Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[citizenx]

The funeral notice from 01' was from Egypt.  Wasn't he planted there?

Oh, no. He's resurrected and Ahmedinejad is joining him on his comeback tour.

[bigron]

Iran’s Ever Imminent Nukes: A History of Hysteria

by Muhammad Sahimi, May 05, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2010/05/04/irans-ever-imminent-nukes/


For nearly three decades we have been hearing or reading dire predictions by the officials of the United States, Israel, and their allies that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Such “warnings” have been common, but none has come true. Now that the talk of imposing “crippling sanctions” on or even attacking Iran is heating up again, it is instructive to take a look at the history of such false prophecies.

The most astonishing aspect of the predictions about Iran’s “imminent” nuclear bomb is that, when Iran actually declared in the 1970s that it was indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, the West and Israel were absolutely silent, but Iran’s declarations since the mid-1980s that it is not seeking nuclear weapons have been greeted with disbelief and mockery.

On June 25, 1974, the Christian Science Monitor published “More Fingers on Nuclear Trigger?” The piece quoted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as saying that Iran would have nuclear weapons “without a doubt and sooner than one would think.” In an article in the 1987 book A European Non-Proliferation Policy: Prospects and Problems, Dr. Akbar Etemad, who was the Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran under the shah, wrote that scientists at Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) had carried out experiments in which plutonium was extracted from spent fuel generated by the Tehran 5 MW research reactor that the United States supplied to Iran in 1967. Note that the most important use for plutonium is in a nuclear bomb. It is also known that the shah assembled at the TNRC a nuclear-weapon design team.

Asadollah Alam, a prime minister under the shah in the early 1960s and his longtime confidant and minister of the Imperial Court, wrote in his memoirs (volume 1, p. 107) that in the mid-1970s the shah ordered the establishment of a “University of Military Sciences and Technology.” The mission of the university, which was supposed to be in Esfahan (where some of Iran’s current nuclear facilities are located) and controlled solely by Iran’s armed forces, was to carry out research and development in the area of chemical and nuclear weapons. The shah even authorized stealing the necessary science and technology from other countries, if need be, in order for Iran to fully acquire the know-how to make chemical and nuclear weapons. (For the history of U.S. involvement in Iran’s nuclear program, see here.)

None of these activities, of course, provoked any public reaction by the U.S., Israel, and their allies, and for a good reason: the shah was their ally (some say puppet), having been put back in power after the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. The U.S. supported the shah’s dictatorship, and Israel’s Mossad played a key role in setting up his dreaded security agency, the SAVAK, and training its agents. The U.S., Israel, and their allies always claim that they do not trust Iran because it hid its nuclear program for 18 years. But did Iran really do that? Beginning in 1982, Iran began pressing West Germany to complete the two nuclear reactors in Bushehr that the shah had paid for, but which had been left incomplete after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. But Germany refused to complete the reactors. Nor did it return to Iran the unspent funds and the equipment that Iran had already paid for. Thus, Iran’s efforts indicated clearly that it was pursuing a nuclear power program, and was doing so with utmost transparency.

Iran’s initial transparency was, in fact, even deeper than trying to convince Germany to finish the two reactors. In 1983, Iran asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to provide it with technical assistance in setting up a pilot plant for the production of uranium hexafluoride, the feedstock for uranium enrichment. During the shah’s reign, work had begun on converting one type of uranium oxide, U3O8, into another type, UO2 (used in the production of uranium hexafluoride), and with France’s help, ENTEC, an Iranian nuclear establishment, had been set up to work on the complete nuclear fuel cycle. According to item A, Article XI of the IAEA Statute, helping a member state with such a project is one of its main functions.

The IAEA did dispatch a team of experts to Iran, who recommended that the Agency help ENTEC scientists gain practical experience with the matter and provide expert services in a number of areas, including the fuel cycle. The report stated clearly the IAEA’s intention to “Contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology.” But, as Mark Hibbs wrote in Nuclear Fuel (August 4, 2003), the technical assistance never materialized, because “Sources said that when in 1983 the recommendation of an IAEA mission to Iran were passed on to the IAEA technical cooperation program, the U.S. government ‘directly intervened’ to discourage the IAEA from assisting Iran in production of uranium oxide and uranium hexafluoride.” According to Hibbs, a former U.S. official said, “We stopped that in its track.” Therefore, as early as 1983 the IAEA and the U.S. knew about Iran’s plans for setting up a uranium enrichment program. It was the U.S. that forced Iran to construct the Natanz facility for uranium enrichment in secret, although even that was not illegal.

Since then, the dire predictions about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons have been made frequently. First, in April 1984, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that West German intelligence believed that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within two years. Twenty-six years later, that bomb has not been produced.

On June 27, 1984, the late Sen. Alan Cranston was quoted by The Age, a broadsheet daily newspaper published in Melbourne, Australia, claiming that Iran was seven years away from being able to build its own nuclear weapon. When Cranston passed away in 2000, Iran’s nuclear bomb was nowhere to be found.

On April 12, 1987, David Segal published a piece in the Washington Post titled “Atomic Ayatollahs: Just What the Mideast Needs – an Iranian Bomb,” sounding the alarm about Iran’s forthcoming nuclear weapon.

The next year, in 1988, it was America’s reliable ally Saddam Hussein who put the world on notice that Tehran was already at the nuclear threshold.

In late 1991, in congressional reports and CIA assessments, the first Bush administration estimated that there was a “high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.” In 1992, the CIA changed its mind and predicted that Iran would have nuclear arms by 2000, then pushed that back to 2003.

A February 1992 report by the House of Representatives suggested that Iran would have two or three operational nuclear weapons by February-April 1992.

And, of course, David Albright, the all-world nuclear expert, also weighed in in March 1992. In an article written with Mark Hibbs in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, he claimed that the spotlight had shifted to Iran and its nuclear program.

I almost forgot to mention the sensational reports in Europe in May 1992 by several right-wing European newspapers that Iran already had two nuclear bombs. “Iran has obtained at least two nuclear warheads out of a batch officially listed as ‘missing’ from the newly independent republic of Kazakhstan, formerly part of the Soviet Union. Two of the nuclear weapons were smuggled across the border from Kazakhstan into Iran last year [1991] and are now under the control of Reza Amrollahi, the head of the Iranian Organization for Atomic Energy.” Iran and Kazakhstan do not have common borders, and Amrollahi, who was privy to such an important state secret, was sacked by former president Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and has been living a quiet life in Tehran ever since as a professor.


Things got more interesting in early March 1992 when The Arms Control Reporter reported that by December 1991 Iran had four (not two) nuclear weapons, which it had obtained from the former Soviet Union, including a nuclear artillery shell, two nuclear warheads that could be launched on Scud missiles, and one nuclear weapon that could be delivered by a MiG-27 aircraft.

1993 was a very busy year for making grim predictions about Iranian nuclear weapons. On Jan. 23, 1993, Charles Radin of the Boston Globe quoted Gad Yaacobi, then Israel’s envoy to the United Nations, claiming that Iran was devoting $800 million per year to the development of nuclear weapons.

A month later on Feb. 24, new CIA Director James Woolsey (who would later play a leading role in the propaganda for invading Iraq) said that the U.S. was concerned about Iran’s nuclear potential, even though “Iran is still eight to ten years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon.”

Then, on March 21, 1993, U.S. News and World Report reported that North Korea and Iran had an agreement to develop nuclear weapons. On April 8, Douglas Jehl of the New York Times reported that the Clinton administration claimed that Iran had paid North Korea $600 million for further development of the Nodong missile to deliver nuclear or chemical warheads.

Perhaps Gad Yaacobi had underestimated Iran’s spending on nuclear weapons. On April 14, 1993, Paris Match, the conservative French weekly, reported that Iran was investing $2 billion per year to develop its nuclear weapons capability. Foreign Report claimed on April 22, 1993, that North Korea was supplying Iran with nuclear know-how and enriched uranium. In May 1993, it was reported that U.S. intelligence analysts had alleged that Iran had sought weapons-related nuclear equipment from Ukraine. It did not, of course, matter that both nations denied the allegations.

On June 25, 1993, the AFP reported that the Swiss were major suppliers for Iran’s nuclear weapons program. After Maariv in Israel repeated that claim, even Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin denied it, saying, “They do not know what they are talking about.” But the fabrication factory was producing nonstop. On Sept. 2, 1993, the Intelligence Newsletter reported that the French firm CKD was delivering nuclear materials to Iran. On Oct. 25, 1993, U.S. News and World Report used that great source of expertise for the mainstream media – unidentified intelligence sources – to claim that scientists working in the Soviet Union’s nuclear program in Kazakhstan sold weapons-grade uranium to Iran. And on Dec. 13, 1993, Theresa Hitchens and Brendan McNally of Defense News reported that the CIA “believes that Iran could have nuclear weapons within eight to 10 years.”

After Russia agreed in 1995 to complete the Unit One reactor in Bushehr (which Germany had refused to do), the fabrication machine went into full gear. It was claimed by Israel and the Clinton administration that the reactor would be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium for a bomb, even though the Russian VVER-1000 reactor is a very poor choice for that purpose.

In January 1995, John Holum, the director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, testified before the Congress that “Iran could have the bomb by 2003.” Defense Secretary William Perry said that “Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb.” Bill Clinton, whose administration demonized Iran throughout the 1990s, and the man who said he personally would take up arms to defend Israel, even though he had dodged military service for his own country, stated, “Our problem is with the unacceptable behavior of the Iranian government … and [its] acquisition of weapons and technologies of mass destruction, including nuclear.” Secretary of State Warren Christopher referred to Iran as an “outlaw state” and “public enemy number one,” while House Speaker Newt Gingrich exclaimed that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons was “to annihilate Tel Aviv and in the long run annihilate Chicago or Atlanta.” And in The Nonproliferation Review (Vol. 2, 1995), Greg Gerardi reported, “Current U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources estimate Iran will have nuclear weapons in a 5-10 year time frame.” Note how the time frame has become so mobile! David Albright weighed in again with an article titled “An Iranian Bomb?” in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 51 (March-August 1995).

To prove his loyalty to Israel, Clinton provided the CIA with $18 million to try to topple the Tehran government in 1996. What do you expect? It was an election year. On April 29, 1996, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that he believed that “in four years, Iran may reach nuclear weapons.”

In 1997 Israel predicted a new date for Iran having a nuclear bomb: 2005

On Oct. 21, 1998, Gen. Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, said Iran “could have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons within five years.” “If I were a betting man,” he said, “I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.” Since the new fabrications had not worked, the old ones were activated. Steve Rodan claimed on April 9, 1998, in that model of truthfulness, the Jerusalem Post, “Documents obtained by the Jerusalem Post show Iran has four nuclear bombs.”

A CIA assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities publicized on Jan. 17, 2000, said that the Agency could not rule out the possibility that Iran possessed nuclear weapons. The assessment was based on the CIA’s admission that it could not monitor Iran’s nuclear activities with any precision.

Then the George W. Bush administration came to power, and Iran became an even more “imminent” threat. In the heyday of the warmongers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon delivered a classified version of the congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) on Dec. 31, 2001. It listed Iran among the countries that “could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.”

Demonizing Iran became so fashionable during the Bush years that members of Congress began lying brazenly. A report by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued on Aug. 23, 2006, stated, “Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement, and despite its claim to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.” It also claimed that “Iran is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade using a 164-machine centrifuge cascade at this facility in Natanz” and “spent fuel from the LWR [light water reactor] that Russia is building for Iran in the city of Bushehr can produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for 30 weapons per year if the fuel rods were diverted and reprocessed.” As I explained elsewhere, all the allegations were lies. They provoked the IAEA to take the unusual step of sending an angry letter to Hoekstra. The letter took “strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion” that the IAEA had removed a senior safeguards inspector for “allegedly raising concerns about Iranian deception,” and it branded as “outrageous and dishonest” the report’s suggestion that he was removed for not adhering “to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the truth” about Iran.

European right-wing newspapers were also hard at work, propagating lies so outrageous that they forced the IAEA to issue angry statements, denying the fabrications. I have documented them before and will not repeat them here.

In a more recent dire prediction, Amos Harel of Ha’aretz reported on July 11, 2007 that “Iran will cross the ‘technological threshold’ enabling it to independently manufacture nuclear weapons within six months to a year and attain nuclear capability as early as mid-2009, according to Israel’s Military Intelligence.”

Right after the Obama administration took over, Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times reported on Feb. 12, 2009, that the Obama administration had made it clear that it believed there was no question that Tehran was seeking the bomb.

And just the other day, Hillary Clinton claimed that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Apparently, the secretary of state does not know that there is a vast difference – technically and legally – between violating the NPT and being in non-compliance with some provisions of the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. An NPT violation happens when a member state develops a nuclear bomb, helps another state to do so, or transfers its nuclear technology to a non-member state.

Clinton should hire better lawyers who are loyal to the true national interests of the United States, not rely on pro-Israel “experts” who will settle for nothing short of military attacks on Iran.

[bigron]

A Timetable For War

by Philip Giraldi, May 06, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/05/05/a-timetable-for-war/


Readers of my articles will know that I am extremely pessimistic about the prospects for peace in the Middle East.  I do not believe for a second that the leaders of Israel actually consider Iran to be an "existential" threat but the fact that they have cried wolf so often has convinced the Israeli public that it is so.  Worse still, Israel’s friends in the US have convinced the American public of the same thing even though Iran does not threaten the United States at all.  Relying on a complaisant media that has fully embraced the fabricated narrative of fanatical Mullahs brandishing nuclear weapons shortly before handing them over to al-Qaeda, a majority of Americans now believes that Iran must be dealt with by force and that it already has a nuclear weapon.  As in the case in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the fictitious threat has taken on an ominous reality because the lie has been repeated often enough to appear to be truth.

I believe several things must be understood in relationship to the likely formula for initiation of such a conflict.  First, in spite of the increasingly bellicose language coming from Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, I do not believe that the Obama Administration wants a war.  On the contrary, I believe that the language is designed to convince Tel Aviv that the US is getting tough with Iran to preempt any possible military action.  The principal advocates of war in the United States are not in the White House.  They continue to belong to the Israeli lobby as given voice through its acolytes in Congress and the media.

Second, the Israeli government having sold the "existential threat" fiction does want a war, but its options are limited.  It knows it can only do temporary damage to Iran and wants the United States to do the heavy lifting.  That will require contriving a situation that will bring about US entry into the conflict, otherwise an Israeli attack will have only limited value, possibly slowing down Iran’s nuclear program but not stopping it while also guaranteeing that the Mullahs will make the political decision to develop a weapon.

Third, Washington has no real ability to put pressure on Israel as the White House has already made clear that it will not cut aid to Tel Aviv and will continue to use its veto to protect Israel in international fora like the United Nations.

Fourth, once the shooting begins, even if Israel starts it, both Congress and the media will demand that Washington intervene to support brave little democracy Israel.  One can be sure that on the day after Tel Aviv starts a conflict Congress will overwhelmingly pass a motion approving the Israeli action and also calling on the White House to have American forces join in.  The Washington Post, FOX news, and The New York Times will be beside themselves with joy.

Putting the four premises together, what does it all mean?  It means that Israel will seek to start a conflict with Iran and pull the United States in.  It will ignore any US calls for restraint and will attack the Mullahs with or without a pretext, whether or not Iran remains in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime (which I believe it will), and whether or not Tehran does anything aggressive.  In the lead-up to such an attack, Israel will intensify its propaganda efforts and is quite prepared to lie to make a case against Iran and its friends in the Middle East region.  The recent total fabrication of a case that Syria had given Scud missiles to Hezbollah is a case in point.  Israel sees everyone in the region as an enemy or a potential enemy and it works very hard to make Washington see things the same way.  Once the fighting starts, Washington will inevitably be drawn in with Congress and the mainstream media cheerleading the process.

So let us assume that Israel will attack Iran.  After all, it is a win-win situation for them in that they will demonstrate once again to the Muslim world that they are not to be trifled with and will leave the serious fighting to the United States.  I believe they will attack Iran by the shortest route, which is over Iraqi airspace.  Iraqi airspace is controlled by the United States Air Force, which would undoubtedly be under orders not to shoot down the Israeli planes lest Obama find himself facing a furious AIPAC, Congress, and the press immediately thereafter.  A shoot down order is just not possible given Congressional democrats’ fear of how Jewish political donors would react, not to mention the danger that the usual voices in the media would turn against the Obama administration on the eve of the midterm elections.  Unless the Iranians were to react in an extremely restrained fashion, they would consider the US complicit in the attack due to the passage over Iraq and their retaliation would bring Washington into the war, which is precisely what Israel expects to happen.

The only joker in the deck for Israel is the possible unintended consequences.  If the war were to go badly, with Iran, for example, using its Chinese supplied cruise missiles to sink a US aircraft carrier, the role of Israel in starting the conflict might well be challenged by many in the US, so many that even the media and Congress would have to take notice.  But Israel probably considers that a remote possibility given the huge military advantage that the United States enjoys over Iran so they likely believe it to be it a risk worth taking.  Also, one must consider that the hard right Israeli government of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is not necessarily a rational player that will weigh up all the pluses and minuses.  Netanyahu is driven by racism, intellectual arrogance, and a belief that he can control events in the United States, all of which will be part of his decision making.

Which leads to the question of timing.  There has been some talk in the media that Israel would likely "do something" by November.  Why that date is being selected is not completely clear, but I believe it will be sooner and this is why:  as noted above, the United States controls Iraqi airspace currently.  But that control will be ceded to the Iraqi government in August when the US presence in Iraq is due to be reduced to a "garrison non-combatant" level of 60,000 soldiers and airmen.  At that point, the US Air Force will no longer have autonomous authority to engage in Iraqi airspace, but the Iraqi government will be empowered to request US assistance to do so.  Imagine for a moment what it would do to US credibility in the Arab world if Baghdad were to ask the US to help defend its airspace against an Israeli incursion and the US were to refuse to do so.  So I think the Israelis will make their move before August.  They want to entangle the United States into fighting on their behalf but they will not necessarily want to humiliate Obama while doing so.

So what can Obama do to stop this?  There has been some speculation that he might send a private emissary to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu with the message that the United States does not support an Israeli attack and that Washington will both denounce the action and not back Tel Aviv.  I believe that Obama has already told Netanyahu both privately and through diplomatic channels that the US opposes military action but the Israeli government no doubt regards such a warning as toothless, particularly as both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have asserted that Israel has a right to make its own security decisions.  Any move to punish or pressure the Israelis would be blocked by Congress, so the Obama warning can be brushed off.  The only option that I believe would actually work is for Obama to go public preemptively on the issue and proclaim that there is no casus belli with Iran, that any Israeli attack will not be supported by the United States and that furthermore the United States will take the lead in condemning such an act in the United Nations and in all other appropriate international fora.  Is that likely to happen?  I think not.  And that is precisely the reason why I think a new war in the Middle East is inevitable and will take place this year, probably by August.

[bigron]

The secret behind Iran’s power


By Fatih Abdulsalam

http://uruknet.com/?p=m65750&hd=&size=1&l=e


Azzaman, May 6, 2010



Why is Iran seen as a fundamental power in the region stretching from Afghanistan to Lebanon and in between Iraq, its golden state?

There are some who think that Iran’s military maneuvers and revelations of new weapons, boats, frigates and missiles that can reach Israel and Europe are the source of this power.

People who entertain such opinions, I am sorry to say, are naïve. The U.S. and Europe have no fears of the display of Iranian armaments.

Strategy analysts and experts say Iranian weapons might be ineffective. The point is whether the weapons are operational and can be used.

The analysts believe if the U.S. attacks Iran, the first thing its forces will do is to render Iranian weapons systems ineffective.

Iran’s Western enemies will take the initiative and do not allow Iran to unleash its missiles and other weapons on their targets.

But still Iran is a powerful country. Iran’s strong muscles are not due to its weaponry.

Iran’s strength emanates from its diplomacy and the role it plays almost in all important files in the region. Arab states have almost no role to play here.

Therefore, it is so hard for Iran’s nemesis, the U.S., to embark on any negotiating or movements in the region without taking Tehran into account.

Tehran has proxies and agents throughout the region. They are the source of Iran’s power and not its weapons.



 

[bigron]

Iran's naval drills go on in S. waters
 
 
08/05/2010 11:19:26 AM GMT   
 
 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Irans-naval-drills-go-on-in-S-waters.html

 
Iran has launched the third phase of a major naval maneuver in the country's southern waters of the Straight of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman in a display of its military might.

During the fourth day of the drill on Saturday, hovercrafts strafed mock enemy targets while vessels, destroyers, and frigates blocked their advance towards Iran's territorial waters, a Press TV correspondent reported.

In another coordinated joint operation, Iran's navy speed boats, backed by the Air Force jet fighters, stopped an invading enemy vessel and captured commandos on board.

Certain tactical operations were also conducted in the third stage of the naval drills, including electronic countermeasures (ECM) as well as disabling enemy radars and communication systems.

The third phase of the drill is scheduled to continue with reconnaissance and drone aircrafts conducting interception operations.

The massive drill code-named Velayat 89 began last Wednesday. It will be carried out in six phases and is scheduled to last eight days.

Speaking before the commencement of the drills, Navy commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said that by holding the maneuvers, Iran sought to display its prowess in defending the country's territory while conveying a message of "peace and friendship" to the regional states.

AR/CS/MB

Source: Press TV
 

[bigron]

US angry at French acquittal of Iranian
 
 
08/05/2010 09:19:15 AM GMT   
 
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/US-angry-at-French-acquittal-of-Iranian.html

 
The US Department of Justice has angrily objected to a French court ruling that acquitted Iranian businessman Majid Kakavand of all charges of violating US trade sanctions against Iran.

"Although we're disappointed by the French court ruling, we will continue to seek justice in this matter," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement following Kakavand's acquittal.

"Efforts to apprehend Kakavand are ongoing and should he come into US custody, he will stand trial for his alleged crimes,� he added, claiming that Washington officials had "provided French authorities with detailed analyses of Kakavand's conduct, of the applicable US laws and provisions of the treaty that we felt supported his extradition to the United States."

At the behest of the US government, French authorities arrested Kakavand in March 2009 on charges of illegally exporting military technology to Iran.

The provisional arrest warrant claimed that Kakavand had used his company in Malaysia to order electronic components from American firms and ship them to Iran.

Since then, White House officials have pushed hard for the businessman's extradition to the United States, but their demands were turned down by French authorities who found that, contrary to US claims, the items Kakavand exported to Iran did not involve dual-use technology applicable to military equipment.

Following the findings, Kakavand was acquitted of all charges and released from jail.

The 37-year-old Iranian, who arrived in Tehran early on Saturday, says he will sue the US government for what his lawyers insist to be fabricated documents to support the case for his extradition.

"Given that I have spent fourteen months in jail on false charges, it is my legal right to sue the US authorities as soon as possible," said Kakavand, who arrived in Tehran early Saturday, IRNA reported.

SB/TG/MB

Source: Press TV
 

[bigron]

US to 'bump into' Brazil on Iran


Fri, 14 May 2010 01:42:20 GMT
 http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126439&sectionid=351020101

 

US ambassador to Brazil Thomas Shannon 

US ambassador to Brazil Thomas Shannon says the South American country's stance on Iran's nuclear program clashes with that of Washington.

"As Brazil becomes more assertive globally and begins to assert its influence, we are going to bump into Brazil on new issues and in new places such as Iran, the Middle East and Haiti," Financial Times quoted Shannon as saying on Friday.

US officials acknowledge that Brazil's bid to chart a diplomatic path of its own and similar efforts by other rising powers such as Turkey are a new challenge for US foreign policy.

The US envoy's comment comes as Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silvia will visit Tehran at the helm of a 300-member Brazilian delegation to attend the 14th Summit of the Group of 15 that will be held on May 17.

Brazil, a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, has stepped up efforts to find a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue.

MGH/MMA

[bigron]

Itching to fight another Muslim enemy  

18/05/2010 04:30:00 PM GMT

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Itching-to-fight-another-Muslim-enemy.html
 
Just as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was the designated target of American hate in 2002 and 2003, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing that role now.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

By Robert Parry

If you read the major American newspapers or watch the propaganda on cable TV, it’s pretty clear that the U.S. foreign policy Establishment is again spoiling for a fight, this time in Iran.

Just as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was the designated target of American hate in 2002 and 2003, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing that role now. Back then, any event in Iraq was cast in the harshest possible light; today, the same is done with Iran.

Anyone who dares suggest that the situation on the ground might not be as black and white as the Washington Post's editors claim it is must be an “apologist” for the enemy regime. It’s also not very smart for one’s reputation to question the certainty of the reporting in the New York Times, whether about Iraq’s “aluminum tubes” for nuclear centrifuges in 2002 or regarding Iran’s “rigged” election in 2009.

It’s much better for one’s career to clamber onto the confrontation bandwagon. Nobody in the major U.S. media or in politics will ever be hurt by talking tough and flexing muscles regarding some Muslim “enemy.” And, if the posturing leads to war, it will fall mostly to working-class kids to do the fighting and dying while the bills can be passed along to future generations.

Even groups that should know better – like Votevets.org representing veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars – have been piggybacking on the organized hate campaign against Ahmadinejad and Iran to advance other political agendas. In cable TV ads, Votevets.org uses Ahmadinejad’s face and Iran’s alleged manufacture of some IEDs to press the case for alternative energy.

Indeed, looking at this American propaganda campaign objectively, you would assume that the only acceptable outcome of  U.S. differences with Iran is another Iraq-like ratcheting up of tensions, using Washington’s influence within the UN Security Council to impose escalating sanctions, leading ultimately to another war, as if the lessons of Iraq have already been forgotten.

Fearing negotiations
This warmongering attitude was on display again Monday, when a possible breakthrough regarding Iran’s refining of nuclear material – its agreement to ship a substantial amount to Turkey in exchange for nuclear rods for medical research – was treated more as a negative than a positive.

The New York Times promptly framed the agreement reached by Iran, Turkey and Brazil as “complicating sanctions talk,” while the Washington Post rushed out an analysis with the headline, “Iran creates illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations.”

The Post’s analysis followed a Saturday editorial denouncing Brazil’s President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva for even trying “yet another effort to ‘engage’ the extremist clique of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “

The Post’s neocon editorial writers reprised the usual anti-Iran propaganda themes with all the arrogance that they once showed in declaring as flat fact that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMD. After the U.S.  invaded Iraq and found no WMD caches, the Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt acknowledged to CJR that if there indeed were no WMD, “it would have been better not to say it.”

(More than 4,300 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, in part, because of Hiatt's mistake.)

On Saturday, an unchastened Hiatt and his crew were back again spouting more fictions, this time about Iran, like the oft-repeated claim that the Iranian election last June was “fraudulent,” apparently because the Post’s preferred candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, lost.


An analysis by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes earlier this year found that there was little evidence to support allegations of fraud or to conclude that most Iranians viewed Ahmadinejad’s reelection as illegitimate.

Not a single Iranian poll analyzed by PIPA – whether before or after the June 12 election, whether conducted inside or outside Iran – showed Ahmadinejad with less than majority support. None showed the much-touted Green Movement’s candidate Mousavi ahead or even close.

"These findings do not prove that there were no irregularities in the election process,” said Steven Kull, director of PIPA. “But they do not support the belief that a majority rejected Ahmadinejad." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Ahmadinejad Won, Get Over It!”]

So, while many in the West may agree that Ahmadinejad is an unpleasant politician who foolishly questions the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and makes other bombastic statements, it is nevertheless a propaganda fiction to continue asserting that he was not the choice of most Iranian voters.

The point is not insignificant, because the claim about Iran’s “fraudulent” election has been cited repeatedly as fact by the Post, the Times and other major U.S.news outlets, feeding the rationale of Israel and U.S. neocons in demanding “regime change.”

If Ahmadinejad was actually elected – even if the process had flaws – then the goal of “regime change” would involve ousting a popularly chosen leader, much like the CIA helped do in 1953 when another anti-Western Iranian leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from office and replaced by Washington’s preferred choice, the Shah of Iran.

But the American hostility toward Ahmadinejad – and the U.S. media’s annoyance at any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran – present other dangers, particularly now that Iran has agreed to a previous Western demand that it transfer 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enriched uranium out of the country, in this case to Turkey, where it would be stored.

The Iran-Turkey-Brazil agreement would then give Iran the right to receive about 265 pounds of more highly enriched uranium from Russia and France in a form that could not be used for a nuclear weapon, but could be put to use for peaceful purposes, such as medical research.

Even though this new deal parallels a plan that the Obama administration favored last October, U.S. officials have indicated that they might balk at the agreement now because the 2,640 pounds of low-enriched uranium represents a lower percentage of Iran’s total supply than it did last fall, possibly more like half than two-thirds.

“The situation has changed,” one diplomat told the New York Times.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs also indicated that the new agreement would not stop the United States from seeking harsher sanctions against Iran.

"The United States will continue to work with our international partners, and through the United Nations Security Council, to make it clear to the Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds — and not simply words — its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions," Gibbs said.

Victory/Defeat
The Washington Post’s analysis by Glenn Kessler portrayed the new agreement as “a victory” for Iran that has allowed it to create “the illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real compromise to the United States and its allies.”

However, perhaps the bigger concern among American neocons is that the Iran-Turkey-Brazil accord might weaken the rationale for pressing ahead either with a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities or with a “regime change” strategy that would use sanctions and covert political operations to turn the Iranian people against their government.

By reducing the prospects of Iran building a nuclear weapon – something that Iran has vowed that it has no intention of doing and that U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in 2007 that it wasn’t doing – the new agreement could remove the scariest claim that Israel and its supporters have used in justifying a confrontation with Iran.

So, what might otherwise appear as good news – i.e. an agreement that at minimum delays the possibility of an Iranian bomb and could be a first step toward a fuller agreement – is presented as bad news.

“The Obama administration now faces the uncomfortable prospect of rejecting a proposal it offered in the first place -- or seeing months of effort to enact new sanctions derailed,” Kessler explained.

As usual, too, the articles by the Washington Post and the New York Times left out the relevant fact that Israel, which has been aggressively pushing for greater transparency from Iran over its suspected interest in nukes, itself has one of the world’s most sophisticated – and undeclared – nuclear arsenals.

Even as President Barack Obama has demanded more nuclear transparency from all countries, he himself continues the longstanding charade of U.S.presidents, dating back to Richard Nixon, pretending that they don’t know that Israel has nuclear weapons.

In line with that history of double standards, Washington’s neocon opinion leaders now are framing what could be a positive step toward peace – the Iran-Turkey-Brazil accord – as another failure.

But the larger truth may be that the neocons are simply chafing under the possibility that their hunger for a new conflict in the Middle East might be delayed indefinitely and that – heaven forbid – cooler heads might prevail.

-- 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




-- Middle East Online

 

[bigron]

Middle East
May 21, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE21Ak01.html 
 
Washington burns its bridges with Iran

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - The agreement on draft United Nations Security Council resolution sanctions against Iran has grabbed the headlines on the Barack Obama administration's response to Iran's nuclear swap proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. But the more consequential response is the acknowledgement by the US State Department on Monday that the administration is not willing to hold talks with Iran unless it agrees to a complete halt in uranium enrichment.

That announcement was accompanied by the revelation that the objective of the original swap proposal last autumn was to get Iran to agree to eventually suspend its enrichment program.

The Obama administration had not previously declared publicly that it was demanding an end to all enrichment by Iran, and had suggested directly and indirectly that it wanted a broader diplomatic engagement with Iran covering issues of concern to both states.

The new hard line, ruling out broader diplomatic engagement with Iran, and the new light on the strategy behind last year's swap proposal confirms what has long been suspected - that the debate within the Obama administration last year over whether to abandon the demand for an end to Iranian uranium enrichment as unrealistic had been won by proponents of the zero enrichment demand by late summer 2009.

US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said on Monday the United States would not negotiate with Iran on its proposal to send 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey to be replaced with 120 kilograms of fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor, unless the Iranians agreed to take up the broader subject of their nuclear program - and specifically an end to uranium enrichment.

Responding to a question about the US willingness to meet with Iran on the new proposal, Crowley said, "If it's willing to engage the P5+1, then it has to commit that it's willing to engage the P5+1 on its nuclear program." The P5+1, or "Iran Six", groups the five permanent members of the Security Council - the US, France, China, Britain and Russia - plus Germany.

Crowley noted that Iran had offered to have discussions with "the international community" but not about its nuclear program. "In our view, the only reason to have that discussion," Crowley said, "first and foremost, would be to address our core concerns in the - with regard to Iran's nuclear program."

Crowley revealed for the first time that the original proposal for Iran to swap 1,200 kilograms of LEU for 120 kilograms of uranium enriched to nearly 20% roughly a year later "was meant as a means to a larger end, which was to get Iran to fundamentally address its concerns the international community has".

He went on to explain that "the fact that Iran ... continues to enrich uranium and has failed to suspend its uranium enrichment program, as has been called for in the UN Security Council resolutions: that's our core concern."

Crowley was clearly suggesting that the talks, which were supposed to follow Iran's acceptance of the deal, would be focused on ending its nuclear enrichment program rather than on addressing the sources of conflict between the United States and Iran.

Last October, the swap proposal was presented as a "confidence-building measure" that would gain enough time for a broader diplomatic dialogue between Iran and the United States to take place. It would allow the Obama administration to argue with Israel that Iran had temporarily given up its "breakout capability" by transferring most of its LEU abroad.

Mohammed ElBaradei, then director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), declared on October 21 that the swap agreement "could pave the way for a complete normalization of relations between Iran and the international community".

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad publicly argued, moreover, that the swap proposal implicitly accepted Iran's right to enrich uranium, although nothing in the proposal addressed that issue.

The history of the swap proposal shows, however, that its origins were intertwined with the objective of halting Iranian uranium enrichment.

Gary Samore, Obama's chief adviser on nuclear proliferation, devised the swap deal. He had published a paper in December 2008 with co-author Bruce Reidel of the Brookings Institution proposing that the new administration demand that Iran's LEU be exported to Russia to be converted into fuel rods for the Bushehr reactor in order take away Iran's nuclear "break-out capability".

Ironically, it was Ahmadinejad's public suggestion of interest in a straight commercial deal under which Iran would send LEU to any country that would enrich it to 20% for the Tehran Research Reactor that led to the formulation of the swap proposal.

Samore simply shifted the focus of that proposal from Bushehr to the Tehran Research Reactor, and it quickly became an "Iran Six" initiative to temporarily strip Iran of nearly 80% of its LEU.

Samore was known to be a strong proponent of demanding that Iran end its uranium-enrichment program, who privately expressed certainty that Iran intended to manufacture nuclear weapons. He had publicly expressed pessimism that Iran would accept any proposal demanding an end to enrichment without a credible military threat, whether by the United States or Israel.

Before entering the administration Samore had advocated offering a lifting of economic sanctions, assurances against regime change and even normalization of relations as inducements to accept that demand.

No Iranian regime could have accepted a complete end to enrichment as part of a deal with the United States, however, because of popular support for the nuclear program as a symbol of Iran's technological advancement.

Proponents of the zero enrichment option were confident enough to leak to the press the fact that the aim of broader talks with Iran would be to end enrichment entirely. The Washington Post reported on October 22, 2009, that US officials commenting on the proposed uranium swap "stressed that the deal would be only the first step in a difficult process to persuade Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and that suspension remains the primary goal".

Now the administration has given up whatever flexibility it had previously retained to adjust its position in the face of a firm Iranian rejection of the zero enrichment demand. That position portends a continuation of high and possibly rising tensions between the United States and Iran for the remainder of Obama's administration.

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]

South Asia
May 22, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LE22Df02.html 
 
India's course correction on Iran


By M K Bhadrakumar

The agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil for a swap deal on the stockpile of Tehran's nuclear fuel sets the stage for a diplomatic pirouette of high significance for regional security. The paradigm shift affects Indian interests.

The Barack Obama administration has hastily debunked the Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal, which was announced in Tehran on Monday, and announced its intention to press ahead with a United Nations Security Council sanctions resolution, claiming that a "strong draft" has been reached by the so-called "Iran Six" (the five permanent council members plus Germany). The grandstanding highlights that Washington's policy is at a crossroads as the cohesiveness of the "Iran Six" comes under renewed stress.

The statements and innuendos - and, more importantly, the unspoken words - from Moscow and Beijing suggest the two capitals are quietly chuckling with pleasure over America's discomfort over Iran outsmarting the Obama administration's own best instrument of diplomacy in present-day world politics - "smart power".

Russian commentators even portray that Moscow had a hand in bringing Iran, Turkey and Brazil together in an act of strategic defiance to the United States - which is a considerable exaggeration of the emerging templates of the Iran nuclear issue. China, on the other hand, has coyly welcomed the announcement in Tehran without rubbing salt into America's injured pride.

Evidently Russia and China, both members of the "Iran Six", have left the door ajar for much horse-trading with the Obama administration that is sure to follow in the coming weeks.

For India all this becomes a morality play of big-power politics. And it offers salutary lessons as to where things went horribly wrong in India's Iran policy in the past three to four years and how the recent course corrections now need to go further.

Plainly put, the "Iran Six" is preaching from the high table and arrogating the business of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Yet, Russia and China claim they are votaries of a democratic world order that respects international law and the equality of all states, big and small.

The realpolitik for Indian interests
Clearly, relations with the US are of the highest priority for India, as they are for Russia or China. But the similarity ends there. For the foreseeable future, despite the heart-warming prognosis by the world community hailing India as a potentially emerging global player, the hard reality is that such a prospect remains distant in the scheme of things. When it comes to issues such as the situation around Iran, India lacks the wherewithal of Russia or China.

While Russia and China give lip-service to their shared interests with developing countries and they profess ardor for a polycentric world order, ultimately they remain self-centered, comfortable in the knowledge of their assured veto power in the UN and their sequestered place within the discriminatory nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. Unsurprisingly, they are paramountly focused on perpetuating their privileged position as arbiters of regional problems.

Russia and China are crafting an opportunistic tradeoff in the subsoil of their relationship with the US - but without forgoing the luscious Persian fruit either. They keep the reserve option to laterally get into the matrix of the Iran-Brazil-Turkey swap deal if it gains traction by virtue of their key role within the "Iran Six", while at the same time they are constantly factoring in a probable US-Iran rapprochement.

On the other hand, India is almost similarly placed vis-a-vis the US as Brazil or Turkey are. The fact that these two countries, which are close partners of the US, have not drawn Washington's ire shouldn't go unnoticed. New Delhi's apprehensions that any independent line on the Iran nuclear issue might upset the rhythm of US-India relations seems, in introspect, to have been entirely unwarranted. Countries that have taken an independent line on the Iran nuclear issue during crucial IAEA votes - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Egypt - have not exactly come to grief. On the contrary, India's traditional ties with Iran grievously suffered when it began blindly toeing the American line.

Worse still, Tehran harbors a suspicion that New Delhi might have used its ''Iran card'' to ingratiate itself with the George W Bush administration. The signs are that Tehran has made a cool analysis about damage control and has decided to more or less relegate its ties with New Delhi to a place on the backburner, even while going through the occasional motions of friendship and exchange of views that the two neighbors cannot do without.

New Delhi needs to take stock that Obama is an extraordinarily gifted politician endowed with intellectuality and it is conceivable he may come up with new thinking and a new approach to the problem. Monday's swap deal underscored indisputably that US policy on Iran is in a cul-de-sac. A reversal becomes inevitable. To be sure, Obama has taken note that Turkey and Brazil highlighted the existence of a whole world beyond the secretive, cloistered framework of the "Iran Six".

New Delhi has of late been attempting to follow in the footsteps of Russian and Chinese policies. Here too, a rethink is in order. India needs to factor in gains accruing to Russia and China from a continuing US-Iran standoff. The Western embargo against Tehran is keeping Iranian energy exports out of the European energy market that might otherwise have competed with Russian supplies. Energy exports constitute the single-biggest trump card of Russian foreign policy to modulate Western policies toward Moscow.

As for China, it is indeed having quite a field day as an exporter of goods and services to Iran as well as for advancing plans to evacuate Iranian gas and oil through pipelines across Central Asia that are nearing completion. In sum, Beijing has done splendidly well.

Russia and China, therefore, have complementary interests in shepherding Iranian energy exports to the Asian market. How is India placed in the energy equations? On balance, India in no way benefits out of the US-Iran standoff and, in fact, has a great deal to lose as regional tensions prevail in a region which forms its extended neighborhood. The Iran nuclear issue potentially can complicate the US-India strategic partnership as New Delhi will be firmly opposed to any use of force in the resolution of the problem.
Equally, the bottom line is that Iran is a major source of energy supplies for the expanding Indian economy. In geopolitical terms, a leap of faith uncluttered by the debris in the India-Pakistan relationship will dictate that the Iran gas pipeline project offers a rare opportunity for New Delhi to make its western neighbor a stakeholder in regional cooperation. Even at the height of the Cold War with nuclear armies preparing for Armageddon, pipelines criss-crossed the Iron Curtain. Alas, the Indian strategic community has a closed mind, as things stand, when it comes to developing a matrix of regional cooperation that even remotely includes Pakistan.

India's diplomatic ingenuity lies in working on the US thinking to persuade it to become a partner in the Iran pipeline project. The prospect offers a "win-win" situation. Iran doesn't hide its panache for Big Oil. The US has stakes in India-Pakistan normalization. India and Pakistan's energy markets offer massive business for American oil companies. The US involvement acts as a guarantee for the pipeline. Least of all, Washington too wishes to make Tehran a stakeholder in regional stability.

New Delhi should closely study Turkey's motivations on the Iran nuclear issue. Turkey has interests almost similar to India's and its supple diplomacy enables it to astutely position itself for the day when the US-Iran standoff dissipates. Turkey estimates that Iran is a neighbor (although they have had a troubled relationship) while the US is a key North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally and any midwifery in the inevitable US-Iran rapprochement becomes a strategic asset for Ankara's growing stature as a regional power.

Indian diplomacy has lately made some interesting moves toward Iran, beginning with Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao's visit to Tehran in February. The desire to craft a fresh approach is also evident in External Affairs Minister S M Krishna's consultations this week in Tehran. The path is strewn with thorns, as the Iranians harbor a deep sense of hurt about India's stance at the IAEA votes. Therefore, as the US's tug-of-war with Iran intensifies, New Delhi faces the challenge of not treading on Tehran's sensitivities all over again.

On the whole, Indian policy is principled, especially its line that the IAEA ought to be in the driving seat rather than a cabal of states with dubious intentions. But New Delhi is lurking in the shadows in a blissful state of masterly inactivity.

India should openly join hands with Turkey and Brazil in opposing the need for a continued push for UN sanctions against Iran. No doubt, the diplomatic initiative by Turkey and Brazil creates an altogether new situation and Indian diplomacy should grasp its importance and seize its potentials.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
 
 
 

[bigron]

Middle East
May 22, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE22Ak01.html 
 
THE ROVING EYE

Iran, Sun Tzu and the dominatrix



By Pepe Escobar

Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is one hell of a dominatrix.

At first the United States Secretary of State said the Brazil-Turkey mediation to get Iran to accept a nuclear fuel swap was destined to fail. Then the US State Department said it was the "last chance" for an agreement without sanctions. And finally, less than 24 hours after a successful agreement in Tehran, Hillary whips the UN Security Council into submission and triumphantly proclaims to the world a draft resolution for a fourth UN round of sanctions against Iran has been reached.

She framed the drive towards sanctions as "an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days". Wait a minute. Immediately after a genuine - and fruitful - mediation on a very sensitive dossier by two emerging powers - and honest brokers - in the multipolar world, Brazil and Turkey, Washington and its two European Union allies at the Security Council, France and Britain, torpedo it. Is this what passes for global "diplomacy"?

No wonder key US allies Brazil and Turkey, both non-permanent members of the Security Council, and both key regional powers, were fuming after such a public slapping. Brazil at first said it would not even discuss sanctions at the UN. Then Brazil and Turkey sent a formal letter to the UN, asking to be part of the negotiations of the "Iran Six" about the sanctions "to prevent the adoption of measures going against a peaceful solution".

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva - who had personally told Clinton earlier this year that it was "not prudent to push Iran against a wall" - could not help but blast the outdated Security Council, stressing it was not predisposed to negotiations after all. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu warned the new sanctions package would "spoil the atmosphere".

And Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed the move seriously damaged the credibility of the Security Council - not failing to wryly remind everyone of the absurd notion of five nuclear-armed permanent Security Council members seeking to dismantle the legal civilian nuclear program of a developing country.

As for "US credibility", it's biting the dust once again not only as far as Lula and Erdogan are concerned, but across the developing world - the real, flesh and blood "international community" following this interminable charade.

Whipping enrichment to a frenzy


Over the past few months, dominatrix Clinton relentlessly accused Iran of rejecting a similar fuel swap agreement proposed by the US last October. That's part of the usual Washington script - to behave with textbook deviousness, insisting sanctions "have nothing to do" with enrichment when only a few weeks ago it was the lack of an enrichment deal that was the key reason for more sanctions.

And it gets worse. As Gareth Porter has revealed (Washington burns its bridges with Iran Asia Times Online, May21, 2010) Washington only proposed a fuel swap last October because it wanted from the start to force Iran to agree to suspend all its uranium enrichment (to which it has a right as per the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But this was never announced publicly.

Iran anyway will continue to produce 20%-enriched uranium (it has a right to it, according to the NPT), and will start the construction of a new enrichment plant about the same size as Natanz's. This is part of a plan to build 10 new plants, announced last year by the Mahmud Ahmadinejad government. Moreover, the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant is under final testing and will be inaugurated this summer. These are irreversible facts on the ground.

Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili, the de facto top Iranian nuclear negotiator, may soon meet with the European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Turkey. Ashton, the "international community's" designated negotiator, is as representative of global public opinion as a BP press release on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Specially because the EU is bound to issue its own unilateral sanctions against Iran. Same for the US Congress, as Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, has confirmed this week. So apart from the Security Council, Iran will also have to face extra sanctions from the US-led coalition of the willing right-wing, mired-in-decay European poodles.

China and Russia pull a Sun Tzu

Ancient Chinese military general, strategist, philosopher and author of The Art of War, Sun Tzu said, "Allow your enemy to make his own mistakes, and don't correct them." China and Russia, both master strategists, are applying this maxim with panache regarding the US.

The current 10-page UN draft sanctions resolution was already diluted to death by permanent members Russia and China - and whatever bellicose language remains will be further shot down at the Security Council by non-permanent members Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon (without unanimity at the Security Council new sanctions are for all practical purposes dead). There's no way Washington can coerce the rest of the Security Council to sign up for a new sanctions round when Iran is actually engaged in cooperation.

As it stands, the current sanctions package punishes Iran's import of conventional arms; curbs imports related to ballistic missiles; freezes assets of key members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps; and sets up cargo inspections in seaports and on international waters. Most of these sanctions are voluntary - or non-binding – and will have zero interference on Iran's global trade of oil and gas.

Beijing and Moscow are not exactly licking Clinton's whip. Immediately after her bombastic announcement, the Chinese ambassador at the UN, Li Badong, said the draft resolution "did not close the doors on diplomacy", once again emphasizing "dialogue, diplomacy and negotiations".

And Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made sure to talk to Clinton over the phone arguing for a deeper analysis of the fuel swap deal mediated by Brazil-Turkey. Lavrov also stressed Russia didn't like one bit the extra US and EU unilateral sanctions. The Russian Foreign Ministry said the unilateral sanctions would include measures "of an extraterritorial nature, beyond the agreed decisions of the international community and contradicting the principle of the rule of the international law, enshrined in the UN charter".

So we have come to a situation whereby a real, Iran-approved nuclear fuel swap is on the table at the International Atomic Energy Agency while an offensive towards sanctions on Iran is ongoing at the UN. Who is the real "international community" going to trust? Erdogan could not have put it better; "This is the time to discuss whether we believe in the supremacy of law or the law of the supremes and superiors ..."

Most of all, what the developing world sees is the past - US, France, Britain, Germany - fighting against the advance of the future - China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia. The global security architecture - policed by a bunch of fearful, self-appointed Western guardians - is in a coma. The "Atlanticist" West is sinking Titanic-style.

We want war and we want it now


Only the powerful pro-infinite war lobby in the US is capable of framing a first step towards a full nuclear agreement with Iran as a disaster. That includes the largely discredited pro-Iraq war New York Times (the Brazil-Turkey mediation is "complicating sanctions talk") and Washington Post (Iran "creates illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations").

For the pro-war lobby the Brazil-Turkey-mediated fuel swap is a "threat" because it is on a direct collision course with an attack on Iran (initiated by Israel, then dragging the US) and "regime change" - the never-reneged Washington desire.

At a recent Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal, luminary Dr Zbigniew "let's conquer Eurasia" Brzezinski warned that a "global political awakening", along with infighting among the global elite, was something to be deeply feared. The former US national security adviser remarked that "for the first time in all of human history mankind is politically awakened - that's a total new reality - it has not been so for most of human history".

Who do these politically awakened upstarts such as Brazil and Turkey think they are - daring to disturb "our" rule of the world? And then uninformed Americans keep asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" Because, among other reasons, unilateral to the core, Washington does not hesitate to lift its middle finger even to its closest friends.

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]

Greater China
May 22, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/LE22Ad02.html 

US mum over China's links to Iran

By Peter J Brown

China and the United States have been down a rocky road together over the past two decades with respect to China's missile technology transfers to Iran. Today, China's ongoing contributions to the buildup of Iran's missile forces warrant closer scrutiny.

The opening by Iran of a new missile production plant in March will enable Iran to further quickly expand its supply of Nasr anti-ship missiles. Although no Chinese officials attended the opening ceremony, there are Chinese footprints all around this facility. [1]

In addition, Iran is preparing to launch several satellites. As in the case of North Korea, each of these Iranian satellite launches will generate its own shockwave in the West, and will spark further
debate about the inability of the US and its allies to deal effectively with Iran and its significant technological advances.

In early 2008, Stephanie Lieggi, a research associate at the California-based James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies, wrote a white paper entitled "China's Trade with Iran under Western Scrutiny as Beijing Considers Next Move".

She wrote in the report, "Many recent assessments of China's export control system have pointed to positive movement in controlling sensitive dual-use items and a recognition by Chinese authorities of the need to control the transfer of such items to countries like Iran." [2]

At the time Lieggi's paper emerged, the next phase of an already planned expansion of Iran's anti-ship missile production capabilities was already in motion. This new missile plant suggests strongly that perhaps the "positive movement" which Lieggi spoke of earlier has now ceased, but Lieggi disagrees and labels China's efforts to control its companies' activities in Iran as "mixed".


"Chinese export controls have come a long way in the last 10 years, but the major problem with regards to trade with Iran is that China's leadership does not have the political will to stop some deals, especially if there are powerful companies like China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation [CPMIEC] involved and if the technologies aren't necessarily on China's control lists ... There is a notable difference with enforcement of export controls when the company involved is not a powerful state-owned enterprise."
China's control lists cover ballistic missile technology, but there is still debate about how far cruise missile technology should be controlled.

According to Jane's Information Group, CPMIEC is state-owned and oversees the production for export of a variety of anti-ship missiles including the HY-1, YJ-1/ C-80, HY-3/C-301 and YJ-2/C-802 medium-range anti-ship missiles, to name just four. [3]

Last year, the New York County District Attorney's Office uncovered a multinational funds transfer apparatus overseen by the Iranians and revealed that a long-running supplier of banned missile components and weapons to Iran. It listed a Chinese company known as LIMMT Economic and Trade Company Ltd, along with various front companies, as providing Iran with many critical materials in great quantity. Iran was close to obtaining sophisticated equipment and tons of additional material for its nuclear and missile programs when investigators put an end to this network. [4]

Keep in mind that we are talking about an enforcement action that took place in 2009, not 1999.

The US Treasury Department was active in this investigation as well.

"Today we are acting under our [United Nations] Security Council and other international obligations to prevent these entities from abusing the financial system to pursue centrifuge and missile technology for Iran," said US Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey.

A Chinese individual, Li Fangwei (also known as Karl Lee), the commercial manager of LIMMT, "created front companies to access the global financial system. In doing so, LIMMT had to juggle multiple aliases and confronted operational difficulties and customer confusion.

"LIMMT instructed its customer, 'you are kindly required NOT to inform our following previous identifying information to US bank or US Treasury Department ... What you should do is let them know that SINO METALLURGY & MINERALS INDUSTRY CO, LTD is a company who is NOT related to LIMMT company and any other Company on the Specially Designated National (SDN) list of US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)'", according to the US Treasury Department. [5]

Besides LIMMT and its eight front companies, Khorasan Metallurgy Industries (KMI), Kaveh Cutting Tools Company, the Amin Industrial Complex, Yazd Metallurgy Industries and Shahid Sayyade Shirazi Industries were among the Iranian companies targeted.

Another Iranian company, Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, was found to "be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for, or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the Iranian Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL)".

KMI is a subsidiary of Iran's Ammunition Industries Group which is owned by Iran's Defense Industries Organization (DIO), and has ties to Iran's ballistic missile sector. Niru Battery provides power units for Iranian missile systems.

DIO and Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization which oversees missile-related research and development as well as many ballistic missile entities - perhaps even the new anti-ship missile plant - in Iran are controlled by MODAFL.

Lee, in effect, was just the tip of the iceberg.

Besides this case in the US last year, nuclear-related items are often being brokered by Chinese companies for delivery to Iran via Taiwan in order to avoid the licensing requirements in the Chinese system. The case of Yi-Lan Chen, a Taiwanese businessman arrested in Guam earlier this year, may fit this pattern.

"This is somewhat telling," said Lieggi. "China's nuclear-related controls are more solid than their missile-related controls. And in these cases it appears that China's enforcement efforts were relatively successful, at least in deterring domestic companies from trying to export out of China illegally."

In mid-May, US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg gave a speech at the Washington, DC-based Brookings Institution entitled "US-China Cooperation on Global Issues". Steinberg said nothing at all about the new missile plant in Iran or China's contribution to the steady buildup of Iran's missile forces. [6]

"The cat is out of the bag so nothing is being said about the US dropping the ball in general when it comes to China's conventional arms exports to Iran today especially dual-use exports," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a private firm in Virginia which addresses emerging security challenges.

Lieggi was not surprised that the plant was not mentioned "in such a public forum - if for no other reason, there really has not been firm reporting on it".

"The issue is important to the US administration [which is] continuing to push the issue of missile-related transfers with Beijing; just not in place of discussing nuclear issues," said Lieggi.

Some say the silence in Washington, DC has been deafening lately.

"President [Barack] Obama's April nuclear summit, ostensibly designed to highlight the threat of nuclear terrorism, failed to produce any mention of China's critical role in creating the necessity for such a summit," said Rick Fisher, senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington, DC.

Does the US seek to avoid irritating China at all costs especially at a time when the imposition of additional sanctions on Iran is so close at hand?

Lieggi disagreed and offered as evidence the lack of more movement by the US on China's application to join the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and on issues regarding high technology trade to China, "which the US administration is still not budging on". It is this ongoing Chinese-Iranian cooperation in the realm of anti-ship and cruise missile development "and the legal ambiguities involved that keep the US from agreeing to allow China to be admitted to the MTCR".

"These are issues that the Chinese continue to raise at bilateral meetings and continue to be a thorn in China's side," said Lieggi. "Some within the Obama administration recognize that China is not a monolithic creature and that some players within the Chinese system can be worked with cooperatively, like on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, even if you do not like the activities of other factions within the same system."

The US has bargained with China before over missile-related transactions and done so with limited success.

"The US pressured the Chinese to stop missile sales to Iran during the [Ronald] Reagan administration, and part of the understanding reached at the time involved Chinese access to the international commercial space launch services market," said Gregory Kulacki, senior analyst and China Project Manager for the Global Security Program at the Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists. "President George W Bush and the [US president Bill] Clinton administration justified continuing cooperation with China on commercial space launch services, despite the Tiananmen sanctions, on these grounds."

The new missile plant in Iran does not represent the start of a new phase in the Chinese-Iranian joint arms development process, according to Uzi Rubin, chief executive officer of Rubincon Ltd, an Israeli missile defense consultancy.

"Iranian missile production is not undergoing any significant changes in 2010," said Rubin. "The rate of production has been and is still quite high. It stands to reason that the production is dependent on some parts and materials from Chinese sources, but this is not new."

Rubin does not detect any sign that China's missile-related contributions to Iran's missile programs are increasing.

"There is no indication that the Chinese contribution to Iran's missile program is escalating. Nor do any specific trends in Iran's current program seem to bear any relationship to China. It is simply that China is already light years away from where Iran is. The influence seems to come from North Korea and perhaps from Russian entities rather than China," said Rubin.

Iran continues to improve its Noor anti-ship missile as well. This is now described as an upgraded and air-launched version of China's C-802 missile, but with longer-range, over-the-horizon capabilities.
"The Iranians are very clever in exploiting existing designs for uses beyond original specifications. If they found a way to launch the C-802 from an aircraft, I would not be surprised, The Chinese are not necessarily involved in that," said Rubin. "There may have been some Chinese assistance in turning the old Chinese rocket-propelled Styx [Silkworm] into Iran's jet-propelled Raad [a long-range anti-ship missile that Iran deployed along its coast five years ago]. The small jet engine in the Raad could well be Chinese."

According to Pike, when US pressure on China in the past successfully prevented direct transfers to Iran of certain missiles, Iran simply obtained them via Pakistan, and "not directly from China".

In addition to China and Pakistan, countries like Russia, Ukraine and North Korea have played a role in Iran's missile program over the years. According to Dr Geoffrey Forden, senior research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Program on Science, Technology and Society, Iran's Safir ballistic missile/satellite launch vehicle (SLV) which was used to launch Omid - Iran's first satellite - shares certain design elements with the North Korean U'nha-2 ballistic missile/SLV, for example.

"The Simorgh SLV - which Iran developed after the Safir - still appears different than the U'nha-2," said Forden. "On the other hand, the Safir's second stage is the same as the U'nha-2's third stage. I don't know if the U'nha-2's first stage is the same as China's DF-3 [missile's] first stage. I suspect not."

According to German space and missile expert Norbert Brugge, the Simorgh uses North Korean Nodong engines whereas the Unha-2 uses Chinese YF-2 engines from the DF-3 missile. [7]

"Judging from the pieces of missile technology that have been seen in the Safir, it appears that they come from Russia as opposed to China," Forden told Asia Times Online in March 2009.
Rubin disagreed at the time with Forden's statement that Russia was the source of the Safir technology.

"It could as well come from China or Ukraine," said Rubin, who added that a seizure in Bahrain of tungsten bars being shipped from China to Iran was firm evidence that, "Chinese entities are still engaged in the proliferation of ballistic missile technology in the Middle East and probably elsewhere, but there is no evidence or hint that the shipment represented official Chinese government policy." [8]

This quick primer is not just an attempt to encapsulate the ongoing debate about how all these missile builders and their components fit together, but it is an indicator of how Iran has reached out to others besides China to achieve its objectives on the launch pad. Yet China's role is central to the intricate problem confronting the US and its allies today.

"Iran, North Korea and Pakistan remain for China valuable nuclear and missile proxies for tying down the Americans, Indians, Japanese and others," said Fisher. "There is one common link: China's nuclear and missile technologies that have been spread directly or indirectly."

As this traffic in missile technology expands - more rapidly than the US might be willing to admit - and while it may no longer emanate from China exclusively, it nevertheless results in the injection of sophisticated tactical strike weapons overtly into theaters where US forces must then adapt and adjust their everyday movements and actions accordingly based on the constant threat posed by the presence of these new weapons.

Notes
1. China opens missile plant in Iran, UPI, Apr 23, 2010.
2. China's Trade with Iran under Western Scrutiny as Beijing Considers Next Move, WMD Insights, February, 2008 issue.
3. China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) (China), Weapons and weapon control systems manufacturers, Jane's.
4. US investigator exposes Iran's nuclear weapons shopping list, Telegraph, May 24, 2009.
5. Treasury Designates Iranian Proliferation Network and Identifies New Aliases, US Department of Treasury, April 7, 2009.
6 US-China Cooperation on Global Issues, US Department of State, May 11, 2010.
7. Simorgh IRILV, www.b14643.de.
8. Iran eases Pyongyang's launch, Asia Times Online, March 3, 2009.

Peter J Brown is a freelance writer from Maine USA.

 
 
 

[bigron]

Obama the Aggressive, Militaristic Interventionist?

If Obama knew about Petraeus order to expand Special Ops last Sept. then he is a dangerous militarist. If he didn't know, he's a feckless incompetent. Take your pick.

By Robert Dreyfuss, TheNation.com
Posted on May 25, 2010, Printed on May 26, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146995/

A secret military directive signed last September 30 by General David Petraeus, the Centcom commander, authorizes a vast expansion of secret U.S. military special ops from the Horn of Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia and “appears to authorize specific operations in Iran,” according to the New York Times.

If President Obama knew about this, authorized it, and still supports it, then Obama has crossed a red line, and the president will stand revealed as an aggressive, militaristic liberal interventionist who bears a closer resemblance to the president he succeeded than to the ephemeral reformer that he pretended to be in 2008, when he ran for office. If he didn’t know, if he didn’t understand the order, and if he’s unwilling to cancel it now that it’s been publicized, then Obama is a feckless incompetent. Take your pick.

If Congress has any guts at all, it will convene immediate investigative hearings into a power grab by Petraeus, a politically ambitious general, and the Pentagon’s arrogant Special Operations team, led by Admiral Eric T. Olson, who collaborated with Petraeus. And Congress needs to ask the White House: what did you know, and when did you know it?

Drop what you’re doing and read the whole piece, by Mark Mazzetti, in the Times, which ran it on page 1 as the lead story in today’s paper. (Critics of the “mainstream media” take note: the Times broke this story fearlessly, even though it apparently redacted certain operational details at the behest of the administration.)

Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version: In September, Petraeus signed the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order providing for a “broad expansion of clandestine military activity” in the region of Centcom’s responsibility, the Middle East and South Asia. Reports Mazzetti:

“The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.…

“The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive.”

And:

“Officials said that many top commanders, General Petraeus among them, have advocated an expansive interpretation of the military’s role around the world, arguing that troops need to operate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to better fight militant groups.”

The Times story raises a million questions: Is this how the United States intends to carry out the order to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaqi, the Yemen-based U.S. citizen who is reportedly an Al Qaeda operative? Does the revelation of this order have anything to do with the abrupt resignation of Dennis Blair, the departed Director of National Intelligence? What sorts of “dissident groups” in Iran might the military connect with, and might they include paramilitary forces associated with rebellious Kurds in western Iran, several of whom were just put to death by Tehran, or the Pakistan-linked Baluchistan rebels in southeast Iran?

For decades, the military has tried to elbow the Central Intelligence Agency into a subordinate role. Even as the intelligence budget ballooned (since the 1990s) to enormous proportions, the Pentagon has gobbled up most of it and tried to force the civilian CIA into a subordinate role. (According to Mazzetti, the CIA supports the Petraeus directive, even though it is explicitly aimed at “break[ing] its dependence on the Central Intelligence Agency,” but we’ll see.) The gung-ho Special Ops folks at the Pentagon have been pushing hard to become a kind of uniformed covert operations unit of the U.S. government, even though military operations aren’t governed by the same sort of restrictive Congressional oversight that the CIA operates under. And, according to Mazzetti, the Petraeus order is intended to accomplish things that the CIA “will not” do:

“The order, which an official said was drafted in close coordination with Adm. Eric T. Olson, the officer in charge of the United States Special Operations Command, calls for clandestine activities that ‘cannot or will not be accomplished’ by conventional military operations or “interagency activities,” a reference to American spy agencies.”

Petraeus, along with General McChrystal, should have been fired long ago by Obama, if for no other reason because of their insubordination in 2009 is trying to force Obama's hand in pushing for a series of escalations of the Afghanistan war. Obama can still redeem himself by firing them now.


Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).

© 2010 TheNation.com All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146995/

[bigron]

 
'US to Send Secret Military Teams to Iran'

U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast

By MARK MAZZETTI

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25533.htm

May 25, 2010 "New York Times" - WASHINGTON — The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said. Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” Al Qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries.

In broadening its secret activities, the United States military has also sought in recent years to break its dependence on the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy agencies for information in countries without a significant American troop presence.

General Petraeus’s order is meant for small teams of American troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.

But some Pentagon officials worry that the expanded role carries risks. The authorized activities could strain relationships with friendly governments like Saudi Arabia or Yemen — which might allow the operations but be loath to acknowledge their cooperation — or incite the anger of hostile nations like Iran and Syria. Many in the military are also concerned that as American troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees.

The precise operations that the directive authorizes are unclear, and what the military has done to follow through on the order is uncertain. The document, a copy of which was viewed by The New York Times, provides few details about continuing missions or intelligence-gathering operations.

Several government officials who described the impetus for the order would speak only on condition of anonymity because the document is classified. Spokesmen for the White House and the Pentagon declined to comment for this article. The Times, responding to concerns about troop safety raised by an official at United States Central Command, the military headquarters run by General Petraeus, withheld some details about how troops could be deployed in certain countries.

The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike.

“The Defense Department can’t be caught flat-footed,” said one Pentagon official with knowledge of General Petraeus’s order.

The directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, signed Sept. 30, may also have helped lay a foundation for the surge of American military activity in Yemen that began three months later.

Special Operations troops began working with Yemen’s military to try to dismantle Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s terror network based in Yemen. The Pentagon has also carried out missile strikes from Navy ships into suspected militant hideouts and plans to spend more than $155 million equipping Yemeni troops with armored vehicles, helicopters and small arms.

Officials said that many top commanders, General Petraeus among them, have advocated an expansive interpretation of the military’s role around the world, arguing that troops need to operate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to better fight militant groups.

The order, which an official said was drafted in close coordination with Adm. Eric T. Olson, the officer in charge of the United States Special Operations Command, calls for clandestine activities that “cannot or will not be accomplished” by conventional military operations or “interagency activities,” a reference to American spy agencies.

While the C.I.A. and the Pentagon have often been at odds over expansion of clandestine military activity, most recently over intelligence gathering by Pentagon contractors in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there does not appear to have been a significant dispute over the September order.

A spokesman for the C.I.A. declined to confirm the existence of General Petraeus’s order, but said that the spy agency and the Pentagon had a “close relationship” and generally coordinate operations in the field.

“There’s more than enough work to go around,” said the spokesman, Paul Gimigliano. “The real key is coordination. That typically works well, and if problems arise, they get settled.”

During the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld endorsed clandestine military operations, arguing that Special Operations troops could be as effective as traditional spies, if not more so.

Unlike covert actions undertaken by the C.I.A., such clandestine activity does not require the president’s approval or regular reports to Congress, although Pentagon officials have said that any significant ventures are cleared through the National Security Council. Special Operations troops have already been sent into a number of countries to carry out reconnaissance missions, including operations to gather intelligence about airstrips and bridges.

Some of Mr. Rumsfeld’s initiatives were controversial, and met with resistance by some at the State Department and C.I.A. who saw the troops as a backdoor attempt by the Pentagon to assert influence outside of war zones. In 2004, one of the first groups sent overseas was pulled out of Paraguay after killing a pistol-waving robber who had attacked them as they stepped out of a taxi.

A Pentagon order that year gave the military authority for offensive strikes in more than a dozen countries, and Special Operations troops carried them out in Syria, Pakistan and Somalia.

In contrast, General Petraeus’s September order is focused on intelligence gathering — by American troops, foreign businesspeople, academics or others — to identify militants and provide “persistent situational awareness,” while forging ties to local indigenous groups.

Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
 
 

[bigron]

From The Sunday Times May 30, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

by Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv

Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.

The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.

The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O”, told an Israeli newspaper: “We are an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”

Each of the submarines has a crew of 35 to 50, commanded by a colonel capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.

The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the Israeli arsenal.

The deployment is designed to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence and potentially to land Mossad agents. “We’re a solid base for collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in one place,” said a flotilla officer.

The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran,” said a navy officer.

Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral said: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us.”

Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to Obama in Washington this week.

Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he said.

[bigron]

Report: Israel to deploy nuclear submarines off Iran coast

Haaretz

http://uruknet.info/?p=m66490&hd=&size=1&l=e

Sunday Times quotes IDF official saying the 3 German-made long range submarines will gather intelligence, act as deterrent and potentially land Mossad agents.

May 30, 2010

Israel is to deploy three submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf, the Sunday Times reported on Sunday.

According to the Times report, one submarine had been sent over Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, and in the possession of Syria and Hezbollah, could be used to hit strategic sites within Israel, such as air bases and missile launchers.

Dolphin, Tekuma, and Leviathan, all German-made Dolphin class submarines of the 7th navy Flotilla, have been reported as frequenting the Gulf in the past, however, according to the Sunday Times report, this new deployment is meant to ensure a permanent naval presence near the Iranian coastline.

A flotilla officer told the Times that the deployed submarines were meant to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence and potentially to land Mossad agents.

"We're a solid base for collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in one place," the officer said.

The flotilla's commander, identified only as "Colonel O," was quoted by the Times as saying that the submarine force was "an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders."

The submarines could be used if Iran continues its program to produce a nuclear bomb. "The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran," a navy officer told the Times.

Apparently responding to the reported Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral told the Times: "Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us."

Last July, defense sources reported that an Israeli submarine had sailed the Suez Canal to the Red Sea last month, describing the unusual maneuver as a show of strategic reach in the face of Iran.

Israel has long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely assumed to carry nuclear missiles, away from Suez so as not to expose them to the gaze of Egyptian harbormasters.



 

[citizenx]

Land Mossad agents?  WTF?

That $hit is wack!

[bigron]

Middle East
Jun 3, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF03Ak01.html 
 
Attack complicates new sanctions on Iran

By Barbara Slavin

WASHINGTON - Israel's lethal confrontation with pro-Palestinian activists in the Mediterranean is complicating United States strategy toward Iran and undermining the likelihood of a solid sanctions victory at the United Nations.

US officials sought on Tuesday to separate the two issues and said they are still actively pursuing a fourth round of punitive measures against Iran in the UN Security Council.

"We intend to continue to move ahead a resolution in New York focused squarely on the reality - that Iran has thus far been unwilling to engage with the international community on the concerns that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] underscored again yesterday," Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs Bill Burns told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

He was referring to the latest report by the IAEA that cited Iran for continuing to amass a stockpile of potential bomb fuel and failing to clarify aspects of its nuclear program that could have military applications.

However, the incident in the Mediterranean, in which Israeli commandos killed at least nine activists, has overshadowed the Iran question and made it less likely that the US will gain broad support for more sanctions.

The US labored for months to gain Russian and Chinese backing for a resolution that would restrict Iranian arms imports, authorize inspection of Iranian cargo and make it harder for Iranian banks to open new branches abroad.

Russia and China are among the five permanent members of the Security Council that have veto power. Passage of a resolution requires no veto, plus support from at least four other members of the 15-nation body.

Turkey is unlikely to be among them. Brazil and Lebanon are also potential "no" votes. It is possible that other members such as Mexico will abstain. Three previous sanctions resolutions against Iran had much broader backing and no negative votes.

Turkey, which has been trying to assume a major diplomatic role in the Middle East, is the chief opponent to the Iran resolution. It is also the home port for the ships that tried to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. Most of the fatalities were Turkish nationals.

The flotilla fiasco - which Israel contends came in self-defense when their forces were set on with pipes and clubs - has strained already troubled Turkish-Israeli ties to the breaking point, with Turkish officials accusing Israel of "state terrorism".

The Turkish media on Tuesday excoriated Israel. A columnist in the newspaper Hurriyet said that Israel's "banditry" shows that "Israel never treats the Palestinian people fairly and humanely. We do not believe that Turkish-Israel relations can improve as long as the current governments in both countries remain in charge."

Another newspaper, Radikal, called Israel a "rogue" state.

Turkish media also suggested that Israel acted out of anger at Turkey's efforts to broker a nuclear deal with Iran. The leaders of Turkey and Brazil mediated a deal in May under which Iran promised to send to Turkey 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. In return, Iran would receive fuel for a Tehran reactor that makes medical isotopes.

The deal is similar to one advanced by the Obama administration last autumn. But the US reaction has been one of annoyance, not gratitude.

Burns said on Tuesday that the US was consulting with Russia and France and planned "at some point" to send a letter about the Turkish-Brazilian-Iranian plan to the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano. Burns suggested that the US felt no urgency to do so.

"I can't give you an exact date" when the US will respond, he said.
Burns said that the Iranian offer did not address "the core concern" - Iran's unwillingness to suspend uranium enrichment, which the UN has repeatedly demanded.

Burns added that the plan advanced last year with US backing - which would have sent Iranian low enriched uranium to Russia and France - was a "confidence-building measure", not a solution to the nuclear crisis.

This confidence-building measure "has diminished over time for the simple fact that Iran's stockpile of low enriched uranium has increased considerably," he said. Last October, 1,200 kilograms represented three-quarters of Iran's stockpile, he said; now it's about half.

Still, the Turkish-Brazilian-Iranian deal has attracted support not only internationally, but also among US non-proliferation and Iran experts.

Nine analysts including a man who once served in Burns' position - Thomas Pickering - issued a statement Tuesday urging the so-called "Iran Six" - the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany, which have coordinated policy on Iran - to "take advantage of this opportunity as the first step in a broader dialogue that could include further confidence building measures".
Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council and one of the signatories of the statement, warned that "there may not be many more opportunities" for the US and Iran to engage.

"Obviously, nothing is perfect but the task here is to try to provide opportunities to sit down, talk and establish a more robust procedure for diplomacy," he said. Talks, Parsi said, could also deal with regional issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan and with Iran's poor record on human rights.

With Israel's attack on the aid convoy, however, Iran is now in the unusual position of being able to lecture Tel Aviv about rights abuses.

"It's a perfect storm," Parsi said.

(Inter Press Service) 
 
 

[bigron]

Iran Dismisses Reports on Deployment of Israeli Subs near Territorial Waters

Fars News Agency

http://uruknet.com/?p=m66561&hd=&size=1&l=e

June 1, 2010

TEHRAN (FNA)- The General Staff of Iran's Armed Forces on Monday denied some media reports that the Israeli regime has sent a number of its submarines on a mission near Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.


"The Islamic Republic of Iran's Armed Forces are guarding the (country's) borders on land, in air and at sea vigilantly and powerfully," an official of the General Staff of Iran's Armed Forces said.

Some media outlets had reported that Israel has sent three German-made submarines with nuclear cruise missiles to the Persian Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

Meantime, an Iranian patrol on Thursday spotted a US nuclear-armed submarine in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which allows the passage of 90 percent of the oil produced by the Persian Gulf states to Asia, the US and Western Europe.

Meantime, the Iranian official warned Israel against threats and hostile actions against Iran, and said, "Any wrong move by the illegitimate Zionist regime will incur dire consequences on the Quds occupying regime and the region."

Iranian military and government officials have always warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, the country will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and Israel and its worldwide interest and will close the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.

Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program.

In a Sep. 11, 2008 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy also said that in the two decades since the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.

According to the report, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran's response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.





 

[NikkiC]

BILDERBERG wants war against IRAN .. which means: they will use American and European soldiers and let them die for their bullshit megalomania. Why? Because they CAN ... that's why.
MILITARY MEN  - instead of blindly accepting orders GET INFORMED, don't let them use you - you all have families too. Don't sacrifice yourself for Bilderberg and it's megalomania. Without you Bilderberg is powerless. Don't serve those who want to sacrifice you for their purposes. Don't let them or corrupt polticians lie to you. GET INFORMED!!!


this is what Bilderberger Henry Kissinger (still politically active) says about our military men:
“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger

[bigron]

Warning Of War

Discovering The Truth In Time

(Taken from CubaDebate)

By Fidel Castro

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25839.htm

June 29, 2010 "Granma" -- WHEN I was writing one of my previous reflections, as a disaster for humanity was rapidly approaching, my greatest concern was to fulfill the elemental duty of informing our people.

Today I feel calmer than 26 days ago. As things continue happening in the short term, I can reiterate and enrich information to national and international public opinion.

Obama promised to attend the quarter-final game on July 2 if his country won in the second round. He must know, more than anybody, that those quarter finals could not take place if extremely grave events should happen beforehand, or at least he should know that.

Last Friday, June 25, an international news agency of known attention to detail in the information that it provides, published statements from "…the naval commander of the elite corps of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, General Ali Fadavi…" warning that "… if the United States and its allies inspect Iranian ships in international waters ‘they will receive a response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.’"

The information was taken from the national Mehr news agency of Iran.

That agency, according to the cable, communicated: "Fadawi added that ‘the Navy of the Revolutionary Guard currently has hundreds of vessels fitted with missile launchers.’"

The information, written almost at the same time as the one published in Granma, or perhaps before, seemed at certain points a carbon copy of the paragraphs of the Reflection written on Thursday, June 24 and published in that newspaper on Friday 25th.

The coincidence can be explained by the elemental use of logical reasoning that I always apply. I was not aware of one word of what was published by the national Iranian agency.

I do not harbor the slightest doubt that as soon as the warships of the United States and Israel take up their positions – together with the rest of the U.S. military vessels located in the vicinity of the Iranian coasts – and attempt to inspect that country’s first merchant ship, a rain of missiles will be unleashed in both directions. That will be the precise moment when that terrible war will begin. It is not possible to foresee how many ships will be sunk nor of what ensign.

Finding out the truth in time is the most important thing for our people.

It doesn’t matter that by natural instinct, almost everybody; it could be said 99.9% or more of my compatriots, are conserving hope and agreeing with me with the sincere desire of being wrong. I have talked with people in my closest circles and, at the same time, have received news from so many noble, altruistic and conscientious citizens who, on reading my Reflections, do not contest my considerations in the least, but assimilate, believe and instantly swallow the reasoning that I expound but who, nevertheless, immediately give their attention to fulfilling their work to which they devote their energies.

That is precisely what we desire of our compatriots. The worst things is to suddenly become aware of news of extremely grave events, without having heard any news whatsoever of such a possibility beforehand; then confusion and panic spreads, something that would be unworthy of a heroic people like the Cubans, who were at the point of being the target of a massive nuclear attack in October 1962, and did not hesitate for an instant to fulfill their duty.

During their undertaking of heroic internationalist missions, valiant combatants and chiefs of our Revolutionary Armed Forces were at the point of becoming the victims of nuclear attacks on the Cuban troops who were approaching the southern border with Angola, from where the racist South African forces had been evicted after the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, entrenching themselves on the border with Namibia.

With the knowledge of the U.S. president, the Pentagon supplied the South African racists via Israel with approximately 14 nuclear weapons, more powerful than those launched on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as we have explained in other reflections.

I am not a prophet or a fortune teller. Nobody said a single word to me about what was going to happen; all of it is the fruit of what today I am describing as logical reasoning.

We are not novices nor are we interfering in this complicated subject.

In the nuclear post-crisis, it can be augured what will occur in the rest of Ibero-American speaking America.

In such circumstances, one cannot talk of capitalism or socialism. Only that a stage of the administration of goods and services available in this part of the continent will open up. Inevitably, each country will continue to be governed by those who are currently leading the government, a number of them very close to socialism and others full of euphoria at the prospect of a world market now opening for fuel, uranium, copper, lithium, aluminum, iron and other metals that are currently being sent to the developed and rich countries in that world market, which will suddenly disappear.

Abundant foodstuffs currently being exported to that world market will also abruptly disappear.

In such circumstances, the most basic products required in order to live: foodstuffs, water, fuels and the resources of the hemisphere to the south of the United States, are there in abundance for maintaining a little bit of civilization, the uncontrolled advances of which have led humanity to such a disaster.

However, some things are still very unclear at the present moment; can the two most powerful nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, abstain from using their nuclear weapons against one another?

What remains in no doubt whatsoever is that, from Europe, the nuclear weapons of Britain and France, allies of the United States and Israel – and which enthusiastically imposed the resolution that will inevitably unleash war, and a war that, given the reasons explained, will immediately become a nuclear war – are a threat to Russian territory, although that country, just like China, has tried to avoid such an outcome as far as the strengths and possibilities of each one allow.

The economy of the superpower will collapse like a house of cards. The society of the United States is one which is the least prepared to endure a disaster like the one created by the empire in the very territory from where it set out.

We do not know what might be the environmental effects of the nuclear weapons that will inevitably explode in various parts of our planet, something which, in the less grave variant, is going to happen in profusion.

To venture any hypothesis would be pure science fiction on my part.

Fidel Castro Ruz - June 27, 2010 - 2:15 p.m.

   

[bigron]

The Iranian Threat?

By Noam Chomsky

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25841.htm

June 29 "2010" -- "ZNet" -- The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. Congress has just strengthened the sanctions against Iran, with even more severe penalties against foreign companies. The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding its offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the US could build the massive base it uses for attacking the Middle East and Central Asia. The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 “bunker busters” used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these “massive ordnance penetrators,” the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. “US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he said. “The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003,” accelerating under Obama.

 

The Arab press reports that an American fleet (with an Israeli vessel) passed through the Suez Canal on the way to the Persian Gulf, where its task is “to implement the sanctions against Iran and supervise the ships going to and from Iran.” British and Israeli media report that Saudi Arabia is providing a corridor for Israeli bombing of Iran (denied by Saudi Arabia). On his return from Afghanistan to reassure NATO allies that the US will stay the course after the replacement of General McChrystal by his superior, General Petraeus, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel to meet Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and senior Israeli military staff along with intelligence and planning units, continuing the annual strategic dialogue between Israel and the U.S. in Tel Aviv. The meeting focused “on the preparation by both Israel and the U.S. for the possibility of a nuclear capable Iran,” according to Haaretz, which reports further that Mullen emphasized that “I always try to see challenges from Israeli perspective.” Mullen and Ashkenazi are in regular contact on a secure line.

 

The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.

 

Some respected analysts describe the Iranian threat in apocalyptic terms. Amitai Etzioni warns that “The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East,” no less. If Iran’s nuclear program proceeds, he asserts, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states will “move toward” the new Iranian “superpower”; in less fevered rhetoric, a regional alliance might take shape independent of the US. In the US army journal Military Review, Etzioni urges a US attack that targets not only Iran’s nuclear facilities but also its non-nuclear military assets, including infrastructure – meaning, the civilian society. "This kind of military action is akin to sanctions - causing 'pain' in order to change behaviour, albeit by much more powerful means."

 

Such harrowing pronouncements aside, what exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided in the April 2010 study of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2010. The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to US allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the Institute. Rather, it is concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.

 

The study makes it clear that the Iranian threat is not military. Iran’s military spending is “relatively low compared to the rest of the region,” and less than 2% that of the US. Iranian military doctrine is strictly “defensive,… designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities.” Iran has only “a limited capability to project force beyond its borders.” With regard to the nuclear option, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

 

Though the Iranian threat is not military, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II, which yields “substantial control of the world,” one influential figure advised (A. A. Berle).

 

But Iran’s threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. As the Institute study formulates the threat, Iran is “destabilizing” the region. US invasion and military occupation of Iran’s neighbors is “stabilization.” Iran’s efforts to extend its influence in neighboring countries is “destabilization,” hence plainly illegitimate. It should be noted that such revealing usage is routine. Thus the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace, former editor the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, was properly using the term “stability” in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve “stability” in Chile it was necessary to “destabilize” the country (by overthrowing the elected Allende government and installing the Pinochet dictatorship).

 

Beyond these crimes, Iran is also supporting terrorism, the study continues: by backing Hezbollah and Hamas, the major political forces in Lebanon and in Palestine – if elections matter. The Hezbollah-based coalition handily won the popular vote in Lebanon’s latest (2009) election. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election, compelling the US and Israel to institute the harsh and brutal siege of Gaza to punish the miscreants for voting the wrong way in a free election. These have been the only relatively free elections in the Arab world. It is normal for elite opinion to fear the threat of democracy and to act to deter it, but this is a rather striking case, particularly alongside of strong US support for the regional dictatorships, particularly striking with Obama’s strong praise for the brutal Egyptian dictator Mubarak on the way to his famous address to the Muslim world in Cairo.

 

The terrorist acts attributed to Hamas and Hezbollah pale in comparison to US-Israeli terrorism in the same region, but they are worth a look nevertheless.

 

On May 25 Lebanon celebrated its national holiday, Liberation Day, commemorating Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 22 years, as a result of Hezbollah resistance – described by Israeli authorities as “Iranian aggression” against Israel in Israeli-occupied Lebanon (Ephraim Sneh). That too is normal imperial usage. Thus President John F. Kennedy condemned the “the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the North.” The assault by the South Vietnamese resistance against Kennedy’s bombers, chemical warfare, driving peasants to virtual concentration camps, and other such benign measures was denounced as “internal aggression” by Kennedy’s UN Ambassador, liberal hero Adlai Stevenson. North Vietnamese support for their countrymen in the US-occupied South is aggression, intolerable interference with Washington’s righteous mission. Kennedy advisors Arthur Schlesinger and Theodore Sorenson, considered doves, also praised Washington’s intervention to reverse “aggression” in South Vietnam – by the indigenous resistance, as they knew, at least if they read US intelligence reports. In 1955 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff defined several types of “aggression,” including “Aggression other than armed, i.e., political warfare, or subversion.” For example, an internal uprising against a US-imposed police state, or elections that come out the wrong way. The usage is also common in scholarship and political commentary, and makes sense on the prevailing assumption that We Own the World.

 

Hamas resists Israel’s military occupation and its illegal and violent actions in the occupied territories. It is accused of refusing to recognize Israel (political parties do not recognize states). In contrast, the US and Israel not only do not recognize Palestine, but have been acting for decades to ensure that it can never come into existence in any meaningful form; the governing party in Israel, in its 1999 campaign platform, bars the existence of any Palestinian state.

 

Hamas is charged with rocketing Israeli settlements on the border, criminal acts no doubt, though a fraction of Israel’s violence in Gaza, let alone elsewhere. It is important to bear in mind, in this connection, that the US and Israel know exactly how to terminate the terror that they deplore with such passion. Israel officially concedes that there were no Hamas rockets as long as Israel partially observed a truce with Hamas in 2008. Israel rejected Hamas’s offer to renew the truce, preferring to launch the murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in December 2008, with full US backing, an exploit of murderous aggression without the slightest credible pretext on either legal or moral grounds.

 

The model for democracy in the Muslim world, despite serious flaws, is Turkey, which has relatively free elections, and has also been subject to harsh criticism in the US. The most extreme case was when the government followed the position of 95% of the population and refused to join in the invasion of Iraq, eliciting harsh condemnation from Washington for its failure to comprehend how a democratic government should behave: under our concept of democracy, the voice of the Master determines policy, not the near-unanimous voice of the population.

 

The Obama administration was once again incensed when Turkey joined with Brazil in arranging a deal with Iran to restrict its enrichment of uranium. Obama had praised the initiative in a letter to Brazil’s president Lula da Silva, apparently on the assumption that it would fail and provide a propaganda weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the US was furious, and quickly undermined it by ramming through a Security Council resolution with new sanctions against Iran that were so meaningless that China cheerfully joined at once – recognizing that at most the sanctions would impede Western interests in competing with China for Iran’s resources. Once again, Washington acted forthrightly to ensure that others would not interfere with US control of the region.

 

Not surprisingly, Turkey (along with Brazil) voted against the US sanctions motion in the Security Council. The other regional member, Lebanon, abstained. These actions aroused further consternation in Washington. Philip Gordon, the Obama administration's top diplomat on European affairs, warned Turkey that its actions are not understood in the US and that it must “demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West,” AP reported, “a rare admonishment of a crucial NATO ally.”

 

The political class understands as well. Steven A. Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations, observed that the critical question now is "How do we keep the Turks in their lane?" – following orders like good democrats. A New York Times headline captured the general mood: “Iran Deal Seen as Spot on Brazilian Leader’s Legacy.” In brief, do what we say, or else.

 

There is no indication that other countries in the region favor US sanctions any more than Turkey does. On Iran’s opposite border, for example, Pakistan and Iran, meeting in Turkey, recently signed an agreement for a new pipeline. Even more worrisome for the US is that the pipeline might extend to India. The 2008 US treaty with India supporting its nuclear programs – and indirectly its nuclear weapons programs -- was intended to stop India from joining the pipeline, according to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia adviser to the United States Institute of Peace, expressing a common interpretation. India and Pakistan are two of the three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the third being Israel. All have developed nuclear weapons with US support, and still do.

 

No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons; or anyone. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a NFWZ in the Middle East. The issue arose (again) at the NPT conference at United Nations headquarters in early May 2010. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, proposed that the conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations in 2011 on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the US, at the 1995 review conference on the NPT.

 

Washington still formally agrees, but insists that Israel be exempted – and has given no hint of allowing such provisions to apply to itself. The time is not yet ripe for creating the zone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the NPT conference, while Washington insisted that no proposal can be accepted that calls for Israel's nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the IAEA or that calls on signers of the NPT, specifically Washington, to release information about “Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.” Obama’s technique of evasion is to adopt Israel’s position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with rare and temporary exceptions.

 

At the same time, Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, asked foreign ministers of its 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel "accede to” the NPT and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight, AP reported.

 

It is rarely noted that the US and UK have a special responsibility to work to establish a Middle East NWFZ. In attempting to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of the Iraq in 2003, they appealed to Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which called on Iraq to terminate its development of weapons of mass destruction. The US and UK claimed that they had not done so. We need not tarry on the excuse, but that Resolution commits its signers to move to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East.

 

Parenthetically, we may add that US insistence on maintaining nuclear facilities in Diego Garcia undermines the nuclear-free weapons zone (NFWZ) established by the African Union, just as Washington continues to block a Pacific NFWZ by excluding its Pacific dependencies.

 

Obama’s rhetorical commitment to non-proliferation has received much praise, even a Nobel peace prize. One practical step in this direction is establishment of NFWZs. Another is withdrawing support for the nuclear programs of the three non-signers of the NPT. As often, rhetoric and actions are hardly aligned, in fact are in direct contradiction in this case, facts that pass with little attention.

 

Instead of taking practical steps towards reducing the truly dire threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the US must take major steps towards reinforcing US control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions, by violence if other means do not succeed. That is understandable and even reasonable, under prevailing imperial doctrine.

   

[bigron]

Middle East
Jul 1, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG01Ak01.html 
 
The anatomy of an attack on Iran


By David Moon

In mid-June, Hugh Tomlinson in the Times of London wrote that the government of Saudi Arabia conferred on Israel the "green light" for use of its airspace for an attack on Iran. This revelation was said to be conventional wisdom inside the Saudi military. Tomlinson also quoted an unnamed United States military source stating to the effect that the US Department of State and the Defense Department had both said "grace" over this arrangement.

The Saudis and Israelis immediately denied the report, while US officials made no specific comments on the subject. The silence and denials nixed further media speculation.

First reported in the Times of London in July 2009 and referred to again in Tomlinson's recent article is word of a supposed meeting between Israel's Mossad chief Meir Dagan and unnamed Saudi intelligence leaders to discuss such an arrangement that both governments denied then and now.

Given the apparent regional political status quo, how might the  Israeli Air Force (IAF) strike Iran undetected on approach and at the very least unacknowledged on return if the decision is made in Jerusalem that the existential threat posed by Iran's arc of nuclear progress can no longer safely be tolerated?

Although the coordination of logistics and tactics of such a long distance mission - 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) on the straight line from Tel Aviv to Iran's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz - is daunting, the strategic or political realities must be defined before all else.

Overflight of Iraq on a direct bearing to Iran is out of the question. Such a path would cause friction between the US, responsible for Iraq's aerial sovereignty, and the next Iraqi government sure to be of delicate composition. It's safe to assume that the US views stability in Iraq far higher on the national interest meter than say apartments in east Jerusalem, thus for Israel the straight line over Iraq comes at a price that it can ill afford to pay.

The likely route to Iran, beginning at regional dusk preferably in the dark a new moon, is to fly a great circle around Iraq. Only careful planning carried out with precision timing and execution will ensure success. For this route, almost every applicable IAF logistics and support asset would be utilized.

The first leg for any F-15I and F-16I fighter bombers is a low-level run up the Mediterranean in the area of the Syrian town of Latakin, where up to three KC-707s (aerial tankers) in race track orbit would top up the tanks of the strike group. This tankage is absolutely necessary for the shorter-legged F-16I (range 1,300 miles). Refueling the F-15I (range 2765 miles) is desirable but not a necessity unless intelligence suggests targets beyond eastern Iran.

To skirt Turkish airspace and the ability of the Turkish military to raise an alarm heard throughout the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the strike group with two pairs of Gulfstream G-550s: one of each outfitted as a network-centric collaborative targeting (NCCT) and one each employing Senior Suter technology must fly low across northern Syria. The G-550 is a small package with the range the speed to accompany the strike group round trip without refueling - therefore up to the challenge.

The NCCT aircraft ferrets out air defense radars. The Suter partner beams a data stream containing, what in computer parlance is called a a "worm", into air defense radars with the capability of incapacitating an entire air defense network, if such a network is under centralized control.

This technology pioneered by the US Air Force and part of the code named the "Big Safari" program is heady stuff said to work wonders over Syria during the IAF's strike on Syria's North Korean-designed nuclear reactor in September 2007. The support of the G-550s will be instrumental every mile of the mission.

Non-networked anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) in states hostile to Israel may necessitate F-16Is in the tried and true AGM-88 high speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) mission.

Yet another application of high technology was the launch on June 11, 2007, of Ofek-7, as noted by Richard B Gasparre, also a source on G-550s in IAF service at airforce-technology.com, is a "... reconnaissance satellite, which gives Israeli intelligence specialists site and system mapping capability of unprecedented accuracy". Ofek-7 undoubtedly contributed to strike planning for the IAF's mission to Syria.

These powerful tools will be counted on to enable the strike package to skirt either Turkish or Iraqi airspace for a short jump of 150 or so miles to reach Iranian airspace undetected. The distance on a straight line from Latakin to Tabriz in Iran is 618 miles. The flight is shorter if the Israelis avoid Turkey and cut the Kurdish corner.

At a designated point over northern Iran, the strike group splits into Q and E-flights. Q-Flight flies southeast 348 miles to reach the known uranium-enrichment sites in Qom (under construction) and Natanz (operational). E-Flight homes in on the gas storage development site at Esfahan and the heavy water reactor complex at Arak on a more southerly path of 481 miles.

All the while in Iranian airspace, the G-550 Suter and NCCT aircraft work in tandem and with F-16I aircraft to suppress radars and AAA, while F-15Is designated top cover guard against any air-to-air threat put up by Iran's air force.

The strike package can count on aid in the form of Popeye Turbo cruise missiles launched by at least one Israeli submarine from the Arabian Sea against targets in Iran designed to shield the Israeli planes, degrade enemy responses and sow confusion among the Iranian military.

At some point, one of the three US Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint ELINT (electronic intelligence) platforms in the area will "see" Iranian air defense radars and hear an explosion of Iranian voices on open airwaves and quickly piece together events in Iran. This collected product will be immediately passed through Central Command to Washington for dissemination to the principles of the National Security Council, including US President Barack Obama.
Seven hours earlier, at least three IAF KC-707s would have flown the 3,500 miles around the Arabian Peninsula, likely painted up like commercial 707 cargo aircraft, transiting international airspace to a meeting point over the northern Persian Gulf. At this extreme range, each KC-707 carries only an estimated 85,000 lbs of fuel to pass to the hungry F-16Is flying 451 miles from Qom and 350 miles from Esfahan.

Each F-16I will require at least 5,000 lbs of jet fuel for the final leg of nearly 1,000 miles through northern Saudi Arabia then home. Thus, a hinge point in IAF planning; the Israelis must determine the mix of F-16Is and KC-707s committed to the mission.

On and over the Persian Gulf, given the presence of US Navy and Air Force AWACS platforms such as the EC-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry along with SPY-1 radars of US Navy cruisers and destroyers, the Israelis can have no expectation at all that the refueling scrum of the F-16Is will go undetected. During this evolution, any IAF planes too damaged to make it home can ditch close to a US Navy ship with a reasonable expectation of rescue.

Much will depend on what the US does with the information in hand. Does Obama choose to inform Iraqi and Gulf Cooperation Council allies of the situation, or will various US radars simply go into "diagnostic mode", as if operators cannot believe what they see?

If Obama's decision is to watch and listen, the strike group can try a run for home across northern Saudi Arabia. Here, the Saudis have a decision. The Saudi Air Force can defend the kingdom's airspace, possibly taking loses and handing out same, or the Israelis can bet on G-550s tricking out the kingdom's air defenses in a manner that gives the Saudis an excuse to say they were blinded by the IAF and the non-cooperation of the US.

By flying north, the IAF reaps the benefits of plausible deniability, a political necessity for US and allied Arab states. These states can honestly say they had no prior knowledge of IAF planes winging it to Iran with full racks of missiles and bombs.

Another option is available to the Israelis to increase the IAF's odds of flying the northern leg undetected. This choice is to strike the "Duchy of Nasrallah" - Hezbollah under Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon - to create cover and sow confusion. If the IAF is to strike Iran, immediate blowback is to be expected from Iran-supported Hezbollah's extensive inventory of unguided missiles.

On June 18, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman and task group including the German frigate Hessen in the company of an unidentified Israeli naval vessel made a fast transit of the Suez Canal. The Egyptians not only closed the canal to all traffic, all fishing boats where docked, while the Egyptian military lined the banks of the canal. All facets of this passage rank as extraordinary.

It is readily apparent that the US Department of State and the Pentagon collaborated closely with an Arab country to create a lane of fast transit not only for US Navy assets and an attached NATO ally, but for an Israeli ship.

One more element, the IDF launched their improved Ofek-9 reconnaissance satellite on June 22. Is this a matter of timing or of coincidence?

Tensions are high in the region, yet little could precipitate a full diplomatic meltdown quicker than for Iran to directly challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza. And this confrontation is in no way limited to Israel and Iran. Such a provocation could easily inflame public opinion in Sunni Arab states, where leaders are weary of Tehran's grandstanding on the question of Israel. Tehran's rhetoric of threats toward Israel politically undermines Arab governments seen as less fervent on the subject.

CNN reported on June 24 on Iran's canceled designs to directly test the Gaza blockade. Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada, said, "In order not to give the Zionist regime an excuse, we will send the aid through other routes and without Iran's name."

Sheiholeslam's comment makes little sense, as the point of Iran's aid exercise was to win the propaganda war against Israel and Arab states. Whatever Iran's "excuse", there is reason now to suspect the Tehran regime will back down if decisively confronted by a motivated and unified coalition of area states.

David Moon is a regular contributor from the United States. He can be contacted at uscontributor@aol.com. 
 
 

[skyfind]

Transfer of ammunitions to Israel for a possible attack against Iran
4 July 2010
From Rome (Italy)
by Manlio Dinucci*

http://www.voltairenet.org/article166175.html

The White House hasn’t stopped heaping pressure on Iran to force it to cooperate in Afghanistan and in Iraq. While the State Department has triggered the start of an anti-Iranian blockade by way of resolution 1929, the Pentagon has been sending ammunitions to Israel and opening air corridors to provide to Tsahal the opportunity to strike the Iranian economy. Will Iran succumb to the threat?

"Saudi Arabia would never allow Israeli bombers to cross its airspace in order to strike Iran’s nuclear sites", declared Prince Mohammed Bin Nawaf, sent from Riyadh to London, thus refuting what was reported in the Times. Has the alarm been turned off? Nothing could be less certain. No one in Washington has denied the information, emanating from the Pentagon, to the effect that an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear sites "has been planned in agreement with the U.S. State Department" and that another air corridor is contemplated, especially intended for an attack against Bushehr, going through Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. But, over and above the words, it is the facts that indicate that preparations for a possible attack against Iran are building up.

During his Washington visit, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak secured some large military equipment, in particular JDAM bombs manufactured by Boeing. These are high-potential bombs which, with the addition of a new GPS-guided tail section, acquire a range of more than 60 Km beyond their automatic target. Recently, they have also been equipped with a laser-guided system, further enhancing their precision. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, they were employed in the second war against Lebanon in 2006 and in the Cast Lead onslaught against Gaza in 2008.

In addition, Barak called on Washington to increase by 50% the "emergency stockpiles" set up in Israel by the U.S. army last December following a decision by Obama’s Administration. As reported in Haaretz, these depots contain missiles, bombs, aircraft ammunition, armored vehicles and other weapons, which are categorized at the time of their arrival to ensure "quick and easy access" at the Israeli end. For sure, even if not said, part of the weapons sent to the "emergency stockpiles" come from the Camp Darby U.S. military and logistical base [Translator’s note: located in Italy, between Pisa - civilian and military airport, control tower manned by military staff only - and Leghorn, commercial harbor.]: according to Global Security, the 31st Air Base supply squadron has, for a long time, also been in charge of the arsenals located in Israel, a kind of Camp Darby outlet that supplied the Israeli forces for its attacks against Lebanon and Gaza.

The weapons provided to Israel by the United States include "heavy penetrating warheads", such as the 1-ton Blu-117, apt for an attack against Iranian bunkers. For months these same weapons have been amassed at the U.S. Diego García base in the Indian Ocean to where B-2 bombers with air defence penetration capabilities have been transferred.

According to Dan Plesh, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, "U.S. bombers are already on stand-by to destroy 10 000 targets inside Iran in just a few hours". Concurrently, Saudi Arabia is upgrading its 150 F-15 fighter bombers supplied by Boeing, equipped with the most advanced technology to boost their effectiveness in night attacks and to make them fully inter-operational with U.S. forces.


* Geographer and geopolitical scientist. His latest books are Geograficamente. Per la Scuola media (3 vol.), Zanichelli (2008) ; Escalation. Anatomia della guerra infinita, DeriveApprodi (2005).

[citizenx]

Ironic that the resolution is numbered 1929, because that is exactly the impact an attack on Iran is ultimately going to have on the U.S. economy.  By design, I think.

[America2]

Well - it's coming...unlike pre-war Iraq, it seems like many in this country are not aware of what's going on. Prior to the strike on Iraq, people around the world were angry and protesting passionately on the streets in millions. Sure, alot of them were Bush-haters only, but you have to admire their passion and heart.

Now? Outside of this MB, none, nada, it's as if this whole Iran-thingy doesn't even exist. It's as if the worst thing going on right now is the latest Tom Cruise movie bombing at the box office, one's favorite baseball team slumping, etc, etc.

[H0llyw00d]

91177info | July 05, 2010

PROPAGANDA- US to blame Iran for Afghanistan failure- US and British intelligence services are working on a fake video clip aimed at diverting blame for failures in Afghanistan to Iran, an informed US military source says.

A source at the US base in Bagram, told Press TV on condition of anonymity that the US and British spies have employed renowned American film editors to produce the video.

The video consists of footage doctored in a way to show that Iran is providing weapons and military equipment to "anti-government forces" in the war-torn country.

The montage sequence will rely on false satellite imagery and radar images allegedly taken by spy drones.

This is while pressure is mounting on the US over its failure in Afghanistan, amid rising causalities among foreign troops in the country.

June was the bloodiest month for the US-led troops in Afghanistan since the beginning of invasion of the country in 2001, with a record 102 fatalities.

While the mounting civilian death toll continues to anger Kabul, it is widely believed that Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and other chief masterminds of the militancy are hiding in neighboring Pakistan.

In a controversial move, the Obama administration sacked the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal in June, for mocking his "clueless" civilian bosses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g82S5RRQlB0

http://www.presstv.ir

[Rebelitarian]

All another war will be is just a drain on America's resources to the point where we are weakened where the NWO can bring in their mercenaries and have their final 'ENDPLAN' with America.

[tjw3128]

ppl gettn smarter finally catch em b4 its started and out and good work the the guy that exposed this comming event

[Freeski]

All another war will be is just a drain on America's resources to the point where we are weakened where the NWO can bring in their mercenaries and have their final 'ENDPLAN' with America.

It won't likely be a "war", but rather a mass extermination.

[citizenx]

Massive aerial bombardment, possibly including nukes, many casualties.  Yes, Freeski is right most likely.  A one-sided slaughter froma safe distance.  Not really a 'war' per se, interms of a ground invasion, though perhaps there would be limited incursions by special forces type troops/operations.

All of this is a terribble idea.  I'm just saying what I think they might do.

This has been post-poned four years by my estimates as well.  I don't know that it can be post-poned indefeintely without a massive awakening -- majority awakening in the U.S.

[skyfind]

Lieberman: U.S. could use military force against Iran
07/07/10 11:43 AM ET
By Jordan Fabian
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/107473-lieberman-us-could-use-military-force-against-iran

One of Israel’s staunchest defenders in Congress said Wednesday the U.S. could use military force against their mutual foe Iran “if we must.”

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Jersualem. The Connecticut senator made his comments after the meeting.

Lieberman said the United States would counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions ”through diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions if we can, but through military action if we must,” the Jerusalem Post reported.

Lieberman’s comments come after President Barack Obama signed a new round of sanctions targeted at Iran’s nuclear program that received broad support from both parties in Congress.

The United States and Israel both view Iran as a threat due to its nuclear ambitions. Previous rounds of sanctions have been enacted but have not caused Iran to give up its nuclear program, which many nations say is being used to develop a weapon.

Obama has not taken military action off the table, but his public statements have focused primarily on stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions through peaceful means.

Iran says it wants to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made threatening comments to the United States and has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

The three senators are traveling in the Middle East during the July 4 recess.

[skyfind]

Gulf Arab Support for Attacking Iran:
The Strange Case of the UAE
07.07.10
by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/leverett070710.html

The Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the United States, Yousef Al-Otaiba, is in the news for comments he made yesterday at the Aspen Ideas Festival -- comments in which he apparently expressed some measure of support for a U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear targets.  We have known Yousef since before his appointment as the UAE's ambassador to the United States.  Based on our previous conversations with him, we do not believe that he wants to see a military confrontation between the United States and Iran.

Unfortunately, neoconservative-flavored reporting of his remarks in Aspen will likely have a damaging impact on the Iran debate in Washington.  In particular, Yousef's words will be taken as confirmation for some of AIPAC's more ill-informed and strategically misguided talking points: that Iran poses an objective and unacceptable threat to all U.S. allies, not just Israel; that the Arabs are concerned about the "real threat" of Iran much more than the "false problem" of Palestine; and that containment of Iran is unacceptable as a long-term strategy not just to Israel but to America's Arab allies as well.

According to Eli Lake in the Washington Times*1, Yousef responded to a question from Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic about the possibility of an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities with the following remarks:

"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis. . . .  I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion . . . there will be consequences, there will be backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.  If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same: We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.  I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE."

Goldberg himself reports*2 the following observations from Yousef:

    "There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran.  Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully's eye, if nobody's going to come to their support."

    "Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently.  I can only speak for the UAE, but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous.  Why should I be led to believe that deterrence or containment will work?  Iran doesn't have nuclear power now, but we're unable to contain them and their behavior in the region.  What makes me think that once they have a nuclear program, we're going to be able to be more successful in containing them?"

And here is how Goldberg*3 renders Yousef's response to the question, "Do you want the U.S. to stop the Iranian nuclear program by force?":

    "Absolutely, absolutely.  I think we are at risk of an Iranian nuclear program far more than you are at risk.  At 7,000 miles away, and with two oceans bordering you, an Iranian nuclear threat does not threaten the continental United States.  It may threaten your assets in the region, it will threaten the peace process, it will threaten balance of power, it will threaten everything else, but it will not threaten you. . .  .  I am suggesting that I think out of every country in the region, the UAE is most vulnerable to Iran.  Our military, who has existed for the past 40 years, wake up, dream, breathe, eat, sleep the Iranian threat.  It's the only conventional military threat our military plans for, trains for, equips for, that's it, there's no other threat, there's no country in the region that is a threat to the UAE, it's only Iran.  So yes, it's very much in our interest that Iran does not gain nuclear technology."


Earlier today, a senior official at the UAE Foreign Ministry in Abu Dhabi declared*4 that the statements attributed to Yousef were "inaccurate": "These statements came as part of general discussions held on the sidelines of an unofficial gathering and were taken out of their context in which Al-Otaiba was speaking."

The UAE Foreign Ministry official went on to clarify the Emirati position vis-à-vis Iran, noting that the UAE "believes in the sovereignty of other states and in the principle of non-interference, of all forms, in their internal affairs":

    "Already, the UAE declared, more than one time and in official statements issued by the Foreign Ministry, its position on the Iranian nuclear issue. . . .  The UAE totally rejects the use of force as a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and rather calls for a solution through political means that are based on the international legitimacy, transparency as well as the need for working, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, on the right of all states to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.  The UAE, at the same time, believe in the need of keeping the Gulf region free of nuclear weapons."

Goldberg has already offered the following reflections*5 on Yousef's remarks:     

    "[T]he ambassador's position, though stated more plainly, and publicly, than usual, is the standard position of many Arab states.  It is not only Israel that fears the rise of a nuclear Iran; the Arabs, if anything, fear such a development to a greater degree.  The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for one hundred years.  The Arabs and the Persians have been going at for a thousand.  The idea of a group of Persian Shi'ites having possession of a nuclear bomb scares Arab leaders like nothing else -- it certainly scares them more than the reality of the Jewish bomb."

We can expect more commentary of this sort in the days and weeks ahead.  It is important to push back against this kind of (deliberate?) misreading of regional attitudes about a U.S.-Iranian confrontation.  In fact, attitudes in the countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, encompassing Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE) regarding Iran are much more conflicted and less clear-cut than they are usually portrayed in neoconservative commentary.

As Tom Lippman*6 wrote on www.TheRaceForIran.com*7 last month, in a piece looking at Saudi King Abdullah's meeting with President Obama at the White House:

    On Iran, the Saudis are like the Americans in that they know what they want but do not know how to achieve it.  They want the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraq, stop supporting extremist groups and, most important, stop enriching uranium.  They do not believe the latest round of economic sanctions will deter Iran, but they oppose military action by the United States -- or, worse yet, Israel -- to halt the nuclear program.  Any such attack, they fear, would cause chaos in the Gulf and prompt Iran to strike at them as a way of inflicting pain on the United States.

    Saudi Arabia did not oppose the latest U.N. sanctions -- Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal even went to Beijing to urge China to support them.  But after a meeting in February with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Prince Saud said that "sanctions are a long term solution, but we see the issue in the shorter term, maybe because we are closer to the threats than that.  So we need immediate resolution rather than gradual resolution in this regard."

    He did not specify what "immediate resolution" he had in mind.  Nor could he have done so because, according to Saudi officials I talked to in Riyadh last month, no one has devised any "immediate resolution" short of the war the Saudis don't want.

We also asked Dr. Jasim Husain Ali to provide a piece updating our readers on attitudes about Iran in the GCC states, with a focus on the UAE.  Jasim is a well-known Bahraini analyst of GCC affairs; we gratefully post his observations below (we note that Jasim wrote his piece before Yusuf's remarks in Aspen were reported).  We are particularly struck by his comparison of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar -- all of which seem focused on maintaining positive relations with Iran -- on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE, on the other hand.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

* * *

From Dr. Jasim Husain Ali:

Despite their deep differences on issues pertaining to GCC integration, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have one thing in common -- making unfriendly gestures toward Iran.  In a span of two weeks, a UK press report alleged covert Saudi assistance to Israel for a prospective Israeli military strike against Iran.  At the same time, the UAE assumed regional leadership in going after Iranian business interests, under the pretext of honoring United Nations Security Council resolution 1929, adopted in New York last month.

Anti-Iran behavior and actions by Saudi Arabia and the UAE are abounding.  For example, chances are that Saudi Arabia could be tricked into facilitating a military assault on Iran, a development that would have far reaching consequences.  The Times of London alleged on 12 June that Saudi Arabia had considered allowing Israeli aircraft use of its airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.  Saudi Arabia has categorically denied the report.  But the Saudis are not actively seeking a peaceful resolution to the controversy surrounding Iran's nuclear program.

Strangely enough, the UAE has assumed regional leadership in undermining Iranian business.  On 21 June, the English-language daily Gulf News reported that UAE officials have closed more than 40 local and international firms for allegedly exporting materials to Iran which could have been used in the country's nuclear program.  However, it is believed that UAE authorities made the decision to target these firms prior to the passage of Resolution 1929 on June 9.  In addition, on June 28, another English-daily newspaper published in the UAE, Emirates Business 24-7, reported that the UAE Central Bank had ordered banks operating in the country to freeze 41 accounts in connection with the resolution.  Clearly, the selection of English-language newspapers rather than Arabic-language media as the venues for publicizing these decisions is driven by an interest in satisfying the United States and its allies.

Clearly, Abu Dhabi has chosen the path of confronting Tehran after succeeding in marginalizing Dubai, the traditional trade hub in the region for Iranian-related business.  This development reflects Abu Dhabi having emerged as Dubai's financial savior following Dubai's debt debacle in late 2009.  With its abundance of hydrocarbon resources and hundreds of billions of dollars in state reserves and investment assets, Abu Dhabi cares much less than Dubai about the potential damage to business interests on both sides of the Persian Gulf.  Undoubtedly, the UAE's anti-Iran policy also reflects the ongoing dispute over the ownership of the three Persian Gulf islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunb.

The actions of Saudi Arabia and the UAE toward Iran threaten further divisions within the GCC, thereby further undermining prospects for attaining genuine regional integration.  For their parts, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait seem determined to maintain normal neighborly ties with Iran.  Also, Bahrain is said to be close in signing a deal allowing for the import of Iranian gas to help meet industrial demand.

The Islamic Republic has built up some 30 years of experience in dealing with different types of sanctions and hostile actions.  It is highly unlikely that new pressures would yield any outcome other than failure.
-


Flynt Leverett directs the Iran Project at the New America Foundation, where he is also a Senior Research Fellow.  Additionally, he teaches at Pennsylvania State University’s School of International Affairs.  Hillary Mann Leverett is CEO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy.  In September 2010, she will also take up an appointment as Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.  This article was first published in The Race for Iran  on 7 July 2010 under a Creative Commons license.


Links:
*1 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/uae-ambassador-endorses-bombing-irans-nuclear-prog/?page=1
*2 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/uae-ambassador-on-the-challenge-of-iran/59252/
*3 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/uaes-ambassador-endorses-an-american-strike-on-iran-contd/59257/
*4 http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/government/uae-envoy-s-iran-statements-taken-out-of-context-1.651361
*5 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/why-the-uaes-position-on-iran-is-not-particularly-new/59261/
*6 http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/leverett280610.html
*7 http://www.raceforiran.com/saudi-king-abdullah-to-meet-president-obama-iran-iraq-and-palestine-on-the-agenda

[bigron]

Published on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 by Haaretz (Israel)

Report: Secret Document Affirms U.S.-Israel Nuclear Partnership

According to Army Radio, the U.S. has reportedly pledged to sell Israel materials used to produce electricity, as well as nuclear technology and other supplies.

by Haaretz Service, Barak Ravid and Reuters

Israel's Army Radio reported on Wednesday that the United States has sent Israel a secret document committing to nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

According to Army Radio, the U.S. has reportedly pledged to sell Israel materials used to produce electricity, as well as nuclear technology and other supplies, despite the fact that Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Other countries have refused to cooperate with Israel on nuclear matters because it has not signed the NPT, and there has been increasing international pressure for Israel to be more transparent about its nuclear arsenal.

Army Radio's diplomatic correspondent said the reported offer could put Israel on a par with India, another NPT holdout which is openly nuclear-armed but in 2008 secured a U.S.-led deal granting it civilian nuclear imports.

During Tuesday's meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the two leaders discussed the global challenge of nuclear proliferation and the need to strengthen the nonproliferation system.

They also discussed calls for a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, which was peoposed during the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) review conference in New York and which Netanyahu said he would not take part in because it intends to single out Israel.

Obama informed Netanyahu that, as a co-sponsor charged with enabling the proposed conference, the United States will insist that such a conference have a broad agenda to include regional security issues, verification and compliance and discussion of all types of weapons of mass destruction.

Obama emphasized the conference will only take place if all countries "feel confident that they can attend," and said that efforts to single out Israel would make the prospects of such a conference unlikely.

The two leaders agreed to work together to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the IAEA General Conference in September.

Obama emphasized that the U.S. will continue to work closely with Israel to ensure that arms control initiatives and policies do not detract from Israel's security, and "support our common efforts to strengthen international peace and stability."

Dan Meridor, Netanyahu's deputy prime minister in charge of nuclear affairs, said Obama's endorsement was not new but that its public expression - two months after Washington supported Egypt's proposal at a review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - was significant.

Obama's statement "was without a doubt a special and significant text. It was important for us, and it was important for the region," Meridor said.

Israel neither confirms nor denies having nuclear weapons under an "ambiguity" strategy billed as warding off foes while avoiding public provocations that can spark regional arms races.

The official reticence, and its toleration in Washington, has long aggrieved many Arabs and Iranians - especially given U.S.-led pressure on Tehran to rein in its nuclear program.


© Copyright 2010 Haaretz

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

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/07-2

[bigron]

Middle East
Jul 13, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG13Ak01.html 
 
 Hawks sharpen claws for Iran strike


By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," explained then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card in September 2002, in answer to queries about why the administration of George W Bush had not launched its campaign to rally public opinion behind invading Iraq earlier in the summer.

And while it's only July - and less than a month after the United Nations, the European Union and the US Congress approved new economic sanctions against Iran - a familiar clutch of Iraq war hawks appear to be preparing the ground for a major new campaign to rally public opinion behind military action against the Islamic Republic.

Barring an unexpected breakthrough on the diplomatic front, that campaign, like the one eight years ago, is likely to move into high gear this autumn, beginning shortly after the Labor Day holiday on September 6, that marks the end of the summer vacation.

By the following week, the November mid-term election campaign will be in full swing, and Republican candidates are expected to make the charge that Democrats and President Barack Obama are "soft on Iran" their top foreign policy issue. In any event, veterans of the Bush administration's pre-Iraq invasion propaganda offensive are clearly mobilizing their arguments for a similar effort on Iran, even suggesting that the timetable between campaign launch and possible military action - a mere six months in Iraq's case - could be appropriate.

"By the first quarter of 2011, we will know whether sanctions are proving effective," wrote Bush's former national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Israeli Brigadier General Michael Herzog in a paper published this month by the Washington Institute for Near Policy (WINEP), a think-tank closely tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

"The administration should begin to plan now for a course of action should sanctions be deemed ineffective by the first or second quarter of next year. The military option must be kept on the table both as a means of strengthening diplomacy and as a worst-case scenario," they asserted.

While Hadley and Herzog argued that the administration should begin planning military options now - presumably to be ready for possible action as early as next spring - others are calling for more urgent and demonstrative preparations.

''We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions," wrote Charles Robb, a former Democratic senator, and Air Force General Charles Wald (retired) in a column published in Friday's Washington Post, in which they warned that Tehran "could achieve nuclear weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically untenable threat to the United States".

"If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the US military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran's nuclear and military facilities," they wrote.

Their column was based on the latest of three reports promoting the use of military pressure on Iran released by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) since 2008 and overseen by the BPC's neo-conservative foreign policy director Michael Makovsky.

Makovsky, whose brother is a senior official at WINEP, served as a consultant to the controversial Pentagon office set up in the run-up to the Iraq War to find evidence of operational ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a justification for the invasion.

The BPC report, "Meeting the Challenge: When Time Runs Out", urged the Obama administration, among other immediate steps, to "augment the Fifth Fleet presence in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, including the deployment of an additional [aircraft] carrier battle group and minesweepers to the waters off Iran; conduct broad exercises with its allies in the Persian Gulf; ... initiate a 'strategic partnership' with Azerbaijan to enhance regional access ..." as a way of demonstrating Washington's readiness to go to war.

"If such pressure fails to persuade Iran's leadership, the United States and its allies would have no choice but to consider blockading refined petroleum imports into Iran," it went on, noting that such a step would "effectively be an act of war and the US and its allies would have to prepare for its consequences".

Some Iraq hawks, most aggressively Bush's former UN ambassador John Bolton, have insisted that neither diplomacy nor sanctions, no matter how tough, would be sufficient to dissuade Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and that military action - preferably by the US, but, if not, by Israel - would be necessary, and sooner rather than later.

Since the June 12, 2009, disputed elections and the emergence of the opposition Green movement in Iran, a few neo-conservatives, notably Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute and Michael Ledeen of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, have argued that a military attack could prove counter-productive by rallying an otherwise discontented - and possibly rebellious - population behind the regime.

But with the Green movement seemingly unable to challenge the government in the streets that argument has been losing ground among the hawks who, in any event, blame the opposition's alleged weakness on Obama's failure to provide it with more support.

"Unfortunately, President Obama waffled while innocent Iranians were killed by their own government," wrote William Kristol and Jamie Fly, in Kristol's Weekly Standard last month.

"It's now increasingly clear that the credible threat of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program is the only action that could convince the regime to curtail its ambition," wrote the two men, who direct the Foreign Policy Initiative, the successor organization of the neo-conservative-led Project for the New American Century that played a key role in preparing the ground for the Iraq invasion.
Neo-conservative and other hawks have also pounced on reported remarks made by United Arab Emirates ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba at a retreat sponsored by The Atlantic magazine in Colorado last week to nullify another obstacle to military action - the widespread belief that Washington's Arab allies oppose a military attack on Iran by the US or Israel as too risky for their own security and regional stability.

"We cannot live with a nuclear Iran," Otaiba was quoted as saying in a Washington Times article by Eli Lake, a prominent neo-conservative journalist.

"Mr Otaiba's ... comments leave no doubt what he and most Arab officials think about the prospect of a nuclear revolutionary Shi'ite state," the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, a major media champion of the Iraq War, opined. "They desperately want someone, and that means the US or Israel, to stop it, using force if need be."

Otaiba was interviewed at the conference by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, an influential US-Israeli writer who, in a widely noted essay published by The New Yorker magazine in 2002, claimed that Saddam was supporting an al-Qaeda group in Kurdistan and that the Iraqi leader would soon possess nuclear weapons.

Goldberg, who asserted in his blog this week that "the idea of a group of Persian Shi'ites having possession of a nuclear bomb ... certainly scares [Arab leaders] more than the reality of the Jewish bomb," is reportedly working on an essay on the necessity of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities for publication by The Atlantic in September.

Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

(Inter Press Service) 
 
 

[bigron]

Scary Anti-Iran Talk Is Escalating -- And Weapons May Be Moving Into Position for Attack

Though Iran does not have nuclear capability, the U.S. and Israel are espousing a doctrine of "pre-emption."

By Conn Hallinan, Foreign Policy in Focus
Posted on July 12, 2010, Printed on July 13, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/147504/

Dispatches From The Edge

Crazy talk about the Middle East seems to be escalating, backed up by some pretty ominous military deployments. We'll start with the department of scary statements:

First up, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, speaking June 21 at Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv on why Israel should launch a pre-emptive strike at Iran: “I am of the opinion that, since there is an ongoing war, since the threat is permanent, since the intention of the enemy in this case is to annihilate you, the right doctrine is one of presumption and not retaliation.”

Second up, Uzi Arad, Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s national security advisor, speaking before the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem June 22 on his belief that the “international community” would support an Israeli strike at Iran: “I don’t see anyone who questions the legality of this or the legitimacy.”

Third up, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi speaking to reporters at the G-8 meeting in Toronto June 26: “Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively.”

Fourth up, Central Intelligence Director Leon Panetta predicting on ABC’s “This Week” program June 27 that Iran could have two nuclear weapons by 2012: “We think they [Iran] have enough low-enriched uranium for two weapons…and while there is continuing debate [within Iran] right now about whether or not they ought to proceed with a bomb…they clearly are developing their nuclear capacity.” He went on to say that the U.S. is sharing intelligence with Israelis and that Tel Aviv is “willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically and culturally and politically.”

A few points:
1) Iran and Israel are not at war, a fact Shavit seems confused about.
2) Since the recent rounds of sanctions aimed at Iran would have lost in the United Nations General Assembly, it unclear who Arad thinks is the “international community.”
3) Berlusconi is a bit of a loose cannon, but he is tight with the Israelis.
4) An Iran that is different “diplomatically and culturally and politically” sounds an awful lot like “regime change.” Is that the “room” Panetta is talking about?

And it isn’t all talk.

Following up the London Times report that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to fly through Saudi airspace to attack Iran, the Jerusalem Post, the Islam Times and the Iranian news agency Fars report that the Israeli air force has stockpiled equipment in the Saudi desert near Jordan.

According to the Post, supplies were unloaded June 18 and 19 outside the Saudi city of Tabuk, and all civilian flights into the area were canceled during the two day period. The Post said that an “anonymous American defense official” claimed that Mossad chief Meir Dagan was the contact man with Saudi Arabia and had briefed Netanyahu on the plans.

The Gulf Daily News reported June 26 that Israel has moved warplanes to Georgia and Azerbaijan, which would greatly shorten the distance Israeli planes would have to fly to attack targets in northern Iran.

The U.S currently has two aircraft carriers—the Truman and the Eisenhower—plus more than a dozen support vessels in the Gulf of Hormuz, the strategic choke point leading into the Gulf of Iran.

The Saudis have vigorously denied the reports they are aiding the Israelis, and Shafeeq Ghabra, president of the American University of Kuwait, says, “It would be impossible for the Saudis to allow an Israeli attack on Iran.”

But Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Ramat Gan, Israel, argues that Saudi Arabia and Israel both fear a nuclear-armed Iran. “This brings us together on a strategic level in that we have common interests. Since the Arab world and Saudi Arabia understand that President Obama is a weak person, maybe they decided to facilitate this happening.” He also said the story might not be true because “I don’t think the Saudis want to burden themselves with this kind of cooperation with Israel.”

According to military historian Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, “The real fear is that someone will get carried away by his own rhetoric and fear mongering” and start a war. He also thinks, however, that Israel should not take a preemptive strike “off the table.”

Trita Parsi of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington argues that the escalation of rhetoric is dangerous. “When you have that kind of political environment, you are leaving yourself no space to find another solution,” he told the Christian Science Monitor. “You may very well end up in a situation where you are propelled to act, even though you understand it is an unwise action, but [do so] for political reasons.”

The rhetoric is getting steamy, the weapons are moving into position, and it is beginning to feel like “The Guns of August”* in the Middle East.

*For those too young to remember, The Guns of August, published in 1962, is a history of the first month of World War I. It earned its author, Barbara Tuchman, a Pulitzer Prize.



© 2010 Foreign Policy in Focus All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/147504/

[citizenx]

The "Guns of August" or October Surprise?  It looks like it could go either way, but an attack (if it cannot be prevented) looks planned iminently.  I wonder if they would have any problems maintaining their chess pieces in place until fall, or if that would cause logistical problems.  I guess, I assume if they had to replace assets in the Gulf they could do so with relative ease.

[bigron]

State media: Iranian scientist says he was abducted

By the CNN Wire Staff
July 14, 2010 5:22 a.m. EDT

A man who says he is Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri appears in a YouTube video.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS:

-The Iranian scientist is en route to his homeland
-Shahram Amiri arrived at the Pakistani Embassy on Monday
-Iran claims U.S. kidnapped Amiri to force him to give up data about Iran's nuclear program
-U.S. has denied charge but remains tight-lipped on whether Amiri defected


(CNN) -- Shahram Amiri -- a nuclear scientist Tehran claimed was kidnapped by U.S. agents -- told a state-run television station in Iran that he was abducted by U.S. intelligence officials and faced "psychological warfare and pressure that are much worse than being in prison."

State-run Press TV said Wednesday that Amiri spoke in an interview after his escape, telling the channel, "I think I will be unable to get into details during this limited period of time and I will postpone it to when I am hopefully in my dear country Iran, so I can speak to the media and my own people with ease of mind and tell them about my ordeal over the past 14 months."

Amiri has left the United States and is headed back to Iran, the country's state-run media said Wednesday morning.

"Following the Islamic Republic's efforts and with the effective cooperation of the embassy of Pakistan in Washington ... Shahram Amiri left the United States and will arrive in Tehran via a third country," the news agency, IRNA, reported -- quoting a foreign ministry spokesman.

Amiri, who is a researcher from Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, mysteriously disappeared in June 2009 while on a religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, according to Iranian media reports.

On Monday, Amiri went to Iran's Interest Section at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and asked to be sent home.

The Iranian government has accused the United States of involvement in Amiri's disappearance, with Iran saying the researcher was taken to force him to give up data about Tehran's nuclear program.

In the Press TV interview, Amiri said he was kidnapped in Medina, Saudi Arabia, by three men in a van.

"Once I got into the van, the man who was inside said to me, 'Don't make any noise.' I was confused at the moment and had no idea what was happening," Amiri said Wednesday.

According to Amiri, he was later drugged and transported to the United States in a plane.

"I was under very special circumstances for 14 months in the United States. I was not completely free, nor was I like a prisoner, that is, in shackles as viewers might think," Amiri added. "I was in a completely unique situation which is very difficult to describe."

Press TV reported that Amiri was offered $10 million in bribes to cooperate with the United States.

A top Iranian lawmaker recently claimed that newly found documents back up Tehran's claims that the CIA is responsible for Amiri's disappearance, Iranian media reported Sunday.

Javad Jahangirzadeh, a member of Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said Iranian officials had turned over the documents to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran.

The U.S. State Department has denied that charge.

A U.S. official, who is not authorized to talk to the media about such issues, told CNN last month that it would be "ludicrous, absurd and even preposterous" to claim an individual was kidnapped by the United States and held against his will.

Last month, two videos surfaced on the Internet of a man claiming to Amiri, in which he said he had escaped from U.S. agents and was hiding in Virginia.

That was the third time that videos allegedly showing Amiri had been circulated on the Internet.

In one, he said he had been kidnapped by U.S. agents. Another contradicted that claim and said he was living freely and studying in Arizona.

In one of the videos posted June 30 on YouTube and dated June 14, the man again said that he was brought against his will to the United States and fears he will be discovered and re-arrested.

"I am Shahram Amiri, the son of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who with God's help succeeded in running away from the U.S. security agents in the state of Virginia. I am [temporarily] at a safe place and I am trying to do this video but it is quite possible that I may shortly be again arrested by American security agents."

He went on to say: "I am not free here and not allowed to contact my family or other people. If I face any problems or if I do not return to my country soon, the government of the U.S. would be directly responsible for it."

CNN could not independently verify the authenticity of the videos, nor the identity of the man in them.

"If he is who people think he is, the U.S. would be in contact with the person," a CIA official said last month. And if he were being held against his will, "how would he have been able to produce any of the videos?" the official said.

In the second video that surfaced June 30 and dated June 23, the man claiming to be Amiri reassures his family about his well-being.

"I want to let my beloved family know that I am OK and they should not worry about my health," he says. "With God's help I shall return to my beloved country in the next few days. I want them to be, as always, strong and patient and to pray for my safe return. I hope to see you in our beloved country."

Tehran blamed Washington for Amiri's disappearance shortly after revelations surfaced that Iran has been building a second uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. After that, tensions over Iran's nuclear program mounted.

Iran claims its nuclear energy is solely for civilian purposes. But the United States has pushed the United Nations to punish Tehran for its nuclear ambitions. The Security Council recently slapped a fourth round of tough sanctions on the Islamic republic.

It is unclear how much information Amiri was privy to in Iran.

CNN's Shirzad Bozorgmehr contributed to this report.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/14/iran.researcher.returns/index.html?hpt=C1 
 

[bigron]

The Shahram Affair

Kidnapped Iranian scientist exposes US government as a criminal enterprise

by Justin Raimondo, July 14, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/13/the-shahram-affair/


Confronted with the accusation that Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri had been kidnapped by US and Saudi intelligence agencies while on a trip to Mecca, and brought to the US for interrogation, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley averred: “We are not in the habit of going around kidnapping people.”

To which the only proper response is: Oh, really?

Given the numerous instances of “extraordinary rendition” in which our government has been engaged, and no doubt continues to be engaged, one wonders how Senor Crowley can say that with a straight face. But then again, being an official spokesman for the US Department of State no doubt requires some sort of facial surgery – or, perhaps, an industrial-strength shot of Botox – to achieve the desired results.

Now that Shahram has shown up at the Iranian interests section of the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C., claiming to have been abducted by the US and Saudi intelligence services, and tortured, Crowley may want to review his knowledge of US habits.

In March, ABC News released an “exclusive” report hailing Shahram’s “defection” as a great US “intelligence coup,” the missing link in the puzzle piecing together a picture of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Shahram is said to have worked for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and news of his “defection” appeared alongside reports of an Iranian “secret” nuclear facility on the outskirts of the city of Qom.

As it was, the Iranians themselves revealed the existence of the Qom facility and opened it up to inspection by the IAEA, but the matter of Shahram’s disappearance appeared to throw a shadow over their efforts at openness. We were to be told that the defector had brought with him a laptop which contained all the secrets of Iran’s nukes, and this was to be touted as yet more evidence – as if this administration needed any – Iran was harboring nuclear ambitions in defiance of the “international community.” “According to the people briefed on the intelligence operation,” ABC “reported,” “Amiri’s disappearance was part of a long-planned CIA operation to get him to defect. The CIA reportedly approached the scientist in Iran through an intermediary who made an offer of resettlement on behalf of the United States.”

That, at least, was the official story, dutifully relayed to the world by ABC “News”: Shahram, however, upended their neat little narrative, months later, with a YouTube video – that indispensable weapon of counter-propaganda – in which he told us:

“I was kidnapped last year (2009) in the holy city of Medina on 3 June in a joint operation by the terror and abduction units of the American CIA and Saudi Arabia’s Istikhbarat [intelligence agency].They took me to a house located somewhere that I didn’t know. They gave me an anesthetic injection. When I became conscious I was in a big [voice interrupted] towards America.

“During the eight months that I was kept in America, I was subject to the most severe tortures and psychological pressures by the American intelligence investigation groups.

“And the main aim behind these investigation teams and the pressure imposed on me was to make me take part in an interview conducted by an American media source and claim that I was an important figure in Iran’s nuclear program and I had sought asylum in America at my own will. And (to say) while seeking asylum I took some very important documents and a laptop with classified information on Iran’s military nuclear program in it to America from my country.”

This was followed, hours later, by yet another video, in which someone claiming to be Shahram – and looking, admittedly, just like him – said he wanted to clear up “rumors,” denied having any political views or that he had betrayed his country, and stated: “I am in America and intend to continue my education here. I am free here and I assure everyone that I am safe.”

Gee, it’s a good thing the CIA has their own YouTube channel: now there’s a solid investment of the US taxpayers’ money. But Shahram wasn’t done with them quite yet.

On June 29, a third video cropped up, which was played by Iranian television, in which the real Shahram cleared up the mystery:

“I, Shahram Amiri, am a national of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a few minutes ago I succeeded in escaping US security agents in Virginia. Presently, I am producing this video in a safe place. I could be re-arrested at any time.”

After appealing to Western human rights organizations to intervene on his behalf – fat chance! – he continued:

“The second video which was published on YouTube by the US government, where I have said that I am free and want to continue my education here, is not true and is a complete fabrication. If something happens and I do not return home alive, the US government will be responsible.”

All this time Washington had refused to acknowledge Shahram’s presence in the US, but when he showed up at the Pakistani embassy an official who refused to be named told the media: “He came to this country freely, he lived here freely, and he has chosen freely to return to Iran.”

Such evidence as we have indicates only the last of those three assertions bears any resemblance to the facts. Aside from Shahram’s testimony, and his presence at the embassy, the high quality of the second video, and the relatively poor quality of the first and third, is suggestive of an effort by US intelligence to cover up a badly botched job.

What’s interesting about this story isn’t only the scandal of a kidnapping carried out by our spooks – after all, we should be inured to that by now – but the role the US media was slated to play if Shahram had gone along for the ride. I wonder which “American media source” was tasked with interviewing him. Could it be ABC “News,” the outlet given the “exclusive” story of his alleged “defection” just before the Qom story broke? Just guessing there, but amid all the controversy over media folk partying with administration movers-and-shakers, this kind of beach party ought to make us stop and think about the degree to which the media is functioning as an arm of government.

Not that this is anything all that new. Back in the day, you’ll recall, it was a Washington Post reporter, Dillard Stokes, who, in league with the FBI and the Roosevelt administration, wrote a letter under an assumed name to the defendants in the Great Sedition Trial of 1940, seeking antiwar literature which he proposed to distribute to US soldiers: this was later used as evidence by the prosecution. During the cold war era, the media was utilized by the FBI” s “red squad” to plant stories and spread disinformation, and there’s no reason to believe this symbiosis has ended with the coming of the Obama-ites to Washington: quite the opposite, I’m sure. We are also all too familiar with “cooked” intelligence, the smell of it having permeated Washington (and the front page of the New York Times – thanks, Judy!) in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The signal achievement of the Obama administration may have been to combine these elements of deception, and add to them the crime of kidnapping.

Let no one berate us libertarians for describing the US government as a criminal enterprise: it isn’t disloyalty to the country, or even a penchant for overstatement, that drives us to such rhetorical excesses. It’s the story of what happened to Shahram Amiri: it’s the lies, the thuggery and hubris of a ruling elite that believes it can get away with anything. Such is their contempt for the American people – and the peoples of the world – that they think we’ll swallow any tall tale, no matter how crudely fabricated, because we’re just not as smart as their cunning selves.

However, it looks like they’re not cunning enough by half, having blown the Shahram operation and exposed their embarrassingly inept tradecraft. They can try to patch up this gaping hole in US credibility by claiming Shahram left only to protect his family from retaliation, but there are certain problems with this.

Since the family wasn’t harmed in the year Shahram spent in captivity in the US, one can reasonably infer they were never in any danger. Indeed, if they were in danger, and the US let him return home because of it, then wouldn’t revealing this alleged “threat” plant suspicion in the minds of Iranian officials that perhaps he had turned over valuable intelligence to the Americans – and place Shahram and his family in mortal danger?

In any case, I did warn you far in advance that we’d soon be treated to a veritable cornucopia of “news” stories detailing the nefarious plans of Iranian ayatollahs to nuke Israel, and Brooklyn, too. The Obama-ites are under increasing pressure from the Israel lobby to abandon the CIA’s assessment that Iran ended a nascent nuclear weapons program in 2003: Shahram’s “defection” was supposed to have facilitated this development. Instead, the whole scheme backfired, and, rather than making the case for war with Iran, the Shahram affair has confirmed what some of us knew already: that the US government is a criminal enterprise with no morals, no credibility.

[H0llyw00d]

Kidnapped Iranian scientist exposes US government as a criminal enterprise

lol...like we didn't know this already, w00t!

Not to sure about his story though....I believe he would have ended up like Vince Foster in reality