling again, my apoligies to any one who has seen , I get of track at times.

It is now a question of survival, begginning with the poor, for our children it is serfdom and involuntary servitude.

[aura]

June 24, 2008
Russia Orders ‘Nuclear Strike’ On US-Israeli Attempt To Bomb Iran
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducción al Español abajo)
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1112.htm

Russian Military Analysts are reporting today the President Putin ordered an ‘immediate’ retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States after American and Israeli warplanes neared the Iranian border to attack Iran’s Russian built Bushehr nuclear plant.

These reports state that the failed assassination of France’s President Sarkozy (and which we had previously reported on in our report titled “French Leader Sarkozy Targeted By Assassins In Israel, 2 Dead”) was intended to be blamed on radical elements of Iranian supported Lebanonese Hezbollah thus justifying the attack.

As American and Israeli war commanders are scheduled to meet this week, Western and Iranian propaganda media sources are denying this attack, and as we can read as reported by the Jerusalem Post News Service:

"Oil rose for a third straight session on Tuesday to more than $138 a barrel, following rumors of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, which was later denied, Reuters reported. "This is just a rumor. No attack against Iran's nuclear facilities has taken place," a senior Iranian nuclear official said.

Israeli and American military spokesmen also denied the rumors, according to Bloomberg."

These reports, however, state that Iranian air defenses were quick to engage a flight of US armed surveillance drones ahead of the main American-Israeli strike force, but after President Putin’s warning was issued were ordered to ‘cease their attack runs’.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, though not mentioning this latest escalation in tensions, was quick to issue a warning to the American’s, and as we can read as reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency:

“Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said here Tuesday that the White House rulers are now the most hated rulers and policy makers on earth.

"The world domineering powers' rulers, i.e. the White House officials, have now turned into the most resented rulers and policy makers worldwide and the `death to the USA' slogan, which was once coined and chanted by the Iranian nation, has now spread to other nations too," said the Supreme Leader.”

The United Nations Nuclear Chief ElBaradei had previously warned the Western powers that he would ‘resign’ his post upon their attacking the Iranian Nation as, in his words; such an attack would turn the entire Middle East into a ‘fireball’.

It is not known for how long, or even if, President Putin’s threat to the Western powers would hold at abeyance another Global War from being started by the West, but what is known is that with the greater parts of their crop lands either submerged in waters or devastated by drought, and with catastrophic fuel prices decimating their already doomed economies, these once great powers might not have any further options left to maintain their rule over the World.

To the ability of Russia and China to thwart the goals of the West their only remains the possibility of Total Global Nuclear War of the likes not seen since our most ancient past.

© June 24, 2008 EU and US all rights reserved.

[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one.  No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]

[Mukta]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=46401.msg208039#msg208039

[Nile]

This is my first post, been reading for around a year I think though. Wonderful Forum.
Introductions aside.
Is this really happening? No one knows that this is about to happen. I've been laughed at for the past week whenever I even mention the possibility of a an attack against Iran. Even from my own mother who keeps trying to insist that I'm working myself up for nothing! If this happens, it's quite possibly WW3!! I'm 21. My friends, brothers and cousins will be the ones that will get drafted and die for this utter nonsense! What can we do to stop this right now! Am I panicking for nothing? Because, to me this looks like it's inevitable, and that it will happen very very soon!

[thadividedsky]

Nile, I know how ya feel. I've been laughed at, made fun of and attacked physicly a few times. Most people don't want to be woken up to the truth. Some will even fight to protect their little fantasy world. Unfortunately, Things are pretty tense in the world. There're too many things going on for it to all be coincedence. We got congress voting on a blockade against Iran, Sarkozy was almost assasinated in Israel, we supposidly almost attacked Iran with Israel. To top it off we have a large number of our navy in the straits of hormuz, which are sitting ducks for the Iranian anti-ship missles. Things are a mess and the MSM is silent. Don't give up. Keep telling people and sooner or later they will see for themselves that you're trying to warn them of what's happening. Eventualy they will listen and understand.

[Nile]

Thanks for the encouragement. I definitely need it. I just hope that we're all wrong and it just doesn't happen.

[bigron]

Iran says EU First to Pay for Sanctions 

25/06/2008 11:53:09 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=133925

 
Iran warned the EU it would lose out from its new sanctions aiming to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program, in comments by the deputy Iranian for (more)


Iran warned the EU it would lose out from its new sanctions aiming to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program, in comments by the deputy Iranian foreign minister published Wednesday. "If they want to stop doing business, no problem. We have gas and oil resources that the whole world wants to buy from us." said the minister, Mahdi Safari, in an interview with the Austrian newspaper Die Presse.
 
EU nations on Monday agreed new sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program, notably banning the country's largest bank, Bank Melli, from operating in Europe.
 
"We will withdraw our money and invest it elsewhere," Safari warned in the interview. However, he added that "if we withdraw 100 billion dollars from European banks, that will of course lead to shortage of money and it will therefore affect world economy."
 
The sanctions, adopted by EU ministers, also added 20 individuals and 15 organizations to the union's blacklists imposing visa bans and asset freezes. The EU move, along with a string of UN sanctions against Iran adopted since 2006, aims at persuading it to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
 
Tehran insists it wants atomic energy only for a growing population whose fossil fuels will eventually run out which is its right under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
 
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Tehran on June 14 to present an incentive offer to Iran on behalf of the six major countries negotiating with it on the issue -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.
The proposal offers Iran technological incentives in exchange for it suspending the sensitive process of uranium enrichment.
 
Safari said Iran was examining the proposal and had found there was some "common ground" between the two negotiating sides.
¬


-- AJP

 

[bigron]

The Coming Catastrophe?

The finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iran


By David DeBatto
 
Global Research, June 23, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9437


Global Research Editor's note

We bring to the attention of our readers David DeBatto's scenario as to what might occur if one of the several  contingency plans to attack Iran, with the participation of Israel and NATO, were to be carried out. While one may disagree with certain elements of detail of the author's text, the thrust of this analysis must be taken seriously.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Israel has said a strike on Iran will be "unavoidable" if the Islamic regime continues to press ahead with alleged plans for building an atom-bomb." (London Daily Telegraph, 6/11/2008)
"Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany joined President Bush on Wednesday in calling for further sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program." Mr. Bush stressed again that "all options are on the table," which would include military force. (New York Times, 6/11/2008)



We are fast approaching the final six months of the Bush administration. The quagmire in Iraq is in its sixth painful year with no real end in sight and the forgotten war in Afghanistan is well into its seventh year. The "dead enders" and other armed factions are still alive and well in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan again controls most of that country. Gas prices have now reached an average of $4.00 a gallon nationally and several analysts predict the price will rise to $5.00-$6.00 dollars per gallon at the pump by Labor Day. This, despite assurances by some major supporters of the decision to invade Iraq that the Iraq war "will pay for itself" (Paul Wolfowitz) or that we will see "$20.00 per barrel" oil prices if we invade Iraq (Rupert Murdoch).

One thing the Pentagon routinely does (and does very well) is conduct war games. Top brass there are constantly developing strategies for conducting any number of theoretical missions based on real or perceived threats to our national security or vital interests. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq, but the Bush administration chose not to listen to the dire warnings about that mission given to him by Pentagon leaders, or for that matter, by his own senior intelligence officials. Nevertheless, war gaming is in full swing again right now with the bullseye just to the right of our current mess – Iran.

It’s no secret that the U.S. is currently putting the finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iranian nuclear and military facilities. With our ground forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of the most likely scenarios involve a ground invasion. Not that this administration wouldn’t prefer to march into the seat of Shiite Islam behind a solid, moving line of M1 Abrams tanks and proclaim the country for democracy. The fact is that even the President knows we can’t pull that off any more so he and the neo-cons will have to settle for Shock and Awe Lite.

If we invade Iran this year it will be done using hundreds of sorties by carrier based aircraft already stationed in the Persian Gulf and from land based aircraft located in Iraq and Qatar. They will strike the known nuclear facilities located in and around Tehran and the rest of the country as well as bases containing major units of the Iranian military, anti-aircraft installations and units of the Revolutionary Guard (a separate and potent Iranian para-military organization).

Will this military action stop Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons? Probably not. It will probably not even destroy all of their nuclear research facilities, the most sensitive of which are known to be underground, protected by tons of earth and reinforced concrete and steel designed to survive almost all attacks using conventional munitions. The Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard will most likely survive as well, although they will suffer significant casualties and major bases and command centers will undoubtedly be destroyed. However, since Iran has both a functioning Air Force, Navy (including submarines) and modern anti-aircraft capabilities, U.S. fighter-bombers will suffer casualties as well. This will not be a "Cake Walk" as with the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the Iraqi Army simply melted away and the Iraqi Air Force never even launched a single aircraft.

Not even close.

If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War II.

That’s just the opening act.

Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated and large scale effort. Widespread and grisly casualties effectively paralyze the nation, a notion once thought impossible. Iran’s newest ally in the region, Syria, then unleashes a barrage of over 200 Scud B, C and D missiles at Israel, each armed with VX gas. Since all of Israel is within range of these Russian built weapons, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and virtually all major civilian centers and several military bases are struck, often with a result of massive casualties.

The Israeli Air Force orders all three squadrons of their F-16I Sufa fighter/bombers into the air with orders to bomb Tehran and as many military and nuclear bases as they can before they are either shot down or run out of fuel. It is a one way trip for some of these pilots. Their ancient homeland lies in ruins. Many have family that is already dead or dying. They do not wait for permission from Washington, DC or U.S. regional military commanders. The Israeli aircraft are carrying the majority of their country’s nuclear arsenal under their wings.

Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties.

The day after the invasion Wall Street (and to a lesser extent, Tokyo, London and Frankfurt) acts as it always does in an international crisis – irrational speculative and spot buying reaches fever pitch and sends the cost of oil skyrocketing. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iran, the price of oil goes to $200.00 - $300.00 dollars a barrel on the open market. If the war is not resolved in a few weeks, that price could rise even higher.  This will send the price of gasoline at the pump in this country to $8.00-$10.00 per gallon immediately and subsequently to even higher unthinkable levels.

If that happens, this country shuts down. Most Americans are not be able to afford gas to go to work. Truckers pull their big rigs to the side of the road and simply walk away. Food, medicine and other critical products are not be brought to stores. Gas and electricity (what is left of the short supply) are too expensive for most people to afford. Children, the sick and elderly die from lack of air-conditioned homes and hospitals in the summer. Children, the sick and elderly die in the winter for lack of heat. There are food riots across the country. A barter system takes the place of currency and credit as the economy dissolves and banks close or limit withdrawals. Civil unrest builds.

The police are unable to contain the violence and are themselves victims of the same crisis as the rest of the population. Civilian rule dissolves and Martial Law is declared under provisions approved under the Patriot Act. Regular U.S. Army and Marine troops patrol the streets. The federal government apparatus is moved to an unknown but secure location. The United States descends into chaos and becomes a third world country. Its time as the lone superpower is over.

It doesn’t get any worse than this.

Then the first Israeli bomber drops its nuclear payload on Tehran.

David DeBatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, Iraqi war veteran and co-author the "CI" series from Warner Books and the upcoming "Counter to Intelligence" from Praeger Security International.
 

[bigron]

US military chief to visit Israel for talks on Iran

By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
Last updated: 4:02 AM BST 25/06/2008


The head of America's armed forces will make a hastily-arranged visit to Israel this week, fuelling speculation about a possible Washington-sanctioned Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear programme.
Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, will use a rest day during a planned tour of Europe to meet with his Israeli opposite number, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi.

It is understood the rest day was to have been spent in Europe but at the last moment he decided to fly to Israel for talks, with the Iranian nuclear question at the top of the agenda.

Adm Mullen last visited Israel in December - the first visit from a US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in more than a decade.

A second visit in such a short time, sources indicated, was a demonstration of the close relationship Adm Mullen had forged with Gen Ashkenazi.

Israel is America's closest military ally and relations between the two sides are very close.

Gen Ashkenazi himself is due in Washington for his own official visit within a month.

Israel would require tacit US military approval for an attack on Iran, because America controls the Iraqi airspace which Israeli jets are likely to cross if they mount an assault.

News of Adm Mullen's visit comes after American sources revealed Israel carried out a full rehearsal of an air assault on Iran's network of nuclear sites involving scores of strike aircraft flying long-range missions.

While Israeli officials remained silent on the matter, sources in Washington at the Pentagon and other US government agencies confirmed the exercise staged in early June over the eastern Mediterranean.

The target of the exercise was 900 miles from Israel, roughly the same distance as Iran's nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz.

As many as 100 F-16 and F-15 jets were involved alongside Israeli helicopters with long-range fuel tanks which practised rescuing downed combat aircrew.

The exercise came as US President George W Bush and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, both used the same language in public to put pressure on Tehran, saying that a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable''.

Speculation about a possible attack intensified this week when John Bolton, America's former ambassador to the United Nations, suggested Israel might attack between the presidential election on November 4 and the inauguration in January.


Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2188501/US-military-chief-to-visit-Israel-for-talks-on-Iran.html

[bigron]

Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran

June 24, 2008

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml


(CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.

CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.

"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."

Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.

"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."

The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region.

U.S. intelligence estimates Iran won't be able to build a weapon until sometime early in the next decade. But Israel is operating on a much shorter timetable.

"The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That's not a very long time," Oren said.

For now, the Bush administration is counting on new economic sanctions which took effect Tuesday to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. But nobody's counting on it.