Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[bigron]

Negotiation – not strikes – needed for Iran 



12/07/2008 04:30:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=138680


 
 Direct, open-ended, comprehensive, and bilateral talks with Iran still promise the best payoff for U.S. interests in regional stability, secure oil resources and the promotion of democracy.


By Lisa Schirch and Lynn Kunkle


Washington, DC - As concerns persist that Israel or the United States could attack Iran, the realistic outcomes of such an event must be considered. An American military attack, rather than making the world more secure, could instead provide Iran with greater incentive to harm U.S. interests and allies throughout the region. Principled negotiation, an interest-based approach to problem solving, could provide an alternative to coercive diplomacy to help resolve the current impasse.

(Watch video: Seymour Hersh: The secret war in Iran (Part 1, Part 2) )

A U.S. strike would give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the pretext to move against Iranian reformers and civil society groups critical of the regime, silencing both dissident and pro-engagement voices. Iranian public opinion polls show that the Iranian people would rally around their president if attacked, leading some civil society leaders to warn that a foreign strike could set their reform efforts back decades.

Even "pinprick" surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities could trigger a massive blowback against U.S. interests and personnel in the region. The exposure of U.S. interests to unpredictable and asymmetrical regional forces aligned to Iran would be nearly impossible to control. Some have estimated that the escalating rhetoric between the United States and Iran alone has pushed up the price of oil by $50 per barrel.

Nor is a military strike in Iran likely to achieve the stated U.S. goal of preventing the country's nuclear enrichment programme. As international criticism against U.S. policy grows, chief UN nuclear inspector Mohammed al-Baradei recently asserted that an attacked Iran would have grounds to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Precipitous US action could therefore end up creating the very outcome it seeks to avoid.

(Watch video: How do Iranians react to threats of attack?)

Direct, open-ended, comprehensive, and bilateral talks with Iran still promise the best payoff for U.S. interests in regional stability, secure oil resources and the promotion of democracy. Principled negotiation with Iran lays the groundwork for addressing the root causes of conflict between the two countries – from both perspectives.

For the United States, underlying sources of conflict with Iran are tied to fears over nuclear weapons capability and the country's support for regional actors using violent means to achieve their aims. Regional stability and human rights issues are also concerns.

For Iran, the concerns include the need for secure and reliable energy development; international and regional recognition; respect for sovereign rights, regime security and regional stability and a perceived U.S. bias toward Israel. Developing ways to acknowledge these interests would pave the way for more substantial diplomatic successes supporting U.S. interests.

Principled negotiation with Iran could help the United States promote stability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon by highlighting common ground on shared security issues. Iran has a long-term interest in stable, democratic neighbours.

Iran, historically a pragmatic regional power, can play a productive role in countries in the region where the U.S. has significant interests. Tehran has long opposed al Qaeda and the Taliban, supported Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan, taken the lead in poppy eradication, and even mediated among Iraqi Shi'a militias, helping to account for some of the successes of the recent US "surge". Iran has also stated its willingness to negotiate its support for Hamas and Hizbullah.

The current strategy of only agreeing to talk with preconditions – on those issues Iran has stated its willingness to negotiate – prolongs the coercive posturing, leaving only sporadic, hesitant and easily derailed back-channel diplomacy to address issues of major regional significance. Senator Arlen Specter characterised this approach as "27 years of silence broken only by a few whispers," which "has not worked and has left us in the dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves today."

More investment is needed in public, back-channel, and citizen diplomatic engagement with Iran to build much-needed relationships, trust and cross-cultural understanding. Search for Common Ground, the Mennonite Central Committee and the Fellowship for Reconciliation are good examples of organisations that regularly exchange delegations between Iran and the United States.

It will take political courage to employ respectful, principled negotiation and diplomacy with Iran. But bold diplomatic initiatives and principled neutrality in sovereign affairs are proud traditions of American foreign policy.

If the United States resorts to military attacks on Iran, it certainly will not be able to claim this path as a "last resort" until it has first exhausted all possible diplomatic methods as a "first resort."

-- Lisa Schirch and Lynn Kunkle work together at the 3D Security Initiative (www.3Dsecurity.org), which promotes conflict prevention and peace building in US public and foreign policy. This article is written for the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at GCNews.





-- Middle East Online

 

[Freeski]

On the news last night, they were talking about the missile tests and how it seemed that war was inevitable.  Yet there seems to be diplomatic progress.  That is what they said.

I think that they must promote the idea of diplomacy, whether or not if is happening, just to prove to the American people that they tried.  They really did.

BS!!!  It is propaganda to spin what they have been trying to do for 7.5 years now.

Dan

Today:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080710/POLITICS-GEORGIA-RICE-IRAN-DC/

zactly!

[bigron]

July 12, 2008

An Aggressive and Hypocritical US Policy Toward Iran
 
by Ivan Eland

The chauvinistic American news media have focused on evil Iran's missile tests and the indignant Bush administration reaction, while missing some key causes of the event. As if the Iranians had started the entire dust up, the media reported Gordon Johndroe, the White House spokesman, barking, "The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity." The U.S. press then reported Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as bristling that the U.S. would defend its allies and protect its interests against attack.

The media could have given equal emphasis to the recent strident rhetoric and behavior of Israel and the Bush administration towards Iran, but didn't. Not only has the Bush administration pointedly declined to rule out military action against Iran, the United States was conducting provocative naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf near Iran before the Iranian missile tests. In addition, last month, according to U.S. intelligence officials, Israel conducted an exercise that simulated a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. In the American press, these provocations tend to get buried under sensational headlines implying Iranian aggressiveness in launching the missiles. For example, the headline for a New York Times article on the subject read, "Iran Launches 9 Missiles in War Games, One with Range Said to Include Israel."

Via the missile firings and by bluntly saying that if attacked, a counterattack on Israel and the U.S. fleet would ensue, Iran was merely trying to deter any potential Israeli or Bush administration attack before the U.S. elections. Iran – not Israel or the U.S. – has the fear of being attacked.

The American public assumes that the U.S. being a democracy automatically translates into being right in disputes overseas. But statistics show that democracies are no less aggressive overseas than non-democracies. In fact, by far the most aggressive country in the post-World War II world – if measured in the numbers of military and covert interventions – is the United States. Iran may be indirectly supporting militias in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, but the United States, just since 2001, has invaded and occupied two countries and changed their governments using armed force.

Iran got permanently on the wrong side of U.S. policy after its fundamentalist Islamic revolution and the taking of U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979. However, the American people have always been oblivious to what caused that burst of anti-American venom. In 1953, the CIA ousted Mohammed Mossadeq, the elected leader of Iran, because he nationalized British oil interests. The U.S. government reinstated and supported the brutal Shah, who ruled until the revolution in 1978, and grabbed 40 percent of Iran's oil for American companies.

Thus, the Iranian missile tests and taking of American hostages show that only in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum physics and in U.S. public opinion are events uncaused. Furthermore, the U.S. public has the impression that Iran is a totalitarian state of people wearing strange Darth Vader-style black costumes. But Iran does have some democratic tendencies and many more than the despotic U.S. allies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

In addition to being excessively belligerent, the Bush administration's Iran policy is loaded with hypocrisy. Despite all the saber rattling and "stringent" economic sanctions against Iran, U.S. trade with Iran has increased tenfold during the Bush administration – from $9 million in 2001 to $146 million last year. And of the $546 million in cumulative trade during that period, $169 million, or almost a third, was in cigarettes. It would be too cynical to assume the Bush administration has an insidious plan to undermine the Iranian regime and nuclear program by giving the Iranian population lung cancer; this loophole in the sanctions clearly benefits the U.S. tobacco industry, which is very tight with the Republican Party.

Further hypocrisy is the U.S. reluctance to negotiate with those who believe in fundamentalist Islam, while negotiating with and even paying hostile secular groups not to shoot at U.S. troops. The United States has been dragging its feet on negotiating with the Iranian government and protests when the Pakistani government negotiates with Islamic militants in its country. Meanwhile, the U.S. has negotiated with and essentially paid secular Sunni guerrillas in Iraq, who had killed thousands of U.S. soldiers, to switch sides in that conflict.

Although Iran is not free of authoritarianism, has a fundamentalist Islamic government that seems strange to the West, and is probably attempting to get nuclear weapons because it lives in a rough neighborhood and fears an Israeli or U.S. attack, the U.S. needs to drop its aggressive and hypocritical stance and make a sincere attempt to negotiate away Iran's nuclear program. If that cannot be done, the United States should deter an Iranian nuclear attack using its formidable conventional and nuclear arsenals – as it did with radical Maoist China and more recently has done with North Korea.
 

 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=13124 

[bigron]

US and Israel should beware of taking on Iran

Iran is well able to retaliate against any attack on their nuclear facilities, says Robert Fox


America's senior commander, Admiral Mike Mullen, has firmly warned that involving US forces in a third war now - against Iran - would prove "extremely stressful" for them. The clear hint is that someone in the White House is still desperate to bomb something in Iran before they leave office.

The war fever is up again over Iran's nuclear programme, which Tehran still claims is only peaceful. Mullen refused to say what Israeli leaders told him privately last week. But in June the Israelis flew some 100 aircraft across the Mediterranean to practice aerial refuelling of their strike force of F15 and F16s. They tanked them to travel a distance of some 2,000km - roughly the distance to Natanz, where Iran currently has thousands of centrifuges spinning.

Natanz is the likely target of any 'fire power demonstration' by combined forces of
America and Israel. But what would flattening the facilities, such as they are known, achieve? "It would probably set Iran back about two years," according to one US analyst. And it would leave a terrible human mess. Some 35,000 Iranians have been housed close to the plant.

"An attack would be crazy," the rising star of the Tehran hierarchy, Ali Larijani, has said. He sees real possibilities of productive talks now.

It seems almost incredible that after their two disastrous efforts at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush and Cheney might still be thinking of a third against Iran. The consequences could be worse by far, because Iran is well-prepared for retaliation, with land-launched anti-ship missiles ready along the coast.

It plans to choke 40 per cent of the world's oil in the Straits of Hormuz in the Gulf, and trigger further offensives by the Taliban and the Tajik northern alliance in Afghanistan. There will be a general order to attack Anglo-American allies and interests. 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/44779,opinion,us-and-israel-should-beware-of-taking-on-iran

[Optimus]

Iran 'to target Israel, US bases' 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7399403.stm

Iran will target "the heart of Israel" and 32 US bases in the Gulf if they launch an attack on Iran, an Iranian official has warned.

The Iranian response would come "before the dust from this attack has settled", Mojtaba Zolnour said.

Mr Zolnour is a representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the elite Revolutionary Guards.

His comments come amid fears that Iran could be attacked by the US and Israel over its nuclear programme.

They also followed Iranian missile tests capable of hitting Israel early this week.

Tehran denies Western claims that it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

It has repeatedly rejected demands to halt enriching uranium, which can be used as fuel for power plants or material for weapons if refined to a greater degree.

The European Union imposed new sanctions on Iran in June.

But it has offered a package of incentives to persuade Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

Iran has said it is prepared to negotiate with major world powers, but insisted the talks must address Iran's nuclear rights.
 

[bigron]

Iran says talk of U.S. attack 'craziness' 



13/07/2008 10:30:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=139760


 
 Mottaki says the U.S. and Israel would face a crushing response if they choose to confront the Iranian nation militarily.


Iranian Foreign minister Manochehr Mottaki says the U.S. and Israel would face a crushing response if they choose to confront the Iranian nation militarily.

Mottaki, however, said he believed neither the United States nor Israel have the capacity to get entangled in a new Middle East crisis.
 
He said "the Zionist regime is still involved in the after-shocks of the war with Lebanon," referring to Israel's inconclusive 2006 war with the resistance movement Hezbollah. "And the US still does not possess the capacity to enter another crisis in the Persian Gulf region," he added.
 
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) successfully test-launched upgraded, longer range Shahab-3 missile in a navy military maneuvers dubbed 'the Great Prophet 3' in the Persian Gulf on Wednesday. The forces test fired the developed 2000-kilometer missile with a conventional warhead weighing one ton in the maneuvers aimed at improving combat readiness and capability of the missile and naval units.
 
"The recent maneuver ... and the firing of indigenously produced missiles was the display of the Islamic Republic of Iran's capabilities and the scientists and innovators of our country," Mottaki said.
 
Meanwhile, Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham dismissed speculation that Iran risked being attacked by the United States over its contested nuclear drive, saying that a military strike would be "craziness." "Any aggression or military action against Iran is an idiocy whose repercussions would hurt all," Elham told reporters. "I don't think that such craziness and nonsense will prevail or is doable militarily," he added.
 
"Iran will target 32 US bases and the heart of Israel" if it is attacked, the Fars news agency quoted an aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying. "If America and Israel shoot any bullets and missiles against our country, Iranian armed forces will target the heart of Israel and 32 US bases in the region before the dust from this attack has settled," Mojtaba Zolnoor said.
 



-- AJP

 

[bigron]

From The Sunday TimesJuly 13, 2008

President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran


As Tehran tests new missiles, America believes only a show of force can deter President Ahmadinejad



President George W Bush: US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened

Uzi Mahnaimi in Washington

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece


President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

 Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets. Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility.


“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.

There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.

Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.

Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.

The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.

Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.

The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.

Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.

Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.

Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.

Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.

“The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”

A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.

In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.

Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.

“No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.

Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.

“Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”

Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills in New York

Related Links
Iran and Israel's game of bluff :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4312319.ece

Iran isolation grows as gas project cancelled :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4311311.ece

An itchy finger on the taunt button :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322583.ece

[Optimus]

Prepare for possible strike on Iran, Bush tells Israel
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200807131554.htm
 
London (PTI): US President George W Bush has given Israel a go-ahead to begin preparations for a military attack on Iran, in case talks over the country's controversial nuclear programme fail to yield results, a media report has said.

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that he would back an Israeli plan to strike Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down, the Sunday Times said quoting a Pentagon official.

The American President has given Israel an "amber light" to start preparing for a possible offensive, the official told the Sunday Times.

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official as quoted as saying to The Times.

The US President's voice of support comes despite his military officials' opposition to an attack on Iran, given the risks of an aerial strike.

However, the US would not deploy American forces for such a strike nor would Israel be able to depend on its military bases in Iraq for logistical support, the official said.

Washington would also not give a "green light" to the attack without unquestionable proof that the Islamic Republic is involved in military preparations of its own, the report said.

Iran last week test launched a series of medium-range ballistic missiles it claimed were capable of striking Israel.

The tests prompted a threatening message from Israel defence minister Ehud Barak, who said that the Jewish state will not hesitate from taking military action against Tehran.

[das_ding]

USA: prepare gas 15$ galon!

[scary]

Not just USA DING, world wide


great living.

[das_ding]

Not just USA DING, world wide
great living.

sure - here IS 9$ a galon - but will be 25$ than

[Biggs]

Israeli jets using U.S. military bases in Iraq for a likely attack against Iran?
11.07.2008 13:57 GMT+04:00       

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=26588

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The U.S. has allowed Israeli jets to use US airbases and fly over Iraqi air space for a likely attack against Iran, Iraqi media say. It is more than a month that some Israeli planes belonging to Israeli air force use the U.S. military bases in Iraq to land and take off, Iraqi Nahrainnet news network said Wednesday, quoting informed sources close to Iraq's Defense Ministry

The activities and traffic of warplanes- especially at nights- has lately increased in the US airbases in Nasiriya southeast of Baghdad and Haditha a city in the western Iraq province of Al Anbar, the Iraqi residents and sources said.

They said the U.S. fighters, cargo planes, helicopters and unmanned planes have intensified their flights in the last three weeks.

The US military officials have imposed severe security measures around the bases, they said.

They said some aircraft suspected to be Israeli warplanes coming from Jordan, have landed in the U.S. controlled al-Assad airbase near Haditha.

It is believed that these activities are parts of a joint Israeli-US training, preparation and coordination to launch an air raid against Iran's nuclear plants.

Israel has conducted a military drill under the supervision of top US military commanders over the Mediterranean Sea from May 28 to June 12, using more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters, along with helicopters and refueling tanks which many consider as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, presstv.ir reports.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that he sees no possibility of a war between his country and the United States or Israel.

"I assure you that there won’t be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told a news conference during a visit to Malaysia.

[Biggs]

Iraq: Israeli jets using US bases, says ministry source

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.2330069763

Iran has test fired long and medium-range missiles this week during military manoeuvres in the Persian Gulf, amid speculation of a possible strike by the US or Israel.

Baghdad, 11 July (AKI) - Israeli Air Force jets have been flying over Jordanian airspace and landing in Iraq for over a month, according to reports quoting Iraqi government sources.

Iran's state-funded Press TV also reported the claim, immediately fuelling speculation about a potential strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities.

According to Press TV, the Iraqi Ministry of Defence told Iraqi news network, Nahrainnet, that suspected Israeli warplanes had landed at the al-Assad American airbase near Haditha, in western Anbar province, as well as a base in Nassiriya in the country's south.

Iran's Press TV also reported that the US had boosted security arrangements around the bases allegedly used by Israel.

According to retired Iraqi army officials, fighter jets have been entering Iraqi airspace from Jordan.

Jordan and Israel signed a peace agreement in 1994.

Sources also claimed that if Israeli warplanes were to carry out an attack against Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr, it would take them five minutes to reach it from Iraq.

In June, 100 Israeli warplanes carried out a drill over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, as a rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran.

During that exercise, Israeli Air Force helicopters and refuelling aircraft reportedly flew around 1,500 kilometres from Israel - roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's primary uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

On Thursday, Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak said that his country was ready to act against Iran if threatened.

"Israel is the strongest country in the region and has proved in the past that it won't hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake," said Barak speaking in Tel Aviv on Thursday.

[bigron]

Amber Alert!

Get ready for war



by Justin Raimondo
July 14, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13130


In spite of reassurances from the Washington talking heads and policy wonks that the U.S. is not about to launch an attack on Iran, or countenance an Israeli strike, the Sunday Times has the real scoop:

"President George W. Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

"Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread skepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political, and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an 'amber light' to an Israeli plan to attack Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

"'Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack, and tell us when you're ready,' the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use U.S. military bases in Iraq for logistical support."

It seems, however, that the Israelis have already been using U.S. bases in Iraq to train for the coming attack. There have been denials all around – from the Iraqis, the Americans, and the Israelis – but both the Iraqi media and the Israeli media have reported, as the New York Post put it, that "Israeli warplanes have been flying over Iraq and landing at U.S. bases there in preparation for an attack on Iran." The Iraqi Web site Nahrainet reported Israeli fighter jets have been in rehearsals, so to speak, for their much-anticipated strike at Iran, flying at night over Jordanian airspace and arriving at U.S. air bases in Nasiriyah in southern Iraq and near Haditha in western Anbar province.

The Israelis, in concert with their amen corner in the U.S., have been engaged in a propaganda blitz targeting Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, the whole point of which is not to pressure the Iranians into backing down, but to force the U.S. to take action in lieu of the Israelis going it alone. Why fight if your big brother is willing to wage the battle? To that end, the Israelis are taking aim at Washington, rather than Tehran, in a full-scale political assault that shows every sign of succeeding where it counts – in the Oval Office. The Times cites a top Pentagon official:

"It's really all down to the Israelis. This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran."

Translation: The U.S. will not be the first to attack Iran, but it may well join in once the Israelis get things started. Laura Rozen, writing in Mother Jones, reports that a parade of Israeli officials – including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi – is due in Washington over the next two weeks to impress upon the Americans the urgent necessity of taking military action. Rozen spoke to neocon superhawk David Wurmser, former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs, who said:

"'Ultimately, my gut tells me that most of the administration on most levels would push back very hard,' on Israeli pressure on Washington to authorize it to strike Iran, Wurmser added. 'What those in the administration who don't want Israel to act probably won't want is for it to be taken to the highest level. They would always be afraid that [the president] might not be so tough on the Israelis. If the Israeli [government] really intends to do something, they would go to the highest level without a lot of people knowing.'"

They may have gotten to the president already, as Rozen reports:

"A former Pentagon intelligence official who spoke with Mother Jones also alleges that Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, held secret meetings with officials in the White House on Wednesday. Neither the Israeli embassy nor National Security Council would comment on whether Dagan had been at the White House."

This is really the crux of the matter: George W. Bush. Reckless, more radical than most of his advisers, and now dangerously fixated on his "legacy," he is more determined than ever to leave his lasting mark on the Middle East and the world – and, given that the Constitution has been abandoned, and a single man can take us to war without the consent of Congress or the people, an apocalyptic departure from office seems more likely than not.

As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the prelude to this far greater conflict is marked by attempts to circumvent what one Bush official disdainfully referred to as "the reality-based community" and "stove-pipe" the Israelis' analysis of Iran intelligence into the White House. Our own National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the CIA and a raft of other intelligence-gathering outfits, says that the Iranians abandoned their nuclear weapons program years ago and they aren't anywhere near weaponization of their nascent nuclear capabilities at the present time. The Israelis beg to differ, and they are stating their case to Bush in person – whispering in a presidential ear that has been unusually receptive to them in the past.

Wurmser gives the odds of the Israelis attacking Iran before Bush leaves office as "slightly, slightly above 50-50." If that happens, then it is only a matter of time – a very short time – before the U.S. is involved in a large-scale conflict with Iran that will send oil prices skyrocketing past $300 per barrel and bring the world economy to a screeching halt. Not only that, but war with Tehran will upend the American political landscape and give John McCain more than a fighting chance to beat frontrunner Barack Obama.

In this context, the Israeli pressure for military action can be seen as a direct attempt to influence an American election that, so far, is not going to their liking. Obama has openly stated that he favors negotiating with the Iranians, which is what the Israelis fear most. How better to eliminate this possibility than by tying Obama's hands the moment he gets into office? With the U.S. already engaged in hostilities with Iran, negotiations will be off the table – and the Israelis will be off the hook.

The Telegraph reports that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently told one of his closest friends that "in three months' time it will be a different Middle East." Yes, and also, perhaps, a very different America…

~ Justin Raimondo
Copyright Antiwar.com

[bigron]

U.S. backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran 


13/07/2008 11:01:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=139845
 
Bush told Israel to 'get on with preparations, stand by for immediate attack' on Iran's main nuclear sites.


A Pentagon official says the U.S. president has given the 'amber light' to an Israeli plan to attack Iran with long-range bombing sorties.

The senior Pentagon official told The Sunday Times that despite widespread opposition in the U.S. administration President George W. Bush had informed Israel he may be prepared to approve a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites.

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," said the official.

However, the Pentagon official said 'amber will never turn to green' if Israel does not present Bush with a 'solid' military proposal. Referring to the upcoming U.S. presidential elections he suggested that Israel should not wait to act against Iran.

The official also confirmed that the Bush administration would not attack Iran but added that President Bush is concerned about the nuclear threat against Israel and that he does not believe in 'anything but force to deter Iran'.

"It's really all down to the Israelis. This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided," he stated.

The source said the men in uniform are opposed to a military strike against Iran and are concerned about endangering U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tehran warned earlier that Iranian Armed Forces would target the heart of Israel and 32 U.S. bases before the dust settles from an attack on the country.

The remarks by the Pentagon official comes amid escalating speculation that Israel is preparing to launch a military strike on Iran with the help of US President George W. Bush before the end of his term in office.

According to a New York Times report, Israel staged a military maneuver in early June to prepare for an airborne strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Earlier in the week, in response to rising threats from Israel and the U.S., the IRGC test-fired nine state-of-the-art long and medium-range missiles to demonstrate the country's defensive military capabilities.


-- AJP

 

[scary]

sure - here IS 9$ a galon - but will be 25$ than

It's good, Im starting to enjoy the daily servicing on my rear end! YAY!!

[Godfather77]

Iran attack would have 'uncontrollable' effects, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria warns
Last Updated: 5:34PM BST 14/07/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2300858/Iran-attack-would-have-uncontrollable-consequences%2C-President-Bashar-al-Assad-of-Syria-warns.html

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has warned that an attack on Iran would have dire consequences for the United States, Israel and the world.  Ahead of his viewing of France's Bastille Day parade in Paris, the Syrian leader said that Israel would pay "directly" for any attack and that the global reaction would "uncontrollable".

"Israel will pay directly the price of this war. Iran has said so," he told French radio. "It will cost the United States and the planet dear."

"The problem is not the action and reaction. The problem is that when one starts such action in the Middle East, one cannot manage the reactions that can spread out over years or even decades," warned the Syrian leader – an ally of Iran.

He added that while there was general agreement that an attack on Iran made no sense given the likely repercussions, the current "warmonger" American administration defied logic.

"It does not reason with our logic, ours and that of most European countries, most countries in the world," said Mr Assad.

His comments come amid rising tensions between Iran, Israel and its ally America over Tehran's nuclear programme, which it claims is purely civilian.

Amid increasingly bellicose rhetoric, Israel staged an air force exercise as a rehearsal for such an attack, American officials said, while Iran test-fired ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel.

The Syrian president was in Paris for an EU-Mediterranean summit hosted by Nicolas Sarkozy, which marked Syria's diplomatic comeback after years of isolation.

[DoubleEdgedSword]

It is my opinion that the invasion of Iran was the goal to begin with.To launch the invasion and occupation of Iran the United States needed Kuwait.Kuwait wouldnt allow an invasion of Iran from their soil but would allow us to invade Iraq.Not to mention Iraq was a softer target than Iran and would make a great foothold in the region while the military gears up for the real target Iran.The attack of Iran will in my opinion, happen while George Bush is in office,but before they do anything on the ground they will wait for McCain.If the United States invades Iran on the ground,you can expect the situation in Iraq to return to its former bloody mess,which will mean we will be fighting on two different fronts with a military already stretched thin.This will spell disaster.

[monika666]

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1354/1/

 The Bipartisan Road to War in Iran and The Activist Response       Print        E-mail
Written by Jeff Nall   
Monday, 14 July 2008

More than 100 House Democrats have joined 117 House Republicans in co-sponsoring a bill which peace activists fear may further pave the road to war with Iran. The Bill, House Concurrent Resolution 362, describes Iran as a threat to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and US National Security. Introduced on May 22 by New York Democrat Gary Ackerman, the bill calls for an affective blockade against Iran, which, according to international law, is an act of aggression.

As of July 5 the bill has 220 co-sponsors including prominent Democrats such as Barney Frank (MA), Alcee Hastings (FL), Steny Hoyer (MD), Henry Waxman (CA), and the "Fire Breathing Liberal" himself, Rep. Robert Wexler (FL).

H. Con. Res. 362 specifically calls on President Bush to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities." The bill urges the President to block refined petroleum exports to Iran and to impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

In a June 24 editorial, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out that the United Nations holds that "a unilateral blockade constitutes an act of war." The paper asks whether or not supporters of Res. 362 are "asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious to drag us into another illegal war?" ("Iran: Scary language.")

According to a press release from the Council for A Livable World, three retired military leaders have sent a letter to lawmakers "urging them to abandon" H. Con. Res. 362. Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., U.S. Army (ret.), former Assistant Secretary of Defense Dr. Lawrence J. Korb, and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, U.S. Navy (ret.) describe the bill as "poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous."

In the letter, the three men state "a diplomatic solution with Iran is the best course" and that the sanctions demanded in H. Con. Res. 362 would likely "undermine any chance for diplomacy to succeed in achieving a negotiated resolution." While some co-sponsors have argued that the concurrent resolution is nonbinding, the retired military leaders write that it nevertheless "risks sending a message to the Iranians, the Bush Administration, and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward, and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. In our view, H. Con. Res. 362 in no way furthers our diplomatic efforts or those of our European allies and should be abandoned."

On June 26, Ron Paul called the content of the bill "war propaganda." In a Congressional speech, he said that the bill was a "virtual war resolution." Paul was incensed about the blockade of goods and the suggestion that Iranian officials be prohibited from international travel. He compared the move to begin stringent sanctions against Iran with little to no evidence the nation was a threat to sanctions against Iraq. "This is what we did for ten years before we went into Iraq," he said. "We starved children—50,000 [sic] individuals it was admitted probably died because of the sanctions on Iraqis—they were incapable at the time of attacking us." A 1999 United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) report found that the child mortality rate of those under 5 had doubled and that half a million Iraqi children had died under U.S.-led sanctions.

Secret War on Iran

H. Con. Res. 362 asks the President to work against Iran’s efforts to "destabilize" "the legitimate governments in the region…." It also states the United States’ commitment to opposing "Iranian efforts at hegemony" in the Middle East. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh recently reported in The New Yorker that the Bush administration, with the consent of the Democratic leadership, has begun a secret war on Iran.

Hersh’s report shows that H. Con Res. 362 isn’t the only thing linking the Democrats to hawkish policy on Iran. Some leading Democrats have also endorsed Bush’s Presidential Finding which requests $400 million for "a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources."

The U.S is attempting to destabilize Iran’s government by funneling money to extremist groups including the Jundallah, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq or M.E.K. (on State Department’s terrorist list for decades), and a Kurdish separatist group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK. ("Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran," New Yorker, July 7, 2008)

According to Hersh, the funding request to wage this covert war occurred around the same time the Bush administration was dealing with the National Intelligence Estimate’s (NIE) December 2007 report on Iran. According to the NIE on Iran, "National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are the Intelligence Community’s (IC) most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and designed to help US civilian and military leaders develop policies to protect US national security interests."

The NIE on Iran stated a "high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." It also stated "with high confidence" that Iran would not even be "technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."

The report concluded that Iran is more a rational actor than one hell-bent on destroying the world, as it has been portrayed. "Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously."

Impact of Pro-Israel Lobby

Despite the NIE’s findings, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) states that "Iran poses a growing threat to the United States and our allies as it continues rapidly advancing toward a nuclear weapons capability." In fact, the organization’s position paper, "U.S. Must Do More to Prevent Nuclear-Armed Iran" reads like a virtual guide to Res. 362. Nearly every point of the Bill, including a ban on petroleum sales to Iran, sanctions on Iran’s Central bank and foreign investors in the oil and energy sectors are found in AIPAC’s paper. AIPAC’s stated aim is to pressure the regime to "change course" by severely impacting the economy with a gas shortage.

On July 2, The Real News Network reported that Res. 362’s broad support "has been credited to the pro-Israel lobby, specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which sent thousands of its members to Capitol Hill to lobby for the resolution in early June." In the news feature, historian Gareth Porter argued that Congress "was responding more to the Israel lobby than to any new intelligence on Iran or events on the ground." Porter added that Congress has been so in-bed with AIPAC that most politicians "simply accept whatever AIPAC gives them, without any question, without any discussion, and to turn that into legislation."

A review of a handful of co-sponsors’ top five contributing industries finds Democrats significantly benefiting from the "Pro-Israel" lobby between 2007 and 2008. For example, Alcee Hastings has received $29,600; Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has received $27,550; and California congresswoman Jane Harman has received $23,600.

Anti-War Response

To date, Stop War On Iran (SWOI), United for Peace and Justice, and Code Pink have taken the lead in opposing the march to war with Iran and calling for action against Res. 362. More recently, Veterans For Peace has joined the chorus condemning the bill.

Months ago SWOI issued a letter, "Stop the war on Iran before it starts," urging the United States to end its "campaign of sanctions, hostility, and falsehood against the people of Iran." Thousands signed the letter opposing "any new U.S. aggression against Iran" and demanding "funds for human needs" rather than "endless war for empire."

SWOI was the first organization to call for nation-wide protests against the growing tide of war against Iran. The group and its grassroots affiliates are planning protests on August 2 in dozens of cities including New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, and Melbourne, Florida. Go to www.StopWarOnIran.org for more information.

More recently, United for Peace and Justice, supported by Code Pink, has called for actions against war with Iran for July 19 to 21.

In early July, Code Pink activists created a theatrical "blockade" of Congressman Gary Ackerman’s house boat. In the morning, about a dozen or more activists greeted the representative with whistles, chanting, and bullhorns. They demanded the representative renounce talk of sanctions in favor of diplomacy.

The organization is urging peace activists to contact Ackerman’s office (202-225-2601) to urge him to withdraw H. Con. Res. 362. For more information on Code Pink’s cam

[CigarsNBourbon]

This is off of Drudge, no real link yet.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on state television that he would again go to New York to attend this year's United Nations General Assembly session. It will be Ahmadinejad's third trip to New York since his presidency in August 2005. DEVELOPING...

Now if this guy is such a threat, he's been here twice before and possibly once again. Why don't we just kill him?

[bigron]

Iran Shows Its Cards

by Scott Ritter

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/14/10337/



There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S. and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors, pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a pre-emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing its nuclear-related infrastructure, as well as retarding Iran’s ability to train and equip “terrorist” forces on Iranian soil before dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me, have warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has demonstrated why an attack would be insane

I’ve always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and rockets, in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran was attacked.

The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran is. But the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For some time now, the admirals commanding the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf have maintained that they have the ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. But the fact is, the only way the United States could guarantee that the strait remained open would be to launch a massive pre-emptive military strike that swept the Iranian coast clear of the deadly Chinese-made surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would use to sink cargo ships in the strategic lane. This strike would involve hundreds of tactical aircraft backed up by limited ground action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations forces which would involve “boots on the ground” for several days, if not weeks. Such a strike is not envisioned in any “limited” military action being planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a “limited” military attack on Iran.

The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait, large, fixed and well known, would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying deadly cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of millions, if not into billions, of dollars, and hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. military personnel killed and wounded.

To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States would have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special Operations Forces, to a counter-missile fight which would need to span the considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles might reach potential targets. While there has been some improvement in the U.S. military’s counter-missile capability, one must never forget that in 1991 not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully interdicted by any aspect of American military action (airstrike, ground action or antiballistic missile), and in 2003 the U.S. military had mixed results against the far less capable Al-Samoud missiles. Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah from firing large salvoes of rockets into northern Israel during the summer 2006 conflict. There is no reason for optimism that the U.S. and Israel have suddenly found the solution to the Iranian missile threat.

There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent Iran from interfering with shipping through the strait. There is every chance the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ships lost and personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait. There would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to guarantee safe passage for all shipping, civilian and military alike. The longer ground forces could operate on Iranian soil, the better the chances Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict shipping. Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the greater likelihood there would be of decisive ground engagement. With U.S. air power expected to be fully committed to the missile interdiction mission, any large-scale ground engagement would create a situation in which air power would have to be redirected into tactical support, and away from missile interdiction, creating a window of vulnerability which the Iranians would very likely exploit.

Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli involvement is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful fashion Israel would need to fly in Iraqi air space, a violation of sovereignty the Iraqi government will never tolerate. The anti-American backlash that would be generated in Iraq would be immediate and severe. In short, virtually every operation involving the training of Iraqi forces would be terminated as the U.S. military trainers would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the fortified U.S. bases to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian contractors would likewise need to be either withdrawn completely from Iraq or restricted to the fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been made in the “surge” would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi countryside would become a seething mass of anti-American activity, which would require a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be. Iraq as we now know it would be lost, and what would emerge in its stead would not only be unsympathetic to the United States but actually a breeding ground for anti-American action that could very well expand beyond the boundaries of Iraq and the Middle East.

The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran which would in turn bring long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.

Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent that most are predicting, there is a good chance oil would top $500 or even more within days or weeks.  Hyperinflation would almost certainly strike every market-based economy, and the markets themselves would collapse under the strain.

The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear facilities or bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard Command, some planners might have thought that the U.S. could actually pull off a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that Iran has made it crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would bring about a massive Iranian response, all military planners now understand that any U.S. military attack will have to be massive. Simply put, the United States does not now have the military capacity in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected, either by Iran, which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world. Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such horrific detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the international community remaining mute as American military might is assembled.

Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent on the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it would become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore the consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and politically. The same can be said of both major presidential candidates. The decision by Iran to show its hand on how it would respond to any American aggression has cleared the air, so to speak, about what is actually being discussed when one speaks of military action against Iran. In many ways, the Iranian missile tests have made it less likely that there will be a war with Iran, simply because the stakes of any such action are so plainly obvious to all parties involved.

Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to pursue a nuclear program which is exclusively intended for peaceful energy purposes. Any concerns which may exist about the dual-use potential of Iran’s uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated through viable nuclear inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA inspections should be improved upon by getting Iran to go along with an additional inspection protocol, rather than pursuing military action which will destroy the inspection process and remove the very verification processes which provide the international community with the confidence that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The reality is that Iran’s nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has every right under international law to pursue this program, and regional and global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the price of oil) if American policies, and in related fashion U.N. Security Council mandates, were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoia — derived not so much from any genuine Iranian threat but rather an affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East — must in turn be subdued. This can be done through a mixture of international pressure designed to punish Israel diplomatically and economically for any failure to adhere to international norms when it comes to peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, and international assurances that Israel’s sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will forever be respected and defended.

Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought to bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the crux of the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate national security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the pro-Israel lobby will have considerable control over American national security policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s continued push for congressional action concerning the implementation of what is tantamount to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act of war) by pushing H. Con. Res 362 and S. Res 580 is mind-boggling given the reality of the situation. Congress must stop talking blockade, and start discussing stability and confidence-building measures.

There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to conduct serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings must not replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a facilitating vehicle for war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the body of witnesses beyond administration officials and those who would mirror their policy positions, and include experts and specialists who could articulate a counter point of view, exposing Congress to information and analysis which might prompt a fuller debate. This is the last thing AIPAC and the Bush administration want to see. But it is the one thing the American people should be demanding. Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and current policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush administration can be considered rational when it comes to the issue of Iran. It is up to the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, to inject a modicum of sanity into a situation that continues to be in danger of spinning out of control.

Scott Ritter was a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2007).

Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.

[bigron]

British MP : George Galloway Telling It Like It Is

This Is Must Listen - Audio

George Galloway talking about the consequences of an attack on Iran

 

Posted 14/07/08


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CGnZMVBjM&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20281.htm

 

 

[bigron]

Iran: Battlefront In The New World War?

By Firmin DeBrabander

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20279.htm


14/07/08 "ICH" -- - It is difficult to imagine why the Bush administration dares- pretends- to threaten Iran with military confrontation. On its face, war with Iran is a preposterous proposition. This administration’s Iraq foray hardly provides an inspiring model to build on. How can Bush and company possibly expect that US military efforts in Iran would fare better?

Iran’s population is more than double the size of Iraq’s, and it is four times larger than Iraq in total landmass. Iran is a more homogeneous nation, less susceptible to fracturing amongst its minorities- precisely the condition that made Iraq easier to subdue (though not occupy). Iran is wealthier than Iraq- unlike the latter, Iran seems to be tapping its oil wealth with relative efficiency. Furthermore, Iran has a formidable army- and well known arms. Iraq’s weapons capacity was the subject of mere speculation (and lies?). Iran, on the other hand, flaunts its capabilities openly: just yesterday it tested a Shahab 3 missile with a range of over 1000 miles. Iran has suggested willingness to strike US allies Israel and the Gulf States, and can easily sow mayhem in its fragile neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan.

Noam Chomsky claimed that this administration targeted Iraq in 2003 precisely because it knew Saddam harbored little or no WMDs, and it knew that Iraq had been internally weakened by decade long sanctions. Bush could count on easy, quick, and politically expedient victory in Iraq (again though, he ignored the cost of occupying Iraq). Chomsky’s argument always seemed sensible to me because North Korea was spared US military might, although it, too, openly harbored hostility and nuclear weapons. Unlike Iraq, North Korea was no easy target.

How does Iran fit in? War with Iran is extraordinarily dangerous. Either this administration is not serious in its saber rattling, or it deems the stakes especially high- high enough to warrant huge sacrifices, which, thanks to our experience in Iraq, we can already imagine too well.

The former possibility is refuted by Seymour Hersh’s latest missive from Washington’s policy backrooms. In his recent article in the New Yorker, Hersh reveals how the White House is currently sponsoring covert military operations (several hundred million dollars worth)- mostly through minority and insurgent groups- inside Iran, and how the Vice President eagerly looks for opportunities to draw Iran into direct confrontation.

The Bush administration is ready for war with Iran. This readiness is even more surprising in light of the fact that our military is already stretched thin across 2 very challenging, often frustrating, battlefronts. For this very reason, as Hersh documents, the White House circumvents military leadership in spearheading Special Operations in Iran.

If the White House is serious about war with Iran in the face of tremendous odds, then, Bush and Cheney must see exceptional gains at hand. What could they be? As with all things in the Bush-Cheney foreign policy arena, there are two angles to consider: oil and US power. Note that they are interrelated.

Certainly, occupying Iran would be a boon for the US oil industry, transferring nationalized oil fields into the hands of US and European energy companies. But even something less than occupation- mere confrontation- could cripple Iran’s oil production, indirectly strengthening the hand of the US oil industry, and remove any remaining danger in transporting oil through the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, seeing how oil trading has proven increasingly jumpy of late- from the slightest geopolitical reverberations- war with Iran would surely send the price of oil soaring (is $250 a barrel inconceivable?). Besides, war with Iran could harm oil interests on our side, since Tehran has the Gulf States in its sights. Of course, this administration does not have to deal long with the political costs of a $250 barrel of oil… that will be Obama’s or McCain’s enduring burden.

But war with Iran is not about oil- exclusively. I suspect, rather, that it is a geopolitical power play, repositioning the US on a changed global stage. Cheney is this war’s most avid supporter, according to Hersh’s depiction. Our vice president has always been a cold eyed Machiavellian regarding foreign policy: the US must be aggressive and expansive in securing its national interests, and if cheap oil is that interest, so be it. In taking on Iran, this White House is indirectly aiming at our ascendant competitors in the 21st century: Russia, China, perhaps also India.

China’s growing power is increasingly demanding of oil. Undermining Iran, a prominent oil resource for China, frustrates Beijing’s rise. If war with Iran spikes the price of oil, China and India will be gravely wounded (as will the entire developing world). As for Russia, Putin has made it abundantly clear that Moscow intends to be a global power to reckon with in the 21st century- a power underwritten by astonishing native oil wealth. In Iran, the US has a target close to Russia- and close to its oil rich former republics, potentially influencing their political affiliation. Moscow hungrily anticipates European reliance on Russian energy, furthermore. Achieving some kind of Western control over Iranian oil production could diminish that reliance. This might explain why the French leadership is suddenly amenable to military action against Iran.

Iran is no third front in the War on Terror. War with Iran is a step beyond, to a new global conflict- a new Cold War, in a way- where the US plays its cards (in this case, the largest military in the world) to frustrate its opponents indirectly. Indeed, war with Iran could do more than merely frustrate our opponents- it risks doing real damage to many nations (largely poorer ones) by undermining or hijacking a prominent part of the world’s energy supply.

Now this sounds appropriately Cheneyian to me. And Machiavellian- to a point. In his characteristic amorality, Machiavelli deemed it right and proper for a nation to go to war only when it can do so effectively, and victory is assured. As is obvious to all- Tehran included- the US is not able for another battlefront at this point in time, much less one as daunting as Iran. But this does not concern Cheney- he can strike now, and bequeath another lingering military debacle to the next administration.

Firmin DeBrabander, Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore

 

[bigron]

July 15, 2008

Conservative Confusion on Iran
 
Philip Giraldi


The process whereby the neoconservatives were able to hijack the Republican Party's foreign policy has been dissected and analyzed frequently over the past two years. Perhaps more disturbing in the long term, however, is their success at hijacking the label "conservative." When broadcast journalists Brian Williams and Katie Couric describe someone as a conservative Republican, they are frequently actually referring to a neoconservative. When a Sunday morning talk show has a "conservative" on a panel to provide "balance," he is more often than not a neoconservative. This access to the media as the purported standard-bearers of conservatism has proven useful, as it enables the neocons to continue to have a major voice on policy in spite of being wrong on every major issue. It also empowers them to constantly spin and refine their story, exonerating themselves while fear-mongering that there are new dangers that have to be dealt with, more dragons to slay.

Most Republicans, like most voters, prefer not to think very much about what the "conservative" label means. Conservatism means supporting traditional ways of doing things domestically, i.e., not embracing radical change, and a strong defense policy overseas. Apart from that, there is not a great deal of refinement in the public's view of conservatism. For many, a desirable defense and security policy is precisely what the neocons have created, a vengeful lashing out at the rest of the brown-skinned, non-Christian, ostensibly terrorism-fostering world using the maximum military force to complete the job. In line with that simplistic worldview, many self-described conservatives continue to defend President George W. Bush and his neocon foreign policy only because they believe it important to support a Republican president come hell or high water, not because they have considered the issues or the ups and downs of the policies that are being pursued. They take it on faith that Iran is bad and will have to be dealt with firmly, because, after all, that is what they are constantly seeing and hearing on television and reading in the newspapers, mostly coming from the same neocons who brought us Iraq.

But there is no free ride, politically speaking, and bad policies eventually result in a price paid at the voting box. As the Iraq war is now disapproved of by more than two-thirds of Americans and further involvement in Iran is equally unpopular, Republicans and conservatives will have to rethink American their foreign policy if they ever hope to regain majority party status. In so doing, they should return to the conservative principles that were delineated by the Founding Fathers, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan prior to the hijacking of the conservative label under George W. Bush.

The first principle for conservatives is that war is a "last option" to be employed when all else fails and there is a direct and imminent danger to the United States. U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen are a precious commodity not be wasted in pointless wars, and our armed services are not an appropriate instrument for rebuilding or reforming other nations. Iran's form of government is none of our business, and Tehran does not currently pose a level of threat to the American people that would justify military action. Ronald Reagan put it best: "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor." Barry Goldwater recommended that U.S. foreign policy "make it clear to all nations of this world that we have no desire to expand our territory or to impose our type of government or our way of life on any other people." Prior to George Bush, Republicans and conservatives have traditionally been reluctant warriors. In the last century, the First World War, Second World War, Korea, and the escalation in Vietnam all took place under Democratic administrations with considerable dissent from Republicans.

In line with a reluctance to go to war, conservatives have always believed that the first line of defense is diplomacy. Diplomacy supports the national interest without unleashing the unintended consequences that arise from warfare. As Russell Kirk put it, "A sound conservative foreign policy in the age which is dawning should be neither 'interventionist' nor 'isolationist'; it should be prudent." Diplomacy between the United States and Iran has not really been tried but is being dismissed by both the Bush administration and presidential candidate John McCain as naïve. It is time to do the proper and prudent conservative thing, which means sitting down and talking to Iran, with no preconditions and with all issues on the table.

Conservatives also recognize that while the first victim in war is certainly truth in the media, the second victim is invariably civil liberties and the Constitution. War means armies, police, taxes, big government, and restriction of personal freedoms. It erodes fundamental rights and nearly always means intrusion into the private lives of citizens through laws that remain in place even after the foreign threat has disappeared. As James Madison wrote, ""If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. … Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 put it even more starkly, calling on Americans to avoid "the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." If Iraq, Afghanistan, and the largely fictional global war on terrorism produced the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the loss of FISA court controls, and the unitary executive concept, it is useful to consider what a more serious war with Iran might bring. The United States does not need to dismantle more of the Constitution to fight yet another war of choice, because doing so will not make us any safer, only less free.

Fiscal responsibility, a strong dollar, and maintaining the economic well-being of the citizens are also traditional conservative agendas. The war with Iraq has been an economic catastrophe, coupled with a sinking dollar, spiraling debt, and surging oil prices. Much of the U.S. public debt is now in the hands of an adversary, China. A war against Iran will bring a terrible "energy shock" and will only make things worse for the average American. It could sink the U.S. dollar forever as the world flees from its use as a reserve currency. As Ron Paul put it, "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

Finally, conservatives traditionally understand that foreign and defense policy should ultimately benefit the United States and its people. The government should be empowered to protect American citizens against foreign threats and terrorism, not to create new terrorists through ill-advised interventions overseas. Our nation, which has always been respected for its fair dealing and its liberties, is now looked down upon by most of the world due to its bullying and intransigence. John Quincy Adams said that "America does not need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Attacking Iran would unleash a new wave of international terrorism and would convince much of the world that Washington is intent on changing governments willy-nilly and exterminating Muslims. America does not need another 9/11. Referring to the terrorism problem, Pat Buchanan has written, "We need to remove the motivation for it by extricating the United States from ethnic, religious, and historical quarrels that are not ours and which we cannot resolve with any finality." George Washington put it another way in his Farewell Address, that the United States should "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it. It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence." George Washington's advice, once revered by all true conservatives, was good in 1796, and it is still good today.
 

 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=13131 

[bigron]

July 15, 2008

What's NOT in the  IAEA Iran Reports
 
by Peter Casey


Peter Zimmerman carries august credentials. He is a nuclear physicist. He has degrees from Stanford in experimental nuclear and particle physics. He was the top scientist for arms control at the State Department for a number of years. He later served as chief scientist for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has written scores of papers on nuclear arms and arms control. He is currently emeritus professor of science and security at King's College in London. All in all, he sounds like someone who knows about nuclear technology, including nuclear weapons, and has the time to think carefully about anything he might write on the subject.

Or so you would think. But on July 6, 2008, Zimmerman published an opinion piece in the Boston Globe entitled "Time for Iran to Face More Sanctions," a screed that badly misuses the International Atomic Energy Agency's May 2008 report on its monitoring of Iran's nuclear power activities. In his piece, which was later republished in the International Herald Tribune, Zimmerman blatantly tries to terrify Americans about an Iranian nuclear menace that does not exist, may never exist, and poses no realistic threat whatsoever to the United States in any case. His commentary is also solid evidence that the New York Times, which owns both the Globe and the Tribune, is intent on once again disseminating the same sort of nonsense that facilitated a "case" for the Iraq invasion.

Zimmerman asserts that the IAEA has "recently reported that it has questions that Iran refuses to answer":

"Why is Iran using high explosives to implode a hemispherical shell of heavy metal? The only known use for such tests is to perfect a lightweight nuclear bomb.

"Why is Iran developing the kinds of detonators needed in an atomic weapon?

"Why is Iran designing, or redesigning, a ballistic missile warhead so that it can contain a nuclear weapon?"


This appears to be a deliberate attempt to spread multiple deceptions.

First, Zimmerman falsely depicts the IAEA's "reported questions" as relating to matters of fact. As the report itself makes clear, the questions relate to allegations based on what the IAEA calls the "alleged studies" – documentation found on a laptop computer purportedly obtained by U.S. intelligence agencies in mid-2004. (The bona fides of these laptop documents, whose origin is as murky as the infamous "Niger yellowcake" forgery, remain in substantial doubt, but that is a whole different story.)

Zimmerman also fails to disclose that the IAEA report states that "it should be emphasized … that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies" (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 28 [.pdf]). The immediately preceding board report was even more explicit: "t should be noted that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard" (emphasis added; IAEA Gov/2008/4 at paragraph 54 [.pdf]).

Unfortunately, in Zimmerman's editorial, the issue is not whether Iran is doing or has done any such things. It is "why" it is doing them. It would be one thing for Zimmerman to state that he thinks that the uncorroborated "laptop" allegations are fact. What he thinks probably would have little likelihood of terrorizing most newspaper readers. But by misinforming readers that the IAEA itself considers these circumstances established fact, Zimmerman fortifies both the credibility and the impact of the lie.

Second, Zimmerman misleadingly indicates that the IAEA report describes questions about multiple, ongoing activities that can only relate to nuclear weapons. For example, he asserts that Iran is "using high explosives to implode a hemispherical shell of heavy metal" whose "only known use" is for a "nuclear bomb." But the IAEA report actually states, "A second aspect [of the alleged studies] concerns … the testing of at least one full-scale hemispherical, converging, explosively driven shock system that could be applicable to an implosion-type nuclear device" (emphasis added; IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 17).

An allegation, based on unauthenticated documents, that refers to a test that could have been applicable to a nuclear device is not the same as a fact regarding ongoing tests for nuclear devices. But even if Zimmerman had missed the nuance between that which may have been and that which is, the IAEA report goes on. "It should be noted that the Agency currently has no information … on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies" (emphasis added; IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 24). A person of Zimmerman's background and education surely ought to recognize that treating "no information" about X as proof of X is not very good reasoning.

It is possible that Zimmerman's "hemispherical shell of heavy metal" was a reference to the so-called "uranium metal document," which reportedly describes procedures for converting "yellowcake" into uranium metal and casting it into hemispheres. Gareth Porter recently reported that in January 2005, IAEA inspectors stumbled across this document gathering dust in some old files that Iran had let them rummage through. According to the IAEA, Iran claimed that in 1987 it had received the document, unsolicited, from Pakistan when it acquired centrifuge enrichment components and related documentation (IAEA Gov/2007/58 at paragraph 25 [.pdf]). Pakistan confirmed to the IAEA that it possesses an identical document (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 24). And the IAEA has seen "no indication of any [uranium metal conversion] and casting activity in Iran" (IAEA Gov/2007/58 at paragraph 25). If Zimmerman had the "uranium metal document" in mind, his exaggerations are even wilder.

Zimmerman's assertion that the report states that "Iran refuses to answer" IAEA questions is grossly misleading. As documented in every single IAEA board report since the laptop allegations first surfaced, Iran has consistently and adamantly answered many of the allegations by describing them as baseless and fabricated. In addition, it was only in February 2008 that the U.S. gave the IAEA permission to show any of the documents to Iran to enable it to respond (IAEA Gov/2008/4 at paragraph 37). The U.S. further manipulated the IAEA's efforts by providing "much of this information [to the IAEA] only in electronic form" and "not authorizing the [IAEA] to provide copies to Iran" (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 16). The U.S. even refused to give the IAEA itself copies of some material. For example, the U.S. did not let the IAEA have copies of key documents concerning the "ballistic missile warhead" for a "nuclear weapon" Zimmerman refers to. The agency was "therefore unfortunately unable to make them available to Iran."

Iran's declination to respond to allegations based on documents it has never been shown, or has only been allowed to peek at, may qualify as a "refusal" to answer. But Zimmerman's failure to mention this circumstance that at least partly explains a "refusal to answer" is incredibly misleading.

Moreover, the IAEA report discloses that Iran has in fact specifically "answered" questions that Zimmerman claims it has "refused to answer," such as "Why is Iran developing the kinds of detonators needed in an atomic weapon?" The "detonators" (exploding bridgewire detonators) were for civilian and conventional military activities, according to Iran (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 20). More generally, Iran has told the IAEA that documentation it was permitted to look at was not authentic and had been fabricated. Nevertheless, it "did not dispute that some of the information contained in the documents was factually accurate, but said that the events and activities concerned involved civil or conventional military applicants" (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph paragraph 18). The report also noted that Iran continued to respond to questions posed by the IAEA.

Zimmerman's piece is seriously misleading in other important respects. He claims that Iran "has 320 tons of uranium hexafluoride [UF6] gas to feed its centrifuges, enough for almost 100 bombs, but not for even a fraction of one reactor refueling operation." What he does not mention is that "all of [the UF6] remains under [IAEA] containment and surveillance" (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 9). He also fails to inform readers that:

Without enrichment, 320 "tons" of UF6 is no more dangerous than 320 tons of silly putty.
Since it began to enrich uranium, in February 2007, Iran has fed 3,970 kilograms, or less than four metric tons, into enrichment cascades (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 2).
To get fissile material, uranium must be enriched to consist of 90 percent U-235. Iran's enrichment levels, however, have never exceeded 4.7 percent U-235, a level that could only be consistent with producing nuclear electricity (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 5). Iran is scarcely "well on is way" to "mastery" of U-235 production, despite Zimmerman's claim.
As have all of its prior reports, the IAEA's May report states: "All nuclear material [at the two Iranian enrichment facilities] remains under Agency containment and surveillance" (IAEA Gov/2008/15 at paragraph 4).
Zimmerman also contends that Iran's current plans for enrichment are "too small … to provide fuel for a nuclear power program of any consequence," but big enough to enable it to build "twice as many nuclear weapons a year … than they otherwise could have done," providing further evidence that "it is apparent that the real purpose of Iranian enrichment is to provide fuel for weapons, not reactors." This is specious reasoning. Iran's program is R&D. Laying out plans to construct the Taj Mahal before you know whether you can build a hot-dog stand wouldn't make much sense. Despite its simplicity, moreover, Zimmerman's observation somehow has escaped the IAEA's attention. As recently as May 20 of this year, Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, stated, "We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years."

Apparently, ElBaradei does not share Zimmerman's Cheney-esque logic that the possibility that Iran may intend to develop nuclear weapons is evidence that it intends to develop them. And can there be any doubt that, had Iran's current plans been big enough (or when they become big enough) in Zimmerman's opinion to embrace a nuclear power program "of consequence," he would be one of the first to claim that those plans evidence Iran's intent to create even greater multiples of weapon-production capacity?

On Aug. 14, 2003, the Washington Post published an opinion piece in which Zimmerman judiciously observed that "[a]vailable evidence demonstrates that Saddam Hussein … lacked a serious nuclear weapons program in 2003. And if Mr. Bush had not held out the threat of Iraqi nuclear weapons 'within months,' it is doubtful that Congress would have given him a blank check. How can one conjure up a benign explanation for the president's assertions?" The essay concluded that "[t]he next time Bush wants to use armed force to preempt or prevent an attack on this country, he will have to prove his case far more completely than before. [The president] of the United States [has] forfeited the benefit of the doubt."

Zimmerman's recent Globe commentary concludes that "If Iran begins enriching uranium to weapons grade on an assembly-line basis, it could transfer this material to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which might fabricate low-technology nuclear explosives. These would probably have yields nearly as high as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima."

If. Could. Might. Nuclear weapons. Assembly line. Hezbollah. Hamas. Hiroshima. Is it possible that this agitprop could have been written by the same man who wrote in August 2003 that "The president's principal argument for going to war – to prevent a 'smoking gun that would appear as a mushroom cloud' – was based on bad intelligence that was misused while good intelligence was ignored"?

Over the past five years, Peter Zimmerman appears to have taken leave of his good judgment. He now wants to persuade readers to take leave of their own. Don't. Ask the question the Zimmerman of August 2003 demanded: Is there a reason to use armed forces against Iran "to preempt or prevent an attack on this country?" And don't give those who say "yes" the benefit of any doubt.


The IAEA's reports are available on its Web site in the section "IAEA and Iran in Focus." None of them are more than nine or 10 pages. Despite their subject matter, they are written in reasonably plain English. Even if it takes a little extra effort to figure them out, that effort is essential.

There is no sign that Washington and Israel will relent any time soon from their zealous campaign to foment war with Iran. It is no time to accept at face value the media's distorted descriptions of the IAEA's work. It is no time to buy into the reckless scaremongering over the Iranian nuclear "threat" from "experts" like Zimmerman.

It is every American's civic duty to read and understand the IAEA reports themselves. If we do, Washington just might not be able to get away with another fraudulent casus belli.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/caseyp.php?articleid=13133 

[bigron]

July 15, 2008

A Phony Crisis – and a Real One
 
by Patrick J. Buchanan


Last week, the front pages of the world press blossomed with photos of four Iranian rockets, fired in salvo, heading skyward.

The image was powerful, and the message reinforced by the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Should Israel attack Iran, said Ali Shira, Tel Aviv will be "set on fire."

U.S. reaction was swift and bristling. "Rice Says U.S. Will Defend Gulf," declared the headline over the AP story that began:

"Condoleezza Rice flexed America's muscles in the Middle East Thursday, forcefully warning Iran the U.S. won't ignore threats and will take any action necessary to defend friends and interests in the Persian Gulf. ...

"Rice said Iran's leaders should understand that Washington won't dismiss provocations from Tehran and has the ability to counter them. 'I don't think the Iranians are too confused, either, about the capability and the power of the United States to do exactly that.'"

And what were the results of last week's missile crisis in the Gulf? Tensions rose, strengthening Tehran's embattled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And oil prices shot from $136 a barrel to a record $147.

That $11-a-barrel spike alone translates into $25 million a day in fresh revenue for Ahmadinejad and Co. And as the United States imports 13 million of the 20 million barrels we daily consume, that $11 spike in price translates into $143 million more sucked out of the U.S. economy every day – into the coffers of Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and OPEC.

Can we not see who benefits and who pays for this war talk?

Every day the war drums beat, the mullahs get richer and we get poorer. Which raises the question. Was this mini-missile crisis cooked up by the mullahs to rip off Uncle Sam? For by week's end it appeared the Americans had been had, big-time.

Saturday's New York Times reported that that photo of the four Iranian missiles fired in salvo had been doctored.

One rocket appears twice in the same photo. The large missile, on inspection, was not the new Shahab-3b, which has a range of 1,200 miles, but a Shahab-3a, with a range of 900 miles. It is no longer in production.

The missiles fired with the Shahab-3a turned out to be Scuds, a short-range missile that is no threat to Israel.

The second day's firing turns out to have been of a single anti-ship missile. Iranian TV showed one firing from three angles, making it appear as though three missiles had been fired in succession.

"The bottom line is that the Iranians are tweaking our noses," said Charles Vick, an expert on Iran's missile forces.

Undersecretary of State Nick Burns then splashed cold water on Iran's alleged crash program to acquire nuclear weapons.

"Iran has not yet perfected [uranium] enrichment," said Burns, "and, as a direct result of UN sanctions, Iran's ability to procure technology or items of significance to its missile programs, even dual-use items, is being impaired."

Though the ex-head of Mossad, Shabtai Shavit, says Iran may be one year away from a bomb – and will use it on Israel – according to the latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Iran, says Burns, has not yet mastered the technology of converting uranium gas into fuel for use in power plants, let alone the stuff of bombs. And even if Iran is one day able to enrich to weapons grade, she would still have to build and test a nuclear device, then weaponize it to fit atop a missile and deploy a missile force. All in all, says Burns, Iran's progress with uranium enrichment has been "modest."

There is thus no imminent crisis to justify war on Iran.

Yet what is Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House doing?

Some 220 members, a majority, have endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 362. This virtual war resolution "demands" that President Bush initiate a blockade to halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products and impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."

A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran.

The front men for 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman of New York and conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. But the juice behind them is that of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel.

Last week, Mossad's chief, Meir Dagan, was here to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel's armed forces.

Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran. Bush should rebuff them, and the American people should tell their congressmen: You vote for 362, we don't vote for you.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
 

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13134 

[bigron]

Middle East News

Ahmadinejad predicts better Iran-US ties after elections (Roundup)

By DPA
Jul 14, 2008, 18:50 GMT

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1416948.php/Ahmadinejad_predicts_better_Iran-US_ties_after_elections__Roundup_


Tehran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday predicted that relations between Iran and the United States would improve following the US presidential election.

'Regardless of who would become next (US) president, whether from this (Democratic) or that (Republican) party, that person would have more understanding with Iran,' Ahmadinejad told state television.

'The probability of talks in the future between the two sides in certain fields definitely exists,' he said.

Without officially admitting it, Iran clearly favours Democratic candidate Barack Obama as the next US president, especially as Obama has several times spoken in favour of resuming diplomatic talks with Iran.

Another reason for favouring Obama is his second name Hussein which is also the name of the third Shiite Imam who is highly respected in Iran.

Ahmadinejad further said there are already several requests by US non-governmental sections through the Swiss embassy - representing US interests in Iran - to hold talks with Iran, adding that these talks would eventually be held in line with national interests.

'Except for the Zionist regime, we are willing to talk all countries, including the US,' the president said.

Ahmadinejad once again welcomed US plans to set up an interests section, a form of de facto embassy without full embassy status, in Tehran.

'There is no official request yet, but if (there was), we would definitely consider it with a positive approach,' he said.

There have been US press reports and official indications that Washington was considering opening an interests section in Tehran which would also issue visas for Iranian nationals with relatives in the US.

Although the plan to open an interests section in Tehran has not yet been confirmed by Washington, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wished to see more Iranians visiting the US.

Iranians themselves would definitely welcome the opening of an interest section in Tehran as currently they have to go to neighbouring Dubai or Istanbul to apply for a visa and pay at least 1,000 dollars per trip.

Diplomatic relations between Iran and the US were broken off after the 444-day occupation of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 by radical Iranian students.

Earlier Monday, Ahmadinejad showed himself much harsher towards the US when he predicted the 'abolishment' of the United States empire in the Gulf and Middle East region, ISNA news agency reported.

Iran has in recent days reiterated several times that recent missile tests by the Revolutionary Guards were no threat to the Gulf states, but just a reaction to military threats by the US and Israel to hit Iran's nuclear sites.


 

© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.

[scary]

British MP : George Galloway Telling It Like It Is

This Is Must Listen - Audio

George Galloway talking about the consequences of an attack on Iran

 

Posted 14/07/08


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CGnZMVBjM&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20281.htm

 

 LOL Absolute Pwnage!!!!!!!!!

[bigron]

The nuclear showdown between the U.S. and Iran 



15/07/2008 03:00:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=139649


 
 In the 1950’s the U.S. was very friendly with the Shah of Iran. The CIA helped put him in power in a coup that removed a democratically elected prime minister.


By Tim Buchholz

Every day we seem to be inching more and more toward more war.

According to Ali Akbar Dareini’s article in the AP, “Iran test-fired nine long and medium range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. and Israeli attack.” He also says that “Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.”

(Watch video: Iran tests more missiles) :http://www.aljazeera.com/mm/video/video.php?op=showvideo&vidid=569

Our boys too are running war games, preparing for a possible attack on the Strait of Hormuz, “a strategic waterway through which about 40 percent of the world's oil passes.” All this because we say Iran wants Nuclear Weapons.

The Nuclear Program in Iran is a long story, and at the beginning, is U.S. The U.S., that is. In the 1950’s the U.S. was very friendly with the Shah of Iran. We, well the CIA, helped put him in power in a coup that removed a democratically elected prime minister. People in the Gerald Ford Administration, names we see today saying Iran should not be allowed to pursue enrichment (Dick Cheney, for one), suggested to the Shah that though Iran had plenty of oil, some day it would run out and it was time to start preparing for the future.

According to Wikipedia, "President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The Ford strategy paper said the introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." Now, 30 years later, Dick Cheney says Iran is “already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas, nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy.” But back to the beginning.

According to “Iran’s Nuclear Program. Part 1: Its History” by Mohammad Sahimi, “History shows that the U.S. and her allies were in fact the driving force behind the birth of Iran's nuclear program in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

According to declassified confidential U.S. Government documents posted on the Digital National Security Archive, in the mid-1970s, the U.S. encouraged Iran to expand her non-oil energy base, suggested to the Shah that Iran needed not one but several nuclear reactors to acquire the electrical capacity that the Stanford Research Institute had proposed, and expressed interest in the U.S. companies participating in Iran's nuclear energy projects.” He says the Shah's government was going to purchase eight nuclear reactors from the U.S. for generating electricity.

And according to “Bush Spins Iran's Centrifuges” by Ray McGovern, “Cheney and Rumsfeld persuaded a hesitant President Ford to offer Iran a deal that would have meant at least $6.4 billion for U.S. corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric, had not the Shah been unceremoniously dumped three years later. The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear fuels cycle—essentially the same capability that the U.S. and Israel now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire.”

Dafna Linzer says in her article “Past Arguments Don’t Square with Current Iran Policy,” “Iran was also willing to pay an additional $1 billion for a 20 percent stake in a private uranium enrichment facility in the United States that would supply much of the uranium to fuel the reactors.” We also provided Iran with “93% enriched uranium reactor fuel,” in the 1960’s, according to Iranwatch.org.

To make an atomic bomb, according to “Uranium Enrichment – How to Make an Atomic Bomb” by Tim Dean, “the uranium has to be enriched to more than 90 per cent and be produced in large quantities.” He says Iran claims it has “not enriched uranium beyond 4.8 per cent and only on a limited scale (as of 2006).”

Wikipedia says “Most reactor fuel is enriched to only 3–4%.” The International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, who according to their website “works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies,” released a report on Iran in late May 2008 entitled “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

It states, “The results of the environmental samples taken at FEP and PFEP indicate that the plants have been operated as declared. The samples showed low enriched uranium (with up to 4.0% U-235), natural uranium and depleted uranium (down to 0.4% U-235) particles. Iran declared enrichment levels in FEP of up to 4.7% U-235. Since March 2007, fourteen unannounced inspections have been conducted.”

In a report issued in November 2007 from The National Intelligence Council (NIC) of The United States entitled “National Intelligence Estimate – Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities” our government states “National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are the Intelligence Community’s (IC) most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and designed to help U.S. civilian and military leaders develop policies to protect U.S. national security interests.”

They “ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of confidence to our assessments,” and define high confidence as “High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment.” They say with high confidence that, “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

The NIC defines moderate as, “Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” They then say that, “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007,” and that, “We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.”

They also state, “We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.” So why the big rush now to attack their nuclear facilities? And isn’t our system of law in the U.S. based on the principle “innocent until proven guilty?”

Perhaps the rush has something to do with my favorite joke circulating before the Iraq war, “How does the U.S. know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? They still have the receipt.”

According to “State of War,” by James Risen, the CIA had a secret plan they called “Merlin.” It was hatched under the Clinton Administration, and was carried out in 2000 under the Bush Administration.

It involved a Russian scientist who had defected to the U.S. years earlier and had been kept on the CIA’s payroll. He was given, “technical designs for a TBA 480 high-voltage block, otherwise known as a "firing set", for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon. He held in his hands the knowledge needed to create a perfect implosion that could trigger a nuclear chain reaction inside a small spherical core. It was one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world, providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from rogue countries such as Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short.”

And he was told to take the blueprints, “to Vienna to sell them - or simply give them - to the Iranian representatives to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).” The blueprints had a small error, but they hoped Iran wouldn’t notice and would try to build a bomb. “Instead of a mushroom cloud, the Iranian scientists would witness a disappointing fizzle. The Iranian nuclear programme would suffer a humiliating setback, and Tehran's goal of becoming a nuclear power would have been delayed by several years.”

The CIA wanted to see if Iran already had this technology, and if not, they wanted to humiliate them. The only problem was the Russian Scientist noticed the error. When he told the CIA officers of the error, they told him it didn’t matter, but he feared the Iranians wouldn’t work with him if they noticed the flaw. So once he arrived in Vienna he opened the package and included a letter saying that there was a flaw, but he could help them find it.

He then got scared and instead of selling the report to the Iranians, he slipped it under their door and ran. James Risen goes on to say that, “Tehran also obtained nuclear blueprints from the network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and so already had workable blueprints against which to compare the designs obtained from the CIA. Nuclear experts say that they would thus be able to extract valuable information from the blueprints while ignoring the flaws.” Oops!

Another bit of information left out of the current administrations speeches is that Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa forbidding nuclear weapons. Wikipedia describes a fatwa as “a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar.

In Sunni Islam any fatwa is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be, depending on the status of the scholar.” Iran is predominately Shia. Bill Weinberg, in his story “Iran issues anti-nuke fatwa,” includes a portion of the statement Iran presented to the IAEA on the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing.

“The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain … It is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.”

Iran’s spiritual leader issued a similar fatwa against chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war, and although Iraq used chemical weapons, Iran did not. Ali Khamenei says that Iran is committed to The Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed in 1968.

According to Mohammed Sahimi, the treaty “recognized Iran's inalienable right to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination, and acquire equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information.”

They are also permitted under this treaty to enrich uranium, which the U.S. and its allies are now demanding Iran cease with threat of war. The U.S. signed this same treaty, and according to the UN’s website, the NPT “represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States.” So isn’t the United States in violation of this treaty by not disarming? When is someone going to attack our nuclear reactors and put sanctions on us?

Ria Novosti, in the article “IAEA says Israel's nuclear status none of its concern,” says “The UN nuclear watchdog said it will not respond to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's remark implying that Israel has nuclear weapons, something the Jewish state has never officially admitted. Independent analysts have said Israel holds between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads, and may be the world's sixth-largest nuclear power.”

Gerald M. Steinberg, in his article, “The International Atomic Energy Agency and Israel, A Realistic Agenda,” defends Israel saying, “As long as Jewish sovereignty and Israel's right to equality as a state among the nations is denied, the need for a credible deterrent will not end.”

Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007 in an attempt to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons, and as mentioned above have practiced an attack on Iran’s reactors. Israel’s closest ally, The United States, has gone to war with Iraq and many people believe they did so for oil, which Iran happens to have a lot of. Is not the sovereignty of Iran at stake as well?

Countries want to have nuclear weapons for the same reason that the U.S. won’t get rid of theirs, as a deterrent from the other countries that do have them. It’s kind of like the Second Amendment here in America, the right to bear arms. It was created by our forefathers to guarantee that if the government becomes corrupt, the people can stand up and fight back. I don’t know what Iran’s intentions are, but I do know what is fair. And it is not fair for the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon, who has more than anyone else, to tell anybody else they can’t have one, let alone threaten war.

Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State during the Ford Administration, now writes opinion articles about why Iran should not be allowed to go nuclear. During the Ford Administration he was one of the major players in bringing nuclear power to Iran.

In Dafna Linzer’s article mentioned above, she asked him why he changed his mind. He said, “They were an allied country, and this was a commercial transaction. We didn't address the question of them one day moving toward nuclear weapons.” Had they only just bought it all from us, maybe we wouldn’t be on the brink of World War III.

-- Tim Buchholz is a freelance writer living in Ohio.





-- Middle East Online

 

[Optimus]

John Bolton demands US support for Israeli strike on Iran
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2302245/John-Bolton-demands-US-support-for-Israeli-strike-on-Iran.html
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:38PM BST 15/07/2008

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, has said that America should "facilitate" an Israeli attack on suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial, the leading voice of Washington's hawks warned that time is running out for efforts to stop the Islamic Republic's covert nuclear research programme.

Recent tests of ballistic missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv had demonstrated the external threat posed to the Jewish state by a nuclear-armed Tehran.

While the Bush administration no longer appears interested in military action against Iran, there is no doubt about Israel's intentions.

American air and naval power in the Middle East, as well as its current control of Iraqi airspace, would mean that an Israeli attack could not take place without the superpower's tacit consent.

"We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible," Mr Bolton writes.

"At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel's path, and facilitate its efforts where we can."

Mr Bolton said that further rounds of United Nations sanctions were no longer a realistic deterrent.

"We have almost certainly lost the race between giving 'strong incentives' for Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Swift, sweeping, effectively enforced sanctions might have made a difference five years ago. No longer."

In a rare conciliatory gesture, Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said today that Tehran is open to direct negotiations with the country it condemns as the "Great Satan".

"It is possible that in the near future talks in different fields will take place with the United States," he was quoted as telling the state news agency, IRNA.

Mr Ahmadinejad appeared to suggest that Iran expected a change in the American stance following November's US presidential election.

"Whichever party is elected in the United States will have to take note of this," he said. "In this regard we have received many messages."

Diplomats have suggested that Turkey is offering to act as intermediary between the two governments.

[Real Truth]

This can get dirty

[Optimus]

Iran plans air drills to boost deterrence
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=63807&sectionid=351020101
Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:29:20

Iran's Air Force plans to stage a large-scale combat and defensive drills to beef up deterrence against threats from the US and Israel.

Air Force commander Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said Tuesday that the armed forces would conduct a military exercise, dubbed Defenders of the Sky of Velayat, to enhance aerial capabilities.

The Iranian Air Force will prove its dominance by immediately crushing anyone who dares to try and penetrate Iran's airspace, said Brig. Gen. Miqani.

The extensive air maneuvers will follow the six-day drills held by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) directed at demonstrating Iran's defensive ballistic power.

The IRGC ended an extensive military exercise on Sunday during which Iran successfully test-fired various advanced shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles.

Iran also tested the upgraded Shahab-3 missile equipped with a one-ton conventional warhead and capable of hitting targets within a 2,000-kilometer range.

Washington, Tel Aviv and their European allies accuse Tehran of pursuing a military nuclear program. Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity and is in line with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The most recent UN nuclear watchdog report concluded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries.

While claiming that the West is committed to a diplomatic solution, the US and Israel have repeatedly threatened Iran with the use of military force.

Iran has warned that should the country come under attack, it will target Israel and set US interests in the Persian Gulf ablaze.

[Optimus]

Condi Rice Fires Angry Warning At Iran
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080716053943reye.nb/topstory.html
By Robert Paul Reyes

Recently President George W. Bush expressed regret for his cowboy rhetoric (Wanted Dead or Alive) that alienated our friends and infuriated our adversaries. Bush doesn't belong to the school of "Walk softly and carry a big stick"; he is all bluster and bravado. But with an eye to his legacy and the fortunes of the Republican Party, Bush is attempting to soften his image.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn't get the memo that swagger is out and humility is in:

"Rice closed her three-day European trip with words of warning: 'We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies.'

Rice noted U.S. efforts to increase its own security presence in the Persian Gulf and the defense capabilities of U.S. allies there.

'We take very strongly our obligations to help our allies defend themselves and no one should be confused about that,' she said."

Rice angrily fired this warning shot at Iran after they tested several long-range missiles capable of reaching Israel. Iran, of course, responded to Rice's inflammatory rhetoric by firing even more missiles.

When is the Bush administration going to learn that tin-pot dictators thrive on confrontation with the United States? By firing furious words at Iran, Condi is giving Ahmadinejad exactly what he wants: An opportunity to look tough by standing up to the Great Satan.

Iran's missile test was somewhat less than a glorious success; Rice would have been well advised simply to ignore Ahmadinejad's publicity stunt.

I can't wait until the warmongering Bush administration is replaced by the tough but peace-loving Barack Obama. I just pray that Bush won't get us into a war with Iran before he leaves office.

[snarky comment]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9605

Iran Starts Production of Stealth Fighter Jets

Global Research, July 17, 2008
Fars News Agency 

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's Air Force chief announced that the Islamic Republic has successfully launched the production line of radar-evading "stealth" fighter jets.
 
Brigadier General Ahmad Mighani was quoted by press tv as saying Tuesday that the new jets would significantly enhance the Air Force's combat and defensive capabilities.

Iran has recently started manufacturing superior "Quick Reaction" tanks to increase its defense self-sufficiency.

Iran has also developed an electro-optical surveillance system that acts as a viable alternative when radars fail to cover a particular range.

"We have upgraded our air force fleet, radar-systems, and missile systems over the past few years and we are now ready to counter any threat," Brig. Gen. Mighani continued.

He added that the Iranian Air Force would prove its dominance by immediately crushing anyone who dares to try and penetrate Iran's airspace.

Washington and Tel Aviv accuse Tehran of pursuing a military nuclear program and threaten Iran with the use of military force if the Islamic Republic continues with its nuclear enrichment program.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity and is in line with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The most recent UN nuclear watchdog report concluded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries.

Despite the rules enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entitling every member state, including Iran, to the right of uranium enrichment, Tehran is now under three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's illegitimate calls to give up its right of enrichment.

Tehran has dismisses West's demands as politically tainted and illogical, stressing that sanctions and pressures merely consolidate Iranians' national resolve to continue the path.

Meantime, the commander said that the Air Force plans to hold a large-scale exercise to strengthen deterrence against any threats.

Mighani said that the combat and defensive drills will be held in the near future.

Iran last week tested missiles in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, including one which could reach Israel and US bases in the Middle East.

Israel, long assumed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from making progress in the field of nuclear technology.

The Iranian war games and missile tests are viewed as a strong response to heightened threats by the Zionist regime and the United States.

Speculation that Israel could bomb Iran has mounted since a big Israeli air drill last month.

In the first week of June, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations.

Iran has responded by saying it will strike back at Tel Aviv, as well as US interests and shipping, if it is hit.

Some US facilities across the Persian Gulf are little more than 200 km (124 miles) from Iran's coast, with air and naval bases in nearby Arab states such as Qatar and Bahrain.
 

[bigron]

Iran, Israel and nuclear elephants 


18/07/2008 06:50:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=140341

 
 Whatever else it is, Iran’s nuclear quest is not short on drama. Israel and Iran have just flexed their military muscles in highly publicized exercises and tests.


By Nadia Hijab

Whatever else it is, Iran’s nuclear quest is not short on drama. Israel and Iran have just flexed their military muscles in highly publicized exercises and tests. The P5+1 - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China, all permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - just brandished another acre of carrots and rainforest of sticks at Iran.

In the U.S. Congress, resolutions to impose a naval blockade against Iran, among other measures, have been cosponsored by nearly half the House and a third of the Senate, in complete disregard of the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that says Iran no longer has an active nuclear weapons program.

These histrionics have cloaked the elephant in the room -- indeed, whole herds of the ivory-tusked beasts are hidden from view, each carrying its own weight again in loads of hypocrisy. Take just three of the elephants: Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal and the more modest stores of India and Pakistan.

Israel’s nuclear stockpile is said to include between 100 and 200 nuclear devices, according to the Federation of American Scientists; other sources put the figure as high as 400. India and Pakistan are each believed to have 35 nuclear devices. None has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Yet the United States and Europe have taken little action. For example, Israel has been conspicuously absent from the semi-annual reports the U.S. Congress requires from intelligence agencies on the acquisition by foreign countries of technology for weapons of mass destruction.

And even as it was turning up the heat on Iran back in 2006, the U.S. Administration was lobbying Congress hard for an agreement on nuclear cooperation with India despite U.S. legislation prohibiting such cooperation with a country that has not signed the NPT.

The deal, which received preliminary Congressional approval, may not take effect because of lack of time to secure final approval before the end of 2008. If it does, it would allow India to open civilian facilities to inspection while keeping military ones closed. Pakistan, which wanted the same deal, was rebuffed, but has not received anything like the treatment of Iran.

These nuclear powers dominate Iran’s neighborhood. As the CATO Institute soberly noted in a 2006 briefing, "Iran is located in a volatile region, surrounded by hostile neighbors. Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India all have nuclear weapons already, so regional deterrence issues probably loom large for Iran."

Given this reality, one would have thought that the best way to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be to work on Israel, India, and Pakistan to give theirs up and make the Middle East a nuclear free zone.

And in fact the P5 voted for such an approach in 1991. Article 14 in UN Security Council Resolution 687, part of the cease-fire arrangements ending operation Desert Storm that expelled Iraq from Kuwait, solemnly sets out the goal of "establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction."

Article 14 has never been acted upon, in spite of frequent pleas by Arab states for a nuclear free zone. Why not? Here the NPT emerges as one of the biggest elephants in the room. Under the NPT, which entered into force in 1970, the original five nuclear powers -- the selfsame P5 -- were supposed to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. In exchange, other countries pledged not to acquire them.

Because the P5 have not done so, they have faced the other 183 NPT signatories with the choice of living under their nuclear shadow or trying to acquire their own nuclear weapons. The countries that are trying to bring Iran to heel are the ones responsible for eroding the treaty that would have prevented the pursuit of such weapons. Indeed, France and Russia are lining up behind the United States to sell India nuclear technology.

Some argue that Iran is driven by ideology rather than by state interests, and cannot be dealt with “rationally.” However, its president’s rhetoric aside, Iran has not demonstrated excessively aggressive behavior in the past 30 years. It has not, for example, invaded other countries to control their land, water, or oil resources. Rather, it was itself invaded, in 1980 by Saddam’s Iraq, with the active support of the then U.S. Administration.

The best way to stop Iran from going nuclear is to forge ahead with the reduction and elimination of all nuclear weapons. But for that to even begin to happen, we need a far bigger spotlight on the elephants in the room.

-- Nadia Hijab is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.





-- Middle East Online
 

[bigron]

Report: Iran war will spark backlash 



17/07/2008 05:10:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=141405

 
 A new report prepared by the Rand Corporation for the U.S. Air Force says any attack on Iran would only bolster the Iranian government.


"If Iran's facilities were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would likely be widespread," the leading US-based think tank said in its report.

"Attacks on Iran would generate a great deal of ill-will and, in our view, would be unlikely to change Iranian policy," the report added according to The Independent.

The US decision to send a top diplomat to the upcoming Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear program has been considered as an indication of Washington's policy change.

Washington plans to send its third-highest ranking diplomat, William burns, to the Geneva talks which will be held on Saturday.

Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution has also said, "I'm glad to see the administration has finally decided that the only way to get a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue is actually to talk to them (Iranian officials)."



-- AJP

 

[bigron]

U.S. Senate panel approves new Iran sanctions


Richard Cowan
Reuters North American News Service

Jul 17, 2008 12:23 EST

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=256497

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate Banking Committee overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday that would expand trade and economic sanctions in another attempt to prod Iran to step back from suspected nuclear weapons production and alleged support for terrorist activities.

By a vote of 19-2, the committee sent to the full Senate legislation that would try to clamp down on countries suspected of helping transport sensitive technologies and goods to Iran in violation of existing U.S. rules.

The measure also encourages U.S. pension plan managers and state and local governments to divest, directly or indirectly, from Iran's energy sector.

Patterned after a new U.S. law aimed at Sudan, the legislation allows state and local governments to divest from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iranian energy or extends $20 million or more in credit to be used for investing there.

Under the bill, the Bush administration also would be encouraged to designate the central bank of Iran as a supporter of terrorism, triggering sanctions.

The United States and some other countries accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under cover of an energy program. Washington also says Tehran supports Shi'ite militias hostile to U.S. forces in Iraq and Islamist militants elsewhere.

Iran denies those charges.


SANCTIONS AND PROGRESS

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said the bill could be coupled with other Iran sanctions measures also moving through the Senate.

"There is considerable interest among senators, including our leadership, in moving comprehensive Iran legislation quickly," Dodd said. Similar bills are moving through the House .

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who voted against the bill, said it "does not sanction Iran. It directly sanctions (U.S.) allies, friends and others."

Hagel also noted some progress was being seen on Iran, such as nuclear talks this weekend in Geneva between Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. A U.S. envoy will attend, a major shift in U.S. policy.

There also have been reports that the United States may establish a diplomatic interests section in Tehran, with which it cut diplomatic ties after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, when the U.S. embassy was seized and hostages taken.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said he might pursue an amendment on the Senate floor encouraging Russia to join in U.S. boycott efforts against Iran. In return, Schumer said, the U.S. would back off plans to build a defensive missile system in eastern Europe that displeases Moscow.

The legislation was approved by the banking panel after Iran test-fired missiles last week that could be used to strike Israel. On Tuesday, the Pentagon said Iran also has the ability to launch a ballistic missile capable of hitting some of eastern and southern Europe.

The missile tests, nuclear dispute and hostile rhetoric have fed perceptions, especially in the global financial markets, of a rising possibility of confrontation between Iran and the United States or Israel, that had helped drive oil prices to record highs.

(Editing by Patricia Zengerle)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

[bigron]

Condi's coup: how the neo-cons lost the argument over Iran

Secretary of State's influence pivotal to Bush's change of policy

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Friday, 18 July 2008

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/condis-coup-how-the-neocons-lost-the-argument-over-iran-870861.html

Condoleezza Rice was George Bush's handmaiden for the war in Iraq but she is now emerging as the best hope for avoiding a military conflict between the United States and Iran.


The Secretary of State, who is one of the few people with the President's ear, has shown the door to Vice-President Dick Cheney's cabal of war-hungry advisers. Ms Rice was able to declare yesterday that the administration's decision to break with past policy proves that there is international unity in opposing Iran's nuclear programme. "The point that we're making is the United States is firmly behind this diplomacy, firmly behind and unified with our allies and hopefully the Iranians will take that message," Ms Rice said.

Mr Bush's decision to send the number three in the State Department, William Burns, to attend talks with Iran in Geneva at the weekend caused howls of outrage that were heard all the way from the State Department's sanctuary of Foggy Bottom to the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. A parallel initiative to reopen the interest's section of the American embassy in Tehran, which would be the first return of a diplomatic presence on Iranian territory since 1979, has also received a cool response from neo-conservatives.

"This is a complete capitulation on the whole idea of suspending enrichment," said Mr Bush's former UN envoy, John Bolton. "Just when the administration has no more U-turns to pull, it does another."

In public, Ms Rice has been as bellicose as any neo-con when it comes to Iran, calling dialogue with its leaders "pointless" and declaring: "For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons."

She had been the prime mover behind Mr Bush's disastrous policy of "preventive wars" and cheerleader of his expansive plans to reorganise the entire Middle East and to "export democracy". But with the rumblings of war with Iran growing steadily louder, Ms Rice worked feverishly behind the scenes to stop sparks from flying in the drive by the US and Israel to shut down Iran's nuclear programme.

The breakthrough, if that is what it turns out to be, that persuaded Mr Bush that it was time to end the 30-year boycott of high-level diplomatic contacts with Iran, came from the simple act of Ms Rice signing her name to a joint letter offering sweeter terms to Tehran than it had seen before.

The very act of putting her name to a package of incentives presented in Tehran last month persuaded the Iranian authorities that there was movement that would allow them to proclaim victory over the US, while ending their nuclear programme.

When he saw Ms Rice's signature on the document, Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, was visibly stunned, according to those present at the meeting. He formally responded to the offer with a letter addressed to Ms Rice and the EU's foreign policy envoy, Javier Solana, as well as foreign ministers of the five other countries at the talks.

His letter skirted around the hot-button issue of Iran's uranium enrichment programme, but it contained an olive branch of an offer to "find common ground through logical and constructive actions", according to reports.

Hearing of Mr Mottaki's reaction and then receiving a formal response persuaded Ms Rice that Iran was finally willing to have meaningful talks with the US that could avoid a war.

Before approaching the President with a plan to avoid war in the last six months of his presidency, Ms Rice had to persuade Mr Cheney, chief among those described as the "Vulcans" of his administration. She made her pitch at a meeting that included Mr Cheney, Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, Joshua Bolton, the White House Chief of Staff, and Mr Burns, who is heading to Geneva at the weekend to take part in the "one time only deal". Iran welcomed the American change of attitude yesterday, but with governments from France to China also welcoming the shift, Tehran also signalled that there was a long way to go before the diplomats break out the champagne. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that there are still "clearly defined red lines", meaning that Iran is insisting that it has the right to peaceful nuclear energy. This is a position that Israel and the American conservatives still find unacceptable.

Thirty years on from the humiliation of the US embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, the country's boycott of all high-level direct contact with Iran has achieved little beyond making it impossible for the two sides to learn to trust one another and employ diplomatic skills to avoid conflict.

But there are also doubts about the effectiveness of using sophisticated weaponry against a nuclear programme that is secreted deep underground and in multiple sitesacross Iran. The US administration was recently advised that it would be folly to expect the regime to fall in Iran if it was attacked. If anything, a US and Israeli attack would strengthen the rule of the mullahs while causing further tension on the oil market.

From hawk to dove

Condoleezza Rice may have a bright political future ahead, despite the many roles she has played in the discredited Bush White House. Her soundbites have often come back to haunt her. She wilfully distorted the truth while pressing the case for the invasion of Iraq: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." No one, she declared, "could have predicted" that al-Qai'da would try to fly planes into buildings before 11 September 2001; "I'm proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein," she said. And when George Bush asked her about the looming war saying: "Should we do this?", Ms Rice replied in a heartbeat "Yes." The book Rise of the Vulcans, by James Mann, describes Ms Rice as a major player in the Iraq war, detailing how she served as the White House co-ordinator and as the President's closest adviser, throughout the entire operation. Despite this, the future looks bright for the 52-year-old. Stopping a war with Iran could even catapult her into the vice-presidency under a John McCain presidency.

[bigron]

U.S. plan to meet with Iran heightens debate

Critics say the decision to attend nuclear talks may enable Tehran to further stonewall the Bush administration.

By Paul Richter
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 17, 2008

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0406.html

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's decision to abandon a long-held policy and meet with a top Iranian official on Tehran's nuclear program has intensified the political debate in Washington about how best to deal with America's adversaries.

The White House decision was hailed Wednesday by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, who has criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for spurning high-level talks with Iran in the past. Obama said the United States should "stay involved with the full strength of our diplomacy."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), defeated by Bush in the 2004 presidential election, said the move represented "the most welcome flip-flop in recent diplomatic history."

Administration officials disclosed Tuesday that Undersecretary of State William J. Burns would join a delegation from five other world powers to meet with Iranian nuclear envoy Saeed Jalili in Switzerland on Saturday. U.S. officials and their allies hope Iran announces a decision on a package of political and economic incentives offered in return for abandoning its nuclear ambitions.

The move marked a distinct shift from the administration's position that it would take part in talks with Tehran only if the Islamic regime first suspended uranium enrichment, which U.S. officials say is intended to produce a nuclear bomb but which Iran insists is for peaceful energy production.

Democrats interpreted the White House move as one that provided new support for Obama's approach, but the McCain campaign saw it differently. In a statement, McCain foreign policy aide Randy Scheunemann suggested that Bush's move was the kind of "multilateral diplomacy" McCain supports.

"Sen. McCain believes working with our allies presents the best chance to increase the consequences should Iran continue its defiance of the international community," the statement said, criticizing Obama for proposing what Scheunemann called "preemptive concessions."

Administration officials insisted that the initiative was not a substantive change, but a tactic designed to increase pressure on the Iranians to accept the offer. Burns, they say, will be present but will not negotiate.

"There's no change in the substance, but it sends a strong signal," said Sean McCormack, the chief State Department spokesman.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes that "it's a smart step to take" at a time when Iranian leaders appear divided on how to deal with growing economic sanctions.

Some outside experts speculated that Iran's goal may simply be to wait out the administration, in the hope that the next U.S. government will prove more flexible.

Ray Takeyh, an expert on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the seeming differences within the Iranian regime might be "chatter" rather than real divisions.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has indicated that decisions would be made by the hard-line national security committee, rather than others in Iran's diverse power centers, Takeyh said.

Several experts and former diplomats predicted that Iran might agree at the international meeting to hold more sessions, or even offer to sign on to a proposed "freeze-for-freeze" deal under which Tehran would agree to not expand its nuclear program and the U.S. and other countries would refrain from imposing further economic sanctions.

Such a deal would allow Iran to continue refining its nuclear program but not expand it, Takeyh said.

John R. Bolton, the hard-line former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the administration, in jettisoning its old policy of refusing to meet with Iran, had "succumbed to sustained pressure" from the State Department and European allies.

Bolton predicted more meetings would take place as the Iranians "buy time to get to the postelection period and make a smooth transition to the Obama administration."

[bigron]

Wising Up on Iran

by Barbara Slavin

07.16.2008
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=19412


At a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Undersecretary of State Bill Burns gave unusually nuanced testimony about Iran. Committee chairman Joe Biden of Delaware praised Burns, a veteran Foreign Service officer, but added wistfully, “I wish we had heard this in 2003, four, five, six or seven.”

As news broke last night that Burns is headed for Geneva this weekend, to take part in multilateral discussions with Iranian nuclear negotiators, Biden’s words resonated. With less than six months to go before it leaves office, the Bush administration is finally easing its precondition for high-level contacts with Iran. The question is why this is happening now and whether it comes too late.

For the past two years, the administration has refused such contacts unless Iran first suspended its uranium enrichment program. The result has been that Iran now has more than three thousand centrifuges spinning away, the price of oil has doubled and Iran’s influence in the Middle East has substantially increased.

Explaining its change of policy this week, administration officials were at pains to insist that this is a “one-time” deal and that Burns would be there to listen and to show that the United States is fully supportive of a package of incentives presented to Iran last month by European Union foreign-policy chief Javier Solana on behalf of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (the so-called P-5 plus one.) Burns will not be negotiating, merely showing the flag, administration officials said, to convince Iran that the P-5 plus one offer is real.

Still the shift is clear. At least two interpretations are possible:

The first and most cynical is that President Bush believes diplomacy will not work but realizes he must at least go through the motions to avoid criticism that he is rushing to war.

The second is that, with the situation in Iraq somewhat stabilized and Western economic sanctions beginning to bite in Iran, the administration believes it has sufficient leverage to negotiate and that Iran is receptive to a deal.

Iranian politicians and hard-line newspapers have been signaling for several weeks that the country’s Islamic regime is ready for talks and suggesting that the rest of the world, not Iran, has compromised to make negotiations possible. One newspaper, Hezbollah, said in its July 14 issue: “It seems that Washington has given up its first and last demand of the suspension of nuclear activities as a pre-condition to resume talks.”

The object of this weekend’s discussions is to get Iran to accept Solana’s proposal for a six-week “freeze for freeze” during which time Iran will not add any new centrifuges to its facility in Natanz and the international community will impose no new sanctions. During this period, talks will proceed about an agenda for formal negotiations. The understanding is that Iran would suspend uranium enrichment for a limited time once those negotiations begin.

Given the track record of both Iran and the Bush administration, it is far too soon to celebrate any breakthroughs. Iran could be playing for time, hoping to stave off more sanctions until a new U.S. administration takes office. But both may be sensing a window of opportunity. Burns, who was assistant secretary of state for the Near East and South Asia in 2003 when the Bush administration rebuffed an offer for comprehensive negotiations from Iran’s Khatami administration, referred in his testimony to the “long history of missed opportunities and crossed signals” between the United States and Iran. Much more knowledgeable about the Middle East than his predecessor as undersecretary, Nicholas Burns, Bill Burns may have convinced his bosses to give diplomacy a real chance.

Meanwhile, the Iranians, who have long offered to negotiate without preconditions, may be recognizing that starting a dialogue with the United States before Bush leaves office would make it easier for Bush’s successor to engage. Coming at a time of financial chaos in the United States and military maneuvers and missile firings in the Middle East, even this glimmer of good news is welcome indeed.

 

Barbara Slavin is a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation. The views expressed here are her own.