Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[bigron]

Attack Iran?


by Robert Dreyfuss

http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m63590&hd=&size=1&l=e

February 23, 2010

More huffing and puffing about war with Iran, this time from Anne Applebaum of the hawkish Washington Post, but first some words of caution from Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. At a news conference with Secretary of Defense Gates yesterday, Mullen once again reiterated his long-standing caution about a military attack on Iran, even as he laced it with concern about Iran's nuclear program and Iran's "hegemonic" goals in the area of the Persian Gulf. Said Mullen:


"I maintain my conviction that Iran remains on a path to achieve nuclear weaponization, and that even this very pursuit further destabilizes the region.
"But like us, it isn't just a nuclear-capable Iranian military our friends worry about -- it's an Iran with hegemonic ambitions and a desire to dominate its neighbors. This outcome drives many of the national security decisions our partners there are making, and I believe we must be mindful of that as we look to the future, post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan.

"Let me be clear: We owe the secretary and the president a range of options for this threat. We owe the American people our readiness. But as I've said many times, I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive."

Applebaum, not exactly an Iran expert, used her ink in the Post today to warn that President Obama had better start preparing for an Israeli strike on Iran. In fact, that was the title of her op-ed: "Prepare for war with Iran." In it, she suggests that "at some point" Israel's restraint vis-avis Iran could evaporate, partly because President Ahmadinejad "makes(s) the Israelis paranoid." An Israeli strike, she says, "would be followed by retaliation, some of which would be directed at us, our troops in Iraq, our ships at sea." And she adds:


"I do hope that this administration is ready, militarily and psychologically, not for a war of choice but for an unwanted war of necessity."
That, of course, is exactly what Obama should not be doing. Instead, as I suspect they've done already -- indeed, even during the Bush administration, Admiral Mullen did this -- is make it clear to the Israelis that under no, repeat no, circumstances will an Israeli strike on Iran be tolerated by the United States. Bombing a would-be reactor in Syria, as Israel did three years ago, is one thing, but attacking Iran, a powerful regional actor and oil exporter with lots of muscle in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf, is another. The United States simply has to let Israel know that attacking Iran would be considered an act of unprovoked aggression by Washington, resulting in a suspension of military assistance and a vote to condemn Israel at the UN.

Iran, meanwhile, isn't helping things along by blustering about its intent to build another ten nuclear enrichment sites, including two inside mountain redoubts. Analysts argue back and forth about whether or not Iran is determined to become a military nuclear power. On this, I'm an agnostic, but it does appear foolhardy to assume the best about Iran's goals, especially given the ascent of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Tehran. It's another thing, of course, to panic, for two reasons: first, Iran does not appear to be that close to acquiring the bomb, and its research is running into important snags, at least some of which may involve covert technological sabotage by the US, Israel and the Europeans; and second, because even if Iran does manage to acquire a small number of bombs, it can be contained and deterred.

As Fareed Zakaria wrote the other day:


"Can we live with a nuclear Iran? Well, we're living with a nuclear North Korea (boxed in and contained by its neighbors). And we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union and Communist China.
"The most significant recent development in Iran has been the displacement of the clerical elite by the Revolutionary Guards, a military organization that is now the center of power. Clinton confirmed this when she warned of an emerging 'military dictatorship' there. I'm not sure which is worse for the Iranian people: rule by nasty mullahs or by thuggish soldiers. But we know this: Military regimes are calculating. They act in ways that keep themselves in power. That instinct for self-preservation is what will make a containment strategy work."

Other thinkers, including relatively hawkish ones, are already thinking ahead about a strategy to contain a nuclear Iran. James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, no doves, have a piece in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs entitled: "After Iran Gets the Bomb." Summarizing their argument in the Post, Lindsay and Takeyh say that a containment policy, backed up by a credible threat of US military action, could contain Iran even after it gets a bomb. In my view, they seem to regard the use of force against a nuclear Iran with less than the dread that such a scenario implies, but in any case their argument bolsters the case for rejecting military action against Iran, now. They say:


"It would take considerable American political skill and will to contain [Iran's] regional pretensions. Washington would need to be explicit about its red lines: no initiation of conventional warfare against other countries; no use or transfer of nuclear weapons, material or technologies; no stepped-up support for terrorist or subversive activities. Washington would need to be just as explicit about the consequences of crossing those lines: potential U.S. military retaliation by any and all means necessary."
And they conclude:


"If Tehran remains determined to go nuclear and preventive attacks prove too risky or unworkable to carry out, the United States will need to formulate a strategy to contain Iran."


 

[ConcordeWarrior]

"But like us, it isn't just a nuclear-capable Iranian military our friends worry about -- it's an Iran with hegemonic ambitions and a desire to dominate its neighbors.
...
"I do hope that this administration is ready, militarily and psychologically, not for a war of choice but for an unwanted war of necessity."

This is propaganda.

Israel sends assassination squads to other countries, they massacre innocents in Gaza by the hundreds even by using phosphorus bombs and there's nothing we should be saying about them? Do they think they own/rule the world and they have every right?

I am boycotting every product I am aware of that is manufactured in Israel. Everybody should do the same. They are so evil.   

[LightCaster]

VIDEO: Russian Chief of Staff: US Plans to Strike Iran


Global Research, February 24, 2010
Russia Today - 2010-02-17


VIDEO

[bigron]

Read the IAEA Reports on Iran

by Peter Casey, March 01, 2010

http://original.antiwar.com/peter-casey/2010/02/28/read-the-iaea-reports-on-iran/

VISIT PAGE FOR LINKS TO REPORT & MORE


On Feb. 19, New York Times reporters David Sanger and William Broad filed a story about the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report [.pdf] on its inspection and monitoring work in Iran. The lead of story, "Inspectors Say Iran Worked on Warhead," announced the Feb. 18 report’s shocking discovery:

"The United Nations‘ nuclear inspectors declared for the first time on Thursday that they had extensive evidence of ‘past or current undisclosed activities’ by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead, an unusually strongly worded conclusion that seems certain to accelerate Iran’s confrontation with the United States and other Western countries."

If that isn’t disturbing enough, the story then revealed that the IAEA has "concluded," contrary to America’s intelligence agencies, that Iran has been working feverishly on a nuclear bomb without interruption:

"The report, the first under the new director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, also concluded that Iran’s weapons-related activity apparently continued ‘beyond 2004,’ contradicting an American intelligence assessment published a little over two years ago that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003."

If this story is true, everyone should be frightened. The IAEA has had extensive evidence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, but it inexplicably withheld that information from the world until now. More troubling, the combined intelligence resources of the United States not only failed to discover the evidence available to the IAEA, but they also reached the erroneous conclusion that Iran had stopped all work on any nuclear weapon years ago.

The prospect is terrifying: Iran is creating a nuclear arsenal, and nobody can or will warn us in time to avert annihilation.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that none of it is true.

The Times imputes to the IAEA report statements, declarations, and conclusions that just are not there. One can see this easily, just by reading the report and comparing it to the story. You do not need a degree in nuclear physics or chemical engineering to see that the New York Times story is, quite simply, false.

The Times was not alone in fabricating content for the IAEA report. The overwhelming response of American media grossly overstated its significance and rewrote it beyond recognition. The Times‘ story, however, is transparently dishonest, and it raises the legitimate question: Is America’s "paper of record" consciously misrepresenting facts to "accelerate confrontation" between Iran and the West?

The Times wasted no time with facts. It got down to the business of distorting the report right away – in the headline itself, followed by the near-hysterical lead paragraph. Contrary to the Times, the IAEA inspectors do not "say Iran worked on warhead," nor do they for the "first time declare … that they had extensive evidence of past or current undisclosed activities by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead." Instead, the report (paragraph 41) summarizes information that the IAEA has discussed in over a dozen reports beginning four years ago, making no new "declarations," referring to no new circumstances. See February 2006 report [.pdf], paragraph 38. It then states:

"The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved. Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related aspects, run by military related organizations." (Emphasis added.)

The Times‘ story does not quote the language of the report in bold above until the 15th paragraph. Even then, it does not explain that this sentence is the sole basis for the sensational – and sensationally false – claim that the IAEA says, declares, and concludes that Iran had and has a nuclear weapons program.

Two relevant points are obvious from comparing the 10-page IAEA report and the Times‘ story. First, the story’s lead attributes to the report statements of fact that the IAEA does not make – and has never made. Instead of stating that "Iran Worked on Warhead," the IAEA says that it is concerned about the possible existence of past or current activities related to the development of a nuclear payload. No matter how much spin even the masters at the New York Times can put on it, information giving rise to concerns about the possibility of a weapons program is not a "statement," "declaration," or "conclusion" that Iran has a weapons program. To say that one is concerned about the possibility of something is not to say that the something exists. When speaking of weapons that can destroy civilization, most people would agree that the difference is important. Not so the Times, apparently.

Sanger, Broad, and the editors of the New York Times surely know the difference between the possible and the actual. Why then did they describe the IAEA’s statements of possibility as conclusions of fact?

Second, the report does not state or claim that the IAEA has any new information about the possibility of a nuclear weapons program. The report contains no relevant new or different facts, evidence, conclusions, or "declarations." On the contrary, the IAEA (at paragraph 40) is emphatic that it is summarizing information about potential military application previously reported in detail:

"[T]he Agency needs to have confidence in the absence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program. Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues and the actions required of Iran, including, inter alia, that Iran implement the Additional Protocol and provide the Agency with the information and access necessary to: resolve questions related to the alleged studies; clarify the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related; and clarify the production of nuclear related equipment and components by companies belonging to the defense industries." (Emphasis added.)

This litany of issues and questions not only contains nothing new. It is a virtual cut-and-paste from prior IAEA reports going back at least two years. See the IAEA report of May 2008 [.pdf], paragraph 14:

"In addition to the implementation of Iran’s Additional Protocol, for the Agency to provide assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, Iran needs to, inter alia: resolve questions related to the alleged studies…; provide more information on the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document…; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related…; and clarify the production of nuclear equipment and components by companies belonging to defense industries."

The Times‘ claim that the report "declares" "extensive evidence" of a nuclear weapons program for the "first time" is a crude misconstruction designed to hype the report as news that is "certain to accelerate Iran’s confrontation with the United States and other Western countries." The only relevant differences between current and past reports are completely non-substantive. As noted, the current report (paragraph 41) characterizes the IAEA’s information as "extensive," coming from multiple sources, "broadly consistent," and "credible," then states that, "[a]ltogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile." The IAEA has said the same thing in substance over and over again, for years. For example, the August 2009 IAEA report [.pdf] states (paragraph 19):

"[A]s the Director General has repeatedly emphasized, the information contained in that documentation appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts which naturally arise, in light of all of the outstanding issues, about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program." (Emphasis added.)

In another context, the two statements would be close enough to give the author of the August 2009 an excellent claim for copyright infringement. More importantly, there is no substantive difference between the punch line in the August 2009 report and its rephrasing in the current report. The current report, "raising concerns" about the "possible existence" of activities to develop "a nuclear payload for a missile," merely restates, in mirror image, the earlier report’s unresolved "doubts … about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program." Doubts about the "exclusively peaceful nature" of a nuclear program mean questions about possible military application. In any event, the basis for both formulations, as stated explicitly in the current report, is an identical list of issues and questions discussed at length in the reports for several years.

It is difficult to believe that veteran reporters from the New York Times would misconstrue the IAEA’s summary of long-standing questions as an earth-shattering new "conclusion" about Iran’s development of a "nuclear payload" that seems "certain" to bring the U.S. and Israel closer to war with Iran. Does the Times want a war?

Whatever its motives, the Times‘ distortions and misuse of the IAEA’s report look like the product of an agenda. In the second paragraph, for example, Sanger and Broad claim that the IAEA has "also concluded that Iran’s weapons-related activity apparently continued ‘beyond 2004,’ contradicting an American intelligence assessment published a little over two years ago that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003." This statement is blatantly misleading. The National Intelligence Estimate [.pdf] issued in late 2007 expressed the judgment that Iran discontinued a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In other words, American intelligence concluded that Iran had conducted an undisclosed nuclear weapons program up until 2003. Since commencing work in 2003, however, the IAEA has never expressed a conclusion – including in the current report – that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program. See report GOV/2003-75 [.pdf], paragraph 52 (Nov. 10, 2003): "To date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program." Nobody – not even the IAEA – can "contradict" a proposition without a contradiction.

In any event, the report actually states (paragraph 43): "Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004." The "activities" refer to same list of "alleged activities" (the existence of which Iran disputes and which the IAEA still questions) or those that Iran claims solely concern civilian application (but may have a "military dimension"), all of which have been discussed in detail in earlier reports. Whether some activities (e.g., theoretical "dual use" material) that raise questions or concerns about the "exclusively peaceful nature" of Iran’s nuclear program continued "beyond 2004" does not establish that they involve efforts to develop a "nuclear payload" before, during, or after 2004.

The Times‘ agenda here is to contribute to the near-relentless public (and undoubtedly private) pressure on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other key intelligence agencies to scrap the 2007 NIE. The ink was not dry on that report before it came under blistering attack from every quarter in the anti-Iran camp. Since then, the "debate" over the 2007 NIE reflects a complete national amnesia over the politicization of intelligence responsible for the Iraq invasion and all the later chest-beating about "stove-piping" that consumed dozens of committees and commissions. Quite unlike Cheney’s subterranean Office of Special Plans, the politicization of the Iran NIE has taken place in the middle of Main Street at high noon. With a new NIE reportedly in the pipeline and opponents of the 2007 estimate striving to get it changed, the Times‘ Feb. 19 story does its bit by claiming falsely that even the IAEA’s "conclusions" "contradict" it. Protect the independent judgment of intelligence services? Forget it.

The rest of the Times‘ story continues in the same fashion, taking the equivalent of firecrackers in the IAEA report and converting them through the magic of journalism into 25-megaton nukes. Another of its frightening revelations is that the "report indicated that for the first time Iran told inspectors it was preparing to make its uranium into metallic form – a step that can be explained by some civilian applications, but is widely viewed as necessary for making the core of an atom bomb." Near the end of the story, the authors return to this point, noting that the report "disclosed Iranian work on uranium metal at … Isfahan, where it said Iran planned to build several production lines. The Institute for Science and International Security … said in a report on Thursday that the new lines at Isfahan ‘raise suspicions that Iran could use them to make metal components for weapons’" (emphasis added).

The trouble with this claim is that Sanger and Broad should have put "this decade" after "first time." That is because, as the IAEA reported in 2003, "the design information provided to the Agency in July 2000 described the purpose of [the Isfahan] facility as the conversion of uranium ore concentrate (UOC or U3O8) into natural UO2, UF6, and uranium metal" (emphasis added). This seven-year-old report adds that the Iranians disclosed that the facility would have "the following process lines" – and then lists the same processing lines, including those for uranium metal, that the Times now says the Iranians did not disclose until 2010. Compare the 2003 report [.pdf], Annex 1, paragraphs 3 and 4, with the Feb. 18 report [.pdf], paragraph 25 (both list the same seven processing lines, including those for producing "uranium metal enriched to 19.7% U-235" from UF6 and producing "depleted uranium metal" from UF4).

For almost seven years, the IAEA has been issuing reports roughly every quarter on the findings, issues, and open items from its inspections of Iran’s nuclear activities. Three basic facts can be found in its reports. First, all of Iran’s nuclear material has been and remains under IAEA "containment and surveillance." Second, Iran does not have nuclear weapons or the means to make them. Third, there is no definitive evidence that Iran in fact has or ever had a nuclear weapons program. For as long as the IAEA has been issuing its reports, however, the major American media have been doing their utmost to twist, torque, and torture them into a nightmarish revelation of ghoulish mullahs feverishly building a doomsday machine as they plan to create a nuclear empire, wipe Israel from the face of the map, and conquer the world.

A couple of years ago I suggested that everyone should read the IAEA reports because an educated public might help avert another unnecessary war based on lies. That, however, probably wasn’t inspiring enough. So let me suggest this: If you read the reports and then read the newspaper accounts of them, you can experience firsthand that galvanic shot of astonishment from discovering just how bad – how shamelessly bad – the American media has become.

[Nailer]

I sure hope this is just sabre rattling and that  someone is pulling a prank posting this.





War Council Convened In Damsacus Past Friday To Prepare For Israeli Strike, Iran President Expects War "Between Spring And Summer"




Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/01/2010 09:22 -0800

Abu Dhabi Iran Israel Middle East Newspaper


Abu Dhabi Media website The National has disclosed some rather disturbing news about peace "prospects" in the middle east. It appears this past Friday saw a war council convene in Damascus, between Syrian president Bashar al Assad, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah to "devise counterattack plans and assign tasks in the event of an Israeli offensive on one or all parties, wrote Abdelbari Atwan, the editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab newspaper Al Quds al Arabi." And more troublingly, "the Iranian president said he expects war to break out somewhere between spring and summer of this year. Meanwhile, the Hizbollah chief vowed to strike the Israeli capital, its airports and power stations if Israel dared to attack Beirut’s critical infrastructure."Let's recall that Goldman's most recent 2010 and 2011 WTI estimates call for prices to rise to $90 and $110/bbl, respectively.





read more at :

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/war-council-convened-damsacus-past-friday-prepare-israeli-strike-iran-president-expects-war-


US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry visiting Jerusalem today said the United States and Israel were “on the same page” regarding Iran’s nuclear program and called on the international community to take a tough stance against Iran's nuclear program and impose effective sanctions.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Kerry met this morning to discuss the main issues on the agenda, including the Iranian nuclear threat and ways to resume the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Speaking to reporters concerning the various options on the table the Senator said "I think that the prime minister is fully aware through his conversations with the administration as well as through his own comments to not be rash or not jump the gun and to give the other opportunities a chance"

On whether or not Israel would make a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities Senator Kerry said he believed “Netanyahu understood what the U.S. was trying to achieve with diplomacy.”

The Senator also met with opposition leader Tzipi Livni who warned of the situation that has unfolded since the government added to a list of heritage sites the Cave of Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb saying “The diplomatic conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is about to turn into a religious one that will be impossible to solve,” adding "I call upon the Palestinian leadership to stop the deterioration in the situation before it is too late.”

Vice President Joe Biden is expected to make a trip to Israel shortly to continue with discussions on the Iranian situation.

http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelinews/israel/israeli-news/520-senator-kerry-israel-wont-go-alone-on-iran-us-is-on-same-page.html

[Nailer]

They won't start the war till their citizens are all prepared...

I've been waiting for this to happen...




(IsraelNN.com) Following a government decision to begin distribution of gas masks to the populace, the Israel Postal Company began the distribution of gas masks in the city of Or Yehuda. The distribution will continue over a period of six days and will thereafter be extended to the Kiryat Ono and surrounding area.

Avi Hochman, President of the Israel Postal Company, stated that "the Israel Postal Service was chosen by the Ministry of Defense for this important national project and has made the necessary preparations, including a state-of-the art technological and logistical infrastructure." To this end, the company will operate a special call center for customer calls via its regular call center at telephone number 171.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136236

[Sheepleprod]

I would have to dig for the CNN snippet yesterday but the Israeli Defense minister on Ahmanpour said There could be no conceivable world order if Iran goes Nuclear.....

[bigron]

U.S. media replays Iraq fiasco on Iran  

03/03/2010 01:00:00 PM GMT
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/US-media-replays-Iraq-fiasco-on-Iran.html
 
One might have hoped that the destruction in Iraq would've taught these media figures a painful lesson: that loose talk about foreign 'enemies' can contribute to horrendous human suffering.


By Robert Parry

Major U.S. news organizations, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, are engaged in a replay of the kind of slanted coverage that paved the way to war in Iraq, only this time regarding Iran.

The treatment of Iran’s election last June, the depictions of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the alarm over Iran’s nuclear program all parallel the one-sided coverage that the U.S. news media directed toward Iraqi Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s alleged WMD program before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

In both cases, the leading U.S. news outlets took sides; they cast developments in the “enemy” Muslim nation in the harshest possible light; they treated the leaders as unrelentingly evil; they exaggerated the threats (and potential threats) posed by the country’s weaponry, real and imagined.

Without doubt, there were many unsavory aspects to Saddam Hussein as there are with Iran’s Ahmadinejad. However, the U.S. media's depictions of the two leaders lacked nuance, with only the most extreme and unflattering interpretations of their words and actions allowed.

In short, the Times, the Post and nearly all other U.S. news outlets have behaved more like propaganda vehicles than professional journalism organizations. The anti-Iran bias, like the earlier anti-Iraq bias, is most notable on the editorial and op-ed pages but also pervades the news columns.

For instance, echoing U.S. policymakers, the U.S. news media often warns about the danger from a prospective Iranian nuclear weapon, claiming it would touch off an arms race in the Middle East.

What the news organizations almost never mention is that several countries in the region already have nuclear weapons, including Israel whose undeclared arsenal is considered one of the most sophisticated in the world.

Pakistan developed a nuclear bomb in the 1980s, with the acquiescence of the Reagan administration which saw the bomb as an acceptable tradeoff for Pakistan’s assistance in supplying the Afghan mujahedeen in a covert war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. 

Pakistan’s bitter rival, India, also possesses nuclear weapons as does Russia, meaning that Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.

The consistent failure of the Post, the Times and other leading U.S. news organizations to mention this relevant fact denies the American people the necessary context for evaluating Iran’s behavior. Instead, Iran and its purported interest in a nuke are portrayed as the behavior of irrational extremists.

Iran, of course, insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, not for a bomb. And there is at this point no clear evidence that Iran is lying. Indeed, U.S. intelligence agencies have asserted that Iran abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear warhead design in 2003.

Singling out Iran
So why is Iran being singled out for condemnation regarding its speculative interest in a nuclear weapon while Israel, Pakistan and India get a pass for their actual nuclear weapons?

One argument that U.S. news organizations make is that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while Israel, Pakistan and India are not and that therefore it is more objectionable for Iran to evade the treaty’s provisions than for the others to simply ignore the treaty outright.

But the argument makes little sense. It amounts to giving a pass to rogue nuclear states that have refused to sign the treaty.

The absence of this outrage is especially notable regarding Israel, even after it imposed draconian punishments against one Israeli technician, Mordechai Vanunu, for divulging facts about the nuclear program in 1986. Vanunu was kidnapped in Italy, spirited back to Israel and tried in secret. He was put in solitary confinement for 11 years during an 18-year sentence.

Even today, Vanunu faces arrest for speaking with foreigners, yet this whistleblower remains almost as big a pariah with the U.S. press as he does with the Israeli government.

While American journalists silence themselves about Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal and treat the persecution of Vanunu as somehow deserved, they rail against Iran’s nuclear program even though it is under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and remains far short of any breakout capability for a nuclear weapon even if Iran’s government decided to build one.

Another argument, used to justify the double standard, is that Iran is a particularly dangerous nation; that it has supported Arab groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which some governments in the West label “terrorist”; and that Iranian leaders reject Israel’s status as a Jewish state and have wished for that religious/ethnic designation to end.

However, many people in the Middle East and around the world consider Hezbollah and Hamas to be resistance and/or political groups that have struggled against Israeli occupation of Lebanese and Palestinian lands, respectively. While the groups have resorted to violence, sometimes against civilians, Israel doesn’t have clean hands on that point either.

Israel is renowned for its cross-border assassinations and for its conquest of neighboring territory. Israel invaded and occupied parts of Lebanon in the 1980s and engaged in a bloody offensive there as recently as 2006.

Israel also has conducted a harsh occupation of Palestinian lands, assassinating Palestinian leaders and taking prized lands for Israeli settlers in defiance of United Nations resolutions and the intermittent protests of Israel’s chief ally in Washington. Israeli forces killed more than 1,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, in an offensive in Gaza a year ago.

By contrast, Iran has for generations been a relatively peaceful regional power. Its eight-year war with Iraq began when Saddam Hussein’s forces invaded Iran in 1980, possibly with a “green light” from the United States and Sunni Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, which feared the spread of Iran’s Shiite fundamentalism. 

The war was sustained by President Ronald Reagan’s secret decision to tilt toward Iraq. Further, any objective observers would have to recognize that the United States has been the most active nation on earth intervening in other countries’ affairs over the past six decades, often violently.

Links to terrorists
As for links to terrorist organizations, Pakistan and the United States have arguably dirtier hands than Iran.

In the 1980s, during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Pakistan collaborated with Sunni Muslim extremists, including Saudi Osama bin Laden and other violent operatives who later formed al-Qaeda. In the 1990s, Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, nurtured the Taliban and backed their takeover of Afghanistan, remaining their staunchest ally up to the 9/11 attacks.

The ISI also is known to deploy militants against India in the disputed territory of Kashmir, and Pakistan has been the base for bloody terrorist attacks such as the 2008 massacre in Mumbai, India.

The United States, too, is far from blameless on the terrorism front. To this day, U.S. authorities harbor known Cuban terrorists in Miami and elsewhere, including Luis Posada Carriles who was implicated in the mid-air bombing of a Cubana airliner in 1976. 

Since detonating two nuclear bombs against Japan at the end of World War II, U.S. officials have periodically discussed or threatened nuclear attack against other countries if they didn’t comply with American wishes, including non-nuclear states like North Vietnam when President Richard Nixon was engaged in his so-called “madman” strategy.

Even today, while complaining about Iran’s suspected interest in building a nuclear weapon, U.S. authorities, including President George W. Bush and apparently President Barack Obama, have left open the possibility of nuking Iran. They have made a point to insist that “all options are on the table,” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while a candidate for President, threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel.

Yet, to read the leading American newspapers, one would assume that Iran was the only dangerous country operating in that part of the world.

Bias on the election
There also is the curious way the U.S. media handled the Iranian election last June 12.

The New York Times and the Washington Post editorialists routinely describe the election as “fraudulent,” without any qualification or factual substantiation. This is similar to how Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt pronounced in 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Only later, after the U.S. invasion and the discovery of no caches of WMD did Hiatt concede that maybe the Post should not have been so categorical.

“If you look at the editorials we write running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction,” Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review. “If that’s not true, it would have been better not to say it.” [CJR, March/April 2004]

Yes, there was a time in American journalism when it was considered serious business to state as fact something that was not true. However, in Hiatt’s case – despite the deaths of more than 4,300 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – there has been no change in the leadership of the Post’s editorial pages.

Hiatt, like his counterparts at the New York Times, is now certain that the Iranian election was “fraudulent” without equivocation. The evidence, however, points in a much more uncertain direction.

Many of the assumptions of the U.S. and Western press about election fraud turned out to be false, such as the belief that Azeris would have voted heavily for one of their own, Mir Hossein Mousavi, instead of for Ahmadinejad.

But a pre-election poll, sponsored by the New America Foundation, found a 2-to-1 breakdown for Ahmadinejad among Azeris. Part of the reason appeared to be that Ahmadinejad had poured government resources into that area.

Another frequent complaint from the Western press was that Ahmadinejad’s claim of victory came too fast, but that ignored the fact that Mousavi was out with a declaration of victory before any votes were counted. The first partial results, showing Ahmadinejad in the lead, came out hours later.

The reason why Ahmadinejad might have really won the election was that his support was concentrated among the urban and rural poor who benefited from government food giveaways and jobs programs and who tend to listen more to conservative clerics in the mosques.

Mousavi seemed to acknowledge this point when he released his supposed proof of the rigged election, accusing Ahmadinejad of buying votes by providing food and higher wages for the poor. At some Mousavi rallies, his supporters reportedly would chant “death to the potatoes!” in a joking reference to Ahmadinejad’s food distributions.

Yet, while passing out food and raising pay levels may be a sign of “machine politics,” such tactics are not normally associated with election fraud.

Generally speaking, Mousavi had the backing of the urban middle class and the well-educated, especially in the more cosmopolitan capital of Tehran where universities became a center for protests against Ahmadinejad. The president’s policies – and his offensive comments questioning the Holocaust – have created hardships for this voting bloc, which has found it hard to travel and do business in the face of Western sanctions and restrictions.

So, the election outcome could have been explained simply by Iran’s middle class and intellectuals voting heavily for Mousavi, while larger numbers of poor and conservative Muslims might have broken for Ahmadinejad.

Opposing a recount
The last real hope for definitive evidence proving that Ahmadinejad’s victory was fraudulent may have passed when Mousavi rejected the possibility of a recount. Instead Mousavi insisted on an entirely new election.

Mousavi’s objection to a recount drew support from the New York Times’ top brass. “Even a full recount would be suspect,” the Times wrote in an editorial. “How could anyone be sure that the ballots were valid?”

But one reason for a recount is that examining ballots can unearth evidence of fraud, especially if ballot-box stuffing was done chaotically or if the tallies were simply fabricated without ballots to support them, as some Western observers have speculated regarding Iran.

This perception gap between the West and Iran over the legitimacy of the election now has become a powerful point of dispute between the two sides.

A poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org questioned 1,003 Iranians across the country between Aug. 27 and Sept. 10, 2009, discovering that 81 percent said they considered Ahmadinejad to be the legitimate president of Iran. Only 10 percent called him illegitimate, with eight percent offering no opinion.

Sixty-two percent said they had strong confidence in the election results and another 21 percent said they had some confidence in the official vote count, for a total of 83 percent expressing favorable views on the election. By comparison, only 13 percent said they had little or no confidence in the results.

Those poll results were either ignored by the U.S. news media or discounted as the result of fearful Iranians simply saying what their government wanted to hear. However, similar polls have been conducted in countries around the world, including during the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, and have been regarded as useful measures of public opinion.

In the six months following that poll, the Post, the Times and other Western news outlets have continued to insist that the Iranian election was “fraudulent,” thus giving moral backing to street protests seeking to overthrow Ahmadinejad.

However, if the election indeed was legitimate, then the American news media is helping to create political support for the removal of a democratically elected government.

Bush and regime change
A similar situation occurred in Iran in 1953 when the United States and Great Britain opposed Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who was seeking to nationalize Iran’s oil resources. The CIA undertook a propaganda campaign to depict Mossadegh as unstable while also passing out millions of dollars to rally big crowds demanding his ouster.

Given that history – and Iran’s inclusion on President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” list – it would not be unreasonable for the Iranian government to suspect that the United States, possibly with its UK junior partner, is conducting a new covert operation today.

Prior to the June 12 election in Iran, it was well known and widely reported that Bush had signed a covert action finding targeting Iran’s Islamic government with a major program of propaganda and political destabilization.

In the July 7, 2008, New Yorker magazine, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote that late the previous year, Congress had agreed to Bush’s request for a major escalation in covert operations against Iran to the tune of up to $400 million.

“The Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” one person familiar with its contents told Hersh. The operation involved “working with opposition groups and passing money,” the person said.

Other news organizations reported similar facts, with Bush administration officials even citing the aggressive covert action as one reason why the Israelis should tamp down their heated rhetoric about launching a military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Yet, when the Mousavi campaign took on the appearance of a “velvet revolution,” with Mousavi claiming victory before any ballots were counted and then organizing mass demonstration when the official vote count went against him, the U.S. press corps mocked any suggestion from Ahmadinejad’s government that foreign operatives might have had a hand in the disruptions.

Not to say that Mousavi’s campaign was orchestrated from outside Iran – nor to suggest that it didn’t speak for genuine grievances inside Iran – but the U.S. press corps behaved as if it had forgotten its own earlier reporting about the CIA covert operation. It was hard to avoid the conclusion that the big American media was taking sides with Mousavi.

The Iran-Contra connection
Truly objective journalism at least might have included some historical facts about the three chief opposition leaders and their longstanding (often secret) ties to the West.

In the 1980s, then Prime Minister Mousavi was, in effect, the control officer for Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian agent who hooked up with neoconservative activist Michael Ledeen for clandestine Iran-Contra weapons shipments that involved both the United States and Israel.

In November 1985, as one of the missile shipments via Israel went awry, Ghorbanifar conveyed Mousavi’s anger to the White House.

"On or about November 25, 1985, Ledeen received a frantic phone call from Ghorbanifar, asking him to relay a message from the prime minister of Iran to President Reagan regarding the shipment of the wrong type of HAWKs,” according to Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh’s Final Report.

“Ledeen said the message essentially was ‘we've been holding up our part of the bargain, and here you people are now cheating us and tricking us and deceiving us and you had better correct this situation right away.’”

Ghorbanifar also had dangled the possibility of Reagan’s national security adviser Robert McFarlane meeting with high-level Iranian officials, including Mousavi. In May 1986, when McFarlane and White House aide Oliver North took their infamous trip to Tehran with the inscribed Bible and the key-shaped cake, they were planning to meet with Mousavi.

Another leading figure in today’s opposition, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, also sat at the center of the web of arms deals that Israel arranged for Iran in its long war with Iraq. Rafsanjani, who was then parliamentary chairman, built his personal fortune, in part, as a war profiteer benefiting from those lucrative deals with Israel. 

A third key opposition leader, Mehdi Karoubi, and his brother Hassan also were linked to the secret arms deals. Mehdi Karoubi has been identified as an intermediary as early as 1980 when he reportedly had contacts with Israeli and US intelligence operatives and top Republicans working for Ronald Reagan. 

The brother, Hassan Karoubi, was another Iran-Contra figure, meeting with Ghorbanifar and Ledeen in Geneva in late October 1985 regarding missile shipments in exchange for Iranian help in getting a group of U.S. hostages freed in Lebanon, according to Walsh’s report.

Normally, such an unusual line-up of opposition leaders might be expected to raise some eyebrows in the U.S. press corps. If the CIA or Israeli intelligence were trying to achieve regime change in Iran, they might reasonably reach out to influential figures with whom they’ve had prior relationships.

But all that history, as well as the media’s prior knowledge of Bush’s covert operation seeking “regime change” in Iran, disappeared, not to be mentioned in the volumes of reporting about the June 12 election. The stories all were about spontaneous demonstrations in protest of Ahmadinejad’s allegedly fraudulent reelection.

The U.S. news media may understandably view Ahmadinejad with disdain, for his bluster and especially his outrageous comments about the Holocaust. Sometimes that repulsion has been palpable, such as when New York Times executive editor Bill Keller personally traveled to Iran to witness the election and co-authored a news analysis that started with a joke about Ahmadinejad having lice in his hair. 

But one might at least have hoped that the death and destruction in Iraq would have taught these media figures a painful lesson: that sometimes loose talk about foreign “enemies” can contribute to horrendous human suffering.

Journalists might also recall the old principles of the profession: fairness, commitment to facts, and objectivity.

-- Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com

ConsortiumNews






-- Middle East Online

 

[bigron]

Final Destination Iran?

By Rob Edwards

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24989.htm

March 15, 2010 "Herald Scotland" - - March 14, 2010 -- Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.
 
 

 

 

[bigron]

Middle East
Mar 18, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC18Ak03.html 
 
  THE ROVING EYE


Brazil steps between Israel and Iran

By Pepe Escobar

Talk about a Via Dolorosa. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is the first Brazilian president to visit Israel officially. Lauded for his charisma, swing and formidable negotiating powers - United States President Barack Obama refers to him as "the man" - little did Lula know that to engage his hosts this week he would have to give the Prophet Abraham a run for his money, no less.

In the end, he stood his ground. He made no concessions. And unlike United States Vice President Joseph Biden last week, he even managed not to be publicly humiliated by his hosts.

Lula is no stranger to tough neighborhoods. Former bouncer turned hardline politician Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister, boycotted Lula's speech at the Knesset (parliament) as well as Lula's meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The reason: Lula did not visit the tomb of Zionism founder Theodor Herzl. But neither did France's President Nicolas Sarkozy or Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi when they visited Israel.

Brasilia - as much as Paris and Rome - knows very well that a visit to the tomb is not mandatory on presidential trips. Yet a choir of the Likud/settler hardcore Zionist faction in Israel carped that this would fatally wound the Brazilian government's drive to become a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After being grilled in the Knesset - including by Netanyahu - for his policy of non-confrontation and dialogue with Iran, Lula did not flinch. He condemned both the Holocaust and terrorism; he reminded his hosts of Brazil's and Latin America's stand against nuclear weapons; he stressed "dialogue" and "compassion" to solve the Middle East conflict; he defended a viable two-state solution for Israel and Palestine; but he also did not refrain from criticizing the expanded colonization of East Jerusalem. He received a standing ovation and, according to some members of parliament, "more applause than [former US president] George W Bush".

The tropical prophet
Not even at his Abrahamic best would Lula have been able to mollify Zionists and assorted hardliners. Anyway, Lula told the Israeli daily Ha'aretz what every serious player in the Middle East already knows; the "peace process" is going nowhere, and bringing new mediators such as Brazil to the table is the only way forward.

And the same applied to the Iranian dossier: "The [world] leaders I spoke to believe that we must act quickly, otherwise Israel will attack Iran." Lula is convinced that further sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program are counter-productive. And this quote is bound to resonate globally, "We can't allow to happen in Iran what happened in Iraq. Before any sanctions, we must undertake all possible efforts to try and build peace in the Middle East."

The official Brazilian government view - echoed by much of the international community (that is, not the exclusive club of Washington and the usual European suspects) - is that everything is still to be negotiated with Iran over its nuclear dossier. Lula is adamant: Iran has a right to develop a peaceful nuclear program in terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.

Brazil is currently a rotating member of the United Nations Security Council. As much as China, it will not support new US-driven sanctions on Iran - regardless of US Secretary of State Robert Gates spinning that the US has enough backing to advance a fourth, tough round of sanctions, with Saudi Arabia finally persuading China. China will never vote against its own national security interest - and Iran is a matter of Chinese national security. Lula will be in Tehran in May and will meet - again - with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Hardline Zionists are - what else - fuming.

Lula knows very well that so-called "smart sanctions" that would apply mainly to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) - in charge of the bulk of economic and political power in Iran - would also affect millions of civilians connected to IRGC-controlled businesses, and thus the population at large, which is already paying the price for the current sanctions. The IRGC controls at least 60 ports in the Persian Gulf. Preventing Asia from doing business with Iran would imply a naval blockade - and that's a declaration of war.

How not to push Iran
Lula has hit the Middle East at a crucial juncture - just as Netanyahu's government has decided to build more settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, even to the detriment of crucial US support on the Iranian front.

Ironically, it's on the economic front, rather than geopolitics, that Brazil is managing to seduce the Israeli establishment. Israel signed a free-trade agreement (FTA) with Mercosur [1] - the fifth-largest bloc in terms of gross domestic product in the world - much to the chagrin of Palestinians, who identify the FTA as a powerful boost to the Israeli military-industrial complex.

And this when it is clear that Brazil is strictly in favor of a viable Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders. This FTA carries a key strategic provision - it allows the transfer of weapons technology to Mercosur members. Thus weapons responsible for the repression in Gaza will soon be available in South America.

On a parallel front, bolstering Brazil's role as mediator, Israeli President Shimon Peres personally suggested to Lula that Brazil could make two visits - by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and by Netanyahu - coincide on Brazilian soil. Assad goes to Brazil this year, and this week Netanyahu also accepted an invitation. A tropical, informal Syrian-Israeli summit might be ideal to break the ice. Lula and Netanyahu have adopted a bilateral system of meetings between heads of state and top ministers every two years.

By what about the US in all this? An official US-Brazil strategic agreement is also now in place, implying two foreign minister-level meetings a year, one in the US, one in Brazil. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim has a very close relationship with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On her recent visit to Brazil, Clinton pressed both Lula and Amorim to support tougher sanctions on Iran. The refusal was polite but firm.

Clinton was left to complain at a press conference about how Iran is "using" Brazil, Turkey and China to evade sanctions. Amorim for his part is always fond of remembering the Iraqi disaster: "I was an ambassador at the UN during the critical moments of deciding about Iraq. And what we saw was a big mistake."

Lula could not be more specific: "It is not wise to push Iran against the wall. I want for Iran what I want for Brazil: to use nuclear energy for peaceful ends. If Iran goes beyond that, then we will not agree with it." Roughly, that's the same position as China's.

Lula and Obama had seemed to be in synch on Iran, starting from their meeting on the sidelines of a Group of Eight plus five meeting in L'Aquila, Italy, nine months ago. Then, Obama even encouraged the Brasilia-Tehran dialogue, as long as Brazil pressed on Iran the commitment to a strictly civilian nuclear program. That's exactly what Lula told Ahmadinejad when they met in Brazil. It is the Obama administration's position that has substantially hardened.

Brazilian diplomats insist that Ahmadinejad never closed the door to negotiations. In discreet, bilateral diplomatic talks, US officials even admit to their Brazilian counterparts that Ahmadinejad himself is not inflexible, nor is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In a February 19 speech at the naming of an Iranian destroyer, Khamenei once again denied that Iran was after nuclear weapons and stressed that they were illegal according to Islamic law because they killed large numbers of innocent civilians.

The problem has been amplified by much American and European media hype. Defusing the sanctions drum rolls, even Clinton, in a moment of candor during her South American trip, was forced to admit that sanctions could take "several months" to be adopted, if at all.

Even before Clinton's visit, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had already admitted to Brazilian media on the record that Brazil could be a "bridge” between Iran and the US/European Union front, because of its "realist" position. Mottaki does not see Brazil as a "mediator" - but rather as "acting to facilitate consultations", as Tehran does not believe that any country should speak for its (Tehran's) own interests.

Neither did Brasilia explicitly ask to be a mediator. Mottaki has revealed he's developing substantial "telephone diplomacy" with Amorim. Tehran obviously sees the benefits of establishing a dialogue channel to the industrialized West via a key developing country.

The BRICS as the new superpower
Lula's strategy of trying to position himself as a "bridge" should be especially welcomed as the Iranian dossier reaches a crucial stage at which hardline factions within the US/EU/Israel are doing everything to disregard any intelligence that doubts Iran is building a nuclear bomb; there have been systematic attempts to "fix" intelligence to suggest that they are (echoes of Iraq?)

Lula stepping into the arena also means one more instance of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) acting as a new rival superpower to an increasingly disoriented "full spectrum dominance" US. None of the BRICs is in favor of isolation of, not to mention an attack on, Iran. This is the case as long as they believe that Iran, according to all available evidence, is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, and an attack would inevitably accelerate nuclear proliferation in the Persian Gulf.

The BRICs also know that the US and Iran are able to collaborate on thorny dossiers - such as over Afghanistan.

That leaves the strategic agenda of the proverbial elephant in the room - Israel - on the table. So it's time for the BRICs to call Israel's bluff.

If the Netanyahu government in Israel can humiliate both Obama and Biden on expanded Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, it's fair to assume it could ignore the pleas of the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, who has warned that an attack on Iran would be a "big, big, big problem for all of us".

Israel (as well as Washington) may simply want regime change in Iran by any means necessary. Israel may go nuclear - using bunker-busting tactical nukes to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel may be ready to unleash preventive war - a staple of Israeli policy fully adopted by the George W Bush administration. And Israel certainly counts on the US for logistical and political support.

Lula hasn't gone that far. But his positioning contains the embryo of all these thorny questions with which the BRICs should confront Israel. Then the whole world will know which tale is really wagging the dog.

Note
1. Mercosur or Mercosul (Spanish: Mercado Comun del Sur) is a regional trade agreement between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
 
 
 

[bigron]

Report: Saudis may allow Israel's use of air space

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:15:05 GMT
 http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121027&sectionid=351020205 


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, February 15, 2010


Western security sources believe Saudi Arabia will readily let Israel use the country's airspace to strike neighboring Iran if a war breaks out between the archenemies.

Prominent German news magazine SPIEGEL claimed in a Tuesday article that there exists a strong unity between Israel and Persian Gulf's Arab states against Iran.

The periodical noted that Riyadh has gone so far with the idea as to speak openly to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the potential need for a military option against the Islamic Republic.

SPIEGEl also cited Western intelligence agencies who believe that the Saudis would even open up their air space to Israeli jets for an attack on Iran.

This is while the United States has been reported intent on not allowing Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraq, it added.

The report also referred to an Arab League ministerial summit where they unanimously called on the Palestinians to start a new round of US-sponsored "proximity talks" with Israel.

Observers reiterate that SPIEGEl is greatly influenced by the Israeli regime and has previously published reports that were meant to serve as an Israeli propaganda campaign ore psychological warfare against the Islamic Republic.

MRS/MB

[bigron]

American Naifs Bringing Ruin to Other Lands

By Paul Craig Roberts
 
Global Research, March 18, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18180

According to news reports, the U.S. military is shipping “bunker-buster” bombs to the U.S. Air Force base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The Herald Scotland reports that experts say the bombs are being assembled for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The newspaper quotes Dan Piesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London: “They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran.” http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151

 

The next step will be a staged “terrorist attack,” a “false flag” operation as per Operation Northwoods, for which Iran will be blamed. As Iran and its leadership have already been demonized, the “false flag” attack will suffice to obtain US and European public support for bombing Iran. The bombing will include more than the nuclear facilities and will continue until the Iranians agree to regime change and the installation of a puppet government. The corrupt American media will present the new puppet as “freedom and democracy.”

 

If the past is a guide, Americans will fall for the deception. In the February issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, a scholarly journal, Professor Lance DeHaven-Smith writes that state crimes against democracy (SCAD) involve government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities in order to implement an agenda. Examples include McCarthyism or the fabrication of evidence of communist infiltration, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution based on false claims of President Johnson and Pentagon chief McNamara that North Vietnam attacked a U.S. naval vessel, the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in order to discredit Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers) as “disturbed,” and the falsified “intelligence” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2010/03/02/state-crimes-against-democracy/

 

There are many other examples. I have always regarded the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City as a SCAD. Allegedly, a disturbed Tim McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb in a truck parked outside the building. More likely, McVeigh was a patsy, whose fertilizer bomb was a cover for explosives planted inside the building. 

 

A number of experts dismissed the possibility of McVeigh’s bomb producing such structural damage. For example, General Benton K. Partin, who was in charge of U.S. Air Force munitions design and testing, produced a thick report on the Murrah building bombing which concluded that the building blew up from the inside out. Gen. Partin concluded that “the pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without supplementary demolition charges at some of the reinforced concrete bases inside the building, a standard demolition technique. For a simplistic blast truck bomb, of the size and composition reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a reinforced column base the size of column A7 is beyond credulity.”

 

Gen. Partin dismissed the official report as “a massive cover-up of immense proportions.”http://100777.com/node/106

 

Of course, the general’s unquestionable expertise had no bearing on the outcome.



One reason is that his and other expert voices were drowned out by media pumping the official story. Another reason is that public beliefs in a democracy run counter to suspicion of government as a terrorist agent. Professor Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph says that “false flag” operations have the advantage over truth: “research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs.” Professor Steven Hoffman agrees: “Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.” Even when hard evidence turns up, it can be discredited as a “conspiracy theory.”

 

All that is necessary for success of “false flag” or “black ops” events is for the government to have its story ready and to have a reliable and compliant media. Once an official story is in place, thought and investigation are precluded. Any formal inquiry that is convened serves to buttress the already provided explanation.

 

An explanation ready-at-hand is almost a give-away that an incident is a “black ops” event. Notice how quickly the U.S. government, allegedly so totally deceived by al Qaida, provided the explanation for 9/11. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the government produced the culprit immediately. The alleged culprit was conveniently shot inside a jail by a civilian before he could be questioned. But the official story was ready, and it held.

 

Professors Manwell and Hoffman’s research resonates with me. I remember reading in my graduate studies that the Czarist secret police set off bombs in order to create excuses to arrest their targets. My inclination was to dismiss the accounts as anti-Czarist propaganda by pro-communist historians. It was only later when Robert Conquest confirmed to me that this was indeed the practice of the Czarist secret police that the scales fell from my eyes.

 

Former CIA official Philip Giraldi in his article, “The Rogue Nation,”http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/03/10/the-rogue-nation/  makes it clear that the U.S. government has a hegemonic agenda that it is pursuing without congressional or public awareness. The agenda unfolds piecemeal as a response to “terrorism,” and the big picture is not understood by the public or by most in Congress. Giraldi protests that the agenda is illegal under both U.S. and international law, but that the illegality of the agenda does not serve as a barrier. Only a naif could believe that such a government would not employ “false flag” operations that advance the agenda.

 

The U.S. population, it seems, is comprised of naifs whose lack of comprehension is bringing ruin to other lands.

 



Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary U.S. Treasury, Associate Editor Wall Street Journal, Columnist for Business Week, Senior Research Fellow Hoover Institution Stanford University, and William E. Simon Chair of Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.
 

[bigron]

The Iran Threat in the Age of Real-Axis-of-Evil Expansion

By Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
 
Global Research, March 17, 2010
MRZine - 2010-03-16
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18164


It is intriguing to see how whoever the United States and Israel find interfering with their imperial or dispossession plans is quickly demonized and becomes a threat and target for that Real-Axis-of-Evil (RAE), and hence their NATO allies and, with less intensity, much of the rest of the "international community" (IC, meaning ruling elites, not ordinary citizens).  If and when the need arises, any bit of news that is damaging to the targeted state will be fed into the demonization process -- and in the marvelous propaganda system of the West, the grossest distortions will be swallowed and regurgitated without much guilt or apology, even upon the exposure of exceptional gullibility and dishonesty.2  The dishonesty, gullibility, double standard, and hypocrisy are handled with an aplomb that Pravda and Izvestia could never muster in the Soviet era.

 

Thus, Iran is a threat, for one thing, because it has relations with the Iraqi Shiites, has supported them in the struggle within Iraq, and may even have supplied some of their factions with training and weapons.3  Of course Iran is a neighbor of Iraq, was invaded by it in 1980, with generous U.S. help provided to then-ally Saddam Hussein, and Iran obviously has an important political stake in the outcome of any struggle for power in Iraq.  But only the United States has a right to invade and fight in Iraq and provide arms to the Iraqis of its choice.  As a superpower with dominant military capability, and unlimited chutzpah, it has Aggression Rights, acknowledged by the IC, and the UN Security Council, who not only did nothing to oppose the 2003-2010 invasion-occupation of Iraq, but quickly sanctioned the U.S. right to manage the occupation, in contrast with its indignant vote and action to force the Iraqi eviction from invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990.  This is the imperial double standard in action, and Iran, trying to interfere in Iraq, despite the IC and Council's approval of the U.S. aggression and conquest, is clearly out of order.  The aggressor may have made false or inflated accusations about Iranian interference, partly to cover over its own aggression-resistance problems, but also to prepare the ground for its next planned aggression, that against Iran itself.  This is not discussible in the establishment U.S. media.

 

Iran is also a threat because it is hostile to Israel, objects to what Israel has been doing in Palestine and Lebanon, and is a local power rival to Israel.  But Israel, like its patron, has Aggression Rights, and is free to invade Lebanon, as it did on a massive scale in 1982 and 2006, without penalty.  And it has ethnic cleansing and even slow-motion genocide rights, which it has been exercising in Palestine for many years, with U.S. and EU support.  During its last few days in Lebanon in 2006 before its final withdrawal, Israel dropped a million cluster bombs in the countryside in an act of state terrorism and crime against humanity that would have produced huge outrage and possibly sanctions if carried out by a state that was not a U.S. client.  The same is true of its assault on the Gaza Palestinians in December of 2009, where this very civilian-oriented campaign against an essentially defenseless population was openly supported by U.S. officials and hence presented no problem for Israel except for some damage to its image as "a light unto the Nations" (Anthony Lewis4).

 

Furthermore, Iran has given active support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to Hamas in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, both "terrorist" organizations by the power rule of language usage;5 Israel and the United States only "retaliate" and engage in "counter-terror" in accord with this rule, firmly adhered to by the establishment U.S. media.  Because of such support in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, Iran automatically qualifies as a "state sponsor of terrorism," and its global profile as a "threat" rises for this reason as well.  Yet Iran has not moved beyond its borders in our lifetimes, whereas the United States has regularly attacked and invaded Iran's neighbors, sometimes on a massive scale, and the United States actively aided Iraq's 1980 invasion of Iran, in addition to organizing the 1953 coup within Iran that brought into power an amenable client, the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.6  The United States has even been engaging in and sponsoring terrorist attacks on Iran -- at the same time as it complains about Iran's interference in Iraq -- which, with consistent and unpoliticized word usage, would qualify the United States itself as a state sponsor of terrorism.7  But this is all irrelevant (and largely suppressed) history for the Western media guardians of power -- the immediate point of concern is Iran's support of two officially-designated "terrorist" organizations, both of which weaken the effectiveness of Israel's Aggression Rights and Western domination of this region.

 

Most frightening, Iran has a nuclear program, which it is implementing within the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).8  This fright comes primarily from the United States and Israel, both major nuclear weapons states.  Given their own extensive and sophisticated nuclear weapons capability, the RAE's fright over the threat of Iran's nuclear "ambitions" is profoundly dishonest and hypocritical, and carries the imperial double standard to another impressive peak.  Contrary to rhetoric about the "existential" threat that an Islamic bomb would pose to Israel and the West, the threat is not based on any genuine fear over Iran's offensive, first-strike use of nuclear weapons (which would entail national suicide), but on the deterrent effect that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would exercise on the RAE's capacity to engage in offensive military operations against Iran and the greater Middle East.  The other important element in this cultivated fright is that the mythical "threat" alleged to be emerging in Iran can be exploited by the RAE and its allies as a rationale for politically destabilizing and possibly directly attacking Iran.

 

The further elements of fraud and hypocrisy in this contrived fright are numerous, but it must be recalled that each U.S. target is carefully and vigorously demonized as a prelude to attack, with the help of the IC, UN, UNSC, and Free Press.  From tiny Guatemala (1950-1954) and Nicaragua (1979-1990) to Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" in 2002-2003, the demonization-lies-hysteria combination has never failed to do its job, making both hypocrisy and aggression workable.  It never elicits laughter or contributes a lesson that interferes with the next round of the same process.  The service being provided is too important for either learning or jokes.

 

It may be recalled that with the Shah of Iran in power, the United States actually encouraged this dictator to develop a nuclear capability, accepting the argument (now rejected) that Iran needed this additional energy source, and not worrying about any possible diversion of nuclear material from civilian to weapons development with a manageable client-dictator in power.  Back in the mid-1970s, the Ford administration "endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb," the Washington Post recalled.  "Ford's team commended Iran's decision to build a massive nuclear energy industry, noting in a declassified 1975 strategy paper that Tehran needed to 'prepare against the time -- about 15 years in the future -- when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply'."9

 

But the ouster of the Shah in early 1979 and his replacement by an unfriendly and independent Islamic Republic led quickly to a U.S.-Israeli concern over Iran's nuclear capability and its supposed threat.  Whereas then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger now says that he doesn't "think the issue of proliferation ever came up" in the Ford administration's talks with the Shah, Kissinger adds that "[Iran] was an allied country, and this was a commercial transaction.  We didn't address the question of them one day moving toward nuclear weapons."10  The blatantly political basis for this transformation from support for the Shah's nuclear capability to rejection of any rights to nuclear capability for the successor regime, even under the terms of the NPT, has escaped the West, aided of course by the demonization process (and in the earlier phase, by the portrayal of the Shah, whose torture chambers were notorious,11 as a "modernizer").

 

The history of the growth of the Iran threat (especially since 2003) has centered on Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons and Iran's noncompliance with its obligations as a party to the NPT.

 

But the fact of the matter is that Iran did join the NPT (as have all states in the Middle East but one) and has for many years subjected itself to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while Israel not only has never joined the NPT, it has built up a substantial nuclear weapons arsenal with the material and diplomatic aid of the United States and other Western powers.  And along with supporting Israel's nuclear arms buildup, the United States allowed its client Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons and recently cooperated with India in nuclear agreements that seriously violated the principles of the NPT.  As The Hindu's Siddharth Varadarajan wrote in July 2005, shortly after the first joint statement on the U.S.-India nuclear deal was made at the White House by President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh:

 

The non-proliferation lobby argues that President Bush's decision to sell nuclear technology and equipment to India will encourage other countries to go down the nuclear path.  Not so say the advocates.  Mr. Tellis -- a former RAND Corporation analyst who served as an advisor to Robert Blackwill when he was U.S. Ambassador to India -- is most forthright.  He acknowledges the contradiction between the two goals of U.S. foreign policy -- building India up as a counter to China and upholding the non-proliferation regime -- but says the circle can be squared.  His solution: don't jettison the regime "but, rather, selectively [apply] it in practice."  In other words, different countries should be treated differently "based on their friendship and value to the U.S."  With one stroke of the Presidential pen, India has become something more than a "major non-NATO ally" of the U.S.  It has joined the Free World.  It has gone from being a victim of nuclear discrimination to a beneficiary.  India is not alone.  Israel is already there to give it company.12

 

Pakistan also gives it company, but clearly not Iraq, Iran, or North Korea -- without a suitable regime change.

 

Like Iran, the United States signed the NPT in 1968, and both states deposited their ratification of the NPT with the United Nations by the date it entered into force.  But as one of the five declared nuclear weapon states-parties to the NPT (together with the Soviet Union [Russian Federation], Britain, France, and China), the United States undertook to "pursue negotiations in good faith . . . on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control," which of course it has not done -- and in fact the United States keeps refining its nuclear weapons and, along with its many-headed NATO puppet, has made nukes a continuing integral part of its "defense" planning.13  Because of its enormous buildup of nuclear overkill in past years (peaking in the mid-1980s), U.S. officials have been able to negotiate cuts in active nuclear weapons as well as phase out obsolete weapons, but at this point it maintains an estimated 3,000 operational nuclear weapons and with a number of these on constant alert.  Under the Obama administration, funding for nuclear weapons has increased, and whether to claim first-strike rights for the United States is alleged to be one of the points under discussion in finalizing his 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.14  But whether or not the forthcoming NPR literally affirms U.S. first-strike rights, U.S. planners have long presumed such a right; for example, in Clinton's Essentials of Postwar Deterrence (1995), we read that "it is undesirable to adopt declaratory policies such as 'no first use' which serve to specifically limit U.S. nuclear deterrence goals without providing equitable returns," and that "We must be ambiguous about details of our response (or preemption) if what we value is threatened, but it must be clear that our actions would have terrible consequences."15 Furthermore, the continued enlargement of NATO and the "out-of-area" rights and responsibilities that it asserts for itself,16 the expansion of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the aggressive placement of both missile and anti-missile systems near Russia and China and the encirclement and systematic provocations of them both, which have caused Russia to depend more on nuclear weapons, have increased armaments and tensions across the globe.17

 

But of all the states-parties to the NPT with nuclear programs, Iran by far is under the closest scrutiny for adherence to all the rules of an NPT signer, and the imperial rights double standard is accepted and here rigorously enforced by the IC, UN, UNSC, and establishment media.  According to the IAEA's most recent Annual Report (2008), as of December 31, 2008, Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, five different nuclear research reactors (at Esfahan, Arak, and Tehran), two uranium conversion plants (Esfahan), two fuel fabrication plants (Esfahan), a reprocessing plant in Tehran, two nuclear enrichment plants (Natanz), and a nuclear storage facility in Karaj were under IAEA safeguards;18 to this list we now may add the Fordow fuel enrichment plant near Qom, which Iran declared to the IAEA in September 2009, just days before this formal declaration was upstaged by the heads of state of the U.S., U.K., and France at a Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh.19  The point is, the most heavily inspected nuclear program of the past decade most certainly is Iran's, and only Iraq's old and effectively liquidated nuclear program that had been inspected jointly by UNSCOM and the IAEA during the 1990s was more heavily inspected than is Iran's.20  Indeed, of the 48 written reports the IAEA has devoted to its member-states' nuclear programs since January 2003 (through February 2010), it devoted 58% of them (28 in all) to Iran's implementation of its NPT-related obligations, while the IAEA also devoted six to Syria, five to Libya, three to North Korea, three to South Korea, two to Iraq, and one to Egypt.21  During the same period, the IAEA thus devoted only 7% of its written reports to the nuclear programs of states that are allied with the United States -- a remarkable testament to the IAEA's U.S.- and NATO-dominated politicization, which appears to have worsened with the December 1, 2009 succession in its Director General, with Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei unable to secure a third term, and his replacement by Japan's Yukiya Amano.

 

The U.S. government initiated a high-profile series of allegations about Iran's nuclear program in May of 2003, and with few interruptions, this series of allegations has continued straight through to the present.  Because it was the U.S. government that accused Iran of violating its NPT obligations, these allegations have been major news stories.  Although the IAEA has produced 28 written reports since June 2003, all of which in one form or another have "continue[d] to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran,"22 the Agency has never resolved what it variously calls the "outstanding questions" and "outstanding issues" still facing it, political terms for any allegation the U.S. government throws at Iran, but all of which neatly can be summed up by the IAEA's inability to "provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,"23 and to "confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."24

 

In short, the IAEA's focus on Iran is the result of the sheer power of the United States on the international stage, and the fact that once the U.S. latched onto any signs of imperfect cooperation by Iran, and lobbied the IAEA as well as other states about the Iranian "threat," the IAEA and "international community" accepted the seriousness of this threat.  Given the impossibility of proving a negative -- during her statement to the Security Council on Iran's nuclear program, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice quoted the appropriate Alice-in-Wonderland phrase from the most recent IAEA report: the "IAEA cannot confirm that 'all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities'"25 -- Iran can be alleged guilty by its pursuer for years, with the IAEA always unable to definitively disprove or support U.S. claims and quest.

 

There is a striking similarity between the U.S.'s ability to use the IAEA these past seven years for its aggressive purposes against Iran, and its use of the inspections-regime of both the IAEA and the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) during the run-up to the U.S. and U.K. war of aggression against Iraq in March 2003.26  In the earlier case, however, the United States and Britain eventually discarded the IAEA and UNMOVIC, because of impatience with their failure to find Iraq's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction," a mission that never could have borne fruit.  But once again, power and the cooperation of establishment media have assured that there won't be any undue dwelling on the similarity of abusive and dishonest manipulation of a UN agency.  Also, U.S. power is so great that even Russia and China tag along with this pretense of honest concern over inspections and NPT rules, dragging their feet in rejecting or approving sanctions on Iran, but still acknowledging Iran's failure to do the U.S.'s and the IAEA's bidding, and calling for patience instead of denouncing the blatant double standard, hypocrisy, and obvious push toward aggression.

 

Iran's June 2009 presidential election has to be looked at in the same light.  There is no doubt that there are serious flaws in Iran's electoral process, and that there are real internal grievances that justify public protests.  But there can also be little doubt that the huge global focus on Iran's electoral flaws and its "stolen election," and on the protests and violent repression of dissidents within Iran, runs parallel with the campaign of regime change that shows itself in the IAEA's multi-year focus on Iran's nuclear program, the open destabilization effort, the ensuing sanctions, and U.S. and Israeli threats of military action against Iran.  In the great metropolitan centers of the West, no comparable levels of indignant media focus, displays of international solidarity, and demands for states to respect the democratic rights of their citizens were directed towards the violent repression of protesters following the coup d'etat and "demonstration election" in Honduras last year, or towards the "demonstration elections" in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan (which took the occupier two tries rather than one before it got the outcome it sought27), or towards the March 7 parliamentary election in U.S.-occupied Iraq, either.28  Indeed, a good case can be made that Iran's 2009 presidential election was more credible and more closely in line with majority desires than those in Honduras and Afghanistan, as well as Iraq's parliamentary election this year.29

 

As Table 1 underscores, the U.S. and U.S.-allies' focus on Iran's nuclear program has borne tremendous fruit throughout much of the past decade.

 

Table 1: Differential Media Focus on Ten Nuclear Programs for the Seven-Year Period, January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2009 30

 
 Wire Services and Newspapers
 New York Times
 
Egypt
 245
 1
 
India
 6,237
 14
 
Iran
 36,778
 276
 
Iraq
 4,265
 72
 
Israel
 323
 3
 
North Korea
 4,008
 13
 
South Korea
 775
 0
 
Libya
 632
 8
 
Pakistan
 626
 0
 
Syria
 106
 4
 

What these data show is that the United States defines what constitutes a "threat" to international peace and security, and as it demonizes the entity alleged to pose the "threat" the establishment media fall into line, help inflame passions about the "threat," and thus facilitate U.S. policy goals towards it, irrespective of the validity or the direction of any real threat.  Thus, Israel may have a substantial nuclear arsenal and may have engaged in cross-border wars and threatened to attack Iran, and Iran may have no nuclear weapons, not engage in cross-border wars, and not threaten to attack the United States or Israel, but the ratio of media attention paid to Iran's and Israel's nuclear programs for the seven-year period we studied was 92-to-1 in the New York Times, and 114-to-1 in a very large sample of wire services and newspapers.

 

But these numbers actually understate the degree of bias as they do not take into account placement, tone, and honesty.  Just considering the last, we may note the front-page article in the February 19, 2010New York Times by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad titled "Inspectors Say Iran Worked on Warhead"31 -- an article in the same class as Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller's notorious "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts" (Sept. 8, 2002), and, further back, Sidney Gruson's 1953 classic "How Communists Won Control of Guatemala" (March 1, 1953).32  In fact, nowhere in the IAEA's February 18 report (GOV/2010/10) does the IAEA assert that "Iran worked on a warhead," only that "information available to the Agency . . . raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile" (para. 41), and that the Agency has "sought clarification" from Iran as to "whether [certain] engineering design and computer modeling studies aimed at producing a new design for the payload chamber of a missile were for a nuclear payload" (para. 42).33  A second Sanger-Broad lie is that the IAEA's specific mention on February 18 of the "possible existence" of "undisclosed" work on a "nuclear payload" constituted the "first time" the IAEA had mentioned such activities during its seven-year focus on Iran.  In fact, not only did the IAEA start using the phrase "possible military dimension" in its published reports on Iran as early as February 2008 (GOV/2008/4, para. 54.34), and not only has the IAEA used this phrase in every one of its eight reports since, but the latest report has nothing new to say at all.  Instead, under the new General Director Yukiya Amano, the IAEA merely rephrased and re-emphasized past allegations to make it easier for establishment reporters to single out specific charges and inflame passions over them -- as when Sanger-Broad predicted this report will "accelerate Iran's confrontation with the United States and other Western countries" -- and help the push towards war, as the Times also did in dealing with Iraq in 2002-2003, Guatemala in 1953-1954, and other U.S. targets.  As Peter Casey asks in his analysis of Sanger-Broad's "transparently dishonest" article: "Is America's 'paper of record' consciously misrepresenting facts to 'accelerate confrontation' between Iran and the West?"35  The clear answer is: Yes.

 

The IAEA did not officially release its February 18 assessment until March 3.  This means that the earliest news reports about the content of the document were based on leaked copies, excerpts handed-out by motivated leakers, word-of-mouth, and one reporter repeating what others were reporting.  We find it enlightening, therefore, that the most often-quoted and paraphrased passage from the IAEA document, referring to the "possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile" (para. 41), turned up as immediately and as widely as it did.36  What it shows is that not only the eyes of the New York Times's ever-reliable Sanger and Broad were successfully trained on this phrase and the frightening (and misleading) allegation that it expresses -- but the eyes of a preponderance of journalists around the world.37 As in the buildup to the 2003 Iraq invasion, the media are partners of the war-makers.

 

Concluding Note

 

The real threat that Iran poses to the United States and Israel is that of a local rival to Israel which might hamper Israel's dispossession and expansion program in the Palestinian Territories, as well as U.S. domination of this region of the world.  From a global viewpoint, the real threat is that Iran's independence and refusal to grovel might lead to a war of aggression against it by Israel and/or the United States, and such a war could in turn spark an even larger conflagration.  However, the nature of this latter threat is such that it can not be addressed by the "international community," which consistently defers to the power and demands of the Real Axis-of-Evil, as do the United Nations, the Security Council, and the IAEA.

 

That Iran poses an offensive threat to Israel or the United States is obviously a sick joke.  Both Israel and the United States possess operational nuclear weapons and superior conventional forces -- and while they can attack Iran without facing unbearable retaliation, Iran cannot do the same and couldn't even do so if it developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons.

 

But if Iran did posses a small nuclear arsenal, it would be better able to defend itself, and Israel and the United States would have to be act more cautiously -- their own regular cross-border attacks would have to be considered more carefully, and might be effectively deterred.  Their longstanding domination of the Middle East, with its "stupendous source of strategic power, one of the greatest material prizes in world history,"38 would be threatened.  Thus Iran has no right of self-defense, let alone deterrence.

 

In short, while nuclear-armed Israel and its patron commit aggression, dispossess, and threaten more of the same, they have managed to transform nuclear-weapons-free Iran into the "threat" that the UN and IC worry about.  The IAEA has never established that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons,39 and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei continues to reject the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons as contrary to the religious beliefs of the Islamic Republic.40 Yet the mere possibility that Iran might switch its nuclear program to a military dimension, along with a lot of rhetorical heat from the West, have provided the basis for organizing a sanctions regime and potential U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.  It has even provided a rationale for the installation of missile and anti-missile systems on the periphery of Russia and China, allegedly to counter the Iran menace!  This is the triumph of chutzpah once again, as the Real Axis-of-Evil clears the ground for its ongoing programs of local dispossession and global expansion.

 



Edward S. Herman is professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and has written extensively on economics, political economy, and the media. Among his books areCorporate Control, Corporate Power (Cambridge University Press, 1981), The Real Terror Network (South End Press, 1982), and, with Noam Chomsky, The Political Economy of Human Rights (South End Press, 1979), and Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 2002). 

David Peterson is an independent journalist and researcher based in Chicago.

 

Notes

 

1  Also see Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "Chutzpah, Inc.: 'The Brave People of Iran' (versus the Disappeared People of Palestine, Honduras, Afghanistan, Etc.)," MRZine, February 20, 2010.

 

2  In the arena of media-service to imperial power, there are many competitors to wear the crown of the most dishonest and gullible.  But it would be hard to top the U.S. and British media's performance on Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" during the U.S. and U.K. buildup to their March 2003 aggression against Iraq.  For one very fine critique of this process, see Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith,Iraq: The War Card.  Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War,Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, January 2008.  In the immortal words of the so-called "secret Downing Street memo" drafted after a meeting of some of Tony Blair's top advisors on July 23, 2002 (Sunday Times, May 1, 2005): "C reported on his recent talks in Washington.  There was a perceptible shift in attitude.  Military action was now seen as inevitable.  Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.  But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.  The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.  There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."  For three examples where the "intelligence and facts" were in fact "fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq, see Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction -- The assessment of the British Government, Office of the British Prime Minister, September, 2002; Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program, Director of Central Intelligence, United States, October, 2002; and "U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the UN Security Council," White House Office of the Press Secretary, February 5, 2003.

 

3  See, e.g., Qassim Abdul-Zahra, "Anti-American Bloc Gains Ground ahead of Iraq Vote," Associated Press, February 25, 2010.

 

4  Anthony Lewis, "A Light Unto the Nations," New York Times, September 14, 1999, echoing what Lewis alleged U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis and "other early Zionists saw for a Jewish state," as well as Isaiah 42:6: "a light for the Gentiles."

 

5  See "Foreign Terrorist Organizations ,"Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State, January 19, 2010.   Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) is No. 13 on the list; Hezbollah (the Party of God) is No. 16.

 

6  See Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Eds., Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2004).

 

7  Seymour M. Hersh has written extensively about U.S. campaigns of destabilization as well as terrorism inside Iran.  See, e.g., Hersh's"Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration Steps Up Its Secret Moves against Iran," New Yorker, July 7, 2008.  It is our opinion that these campaigns have continued under the Obama administration.

 

8  See Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted on June 12, 1968, and entered into force on March 5, 1970.

 

9  Dafna Linzer, "Past Arguments Don't Square with Current Iran Policy," Washington Post, March 27, 2005, citing the Ford administration's "National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled 'U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation', which laid out the administration's negotiating strategy for the sale of nuclear energy equipment projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels of oil a day, compared with an average of about 4 million barrels daily today."

 

10  Linzer, "Past Arguments Don't Square with Current Iran Policy."  Also see the treatment of the U.S. reversal on Iran's nuclear program in Noam Chomsky, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), Ch. 2, "Outlaw States," esp. pp. 69-78.  As Chomsky comments: "Washington's charges about an Iranian nuclear weapons program may, for once, be accurate.  As many analysts have observed, it would be remarkable if they were not.  Reiterating the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq, as widely predicted, increased the threat of nuclear proliferation, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that 'the world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all.  Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy'.  Washington has gone out of its way to instruct Iran on the need for a powerful deterrent, not only by invading Iraq, but also by strengthening the offensive forces of its Israeli client, which already has hundreds of nuclear weapons as well as air and armored forces larger and more advanced than any NATO power other than the United States" (p. 73).  But, as Chomsky continues (writing in 2006): "It is likely that Washington's saber rattling is not a sign of impending war.  It would not make much sense to signal an attack years in advance.  The purpose may be to provoke the Iranian leadership to adopt more repressive policies.  Such policies could foment internal disorder, perhaps weakening Iran enough so that the United States might hazard military action.  They would also contribute to Washington's efforts to pressure allies to join in isolating Iran" (p. 74) -- a campaign to which the in-all-probability fraudulent "stolen election" response among the Western powers to Iran's June 12, 2009 presidential election has contributed most decisively.  (See Herman and Peterson, "Chutzpah, Inc.: 'The Brave People of Iran' (versus the Disappeared People of Palestine, Honduras, Afghanistan, Etc.).")

 

11  As William Blum has written: "The notorious Iranian secret police, SAVAK, created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel, spread its tentacles all over the world to punish Iranian dissidents.  According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the [CIA].  Amnesty International summed up the situation in 1976 by noting that Iran had the 'highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief.  No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran'."  See William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II(Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, Rev. Ed., 1995), p. 72.

 

12  Siddharth Varadarajan, "The Truth behind the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal," The Hindu, July 29, 2005.

 

13  At a recent speech in Warsaw, Poland, devoted to NATO's "Strategic Concept," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that NATO needs "to decide what kind of capabilities will ensure that no one ever thinks that an attack against a NATO member country can be successful.  For our deterrence to remain credible, I firmly believe it must continue to be based on a mix of conventional and nuclear capabilities.  And our new Strategic Concept should affirm that" ("Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen," Warsaw, Poland, March 12, 2010.)  On the question of nuclear weapons, this speech reiterated NATO's current "Strategic Concept," adopted in Washington at NATO's 50th anniversary summit in April 1999.  Therein, we read: "Nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of aggression against the Alliance incalculable and unacceptable. Thus, they remain essential to preserve peace" (The Alliance's Strategic Concept, North Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C., April 23-24, 1999, para. 46).  Also see the webpage that NATO devotes to its "Strategic Concept."

 

14  See David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, "White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy," New York Times, March 1, 2010; and Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus, "Obama Must Decide Degree to Which U.S. Swears Off Nuclear Weapons," Washington Post, March 6, 2010.

 

15  See Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence, U.S. Strategic Command, 1995 (as posted to the website of the Nautilus Institute).  (For the PDF version of the same document.)  This remarkable testament to nuclear madness included many memorable passages, as when it reminded the world: "Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the U.S. may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers.  This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence.  That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."  And in this document's last five paragraphs, we read:

 

Just as nuclear weapons are our most potent tool of deterrence, nevertheless they are blunt weapons of destruction and thus are likely always to be our weapons of last resort.  Although we are not likely to use them in less than matters of the greatest national importance, or in less than extreme circumstances, nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict in which the US is engaged.  Thus, deterrence through the threat of use of nuclear weapons will continue to be our top military strategy.

 

Unlike [chemical weapons] or [biological weapons], the extreme destruction from a nuclear explosion is immediate, with few if any palliatives available to reduce its effects.  It is no wonder then that the use of nuclear weapons has become elevated to the highest level of threat that is possible.  The U.S. has now eschewed the use of either chemical or biological weapons and is seeking the complete elimination of such weapons by all nations through the [chemical and biological weapons conventions], but we would consider the complete elimination of our nuclear weapons only in the context of complete and general disarmament.  Thus, since we believe it is impossible to "uninvent" nuclear weapons or to prevent the clandestine manufacture of some number of them, nuclear weapons seem destined to be the centerpiece of U.S. strategic deterrence for the forseeable [sic] future.

 

In the context of non-Russian states, the penalty for using Weapons of Mass Destruction should not be just military defeat, but the threat of even worse consequences.  President Clinton's statement of July 11, 1994, about North Korea gave some of the flavor of these "other consequences" when he said: ". . .it is pointless for them to develop nuclear weapons. Because if they ever use them it would be the end of their country."   Similarly, President Bush's statement to Saddam Hussein on January 13, 1991, also telegraphed greater consequences: "You and your country will pay a terrible price if you order unconscionable acts of this sort [the use of chemical or biological weapons or terrorist acts against the coalition nations]."  Should we ever fail to deter such an aggressor, we must make good on our deterrent statement in such a convincing way that the message to others immediately discernible is to bolster deterrence thereafter.

 

We should always attempt to respond to any such breaches of deterrence in ways that minimize the numbers of civilian casualties.  Particularly when dealing with the less than nation-threatening aggression which is likely to characterize WMD conflicts with other than Russia, the U.S. does not require the "ultimate deterrent" -- that a nation's citizens must pay with their lives for failure to stop their national leaders from undertaking aggression.  A capability to create a fear of "national extinction" (as discussed above) by denying their leaders the ability to project power thereafter, but without having to inflict massive civilian casualties, will not only galvanize the deterrence convictions of the U.S. leadership, but will simultaneously help to prevent misinterpretation on the part of the enemy as to whether the U.S. would be willing to act.

 

16  See The Alliance's Strategic Concept, North Atlantic Council, Washington D.C., April 23-24, 1999, esp. paras. 1, 42, 48, 49, 52, and 53.

 

17  See, e.g., Rick Rozoff, "Bases, Missiles, Wars: U.S. Consolidates Global Military Network," Stop NATO, January 26, 2010; Rick Rozoff, "U.S. Tightens Missile Shield Encirclement of China and Russia," Stop NATO, March 4, 2010; and Rick Rozoff,"Rasmussen in Poland: Expeditionary NATO, Missile Shield and Nuclear Weapons," Stop NATO, March 14, 2010.

 

18  Annual Report 2008 (GC(53)/7), IAEA, 2009; see Table A23,"Facilities under Agency Safeguards or Containing Safeguarded Material on 31 December 2008," here pp. 18-33.

 

19  See "Statements by Obama, Brown and Sarkozy," New York Times, September 26, 2009.

 

20  UN Security Council Resolution 687 (S/RES/687 (April 3, 1991), Sect. C, para. 7-14) created the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), and empowered both UNSCOM and the IAEA to destroy Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as Iraq's ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 k.

 

21  We'd like to thank the IAEA's Press Office for providing us with these figures.

 

22  See Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement...in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/2010/10), IAEA, February 18, 2010, para. 46.

 

23  See Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement . . . in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/209/74), IAEA, November 16, 2009, para. 36.

 

24  See GOV/2010/10, para. 46.

 

25  "Remarks by Ambassador Susan E. Rice . . . on Iran and the 1737 Committee ,"United States Mission to the United Nations, New York, USA, March 4, 2010.

 

26  UN Security Council Resolution 1284 (S/RES/1284 (December 17, 1999)) created the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC), and empowered it to ensure Iraq's continued compliance with Resolution 687.  (See n. 20, above.)

 

27  For a brief narrative of the 2009 U.S. electoral scam in Afghanistan (though the author does not use such terminology), see Kenneth Katzman, Afghanistan: Politics, Elections, and Government Performance, Congressional Research Service, January 11, 2010, pp. 22-25.  As Katzman describes it: "The various pre-runoff scenarios were mooted on November 1, 2009, when Dr. [Abdullah] Abdullah, addressing hundreds of supporters at Kabul University, said he would not compete in the runoff. . . .  On November 2, 2009, the [Independent Electoral Commission] issued a statement saying that, by consensus, the body had determined that [Hamid] Karzai, being the only candidate remaining in a two-person runoff, should be declared the winner and the second round not held.  The United States, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon (visiting Kabul), and several governments congratulated Karzai on the victory.  U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, praised Dr. Abdullah for his relatively moderate speech announcing his pullout, in particular his refusal to call for demonstrations or violence by his supporters, and called on him to remain involved in Afghan politics.  Dr. Abdullah denied that his pullout was part of any 'deal' with Karzai for a role for his supporters in the next government.  Amid U.S. and international calls for Karzai to choose his next cabinet based on competence, merit, and dedication to curbing corruption, Karzai was inaugurated on November 19, 2009, with Secretary of State Clinton in attendance" (p. 24).

 

28  This point also holds true on the Left (in the States and elsewhere), which focused indignantly on Iran in 2009, but at the same time virtually ignored Honduras, and failed to reject the "demonstration elections" in Afghanistan and Iraq on the elementary grounds that genuinely freeelections cannot be held under conditions of foreign military occupation.  (See Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "Riding the 'Green Wave' at the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and Beyond," MRZine,  July 24, 2009.)

 

29  On Iran's June 12, 2009 presidential election, and the probability that, even if some fraud did occur, the official results were valid, see:Results of a New Nationwide Public Opinion Survey of Iran before the June 12, 2009 Presidential Elections, (May 11 - 20), Terror Free Tomorrow, Center for Public Opinion, and New America Foundation, June, 2009;  Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty, "The Iranian People Speak," Washington Post, June 15, 2009;  Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann-Leverett, "Ahmadinejad Won. Get Over It," New America Foundation, June 15, 2009; Reza Esfandiari and Yousef Bozorgmehr, A Rejoinder to the Chatham House Report on Iran's 2009 Presidential Election Offering a New Analysis on the Results (Self-Published PDF), Summer, 2009; Steven Kull, "Is Iran Pre-revolutionary?" openDemocracy.net, November 23, 2009;  Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann-Leverett, "Another Iranian Revolution?  Not Likely," New York Times, January 5, 2010; Steven Kull et al., An Analysis of Multiple Polls of the Iranian Public, PIPA - WPO.org, February 3, 2010 (and the accompanying Press Release); Alvin Richman, Post-Election Crackdown in Iran Has Had Limited Impact on the Minority Expressing Strong Opposition to the Regime, PIPA - WPO.org, February 18, 2010; Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "Chutzpah, Inc.: 'The Brave People of Iran' (versus the Disappeared People of Palestine, Honduras, Afghanistan, Etc.)," MRZine, February 20, 2010; and, last, Eric A. Brill, Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Steal the 2009 Iran Election?, Unpublished Manuscript, 2010.

 

30  Factiva database searches carried out under the "Wire" (twir) and "Newspapers: All" (tnwp) categories, and separately under the New York Times (nytf), on March 8, 2010, for the seven-year period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2009.  The exact search parameters are described below.  We used the database-limiter not to exclude from our reported totals all items that also mentioned any one or more of the other search terms.

 

1a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Egypt and nuclear) not (India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  245
1b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Egypt and nuclear) not (India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria): 1   
2a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (India and nuclear) not (Egypt or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  6,273
2b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Indiaand nuclear) not (Egypt or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  14
3a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Iran and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  36,778
3b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Iranand nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria): 276
4a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Iraq and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  4,265
4b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Iraqand nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  72
5a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Israel and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  323
5b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Israel and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  3 
6a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (North Korea and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  4,008
6b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (North Korea and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  13 
7a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (South Korea and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  775
7b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (South Korea and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or Libya or Pakistan or Syria):  0
8a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Libya and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Pakistan or Syria):  632
8b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Libya and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Pakistan or Syria):  8
9a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Pakistan and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Syria):  626
9b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Pakistan and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Syria):  0 
10a. rst=(twir or tnwp) and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Syria and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan):  106
10b. rst=nytf and (international atomic energy agency or iaea) and (Syria and nuclear) not (Egypt or India or Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea or South Korea or Libya or Pakistan):  4

 

31  David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, "Inspectors Say Iran Worked on Warhead," New York Times, February 19, 2010.

 

32  See Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller, "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," New York Times, September 8, 2002; and Sidney Gruson, "How Communists Won Control of Guatemala," New York Times, March 1, 1953.

 

33  See GOV/2010/10, para. 41 and para. 42.

 

34  See Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement . . . in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/2008/4), February 22, 2008, para. 54.

 

35  See Peter Casey, "Read the IAEA Reports on Iran,"AntiWar.com, March 1, 2010.  Also see Robert Parry, "U.S. Media Replays Iraq Fiasco on Iran," ConsortiumNews.com, February 18, 2010; Ray McGovern, "New Grist for Hype on Iran,"ConsortiumNews.com, February 21, 2010;  Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, "IAEA Douses Furor over Iran Report," Asia Times Online, February 24, 2010; and Paul McGeough, "Mutually Assured Destruction,"Sydney Morning Herald, March 6, 2010.

 

36  For examples of wire-service and print-media reports that singled-out the phrase "nuclear payload for a missile" (or that paraphrased something very close to it without quoting it) during the first 48 hours after the IAEA's February 18 report on Iran was completed, see: Simon Morgan, "IAEA 'Concerned' Iran Working on Nuclear Weapon,"Agence France Presse, February 18, 2010; George Jahn, "UN Nuke Agency Worried Iran May be Working on Arms," Associated Press, February 18, 2010; "Iran Nuclear Missile Fear Raised by UN Report," BBC News, February 18, 2010; Warren P. Strobel, "Iran May Be Seeking Nuclear Warhead, U.N. Watchdog Says,"McClatchy Newspapers, February 18, 2010; Peter Greir, "Inspectors: Iran Possibly Working on Nuke. What's the Evidence?" Christian Science Monitor, February 19, 2010; Anna Fifield and Daniel Dombey, "US Uses Iran Nuclear Report to Push Case for Sanctions," Financial Times, February 19, 2010; Julian Borger,"Iran Could Be Building a Warhead, Says UN Inspector," The Guardian, February 19, 2010; David Usborne, "Iran May Be Closer than We Think to Having Nuclear Missiles, Says UN," The Independent, February 19, 2010; Borzou Daragahi and Julia Damianova, "U.N. Nuclear Agency Expresses Concern on Iran,"Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2010;  David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, "Inspectors Say Iran Worked on Warhead," New York Times, February 19, 2010; Mark Heinrich, "New Chief Amano Gives UN Watchdog More Bite on Iran," Reuters, February 19, 2010; David Crawford and Jonathan Weisman, "IAEA Suspects Iran Seeks Nuclear Arms," Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2010; Joby Warrick and Scott Wilson, "Iran Might Be Seeking to Develop Nuclear Weapons Capability, Inspectors Say," Washington Post, February 19, 2010; "IAEA Report Highlights More Cause for Iranian Sanctions: U.S. Envoy," Xinhua News Agency, February 19, 2010; Simon Mann, "Watchdog's Report Bolsters Iran's Nuclear Critics," The Age, February 20, 2010;  Catherine Philp, "Russia Hints It Will Back New Calls for Iran Sanctions," The Times, February 20, 2010; and Paul Koring, "UN Watchdog Raises Stakes in Showdown with Iran," Toronto Globe and Mail, February 20, 2010.

 

37  For an earlier example of reporting anonymous leaks to the New York Times and Times of London about the "Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program" alleged to be contained in an unpublished "Secret Annex" to a series of IAEA reports, see, e.g., William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, "Report Says Iran Has Data to Make Bomb," New York Times, October 4, 2009; and Catherine Philp and Giles Whittell, "Iran Could Make an Atomic Bomb, according to UN Report's 'Secret Annex'," The Times, October 5, 2009.

 

38  See "Draft Memorandum to President Truman" in Diplomatic Papers, 1945: The Near East and Africa, p. 45, Vol. VIII, Foreign Relations of the United States, U.S. Department of State,University of Wisconsin Digital Collections (Homepage).

 

39  As the Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told the U.S. Congress in early February: "We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons . . . should it choose to do so.  We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. . . .  We continue to judge Iran's nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran.  Iranian leaders undoubtedly consider Iran's security, prestige and influence, as well as the international political and security environment, when making decisions about its nuclear program.  That is as far as I can go in discussing Iran's nuclear program at the unclassified level" (see Dennis C. Blair, Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, Text of Prepared Unclassified Testimony before the U.S. Senate and House Committees on Intelligence, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, February 2-3, 2010, pp. 13-14.  Also see the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, November 2007).

 

40  See, e.g., Farhad Pouladi, "Supreme Leader Denies Iran Wants Atomic Weapons," Agence France Presse, February 19, 2010.  This report quotes Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying: "Recently some Western and US officials have been repeating some outdated and nonsensical comments that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons.  Iran will not get emotional in responding to these nonsensical comments, since our religious beliefs are against the use of such weapons.  We in no way believe in an atomic weapon and do not seek one."
 

[bigron]

Iran’s Natural Gas Riches: US Knife to the Heart of World Future Energy

By Finian Cunningham
 
Global Research, March 18, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18176


The scheduled start of drilling this month by China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) in Iran’s South Pars gas field could be both a harbinger and explanation of much wider geopolitical developments.

First of all, the $5 billion project – signed last year after years of foot dragging by western energy giants Total and Shell under the shadow of US-led sanctions – reveals the main arterial system for future world energy supply and demand.

Critics have long suspected that the real reason for US and other western military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is to control the Central Asian energy corridor. So far, the focus seems to be mainly on oil. For example, there have been claims that a planned oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea via Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea is the main prize behind the US’s seemingly futile military campaign in those countries.

But what the CNPC-Iranian partnership shows is that natural gas is the bigger prize that will be pivotal to the world economy, and specifically the dual flow of this fuel westwards and eastwards from Central Asia to Europe and China.

Michael Economides, editor of the Huston-based Energy Tribune, is one of a growing number of industry observers who is convinced that natural gas will supplant oil as the primary energy source, not only in the coming decades but over the next several centuries.

He points to the recent forecast by the International Energy Agency (IEA), based in Paris, which has dramatically revised its estimates of recoverable global natural gas reserves by 100 per cent. Economides ascribes this huge upgrade to rapid technological improvements in tapping hitherto inaccessible gas fields. He says that the IEA estimates of natural gas amount to 300 years of supply at current world demand. "If one only just fantasises any future contributions from the orders-of-magnitude larger resource in the form of natural gas hydrates, it is easy to see how natural gas is almost certainly to evolve into the premier fuel of the world economy," he adds.

The rising importance of natural gas as an energy source has been steady and inexorable over many years. Between 1973 and 2007, oil’s contribution to world energy supply dropped from 46.1 per cent to 34.0 per cent, with the increasing use of natural gas accounting for that decline, according to the IEA. Other sources, such as the US-based Energy Information Administration (EIA), predict that global natural gas consumption will treble between 1980 and 2030, by which date it will mostly likely become the primary energy source of choice for industrial and public needs.

There are sound scientific reasons why natural gas (methane) is becoming the kingpin of fossil fuels. Firstly, it has a much greater calorific value than either oil or coal. That is, more heat is produced per unit of fuel. Secondly, it is a cleaner fuel, emitting 30 per cent less carbon dioxide when burned compared with oil and 45 per cent less compared with coal. Thirdly, gas is more efficient for transport, both as a raw material in compressed form along land-based pipelines, and as a fuel to drive transport.

All energy industry agencies recognize that far and above the premier sources of future natural gas are the Middle East and Eurasia, including Russia. The US-based EIA puts the natural gas reserves in these regions as nine and seven times those of North America’s total – the latter itself being one of the world’s top sources for that fuel.

Within the Middle East, Iran is the undisputed top holder of gas reserves. Its South Pars gas field is the world’s largest. If converted to barrel-of-oil equivalents, Iran’s South Pars would dwarf the reserves of Saudi Arabia’s giant Ghawar oilfield. The latter is the world’s largest oilfield and since it came into operation in 1948, Ghawar has effectively been the world’s beating heart for raw energy supply. In the soon-to-come era of natural gas dominance over oil, Iran will oust Saudi Arabia as the world’s beating heart for energy.

Both Europe and China stand to be arterial routes for Iranian and Central Asian gas generally. Already, the infrastructure is shaping up to reflect this. The Nabucco pipeline is planned to supply gas from Iran (and Azerbaijan) via Turkey and Bulgaria all the way to Western Europe (signaling an end to Russian dominance). Iran also exports gas via pipelines separately to Turkey and Armenia and it is also following up export deals with other Gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Another major arterial route is the so-called peace pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and on to India, through which Iran will export this fuel to two of the region’s most populous countries. But perhaps the most tantalizing prospect for Iran is the 1,865-kilometre pipeline that supplies natural gas from Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan into China and is due to operate at full capacity in 2012. Turkmenistan shares a 300-kilometre border with Iran to its south and already has a gas export deal with Tehran. If the Iranian-Chinese South Pars gas field development can be incorporated into the above transnational pipelines that would confirm Iran as the beating heart of a world economy in which gas is the primary energy source. This is amplified further by rapidly growing demand for gas by China which the EIA predicts could be dependent on imports for over a third of its natural gas consumption by 2030.

In this context of a major realignment in the world’s energy economy – one where there will be a continuing diminished role for the US – Washington’s blustering rhetoric about democracy and peace and war on terror or alleged Iranian nuclear weapons can be seen as a desperate attempt to conceal its fear that it stands to be a big loser. Encircling Iran with wars and threatening gas supplies to possibly the world’s top future gas customer – China – is the real deal. US actions are more accurately seen as putting a knife to the energy arteries of a world economy that it will no longer be able to dominate.

A further twist in this tale is the position of Russia. With its own vast reserves of natural gas, it can be seen as a competitor to Iran. Arguably less well positioned than Iran to supply both Europe and China, Russia is nevertheless a major player and has been assiduously courting China with an export deal since 2006. However, as Economides observes, "negotiations between the two countries have been on and off and, especially, the pipeline construction has been painfully slow".

But Russia’s ambitions to expand its natural gas exports may explain why it has shown itself to be such a mercurial ally to Iran. Moscow’s ambivalent position towards US-led sanctions against Iran, suggests that Russia has its own agenda for hampering the Islamic republic as a regional energy rival.

Finian.cunningham@gmail.com
 

[bigron]

Reports indicate U.S. is mobilizing for war in Iran  

Iran has no weapons of mass destruction and no nuclear capabilities

19/03/2010 04:00:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Reports-indicate-US-is-mobilizing-for-war-in-Ira.html
  
The people who hate Iran and want to see it wiped off the map will state over and over that Iran is 'developing' nuclear weapons, when every piece of evidence states the opposite.


By Tim King

Iran has never attacked another nation, and according to the international group that oversees nuclear activities, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

Israel, on the other hand, possesses at least 150 nuclear warheads that could take the world out several times over. Undeclared nukes illegal with the world community. Who should we really question?

Iran's infrastructure does not support the ability and the country has firmly stated that it is not developing nuclear arms, only nuclear power, like so many other countries on this earth.

Israel's nuclear warheads were revealed in a report featuring the words of President Jimmy Carter in May of 2008 on Salem-News.com[1].

All of the years with Israel at the world negotiation tables stating that it was a non-nuclear entity, using that "defenseless" line to gain political ground, were blatant, false statements, and so the sympathy they elicited was also totally false. The U.S. government was aware of it the whole time, according to Carter, supplying the deadly parts that comprise Israel's nuclear arsenal today.

People in many circles have known this for a long time, since an Israeli nuclear scientist defected to England and told the Times all about what was taking place with the development of nuclear warheads that are not registered or claimed under the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty well over twenty years ago[2].

Why the commotion over this today? Because the United States may be preparing for another dirty unilateral war.

The Sunday Herald reports that hundreds of powerful U.S. bunker-buster bombs are in transit from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where they will be used in preparation for a "possible" attack on Iran.

The newspaper in London also revealed that Americans signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to Diego Garcia.

The Sunday Herald wrote: "According to a cargo manifest from the U.S. navy, this included 387 'Blu' bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures. Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons."

This newspaper in the UK also reported in 2007, that stealth bomber hangars on the island were constructed to take bunker-buster bombs.

Damned if you do, or if you don't
"If they run they're VC. If they stand still, they're a well-disciplined VC". - Marine door gunner in the movie, Full Metal Jacket

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear capabilities, but we were convinced under Bush that they were steps away from launching an attack on the U.S. , which in retrospect is ridiculous. We stepped in, saw over 5,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands injured, hundreds of thousands caused to suffer from PTSD, and Iraq is a total mess. We divided the Sunni and Shi'ite populations, we caused a civil war. The United States devastated a functioning country with infrastructure.

Iran has no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear capabilities, and they state that to be the case. Still, the people who hate Iran and want to see it wiped off the map, with Joseph Lieberman at the head of the list, will state over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... that Iran is "developing" nuclear weapons, when every piece of evidence states the opposite[3][4][5].

Deadly nukes; the Israelis have them - they have driven this whole modern warfare snafu according to a growing list of reliable and documented sources. Israel is a nation driven by a racist ideology guided by the religious philosophy Zionism, i.e. "The Chosen People" - which is the excuse used by Israel in quickly claiming almost all of the Palestinian land for itself, and killing a countless number of Palestinians along the way, while at times losing many of their own[6].

Our writers have, on different occasions, very recently in fact, drawn the lines connecting the dots between the U.S. war in Iraq, and Israel. The belief is that Israel is trying to destabilize this entire part of the Arab world in an effort to speed its ultimate claim of all of Palestine's land[7].

You see, Egypt is playing ball with Israel and the U.S. these days. It used to be a hotbed of anti-Israeli activity, today they are staying out of it. In the process Egypt has sealed off the southern border of Gaza in concert with the US and Israel, furthering the concentration camp atmosphere for these abused people, who are treated like animals and guarded on all sides[8].

But Iran is one of the few countries that will stand up and say something about Israel's genocide of the Palestinians, and that is why all of this is taking place. It also makes the Iranians better humanitarians than the U.S. or Canada in particular[9]{10].

Iran's history with the West
I have written before about how the U.S. and England ripped off Iran in the years following WWII for oil, treating their national representatives with prejudice and overall disdain. Racism is a nightmare[11].

The U.S. helped the British SAS take out the first Democratically elected President of Iran in 1953 because he spoke about nationalizing Iran's oil and cutting the west out. The 'Shah' was kidnapped, brainwashed, threatened, and went back to Iran to be a western friendly leader until the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The Iranians took Americans hostage as part of this Revolution, though they were eventually released, and that has been the central point for all American animosity toward Iran in recent years[12].

They were pissed off that we had for all intents and purposes, ruled their country from 1953 to 1979, and who wouldn't be? Some Americans seem to sport this vast ignorance about patriotism and nationalism in the world. For them it is hard to understand that it exists in every nation and place. It is hard for any person to separate their loyalty from the place of their birth, it is a simple human dynamic. The people who side with and work with the U.S. in many cases, are viewed as traitors. As usual, those who worked with Americans benefited in some, even many cases, and many fled after the Revolution.

Iraq was financed by the United States to invade Iran and the horrible Iran-Iraq War ensued, costing thousands of lives on both sides. A friend of mine in Tehran, says people everywhere in her country still suffer from what we know as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD from those years, and they are not people who were even in the military.

Then after starting the Iran-Iraq War and watching it rage for years, the U.S. blew an Iranian airliner out of the sky in 2008, an absolutely scandalous act of mass murder by the U.S. Navy, as Iran was in the process of defeating the U.S. financed attack against their country.

According to Wikipedia:

"The cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on 3 July 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack, which later appeared to be untrue. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off.

"U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. At the time, the captain of the Vincennes claimed that the Iranian plane did not identify itself and sent no response to warning signals from the Vincennes. Apart from Iran, other independent sources, for example the airport of Dubai, have confirmed that the plane did indeed identify itself to the American naval ship and also confirmed that 'the civilian aircraft was ascending and therefore could not have posed a threat,' agreeing with Iranian officials."[13]

Israel murdering farmers
Israel built division walls through Palestinian land on the West Bank in recent years and now their soldiers shoot the farmers who dare to use their land.

According to Investigators with the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and eye-witness testimony, Friday, 4 September 2009, Maher Ghazi al-Za’anin drove his four children, including Ghazi, 14, to their farm, 500 meters away from the border with Israel, in the northeast of Beit Hanoun town. On their way to the farm, they were surprised by an Israeli military jeep. Al-Za’anin and his children were frightened, and ran away. Israeli soldiers in the jeep immediately opened fire. Ghazi was wounded by a bullet to the head and fell to the ground.

"If they run they're VC. If they stand still, they're a well-disciplined VC"

The father carried the child to their car, whereupon IDF soldiers fired at the car, hitting it with two bullets. The father drove to Beit Hanoun Hospital and the child was transferred to al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City in critical condition. Ghazi was admitted to the intensive care unit, where he was pronounced dead on the following morning, Saturday, 5 September 2009.[14].

Israel carefully planned and killed over 1400 in Gaza, including approximately 400 children, while injuring tens of thousands. The abuse of Israel toward the Palestinians is the single worst thing taking place in the world today. There is no more brutal regime in place than Israel's.

So if Lieberman and the boys manage to actually build the position for attacking Iran, I would start packing the canned food, many boxes of it. I am not alone in saying that we would never accept this as Americans.

Any move to attack either Iran or Venezuela for that matter, will not be supported by the American public. Massive campaigns will be launched to support military desertion and protests will begin and people will take to the streets and it will not end, ever.

If a plan is actually devised to attack Iran, then Barack Obama will be remembered as a President actually worse than George W. Bush, something most have always believed was nearly impossible. Bush got the world's death machine revved up a couple of thousand RPM's, but any plan to actually take military action against Iran will blow the American military engine, guaranteed. That is an engine made of delicate things called human beings. American human beings are not supposed to be wasted in stupid needless wars based on lies.

Iran has never attacked the U.S. or talked about it. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said something once that was misconstrued as "wiping Israel off the map". It is the same old thing over and over and over and over and over and over again. Whereas Israel can make plans to outwardly attack Iran and then suck its pawns, the Americans into it, and insult people and brand an entire religion as "terrorists" when nobody does more terrorizing than the Israeli Defense Forces.

During the 1930's and 40's in Germany, genocide took place and the Red Cross was at least tricked into believing that Warsaw Ghetto wasn't as bad as it really was, in the years preceding the main events of WWII. Gaza is clear, YouTube, all over Al Jazeera, Salem-News.com and other serious sites. Anyone who cares can see the civilian destruction and devastation wrought by the IDF against the people of Gaza. Doctors said they saw no militants, only civilian men, women and children, plenty of children with injuries too severe to describe.

It is disgusting that the U.S. government ignores this clear case of genocide and series of war crimes documented against Israel's attack on Gaza in 2008/09 called "Operation Cast Lead". A Jewish War Crimes Tribunal Judge, Richard Goldstone, wrote the report that cites numerous violations of International Law; targeting schools, hospitals, and directing civilians to evacuate to certain areas, which were in turn attacked with millions and millions of dollars worth of bombs supplied mostly by US taxpayers. They used white phosphorous, which is totally illegal to drop on homes, which they did. There are no excuses for killing 1,400 in retaliation for the 4-6 Israelis who died in Hamas rocket attacks.

And while the primary western nations ignore this genocidal insanity, the U.S. government is up to its old tricks and wants to thrust our nation into its final conflict, on behalf of Israel. Nice knowing you guys, maybe all that stuff about the Mayan Calendar is right on target, but it is all because of willful human aggression from the United States and Israel.

Not to mention that a damned war is taking place in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, less than a stone's throw from the back door of the good old USA. No, let's not take care of things at home, even on this continent for that matter, let's just plot the end of mankind by attacking a country that has only defended and avenged itself by taking hostages, in all of this time.

Let's rely on the FOX New Channel to misinterpret the words of people like the Iranian President, and to get everyone good and stirred up in a general sense by repeating those pat terms that the Zionists have rammed down our throats. "Nuclear weapons", "Wipe Israel off the Map", these are the lame things that Israel will use to justify this action. I personally think that a square-off between Israel and Iran would be one matter, but having the U.S. involved on behalf of a country that commits genocide, will be the final straw.

Attacking Iran would be the end of everything as we know it, and Americans will turn away from their leadership if such a dirty and dastardly move is attempted. It'll quickly become a third world nation, as if we aren't in all reality totally broke and in debt anyway, thanks to the last few years of Bush.

On a selfish level, our combat troops are tired and broken and have been wasted and it continues. Starting another war in another theater could only be a move to bring about an end to the United States that we know, one way or another. Iraq was a bad idea, nobody serving there is happy about it. The deaths are ugly and there have been too many. Afghanistan includes a fight against people who treat women and girls badly, so there is some justification as the Taliban are not real Muslims according to my Islamic friends, but a walking distortion of it. Taliban are Afghanistan's Westboro Baptist Church, only much larger.

-- Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, the Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor, where this article originally appeared. Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 covering the war in Afghanistan, and he was in Iraq over the summer of 2008, reporting from the war while embedded with both the US Army and the Marines. He holds numerous awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing. Contact him at newsroom@salem-news.com.

References:

[1] May-29-2008: Carter Reveals Israel's Possession of 150 Nuclear Weapons - Tim King Salem-News.com

[2] May-11-1995: THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATIONOF NUCLEAR WEAPONS UN

[3] Feb-25-2010 : WHY IRAN? Give Iran a Break! - Debbie Menon for Salem-News.com

[4] Jun-11-2007: Lieberman's Demands for War in Iran are Cowardly - Op-Ed by: Tim King Salem-News.com

[5] Jul-03-2008 : Iran Doesn't Have Illegal Nukes; but Israel Has Hundreds - Tim King Salem-News.com

[6] Oct-18-2009:Apartheid Government Panicking: Time to Increase Actions - Political Commentary by Mazin Qumsiyeh for Salem-News.com

[7] Mar-13-2010: Who's to Blame for the Iraq War? - Maidhc Ó Cathail Salem-News.com

[8] Iran–Iraq War From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[9] Feb-28-2010: UN Extends Goldstone Investigation of Israel for Gaza War Crimes - Tim King Salem-News.com

[10] Apr-30-2009: Iran's Ahmadinejad Calls West's Claims of Democracy 'Sheer Lies' - Tim King Salem-News.com

[11] Jul-14-2008: Lies and Fabrications are Behind the Drive to Attack Iran - Tim King Salem-News.com

[12] Jun-18-2009 Iran, 1953 - Daniel Johnson Salem-News.com

[13] Dec-21-2009: Egypt Seeks to Halt Gaza Peace March - Salem-News.com

[14] Sep-07-2009: IOF Willfully Kill a Child in Beit Hanoun Town, Northern Gaza - Salem-News.com






-- Middle East Online

 

[gorky]

Clinton calls for harsh Iran sanctions

Secretary of State also says Israel faces difficult choices

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35980877/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is vowing that the Obama administration will not accept a nuclear armed Iran and is working on sanctions "that will bite" to press it to come clean about its suspected atomic program.

"Our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite," Clinton said, adding that it is taking time to reach an agreement but that this is "a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts."

In the same remarks prepared for delivery to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee later on Monday, Clinton also addressed Israel's role in the Mideast peace process, saying the country faces "difficult but necessary choices" because the status quo with the Palestinians is unsustainable.

The text of her comments was released by the State Department.

She said it was the United States' duty "to tell the truth when it is needed" and urged Israel to take steps to end the conflict with the Palestinians, which she said "threatens Israel's long-term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state."

Clinton's speech, coming after a spat over an Israeli announcement of plans for new Jewish settlements that rocked the U.S.-Israel relationship, underscored the Obama administration's "rock solid" commitment to Israel's security and its future.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to address the same group later on Monday. Netanyahu, before departing for Washington, said he had informed U.S. leaders that Israel would not stop the construction of Jewish settlements around Jerusalem.

Israel's announcement of new settlement construction during a visit this month by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden angered Washington and threatened to pull the plug on just-launched indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

U.S. special Mideast envoy George Mitchell is currently in the region attempting to restart the talks.

Iran 'a menace'
Clinton's language on Iran and its allies was assertive, and she called parts of the government "a menace" to the Iranian people and the region. She said Iran's leaders must know there are "real consequences" for not proving their nuclear activities are peaceful.

"Let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

"Guaranteeing Israel's security is more than a policy position for me. It is a personal commitment that will never waver," she said.

Clinton said that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, it would embolden terrorists and spark an arms race that would destabilize the Middle East.

"This is unacceptable," she said. "Unacceptable to the United States. Unacceptable to Israel. And unacceptable to the region and the international community."



Iran has spurned President Barack Obama's efforts to engage and thus far rejected incentives offered by the five permanent U.N. Security Council members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. — and Germany to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for a bomb.

Washington and its allies fear Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb, an accusation denied by Iran, which says its program is intended only to generate electricity.

Threat to its existence
Israel regards Iran as a threat to its existence and impatience is growing in the Jewish state for fresh action against the country. Iran is already under three sets of Security Council sanctions and the U.S. and its European allies are pressing for a fourth.

But China, a foe of sanctions in general that can block penalties with its veto power in the council, is opposed and has scuttled the administration's plans for quick action. Clinton allowed that building support for new sanctions was taking time but said it was worth the wait.

"It is taking time to produce these sanctions, and we believe that time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts," she said.

That "will show Iran's leaders that there are real consequences for their intransigence, that the only choice is to live up to their international obligations," Clinton said.

U.S. officials have said repeatedly they do not want the sanctions to hurt the Iranian people. They say new penalties will target leadership entities, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which plays a major role in the country's politics and economy.

Clinton took aim at Iranian hardliners who have clamped down hard on opposition supporters following disputed elections last year.

[bigron]

A Third Muslim-World War?

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu would do anything to protect Israel—as long as he doesn't have to believe in peace.


By Christopher Dickey | Newsweek Web Exclusive 

Mar 18, 2010

Back when Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu was elected Israel's prime minister for the first time, in 1996, a Jordanian political scientist with a grim sense of humor said the only way to describe him was like a villain out of an old Western: "He's a lyin', cheatin', deceitin' son of a bitch!"

The Obama administration, without using quite such colorful language, might be inclined to agree. As Aluf Benn, the respected diplomatic correspondent for Israel's Haaretz newspaper wrote in these columns recently, when U.S. Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel last week, he "had come to offer not just friendship, but support (and protection) against Iran—Israel's greatest bogeyman—in exchange for a few concessions from Netanyahu. Instead, he got a finger in the eye."

The announcement of government-approved plans to build 1,600 new Israeli homes in largely Arab East Jerusalem was a direct challenge to Biden's efforts to move peace talks forward. The Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem as the capital of their state, accuse the Israelis of using such projects to create "facts on the ground" that vastly complicate future negotiations—and, indeed, that is precisely the intent of many Israelis who support the building program.

But the problem as Benn presented it was more complex than that: a combination of brinkmanship and blackmail in which Netanyahu's government makes veiled threats to attack Iran, or not, depending on how much pressure it feels on the Palestinian issue.

U.S. military planners have little doubt that an Israeli air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities would provoke Iranian retaliation against Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers allied with the United States. American efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which border Iran, would come under threat. And there would be no way that any U.S. administration, after so many decades pledging undying support for Israel, could make a convincing claim in Muslim eyes that it was not complicit in the attack.

One of the cardinal rules of realism in international politics—and Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both pride themselves on their realism—is "never allow a weak ally to make decisions for you." Political scientist Hans J. Morgenthau wrote in his classic Politics Among Nationsthat great powers "lose their freedom of action by identifying their own national interests completely with those of a weak ally." And for all its bluster, Israel is, at the end of the day, a tiny country with a population smaller than that of New York City. "Secure in the support of its powerful friend, the weak ally can choose the objectives and methods of its foreign policy to suit itself," Morgenthau warned. "The powerful nation then finds it must support interests not its own and that it is unable to compromise on issues that are vital not to itself, but only to its ally."

Netanyahu wants to make sure that his priorities are America's priorities on many issues. So he and his supporters argue that if they're forced to make concessions that would create an independent, viable, contiguous Palestinian state, Israel would feel so insecure that it would have to attack Iran to protect itself—no matter what the implications for Americans and their men and women in the field.

"On both sides they are talking in terms of life and death," Benn wrote in Haaretz a couple of days ago. "Netanyahu's backers charge [President Barack] Obama with sentencing Israel to death via the Iranian nuclear program and 'Auschwitz borders' from which rockets would be fired [by Palestinians] onto Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion International Airport. For their part, the Americans warn that Israel's desire for settlements is endangering their soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Actually, the American warning is a little more pointed even than that, and it's not just from the politicians in the Obama administration, it's from the military. As reported by Mark Perry at Foreign Policy, back in January a briefing prepared for the American Joint Chiefs of Staff by senior officers at the U.S. Central Command under Gen. David Petraeus reported "a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel," that the leaders of the many Arab governments in CentCom's area of responsibility were "losing faith in American promises," and that "Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region."

Humiliation, weakness, and vulnerability go hand in hand, and Netanyahu seems intent on dishing up all three to the Obama administration lest he himself be made to look like "a sucker," according to Benn.

This sort of attitude isn't new. Netanyahu summed up his core thinking in his 1993 book, A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World, when he said it was naive for Israelis to believe that "Arabs loathed war as much as they themselves." He derided Israelis who thought of peace as "a kind of blissful castle in the clouds, a Jewish never-never land in which the Jews will be able finally to find a respite from struggle and strife."

In Bibi's view, the fight will go on and on. "True, continuing struggle does not necessarily mean perpetual war, but it does mean an ongoing national exertion and the possibility of periodic bouts of international confrontation ... You cannot end the struggle for survival without ending life itself." So to protect itself, in Netanyahu's view, Israel has to be aggressive on all fronts, controlling the land, the sea, the sky, and above all the message—never giving an inch. To paraphrase the late Erich Segal, being Bibi means never having to say you're sorry.

So it is difficult, to say the least, to be Netanyahu's friend, and nobody knows that better than the Jordanians, who tried to build a solid peace with Israel during his last term as prime minister in the 1990s. "Today everything is déjà vu," says Randa Habib, author of the forthcoming Hussein and Abdullah: Inside the Jordanian Royal Family.

Jordan had signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 only to see the architect of that accord, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, gunned down by an Israeli terrorist in 1995. When Netanyahu won the elections that followed, Jordan's late King Hussein had hopes he could work with Bibi. Hussein tried to build confidence by receiving the Israeli prime minister in Amman in August 1996, only to have the Israelis begin digging a tunnel under Muslim holy places in Jerusalem a few days later. In February 1997, Hussein invited Netanyahu to Amman again, hoping to improve the atmosphere, but the next day the Israelis announced approval of a whole new Jewish neighborhood, Har Homa, to be built in East Jerusalem. In both cases the timing seemed planned not only to embarrass King Hussein, but to implicate and weaken him.

Finally, King Hussein wrote bluntly to Netanyahu: "You are destroying peace. I have no trust in you." In his response to the king, Netanyahu professed to be "amazed by your personal attack."

A few months later, Israeli agents tried to kill Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, who was then in Amman, by spraying an exotic poison in his ear. Unlike the killers of another Hamas official in Dubai in January this year, the ones in Jordan were caught. Hussein demanded the antidote from Netanyahu, as well as the release of another Hamas leader, and did not turn over the captured Mossad agents until he got them. The Canadian government protested the use of its passports by the assassins, another harbinger of the Dubai case. But in the end, like today, nothing happened. "The Israelis will get away with all this; they always get away with it," says Habib.

I am not so sure. Even a dozen years ago, the American public was largely passive about Middle East issues. Congressmen proclaimed undying support for Israel, and their constituents asked few questions. Now, with America involved in two wars in the Muslim world, that's not the case. The 1,000-plus comments on Aluf Benn's NEWSWEEK column make that clear. But the decisive voices may belong to America's generals. Are they ready to have Bibi Netanyahu's vision of war-without-end dictate endless wars for American troops? The answer, almost certainly, is no.

Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235119

[bigron]

Middle East
Mar 26, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC26Ak01.html 
 
THE ROVING EYE

Obama squeezed between Israel and Iran

By Pepe Escobar

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual show in Washington would hardly be out of place in a Quentin Tarantino movie; picture a giant hall crammed with 7,500 very powerful people regimented by a very powerful lobby - plus half of the United States Senate and more than a third of the congress - basically calling in unison for Palestinian and Iranian blood.

The AIPAC 2010 show predictably was yet one more "bomb Iran" special; but it was also a call to arms against the Barack Obama administration, as far as the turbo-charging of the illegal colonization of East Jerusalem is concerned.

The administration has reacted to the quarrel with a masterpiece of schizophrenic kabuki (classical Japanese dance-drama) theater. Corporate media insisted there was a deep "crisis" between the unshakeable allies. Nonsense. One just has to look at the facts.

Only 10 days after scolding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for 43 minutes over the phone, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up at AIPAC spinning the usual platitudes. At least she talked about a "change of facts on the ground" in Palestine and stressed the current status quo is untenable. Netanyahu for his part apparently told Clinton in private (and later Obama as well) that Israel would take "confidence-building measures" in the West Bank, but would continue anyway to build settlements like there's no tomorrow.

When Clinton switched to Iran demonization mode, she was met with universal rapture. The Obama administration will "not accept a nuclear-armed Iran"; is working on sanctions "that will bite"; and the leadership in Iran must know there are "real consequences" for not coming clean with their nuclear program. The demonization seemed to turn Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into a paradigm of wisdom. Khamenei remarked this week, "If they are extending a metal hand inside a velvet glove, we won't accept it."

Israel rules, Washington follows
AIPAC arm-twisted members of the US Congress to sign a letter to the White House calling for the US to bypass the United Nations Security Council and unilaterally sanction Iran. And AIPAC also urged lawmakers to pass with no comments the annual US$3 billion US aid to Israel. This means the new made-in-USA F-35 fighter jets Israel buys will be basically financed by US taxpayers.

No surprises here. This is a congress that backed Israel's assault in Gaza in late 2008 and condemned the Goldstone Report on Israeli atrocities in that conflict by a vote of 334 to 36. After all, the Democratic party depends heavily on very wealthy Jewish - and Zionist - donors for a chunk of its budget.

Just one day after Israel's Interior Minister Eli Yishai announced the building of 1,600 exclusively Jewish apartments in East Jerusalem (part of a planned, non-negotiable 50,000 which will block it from becoming the capital of a Palestinian state and prevent Palestinian residents of the city from traveling to the West Bank), publicly humiliated US Vice President Joe Biden went to Tel Aviv University and told his audience he is ... a Zionist.

He added, "Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as vice president of the United States."

Of course it does not matter that General David "I'm positioning myself for 2012" Petraeus, chief of US Central Command, told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that the Israeli-Arab conflict "foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel". Even though "perception" may be the understatement of the millennium, as a potential Republican presidential candidate Petraeus knows he will be in deep trouble with the Republican hardcore Christians and with the Christian-Zionist fringe.

When Obama, as a presidential candidate, addressed AIPAC on June 3, 2008, he said, "We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran ... I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything and I mean everything." Obama even pulled a Netanyahu avant la lettre and declared, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

At AIPAC this week, Netanyahu said the Israelis were already building in Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and will continue to do so. Even without referring to Israel's religious supremacist and colonialist approach to Jerusalem for these past few decades, historian and Middle East expert Juan Cole at his blog "Informed Comment" demolished Bibi's claim. For instance, "Adherents of Judaism did not found Jerusalem. It existed for perhaps 2,700 years before anything we might recognize as Judaism arose. Jewish rule may have been no longer than 170 years or so."

Cole points out that Muslims, Egyptians, Romans, Iranians and Greeks have the greatest claim on the city.

All in all, it's no wonder Stephen Green, in Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with Militant Israel, a book published in 1984, had already noted how "since 1953, Israel, and friends of Israel in America, have determined the broad outlines of US policy in the region. It has been left to American presidents to implement that policy, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and to deal with tactical issues."

Free-for-all Zionism
Former Moldovan bouncer turned Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is basically a spokesman for Zionist settlers and a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union. He can tell the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel that "Iran is threatening the whole world" and still get away with it. No wonder multitudes across the developing world - and not only Muslim lands - increasingly deplore Zionism policies of occupation/colonization, targeted assassinations, Lebensraum (living space) and degrading Palestinians.

But crisis? What crisis? Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies could not have put it better. "Someone seems to have told the Obama administration that a series of polite requests equals pressure. It doesn't. Real pressure looks like this: 'Please stop settlements.' Answer: 'No.' 'Then, you know that [the] $30 billion that [former president George W] Bush arranged for you from US tax money, and we agreed to pay - you can kiss that goodbye.' That's what pressure looks like."

It won't happen. This "crisis" between Tel Aviv and Washington is a non-event. On the other hand, no one knows exactly whatever hardball Obama and Netanyahu played behind closed doors for three-and-a-half hours in Washington. Did Netanyahu "spit into Obama's eye", according to Israeli Labor Party member Eitan Cabel? Or was this was just more kabuki designed to obscure a not-so-silent drive towards an attack on Iran - where once again fresh American blood will be spilled to placate a non-existent "existential threat" to Israel?

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

 
 
 

[Free Planet]

apparently, Obama's organising his 'coalition buddies' UK, France and Australia around the IRAN war-plan today.

nice

[bigron]

Iran's defensive drones worry Gates

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:22:40 GMT
http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=121666&sectionid=3510203


 
 
A Predator drone armed with a Hellfire guided missile.

 
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced his interest in exporting offensive US drones across the world, while expressing concern about Iran's defensive unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

Speaking before a Senate hearing on March 25, Gates claimed that it was in the interests of the United States to export deadly drones to what he termed "friendly" nations, despite limitations placed on such exports by US international treaty obligations, reported Reuters.

"There are other countries that are very interested in this capability and frankly it is, in my view, in our interest to see what we can do to accommodate them," Gates said.

UAVs are used mostly for surveillance purposes. However, in recent years, the US military has fielded a range of armed UAVs - or drones - which can attack designated targets with guided missiles, typically Hellfire.

One of these - the Predator - has been used extensively in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as other areas, for assassinations of those the US describes as hostile elements. The Predators are fairly slow and low flying aircraft which can be used only against targets that lack any anti-aircraft protection. Although they are based near the theatres of operations, the Predators are believed to be controlled by operatives based in CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

Predators have been responsible for hundreds of deaths - both militants and civilians - in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas, since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The proliferation of elements of offensive UAV technology are restricted by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which is a treaty between at least 34 states intended to limit the exports of goods and technologies that are intended for missile delivery systems.

The US is a party to this treaty. However, now the US arms industry wants this treaty to be modified or put aside so that they can export their armed drones, which are seen to have been 'battle proven' against the Iraqi and Afghan people.

"With respect to export ... I think there are some specific cases where we have allies with whom we have formal treaty alliances who have expressed interest in these capabilities," Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"And we have told them that we are limited in what we can do by the MTCR, but I think it's something we need to pursue with them." He did not elaborate on how the US government planned to skirt its MTCR treaty obligations.
At the same time, Gates expressed his concern about Iranian UAVs. "Iran has UAVs and that is a concern because it is one of those areas where I suppose if they chose to, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they could create difficulties for us," he said during his testimony.

However, there is nothing new about Iran's UAVs. Iran first developed and fielded UAVs in the 1980s during the Iraqi imposed war.

So far, they have been used in surveillance applications only, although recently plans have been announced for drones with attack capabilities too.

Gates did not name the countries to which the US should export its killer drones, but these are thought to include its largest weapons clients, Saudi Arabia, other Persian Gulf Arab states and Israel. The latter has used shorter range shoot-and-kill drones against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and would be interested in longer range models such as the Predator and Global Hawk that could reach parts of Iran.

Global Hawk's manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, has said that Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Britain, Spain and Canada have expressed interested in their product.

Pakistan has also requested to buy armed drones such as the Predator.

ZAP/DT

[bigron]

US to retain 90 nukes on Iran border
 
 
10/04/2010 11:19:26 AM GMT   
 
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/US-to-retain-90-nukes-on-Iran-border.html

 
As Washington and Moscow sign a new arms reduction treaty, skepticism arises in Turkey as to whether those cuts will include US atomic warheads stored in the country.

US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in Prague on Thursday, which requires both sides to reduce their nuclear arsenals to 1,550, or about one-third below current levels.

This is while the Obama administration has revised US policy on atomic weapons, as part of a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that, among other things, is said to be aimed at reducing the US stockpile.

But silence over anticipated US plans to withdraw nuclear bombs deployed in the Incirlik Air Base in southern Anatolia, has left many speculating on whether Washington has any intentions to remove the weapons at all.

When asked about a possible US move to withdraw its nuclear weapons from five European countries, including Turkey, Turkey's Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul said that Ankara had no information about such plans.

“No information has been officially announced,� Gonul told reporters on Wednesday.

The US has positioned a total of 200 B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs in Turkey, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany since the Cold War. Turkey is believed to be hosting 90 bombs at Incirlik Air Base.

On April 2, The Times reported that the United States may remove tactical nuclear weapons deployed in five NATO member European countries, including Turkey.

However, the possibility of the White House seriously considering a decision to withdraw the B61 gravity bombs seems unlikely, as it has not consulted Ankara on the issue so far.

In the latest NPR, while the Obama Administration has reduced the threat of using nuclear weapons against signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has excluded NPT signatory Iran from threat reduction.

During the release of the current NPT today, the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, "the NPR has a very strong message for both Iran and North Korea, because whether it's in declaratory policy or in other elements of the NPR, we essentially carve out states like Iran and North Korea that are not in compliance with NPT."

"Basically, all options are on the table when it comes to countries in that category," he elaborated.

Washington, which accuses Iran of having the "intention" of developing nuclear weapons, is leading a push for a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran at the United Nations Security Council in a bid to hinder the nation's drive for a nuclear energy program.

Iran, as a signatory of NPT, insists that it neither believes in atomic weapons, nor, as a matter of religious principles, does it intend to acquire nuclear or other weapons of mass-destruction.

MJ/ZAP/DT
Source: Press TV
 

[bigron]

Middle East
Apr 20, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LD20Ak01.html 
 
How radical Islam might defeat the West: A reprise

By Spengler

A decade ago I argued that radical Islam might horrify the West into submission through the mass sacrifice of Muslim lives. During the past two weeks Iran has virtually invited a nuclear exchange with the West, in a series of statements that blend a deranged sort of bluster with malevolent calculation.

Iran's Kayhan press service warned last week, "If the US strikes Iran with nuclear weapons, there are elements which will respond with nuclear blasts in the centers of America's main cities." Meanwhile, Behzad Soltani, the number two man at Iran's Atomic Commission, proclaimed last week, "Iran will join the world nuclear club within a month in a bid to deter possible attacks on the country," adding, "No country would even think about attacking Iran once it is in the club."

By the normal standards of diplomacy, these statements appear grotesquely false as well as self-defeating. If Iran brags openly that it has delivered nuclear weapons to terrorists - weapons that it does not yet possess - it invites a Western military response. The threat itself demonstrates that Iran is confident that the West is too supine to respond. Iran has taken our measure well: the theocratic regime evinced an unlimited appetite for sacrifice during its decade-long war with Iraq in the 1980s. It is persuaded, and with good reason, the prospective horror of a military confrontation is too terrible for the West to bear.

In effect, Iran has succeeded in horrifying the West into submission to its nuclear ambitions as well as its bid for regional hegemony. An attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities, Tehran has persuaded the West, would throw Central Asia into chaos. Pro-Iranian elements would precipitate a civil war in Iraq; Hezbollah in Lebanon would initiate a war on Israel's northern border; the Shi'ite fifth of Pakistan would make the second-largest Muslim state ungovernable; American's 200,000 soldiers in adjacent countries would suffer suicide attacks; and the hydra heads of Iranian-sponsored terrorists would strike at civilian targets through the West.

This is deplorable as it was foreseeable: on May 2, 2006 I warned (Why war comes when no one wants it : "If Washington waits too long to disarm Iran, the consequence will be a Thirty Years' War in the Middle East quite as terrible as World War I. Harsh as it might seem, pre-emption - an aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - is the most humane solution."

Iranian officials seem intent on provoking American retaliation. General Hassan Firouzabadi boasted on April 8, "If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive." And Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad addressed President Barack Obama with open contempt in a letter made public last week. "Once [the US was] at the height of glory," Ahmadinejad wrote. "Now they are collapsing. They have many economic and cultural problems. They have security problems in the world and their influence in Iraq and Afghanistan is vanishing."

Iran's estimation of Western squeamishness is well founded. America's military leaders have made no secret of their fear of the consequences of engaging Iran. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had this to say on March 16, 2009, in an interview with Charlie Rose: "What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is, in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it's the unintended consequences. It's the further destabilization in the region. It's how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now [because of the] capability that Iran has across the Gulf. So, I worry about their responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn't predict."

In my estimation, this sort of paralysis is what radical Islam reckoned with from the outset. Mullen should be fired twice, once for thinking this way, and the second time for saying it in public. Obama set the same defeatist tone in a televised interview earlier this month with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, saying, "The history of the Iranian regime, like the North Korean regime is that, you know, you apply international pressure on these countries, sometimes they choose to change behavior, sometimes they don't."

That is precisely what Tehran and al-Qaeda wish to hear. As I wrote on October 12, 2001, (Sir John Keegan is wrong: radical Islam could win
Al-Qaeda wants no territory, no conversions, no loot, no slaves. It wishes to destroy the West and happily will sacrifice millions of Muslim lives in order to do so. Indeed, the mass sacrifice of Muslim lives may lie at the heart of its battle plan. It has more in common with the Dostoyevsky of The Possessed or the Wagner of Die Goetterdaemmerung than with the Muslim conquerors of the Middle Ages ...

The grand vulnerability of the Western mind is horror. The Nazis understood this and pursued a policy "des Schreckens" (to cause terror) and "Entsetzens" (horror, literally: dislodgement). Horror was not merely an instrument of war in the traditional sense, but a form of Wagnerian theater, or psychological warfare on the grand scale. Hitler's tactical advantage lay in his capacity to be more horrible than his opponents could imagine. The most horrible thing of all is that he well might have succeeded if not for his own megalomaniac propensity to overreach.

Getting down to tactics, how can al-Qaeda overcome the West with horror? Let us suppose that some state or state agency over which al-Qaeda wields influence possesses a weapon of mass destruction, with sufficient potency to cause a very large number of deaths in a Western country. If it deploys that weapon and causes a very large number of casualties, the West may have no choice but to bombard the offending country with nuclear weapons and destroy its capacity to make war. Given that al-Qaeda has tendrils deep in numerous governments, even a nuclear bombardment of one rogue state might not diminish its capacities. The West would be left with the horrific fact of mass destruction of civilians combined with continued insecurity.
With minor variations, that is Tehran's intent. That is why the Iranian theocrats dare the West to bring on its worst, to attack Iran in such a way as to produce massive civilian casualties.

A decade of Western stupidity has let America to this pass. In a sense Iran is entirely correct that a last-minute effort to reverse its slow accumulation of military and terrorist capability would be a messy business at best. A decade ago I wrote (Geopolitics in the light of option theory Asia Times Online, January 26, 2002) that America was "long volatility,” in option-trading parlance; instability worked to its advantage by forcing the rest of the world to cling to America's skirts for safety. After expending vast amounts of blood and treasure in the delusional pursuit of nation-building in the Middle East, Washington is "short volatility", in precisely the sense that Mullen suggested. America no longer has the stomach for uncertainty.

America's decade of dithering has led it into a diplomatic cul-de-sac. China recognizes America's desultory pursuit of sanctions against Iran for the charade it is, and placidly continues to buy Iranian oil; Russia observes that Washington will concede Iran the status of regional hegemon, and offers it nuclear reactor technology, while discovering a new humanitarian concern for the possible suffering of the Iranian people under economic sanctions. India notes that Washington has frozen it out of Afghanistan in favor of one-sided reliance on Pakistan, and looks to Iran as a balancing force against Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. The rest of the world takes its cue from America, even or perhaps especially) when America abdicates leadership.

Russia, China and India have concluded that the probability of an American military strike against Iran is nil, and have made their own arrangements with the emerging Central Asian power. In Washington, the bureaucracy is making the usual sort of preparations for the inevitable moment when Tehran tests its first nuclear device: it is writing memos. Secretary Defense Robert Gates, the ultimate Washington survivor, leaked his memo to the New York Times on April 17, warning that America lacked an effective policy to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

Israel remains the only player that could kick over the chess-board before the Iranians march their pawns to the eighth rank and turn them into nuclear weapons. Endless speculation has been devoted to the likelihood, and the nature, of a prospective Israeli strike; without knowing what the Israeli military knows about its own capabilities, Iranian concealment and air defenses, I have no means of gaming the odds.

It seems clear, though, that Moscow considers such an action unlikely, given President Dmitry Medvedev's overwrought warning of April 12. Speaking to ABC News, Medvedev characterized a prospective Israeli strike on Iran as "the worst possible scenario" in the Middle East, because "everyone is so close over there that nobody would be unaffected ... And if conflict of that kind happens, and a strike is performed, then you can expect anything, including use of nuclear weapons. And nuclear strikes in the Middle East, this means a global catastrophe. Many deaths."

There is no reason to believe that an Israeli strike on Iran - even if it involved the use of low-yield nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that some analysts mention - would lead to a general nuclear exchange. Medvedev's remarks should be read as an echo of Iranian propaganda. Nonetheless, there is some truth to Medvedev's warning. Cutting out the cancer at this late date would be a bloody mess. Hundreds of thousands might die as a result. On the other hand, if Iran does succeed in acquiring nuclear weapons, hundreds of millions probably will die. The choices now are grim. Don't blame me: I told you so 10 years ago.

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman, senior editor at First Things (www.firstthings.com).
 
 
 

[bigron]

Joint Chiefs Chair: No, No, No. Don’t Attack Iran.

By Noah Shachtman  April 18, 2010  |  6:32 pm  |  Categories: Nukes
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/mullen-please-for-the-love-of-god-dont-attack-iran/



NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.

Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Sure, U.S. strikes might set back Tehran’s atomic weapons program — for a while. But the “unintended consequences” of a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily outweigh the benefits of that delay, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen told a forum at Columbia University.

“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”

At Columbia, Mullen also pushed back on a New York Times report that the Obama administration essentially had no strategy for dealing with Iran if Tehran got to the threshold of building a nuke – without quite going over.

“What the mainstream of that article talked about… is that we have no policy and that the implication is that we’re not working on it. I assure you, this is as complex a problem as there is in our country. And we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out — to get that right,” Mullen said. “This has a focus. The focus of the President of the United States. I am his principal military adviser, and it has from the moment I have spent any time with him — even before he has sworn in,” Mullen said.

But the admiral didn’t detail what strategy all that time and all that focus had generated.

“It has been worked and it continues to be worked,” Mullen added. “If there was an easy answer, we would’ve picked it off the shelf.”

Analysts have speculated that Iran might respond with terror strikes or naval blockades in the Persian Gulf if its nuclear facilities came under attack. Mullen declined to speculate what the results of a strike might be, except to say: they would probably be unexpected, and they would probably be bad.

“From my perspective,” Mullen added, “the last option is to strike.”

But simply accepting Iran as a nuclear state won’t work either, Mullen added. Again: it’s the unintended consequences.

“I worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability. There are those that say, ‘C’mon Mullen, get over that. They’re gonna get it. Let’s deal with that.’ Well, dealing with it has [results] that I don’t think we’ve all thought through. I worry other countries in the region will then seek -– actually, I know they will seek — nuclear weapons as well. And the spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome,” Mullen said.

When it comes to a nuclear Iran, none of the outcomes look very good.

[Photo: Specialist Chad J. McNeeley]



Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/mullen-please-for-the-love-of-god-dont-attack-iran/#ixzz0lYGwv1xX

[bigron]

U.S. military plans against Iran being updated

By Barbara Starr, CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

--Effort to update military plans for Iran been underway for some time

--Defense secretary raised concerns in memo whether existing policy is sufficient

--Gates: Memo was "mischaracterized" by sources who leaked it to New York Times


Washington (CNN) -- The Pentagon and U.S. Central Command are updating military plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites, preparing up-to-date options for the president in the event he decides to take such action, an Obama administration official told CNN Sunday.

The effort has been underway for several weeks and comes as there is growing concern across the administration's national security team that the president needs fresh options ready for his approval if he were to decide on a military strike, according to the official who is familiar with the effort.

The official did not want to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the work being conducted.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued to amp up his rhetoric against the West on Sunday, claiming that Iran is so powerful today that no country would dare attack it.

"Iran's army is so mighty today that no enemy can have a foul thought of invading Iran's territory," the Iranian leader said in a speech, according to state media.

The Iranian leader has had choice words for Obama and other Western leaders, especially after not receiving an invitation to the nuclear summit hosted in Washington last week. Obama has been pressing the U.N. Security Council to slap Iran with tougher sanctions for its nuclear ambitions. Iran says that its nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes.

In January, Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote a classified memo to the White House raising concerns about whether the administration had a sufficient policy in place, along with military options, for stopping Iran's progress in getting a nuclear weapon, the official confirmed.

The memo was first reported Sunday in the New York Times.

Gates spokesman Geoff Morrell initially declined to confirm the memo, but Gates said later Sunday in a written statement, "The New York Times sources who revealed my January memo to the National Security Advisor mischaracterized its purpose and content.

"With the administration's pivot to a pressure track on Iran earlier this year, the memo identified next steps in our defense planning process where further interagency discussion and policy decisions would be needed in the months and weeks ahead," Gates said. "The memo was not intended as a 'wake up call' or received as such by the president's national security team. Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process.

"There should be no confusion by our allies and adversaries that the United States is properly and energetically focused on this question and prepared to act across a broad range of contingencies in support of our interests."

The planning effort for potential strikes against Iran actually has been underway for some time, the official said.

In December, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told his planners he didn't believe they were taking "seriously enough" the need for fresh thinking about how to attack Iran's nuclear sites if the president ordered such a strike, the official said.

"He wanted to create a higher sense of urgency to create military options for the president," the official said. Mullen "wanted a more robust planning effort to provide the president with options, should he choose a military option," he said.

The official strongly emphasized that the U.S. military is always updating plans in order to be ready for the president. If Obama were to order a strike against Iran, he would turn to Mullen, Gates and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, for their advice on how to proceed. The official would not discuss how any of the updated plans might differ from previously existing military strike options.

Mullen and other Pentagon officials have continuously endorsed diplomacy as the preferred option against Iran. In February Mullen publicly noted that a military strike against Iran's nuclear program would not be "decisive" and would only delay and set back Iran's efforts.

Gates recently expressed growing concern about understanding exactly what Iran's intentions may be.

"How you differentiate, how far have they gone. If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? So it becomes a serious verification question. And I don't actually know how you would verify that," Gates said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"So they are continuing to make progress on these programs. It's going slow -- slower than they anticipated, but they are moving in that direction," he said.

In general, the U.S. military develops what is sometimes called targeting "folders." These files detail all the known facts and intelligence about a target, include precise location, how deeply buried it might be, the civilian population surrounding the target, the geology of the land and rock around the area, and detailed options about which U.S. weapons might be best used to destroy it.

The U.S. intelligence community is also currently involved in the updated planning effort, providing the latest assessments about Iran's nuclear progress at various sites around the Islamic republic.

There have been several public hints about the new target planning. Last week, a Pentagon official told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a written statement, "Through prudent military planning we continue to refine options to protect U.S. and partner interests from Iranian aggression, deter Iran's destabilizing behavior, and prepare for contingencies."

Back in December, Mullen deliberately, the official said, made a reference to Iran in a public document called "the chairman's guidance," posted on the Internet saying, "should the president call for military options, we must have them ready."

There have been growing signs of Iranian efforts to militarily protect their nuclear sites. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency notes that last year Iran established a separate air defense force, with the stated intention of defending nuclear sites with missiles and air defense radars.
 

 
 
 
Links referenced within this article

Robert Gates
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Robert_Gates
Iran
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Iran
U.S. Department of Defense
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Department_of_Defense
Nuclear Proliferation
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Nuclear_Proliferation

 

 
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/18/us.iran/index.html?hpt=T1 

[bigron]

Gates says memo on Iran was not sounding nuclear alarm

By Glenn Kessler
Monday, April 19, 2010; A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802963.html?hpid=topnews


Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates acknowledged Sunday that in January he sent a memo to the White House outlining the "next steps in our defense planning process" for Iran.

But, in a statement issued by his press secretary, Gates said that a New York Times article that revealed the existence of the memo "mischaracterized its purpose and content" when it suggested Gates has despaired that the administration lacked a strategy for dealing with Iran's nuclear program.

Iran has refused to abide by international demands to halt enriching uranium, saying it is not developing a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration initially tried to engage Iran but has now spent months pressing for a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions on the Islamic republic.

"The memo was not intended as a 'wake up call' or received as such by the President's national security team," Gates said. "Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process."

The White House had also pushed back hard against the story when it was posted on the Times Web site Saturday night. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said: "It is absolutely false that any memo touched off a reassessment of our options. The administration has been planning for all contingencies regarding Iran for many months."

Various other officials, while acknowledging privately that Gates has sent some sort of memo on Iran, declined to discuss its content but suggested it was not an earth-shattering moment in the administration's Iran discussions.

"I think there is less here than meets the eye," a senior administration official said Sunday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "We do have a strategy that emerges from the Nuclear Posture Review and will be seen at the review conference" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in May. "We will strengthen the global nonproliferation regime and expect countries to abide by their obligations."

Still, the story had received wide attention online and on television, and the administration apparently believed Gates had to address the issue. "There should be no confusion by our allies and adversaries that the United States is properly and energetically focused on this question and prepared to act across a broad range of contingencies in support of our interests," Gates said.

Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential race, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), seized on news of the memo to charge that the administration lacks "a coherent policy" on Iran.

"We have not done anything that would in any way be viewed effective," McCain told "Fox News Sunday." "I didn't need a secret memo from Mr. Gates to ascertain that. We have to be willing to pull the trigger on significant sanctions. And then we have to make plans for whatever contingencies follow if those sanctions are not effective."

[bigron]

latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-iran19-2010apr19,0,5679903.story


Iran unveils air defense system as U.S. defends policy


Iranian navy troops march during a military ceremony in Tehran marking the annual national Army Day. (Abedin Taherkenareh / EPA / April 18, 2010)


At Iran's annual Army Day parade, various air defense and missile systems are displayed and touted. U.S. officials, responding to a leaked memo, say Iran policy is not being reassessed.

By Julian E. Barnes and Borzou Daragahi

April 19, 2010

Reporting from Washington and Beirut

 Iran unveiled what it described as a new air defense system during an annual military display Sunday as policymakers in Washington confronted new reminders about their limited range of options for responding to Tehran's apparent arms buildup.

The new system, which Iran said is designed to defend against attacks by missiles and high-altitude planes, was introduced as the government awaits delivery of sophisticated missile defense batteries it has bought from Russia but which have been delayed because of Israeli pressure on Moscow.

Tehran's assertion of new military advances came amid disclosures that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates wrote to White House officials in January to warn that more options were needed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. U.S. officials and their allies accuse Iran of trying to develop such weapons, but Tehran says its research program is aimed solely at developing civilian nuclear energy.

The memo from Gates to White House national security advisor James L. Jones, first reported by the New York Times, decried the lack of a long-term strategy for addressing Iran's plans. A U.S. government official confirmed the existence of the memo Sunday.

U.S. officials and analysts have long agreed that they have poor options, given that Iran has been defiant in the face of economic sanctions and that a military strike would be difficult, costly and would probably only delay Iran's nuclear plans by a few years.

However, it is highly unusual for a senior Cabinet member to stress concerns over administration options, as Gates did in his memo.

Administration officials challenged an assertion in the New York Times that the memo prompted a reevaluation of the administration's approach to Iran.

"It is absolutely false that any memo touched off a reassessment of our options," said Ben Rhodes, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "This administration has been planning for all contingencies regarding Iran for many months."

On Sunday, Gates said, "The New York Times sources who revealed my January memo to the national security advisor mischaracterized its purpose and content."

The memo, he said in a written statement, "identified next steps in our defense planning process . . . [and] was not intended as a 'wake up call' or received as such by the president's national security team.

"Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision-making process."

The January memo came during a period when Gates and other top officials were pushing to develop a broader range of responses to Iran's nuclear efforts.

In December, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked the Pentagon's Joint Staff to develop additional options, including possible military alternatives, in an effort to instill a sense of urgency in the planning process, officials said Sunday.

Those options have not been described and remain a tightly held secret.

Gates has estimated that Iran is about a year away from having enough enriched uranium for an atomic weapon. However, the Iranians would probably need two to five more years or so to develop a weapon, U.S. officials believe.

"It depends on where they are, and we do not have perfect visibility because of the closed nature of that society into where they really are," said a military official.

The administration's approach toward Iran has been shifting since the beginning of the year. President Obama and his senior national security aides, convinced in December that Iran was not interested in U.S. offers to negotiate, began trying to build support for a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Obama also has adjusted the U.S. nuclear approach and pushed an international nuclear agenda in hopes of increasing pressure on Iran from those quarters. The administration also has stepped up military cooperation with Iran's Persian Gulf neighbors.

Obama has met with the Chinese and Russian leaders to seek their support for United Nations sanctions, while acknowledging that such measures are not a "magic wand."

Obama's critics, meanwhile, seized on the Gates memo to assail the administration's Iran policy as inadequate.

"We do not have a coherent policy," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Fox News. "We have not done anything that would in any way be viewed effective."

McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential race, wants to impose stiffer penalties, including a ban on sales of refined petroleum products, a step that the administration has not endorsed and that is widely opposed internationally.

In Iran, the government showed off its arsenal during annual Army Day celebrations.

State media said Iran had introduced the newly created long-range S-200 system, described as a weapon "to defend large areas against aerial attacks, including those by high-speed and high-altitude aircraft," according to the website of the state-owned Press TV.

Iran has long sought to improve its air defenses for fear of an American or Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. Moscow continues to delay delivery of its S-300 mobile missile defense batteries, which Iran has purchased.

Iran has warned that it would respond to any such attack with counterstrikes on Israel and U.S. targets in the region.

Over the weekend,Tehran paraded improved long-range missiles that could easily hit Israel, and anti-ship cruise missiles that could be used against U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. It also unveiled new mobile tactical radar systems.

julian.barnes@latimes.com

daragahi@latimes.com

Times staff writers Paul Richter and Christi Parsons in Washington contributed to this report.

[bigron]

Middle East
Apr 23, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LD23Ak02.html 
 
US warms to strike on Iran

By Victor Kotsev

"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] capable of reaching the United States by 2015," claimed a Pentagon report that was declassified on Monday. The almost simultaneous timing of two key recent revelations - this and Israeli accusations that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon - has contributed to a fresh escalation of tensions in the Middle East and to speculation that the stage is being set for a military show-down.

The war of words has become particularly harsh, and threats are now being exchanged openly between the United States and Iran: the first salvo since President Barack Obama's inauguration, and a troubling development. "We are not taking any options off the table as we pursue the pressure and engagement tracks," the Pentagon's press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said this week. "The president always has at his disposal a full array of options, including use of the military ... It is clearly not our preferred course of action but it has never been, nor is it now, off the table."
Days ago it was revealed that the US military was actively preparing for war against Iran. “The Pentagon and US Central Command are updating military plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites, preparing up-to-date options for the president in the event he decides to take such action," CNN reported on Monday.

The Iranians, meanwhile, have embarked on a show of force of their own. “Iranian armed forces on Sunday displayed three generations of modern home-made ballistic missiles in military parades marking the country' Army Day," Fars News reported. Last week, the agency quoted the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, as saying, "As I have already announced, if the US attacks Iran, none of its soldiers [in the region] will go back home alive."

What is particularly worrisome is that a US (or Israeli) military strike against Iran in the near future would, in a sense, fit in with Obama's goals and public relations image up to now. Firstly, there are growing indications that, after the Democratic nomination, the presidency, and the healthcare bill, the Middle East has become the next major quest for the US president.

For example, this is also reflected in the US administration's massive pressure on Israel to make further concessions to renew the stalled negotiations. "At the heart of this disagreement [between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] lies a dramatic change in the way Washington perceives its own stake in the game," the former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, wrote on Monday in an op-ed for the New York Times. "It actually began three years ago when secretary of state Condoleezza Rice declared in a speech in Jerusalem that US 'strategic interests' were at stake in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a judgment reiterated by Obama last week when he said resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is a 'vital national security interest' for the United States."

Moreover, Obama has acquired a reputation for slow, methodical escalation of rhetoric, followed by daring and decisive action. He tends to give his most powerful opponents ample room to debate and negotiate, and to show maximum reserve in an attempt to secure a claim to the moral high ground: a brilliant public relations strategy, if nothing else.

In the case of Iran, he has gone so far as to delay vital support to the Iranian opposition in the post-election demonstrations last summer and to openly pressure Israel not to attack. He kept a lid on all talk about a possible military scenario coming from anywhere important in his administration for close to a year, and has been reluctant to discuss such an option himself to date.

Critics have accused him of being too soft, but the harshness of his administration's rhetoric toward Iran has been growing since late last year, when a first few cautious officials started talking about the possibility of military strikes on Iran's nuclear program. Escalation has been slow but consistent, in a way similarly to the progression of the domestic healthcare debate that ended in a dramatic victory for Obama.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported on parts of a secret memo by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, accusing the administration of lacking a clear policy to thwart the Iranian nuclear program [1].

Apparently, still-classified portions of the memo called for an adequate preparation for military strikes. Coming from Gates, a Republican who stayed on as defense secretary after the George W Bush administration due to his long-standing opposition to war against Iran, this development is significant.

Analysts see the conflict between the US and Iran as complex and far-reaching. "Until 2003, regional stability - such as it was - was based on the Iran-Iraq balance of power," writes prominent think-tank Stratfor. In the wake of the Iraq war, "The United States was forced into two missions. The first was stabilizing Iraq. The second was providing the force for countering Iran."

There are serious doubts whether the rhetoric itself has not gone so far that reconciling now would have to be a failure for one side or the other. "There is a legitimate concern that if sanctions are considered a political necessity now, will military action be regarded as a political necessity in 2011, once the sanctions have been deemed a failure?" said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, this month. [2]

Last month, I pointed out that key US regional allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt had reportedly been pushing for US military action. [3] "There are countries [in the Gulf] that would like to see a strike [on Iran], us or perhaps Israel, even," said US Central Command chief General David Petraeus to CNN in March.
There are consistent indications that Israel, too, is gearing up for an impending regional war and perhaps is considering even to initiate action on its own. "For practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November," Brigadier General Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli deputy defense minister, wrote this month in an op-ed for Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

Sneh's assessment has been among the boldest so far in terms of specific time-frame predictions, but high-ranking Israeli officials and politicians, including Netanyahu, have called for the use of military force as a tool of last resort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly asserted his belief that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential challenge to the Jewish state, and must be prevented despite the high price tag.

Sources close to him add weight to his words in light of the special relationship between him and his 100-years old father, who predicted the Holocaust in 1937 and who is a prominent hawk on Iran. "Look the danger straight in the eye, calmly weigh what should be done, and be prepared to enter the fray the moment the chances of success seem reasonable," said the elder Netanyahu as advice to Israel and his son during his centennial celebration address last month. [4]

In this context, last week's Israeli accusation that Syria had supplied Scud missiles to Hezbollah can be seen as, among other things, part of a public relations campaign to discredit Lebanon and Syria in preparation for a possible conflict there. This is not to say that the Israeli claim is incorrect: on the contrary, it appears to be true, and this is yet another indicator of volatility in the region. Even a high-ranking Hezbollah source (albeit an anonymous one), interviewed by Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai, confirmed the reports. Israel has long maintained that the transfer of sophisticated missiles to Hezbollah would be considered a legitimate reason for preventative military action.

Tensions have risen in the past six months or so despite mutual attempts between Israel and Syria to avoid a full-blown war. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decided on a surprise visit to Egypt to discuss the possibility of an Israeli-Syrian war, Ha'aretz reported. [5]

Oddly enough, Lebanon appears to be one among few issues in the Middle East on which Israel and the US can agree. "If such an action has been taken [transfer of Scuds to Hezbollah] ... clearly it potentially puts Lebanon at significant risk," US State Department spokesman P J Crowley told reporters last week.

It is hard to tell whether a major Middle Eastern war is inevitable at this point, but the clouds are getting significantly darker, and the US appears to be rapidly warming up to the idea of a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, whether carried out by the Americans themselves or by Israel. This is a major development, and the next big red line to watch for would be a statement affirming military action coming directly from the US president. If his track record is any indication, when Obama decides to act, he will abandon his reserve and act swiftly and decisively.

Notes
1. Gates Says US Lacks a Policy to Thwart Iran New York Times, April 17, 2010.
2. Israel evades 'ambush' at nuclear summit Asia Times Online, April 15, 2010.
3. Israel puts US on notice Asia Times Online, March 13, 2010.
4. Now the Americans are certain no one is in charge here
5. Report: Assad due in Egypt to discuss fear of Israel-Syria war

Victor Kotsev is a freelance journalist and political analyst with expertise in the Middle East.

 
 
 

[bigron]

Thursday, April 22, 2010
12:36 Mecca time, 09:36 GMT 
 http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/04/2010421104845169224.html
 
FOCUS 
 
The birth of a new class  
 
 By Morris M Mottale

 
Founded after Iran's revolution, the Revolutionary Guards are now 500,000-strong [EPA]

The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a novel experiment for the Middle East and the wider Islamic region.

Ayatollah Khomeini's vision encompassed the notion of a political system derived from Plato's Republic and tinged with Shia Islamic values and messianic expectations.

However, 30 years after the formation of that regime, what stands out is the rise of a new ruling class; a class that sees the symbiosis and integration of the clerical and Bazari classes, which come to power after the demise of the monarchy, with the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution - the IRGC or Revolutionary Guards - and their auxiliaries, the Basijs.

After the revolution, Khomeini and his clerical brethren were fearful that the armed forces might stage a coup, so they created an alternative paramilitary group, the Revolutionary Guards.

The Iranian experiment shows remarkable analogies with European experiences of totalitarian rule during the 20th century, where revolutionaries organised their own military forces to control the old power centres.

Hitler had the SS and the Gestapo, Lenin and Stalin had the Soviet Revolutionary Guards and the Commissars.

Khomeini and his supporters never thought they were creating a new class but that was the unintended consequence of purposeful political action.

Garrison state

While Khomeini, in his last will and testament, called on the military forces to follow the guideline of non-intervention in the affairs of state, in reality the opposite took place.

The theocratic state adopted, in time, the features of a garrison state. In fact, Ayatollah Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini as Iran's supreme leader, came to use his position as commander-in-chief of the armed forces to expand his power.

In time, Khamenei came to appoint many Revolutionary Guard commanders to top political positions, thus blurring the line between military and civilian authority.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, Ali Ardeshir Larijani, the secretary of the supreme council of national security, Ezzatolah Zarghami, the head of state television and radio services, Mohsen Rezai, the secretary of the expediency council, and Mohammad Forouzandeh, the head of the Mostazafan Foundation, are all former members of the IRGC who were appointed by Khamenei.

Since the turn of the millennium, the Revolutionary Guards have become the dominant group in not only defence policy, but in domestic political and economic affairs.

Its preeminent role has been coupled with the emergence of central security issues at the forefront of Iranian policy deliberations and planning, particularly Iran's nuclear programme.

The Guards' emergence was already apparent during the administration of the reformist president Mohammad Khatami.

Their political role expanded as networks of retired officers began to take on increasingly executive roles, which in turn enabled the Guards to emerge as a sort of Praetorian army seeking to displace and repress Khatami's supporters from political power and ascendency.

Between 2003 and 2004, more Revolutionary Guards officers saw their way into local and national politics and the IRGC acquired all the trappings of a state within a state, accountable only to the supreme leader and increasingly dominating many facets of society.

Growing economic power

The Guards oversee many sectors of the Iranian economy [EPA]

 
After the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the Guards began engaging in reconstruction and during the 1990s they developed a taste for commercial dealings, real estate speculation and the profits that came with them.

By the time Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005, the Guards had come to oversee many sectors of the Iranian economy, including oil, construction, agriculture, mining, transport, the defence industry and import-export companies.

The Guards were also thought to control much of Iran's business interests in Dubai, where some 9,000 Iranian businesses were registered and 400,000 Iranian nationals constituted a quarter of Dubai's resident population.

American-led sanctions against Iran saw Tehran use its business investments in Dubai to bypass international economic sanctions and restraints.

It is unclear whether the rise of the Revolutionary Guards to the commanding heights of the political system is part of a master plan or simply a result of demographic factors as Revolutionary Guard veterans of the Iran-Iraq war come of age.

Even some of Iran's reformers have Revolutionary Guard backgrounds.

Historically, however, the rise of the Guards as a vehicle of social mobility is not hard to explain. Even under the shah, Iranian society was characterised by relatively high degrees of social mobility and cooptation.

A combined armed force with its own ground force, air force, navy and intelligence branches, the IRGC has become a bureaucratic apparatus that is embedding within Iran's economic system.

It is estimated that one-third of the Iranian economy is controlled by the IRGC and its leaders.

In fact, the US government has implemented a policy at the international level to boycott and/or limit the ability of the Guards' enterprises to do business at the international level.

Patronage

The recognition of the Revolutionary Guards has come to be the most sought after form of patronage in Iran for those seeking political or economic benefits - a patronage that is coming to match, if not displace, that of the clerics themselves.

The Guards have never shied away from blatantly protecting their economic gains - whether by controlling Iran's new airport or by stopping a foreign-led consortia from competing in Iran's business world.

Thus, in time, they have deepened their interests in the civilian economy while retaining their primary role as defenders of the revolution.

As defenders of the revolution, their expanding, active, and often clandestine involvement in other states in the region - in support of militias - saw their most preeminent role in the satellisation of Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the extent that the Lebanese group became a state within a state officered by Iranians.

The relationship between the Revolutionary Guards and the ayatollahs has become a symbiotic one. The protection of the regime was given to the Guards in exchange for status, prestige, and economic wellbeing that, in turn, was increasingly linked to neo-patrimonial bureaucratic structures based on kinship and marriage.

The Revolutionary Guard's political assertiveness may very well be the harbinger of a historical configuration of power in the Islamic world that has always seen the military component be preeminent in decision making.

From the slave soldiers of the Caliphs to the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire and the control of Pakistan by its armed forces, the rise to power of the Guards is historically not a novel phenomenon in the region.

Morris M. Mottale is a professor of International Relations and Comparative Politics at Franklin College, Switzerland.
 
 

[bigron]

Chasing News That Isn't News

The Latest Scare Story About Iran: Missiles Targeting US by 2015

By Steve Hynd

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25283.htm

April 21, 2010 "Newshoggers" -- Today, the papers are full of a claim that the new Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report (PDF) from the US Dept. of Defense says Iran could have the missile capability to reach the U.S. by 2015. You'll find the claim being repeated by the UK's rightwing Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, by NewsMax, Israel's press, Pakistan's "Dawn", ABC News, Reuters and more.

However, you'll look in vain for any such statement in the BMDR itself. What you'll find instead is the assessment, repeated several times, that:

the United States possesses a capability to counter the projected threat from North Korea and Iran for the foreseeable future.

And:

Looking ahead, it is difficult to predict precisely how the threat to the U.S. homeland will evolve, but it is certain that it will do so. Iran and North Korea have yet to demonstrate an ICBM-class warhead. How rapidly and successfully North Korea and Iran pursue this and other capabilities are an open question, as is the speed with which they might actually deploy capabilities and increase their numbers over time.

That's rather less of a scary story than in the unclassified version of what the DoD sent to Congress about Iran. It is from this document (PDF) that the scary statement is taken. And even then, it isn't all that scary. It says (emphasis mine):

With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.

Back to the BRDM itself, in which we find the telling line:

Today, only Russia and China have the capability to conduct a large-scale ballistic missile attack on the territory of the United States...both Russia and China are important partners for the future, and the United States seeks to continue building collaborative and cooperative relationships with them.

Russia and China are also the only two of Iran's allies, even fringe allies, that possess the technology to produce ICBMs. That means the "sufficient foreign assistance" would have to come from one of those nations, either directly or via a third party like North Korea. Yet that seems unlikely given that both are "important partners for the future" of the United States. Both must know that giving ICBM technology to North Korea or Iran would scuttle that relationship - and there are no other candidates for that "sufficient foreign assistance"

Also, remember: "the United States possesses a capability to counter the projected threat from North Korea and Iran for the foreseeable future." That's even if they were to get such "foreign assistance", presumably from Martians.

The mainstream media (and probably Congress) have fallen for it hook, line and sinker - but what we have here is a scary story designed to keep the missile defense procurement budget topped up by telling scary stories and hyping possible war. Nothing more.

UPDATE: The Arms Control Wonk explains that "could" actually means "not likely".

Here is how the intelligence community explained their novel use of “could” in Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat:

Our assessments of future missile developments are inexact and subjective because they are based on often fragmentary information. Many countries surround their ballistic missile programs with extensive secrecy and compartmentalization, and some employ deception. Although such key milestones as flight-testing are difficult to hide, we may miss others. To address these uncertainties, we assess both the earliest date that countries could test various missiles, based largely on engineering judgments made by experts inside and outside the Intelligence Community, on the technical capabilities and resources of the countries in question, and, in many cases, on continuing foreign assistance; and when countries would be likely to test such missiles, factoring into the above assessments potential delays caused by technical, political, or economic hurdles. We judge that countries are much less likely to test as early as the hypothetical “could” dates than they are by our projected “likely” dates.

How f’ed up is that?

As a result, every estimate has two sub-estimates: The real one (likely) and the one for missile defense advocates (could). Guess which one headline writers like?

Dr. Lewis also notes that the same "With sufficient foreign assistance" sentence "has appeared in every edition of Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat: 2009, 2006, 2003 and 2000. Seriously, you can look it up." His conclusion is that the press are chasing news that isn't anything new at all.

 
 

[bigron]

More Hype About Iran?

By Stephen M. Walt

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25279.htm

April 21, 2010 "Foreign Policy" --  Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn't going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could "go a long way" toward delaying Iran's acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a "last resort" and made it clear it was not an option he favored. 

One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities, and rests on all sorts of worst case assumptions about Iranian behavior. Consider the following facts, most of them courtesy of the 2010 edition of The Military Balance, published annually by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

GDP: United States -- 13.8 trillion
Iran --$ 359 billion  (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran's)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. -- $692 billion
Iran -- $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.--1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran--   525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. -- 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran -- 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. -- 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran -- 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

Navy:
U.S. -- 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran -- 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons: 
U.S. -- 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran -- Zero

One might add that Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action.  The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

By any objective measure, therefore, Iran isn't even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them. Indeed, Iran is significantly weaker than Israel, which has roughly the same toal of regular plus reserve military personnel and vastly superior training. Israel also has more numerous and modern armored and air capabilities and a sizeable nuclear weapons stockpile of its own. Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone.   

The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears. It's a pretty unloveable regime, to be sure, but given Iran's actual capabilities, why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support for more economic sanctions (which aren't going to work) or devising strategies to "contain" an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful way? Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek's thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called "reactive proliferation." If he's right, it suggests that Iran's neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did "go nuclear" at some point in the future).

Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran's present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity.

What it does mean is that we ought to keep this relatively minor "threat" in perspective, and not allow the usual threat-inflators to stampede us into another unnecessary war. My impression is that Admiral Mullen and SecDef Gates understand this. I hope I'm right. But I'm still puzzled as to why the Obama administration hasn't tried the one strategy that might actually get somewhere: take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels). It might not work, of course, but neither will our present course of action or the "last resort" that Mullen referred to last weekend.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.

[bigron]

Iran warns against insecurity in PG
 
 
23/04/2010 06:19:13 PM GMT     
 
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Iran-warns-against-insecurity-in-PG.html

 
As Iran holds major drills in the Persian Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a senior lawmaker warns bullying powers against creating insecurity in the region.

"They should know that the Islamic Republic will maintain its security with might and will never allow bullying powers to disrupt this sensitive region — which is tied with global security and economy — by imposing their will," Head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Iran's Parliament (Majlis) Alaeddin Boroujerdi said on Friday.

"Iran has expressed readiness to sign bilateral agreements on security and military cooperation with regional countries which has been welcomed by them and in some cases agreements have been signed," he added.

"This is beneath Muslim dignity to have foreign powers come to a region belonging to the Muslims from far the corners of the world and under the pretext of maintaining security exercise military presence and with their meddling in the domestic affairs of Muslim countries, cause bitter incidents such as Iraq and Afghanistan and victimize hundreds of thousands of people."

Boroujerdi said the three-day military exercise by Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) conveys the message that "the security of the Persian Gulf should be maintained by regional countries."

We hope that foreign powers will understand this message well and not make another mistake in the region so that the world and the Middle East will not have to face additional problems.

SF/HGH/MMN
Source: Press TV
 

[bigron]

Lies and Wars

By William Pfaff

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25301.htm

April 23, 2010 "Tribune Media" -- Paris, April 20, 2010 – It is a dismaying reflection that the facilitator of major violence thus far in the twenty-first century have been lies told by democratic governments. The lies are continuing to be told, about the supposed “existential” menace posed by Iran to Israel, America and (if you believe some European leaders) to Western Europe.

One can say there is nothing new about lies. I would argue that the influence of mendacious official propaganda in the western democracies is probably greater today than in the last century.

There was a certain utopian innocence in the first half of the last century. The secular utopian promises were truly believed. People were made happy by believing in the romantic futures they were told would follow the seizures of power by Bolsheviks or the Italian Fascists. In Germany, Hitler offered vengeance and vindication to his people, and a future of supremacy. Those were serious matters, but romantic notions too, used to justify the fulfillment of criminal fantasies. At the end of the century, Slobodan Milosovich promised Serbs fulfillment of the dream of a greater Serbia ruling its lesser neighbors.

One might have thought there had been a lesson in the brutal and senseless murder of millions in the world wars to deter such ambitions.
But again the wars of Yugoslav succession were inspired by lies, deliberately perpetuated, reawakened lies about the past, fictions about the malevolent ambitions of intimately related fellow-peoples of the former Yugoslavia, to produce the murder of still more of them.

One might also have thought, at the end of that century, that Mikhail (and Raissa) Gorbachev’s inspired visitation by reason and wisdom would provide a decisive lesson about ending the lies. Gorbachev’s first liberating proposal was Glasnost – telling the truth. One might have believed that we would in the twenty-first century still be breathing the oxygen of Glasnost.

It was not so. Injustice and lies in the Middle East were responsible for unnecessary new wars in the new century, in which the United States took the lead. This time the lies were ideologically motivated and expedient lies.

First, it was that Saddam Hussein bore responsibility for the September 2001 attacks on United States. He did not.

Next was the fiction that Hussein’s government, during the period of UN sanctions before 2003, was able secretly to construct nuclear weapons, despite the efforts of western intelligence to detect them or deter him, and the presence of United Nations arms control inspectors. There were none.

Another fiction was that if Saddam’s Iraq did somehow obtain weapons of mass destruction, he could and would use them to attack Israel or the United States, despite the massive retaliatory power possessed by both those states, and their evident willingness to use it to revenge any attack.

When people insist that this danger from Iraq was not the product of western propaganda, but a reality, or at least a plausibility, it becomes necessary to ask, as one does in the strategic studies business: How? Give me the scenario. Tell me how this attack could come about. Without an answer, it was necessary to conclude that Iraq was attacked for reasons having nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

According to the post-invasion testimony of Saddam Hussein’s associates, prior to the Gulf War he was interested in weapons of mass destruction – in order to deter an attack by Iran! He feared revenge for his own invasion of Iran in 1980, and the 8-year war that followed, in which Iraq did use poison gas, and also enjoyed favor and support from the United States.

The Iraqi dictator, following the Gulf War, decided that obtaining mass destruction weapons was no longer feasible, but he deliberately cultivated an air of mystery about his intentions as a factor of deterrence of Iran.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was motivated by the neo-conservative illusion that the Iraqi people would welcome invasion and become a force for democracy, and friends to Israel. Instead, the death of Saddam Hussein and destruction of his government, the wrecking of Iraqi urban society and the country’s infrastructure and industry, which will take years to reconstruct, ignited anarchic insurrection and sectarian conflict, delivering the country into the power and influence of a much larger and more important enemy of both the United States and Israel, Iran. Another lesson about lies, one might have thought.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is reported to have sent a secret letter to President Barack Obama last January reviewing the military options available if diplomacy and the new American attempt to intensify international sanctions on Iran fail to produce the desired halt in Iran’s effort, if that is what it is, to build a nuclear deterrent.

If Iran does pursue a nuclear capability, once again it is to deter attack. Precisely the same objection exists to theories of Iranian aggression as to those lies put forward in 2002-2003 about Iraq posing a nuclear menace to the world.

Once more the threat is a polemical invention, intended to frighten American, Israeli (and European) voters, and prompt a preemptive attack on Iran. The reason Mr. Gates reports his uncertainties to the president is that he too recognizes that the conflict with Iran is constructed from fictions – which, as with the lies about Iraq, may turn into another war, whose consequences are sure to be worse for all concerned than the fiasco and tragedy of America’s invasion of Iraq.

© Copyright 2010 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.
   

[bigron]

US Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat

by Gareth Porter, April 24, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/04/23/us-nuclear-option-on-iran/


The Barack Obama administration’s declaration in its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran represents a new element in a strategy of persuading Tehran that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites is a serious possibility if Iran does not bow to the demand that it cease uranium enrichment.

Although administration officials have carefully refrained from drawing any direct connection between the new nuclear option and the Israeli threat, the NPR broadens the range of contingencies in which nuclear weapons might play a role so as to include an Iranian military response to an Israeli attack.

A war involving Iran that begins with an Israeli attack is the only plausible scenario that would fit the category of contingencies in the document.

The NPR describes the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in those contingencies as a "deterrent." A strategy of exploiting the Israeli threat to attack Iran would seek to deter an Iranian response to such an attack and thus make it more plausible.

The new nuclear option on Iran has emerged after a series of public statements over the past year by senior officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, suggesting the administration would tolerate an Israeli option.

Both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations had said the United States "reserves the right" to respond with nuclear weapons to the use of chemical and biological weapons in an attack on U.S. forces or its "friends" or "allies."

A contingency plan called CONPLAN 8022-02, adopted in November 2003, aimed at destroying an adversary’s nuclear weapons or nuclear facilities, included the option of using earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy deeply buried facilities.

But the new NPR refers to "a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW attack against the U.S. or its allies or partners."

That language appears to suggest that the nuclear option would deter an Iranian conventional retaliation against Israel or U.S. military targets in the region in the event of an Israeli air attack on Iran.

Both Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates made statements implicitly linking the new nuclear declaration to the broader problem of trying to force Iran to bow international demands on the nuclear issue.

Interviewed by CBS News April 1, Obama was asked what made him think sanctions would work this time. After referring to Iran’s isolation, which he said would eventually "have an effect on their economy," Obama made an obvious allusion to military options. "Now, you know, I have said before that we don’t take any options off the table," said Obama, "and we’re gonna continue to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond."

In the past, references to options being on or off the table had been used to refer to the option of a conventional U.S. air attack. In this case, however, Obama was clearly referring to the announcement of the nuclear option in the NPR that he knew was coming on April 6 as a way to "ratchet up the pressure" on Iran.

Asked in an interview with the New York Times April 5 whether he believed Israel would decide to attack Iran if it "stays on the current course," Obama refused to "speculate on Israeli decision-making."

But he said, "[W]e want to send a very strong message both through sanctions, through the articulation of the Nuclear Posture Review, through the nuclear summit that I’m going to be hosting, and through the NPT review conference that’s going to be coming up, that the international community is serious about Iran facing consequences if it doesn’t change its behavior."

Gates was even more pointed in highlighting what he called the "message for Iran" in his April 6 news briefing on the NPR, saying that "all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you."

It was not the intention of the original drafters of the NPR within the State Department to issue a new threat to Iran, according to a source who was briefed on the NPR earlier this month. But the official involved in the drafting acknowledged that Gates and Obama had seized on the language to suggest that the United States now had a stronger hand in dealing with Iran, according to the source.

The White House Coordinator for WMD, Counter-Terrorism, and Arms Control is Gary Samore, who had had publicly discussed the need to exploit Iranian fear of an Israeli attack to gain diplomatic leverage over Tehran before joining the Obama administration.

At a forum at Harvard’s Kennedy Institute in September 2008, Samore had said that the next administration would not want to "act in a way that precludes" an Israeli attack on Iran, "because we’re using the threat as a political instrument."

Samore was asked during the question and answer session after a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington Wednesday whether he expected Iran to believe that the United States would use nuclear weapons against Iran if it retaliated with conventional weapons against an Israeli attack on Iran. Samore ignored the question in answering.

As part of an apparent effort to make Iran uncertain about an Israeli attack, a series of public statements by U.S. senior officials over the past year have suggested that the would do nothing to prevent such an Israeli attack. However, the Obama administration has conveyed to the Israeli government privately that it strongly opposes any Israeli attack on Iran, according to reports in the Israeli press.

A former senior U.S. intelligence officer on Iran believes the nuclear option is likely to cause Iran to go farther in the direction of nuclear weapons rather than to give in. In an e-mail to IPS, Paul Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, said Iranian officials probably see the new nuclear option as "another manifestation of U.S. hostility toward Iran."

The perception of a U.S. threat to Iran "provides one of the principal incentives for Iranians to develop their own nuclear weapons," said Pillar.

Pillar said Iranians "may also see the doctrine as providing cover for an Israeli strike by serving as a deterrent against Iranian retaliation for such a strike."

Other political-military analysts cast doubt on the credibility of the announced nuclear option against Iran.

Morton Halperin, who was director of Policy Planning in the State Department in the Clinton administration, told IPS, "I don’t think it’s credible at all. I don’t think the administration thinks it’s credible. But I think as a political matter, to have taken it off the table would have been politically untenable."

Jim Walsh of the MIT Security Studies Program, who has had many contacts with Iranian leaders and national security officials in recent years, told IPS the United States "is not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran" and that it is "foolish" to suggest that "all options are on the table."

(Inter Press Service)

Read more by Gareth Porter
94 Percent of Kandaharis Want Peace Talks, Not War – April 18th, 2010
McChrystal Reneges on Kandahar Shuras  – April 15th, 2010
Ignorance of Afghan Society Led to Botched Raids – April 12th, 2010
Afghan Official Says US Raiders Hid Killings – April 7th, 2010
Study: Two-Thirds of Boys in Afghan Jails Are Brutalized – March 30th, 2010

[bigron]

Middle East
26 April     
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/Obama-gambles-on-deterrence.html 
 
Obama gambles on deterrence


By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - The Barack Obama administration's declaration in its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran represents a new element in a strategy of persuading Tehran that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites is a serious possibility if Iran does not bow to the demand that it cease uranium enrichment.

Although administration officials have carefully refrained from drawing any direct connection between the new nuclear option and the Israeli threat, the NPR broadens the range of contingencies in which nuclear weapons might play a role so as to include an Iranian military response to an Israeli attack.

A war involving Iran that begins with an Israeli attack is the only plausible scenario that would fit the category of contingencies in the document.

The NPT describes the role of US nuclear weapons in those contingencies as a "deterrent". A strategy of exploiting the Israeli threat to attack Iran would seek to deter an Iranian response to such an attack and thus make it more plausible.

The new nuclear option on Iran has emerged after a series of public statements over the past year by senior officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, suggesting the administration would tolerate an Israeli option.

Both the Bill Clinton and George W Bush administrations had said the United States "reserves the right" to respond with nuclear weapons to the use of chemical and biological weapons (CBWs) in an attack on US forces or its "friends" or "allies".

A contingency plan called CONPLAN 8022-02, adopted in November 2003, aimed at destroying an adversary's nuclear weapons or nuclear facilities. It included the option of using earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy deeply buried facilities.

But the new NPR refers to "a narrow range of contingencies in which US nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW attack against the US or its allies or partners".

That language appears to suggest that the nuclear option would deter an Iranian conventional retaliation against Israel or US military targets in the region in the event of an Israeli air attack on Iran.

Both Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates made statements implicitly linking the new nuclear declaration to the broader problem of trying to force Iran to bow international demands on the nuclear issue.

Interviewed by CBS News on April 1, Obama was asked what made him think sanctions would work this time. After referring to Iran's isolation, which he said would eventually "have an effect on their economy", Obama made an obvious allusion to military options. "Now, you know, I have said before that we don't take any options off the table," said Obama, "and we're gonna continue to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond".

In the past, references to options being on or off the table were used to refer to the option of a conventional US air attack. In this case, however, Obama was clearly referring to the announcement of the nuclear option in the NPR that he knew was coming on April 6 as a way to "ratchet up the pressure" on Iran.

Asked in an interview with the New York Times on April 5 whether he believed Israel would decide to attack Iran if it "stays on the current course", Obama refused to "speculate on Israeli decision-making".

But he said,"[W]e want to send a very strong message both through sanctions, through the articulation of the Nuclear Posture Review, through the nuclear summit that I'm going to be hosting, and through the NPT review conference that's going to be coming up, that the international community is serious about Iran facing consequences if it doesn't change its behavior."

Gates was even more pointed in highlighting what he called the "message for Iran" in his April 6 news briefing on the NPR, saying that "all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you".

It was not the intention of the original drafters of the NPR within the State Department to issue a new threat to Iran, according to a source who was briefed on the NPR earlier this month. But the official involved in the drafting acknowledged that Gates and Obama had seized on the language to suggest that the United States now had a stronger hand in dealing with Iran, according to the source.

The White House Coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, counter-terrorism and arms control is Gary Samore, who had had publicly discussed the need to exploit Iranian fear of an Israeli attack to gain diplomatic leverage over Tehran before joining the Obama administration.

At a forum at Harvard's Kennedy Institute in September 2008, Samore had said that the next administration would not want to "act in a way that precludes" an Israeli attack on Iran, "because we're using the threat as a political instrument".

Samore was asked during the question and answer session after a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington last Wednesday whether he expected Iran to believe that the US would use nuclear weapons against Iran if it retaliated with conventional weapons against an Israeli attack on Iran. Samore ignored the question in answering.

As part of an apparent effort to make Iran uncertain about an Israeli attack, a series of public statements by US senior officials over the past year suggested that the US would do nothing to prevent such an Israeli attack. However, the Obama administration has conveyed to the Israeli government privately that it strongly opposes any Israeli attack on Iran, according to reports in the Israeli press.

A former senior US intelligence officer on Iran believes the nuclear option is likely to cause Iran to go farther in the direction of nuclear weapons rather than to give in. In an e-mail to Inter Press Service, Paul Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, said Iranian officials probably saw the new nuclear option as "another manifestation of US hostility toward Iran".

The perception of a US threat to Iran "provides one of the principal incentives for Iranians to develop their own nuclear weapons", said Pillar.

Pillar said Iranians "may also see the doctrine as providing cover for an Israeli strike by serving as a deterrent against Iranian retaliation for such a strike".

Other political-military analysts cast doubt on the credibility of the announced nuclear option against Iran.

Morton Halperin, who was director of Policy Planning in the State Department in the Clinton administration, told IPS, "I don't think it's credible at all. I don't think the administration thinks it's credible. But I think as a political matter, to have taken it off the table would have been politically untenable."

Jim Walsh of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Studies Program, who has had many contacts with Iranian leaders and national security officials in recent years, told IPS the US "is not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran" and that it is "foolish" to suggest that "all options are on the table".

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

(Inter Press Service) 
 
 

[bigron]

US threatens Iran with all options


Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:57:56 GMT
http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=124479&sectionid=351020104

 
 

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Washington says “all options are on the table” in dealing with Tehran, in a veiled threat, which refers to a new US nuclear policy.

During a Sunday address to attendees of a Pentagon briefing, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates touched on the newly-crafted Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), under which the Obama administration promises not to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess nuclear warheads, with the exception of Iran.

Gates asserted that the 22,000-word Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) does not apply to countries such as Iran and North Korea because they belong to a certain category of states that Washington will never limit its options against.

The US defense secretary further added that the Obama administration is taking measures to apply a policy of "no first use of nuclear weapons". However, he asserted, the administration is not ready to fully relinquish its right for pre-emptive strikes.

The NPR was met with instant condemnation in Iran, which has been a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1968, yet was excluded from the list of non-atomic states insured against US nuclear weapons.

The United States is the first country in the world to develop such weapons, and is the only country to have used them in wartime.

Washington officials, notably those in the White House, are driven by the notion that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran has rejected the claims, saying that its uranium enrichment is intended solely for peaceful civilian applications such as the production of electricity and radio medicines.

SBB/TG/NN

[bigron]

Iran a Threat? I Mean, Really?

by Ray McGovern, April 27, 2010

http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2010/04/26/iran-a-threat-i-mean-really/



With all the current hype about the "threat" from Iran, it is time to review the record – and especially the significant bits and pieces that find neither ink nor air in our Israel-friendly Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).

First, on the chance you missed it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said publicly that Iran "doesn’t directly threaten the United States." Her momentary lapse came while answering a question at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, on Feb. 14.

Fortunately for her, most of her FCM fellow travelers must have been either jet-lagged or sunning themselves poolside when she made her unusual admission. And those who were present did Clinton the favor of disappearing her gaffe and ignoring its significance. (All one happy traveling family, you know.)

But she said it. It’s on the State Department Web site. Those who had been poolside could have read the text after showering. They might have recognized a real story there. Granted, the substance was so off-message that it would probably not have been welcomed by editors back home.

In a rambling comment, Clinton had charged (incorrectly) that, despite President Barack Obama’s reaching out to the Iranian leaders, he had elicited no sign they were willing to engage:

"Part of the goal – not the only goal, but part of the goal – that we were pursuing was to try to influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. And, as I said in my speech, you know, the evidence is accumulating that that [pursuing a nuclear weapon] is exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn’t directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond." (Emphasis added.)

Qatar Afraid? Not So Much

The moderator turned to Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim al-Thani and invited him to give his perspective on "the danger that the secretary just alluded to … if Iran gets the bomb."

Al-Thani pointed to Iran’s "official answer" that it is not seeking to have a nuclear bomb; instead, the Iranians "explain to us that their intention is to use these facilities for their peaceful reactors for electricity and medical use…."

"We have good relations with Iran," he added.  "And we have continuous dialogue with the Iranians." The prime minister added, "The best thing for this problem is a direct dialogue between the United States and Iran," and "dialogue through messenger is not good."

Al-Thani stressed that, "For a small country, stability and peace are very important," and intimated – diplomatically but clearly – that he was at least as afraid of what Israel and the U.S. might do, as what Iran might do.

All right. Secretary Clinton concedes that Iran does not directly threaten the United States. Now who are these "friends" to whom she refers? First and foremost, Israel, of course.  How often have we heard Israeli officials warn that they would consider nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands an "existential" threat?

Time to do a reality check. Former French President Jacques Chirac is perhaps the best-known world statesman to hold up to public ridicule the notion that Israel, with between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, would consider Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb an existential threat.

In a recorded interview with the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, and Le Nouvel Observateur, on Jan. 29, 2007, Chirac put it this way: "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

Chirac concluded that Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb would not be "very dangerous."

Chirac and a Hard Place

Immediately, the former French president found himself caught between Chirac and a hard place. He was forced to retract, but chose to do so in so clumsy a way as to demonstrate rather clearly that he stood by his initial candor on the subject.

On Jan. 30, Chirac told the New York Times:

"I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on record. … I don’t think I spoke about Israel yesterday. Maybe I did so, but I don’t think so. I have no recollection of that."

Israel’s leaders must have been laughing up their sleeve at that. Their continued ability to intimidate presidents of other countries – including President Barack Obama – is truly remarkable, particularly when it comes to helping to keep Israel’s precious "secret," that it possesses one of the world’s most sophisticated nuclear arsenals.

Shortly after Obama became U.S. president, veteran reporter Helen Thomas asked him if he knew of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and Obama awkwardly responded that he didn’t want to "speculate." Thomas later commented, "I did not ask him to speculate; he is supposed to know!"

More recently, on April 13, 2010, Obama looked like a deer caught in the headlights when the Washington Post’s Scott Wilson, taking a leaf out of Helen Thomas’ book, asked him if he would "call on Israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Watch the video, unless you have no stomach for seeing our normally articulate president stutter his way through an improvised mini-filibuster, and then grovel: "And, as far as Israel goes, I’m not going to comment on their program…"

The following day the Jerusalem Post smirked, "President Dodges Question About Israel’s Nuclear Program." The article continued: "Obama took a few seconds to formulate his response, but quickly took the weight off Israel and called on all countries to abide by the NPT."

The Jerusalem Post added that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak chose that same day to send a clear message "also to those who are our friends and allies," that Israel will not be pressured into signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

(Also the following day, the Washington Post made no reference to the question from its own reporter or Obama’s stumbling non-answer.)

Consistent Obsequiousness

In his response to Scott Wilson, Obama felt it necessary to tack on the observation that his words regarding the NPT represented the "consistent policy" of prior U.S. administrations. This reflects the de rigueur attempt to avert any adverse reaction from the Likud Lobby to even the slightest suggestion that Obama might be ratcheting up, even a notch or two, any pressure on Israel to acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and sign the NPT.

Actually, the greatest consistency to the policy has been U.S. obsequious promotion of a flagrant double standard. Clearly, Washington and the FCM find it easier to draw black-and-white distinctions between noble Israel and evil Iran, if there’s no acknowledgment that Israel already has nukes and Iran has disavowed any intention of getting them.

This never ending hypocrisy shows itself in various telling ways. I am reminded of an early Sunday morning talk show over five years ago at which Sen. Richard Lugar, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked why Iran might think it has to acquire nuclear weapons. Perhaps Lugar had not yet had his morning coffee, because he almost blew it with his answer:

"Well, you know, Israel has…" Oops. At that point he caught himself and abruptly stopped. The pause was embarrassing, but he then recovered and tried to limit the damage.

Aware that he could not simply leave the words "Israel has" twisting slowly in the wind, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."

Is "alleged" to have? Lugar was chair of the Foreign Relations Committee from 1985 to 1987; and then again from 2003 to 2007. No one told him that Israel has nuclear weapons? But, of course, he did know, but he also knew that U.S. policy on disclosure of this "secret" – over four decades – has been to protect Israel’s nuclear "ambiguity."

Small wonder that our most senior officials and lawmakers – and Lugar, remember, is one of the more honest among them – are widely seen as hypocritical, the word Scott Wilson used to frame his question to Obama.

The Fawning Corporate Media, of course, ignores this hypocrisy, which is their standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in unflattering contexts. But the Iranians, Syrians, and others in the Middle East pay very close attention.

Obama Overachieving

As for Obama, the die was cast during the presidential campaign when, on June 3, 2008, in the obligatory appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he threw raw red meat to the Likud Lobby.

Someone wrote into his speech: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." This obsequious gesture went well beyond the policy of prior U.S. administrations on this highly sensitive issue, and Obama had to backtrack two days later.

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked if he was saying the Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

The person who inserted the offending sentence into his speech was neither identified nor fired, as he or she should have been. My guess is that the sentence inserter has only risen in power within the Obama administration.

So, why am I reprising this sorry history? Because this is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees as the context of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Even when Israel acts in a manner that flies in the face of stated U.S. policy, which calls on all nations to sign the NPT and to submit to transparency in their nuclear programs, Netanyahu has every reason to believe that Washington’s power players will back down and the U.S. FCM will intuitively understand its role in the cover-up.

L’Affaire Biden – when the vice president was mousetrapped and humiliated when Israel announced plans to build 1,600 new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem shortly after he arrived in Israel to reaffirm U.S. solidarity with Israel – was dismissed as a mere "spat" by the neoconservative Washington Post. (If the Post has a vestigial claim to distinction, it is how well it is plugged in to the establishment.)

Making Amends

Rather than Israel making amends to the United States, it has been vice versa.

Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, trudged over to an affair organized by the AIPAC offshoot think-tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) last Wednesday to make a major address.

I got to wondering, after reading his text, which planet Jones lives on. He devoted his first nine paragraphs to praise for WINEP’s "objective analysis" and scholarship, adding that "our nation – and indeed the world – needs institutions like yours now more than ever."

Most importantly, Jones gave pride of place to "preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them," only then tacking on the need to forge "lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians." He was particularly effusive in stating that "There is no space – no space – between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security." 

Those were the exact words used by Vice President Joe Biden in Israel on March 9, before he was mousetrapped.

"No Space" – a Problem

The message is inescapably clear: Netanyahu has every reason to believe that the Siamese-twin relationship with the United States is back to normal, despite the suggestion from CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus earlier this year that total identification with Israel costs the lives of American troops. 

Petraeus’ main message was that this identification fosters the widespread impression that the U.S. is incapable of standing up to Israel. The briefing that he sponsored reportedly noted, "America was not only viewed as weak, but there was a growing perception that its military posture in the region was eroding."

However, in the address to WINEP, National Security Adviser Jones evidenced no concern on that score. Worse still, in hyping the threat from Iran, he seemed to be channeling Dick Cheney’s rhetoric before the attack on Iraq, simply substituting an "n" for the "q." Thus:

"Iran’s continued defiance of its international obligations on its nuclear program and its support of terrorism represents [sic] a significant regional and global threat. A nuclear-armed Iran could transform the landscape of the Middle East … fatally wounding the global non-proliferation regime, and emboldening terrorists and extremists who threaten the United States and our allies."

A More Ominous Mousetrap?

Jacques Chirac may have gone a bit too far in belittling Israel’s concern over the possibility of Iran acquiring a small nuclear capability, but it is truly hard to imagine that Israel would feel incapable of deterring what would be a suicidal Iranian attack.

The real threat to Israel’s "security interests" would be something quite different. If Iran acquired one or two nuclear weapons, Israel might be deprived of the full freedom of action it now enjoys in attacking its Arab neighbors.

Even a rudimentary Iranian capability could work as a deterrent the next time the Israelis decide they would like to attack Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza. Clearly, the Israelis would prefer not to have to look over their shoulder at what Tehran might contemplate doing in the way of retaliation.

However, there has been a big downside for Israel in hyping the "existential threat" supposedly posed by Iran. This exaggerated danger and the fear it engenders have caused many highly qualified Israelis, who find a ready market for their skills abroad, to emigrate.

That could well become a true "existential threat" to a small country traditionally dependent on immigration to populate it and on its skilled population to make its economy function. The departure of well-educated, secular Jews also could tip the country’s political balance more in favor of the ultra-conservative settlers who are already an important part of Netanyahu’s Likud coalition.

Still, at this point, Netanyahu has the initiative regarding what will happen next with Iran, assuming Tehran doesn’t fully capitulate to the U.S.-led pressure campaign. Netanyahu could decide if and when to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, thus forcing Washington’s hand in deciding whether to back Israel if Iran retaliates.

Netanyahu may not be impressed – or deterred – by anything short of a public pronouncement from Obama that the U.S. will not support Israel if it provokes war with Iran. The more Obama avoids such blunt language, the more Netanyahu is likely to view Obama as a weakling who can be played politically.

If I am right in thinking that Netanyahu feels himself in the catbird seat, then an Israeli attack on Iran seems more likely than not. For instance, would Netanyahu judge that Obama lacked the political spine to have the U.S. forces controlling Iraqi airspace shoot down Israeli aircraft on their way to Iran? Many analysts feel that Obama would back down and let the warplanes proceed to their targets.

Then, if Iran sought to retaliate, would Obama feel compelled to come to Israel’s defense and "finish the job" by devastating what was left of Iran’s nuclear and military capacity? Again, many analysts believe that Obama would see little choice, politically.

Yet, whatever we think the answers are, the only calculation that matters is that of Israel’s leaders. My guess is Netanyahu would not anticipate a strong reaction from President Obama, who has, time and again, showed himself to have a preference for caving in – to be more politician than statesman.

James Jones is, after all, Obama’s national security adviser, and is throwing off signals that can only encourage Netanyahu to believe that Jones’s boss would scurry to find some way to avoid the domestic political opprobrium that would accrue, were the president to seem less than fully supportive of Israel.

Key Judgments on Iran Nuclear Program

Netanyahu has other reasons to take heart with the political direction in Washington.

According to Sunday’s Washington Post, the U.S. intelligence community is preparing what is called a Memorandum to Holders of the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 on Iran, in other words an update to that full-scale NIE – the one in which all 15 U.S. intelligence agencies girded their loins and unanimously spoke truth to power about Iran’s nuclear program.

The update is now projected for completion this August, delayed from last fall reportedly because of new incoming information coming from sources that the Post describes as "motivated by antipathy toward the government" of Iran. Does this not sound familiar? Think of the similar Iraqi "sources" who provided us with such stellar intelligence on Baghdad’s nuclear program.

The Post article recalls that the 2007 NIE presented the "startling conclusion" that Iran had halted work on developing a nuclear warhead. That reportedly occurred four years prior, in the fall of 2003. Why "startling"? Because this contradicted what President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had been saying, repeatedly, for years – right up until the time the Key Judgments of the NIE were sanitized and made public.

It is a hopeful thing that senior intelligence officials from both CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have, as the Post puts it, "avoided contradicting the language used in the 2007 NIE." Some, though, are said to be privately asserting their belief that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. Apparently, "faith-based intelligence" is not yet dead.

The Post says there is an expectation that the previous NIE "will be corrected" to indicate a darker interpretation of Iranian nuclear program.

It seems a safe, if sad, bet that the same Likud-friendly forces that attacked experienced diplomat Chas Freeman as a "realist" and got him "un-appointed," after National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair had named him director of the National Intelligence Council, will try to Netanyahu-ize the upcoming Memorandum to Holders.

The National Intelligence Council has purview over such memoranda, as well as over NIEs. Without Freeman, or anyone similarly substantive and strong, it is doubtful that the intelligence community will not be able to resist the political pressures to conform.

Resisting Pressure

Nevertheless, the intelligence admirals, generals, and other high officials seem to be avoiding the temptation to play that game, so far.

The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Ronald Burgess, and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. James Cartwright, hewed to the intelligence analysts’ judgments in their testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last Wednesday.

Indeed, their answer to the question as to how soon Iran could have a deliverable nuclear weapon, in fact, sounded very familiar.

“Experience says it is going to take you three to five years” to move from having enough highly enriched uranium to having a “deliverable weapon that is usable … something that can actually create a detonation, an explosion that would be considered a nuclear weapon,” Cartwright told the panel.

What makes Cartwright’s assessment familiar – and relatively reassuring – is that five years ago, a previous DIA director told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade" – this decade. Now, we’re early in that decade and Iran’s nuclear timetable, if you assume it does intend to build a bomb, has been pushed back to the middle of this decade.

Indeed, the Iranians have been about five years away from a nuclear weapon for several decades now, according to periodic intelligence estimates. They just never seem to get much closer. But there’s no trace of embarrassment among U.S. policymakers or any notice of this slipping timetable by the FCM.

Not that NIEs – or U.S. officials – matter much in terms of a potential military showdown with Iran. The "decider" here is Netanyahu, unless Obama stands up and tells him, publicly, "If you attack Iran, you’re on your own."

Don’t hold your breath.

This article originally appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

[bigron]

Super Surprising Facts About 'Our Enemy' Iran
Remind Us That We Don't Know Squat

26 basic questions about Iran with answers that might surprise you.

By Jeffrey Rudolph, Countercurrents.org
Posted on April 29, 2010, Printed on April 30, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146673/

What can possibly justify the relentless U.S. diplomatic (and mainstream media) assault on Iran ?

It cannot be argued that Iran is an aggressive state that is dangerous to its neighbors, as facts do not support this claim. It cannot be relevant that Iran adheres to Islamic fundamentalism, has a flawed democracy and denies women full western-style civil rights, as Saudi Arabia is more fundamentalist, far less democratic and more oppressive of women, yet it is a U.S. ally. It cannot be relevant that Iran has, over the years, had a nuclear research program, and is most likely pursuing the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, as Pakistan, India, Israel and other states are nuclear powers yet remain U.S. allies—indeed, Israel deceived the U.S. while developing its nuclear program.

The answer to the above-posed question is fairly obvious: Iran must be punished for leaving the orbit of U.S. control. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, when the Shah was removed, Iran, unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, acts independently and thus compromises U.S. power in two ways: i) Defiance of U.S. dictates affects the U.S.'s attainment of goals linked to Iran; and, ii) Defiance of U.S. dictates establishes a “bad” example for other countries that may wish to pursue an independent course. The Shah could commit any number of abuses—widespread torture, for example—yet his loyalty to the U.S. exempted him from American condemnation—yet not from the condemnation of the bulk of Iranians who brought him down.

The following quiz is an attempt to introduce more balance into the mainstream discussion of Iran.

Iran Quiz Questions :

1. Is Iran an Arab country?

2. Has Iran launched an aggressive war of conquest against another country since 1900?

3. How many known cases of an Iranian suicide-bomber have there been from 1989 to 2007?

4. What was Iran 's defense spending in 2008?

5. What was the U.S. 's defense spending in 2008?

6. What is the Jewish population of Iran ?

7. Which Iranian leader said the following? “This [ Israel 's] Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

8. True of False: Iranian television presented a serial sympathetic to Jews during the Holocaust that coincided with President Ahmadinejad's first term.

9. What percentage of students entering university in Iran is female?

10. What percentage of the Iranian population attends Friday prayers?

11. True or False: Iran has formally consented to the Arab League's 2002 peace initiative with Israel.

12. Which two countries were responsible for orchestrating the 1953 overthrow of Iran's populist government of democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, primarily because he introduced legislation that led to the nationalization of Iranian oil?

13. Who made the following address on March 17, 2000? “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

14. Which countries trained the Shah's brutal internal security service, SAVAK?

15. Does Iran have nuclear weapons?

16. Is Iran a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

17. Is Israel a signatory of the NPT?

18. Does the NPT permit a signatory to pursue a nuclear program?

19. Who wrote the following in 2004? "Wherever U.S forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy. Though Iran is ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, most commentators who are familiar with the country do not regard its government as irrational. ...  t was Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran, not the other way around; since then Iran has been no more aggressive than most countries are. For all their talk of opposition to Israel , Iran 's rulers are very unlikely to mount a nuclear attack on a country that is widely believed to have what it takes to wipe them off the map. Chemical or other attacks are also unlikely, given the meager results that may be expected and the retaliation that would almost certainly follow.”

20. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 said they had an unfavorable view of the American people?

21. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 expressed negative sentiments toward the Bush administration?

22. What were the main elements of Iran's 2003 Proposal to the U.S., communicated during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, and how did the U.S. respond to Iran's Proposal?

23. True or False: Iran and the U.S. both considered the Taleban to be an enemy after the 9/11 attacks.

24. Did the U.S. work with the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq both before and after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq?

25. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, who said the following? "The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States ."

26. Who wrote the following in 2004? “It is in the interests of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the ‘democracy deficit' that pervades the Middle East …”

Iran Quiz Answers :

1. No. Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity. Ethnic Persians make up 60 percent of modern Iran, modern Persian (not Arabic) is the official language, Iran is not a member of the Arab League, and the majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. Accordingly, based on language, ancestry and religion, Iran is not an Arab country. ( http://www.slate.com/id/1008394/ )

2. No.

-According to Juan Cole, the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Iran has not launched such a war for at least 150 years. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p.199.)

-It should be appreciated that Iran did not start the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s: “ The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Iraq was also aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War)

3. Zero. There is not a single known instance of an Iranian suicide-bomber since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. ( Robert Baer; The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower; Crown Publishers; New York: 2008.)

-According to Baer, an American author and a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, it is i mportant to understand that Iran has used suicide bombers as the ultimate “smart bomb.” In fact there is little difference between a suicide-bomber and a marine who rushes a machine-gun nest to meet his certain death. Therefore, while Iran had used suicide bombers for tactical military purposes, Sunni extremists use suicide bombing for vague objectives such as to weaken the enemy or purify the state.

4. $9.6 billion. ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25279.htm )

5. $692 billion. ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25279.htm )

-There is also little doubt that Israel could defeat Iran in a conventional war in mere hours. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p p.206-7.)

6. 25,000. It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. After the 1979 Islamic revolution, thousands of Jews left for Israel, Western Europe or the U.S., fearing persecution. But Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's first post-revolutionary supreme leader, issued a fatwa, upon his return from exile in Paris, decreeing that the Jews and other religious minorities were to be protected, thus reducing the outflow of Iran's Jews to a trickle. ( http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html )

7. Ruhollah Khomeini. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York : 2009; p.201.)

-This wasn't a surprising statement to come from the leader of the 1979 Revolution as Israel had been a firm ally of both the U.S. and the Shah.

-According to Cole, Ahmadinejad quoted this statement in 2005 yet wire service translators rendered Khomeini's statement into English as “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.” Yet, Khomeini had referred to the occupation regime not Israel , and while he expressed a wish for the regime to go away he didn't threaten to go after Israel . In fact, a regime can vanish without any outside attacks, as happened to the Shah's regime in Iran and to the USSR. It is notable that when Khomeini made the statement in the 1980s, there was no international outcry. In fact, in the early 1980s, Khomeini supplied Israel with petroleum in return for American spare parts for the American-supplied Iranian arsenal. As both Israel and Iran considered Saddam's Iraq a serious enemy, they had a tacit alliance against Iraq during the first phase of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. It should also be noted that Ahmadinejad subsequently stated he didn't want to kill any Jews but rather he wants a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. While Ahmadinejad's preferred solution is a non-starter, Israel 's refusal to pursue a comprehensive peace creates space for Arab hardliners whose agendas do not include a realistic peace with Israel .

8. True. Iranian television ran a widely watched serial on the Holocaust, Zero Degree Turn , based on true accounts of the role Iranian diplomats in Europe played in rescuing thousands of Jews in WWII.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJljqWQAqCI&feature=related )

9. Over 60%. ( M. Axworthy; A History of Iran : Empire of the Mind; Basic Books; New York : 2008.)

-In fact, many women—even married women—have professional jobs.

10. 1.4%. ( M. Axworthy; A History of Iran : Empire of the Mind; Basic Books; New York : 2008.)

11. True. In March 2002, the Arab League summit in Beirut unanimously put forth a peace initiative that commits it not just to recognize Israel but also to establish normal relations once Israel implements the international consensus for a comprehensive peace—which includes Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories and a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee crisis. (This peace initiative has been subsequently reaffirmed including at the March 2009 Arab League summit at Doha.) All 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, including Iran , "adopted the Arab peace initiative to resolve the issue of Palestine and the Middle East ... and decided to use all possible means in order to explain and clarify the full implications of this initiative and win international support for its implementation." ( Norman G. Finkelstein; This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion; OR Books; New York : 2010; p. 42.)

12. The U.S. and Britain . ( Stephen Kinzer; All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New Jersey: 2008.)

-According to Kinzer, Iranians had been complaining that the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) had not been sharing profits on Iranian petroleum with Iran fairly; and Iran's parliament (Majles) had tried to renegotiate with the AIOC. When the AIOC rejected renegotiation, Mossadegh introduced the nationalization act in 1951. In response, Britain and the U.S. organized a global boycott of Iran which sent the Iranian economy into a tailspin. Later, the military coup was orchestrated that reinstalled the shah. (One irony is that Britain itself had nationalized several industries in the 1940s and 1950s.)

13. Madeleine Albright: U.S. Secretary of State , 1997 -2001. ( Stephen Kinzer; All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New Jersey : 2008; p.212.)

14. According to William Blum, a highly respected author and journalist, "The notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture routinely, was created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel in the 1950s. According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the Agency. After the 1979 revolution, the Iranians found CIA film made for SAVAK on how to torture women." (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Torture_RS.html)

-According to Reed College Professor Darius Rejali, one of the world's leading writers on the subject of torture and the consequences of its use for modern society, “[T]he Iranian revolution of 1978-1979 was the revolution against torture. When the Shah criticized Khomayni as a blackrobed Islamic medieval throwback, Khomayni replied, look who is talking, the man who tortures. This was powerful rhetoric for recruiting people, then as it is now. People joined the revolutionary opposition because of the Shah's brutality, and they remembered who installed him. If anyone wants to know why Iranians hated the U.S. so, all they have to do is ask what America 's role was in promoting torture in Iran . Torture not only shaped the revolution, it was the factor that has deeply poisoned the relationship of Iran with the West. So why trust the West again? And the Iranian leadership doesn't.” ( http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002387 )

15. No.

-"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program …” “ We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.” ( U.S. National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities November 2007

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf   )

-According to U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, "The bottom line assessments of the [National Intelligence Estimate] still hold true, " … We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the [nuclear weapons] program." (http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100115_1438.php)

16. Yes. ( http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/18/world/AP-ML-Iran.html )

17. No. ( http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/18/world/AP-ML-Iran.html )

18. Yes.

-According to Juan Cole, The NPT specifies that “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Therefore, as long as Iran meets its responsibilities under the NPT and continues to allow inspections by the IAEA, it is acting within its rights. The sorts of research facilities maintained by Iran are common in industrialized countries. The real issue is trust and transparency rather than purely one of technology. Yet, Iran has not always been forthcoming in fulfilling its obligations under the NPT.

   The Ford administration of the mid-1970s produced a memo saying that the shah's regime must “prepare against the time … when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply.” Iran 's energy reserves are extensive, so that fear was misplaced. But Iran already uses domestically 2 million of the 4 million barrels a day it produces, and it could well cease being an exporter and even become a net importer in the relatively near future. (This helps explain Iran's focus on nuclear energy. Yet, the desire for nuclear weapons isn't irrational either.) Ford authorized a plutonium reprocessing plant for Iran , which could have allowed it to close the fuel cycle, a step toward producing a bomb.

   In the 1970s, GE and Westinghouse won contracts to build eight nuclear reactors in Iran . The shah intimated that Iran would seek nuclear weapons, without facing any adverse consequences beyond some reprimands from the U.S. or Western Europe . In contrast, Khomeini was horrified by the idea of using weapons of mass destruction, and he declined to deploy chemical weapons at the front in the Iran-Iraq War, even though Saddam had no such compunctions and extensively used mustard gas and sarin on Iranian troops. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009)

19. Martin van Creveld: Distinguished professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem . ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opinion/21iht-edcreveld_ed3_.html )
-It should not be surprising that Creveld would deem it rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. "For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran . In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh, an inspired nationalist who believed that Iranian oil belonged to Iran . They installed the venal shah and, through a monstrous creation called SAVAK, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was inevitable and very nasty, yet it was not monolithic and, through popular pressure and movement from within the elite, Iran has begun to open to the outside world – in spite of having sustained an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged and backed by the US and Britain.
At the same time, Iran has lived with the real threat of an Israeli attack, possibly with nuclear weapons, about which the ‘international community' has remained silent.” ( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=8533 )

20. 20%. ( Juan Cole; Engaging The Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York : 2009; p.197.)

21. 75%. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; ( New York : 2009); p.197.)

-One wonders what the percentage of Canadians—or Americans—held the same view?

22. According to the Washington Post, “Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces … an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States , and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran …” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html )

23. True. According to Ali M. Ansari, Professor of Iranian history at the University of St. Andrews, “[K]hatami, moved quickly to offer his condolences to the US President [after the 9/11 attacks]. … [T]he Iranians soon recognized the opportunity that now confronted them. The United States was determined to dismantle Al Qaeda, and in the face of Taleban obstinacy decided on the removal of the Taleban. Nothing could be more amenable to the Iranians, who had been waging a proxy war against the Taleban for the better part of five years. … The collaboration which took place both during and after the war against the Taleban seemed to inaugurate a period of détente between Iran and the United States … It came as something of a shock therefore to discover that President Bush had decided to label Iran part of the ‘Axis of Evil' … Now it appeared that the [Iranian] hardliners within the regime had been correct after all; the United States could not be trusted …” ( Ali M. Ansari; Modern Iran: The Pahlavis and After Second Edition; Pearson Education; Great Britain: 2007; pp. 331-332.)

24. Yes. ( http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_bush_created_a_theocracy_in_iraq )

-One wonders what the Bush administration thought the party name entailed? Would it have been unreasonable to assume it had good relations with Iran and might support an Islamic Revolution?

-In 2007, the party, showing good public relations, changed its name to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq .

25. Flynt Leverett: Senior director for Middle East affairs in the U.S. National Security Council from March 2002 to March 2003. He left the George W. Bush Administration and government service in 2003 because of disagreements about Middle East policy and the conduct of the war on terror. ( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590 )

26. A task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and chaired by two prominent members of the American foreign policy establishment, former CIA director Robert Gates and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, recommended “a revised strategic approach to Iran.” Their report included the above statement. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/mar/24/clouds-over-iran/?pagination=false )


Jeffrey Rudolph, a college professor in Montreal, was the Quebec representative of the East Timor Alert Network, and presented a paper on its behalf at the United Nations.

© 2010 Countercurrents.org All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146673/

[bigron]

Middle East
May 4, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE04Ak03.html 

Conflict or containment in the Persian Gulf?


By Brian M Downing

United States Secretary of Defense Gates recently complained there was no plan to halt Iran's nuclear research, which is thought to be aimed at building atomic weapons. It is more accurate to say that plans to halt the program - both diplomatic and military - are impractical or have grave consequences. In the absence of a way to halt Iran's nuclear research, worrisome though the program is, the US might consider a containment policy, or perhaps even a diplomatic opening with Iran.

Iranian intentions

The US intelligence community's most recent position holds that Iran has no weapons program, but neither the previous US administration nor the present one believes it - a sign of the community's lack of credibility. If US intelligence cannot adequately assess the state of Iran's research program, it's unclear it can understand Iran's intentions. Assessments are filled with group-think and worst-case scenarios presented as virtual certainties. But there are non-aggressive reasons for a nuclear program.

The most oft-heard rationale is that the weapons are being developed to attack Israel. A single nuclear explosion over the business center of Tel Aviv, it is said, would destroy the economy on which the nation is based. This underestimates the Jewish commitment to their homeland and trivializes the severity of an Israeli response. Any such attack would lead to devastating counter-strikes, which would be as proportionate as recent Israeli responses to rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza,

This scenario relies on the view that Iran is governed by apocalyptic mullahs who would welcome their own destruction, as it would bring the return of the Hidden Imam and the rule of Islam worldwide. Though this belief is indeed part of Twelver Shi'ism, there is no indication the mullahs conduct government with an eye toward imminent destruction and the end of the world. American Christianity has apocalyptic strains; American foreign policy does not.

In the aftermath of the Ruhollah Khomeini revolution of 1979, calls for Shi'ite uprisings in the Gulf region resounded from Tehran, but rather than seeking the apocalypse, the calls looked to consolidate the revolution and spread the imam's ideas in this world. They led to very little, and since then Iranian foreign policy has been pragmatic. The mullahs are concerned with day-to-day government and with strengthening their control after the unrest following last summer's electoral unrest.

Defenders of the attack-Israel scenario point to the irresponsible rhetoric of Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. His statements are irksome, but Ahmadinejad has no control over the military (or much else in government) and so cannot put his words into action.

Control rests in the hands of superiors on the Guardian Council, whose words and actions are more cautious. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric seeks to weaken Iran's Arab rivals by playing to the urban poor who question their leaders' quiescence vis-a-vis Israel. Ahmadinejad has been criticized by reformists in Iran who better represent the country's future.

Iran's nuclear program is more likely based on defense concerns. Shortly after 9/11, the George W Bush administration targeted Iran as part of the "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. Iran was clearly a candidate for forcible regime change, though as runner-up to Iraq. Had chaos not erupted in Iraq following the 2003 invasion - in part due to Iranian actions - US forces might well have turned east.

Every country looks on the actions of foreign powers through the lens of its national history. And Iranian history over the past century is a litany of foreign occupations, coups and various oil and arms transactions of dubious fairness - all of which stemmed from Britain, the US and Russia.

Today, the US has about 200,000 troops on Iran's eastern and western borders and keeps one or more carrier groups offshore. Though these forces are dedicated to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran cannot be certain of benign intent. The presence of Western-supported insurgencies in the Kurdish northwest, the Arab southwest and the Baloch southeast - some of whom have engaged in terrorist bombings - further elevates Iran's concerns.

Rising powers look on their militaries as emblems of national honor, legitimacy and prestige. In the 19th century, countries such as the US and Germany built white-water navies, including immense battleships, though they didn't figure meaningfully in national defense.

As its empire gradually gave way in the decade and a half after the end of Word War II, France embarked on a nuclear weapons program as a means of restoring lost prestige, especially after the loss of Algeria. In some respects, nuclear weapons are the battleships of our age: impressive, dangerous, but of little military use.

Doubtful effectiveness of sanctions

The US is seeking to organize a sanction regime on Iran, but it is unlikely to meet with success. It will need the support of Russia and China, both of whom have votes on the UN Security Council and important trade and geopolitical ties with Iran.

The history of sanctions does not inspire confidence in their effectiveness. Numerous countries, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq, endured over a decade of sanctions without political change. Smuggling is far from unknown in the Gulf region, many tribes there specialize in it, and the Shi'ite leaders in Iraq will facilitate illicit trade with the country that helped them during Saddam's oppressive rule. There is little to prevent smuggling from the Caucasus region to Iran's north, where such activity thrived even under Soviet rule.

Sanctions are not effective in the best of circumstances. Russia and China both benefit from trade with Iran. China buys oil and Russia sells armaments there. Sanctions are unlikely to impact a country that sells huge quantities of oil and buys equally large quantities of weaponry. Even several years of sanctions are unlikely to have an appreciable effect on the nuclear program, except perhaps to stimulate it in the face of foreign pressure.

Unlikelihood of a US attack

The US routinely used to threaten to attack Iran. Its fighters and ships probed Iranian defenses, and at times there were three carrier groups in the region instead of the one in support of operations in Iraq. In 2006, Washington trumpeted an upcoming simulation of a nuclear strike on a deep rock stratum in Nevada that was, uncoincidentally, the same depth as the rock stratum above Iran's underground research center at Natanz. (The test was called off due to environmentalist pressures.)

At the same time, Iraq was in civil war. Sunni and Shi'ite militias fought vicious battles, and Shi'ite political parties and their associated militias fought only somewhat less viciously. Both militias inflicted unexpectedly high casualties on US troops. US policy there was in a shambles and the public was irate.

In early 2008, however, fighting fell off markedly, and not only in the Sunni areas where the "Surge" was taking place. Shi'ite attacks on US forces and on each other dropped as well. Antagonistic political parties reached agreements. Perhaps most surprisingly, US threats to attack Iran disappeared at the same time.

Iran, in the person of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps General Qassem Suleimani, had brokered agreements that brought peace to Iraq and relief to Washington. The diplomatic history of the region would suggest a secret deal between the US and Iran, probably with the complicity of Sunni-Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and the smaller Sunni states that balance the Saudi-Iranian rivalry.

Unilateral Israeli attack?

Threats of attack still come from Israel, where a hawkish government reflects on a national history of fear of destruction and makes policy accordingly. Israel has demonstrated the willingness to use devastating air power on Lebanon and Gaza, the ability to defeat Iran's Russian air defenses in a strike on Syria, and the capacity to travel significant distances to reach targets in Tunisia and Iraq.

The distances to Iran and back are greater than anything the Israeli air force has undertaken. Refueling would be necessary. Reports and rumors swirl of securing refueling facilities in Georgia or pre-positioning fuel bladders in remote parts of Yemen. Failing that, Israeli fighters could ditch over the Indian Ocean near waiting Israeli ships.

Other critical questions remain. Can Israel defeat Iranian air defenses without help from the US? Can nuclear facilities buried deep underground or burrowed into mountains be destroyed, or would they merely be knocked offline but brought back into operation in a few months by a vengeful government? Would attacks rally reformist groups to the government at a time of flagging support for the mullahs?

The US developed and bruited a new generation of bunker-busting weapons while directing dire warnings at Iran. These weapons would be needed to strike underground targets such as the nuclear facilities near Natanz and Isfahan. But after fighting declined in Iraq, little has been said of them. The US has refused to sell the new bunker-busters to Israel or even position them there for contingencies, as it does with many other weapons.

It's unclear that foreign intelligence agencies know of all Iranian research facilities. The recent acknowledgement of a facility near Qom should lead foreign powers, including Israel, to ask what other sites they don't know of.

An Israeli attack is unlikely but not as unlikely as a US attack (or a joint one). The Israeli public is more supportive of military action than publics in the US and many other countries. And domestic politics might lessen appreciation of the consequences and increase pressure on the government to attack.

Iranian retaliation options

The most critical question concerns how Iran might respond. Whatever US complicity there is in any attack, Iran would ascribe considerable blame to the US as there would be no doubt about where the planes and weapons were made.

Iran has considerable influence in Iraq. Important political parties were set up in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. A sign of their leanings was offered after the recent elections when the parties sent emissaries not to Washington, but to Tehran.

Iranian influence in Iraq could be used against the US. It has already been used to order the US out by the end of 2011. The deadline could be stepped up as an insult, but more lethal responses are likely. The Shi'ite-dominated army and militias not yet integrated into it could turn on US troops, most likely in surreptitious, low-intensity attacks with what might be called plausible denial, putting the US in the contorted position of fighting the democratic government it prides itself on installing. Alternately or in conjunction with Iraqi forces, Iranian Quds Force personnel could cross the porous border to conduct guerrilla warfare.

Iraq, with guidance from Iran, could turn on the Sunni Arab population. Over the past year, Sunni Arabs have launched a terror bombing campaign, killing hundreds of Shi'ites. The government's response has thus far been restrained, but it may be biding its time for a harsh response to remind the Sunnis of their marginal status in national affairs, placing the US in the position of defending the Sunni militias it armed and protected during the troop "surge".

Iran could also retaliate in Afghanistan. Iran has no affection for the Taliban. In Tehran's eyes, they are uncivilized Sunnis who are responsible for the 1998 slaughter of 10 Iranian diplomats and thousands of Shi'ite Hazaras. Iran supported the Northern Alliance in ousting the Taliban in 2001 and dropped its support for Burhanuddin Rabbani in the post-Taliban election, shifting support to the US candidate, Hamid Karzai.

Nonetheless, Iran sends the Taliban small amounts of weapons and trains a handful of their fighters in the craft of improvised explosive devices, a reminder to the US that it can escalate the fighting and casualties, thereby making Afghanistan what Iraq was four years ago.

The Straits of Hormuz would make another arena for a vengeful Tehran. The narrow entrance to the Persian Gulf sees a great deal of US traffic, both merchant and naval. "Swarming" tactics - sending large numbers of planes and missiles toward a few ships in the hope of overwhelming their defenses - could sink several US vessels, perhaps even a carrier.

More likely, Iran would make only a token effort in the straits, one that signaled the potential for more serious responses. This could be done by firing a missile or artillery round across the bow of a US ship or an oil tanker. In a matter of an hour of word reaching world trading desks, the price of oil would spike. The oil shock would hit the world at a time of economic weakness and fiscal crisis. The price rise would bring increased revenue into Iran.

Responses against Israel would be more difficult. Hezbollah, Iran's ally in Lebanon, would be a likely agent of retaliation, but Israel's devastating airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006 reduced Hezbollah's willingness to absorb more punishment. Hamas, Iran's Palestinian partner, has little military capability, despite Iranian training and arms. Its militias showed little effectiveness in the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza, and the ease with which Israel has targeted Hamas leaders suggests numerous inside informers.

The difficulty of making direct retaliation in Israel will not lead to Iranian quiescence, and could lead to retaliation against Jewish targets outside the country, including American ones. Palestinian groups, seeing a de facto annexation of the West Bank taking place, might rejoin the deadly effort they began 40 years ago.

Containment and diplomatic opening

Barriers to airstrikes, the uncertainty of results and the array of Iranian retaliatory options make military action problematic, though not out of the question. Perhaps these difficulties will make containment or even a diplomatic opening more attractive - one that may make Iran see less danger and keep its nuclear research program short of weapons production.

The term "containment" naturally recalls the US foreign policy toward the Soviet Union after Word War II, which built alliances to ring the Soviet empire. The Cold War was long, expensive and marked by proxy wars around the world, but a catastrophic war between the two superpowers was avoided, and in time the Soviet Union imploded.

Iran is already partially surrounded by Sunni Arab states that are often hostile but dexterous in balancing power in the Gulf region. They would be helpful in preventing a new containment policy from leading to the aggressiveness and lack of caution that occasionally pushed containment close to conflict.

The US would do well to consider a diplomatic opening with Iran, as president Richard Nixon (1969-1974) did with Moscow and Beijing. Nixon, as anti-communist as any American leader, recognized dangers and also diplomatic and commercial opportunities. The results of his policies were mixed, but tensions in many parts of the world eased.

United States and Iranian goals in Iraq and Afghanistan overlap considerably. Both want a stable Iraq. Renewed civil war there could escalate into a regional conflict involving Sunni and Shi'ite powers in the Gulf and beyond. Internal sectarian strife could involve the sizable Shi'ite populations of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. It is worth noting that these Shi'ite minorities are often located in oil-producing areas.

Iranian support to the Taliban, as noted, is light - and aimed at deterring US attacks and preventing a lengthy presence in an adjacent country. Iran's ties with the Tajiks of northern Afghanistan, who comprise about 15% of the population, could be useful in bringing about a negotiated settlement - an outcome that parties, including the US, are working toward.

An opening would naturally lead to objections from Israel and its supporters in the US, but easing tensions would not mean abandoning Israel or weakening its security. Quite the opposite. A diplomatic opening between the US and Iran would make Tehran more mindful of relations with America's partners.

In the 1980s, Israel recognized the intent of the rhetoric and maintained cordial relations with Iran, including the sale of military equipment to the Khomeini government, even while it was holding the American Embassy hostages. Israeli support continued during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), and Iran provided intelligence for Israel's strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1980. Despite staggering differences, the two countries have had long-standing ties, based mainly on common opposition to Arab powers. Diplomatic history has known stranger rapprochements.

Containment and diplomacy, despite uncertainties, offer attractions over tension and attack. Easing tensions would lead to greater cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan and aid reformist momentum inside Iran.

Brian M Downing is a political/military analyst and the author of The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: War and Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam. He can be reached at brianmdowning@gmail.com

 
 
 

[Brocke]

Bin Laden living a relaxed, comfortable existence in Iran apartment, documentary claims

By Ed Barnes
From: NewsCore
May 04, 2010 4:22PM


    * Osama bin Laden apparently living in Tehran
    * Living free life with wife, several children
    * Documentary maker gave details to army

THE world's most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, has been living a relaxed and comfortable existence in an apartment in Iran since at least 2003, according to a new documentary.

The al-Qaeda leader is healthy, surrounded by his wife and a few of his children and has only four bodyguards in Tehran, where he is living under the protection of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, according to the documentary Feathered Cocaine, FOXNews.com reported.

It presents a very different picture to the one the world is most familiar with since bin Laden disappeared in 2001 - that of the terrorist living in a damp cave in northern Pakistan.

Alan Parrot, the film's subject and one of the world's foremost falconers, makes the case that bin Laden, an avid falcon hunter is pursuing the sport relatively freely in Tehran.

Parrot, who was once the chief falconer for the Shah of Iran and who has worked for the royal families of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, used his contacts in Iran to talk about bin Laden's life there. One of those contacts, described as a warlord from the north of Iran and disguised in a balaclava, reveals in the film that he has met bin Laden six times on hunting trips inside Iran since March 2003.

He says the world's most wanted terrorist is relaxed and healthy and so comfortable that “he travels with only four bodyguards.”

Parrot told FOXNews.com that the warlord, who supplies the falcon camps bin Laden visits on hunting forays, agreed to talk only because one of Parrot's men had saved his life.

"This was the repayment," Parrot said. "He was asked to talk. He wasn’t happy about it.”

The last confirmed meeting between bin Laden and the warlord was in 2008, Parrot says.

“There may have been more since then, but I haven’t talked to my source since we left Iran,” he said.

To prove his case, Parrot says he managed to get telemetry settings for bin Laden's falcons and could locate the leader to a one-square-mile area using those unique signals. He provided the data to the US Government but says he was never contacted about it.

Major Sean Turner, a Pentagon spokesman, said the US military would not comment on the whereabouts of bin Laden.

Parrot's story is supported in the documentary by former CIA agent Robert Baer, an outspoken critic of US policy in the Middle East on whom the film Syriana is based.

http://www.news.com.au/world/bin-laden-living-a-relaxed-comfortable-existence-in-iran-apartment-documentary-claims/story-e6frfkyi-1225862175752

[Satyagraha]

War drums indeed.
We are expected to believe that Bin Laden, a devout wahabbi 'muslim', is ensconced among shia muslims comfortably and spending his free time falconing. What utter bullshit. Don't they know that Bin Laden ("Tim" to his fellow CIA colleagues) is 6 feet under?

So this should give us the impetus to bomb Iran, right? Is that what we're supposed to think? How stupid do they think we are? How much fluoride have the mass media minions taken that they put this crap out and expect it to go unquestioned?