Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[bigron]

The Bolton-Telegraph Scare

by Jim Lobe
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161


When Don Rumsfeld ruled over the Department of Defense, articles from the Daily Telegraph (and the Jerusalem Post) would often be featured in the Pentagon’s daily “Early Bird” compilation of important news stories that was then distributed throughout the national-security bureaucracy. Since Rumsfeld’s departure, however, the frequency with which Telegraph articles have appeared has diminished sharply, a measure, I believe, of the degree to which Robert Gates and his principal aides consider the publication credible, as opposed, say, to yet another media megaphone through which neo-conservatives and other hawks could shout their views and wage their “war of ideas” against liberals and other assorted enemies.

Now, the Telegraph has offered a soapbox to John Bolton who, consistent with his views of the past four or five months, still believes that George W. Bush will not order an attack on Iran before he leaves office, but also now argues that Israel will do so between the November elections and the inaugural of the new president, particularly if that president is Sen. Obama. “With McCain they might still be looking at a delay” beyond the inauguration, Bolton told the newspaper. “But, [g]iven that time is on Iran’s side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development.”

(Bolton also insists that the Arab world would be privately “pleased” by such an attack, although, given his acute cultural sensitivity, I have no idea how he might reach such a conclusion, particularly given recent polling data, as well as the consistent and unequivocal statements of opposition to any attack (least of all one by Israel) by top Arab leaders, most recently in the Washington Post by Jordan’s King Abdullah.)

The interview with Bolton comes on the heels of the New York Times’ (somewhat credulous) account of Israeli military exercises over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece last week which was depicted as a trial run for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. That report, which has traveled through the global media at the speed of light, has obviously added to speculation regarding Israel’s intentions and Washington’s attitude.

Unfortunately, neither the Telegraph article nor Bolton addresses whether Israel would seek a green light from Washington before carrying out such an attack and whether, if it did, the Bush administration would offer one — a key point given the fact that Israeli warplanes would almost certainly have to traverse U.S.-controlled Iraqi air space to get to their targets. Most analysts believe that Israel is most unlikely to act without some sign of U.S. approval in light of the enormous consequences — economic, as well as military and political — that would almost certainly ensue from such an action. And, of course, if Washington went along, then it would clearly be considered an accomplice, which, accordingly, raises the question why, under those circumstances, it wouldn’t itself take part. (The Telegraph notes that Bill Kristol still holds out hope that Bush himself will order an attack, particularly if Obama wins the election.)

I believe it is increasingly clear that if there is going to be an attack on Iran — be it Israeli or U.S. or both — before Bush leaves office, it will take place in the period between the election and the inauguration. And I also agree that an attack is more likely if Obama wins the election than if McCain win. That said, however, I still believe an attack is more of a possibility than a probability and that what we are seeing in the ongoing flurry of threats, predictions, and leaks is more psychological warfare directed at persuading Iran, Russia, China, and Washington’s European allies that war is really going to happen unless Tehran halts its uranium enrichment program than it is the real thing. As one former senior U.S. Middle East intelligence officer noted today, the Israelis have long relied on the element of surprise in their military strategy (see last December’s attack on the alleged Syrian nuclear facility), and advertising their intentions quite as ostentatiously as they have been does not appear consistent with that record. Indeed, using Bolton in the Telegraph as a channel for scaring the Iranians, if, indeed, the Israelis put him up to it, would seem counter-productive.

Still, this drumbeat of threats, which shows no signs yet of diminishing, carries with it its momentum that not only strengthens hard-liners in both camps, but also makes the situation on the ground far more tense and volatile. So, regardless of actual intention, the chances of war breaking out accidentally appear to be on the rise.

[randge]

The numbers of sponsors of this bill are proliferating as we speak.

The count is at 208 this morning according to thomas.loc.gov: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HC00362:@@@P.

At the moment H.CON.RES.362 rests in the tender hands of the 49 members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. According to my count here, 29 of those members are already on board. Cosponsors are noted with a "C".

Howard Berman, Chairman, California
Gary Ackerman, New York
Eni Faleomavaega, American Samoa
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Brad Sherman, California C
Robert Wexler, Florida    C
Eliot L. Engel, New York C
William Delahunt, Massachusetts
Gregory W. Meeks, New York
Diane Watson, California
Adam Smith, Washington C
Russ Carnahan, Missouri
Gene Green, Texas C   
John S. Tanner, Tennessee
Lynn Woolsey, California
Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Joseph Crowley, New York C
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
David Wu, Oregon
Brad Miller, North Carolina C
Linda Sanchez, California
David Scott, Georgia C
Jim Costa, California C
Albio Sires, New Jersey C
Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona
Ron Klein, Florida C
Barbara Lee, California    
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
  Ranking Member, Florida C
Chris Smith, New Jersey C
Dan Burton, Indiana C
Elton Gallegly, California
Dana Rohrabacher, California C
Donald Manzullo, Illinois C
Edward R. Royce, California C
Steve Chabot, Ohio C
Tom Tancredo, Colorado C
Ron Paul, Texas
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Mike Pence, Indiana C
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
John Boozman, Arkansas C
J. Gresham Barrett, South Carolina C
Connie Mack IV, Florida
Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska C
Michael McCaul, Texas    C
Ted Poe, Texas C
Bob Inglis, South Carolina C
Luis Fortuño, Puerto Rico C
Gus Bilirakis, Florida C

A similar bill capitulating to the war interests sits in the sister committee in the Senate.

Pelosi says this will go through like "a hot knife through butter."

What say you?

[Biggs]

well a blockade will likely result in a war eventually, it may take time, a year or two or more, or be quicker, but clearly it greatly increases the chances of a manufactured incident occuring leading to war.

and if 208 reps now cosponsor a bill that is 3 days old then there is little chance of it not passing

which means a big step towards war, just like our freedoms they are implementing this one a little step at a time, they cannot pull the same Iraq style PR camaign and UN speeches and get away with it, so they are doing it by stealth, just liek they are taking our freedoms.

one little step at a time and one day it will be too late (be it this year, next year , 2010 or later once a full scale war kicks off we are screwed bigtime)

[DCUBED]

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

Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bigron]

THE BLOCKADE WILL BE SIMULTAMEOUS WITH ISRAELS BOMBING
IRANS NUCLEAR FACILTIES

VERY SOON

[DCUBED]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUKN2438836820080625

McCain Says Only WW3 Would Justify Draft

COSTA MESA, California (Reuters) - Only World War III would prompt Republican presidential candidate John McCain to bring back the military draft, McCain said on Tuesday.

Many Americans are fearful the U.S. government will be forced to reinstitute the draft given the prolonged Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Asked about that possibility by a potential voter in Florida during a telephone "town hall meeting," McCain said: "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III."

The United States ended its last military draft in 1973 in the waning years of the Vietnam war, moving to an all-volunteer military force.

McCain, a Vietnam veteran, said the draft during that conflict weighed most heavily on lower-income Americans, and that this should not be repeated.

"I do not believe the draft is even practicable or desirable," McCain said.

[EnricoFermi]

What is going on at the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site this month which was so immediate that SpaceX has now delayed their Falcon 001 launch for over a month. This was a day after they had indicated to CubeSat that the launch was still on for June 29th. So the army gave SpaceX almost no notice prior to its launch. Is this common? What operation would kick SpaceX off of a launch that was planned for almost a year at the last minute?

The Reagan Test Site is used for major missile and space operations, if you follow the wikipedia information and the link to the military page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Test_Site

On just 6/22 the launch was still scheduled for 6/29

On 6/23:

Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., said the U.S. Army range at Kwajalein Atoll will be busy with other activities for the next month.

"Launch is no sooner than late July to early August," Musk said. "We will use the time to do additional checkouts."

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0806/23falcon1/

Anyone interested in looking into this?

[Optimus]

Top US military officer heads to Israel with Iran on the agenda
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyAYULMDArsMGQ_vg4zi2cILbbqQ
16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US military chief Admiral Michael Mullen was expected in Israel this week for discussions including Iran, the Pentagon said Wednesday, amid speculation Israel is seeking Washington's tacit approval to strike Tehran's nuclear program.

The press office of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed that Mullen left the United States on Tuesday "to go overseas to visit counterparts as well as combatant commands, and Israel is not his only stop."

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters the trip had been on the schedule for "months."

"I believe this is a routine opportunity for Chairman Mullen to engage his counterpart in Israel on military-to-military matters, as he does in much of his travels around the world," Morrell said.

"I will say this, though: Obviously, when Chairman Mullen goes to Israel and speaks with the Israelis, they will no doubt discuss the threat posed by Iran, as we discuss it in this building, in other buildings in this town."

Morrell recalled that Washington was committed to resolving the nuclear threat posed by Iran through diplomacy and international sanctions, "while at the same time holding out the option of a military strike, if necessary."

"But the military strike is not our first choice," he said. "Never has been. And we continue to pursue economic and diplomatic pressures as the policy of this government."

US media have reported that more than 100 Israeli fighter jets participated in a training exercise with Greece earlier this month to prepare for a possible long-distance strike -- a maneuver seen as a warning against Iran.

Iran has defied UN sanctions and international demands by pressing on with its disputed uranium enrichment program, which Washington and Israel fear would be used to build a nuclear weapon.

Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former defense chief, said in an interview published in the Russian press Wednesday that Iran would be "annihilated" if it tried to attack Israel.

But, he said, "we are not planning any attack against Iran."

According to the US television network CBS, Israel does not want to wait until the new administration that will succeed US President George W. Bush in January to strike Iranian nuclear sites.

"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," CBS consultant Michael Oren said.

"Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-a-vis Iran," said Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem-based research facility.

Speculation about a possible Israeli strike heated up this week after former UN ambassador John Bolton suggested in an interview with London's Daily Telegraph that Israel could attack Iran between the November 4 election and January.

[chris jones]

Me. McCain does not have honor, or what use to be refered to as a mans word is his bond.
Please do not think for one minute he gives a twit about human life, the draft, the American people. He switches channels every other day, depending where he maybe at the time.
He would eat human fetus for breakfast to be president.
I could go on , but whats the use, he is a very mentaly disturbed man, cruel and self centered, a sociopath confirmed, and of course NWO. Bushmaster couldn't tear himself away from little Johnys hugs and tears.
Quote, to the tune ofthe Beachboys, Barbaran. J.MCCain song.
BOMB,BOMB,BOMB,BOMBIran.Cute huh, that is his humor by the way.

[Optimus]

'US builds 4 bases on Iraq-Iran border'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=134118
25/06/2008 07:09:11 PM GMT

The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.

The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.

He added that one the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.

"The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel."

According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.

A team consisting of high-profile US marines, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) alongside Pentagon experts oversee the bases.

[Optimus]

Iran strike in the air as US and Israeli military chiefs meet
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23917181-2703,00.html
Martin Chulov, Middle East correspondent | June 25, 2008
 
THE US military chief is to meet his Israeli counterpart in Tel Aviv this week in a move that gives new impetus to speculation about a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Tensions were further heightened by a suggestion from former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton that the US and Israel could attack Iraq's fledgling program between the time a new president was nominated in November and the date the incumbent, George W. Bush, left office in January.

Mr Bolton's remarks signal the first time a regime figure from either country has been prepared to put a time frame on a mooted strike. They also mark a sharp escalation in Israeli-US rhetoric against the Islamic republic, which is refusing to bow to international demands that it stop its nuclear program, and its efforts to enrich uranium.

As the European Union moved Monday to suspend the operations of Iran's largest bank in Europe, Israeli policy-makers were putting in place a clear shift in their stance towards Iran. Officials had been wary of being perceived as trigger-happy, with the spectre of the Iraq war still shadowing the region.

However, a raft of politicians and defence officials are now openly bullish about the chance of a strike against Iran. Pentagon officials earlier this week provided apparently White House-sanctioned details about a large Israeli military operation in the eastern Mediterranean in June, in which more than 100 jets trained for long-range missions.

Israeli intelligence chiefs believe the three years from early 2009 are crucial to the Iranian program.

"Nobody can explain why Iran is enriching uranium," said a senior Israeli official. "The second thing is they are developing a delivery system and nobody can deny that.

"Israel can't take the risk that Iran will be nuclear."

US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen will meet Israeli Defence chief Gabi Ashkenazi on Friday.

He last visited Israel in December during earlier talks about Iran and an Israeli operation that bombed an alleged Syrian rector under construction near the Iraqi border.

Mr Bolton, who maintained a hawkish stance on Iran throughout his tenure as ambassador to the UN, said he thought Israel would act unilaterally in any military strike because the US had lost enthusiasm during the last months of the Bush regime.

"It is clear that the administration has given up that possibility," he told British newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

"I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago, I would have thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards.

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding. They are obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgment is that they would not want to go for anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it would have."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed there will be "devastating consequences" if Israel attacked his country.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, on a three-day visit to Israel and the territories, told the Israeli Knesset on Monday that "a nuclear Iran was unacceptable".

Mr Sarkozy was due last night to meet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu.

[David Rothscum]

well a blockade will likely result in a war eventually, it may take time, a year or two or more, or be quicker, but clearly it greatly increases the chances of a manufactured incident occuring leading to war.

and if 208 reps now cosponsor a bill that is 3 days old then there is little chance of it not passing

which means a big step towards war, just like our freedoms they are implementing this one a little step at a time, they cannot pull the same Iraq style PR camaign and UN speeches and get away with it, so they are doing it by stealth, just liek they are taking our freedoms.

one little step at a time and one day it will be too late (be it this year, next year , 2010 or later once a full scale war kicks off we are screwed bigtime)

Screwed big time, that's a great way to put it. If they attack Iran it means the end of the world as we know it if you ask me. Global depression because of a skyrocketing oil price, Russia, China and Iran opposing the US, this can only go terribly wrong.

[DCUBED]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/syria.iran

Syria planned to supply Iran with nuclear fuel, Israel says

Israel believes that Syria was planning to supply Iran with spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing into weapons-grade plutonium from the site it bombed last September, and which is currently being inspected by the UN's nuclear watchdog.

The claim from an adviser to Israel's national security council, came yesterday as speculation mounts about a possible Israeli attack on Iran. The Israeli government officially backs UN sanctions to force Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment but has little faith they will succeed.

Details about the alleged Syrian reactor and the Israeli raid remain shrouded in secrecy. Syria denies it has or had a covert nuclear weapons programme and insists the Israelis hit an ordinary military structure being built at al-Kibar, in the country's north-eastern desert.

The US claimed in April that Syria had almost completed the plant with the help of North Korea, which evaded the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) checks and tested a nuclear device in 2006. Officials in Damascus accused the US of fabricating evidence in collusion with Israel, which unlike Syria and Iran is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is the Middle East's only nuclear power. Washington did not mention any link to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The Israeli adviser told the Guardian: "The Iranians were involved in the Syrian programme. The idea was that the Syrians produce plutonium and the Iranians get their share. Syria had no reprocessing facility for the spent fuel. It's not deduction alone that brings almost everyone to think that the link exists."

On Monday the German magazine Der Spiegel quoted "intelligence reports" as making similar claims. A Syrian government spokesman dismissed them as "nonsense". But Der Spiegel said that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, was considering withdrawing support for the Iranian nuclear programme. Tehran and Damascus have had close relations since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Both support Hizbullah, which fought Israel in 2006.

Amos Yadlin, head of Israel's military intelligence, told MPs last Sunday that the Syrians were "concerned" about the inspection by the IAEA and were trying to conceal their actions.

The IAEA team, led by Olli Heinonen of Finland, reached al-Kibar on Monday and was due to hold talks with Syrian officials before returning to Vienna today.

The IAEA put Syria on its proliferation watch-list in April after receiving intelligence photographs from the US, said to show a reactor that could have yielded plutonium. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of IAEA, condemned the Israeli raid and criticised the US for failing to share intelligence on Syria sooner. Last week ElBaradei cast doubt on his inspectors' ability to establish the nature of the site. "It is doubtful that we will find anything there now, assuming there was anything there in the first place," he said.

The Israeli adviser said the US "implored" Israel for months to agree to release details of the September attack, which Israel has never officially acknowledged. Israel was reluctant to do so to avoid Syrian retaliation. Since then, the two countries have begun peace talks brokered by Turkey.

Earlier this month 100 Israeli fighter aircraft reportedly rehearsed an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The jets flew more than 870 miles, roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. An attack would "turn the region into a fireball," ElBaradei warned.

[mytee726]

This is so very sad. People just go about their lives like nothing is wrong and they don't want to hear that there is a problem. I guess when the Neutron bombs start going off they will have to believe us. I am having a heck of a time getting people to even care as a matter of fact I don't think I have convinced anyone yet and I have been yelling about this for a long time but the government has only gotten out right blatent with what they are doing since 911. Everyone says I'm nuts maybe I am but I am not shutting up till I am dead.

[Rock]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371281,00.html

Iran Warns West May Face 'Done Deal' on Nukes if Country Is Provoked

[zafada]

oh crap.

and so it begins.

Well I'm not fighting anyone because I don't want to.  However McCain claims the whole draft prospect.  I for one will worry about how many innocent people will die because of this crap.

[Freeski]

This is so very sad. People just go about their lives like nothing is wrong and they don't want to hear that there is a problem. I guess when the Neutron bombs start going off they will have to believe us. I am having a heck of a time getting people to even care as a matter of fact I don't think I have convinced anyone yet and I have been yelling about this for a long time but the government has only gotten out right blatent with what they are doing since 911. Everyone says I'm nuts maybe I am but I am not shutting up till I am dead.

Well said - but you are NOT nuts. They are.

[David Rothscum]

This is so very sad. People just go about their lives like nothing is wrong and they don't want to hear that there is a problem. I guess when the Neutron bombs start going off they will have to believe us. I am having a heck of a time getting people to even care as a matter of fact I don't think I have convinced anyone yet and I have been yelling about this for a long time but the government has only gotten out right blatent with what they are doing since 911. Everyone says I'm nuts maybe I am but I am not shutting up till I am dead.

You know, most people actually agree with most stuff I tell them, both in real life and people on the internet. The thing that surprises me though is that they don't really seem to care, they just think it's interesting to know, and they also seem to think that they can't change things anyway. It's this "Yes it's true, but I'm going to live my life like none of it is happening" attitude that really surprises me. But then again, most people aren't very eager to disagree with you in your face.

[Freeski]

You know, most people actually agree with most stuff I tell them, both in real life and people on the internet. The thing that surprises me though is that they don't really seem to care, they just think it's interesting to know, and they also seem to think that they can't change things anyway. It's this "Yes it's true, but I'm going to live my life like none of it is happening" attitude that really surprises me. But then again, most people aren't very eager to disagree with you in your face.

Maybe a better strategy for this InfoWar would be to focus more on freedom, and how it DOES work, rather than kick NWO butt on a daily basis. From your experience, it sounds like your people can't even imagine what true liberty is because for them, they have a job, they eat, go on vacation, vote and screw, so why rock the boat... they've got it pretty good.

Truth is they're oblivious to the simplicity of the solution and to the solution itself - which is freedom.

[bigron]

'US builds 4 bases on Iraq-Iran border' 

26/06/2008 08:09:11 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=134269

 
The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.

The (more)


The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.

The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.

He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.

"The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel."

According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.

A team consisting of high-profile US marines, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) alongside Pentagon experts oversee the bases.

MP/MMN


-- AJP

 

[Dig]

                MORE:


                BREAKING: BUSH PLANNING TO BOMB IRAN - JERUSALEM POST
      "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it"- Deputy PM
      U.S. missile in NWFP 11 Pakistani soldiers killed, US threatens to expand war
      U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran
      Impeach Dick Cheney before he Blows up the entire Planet
      CNN, C-SPAN, BBC, FOX, FRANCE: The war in Iran is on!!!!!!
      Confirmed FBI Cover-Up Sibel Edmonds Nuke Secrets Case
      Bush/Cheney Iran War Plan: Phase I-Destroy all communication infrastructure
      Condolezza Rice Declares War on Iran - Bombs on their way!
      Step 1, Sunnis unite and Turkey invades. Step 2, Bomb Bomb Iran.
      3 Million Dead in Iraq - Our Own Holocaust Denial ! Violence escalating again
      If Congress Impeaches, Bush will cancel elections, bomb Iran, clam Martial Law
      THE ANSWER TO IMPEACHMENT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.
      Cheney getting ready to nuke Iran...AGAIN!!!
      Israel/US/UK leaks plan to strike Iran AGAIN! This is like the 10th time!
      Turkey/Cheney opening 2nd front to initiate war with IRAN! New
      John Hagee the Monkey pushing WWIII
      Bush and Olmert plans to nuke Iran!
      NATO and Israel: Instruments of America's Wars in the Middle East
      McCellan speaks out to prevent Bush/Cheney's plan to nuke Iran    
      CNN/C_SPAN - IRAN WAR IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!    
      Dick(head) Cheney beating the drums of war again
      China and Russia will defend Iran and US will be the Nazis in WWIII

[Dig]

UN Inspector Scott Ritter: Fools would Bomb Iran

3 min - Jun 26, 2007 -  (581 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

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

Scott Ritter: Weapons of Mass Delusion

28 min - Sep 20, 2006 -  (180 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqoJHOSrjQo

__________________

Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern on the Occupation of Iraq.mpg

1 hr 43 min - Feb 10, 2007 -  (13 ratings)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8060230693312463524

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

Target Iran - Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh

1 hr 23 min - Nov 8, 2006 -  (44 ratings)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3777614199046042311

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

MSNBC - Scott Ritter on Covert War in Iran CIA and the Mujahadeen-...

6 min - Aug 14, 2007 -  (2 ratings)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8425484120815762419

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

Scott Ritter - Target Iran - Part 1

13 min - Apr 20, 2007 -  (155 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiZrWIVR69s


Scott Ritter on Iranian Nuclear Program

10 min - Jul 6, 2007 -  (277 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XctgkYj5aVk

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

Israel's influence of US policy & the Israeli lobby

3 min - Nov 8, 2006 -  (628 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4

Lot's of whistleblowing going on.  Wake up!

Iran plans are still on the table for Rockefeller/Cheney

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

Waging Peace

The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement

52 min - Dec 16, 2007 -  (3 ratings)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7167733082609114831

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

CNN's Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-02.htm
Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq
Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Toronto Star by Antonia Zerbisias

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

OF COURSE it was just coincidental that, on Sunday, as CNN was discrediting former United Nations weapons' inspector Scott Ritter, it was running promos for the remake of Four Feathers, A.E.W. Mason's tale of the coward who would not go to war.

By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."

Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After his 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq allowed.

Ever since, he has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's failure to complete its mission — a failure Ritter largely blames on Washington — and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that, if the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is building nukes, then the American people have a right to see it before they sacrifice their lives.

So, naturally, CNN talking head Miles O'Brien on Sunday questioned Ritter on his loyalty.

"As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with the — with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter. "It's the most patriotic thing I can do."

Not in this climate. Not when there's the ironically named U.S.A. Patriot Act which abrogates civil rights. Not when those who criticize the administration are considered to be "with the terrorists." Not when the U.S. media let President George Bush's advisers — who, with the exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, have never served their country as Ritter has — gallop all over the airwaves.

You couldn't flip a channel on Sunday without catching one of the Bush bunch, including wife Laura, Powell, vice-president Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice, promoting an attack on Iraq as if they were actors flogging their latest project on Leno and Letterman.

Certainly, the line of questioning was no more tough. Nowhere was any of them asked seriously, if at all, about such trivia as the costs of a war, or what, if anything, is known about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or what proof there is that Iraq has the ability to make and deliver nuclear weapons, or why that country as opposed to others, or what oil has to do with it, or how Cheney justifies his former business dealings with the regime he now so desperately wants to change ...

Still the demonization of Ritter continued.

First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility..."

The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided," "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."

By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."

Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips interrogated him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq —and all but calling him a quisling.

"Ha! Excuse me; I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass destruction. I believe I've done a0 lot about Saddam Hussein," he replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States. But at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United States worthy of war."

Maybe today, in his speech to the United Nations, Bush will make that case.

Maybe not.

Whatever happens, the list of cowards and traitors here won't include...

 Scott Ritter.

[bigron]

No Such Animal as an Israeli Attack on Iran


 June 25, 2008 | 12:03 PM (EST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/no-such-animal-as-an-isra_b_109154.html


The Cheneyista faction in the Bush administration and Congress is once again laboring mightily to place the idea of a U.S. attack on Iran before the Bush administration leaves office back on the table. The American public and the Congress quite reasonably still have a very bad taste in their mouths from the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, so in recent weeks we've seen renewed Cheneyista efforts to re-package a U.S. attack on Iran as something more palatable.

In Congress, the Cheneyistas are promoting a resolution demanding that the president work to ban all gas exports to Iran, which could not be achieved without a blockade, an act of war. Such a blockade would surely provoke Iranian retaliation, providing a rationale for U.S. counter-retaliation, and who can say what the end result of that cycle of escalation would be?

And in the media, the Cheneyistas are recycling the theme that if we don't act, the Israelis will. The fatal flaw of this argument is that for all practical purposes, there is no such animal as an Israeli attack on Iran. There is no way Israel can attack Iran without U.S. approval, encouragement, and assistance, and everyone in the region knows this, so if Israel were to attack Iran, everyone in the region will assume, correctly, that the attack has been approved, encouraged, and assisted by the Bush administration, and respond accordingly. The Iranians would surely retaliate against Israel and the U.S., and the Bush administration would then surely retaliate against Iran; again we would be in a cycle of escalation whose outcome none can predict.

Therefore, if anyone speaks to you about an "Israeli attack on Iran," you should correct them: "you mean a U.S. attack on Iran." Because that's what they are talking about. They are talking about this:

Don't Bomb Iran!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXl4vMRocHk&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/no-such-animal-as-an-isra_b_109154.html

[bigron]

Larijani warns West over nuke plan


BY ALI AKBAR DAREINI
http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/news/international/larijani-warns-west-over-nuke-plan.aspx

TEHRAN

June 25: Iran’s Parliament Speaker warned the West on Wednesday that it may face "a done deal" if it provokes Iran, a stern hint that Tehran could build nuclear weapons if attacked. The Speaker, Ali Larijani, who was once Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, also warned that a "short opportunity is left" for a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme that the US and some of its allies fear is aimed at producing atomic bomb. Iran has long denied it intends to build a nuclear weapon, saying its programme is meant only to generate electricity.

Mr Larijani — one of Iran’s most powerful politicians — did not directly warn that Iran could change its intentions, but his vague comment appeared aimed at raising that possibility.

Mr Larijani pointed to recent comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN nuclear watchdog chief, who said in an interview last week that a military strike on Iran could turn West Asia into a "ball of fire" and "prompt Iran, even if it didn’t produce a nuclear weapon today, to resort to an emergency plan to produce a nuclear weapon." Mr Larijani said the West should "take Mr ElBaradei’s warnings seriously."

"Don’t provoke Iran otherwise you will face a done deal that will block the path of your return to a compromise with Iran," Mr Larijani said. —AP

[bigron]

Iran to pull assets from EU over sanctions: minister


Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:35am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSL252830520080625?rpc=401&


VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran will withdraw assets from the European Union in response to the tightening of sanctions imposed over its nuclear program, Deputy Foreign Minister Mahdi Safari said in an interview published on Wednesday.

"We are going to withdraw the money and invest elsewhere," Mahdi was quoted as saying by Austrian daily Die Presse.

"If you withdraw more than $100 billion, then of course this will bring about a scarcity of money and have an impact on the world economy."

The 27-nation EU agreed new punitive measures on Monday targeting businesses and individuals the West says are linked to Iran's nuclear and ballistic programs.

Iran has also been slapped with three rounds of United Nations Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program, which the West fears is secretly designed to build an atom bomb. Tehran says the program is aimed purely at civil power generation.

An Iranian monthly reported earlier in June that the Islamic Republic had withdrawn $75 billion in assets from Europe to prevent their being blocked under new sanctions. But Iran's economy minister on Sunday played down the report "as yet not serious".

The new EU measures include a freeze on the assets of Iran's largest bank, Bank Melli, and visa bans on senior officials such as Revolutionary Guards head Mohammad Ali Jafari, Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and atomic energy chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh.

Mahdi told Die Presse that Europeans would lose out as a result of the newly imposed measures.

"We have gas and oil resources everyone wants to buy. Now we are trading mostly with Asian countries," he said.

"Previously our main partners were in Europe -- Germany, Italy, France, and also Austria. Now we have other partners."

(Reporting by Karin Strohecker; Editing by Catherine Evans)

[bigron]

COLUMN
-Iran and nuclear consequences:

 
Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:34pm IST
By Bernd Debusmann
http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINL2567750420080625

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - When an Israeli cabinet minister said he thought an attack on Iran's nuclear sites was unavoidable, the price of a barrel of oil rose 9 percent to a new record in June. Nice, fat bonus for oil-producing countries, including Iran.

If rhetoric has that effect, imagine the consequences of an actual strike. The numbers have not been crunched, at least not in public, but a four-month computer simulation and gaming exercise carried out last year by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, gives an idea.

It was based on an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for 90 percent of oil exported from Gulf producers, in response to a U.S. attack on nuclear sites, air fields and air defense targets. The simulation showed the price of oil more than doubling, U.S. gross domestic product depressed for 2-1/2 years, private non-farm employment declining by more than one million jobs, and disposable personal income dropping by more than $260 billion.

In terms of oil and gasoline prices, last year were the good old days. At the time of the exercise, a barrel of oil traded at $65 and a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. averaged $2.80. It's now around $136 and $4.08 respectively and could well reach twice that after an attack. Tighten your belts!

The exercise did not measure the impact of the closure on Japan, more than 75 percent of whose crude goes through the Straits, South Korea (70 pct), India (65pct), or China (34pct). The assumption was that Iran would only succeed in closing the Strait for one full week, after which shipping would slowly resume.

Reaction to an attack on Iran would go beyond severe economic pain to the U.S. and other oil importers. One of the unintended consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has been to greatly strengthen Iran which has the ability to wage guerrilla war by proxy on Israel (through Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and has shown it can dial up (or down) Shi'ite violence in Iraq.

The military consequences of an American or Israeli attack on Iran are incalculable.

Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has described military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme as a "ludicrous idea" which would unite Iranians against their attackers and "turn the region into a fireball." A crash program for building the bomb could begin as soon as the smoke clears.

ISRAELI HAWKS AND U.S. NEOCONS

The man who made the oil price jump on June 6 with his "unavoidable" comment was Israeli deputy prime minister Shaul Mofaz, a hawk born in Iran, whose views are close to U.S. neoconservatives who also feel that the only way to stop Iran's nuclear programme is to bomb it. Their's appears to be a minority position in the lame-duck Bush administration which is already bequeathing two wars and a battered economy to the next president.

But the U.S. could be drawn into an assault if Israel, impatient with the present diplomatic stalemate and the limited success of sanctions on oil-rich Iran, decided to strike, found itself unable to finish the job and requested U.S. assistance. In other words, the U.S. would have to finish what Israel started.

This week John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations predicted in an interview with the Daily Telegraph of London that Israel would attack between the U.S. elections on November 4 and the swearing-in of the next president on January 20. This was probably more a public expression of wishful thinking by a superhawk than deep insight into Israeli planning.

What has complicated the seemingly endless debate over the nuclear program Iran says is entirely for peaceful purposes is the assumption by many policymakers in the U.S. and Israel that the Iranian establishment is irrational. "The problem is that we are putting Iran in a category of one, different from anyone else," said Gary Sick, an Iran scholar at Columbia University. "There is a strain of commentary that Iranians are so suicidal and martyrdom-inclined they cannot be trusted."

In Israel, that school of thought was enshrined in a 2004 national security report for former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. It argued that Israel has an inherent right to pre-emptive attacks because the Iranian leaders are irrational and do not value self-preservation, according to Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance, a study of the complex, shifting relations between Iran, Israel and the U.S.

Despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's alarming rants about the imminent demise of Israel, there is no evidence that Iran's opaque and many-layered leadership is plotting to commit collective suicide by building a nuclear bomb, promptly launching it at Tel Aviv and dying a fiery death in a retaliatory nuclear strike from Israel.

Israel's nuclear arsenal, a key element of the Middle East power equation, has been an open secret for years. It is still treated with studied silence both by official Washington and Israel, which has neither confirmed nor denied that it has nuclear weapons. Independent experts put their number at between 80+ and 300. Three nuclear submarines provide a second strike capability of which Iran is keenly aware.

Many strategic thinkers both in the U.S. and Israel dismiss the notion of Iranian irrationality and exceptionalism. "Iran's leaders are more concerned about staying in power than anything else," said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an Iran scholar at Syracuse University.

Just like power elites anywhere else. (You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com) (Editing by Sean Maguire)

[birgit]

Thank you so much for posting - I had never heard of Scott Ritter
I have and will be watching and forwarding to the sheeple.
Especially this one to my tv watching family and friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcz23GfvCA&feature=related

It is priceless!!!

[beijingyank]

I get the feeling that if Iran is attacked it will be open season on neocons in the States.

How to turn a neocon into a lead magnet? Attack Iran.

[bigron]

In case you missed it: Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran



From The Sunday TimesSeptember 2, 2007

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

Sarah Baxter, Washington
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece


THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said – to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months – “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[bigron]

Ron Paul on Iran and Energy Policy

A MUST SEE VIDEO ABOUT IRAN

June 26, 2008 in News by Eric Garris

Rep. Ron Paul addressed the House today warning about the consequences of the proposed US attack on Iran.

VIDEO :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ&eurl=http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/26/ron-paul-on-iran-and-energy-policy/

[David Rothscum]

I get the feeling that if Iran is attacked it will be open season on neocons in the States.

How to turn a neocon into a lead magnet? Attack Iran.

Not if they false flag us into another war, like on 9/11. We will turn into lead magnets.

[birgit]

I hope this video goes viral, I sent it out to everyone.
Gas jumps to 140 a barrel, stocks steadily in decline...
but everyone still gawks at  TV  news believes what propaganda they repeat..

Stoopid, a new favorite sport in America - so many do it so well!

[Swedish-rebel]

This bill will deff start the war. I just hope enough people have prepared for the shit storm that follows world wide...good luck to us all!

[bigron]

June 28, 2008

America Is the Rogue Nation
 
by Charley Reese


One gets the impression that there are some people in Washington who believe that Israel or the U.S. can bomb Iran's nuclear reactors, fly home, and it will be mission complete.

It makes you wonder if perhaps there is a virus going around that is gradually making people stupid. If we or Israel attack Iran, we will have a new war on our hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack and say, "You naughty boys, you."

Consider how much trouble Iraq has given us. Some 4,000 dead and 29,000 wounded, a half a trillion dollars in cost and still climbing, and five years later, we cannot say that the country is pacified.

Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).

More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in our arsenal.

Iran's conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.

It's been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran's forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia that I've heard is pretty snazzy.

So, if you think we or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I'd have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think we could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I'd have to promote you to idiot.

Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Now we have troops tied down in both countries.

For some years now, I've worried that we seem to be more and more like Colonial England – arrogant, racist, overestimating our own capacity and underestimating that of our enemies. As the fate of the British Empire demonstrates, that is a fatal flaw.

The British never dreamed that the "little yellow people" could come ashore by land and take Singapore from the rear or that they would sink the pride of the British fleet, but they did both.

I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?

Exactly how the Iranians will respond to an attack, I don't know, but they will respond. In keeping with our present policy, our attack on Iran would be illegal, since under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Who would have thought that we would become the rogue nation committing acts of aggression around the globe?

 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=13061 

[Optimus]

'WE COULD DO IT TODAY'
Israel Prepared to Use Force Against Iran
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562746,00.html
06/28/2008

Israel won't rule out a military attack on Iran, according to Isaac Ben-Israel of the ruling Kadima party. The former air force general told SPIEGEL that: "If necessary, we will use force."

Israel is capable of mounting a successful military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, a former Israeli air force general told SPIEGEL. Isaac Ben-Israel, now a member of the ruling Kadima party, said: "If necessary we will use force," adding: "We could do it today."

Ben-Israel, who as an air force general took part in the planning of the 1981 air raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, admitted it might be "more difficult" to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

He told SPIEGEL that the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities could be solved "by other means" and advocated much tougher sanctions against Iran. "Only once the critical point has been reached will we choose the final option."

The former general acknowledged that the Israeli air force had recently carried out maneuvers, which he said were to prepare for the eventuality that the international community failed to stop the Iranian nuclear activities. "It was not the first such exercise, and it won't be the last," he said.

In October Israel admitted that it had carried out an air strike on the Al Kibar complex in Syria. United Nations weapons inspectors spent four days last week in Syria to investigate whether the country has been involved in the production of nuclear weapons. The inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency said at the end of their trip that the investigation had proved inconclusive.

According to intelligence reports seen by SPIEGEL (more...) the facility at Al Kibar was the site of a secret military project where North Korean, Syrian and Iranian scientists had been working side by side to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

[Optimus]

Pentagon making case against Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61805&sectionid=351020101
Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:43:42
 
 
A DoD report released to Congress ahead of a vote on extreme punitive measures on Iran accuses Tehran of assisting Afghan insurgents.

In its first ever Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan to the US Congress, the Pentagon claims it has 'evidence' of Iranian involvement in the war-torn country.

"There is evidence that the insurgency ... has been provided with lethal aid originating in Iran since at least 2006," says the report.

It is 'unclear what role, and at what level the Iranian government plays in providing this assistance', the 72-page document adds.

Iran, however, says it has helped in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and has played only a constructive role in the country.

The release of the report comes ahead of a vote on the imposition of harsher US sanctions on Iranian banks, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and any energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.

If the bill passes, US President George W. Bush will also be urged to gain world support to prohibit the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.

Introduced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and considered a tacit declaration of war against the Islamic Republic, the bill has seen opposition but may pass.

House Resolution 362 and the Senate version Resolution 580, known as the 'Iran War Resolution', are believed to be a prelude to the imposition of a naval blockade restricting exports to oil-rich Iran.

This bill has gained 208 co-sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate. It will likely be put to a vote after July 4.

[DCUBED]

http://blacklistednews.com/news-150-0-3-3--.html

Iran Revolutionary Guards chief in new warning to Israel: report

The chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards has issued a new warning against Israel not to attack it, saying the Jewish state is well within range of its missiles, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

"This country (Israel) is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime -- despite all its abilities -- cannot confront it," General Mohammad Ali Jafari told the conservative daily Jam-e Jam.

"There is the possibility that by attacking Iranian nuclear sites the enemy wants to delay our nuclear activities, but any interruption would be very short since Iranian scientific ability is different from that of Syria and Iraq."

His comments came after US media reported that more than 100 Israeli warplanes staged a training exercise with Greece earlier this month to prepare for a possible long-distance strike -- a manoeuvre seen as a warning to Tehran.

Iran has defied UN sanctions and international demands by pressing ahead with its disputed uranium enrichment programme, which both Washington and Israel fear would be used to build a nuclear weapon.

The authorities in Tehran deny seeking to manufacture an atomic bomb, and say the country's nuclear ambitions extend only to generating electricity for a growing population.

Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former defence chief, said in an interview published in the Russian press on Wednesday that Iran would be "annihilated" if it tried to attack Israel.

But, he said, "we are not planning any attack against Iran."

Last Sunday Iran's defence minister dismissed the reports that Israel had conducted a dry run for air strikes against its nuclear drive as "psychological operations," but warned of a limitless response to an attack.

[thadividedsky]

they couldn't prove Iran was helping Iraqi "insurgents", so now they're accusing Iran of helping Afghan "insurgents". What a crock of shite. What's next, they'll accuse Iran of helping Nigerian "insurgents"? Im so sick of this sabre rattling.

[plantop14]

they couldn't prove Iran was helping Iraqi "insurgents", so now they're accusing Iran of helping Afghan "insurgents". What a crock of shite. What's next, they'll accuse Iran of helping Nigerian "insurgents"? Im so sick of this sabre rattling.

Right on thadividedsky, I can't complain to my rep. though, Dr. Ron Paul but I sure as hell can yell at one of the Sens. from Texas, John Cornyn! I am getting so sick of this shit, talk about a sold out congress, these idiots, the same idiots that have allowed and continue to allow this nazi fascist administration to wage war across the globe and threaten nations based on the most heinous govt. sponsored terrorism ever to take place in the history of mankind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F--k, when are they gonna stop, I am really, really getting damn f--king tired of these suits that are running OUR country right straight into the f--king ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[David Rothscum]

Pentagon making case against Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61805&sectionid=351020101
Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:43:42
 
 
A DoD report released to Congress ahead of a vote on extreme punitive measures on Iran accuses Tehran of assisting Afghan insurgents.

In its first ever Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan to the US Congress, the Pentagon claims it has 'evidence' of Iranian involvement in the war-torn country.

"There is evidence that the insurgency ... has been provided with lethal aid originating in Iran since at least 2006," says the report.

It is 'unclear what role, and at what level the Iranian government plays in providing this assistance', the 72-page document adds.

Iran, however, says it has helped in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and has played only a constructive role in the country.

The release of the report comes ahead of a vote on the imposition of harsher US sanctions on Iranian banks, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and any energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.

If the bill passes, US President George W. Bush will also be urged to gain world support to prohibit the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.

Introduced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and considered a tacit declaration of war against the Islamic Republic, the bill has seen opposition but may pass.

House Resolution 362 and the Senate version Resolution 580, known as the 'Iran War Resolution', are believed to be a prelude to the imposition of a naval blockade restricting exports to oil-rich Iran.

This bill has gained 208 co-sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate. It will likely be put to a vote after July 4.

Meanwhile, here's what Afghanistan's president says:
http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1216.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/washington/07prexy.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1214693172-HD3VjnjWrhgikcCgHVr5/g&oref=slogin
This is just completely ridiculous.