Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[Biggs]

for now it is just the embargo that will happen in two weeks, but of course that will make things worse, it is another ratcheting up of tensions, but we are still some way from a strike, there are forces working in the bvackground to stop it so they cannot just proceed at will.

[Optimus]

Crossfire War - US-UK-France Begin to Practice Blockade of Iran
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080722103054payn.nb/topstory.html
By Willard Payne

Night Watch: ATLANTIC (STRAIT OF HORMUZ) - In order to enforce the seriousness of the U.S.-EU position against Iran with the threat of serious sanctions Debka reports a dozen warships from the U.S.-UK-France and a Brazilian frigate began ten days of maneuvers Monday in the Atlantic off the U.S. coast to practice the blockading of Iran's coast in the Strait of Hormuz.

The exercises have been called "Operation Brimstone" and are lead by the USS Theodore Rooselvelt Carrier Strike group and the USS Iwo Jima Expedtionary Strike Group which carries ground forces trained in operating in shallow coastal-littoral waters and the seizure of islands like the ones in the Strait of Hormuz, Qeshm for example. The narrow island is about fifty miles long and just a few miles off Bandar Abbas believed to be the headquarters of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the small islands in the strait are manned by Revolutionary Guard Marines. [DEBKA]

Knesset -The IRGC will no doubt have Iranian air and naval support as the combined U.S.-EU forces attempt to enforce a blockade intended to target shipments of benzene and other refined oil products as they head for Iranian ports. Iran does not have much oil refining capacity and therefore has to import 40% of its benzene.

France24 recorded British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's speech in front of Israel's Knesset in Jerusalem in which he reinforced the two week sanctions ultimatum by EU foreign policy representative Javier Solana and U.S. Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, "Iran now has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear programme and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of just one nation but of all nations round the world. Just as we heave led the work of three mandatory sanctions resolutions of the UN, the UK will continue to lead-with the United States and our European Union partners-in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons programme." [FRANCE24]

Tehran - But Iran made its "confrontation"-war decision quite some time ago as PressTV reports Iran conducted its recent maneuvers, including the firing of long range missiles, in response to these threats. Frankly Iran's maneuvers were made in anticipation of (f)allout war as Tehran knew the West would have to militarily confront the implication of the range of Iran's missiles which can reach Europe. This is the culmination of Tehran's foreign policy, Islamic agenda, and the final preparations for a war designed to defeat the West and give massive support to Pakistan and if successful Tehran will be at the center of a new re-alignment of international power with Iran at the center, replacing a defeated West. [PRESSTV]

And Tehran is aware one dose not achieve that by trying to conquer the desert and sand of Israel. The "wipeout" statements by Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a planned distraction as Tehran completed preparations to attack its main target. So I suspect Iran's leadership is saying the West is finally acknowledging what we have known for years was inevitable and enemy forces will be operating in a confined area right off our coast, a naval-maritime trap like Iraq-Afghanistan.

Participating in the Operation Brimstone maneuvers is the British HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group and the French submarine Amethyste. There are also French Rafale fighter jets on board the Theodore Roosevelt alongside U.S. aircraft. In addition to preventing benzene from arriving Operation Brimstone is also intended to prevent Iran's attacks on oil shipping leaving the Persian Gulf for world ports.

After a briefing by Under Secretary of State William Burns, who took part in the Geneva negotiations, Secretary of State Rice met in Abu Dhabi the representatives of the six Gulf Cooperation Council states and officials from Egypt-Jordan-Iraq.

Pentagon - GoNavy.jp not only mentions these maneuvers but seems to indicate the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is still on station in the North Arabian Sea and if so could be used in support of the blockade. These maneuvers are due to end July 31 just two days before the end of the ultimatum delivered by the U.S.-EU. [GONAVY]

Diplomacy and negotiations has obviously run their course so all that is left now is Tehran's attack on the blockade which I assume will be attempted in August after perhaps one more round of ultimatums. Iran has been warning, for at least the past few years, their response to sanctions will eventually be war.

Other than the allies currently taking part in Operation Brimstone the two most likely to respond once the shooting starts will be Germany-Japan especially the later since of all the industrialized nations Japan is the most dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf. In late 2004 Tokyo made its military policy offensive right after Iran's oil minister stated publicly Tehran wanted China to be the main importer of Iran's oil and gas instead of Japan. Since then Tokyo has maintained extremely serious diplomatic contact with Tehran on a daily basis and maintains close relations with Persian Gulf states as Japan insisted on a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear weapons program. In the fall of 2006 Japan pulled out of a Persian Gulf development project in an Iranian field when they realized there would be no peaceful resolution.

Other than attacks on the blockade Tehran could have fighting increase in other regional theatres: West Asia around Israel, to reduce the chance of any joint operation between the U.S.-Israel on Iran's known nuclear installations, Central Asia-Afghanistan to force NATO to be more on the defensive and in Southeast Europe using Albanian groups to attack Serbs in Kosovo. Tehran knows Belgrade has re-armed and supports Serbia by having signed a security agreement in 2006. The Balkans is Iran's avenue of invasion into Europe which I assume will begin after ballistic missile launchings.

[Optimus]

West to flex military muscles against Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=64422&sectionid=351020101
Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:31:30
 
The United States is set to lead a joint military exercise in the Atlantic Ocean to show off its combat capabilities as a warning to Iran.

The Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 'Operation Brimstone' will take place on July 21-31 in North Carolina and off the eastern US coast from Virginia to Florida, involving France, Britain and Brazil.

More than a dozen ships, including the US carrier strike group Theodore Roosevelt and expeditionary strike group Iwo Jima, the French submarine Amethyste, and the British HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, as well as a Brazilian frigate will take part in the 10-day exercise.

Six vessels from the US Norfolk Naval State will play enemy at the exercise.

The drill is aimed at training for operation in shallow coastal waters such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the Debkafile, both the Roosevelt and Iwo Jima are scheduled to be deployed in the Middle East in the coming months.

While Israel and the US claim to be committed to a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear standoff with the West, they have repeatedly threatened to launch a military strike against Iran should it continue to enrich uranium.

Following nuclear talks in Geneva on a package of incentives recently presented to Iran requiring the country to suspend uranium enrichment, Washington warned Tehran to choose between 'confrontation' and meeting Western demands over its enrichment program.

In response to growing threats from Israel and the US, Iran test-fired nine long and medium-range missiles to demonstrate the country's defensive military capabilities.

Tehran insists that its nuclear program is directed at generating electricity for a growing population and is in line with its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
 

[Truth Warrior]

White people are making war with humanity, the world!!!

[Monkeypox]

White people are making war with humanity, the world!!!

Yes, yes, we're all blue-eyed Devils.

 

[Optimus]

White people are making war with humanity, the world!!!

Can you make it more obvious you're a troll? Sheesh!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=profile;u=6662;sa=showPosts

[bigron]

Brown's refusal to rule out backing for Israeli Iran strike deeply alarming - Clegg


22 July 2008
http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/browns-refusal-to-rule-out-backing-for-israeli-iran-strike-deeply-alarming-clegg.14802.html


 
Gordon Brown today again refused to rule out the prospect of UK support for unilateral Israeli action against Iran, in response to questioning from Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg.

Asked to make it clear that he would not give even tacit support to a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran, the Prime Minister said he would ‘not rule out any options’.

Commenting, Nick Clegg said:

"Gordon Brown must learn the lessons of Israel’s devastating incursion into Lebanon two years ago, which received the tacit support of this Government.

"His refusal to rule out supporting similar unilateral action by Israel against Iran is deeply alarming. Such action would have disastrous consequences, not just for the region but also for our own troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Despite President Ahmadinejad’s vile language towards Israel, it seems that now, with US participation, a diplomatic solution with Iran is increasingly possible.

"Two years ago, the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that an attack on Iran would be ‘completely nuts’. He was right then and he is right now.

"It is madness to keep open the option of military action at exactly the time when a diplomatic solution appears to be in reach.

"Gordon Brown must break with his predecessor and stand up to the hawkish voices who advocate what would be a disastrous policy for the Middle East."

[bigron]

July 23, 2008

Iran Isolation Attempts Backfire
 
by Hannes Artens


Iran's provocative missile tests 10 days ago again fueled the debate on the likelihood of aerial strikes against Iran. Since last week's thaw, however, an attack on Iran by the end of President Bush's tenure no longer appears in the offing. Moreover, the narrow, exclusively military focus of the debate misses the broader picture. The overall U.S. strategy of containing Iran has failed in principle. And the attempt to impose a sanctions regime on Iran has led to an erosion of U.S. strategic influence in Asia and the Middle East. Over the long term, Washington's shortsighted containment policy will only hurt Western business in the region. It will also play into the hands of China, drive crucial allies away, and render Iran untouchable.

At the eleventh hour, even the Bush administration seems to have realized, albeit in a limited way, the inherent failure of the containment approach. In an important about-face, the White House not only agreed to direct talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Geneva this weekend but also held out the prospect of soon opening an American interest section in Tehran. This sea change suggests that the realists around Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have finally gained the upper hand over the faction around Vice President Dick Cheney in the intra-administration feud. The reversal also acknowledges that the dual approach of sanctions and military threats has produced nothing but America's own isolation. The far-reaching repercussions of these counterproductive sanctions against Iran and America's increasing isolation in Asia are best illustrated by this month's breakthrough on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.

It's the Gas, Stupid

The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (IPI) is a $7.5 billion project designed to supply Indian mega-cities with natural gas from Iran's Persian Gulf fields via a 1,700-mile-long pipeline across Pakistan. The project has been repudiated and boycotted by one project partner or the other uncounted times since its conceptualization. But on July 3, Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora affirmed on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid that India expects to finally sign the deal next month. This long-time-in-coming breakthrough constitutes a crucial step toward energy security for India.

For the United States, on the other hand, it deals a resounding blow to the fragile international sanctions front the Bush administration has crafted to contain Iran. What is more, with China keen on joining the project, a new geo-strategic axis – Tehran-Islamabad-New Delhi-Beijing – is about to emerge. This axis will radically reshuffle the power structure in Asia and, with it, the global balance of power.

Despite the Cheney faction's saber-rattling, the Bush administration has banked on economic sanctions strangling investment and beating a technology-dependent Tehran into submission. This strategy of tightening the economic corset choking Iran and thus forcing it to renounce its nuclear ambitions, however, has isolated the United States and its allies more than Iran. For the time being, Washington has succeeded in cajoling French Total SA, Anglo-Dutch Shell, and Spanish Repsol to withdraw their bids to exploit the Iranian South Pars field, the world's largest gas field, and the EU approved freezing the assets of a major state-owned Iranian retail bank, Bank Melli, last month.

But Iran's countermeasures have been in the works for quite a while. After all, the country has long suffered from the effects of sanctions and the reluctance of Western companies to invest in its energy sector. So it has increasingly looked eastward for new financiers and partners. The most striking example is Iran's March 24 bid for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Central Asian security group dominated by Russia and China.

This new "looking east" – negahe be shargh – policy concept is the brainchild of Bangalore-educated Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. While an Iranian SCO membership is still in the future, Asian dominance over the Iranian market is a current reality. China already ranks as the number-one foreign investor in Iran. Malaysian Petronas and LG Korea feature prominently in the exploitation of South Pars. The new IPI would be a final nail in the coffin of the sanctions regime.

The Empire Strikes Back

The United States has fought hard against the new pipeline linking Iran, India, and Pakistan. As recently as July 15, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) threatened to strengthen the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 that allows for the litigation of foreign firms investing in sanctionable business in Iran – a clear warning signal to India. Meanwhile, since the three countries could not bear the projected costs of $7.5 billion on their own, Washington has also used its considerable influence at the World Bank in the person of former president Paul Wolfowitz. He bluntly informed Pakistan that the bank would not allow any international institution to finance the project.

In its attempts to destabilize Iran and disrupt the possible route of the pipeline, the United States is allegedly supporting Jundallah. This militant insurgency in the Iranian Sistan and Balochistan province has suspected links to the Taliban and the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), which has been fighting a guerilla war against the Pakistani army since 2000. This clandestine Baloch connection – recently exposed by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker – undermines America's fragile, always-on-the-brink-of-a-coup ally Pakistan. Washington is also pushing for the alternative of a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI), the construction bids for which, as a side benefit, would go to U.S. companies. This alternative scheme is strikingly similar to the pipeline deal Unocal struck with the Taliban in 1996.

U.S. obstruction is not the only problem facing the IPI project. Iran is asking for a lot of money; India and Pakistan have notorious difficulty cooperating. But this cluster of American threats and coercion proved until recently to be pivotal in preventing the project from getting off the ground. Former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns cited preventing IPI as one of his greatest accomplishments at a conference at Harvard University in March.

Push Factors

India, however, desperately needs energy for its growing economy. And it will risk its relationship with the United States to get this energy. Moreover, its heavily subsidized low gas prices are no longer sustainable, especially now before an election year. After all, with oil around $140 per barrel and a global recession looming on the horizon, the United States no longer has the ability to pressure countries to sever energy ties with Iran, as it did when a fire-breathing John Bolton forced Japan to withdraw its bid to exploit the Iranian Azadegan oil field. It is now every country for itself in the new energy environment.

Despite U.S. opposition, then, the IPI pipeline is back on line. The last commercial difficulties between Pakistan and India concerning transit fees have been cleared away, and only minor technical details remain for a trilateral meeting in Tehran scheduled for the coming weeks. If an agreement is reached this summer, construction could commence in 2009 and be completed by 2012. Pakistan is eager to expand its new role as the energy corridor of the future. It expects an annual $600 million in transportation fees from IPI and is vigorously politicking for China to join the project in order to increase those revenues. Until Indian consent was secured, Pakistan used the Chinese wild card as a bargaining tool to force a wavering India's hand. But now it seems that Islamabad and Tehran can have it both ways. If World Bank financing is off the table, China can step in to foot the bill.

Finalization of IPI in the coming weeks would be more than a slap in the face for President Bush. After all, in 2006 he personally fought for a nuclear cooperation pact with India designed to meet India's energy needs while tying it closer to the United States as a counterweight against a rising China. Now however, not only has the Indian government so far failed to get the pact ratified in the Indian parliament, but India is about to collaborate with China in undermining America's sanctions on Iran. Pakistan, beefed up with more than $10 billion in military aid by the Bush administration, is also giving the cold shoulder to Washington. And Iran, soon to be the number-one energy supplier for East Asia, becomes more untouchable by the day.

The Bush administration's lofty design to keep Iran in the box and use the Indian tiger to tame the Chinese dragon runs the risk of collapsing in the last months of his presidency. In fact, the American sanctions regime is driving Iran into China's arms and facilitating a Sino-Indian rapprochement. Even worse, America is facing the rise of a new strategic axis in Asia that stretches from Tehran to New Delhi to Beijing, with Islamabad as a central hub, and is financed by petrodollars. Then again, the Bush policy, by giving a lift to this new strategic energy alliance, may ultimately strengthen support in Washington for a military strike against Iran, to accomplish what containment failed to do.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.


 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/artens.php?articleid=13182 

[bigron]

July 23, 2008

Realists Urge Bush to Drop Iran Precondition
 
by Jim Lobe


Two of Washington's most prominent foreign policy graybeards praised Saturday's direct participation in multinational talks with Iran by a senior U.S. diplomat but called on the administration of President George W. Bush to drop his demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment program as a precondition for broader negotiations.

Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under Republican presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the same post under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, urged Bush to go further by offering immediate rewards to Tehran in exchange for such a freeze.

And both men warned that repeated U.S. threats to use military force against Iran were counterproductive and strengthened hard-line forces in the regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said an actual military attack – whether by the U.S. or by Israel – would likely be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region.

"A war with Iran will produce calamities for sure," said Brzezinski, who pointed, among other things, to its likely impact on the price of oil and the likelihood that it would create yet another front to add to the two wars – Iraq and Afghanistan – in which U.S. military forces are already engaged.

"[Brzezinski's assessment] may be a little more dire [than mine], but not much," Scowcroft told IPS in a brief interview after the two men spoke at a briefing sponsored by the Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS). "It would turn the region into a cauldron of conflict, bitterness, and hatred. It would turn Islam against us."

Both men have been strongly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the decision to invade Iraq – although Brzezinski has been considerably more vocal than Scowcroft, who remains a close friend of Bush's father. Both leading lights of the so-called "realist" foreign-policy establishment, they are currently collaborating on a book to be published in September.

Their joint appearance at CSIS, which was announced late last week after the administration had confirmed that undersecretary of state for policy, Ambassador William Burns, would attend Saturday's meeting between the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) and Iran, seemed timed to demonstrate strong bipartisan support for continued and enhanced U.S. engagement.

Burns' direct participation at the talks not only marked the highest-level officially and publicly acknowledged meeting between the U.S. and Iran since the two nations broke off diplomatic relations in late 1979. It also appeared to mark a potentially significant easing of previous administration demands that Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment program as a condition for direct talks.

Coupled with reports that Washington plans to open an interests section in Tehran, as well as a series of strong statements by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, warning against the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran, Burns' presence was widely interpreted as a sign that the administration has made a strategic decision to engage Iran diplomatically, much as it did, beginning in late 2006, with yet another charter member of Bush's "Axis of Evil," North Korea.

Indeed, hawks outside the administration who are nonetheless closely associated with administration hard-liners led by Vice President Dick Cheney have been complaining bitterly about the decision to send Burns since it was announced. The neoconservative Weekly Standard called the move "stunningly shameful," while former UN Ambassador John Bolton said it was proof of the administration's "complete intellectual collapse."

Similarly, the neoconservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which has long urged confrontation with Iran, has assailed the decision as foreshadowing "détente." On Monday, it published a column by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that charged Bush with "appeasing" Tehran and conducting "diplomatic malpractice on a Carteresque level."

While these protests themselves constitute evidence that a strategic decision to engage Iran in much the same way that the administration has dealt with North Korea over the past 18 months – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet for the first time with her North Korean counterpart in Singapore later this week – has indeed been made, many analysts remain uncertain.

The White House itself stressed that Burns' presence was a "one-time" affair. And Rice, who, along with Pentagon chief Robert Gates, is seen as the administration's main champion for engagement, followed up the meeting by setting a two-week deadline for Tehran to respond to the P5+1's offer – the so-called "freeze-for-freeze" – to forgo a fourth round of UN sanctions against it if it refrained from adding new centrifuges to its enrichment program.

The group, she said, had sent a "very strong message to the Iranians that they can't go and stall … and that they have to make a decision," suggesting that Washington would push for sanctions if Tehran does not provide a satisfactory response by the deadline.

To some observers, both her tone and her words suggested that Rice herself feels vulnerable, particularly given the failure of Iran's representative to the Geneva talks, Ambassador Saeed Jalili, to respond directly to the proposal on the table.

Scowcroft agreed Tuesday that the Iranian response had indeed been "disappointing" but also suggested that Rice's "rather sharp" remarks were likely to strengthen hard-liners in Tehran. Brzezinski also criticized Rice's ultimatum, asserting that it was "not helpful to the negotiating process."

Scowcroft said Burns' presence in Geneva was "encouraging," while Brzezinski called it a "very good step" but insufficient in itself to break the "logjam" created by the administration's precondition for direct talks. They also denounced the administration's repeated reminders that "all options remain on the table" as counterproductive.

"It tends to push Iranians into a more nationalistic, dogmatic stance," said Brzezinski, while Scowcroft said it offered only the "illusion of a clean solution" to what is essentially "a very complicated diplomatic problem."

At the same time, they endorsed the use of sanctions as a means of pressuring Iran, provided that they were coupled with incentives whose benefits to Tehran would be clear and immediate in order to make it easier for the regime to make concessions. "Give them a way out without losing face," Scowcroft said.

On speculation that Israel may be preparing to take unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, Brzezinski said it would not be a "smart strategic choice" due to the likelihood that the U.S. would even become "more bogged down" in the region. Scowcroft said he would tell the Israelis to "calm down."

(Inter Press Service)
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13184 
 

[bigron]

IRAN :   The Nuclear Assumption  !!

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/iran-the-nuclear-assumption/


THIS IS  MUST READ ! ! !

[bigron]

Experts Agree  :   IRAN is not IRAQ

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/iran-is-not-iraq/


A  MUST READ !!!!

[bigron]

Ahmadinejad: Iran Will Not 'Retreat One Iota' in Nuclear Drive


Wednesday, July 23, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389245,00.html



YASOUJ, Iran —

Iran will not yield to world powers in the dispute over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in a speech broadcast live on state television.

"The Iranian nation will not retreat one iota in the face of oppressing powers," he said. "The Iranian nation has chosen its path."

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and demand that it freeze uranium enrichment. Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful drive to generate electricity so that the Islamic Republic, the world's fourth-largest crude producer, can export more of its oil and gas.

At a meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in Geneva on Saturday, six world powers gave Iran two weeks to answer calls to rein in its nuclear activities.

Ahmadinejad described U.S. participation in the latest round of nuclear talks a "positive step forward" toward recognizing Iran's right to acquire nuclear technology.

The Iranian president said the United States' decision to attend the talks in Geneva, Switzerland, will help repair America's image in the world.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of not being serious in Saturday's talks despite the presence of a senior U.S. diplomat.

The U.S. participation in the Geneva talks had raised expectations for a compromise formula under which Iran would agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities. In exchange, the six powers — the United States and five world powers — would hold off on adopting new U.N. sanctions against Iran.

The enrichment issue is key to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program because the activity can produce either fuel for nuclear power stations or material used in the fissile core of warheads.

Iran already has defied three sets of U.N. sanctions over its uranium enrichment activity.

But recent Iranian pronouncements suggest the Islamic Republic may be looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the Bush administration to open an interests section in Tehran after closing its embassy here decades ago.

On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns, who represented the United States in the Geneva talks, "spoke politely and in a dignified manner."

"You (U.S.) took a positive step. It was a step toward recognizing the rights of the Iranian nation, toward justice, toward repairing your image in the world, toward cleaning 50 years of crimes you committed against the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said, addressing thousands of supporters in Yasouj, a town in southern Iran.

Rice has said all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline for Iran to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or be hit with new penalties.

But Ahmadinejad urged the United States to continue its "positive" attendance in the talks.

"I advise you not to ruin the positive step you took through irrelevant words and claims."

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[bigron]

US, UK, France launch sea exercise for naval blockade on Iran


DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=5452

July 21, 2008, 1:44 PM (GMT+02:00)

 

The White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it expected Iran to “miss an opportunity to accept” the incentives package.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Operational Brimstone, starting Monday, July 21, aimed at giving military teeth to the two-week ultimatum the six world powers gave Iran in Geneva Saturday to accept the suspension of uranium enrichment or face harsh sanctions and isolation.

After warning of punitive measures against Iran, Condoleezza Rice met the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council plus Egypt, Jordan and Iraq in Abu Dhabi. First she was briefed by Under Secretary of State William Burns.

The penalty of withholding refined oil products from Iran would be exercised by means of a partial international naval blockade of its Gulf ports.

Taking part in the 10-day exercise in the Atlantic Ocean are more than a dozen ships, including the US carrier strike group Theodore Roosevelt and expeditionary strike group Iwo Jima; the French submarine Amethyste, and the British HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, as well as a Brazilian frigate.

Six vessels from the Norfolk Naval State will play the role of “enemy” forces.

About 15,000 sailors will be involved in Operation Brimstone. Both the Roosevelt and Iwo Jima will be deployed in the Middle East in the coming months.

The exercise is scheduled to end July 31, two days before the US-European ultimatum to Iran expires. Immediately after the Geneva talks ended in failure, the US State Department issued a statement giving Tehran the option of “cooperation or confrontation.”

A partial blockade of Iran’s shores, a key element of the new sanctions, would be limited to withholding from Iran supplies of benzene and other refined oil products - not foodstuffs or other commodities. Short of refining capacity, Iran has to import 40 percent of its benzene consumption and will be forced to react to the stoppage.

Operation Brimstone boasts two striking features:

1. It will include for the first time units of the US Expeditionary Combat Command, who are trained to operate in shallow coastal waters and rivers, such as the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf and the small islands around its chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Revolutionary Guards marine units are posted on these islands.

The international force will have to control the islands to ensure oil shipping freed passage out to world markets.

2. The Roosevelt’s decks will for the first time host French Rafale fighter jets which will share space with US warplanes, while the only French carrier Charles de Gaulle undergoes maintenance.

Our military sources note that French warplanes have in the past performed short landings and takeoff drills on US carriers from the Charles de Gaulle, but never before taken part in a fully cooperative operational exercise.

This joint endeavor signifies that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is fully committed to a joint US-European military action if necessary to halt Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon.

Addressing the Knesset in Jerusalem Monday, July 21, British prime minister George Brown said: Iran must ''suspend its nuclear program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations.''

Brown's spokesman said the premier did not rule out "extended sanctions in some form on the oil and gas sector" in Iran. Sources said that could involve sanctions on spare parts for Tehran's fairly limited domestic oil refining capacity.

[eddy64]

hmm does that mean they will attack the irg units on the islands as well as blockade iran?  sounds like the start of a war to me

[Boubear]

Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 -Israel
23 Jul 2008 15:32:52 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Dan Williams

TEL AVIV, July 23 (Reuters) - Iran is set to receive an advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft system by year-end that could help fend off any preemptive strikes against its nuclear facilities, senior Israeli defence sources said on Wednesday.

First delivery of the S-300 missile batteries was expected as soon as early September, one source said, though it could take six to 12 months for them to be deployed and operable -- a possible reprieve for Israeli and American military planners.

Iran, which already has TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia, announced last December that an unspecified number of S-300s were on order. But Moscow denied there was any such deal.

Washington has led a diplomatic drive to deny Iran access to nuclear technologies with bomb-making potential, while hinting that force could be a last resort. Israel, whose warplanes have been training for long-range missions, has made similar threats.

But the allies appear to differ on when Iran, which denies seeking atomic arms, might get the S-300. The most sophisticated version of the system can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes 120 km (75 miles) away.

"Based on what I know, it's highly unlikely that those air defence missiles would be in Iranian hands any time soon," U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said in a July 9 briefing when asked about the S-300 -- also known in the West as the SA-20.

An Israeli defence official said Iran's contract with Russia required that the S-300s be delivered by the end of 2008. A second source said first units would arrive in early September.

The official agreed with the assessments of independent experts that the S-300 would compound the challenges that Iran -- whose nuclear sites are numerous, distant, and fortified -- would already pose for any future air strike campaign by Israel.

TIME TO LEARN

Israel does not have strategic "stealth" bombers like the United States, though the Israeli air force is believed to have developed its own radar-evading and jamming technologies.

"There's no doubt that the S-300s would make an air attack more difficult," said the official, who declined to be named.

"But there's an answer for every counter-measure, and as far as we're concerned, the sooner the Iranians get the new system, the more time we will have to inspect the deployments and tactical doctrines. There's a learning curve."

Israel, which is assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, carried out a large-scale air force drill over the Mediterranean last month which was widely seen as a "dress rehearsal" for a possible raid on Iran. Some analysts also described it as a bid to pressure the West to step up sanctions.

The exercise involved overflying parts of Greece, which is among a handful of countries to have bought and deployed S-300s. But Greek media quoted Athens officials as saying that the system's radars were "turned off" during the Israeli presence.

According to the Israeli official, it would take a year for Iran to deploy the S-300s and man them with trained operators.

Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, said: "The minimum work-up time to be comfortable with the system is six months, but more time is preferable."

Hewson said the Iranian S-300 deal was being conducted via Belarus to afford discretion for Russia, which is already under Western scrutiny for helping Iran build a major atomic reactor.

"Belarus is the proxy route whenever Russia wants to deny it is doing the sale. But nothing happens along that route without Moscow saying so," he said. (Additional reporting by David Morgan in Washington and Daniel Flynn in Athens; Editing by Catherine Evans)

Link

[Biggs]

the TOR-1M is hardcore, can shoot down NATO fighters no problem, but the S-300 can down heavy bombers, F117, F22 and B2's, and its tracking system can find them (which is the hard part for some fo the more advanced ones)

[Boubear]

So war would have to happen, before they get this system!!

[Biggs]

not necessarily, as they will not have enough of these systems to destroy an attacking force with many advanced planes, that also have anti-radar missiles and Tomahawks etc, however, they will be able to make it bleed a hell of a lot more than Iraq or Serbia could manage.

i.e. this attack even mow if it happens will not by any means be casualty free fro the attackers, and once they get the S300 the toll on any aerial attacking force will be even higher.

[bigron]

Published on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus


Avoiding Brinksmanship With Iran

by Frida Berrigan

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/23/10538/

As the 63rd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki approaches, the world continues to face a litany of nuclear concerns. There is the failure to safeguard all the nuclear material lying loose around the globe. And proponents of nuclear power have gained ground as a result of the current energy crisis.

But the radioactive rhetoric printed on newspaper opinion pages and proclaimed from would-be presidential podiums puts Iran at the top of the nuclear list.

“Bomb, Bomb Iran,” sang John McCain — the man running for President of the United States on a record of foreign policy experience, military know-how, and gravitas — to the tune of The Beach Boys hit “Barbara Ann.” More recently, Benny Morris, an Israeli historian writing in The New York Times, opined that “Israel’s own nuclear arsenal” could be “the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project,” laying out a new argument for the central fallacy of the Cold War — winnable nuclear war — long thought to be in the ash bin of history.

This is industrial strength saber-rattling, and it could not come at a worse time.

Testing, Testing: One, Two, Three

In early July, Iran test-fired long-range missiles. The response from Israel and the United States was swift and strong, even as Tehran maintained that its program was for civilian purposes. A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, “The Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program must be of grave concern to the entire international community.” Gordon D. Johndroe, the deputy White House press secretary, urged Iran’s leaders to renounce further missile tests and “stop the development of ballistic missiles which could be used as a delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon immediately.”

How soon a “potential nuclear weapon” could be delivered is anyone’s guess. But some experts opted to look beyond the dramatic pictures and strong words to assess what Iran actually did and why. Charles Vick, an expert at GlobalSecurity.org, reviewed test footage, noting that most of the nine missiles fired were old and no longer in production. He concluded that the Iranians — while surely interested in a show of force — were also clearing out old inventory.

The White House seemed to take Iranian claims that they had extended the range of their missiles to 2,000 kilometers at face value, perhaps because it strengthened arguments for a key pillar of President Bush’s legacy — ballistic missile defense. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in the Czech Republic signing agreements to base U.S. missile interceptors in Europe at the time of the test, said “The tests are more evidence that the world needs the U.S. missile defense system.”

Scientists and Iran experts equally doubt Tehran’s claims about the missiles range, carrying capacity, and accuracy. David Wright, a physicist and co-director of UCS’s Global Security Program, who reviewed the test carefully, notes that “Iran frequently exaggerates the capability of its missiles, and it appears it is continuing that tradition with this week’s tests.”

Careful investigation reveals more than mere exaggeration. Early images released by Iranian news services were doctored to make the tests look more successful. Agence France-Presse and many other news outlets published front-page pictures showing four missiles. AFP later retracted its four-missile version, saying that the image was “apparently digitally altered” by Iranian state media. The fourth missile “has apparently been added in digital retouch to cover a grounded missile that may have failed during the test.” News of the doctored photos, which received broad coverage in the West, is unlikely to have reached the Iranian people. For all of these reasons, Dana Priest, the Washington Post investigative reporter, asserts that the tests were aimed at their own population “perhaps as a way to show they are strong before entering into talks with the evil one– the U.S. (which might signal weakness to the more hard-line crowd).”

Talking, Taking: Is Anyone Listening?

Despite the tests, the United States sent William Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, to meetings with Iran and France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, and China. These meetings were trumpeted as the highest-level sessions between Washington and Tehran since before President George W. Bush was inaugurated in 2001. But Undersecretary Burns’ presence did not signal that these talks were permanently higher on the U.S. agenda, because his participation was described as a “one time deal.”

Negotiations focused on a “freeze-for-freeze” deal. Iran would “freeze” by not adding to its nuclear program and the six parties to the negotiations would “freeze” by not seeking a new round of international sanctions for six weeks, a move which would pave the way for formal negotiations. Iran demurred, continuing to maintain that its highly enriched uranium program is for nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons. Iranian negotiators did not answer yes or no, and now the talks are postponed for another two weeks. The “freeze for freeze” was not new. It was first put on the table last year. What was new at these talks was the presence of Burns and the recent test.

Meanwhile, Iran is not the only country with the intent or capability to pursue nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency asserts that 20-30 countries have the wherewithal. We can’t offer freeze-for-freeze deals to all of them, so there must be some other tools in the tool box.

What’s Next?

Meanwhile on the campaign trail, candidates are rehashing their long-held positions. Democratic contender Barack Obama has repeatedly said he would engage in “tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” But, at the same time he told supporters that Iran’s nuclear ambitions represent a “serious threat to the United States, to our ally Israel and to international security.” When not adapting popular song lyrics, Republican hopeful John McCain calls an Iran with nuclear weapons an “unacceptable risk” to regional and global stability, and has repeatedly asserted that there is “only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran.”

Neither candidate has addressed the dangerous game of brinksmanship now being played by leaders in Tehran, Tel Aviv, and Washington. There is a course toward security for all three nations and the region. Bold alternatives to brinksmanship begin with the recognition that Washington’s policy of quietly green-lighting Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program on the one hand while thwarting Iran’s still-unrealized nuclear ambitions on the other has undermined its ability to offer acceptable carrots or sticks. A series of interlocking confidence-building measures that support steady and careful negotiations marked by mutual compromise does not grab headlines the way fear-mongering and hyperbole do. But, before we head into a mess of nuclear proportions, it is well worth an honest try.

Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.

Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies

[bigron]

US Lawyer Seeks To Sue US Over Iran Threats

By Chris Gelken
http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=64435&sectionid=3510302

23/07/08 "Press TV" -- 22/07/08  -- Tehran -- An American lawyer has offered to represent Iran in an international lawsuit against Israel and his own government in an effort to stop Washington and Tel Aviv from initiating further sanctions against Tehran.

Francis A. Boyle says following Washington's latest ultimatum to Tehran to freeze uranium enrichment within two weeks or face further isolation, Iran needs to act quickly.

At weekend talks in Geneva, the United States delivered what it describes as a “clear and simple message” that Iran must choose between cooperation or confrontation.

In an email interview with Press TV, Boyle urged Iran to begin drafting lawsuits for presentation to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague before the two-week ultimatum expires.

Q. Precisely what would the charges against the US and Israel be? What are you hoping to achieve?

A. About two years ago Iran contacted me about a proposal I had made to sue the United States, Israel and the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) at the International Court of Justice in The Hague for their repeated and public threats to launch a military attack upon Iran over its undoubted right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to engage in nuclear reprocessing.

My proposal was that Iran should sue these states immediately, convene an Emergency Hearing by the World Court, and ask the Court to indicate provisional measures of protection on behalf of Iran against the United States, Israel and the EU-3 -- basically a temporary restraining order.

I felt that these lawsuits would be able to prevent a military attack against Iran and also prevent the imposition of sanctions against Iran by the United Nations Security Council. In addition, by Iran submitting this entire matter to the World Court, it would make it clear to the entire world who the real culprits are here.

The threat and use of military force clearly violates Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The Charter also mandates the peaceful resolution of international disputes. By filing these lawsuits Iran would prove to the entire world that it intends to resolve this matter peacefully and in accordance with international law.

I notice that just this week Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei publicly stated that he would sue the United States if it attacked Iran. I am proposing that we sue the United States immediately in order to prevent any attack upon or blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war.

Q. Why are you seeing to bring this action in an international court, rather than a domestic US court?

A. This would be a total waste of time. Based upon my prior experience, there is no way a United States court would rule against the United States government on a matter like this.

Q. You are proposing to represent Iran in a court action against the US and Israel - what are you seeking from Tehran - what mandate would they need to give you. Basically, how would this work?

A. Of course if Iran wants me to represent Iran in these lawsuits I would be happy to do so. But given the fact that I am a US national, Iran might prefer to have its own lawyers file these lawsuits. Iran already has a detailed Memorandum of Law from me on these lawsuits. The Iranian lawyers can simply use my Memorandum as they see fit. I would be happy to assist them in whatever way they desire.

Q. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been in the news recently regarding a prosecution against Sudan's leader, Omar al-Bashir. Explain the difference between the ICJ and the ICC.

A. The International Court of Justice deals with disputes between states, which the nuclear reprocessing dispute is all about. The International Criminal Court deals with the personal criminal responsibility of individuals. It has no authority to rule upon or settle disputes between states, which the ICJ can do.

Q. The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC - what is its relationship with the ICJ?

A. The ICJ would have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits by Iran against the United States, Israel and the EU-3 irrespective of the ICC.

Q. Israel regularly disregards international court verdicts and UN resolutions (the Separation Wall, settlement expansion etc.) What makes you believe there is value in another court action?

A. Israel has never been sued at the International Court of Justice -- the Wall was only an Advisory Opinion. By suing the United States and Israel together, Iran would make it very clear to the entire world what is really going on here by putting them in cahoots together. As of now the EU-3 are no longer threatening Iran with military force, so I would hold off from suing them at this time. But if they threaten Iran with military force, or support the United States and Israel with their threats, then of course they should be sued too.

Q. Assuming a mandate or commission is given by Tehran for you to represent them, what sort of timeline are we looking at before this goes before a judge, and then a verdict?

A. Based upon my prior experience at the World Court, it would take a few days to put the papers together and file them. We could get an Emergency Hearing by the Court within 2 weeks and an Order of Provisional Measures of Protection on behalf of Iran -- a temporary restraining order against the US and Israel -- within a week thereafter.

I filed the World Court lawsuit for Bosnia against Serbia over genocide on March 19, 1993, had the emergency hearing by the Court on April 1-2, and won the Order for Bosnia on 8 April 1993.

Given the inconclusive results at weekend talks in Geneva and the decision that Iran will be given another two weeks for its final answer, I respectfully submit that Iran should start moving on this process now. The Wall Street Journal has already reported moves for more unilateral, multilateral, and Security Council sanctions against Iran, including a blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war.

At a minimum, Iran should draft the Court documents now, then see what happens after Iran presents its "final offer" in two weeks.

Q. If you achieve positive verdict, how would you expect the verdict to be worded? Are there any sanctions against a state that does not abide by the ruling?

A. I would ask for Iran to be protected from a military attack by the United States and Israel in the most comprehensive language possible, including a blockade of Iran by the United States, a termination of all threats and use of military force, and of all measures of political, diplomatic and economic coercion against Iran.

The Order would go to the Security Council for enforcement.

If the US should exercise its veto, then we could try to take it to the United Nations General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution, where we would only need a two-thirds vote. In any event, this World Court Order would make it clear to the entire world who is right and who is wrong in this dispute.

Q. You have commented on the levels of rhetoric, what influence could this have on any court action?

A. I fully stand for a peaceful resolution of this dispute by means of diplomacy. But if the United States will not engage in good faith negotiations with Iran, then their and Israel's escalating threat and use of military force against Iran will only make it easier for me to win an Order from the World Court protecting Iran from the United States and Israel and, if necessary, the EU-3

Q. Another timeline question. Assuming this court action is aimed at preventing armed conflict, how urgent is it to commence the proceedings?

A. Apparently, according to CNN today, Iran has two weeks to prepare its final answer. That would be enough time to prepare all these documents. If the talks break down after Iran submits its "final offer," then we could immediately file the lawsuits, ask for an Emergency Hearing by the World Court, and request the Orders protecting Iran.

Back in early 1992, President Bush Snr. had the Sixth Fleet on military maneuvers off the coast of Libya planning for an attack and had US jet fighters penetrating Libyan airspace to provoke an attack over the Lockerbie matter.

We filed similar papers with the World Court on behalf of Libya against the United States and the United Kingdom, asking for an Emergency Hearing by the Court. President Bush Snr. then ordered the Sixth Fleet to stand down. There was no military attack against Libya then or later. Those World Court lawsuits eventually led to a peaceful resolution of the Lockerbie dispute between Libya, the United States and the United Kingdom, which now have normal diplomatic relations. Hopefully the same can be done here by means of these World Court lawsuits.

Q. During an appearance on Press TV's Middle East Today program in April this year you requested backing from Tehran for a court action against Israel on charges of genocide against Israel. Has there been any movement, any response? What is the current status?

A. This proposal is currently pending in the Office of President Ahmadinejad. The suffering of the Palestinians constitutes genocide. I am still willing to file that lawsuit if the President so desires. But given the urgency of the situation, and the threat of a terrible war, it might be best to get these nuclear-related lawsuits against the United States and Israel underway at this time, then act to protect the Palestinians from Israel later. Of course all this is for President Ahmadinejad to decide, not me.

Q. You successfully sued Serbia - but in the political atmosphere at the time, Serbia was widely perceived as the "bad guy" and frankly, the pro-Serbia lobby in the United States is insignificant. These cases are rather different, given popular support for Israel in the US. You will be representing what is widely regarded in the US as an unpopular or even hostile government against your own country and Washington's main ally in the Middle East.

How concerned are you regarding your professional reputation at home? Potentially, how damaging could this be for you - even with a successful outcome?

A. Back in 2004, the FBI/CIA put me on all the US government's so-called "terrorist watch lists" because I refused to become an informant for them on my Arab and Muslim clients, which would have violated their rights under the US Constitution and my ethical obligations as an attorney.

So I am sure there will be further repercussions. But under no circumstance do I want to see a war between Iran and the United States, which could readily degenerate into World War III.

With all due respect to Iran's leaders, they must not underestimate the ruthlessness and cruelty of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and their Straussian Neo-Conservative advisors when it comes to their willingness to use military force against Iran.

We must do everything in our power to prevent a war and obtain a peaceful resolution of this dispute over nuclear reprocessing that in my opinion can be resolved satisfactorily. These World Court lawsuits will contribute towards a peaceful resolution of this dispute between Iran and the United States, which will then order Israel to stand down.

 

Copyright Press TV
 

[bigron]

Why is Gordon Brown repeating a mistranslation ?

By The Editor
http://worldpressnetwork.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=359

22/07/08 - - "World Press" -- -- The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's never called for Israel "to be wiped off the map". This has been confirmed by many Iranian language experts. That the mainstream media have repeated and echoed the original mistranslation from 2005 attests to their bias and hidden agenda.

However, it is shocking for this mistranslation to be repeated TODAY by the Prime Minister of Britain, when addressing the Israeli parliament. Another sign of selective amnesia abd double-standards by ignoring Israeli threats of attacking Iran. Let us not forget that Iran doesn't have the capability to wipe Israel off the map, but Israel has more than enough to wipe most of the world off the map (thanks to its 200+ nuclear weapons built thanks to help and assistance from Britain, USA etc.).

Part of the shock is that Gordon Brown's audacity in thinking he could get away with it. Does he really think he has the world's media in his back pocket ? Has he forgotten the alternative media ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7516580.stm
 
Monday, 21 July 2008 11:45 UK
Brown issues Iran nuclear warning

Britain is determined to prevent Iran developing nuclear arms, Gordon Brown has warned in an address to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.

He said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel "to be wiped off the map" was abhorrent.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm
 
'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
by Arash Norouzi

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

 

[bigron]

Method In The Madness

Why They Want To Attack Iran

By Ed Kinane
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20342.htm

23/07/08 "ICH" -- - These days we’re on needles and pins. We keep our fingers crossed. We hope the US won’t attack Iran. There are good reasons to believe it won’t. Elsewhere I’ve argued the folly of doing so.

Cheney and Bush, no doubt, have heard such reasons and yet still itch to attack. They’ve got the aircraft carriers and Cruise missiles in place. They keep poking Iran hoping to get an overreaction. They keep saber-rattling.

Why, we all wonder, would they replay the same -- or even greater – debacle as in Iraq? Many readers may be too humane to fathom what goes on in those men’s minds. Sociopaths are hard to understand. Nonetheless we must try.

Who knows? Part of Cheney and Bush’s crusade may be theological. Isn’t it god-like to unleash the Predators? Isn’t it god-like to threaten and surge, kill and explode? Islamic Iraq and Islamic Afghanistan may seem to those men like latter-day Sodoms and Gomorrahs. Having smote them, let Islamic Iran be next.

Besides, having failed to force Iraq and Afghanistan to submit, they may well crave another chance. They certainly seek to shore up their faltered administration. They’ve seen how a new war distracts from scandals in high places. And how it distracts from policy disasters, both domestic and international. A new war puffs up otherwise plummeting presidential and vice presidential polls. Our cowed and co-opted Congress rolls over during war. War pumps up executive power.

But for much of the power structure backing Cheney and Bush, it’s economics that rule. The anti-Iran orchestra has all the might and momentum of the Imperium. The US – with its proxies and puppets, its air, land and sea forces, its Delta and Special forces -- now occupies not only Iraq but much of the Middle East.

The threatened attack is bigger than Cheney and Bush. The US is engaged in a bi-partisan, multi-administration, region-wide resource war. The US oiligarchy covets the region’s (including Iran’s) vast energy reserves. [See Michael T. Klare’s, “Blood and Oil” (2004)]. Reinforcing that imperial thieving are other, subsidiary greeds, other hungers for power.

Demonizing Iran is an old trick. It does what demonizing the Soviet Union did decades ago: it pumps up the jingo mindset. It pumps up military budgets. Military spending draws down domestic spending – a key right-wing agenda.

Attacking Iran keeps the pot boiling. It perpetuates the phony war on terror. More war provides more enemies and so more pretext to erode civil liberties. Unscrupulous politicians and certain corporations thrive when fear keeps people dumb and dazed. With another invasion the Halliburtons and Blackwaters get to lap up more contracts.

Realpolitik demands we crush our rivals. Despite its intense resistance, militarily Iraq is broken – in the Middle East that just leaves Iran. Going after Iran would further align our power structure to Israel’s military machine and to its allies here in the US. Neutralizing Iran would further strangle those pesky Palestinians.

But note: it’s delusory to think that attacking Iran will just be a spasm of quick, “surgical” air strikes. Wars morph; violence bounces. Violating Iran will generate enormous blowback, both in the region and here in the US. This country will polarize. Widespread dissent or “terrorist” retaliation – contrived or otherwise -- might lead to martial law.

Surely the think tankers have explored the martial law card and have worked out every last detail of implementation. The plans are right there on the shelf. Martial law could provide the pretext for postponing the November election. Far fetched? Does the gang in Washington act as if it’s ready to bow out? Can it really allow subpoena power and indictment power to fall into unfriendly hands?

Now, if elections do go forward and we’re bogged down with Iran, McCain -- marketed as the tough, commander-in-chief type – will be more likely to win this otherwise uphill vote. But even if Obama wins, at least his White House years might be hamstrung cleaning up one vast mess. An Iran war begun before either the election or inauguration would, conveniently, derail any partisan domestic agenda he and a Democrat-controlled Congress may have.

***

If you’ve read this far, go with me a little further. Consider this back room scenario. Sometime late this summer Cheney and Bush’s people offer the Obama camp a deal: “Have your new attorney general drop any Iraq war crime charges and we won’t drop the bombs...”

Kinane visited Iran in 2007. Reach him at edkinane@verizon.net
 

[Boubear]

Democratic contender Barack Obama has repeatedly said he would engage in “tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” But, at the same time he told supporters that Iran’s nuclear ambitions represent a “serious threat to the United States, to our ally Israel and to international security.”

They are all one mentality!!  War, war, war!!

[bigron]

Military strike not an option on Iran, EU ministers say

LEIGH PHILLIPS
http://euobserver.com/9/26526
23.07.2008 @ 09:26 CET

European Union foreign ministers on Tuesday (22 July) called for further diplomacy in dealing with concerns over Iran's nuclear programme and ruled out a military strike as an option.

UK foreign secretary David Miliband said following the meeting: "We are 100 percent focussed on a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian issue."

 
Uranium enrichment: Iran insists it is for peaceful purposes (Photo: wikipedia)
The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said there was "no other route" apart from diplomacy.

"The position of the European Union is clear," said Mr Solana according to the AP. "We want to find a diplomatic solution to this, in particular to clarify to the fullest the nature of their nuclear programme."

Mr Solana outlined for the ministers the results of a meeting on Saturday between Iran and diplomats from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, and Russia, where Tehran was encouraged to halt its uranium enrichment in return for a package of economic and political carrots.

With the US for the first time sending a high-ranking diplomat to the meeting, expectations were high that better relations between the two main antagonists would bear fruit. However, Iran maintained that its nuclear programme had only peaceful purposes.

American secretary of state Condoleeza Rice described Iran's negotiations following the meeting as "not serious."

Mr Solana on Tuesday however said he hoped to have "to have clear and simple answers" from Tehran within two weeks' time.

The six nations and the EU have given Iran a fortnight to reply to the latest offer. If the response is unsatisfactory, further sanctions could be considered.

"The offer that has been made to Iran on the one hand...and the sanctions on the other, if they refuse to engage and reply, is exactly the right approach," said Mr Miliband following the EU ministers' meeting.

© 2008 EUobserver.com. All rights reserved. Printed on 24.07.2008.

[bigron]

Ex-US advisors: Iran attack 'disaster'

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:29:01
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64546&sectionid=351020101


Two former senior White House security advisors have warned that a military attack against Iran would be a catastrophe for the US.

"If we get into a war with Iran, we know there would be disaster, we know there would be a disaster," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, ex-president Jimmy Carter's national security advisor on Tuesday.

"The United States will become involved in a four-front war, probably for roughly two decades. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf," he said during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.

The US accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, insisting the country should either stop nuclear enrichment or face confrontation. Rejecting the allegation, Tehran argues its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Also, advisor to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, said at the meeting, "Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or later?"

Both former advisors said only diplomacy backed by stronger sanctions and no preconditions for negotiations might work to overcome the current frigid US-Iran relations.

In a major shift from Washington's past policy, the US Under Secretary of State William Burns attended for the first time in talks on Iran's nuclear program in Geneva on Saturday involving Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, as well as representatives from China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany.

MK/BGH

[bigron]

Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran

For something that's not supposed to exist, the anti-war movement sure was effective in fighting a recent resolution to blockade Iran.

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet
Posted on July 22, 2008, Printed on July 24, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/92395/


Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United States? In the past two months, the anti-war movement has taken on one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States in an important fight. And so far, the anti-war movement is winning.

Here's the story: On May 22, a bill was introduced into Congress that effectively called for a blockade of Iran, H. Con. Res. 362. Among other expressions of hostility, the bill calls for: "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran ... " This sounded an awful lot like it was calling for a blockade, which is an act of war. A dangerous proposition, especially given all the efforts that the Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer to a military confrontation with Iran, the bluster and the threats, and the refusal to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government. The last thing we need is for the war party to get encouragement from Congress to initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous hostilities in the Persian Gulf. If the bill were to pass, the Bush Administration could take it as a green light for a blockade. It's hard to imagine the Iranians passively watching their economy strangled for lack of gasoline (which they import), without at least firing a few missiles at the blockaders.

Whereupon all hell could break loose.

By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress, with 169 co-sponsors, soon to accumulate more than 200 Representatives. Amazingly, it was projected to appear quickly on the House Suspension Calendar. This is a special procedure that allows the House of Representatives to pass non-controversial legislation by a super-majority. It allows the bill to avoid amendments and other procedural votes, as well as normal debate. An aide to the Democratic leadership said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot knife through butter."

Groups opposed to military confrontation with Iran sprang into action, including Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, the National Iranian-American Council, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Code Pink, and Just Foreign Policy. They generated tens of thousands of emails, letters, phone calls, and other contacts with members of Congress and their staff. The first co-sponsor to change his position on the bill was Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), an influential member of Congress who chairs the powerful House Financial Services Committee. He apologized for "not having read [the bill] more carefully," and pledged that he would not support the bill with the blockade language.

Then Robert Wexler, (D-FL), peeled off, also stating that he would not continue to support the bill if the blockade language were not changed.

Most of the major media ignored the controversy, but two newspapers noticed it. The first was Seattle's Post-Intelligencer, whose editorial board denounced the resolution on June 24 and asked, "are supporters of Res. 362 asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious to drag us into another illegal war?"

Then on June 27 the editorial board of Newsday published an editorial calling for a full debate on the bill. Newsday has a large circulation, and perhaps more importantly, it publishes in the New York district of Congressman Gary Ackerman -- the lead author of the H. Con. Res. 362.

Then, earlier this month, Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) wrote: "[Howard] Berman [Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs] has indicated that he has no intention of moving the bill through his committee unless the language is first altered to ensure that there is no possible way it could be construed as authorizing any type of military action against Iran ... I will withdraw my support for the bill if this change is not made."

The result, so far: no Congressional endorsement of a blockade against Iran. A dangerous piece of legislation, primed to pass through the House without debate, stopped in its tracks by an anti-war movement. And some Members of Congress are going to be a bit more careful about doing things that could move the country down the road to another war.

The anti-war movement's victory was all the more impressive given that the main lobby group promoting H. Con. Res. 362 was AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Although AIPAC does not represent the opinion of the majority of American Jews, it is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. To get a flavor of how much influence it has, AIPAC's annual policy meeting in Washington in June was attended by half of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Washington Post. It's tough to think of another Washington lobby group that could pull off something like that -- certainly no other organization concerned with foreign policy comes to mind.

Of course, this is just one skirmish in the long battle to end this current, senseless war in Iraq -- a war that has needlessly claimed the lives of more than 4000 Americans and, according to the best scientific estimates, more than a million Iraqis; and to prevent our leaders from launching another criminally insane war. But it shows that, even in the rather limited form of democracy as exists in 21st century America, there is an organized anti-war movement and it has real power. It doesn't look like the anti-war movement of the last century, with street demonstrations, nationally known leaders, and regular expressions of public outrage. (It's not clear that the major media would give much more attention to the movement or its views -- that is, the views of the majority of the country -- even if it did pull huge crowds into the streets.)

But it is there, it is organized, it is intelligent and strategic. It will continue to grow, no matter what happens in November.

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/92395/

[bigron]

Opportunity Knocked


by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=19440
07.23.2008


There is an opportunity to hammer out a grand compromise with Iran—one that would even address its nuclear program. But the Bush administration seems determined to prevent talks that could advance vital U.S. interests.

Much of the media coverage of last Saturday’s nuclear talks between representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (the so-called P-5+1, including the United States), and the secretary general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, reflected a disturbing historical amnesia about previous U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Indeed, listening to most media outlets, one gets the impression that the Islamic Republic is nothing but a rogue regime committed to the destruction of the United States—or, at least, of Israel. Yet, while Tehran pursues a range of policies that work against U.S. interests, it also has a history of working with Washington, most recently on Afghanistan and Iraq. And, from an American perspective, these interactions have been highly productive.

Watching TV and reading the newspapers one would be led to believe that the participation of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns in the meeting with Jalili was the “highest-level” and most significant U.S. diplomatic interaction with the Islamic Republic since 1979. This is factually incorrect. Both Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Secretary of State Colin Powell participated in UN-sponsored discussions on Afghanistan with their Iranian counterpart; Powell also met with the Iranian foreign minister in 2004 in regional talks about Iraq.

Moreover, during the last two decades, working-level U.S. officials have repeatedly engaged in substantive exchanges with Iran over a range of specific issues—over U.S. hostages in Lebanon during the 1980s and early 1990s, over support for beleaguered Bosnian Muslims during the mid-1990s, and over Afghanistan and al-Qaeda during 2001–2003. Most recently, U.S. and Iranian officials have met to discuss political and security problems in Iraq’s postconflict stabilization.

In Lebanon, Bosnia and Afghanistan too, Tehran did much—not all, but much—of what was asked of it.  For example, in official U.S.-Iranian negotiations over Afghanistan—in which one of us, Hillary Mann Leverett, participated from 2001 to 2003—the Iranians deported hundreds of suspected al-Qaeda operatives who had fled Afghanistan, warned that insufficient attention to postconflict stabilization would leave pockets of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters to reemerge later, delivered important regional warlords to the bargaining table to support creation of a pro-American, post-Taliban political order under President Hamid Karzai, and dissuaded anti-American warlords from acting as “spoilers.”

Furthermore, while these negotiations were ongoing, Tehran was not spinning centrifuges or enriching uranium, and Hezbollah—Iran’s chief terrorist proxy—was kept on a tighter leash than has been the case during the last several years.

Even in Iraq, where Iran’s role is often portrayed by the Bush administration and its allies as hostile and destabilizing, Washington’s reluctant participation in Iraqi-brokered security talks with Iranian representatives has had positive results. Since those talks commenced in early 2007, Iran has brokered critical ceasefires between Iraqi government forces and various Shia militias that have helped to lower the overall level of violence in Iraq. Tehran has also provided consistent recognition and support for the U.S.-backed Maliki government in Baghdad—something which America’s Arab allies have yet to do in a sustained way. If one considers the extent to which Iran could be acting through various proxies to damage the U.S. position in Iraq, it is hard to avoid the politically unpopular conclusion that Tehran has actually been relatively restrained in its resort to proxy violence in Iraq during the past eighteen months. And, the record suggests that, if the Bush administration had been more forward leaning in pursuing serious dialogue with Iran over Iraq, Tehran would be cooperating with a wider range of U.S. goals there.

Iranian officials involved in interactions with the United States over Lebanon, Bosnia and Afghanistan have told us that Tehran worked with Washington on these issues not only because U.S. and Iranian interests overlapped, but also because Iranian leaders hoped that issue-specific cooperation would trigger a broader process of U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. However, successive U.S. administrations terminated such cooperation with Iran, primarily because of concerns about domestic political blowback in the United States or—in the case of the current Bush administration—ideological antagonism toward the Islamic Republic, a charter member of President Bush’s “axis of evil.” This not only imposed opportunity costs on American interests in the Middle East—by foregoing the possibility of better relations with a key regional actor—but also hardened Iranian perceptions that the United States is unwilling to live with the Islamic Republic.

The Bush administration is setting itself up to repeat this costly pattern—by imposing a two-week artificial deadline for Tehran to accept a particular definition of a “freeze” on its nuclear program, and, beyond that, a further deadline for Tehran to accept a particular (essentially British) definition of “suspension” of its uranium-enrichment activities. If this happens, it will be one more missed opportunity in the tortured history of U.S.-Iranian relations.

During his visit to the United Nations in New York earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki noted that he saw an opening for comprehensive dialogue between the United States and the Islamic Republic, not only on the nuclear issue but also on other important issues of mutual concern. Mottaki said that he was positively impressed by a number of new features in the Western approach to Iran, including the inclusion of language in the recently revised P-5+1 incentives package reaffirming the major powers’ “obligation under the UN Charter to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” (The Bush administration had insisted that such language be deleted from the first P-5+1 incentives package presented to Tehran in 2006.) Mottaki also cited Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s signature on the letter accompanying the revised package, along with the willingness of the P-5+1 to explore “modalities” for moving forward diplomatically that would not require the immediate suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities. (Some diplomats describe this as “pre-negotiations” or “talks about talks.”)

On this basis, Mottaki believed that it should be possible to formulate a comprehensive diplomatic agenda between the Islamic Republic, the United States, and other key international players, drawing on the P-5+1 incentives package as well as a letter that Mottaki sent to UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon in May. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to fashion such a comprehensive agenda by imposing, before the fact, narrow definitions of the “freezing” and “suspension” of uranium enrichment and tight deadlines for Iran’s acceptance of such definitions. Many in Iran see such preconditions for serious negotiations with the United States and other important players as, effectively, demands for the Islamic Republic’s unilateral surrender before talks even begin.

If we go down this road again—cutting off dialogue with Tehran in the next two weeks and pushing for more (largely feckless) sanctions at the United Nations in September—it is virtually guaranteed that the result will be more photo ops with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in front of newly installed and more sophisticated centrifuges at Iran’s principal enrichment facility at Natanz. In such an environment, with no diplomatic option to defuse the nuclear issue, concern will grow in Israel and in important parts of the American body politic about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, pushing the United States yet again toward the precipice of another military conflict in the heart of the Middle East.

Instead of pushing arbitrary deadlines and preconditions for moving ahead on “pre-negotiations” with Iran, the Bush administration should be working with its international partners and Iranian representatives to fashion a comprehensive diplomatic agenda for resolving the nuclear issue and achieving broader U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. “Pre-negotiations” on such an agenda are vital, and should not be subject to dysfunctional conditions and requirements.

If a failed Bush administration, in its last months in office, feels it must hold onto suspension as a condition for full-fledged negotiations with Iran, it should nonetheless allow these “pre-negotiations” to proceed. The immediate goal should be to persuade Iran that it is not necessary to expand its nuclear program in provocative ways or move more explicitly toward weaponization. To that end, the Bush administration and its international partners should not dismiss a de facto, undeclared “freeze” of Iran’s fuel cycle activities—and continued transparency of those activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency—as a workable basis for progress.

The next president of the United States, whether John McCain or Barack Obama, will face challenging decisions about Iran and the Middle East more broadly. President Bush’s successor should not find his options dysfunctionally circumscribed because the Bush administration was unwilling to admit error (even if only to itself) and move beyond failed policies.

 

Flynt Leverett, Senior Fellow and Director of the New America Foundation’s Geopolitics of Energy Initiative, served as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council. Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of Stratega, a political-risk consultancy, is a former Foreign Service officer who served as director for Iran, Afghanistan and Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council. She participated in official U.S.-Iranian negotiations over Afghanistan from 2001 to 2003.

[bigron]

Why not? 

THIS IS A MUST READ



24/07/2008 06:00:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=141104

 
 Anyone who wants to guess whether Israel and/or the United States are going to attack Iran should look at the map of the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.


By Uri Avnery

If you want to understand the policy of a country, look at the map - as Napoleon recommended.

Anyone who wants to guess whether Israel and/or the United States are going to attack Iran should look at the map of the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.

Through this narrow waterway, only 34 km wide, pass the ships that carry between a fifth and a third of the world's oil, including that from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.


Most of the commentators who talk about the inevitable American and Israeli attack on Iran do not take account of this map.

There is talk about a "sterile", a "surgical" air strike. The mighty air fleet of the United States will take off from the aircraft carriers already stationed in the Persian Gulf and the American air bases dispersed throughout the region and bomb all the nuclear sites of Iran - and on this happy occasion also bomb government institutions, army installations, industrial centers and anything else they might fancy. They will use bombs that can penetrate deep into the ground.

Simple, quick and elegant - one blow and bye-bye Iran, bye-bye ayatollahs, bye-bye Ahmadinejad.

If Israel attacks alone, the blow will be more modest. The most the attackers can hope for is the destruction of the main nuclear sites and a safe return.

I have a modest request: before you start, please look at the map once more, at the Strait named (probably) after the god of Zarathustra.


The inevitable reaction to the bombing of Iran will be the blocking of this Strait. That should have been self-evident even without the explicit declaration by one of Iran's highest ranking generals a few days ago.

Iran dominates the whole length of the Strait. They can seal it hermetically with their missiles and artillery, both land based and naval.

If that happens, the price of oil will skyrocket - far beyond the 200 dollars-per-barrel that pessimists dread now. That will cause a chain reaction: a world-wide depression, the collapse of whole industries and a catastrophic rise in unemployment in America, Europe and Japan.

In order to avert this danger, the Americans would need to conquer parts of Iran - perhaps the whole of this large country. The U.S. does not have at its disposal even a small part of the forces they would need. Practically all their land forces are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The mighty American navy is menacing Iran - but the moment the Strait is closed, it will itself resemble those model ships in bottles. Perhaps it is this danger that made the navy chiefs extricate the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln from the Persian Gulf, ostensibly because of the situation in Pakistan.

This leaves the possibility that the U.S. will act by proxy. Israel will attack, and this will not officially involve the U.S., which will deny any responsibility.

Indeed? Iran has already announced that it would consider an Israeli attack as an American operation, and act as if it had been directly attacked by the U.S. That is logical.


No Israeli government would ever consider the possibility of starting such an operation without the explicit and unreserved agreement of the U.S. Such a confirmation will not be forthcoming.

So what are all these exercises, which generate such dramatic headlines in the international media?

The Israeli Air Force has held exercises at a distance of 1500 km from our shores. The Iranians have responded with test firings of their Shihab missiles, which have a similar range. Once, such activities were called "saber rattling", nowadays the preferred term is "psychological warfare". They are good for failed politicians with domestic needs, to divert attention, to scare citizens. They also make excellent television.

But simple common sense tells us that whoever plans a surprise strike does not proclaim this from the rooftops. Menachem Begin did not stage public exercises before sending the bombers to destroy the Iraqi reactor, and even Ehud Olmert did not make a speech about his intention to bomb a mysterious building in Syria.


Since King Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire some 2500 years ago, who allowed the Israelite exiles in Babylon to return to Jerusalem and build a temple there, Israeli-Persian relations have their ups and downs.

Until the Khomeini revolution, there was a close alliance between them. Israel trained the Shah's dreaded secret police ("Savak"). The Shah was a partner in the Eilat-Ashkelon oil pipeline which was designed to bypass the Suez Canal. (Iran is still trying to enforce payment for the oil it supplied then.)

The Shah helped to infiltrate Israeli army officers into the Kurdish part of Iraq, where they assisted Mustafa Barzani's revolt against Saddam Hussein. That operation came to an end when the Shah betrayed the Iraqi Kurds and made a deal with Saddam. But Israeli-Iranian cooperation was almost restored after Saddam attacked Iran. In the course of that long and cruel war (1980-1988), Israel secretly supported the Iran of the ayatollahs. The Irangate affair was only a small part of that story.

That did not prevent Ariel Sharon from planning to conquer Iran, as I have already disclosed in the past. When I was writing an in-depth article about him in 1981, after his appointment as Minister of Defense, he told me in confidence about this daring idea: after the death of Khomeini, Israel would forestall the Soviet Union in the race to Iran. The Israeli army would occupy Iran in a few days and turn the country over to the much slower Americans, who would have supplied Israel well in advance with large quantities of sophisticated arms for this express purpose.

He also showed me the maps he intended to take with him to the annual strategic consultations in Washington. They looked very impressive. It seems, however, that the Americans were not so impressed.

All this indicates that by itself, the idea of an Israeli military intervention in Iran is not so revolutionary. But a prior condition is close cooperation with the U.S. This will not be forthcoming, because the U.S. would be the primary victim of the consequences.


Iran is now a regional power. It makes no sense to deny that.

The irony of the matter is that for this they must thank their foremost benefactor in recent times: George W. Bush. If they had even a modicum of gratitude, they would erect a statue to him in Tehran's central square.

For many generations, Iraq was the gatekeeper of the Arab region. It was the wall of the Arab world against the Persian Shias. It should be remembered that during the Iraqi-Iranian war, Arab Shia Iraqis fought with great enthusiasm against Persian Shia Iranians.

When President Bush invaded Iraq and destroyed it, he opened the whole region to the growing might of Iran. In future generations, historians will wonder about this action, which deserves a chapter to itself in "The March of Folly".

Today it is already clear that the real American aim (as I have asserted in this column right from the beginning) was to take possession of the Caspian Sea/Persian Gulf oil region and station a permanent American garrison at its center. This aim was indeed achieved - the Americans are now talking about their forces remaining in Iraq "for a hundred years", and they are now busily engaged in dividing Iraq's huge oil reserves among the four or five giant American oil companies.

But this war was started without wider strategic thinking and without looking at the geopolitical map. It was not decided who is the main enemy of the U.S. in the region, neither was it clear where the main effort should be. The advantage of dominating Iraq may well be outweighed by the rise of Iran as a nuclear, military and political power that will overshadow America's allies in the Arab world.


Where do we Israelis stand in this game?

For years now, we have been bombarded by a propaganda campaign that depicts the Iranian nuclear effort as an existential threat to Israel. Forget the Palestinians, forget Hamas and Hizbullah, forget Syria - the sole danger that threatens the very existence of the State of Israel is the Iranian nuclear bomb.

I repeat what I have said before: I am not prey to this existential Angst. True, life is more pleasant without an Iranian nuclear bomb, and Ahmadinejad is not very nice either. But if the worst comes to the worst, we will have a "balance of terror" between the two nations, much like the American-Soviet balance of terror that saved mankind from World War III, or the Indian-Pakistani balance of terror that provides a framework for a rapprochement between those two countries that hate each other's guts.

On the basis of all these considerations, I dare to predict that there will be no military attack on Iran this year - not by the Americans, not by the Israelis.

As I write these lines, a little red light turns on in my head. It is related to a memory: in my youth I was an avid reader of Vladimir Jabotinsky's weekly articles, which impressed me with their cold logic and clear style. In August 1939, Jabotinsky wrote an article in which he asserted categorically that no war would break out, in spite of all the rumors to the contrary. His reasoning: modern weapons are so terrible, that no country would dare to start a war.

A few days later Germany invaded Poland, starting the most terrible war in human history (until now), which ended with the Americans dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, for 63 years, nobody has used nuclear weapons in a war.


-- Uri Avnery, an Israeli writer and peace activist, founded the Gush Shalom movement. He had served three terms as an MP at the Knesset. This article was published by Gush Shalom.   Print   Printer Friendly Version





-- Middle East Online
 

[Optimus]

Iran signals end to helping IAEA
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hA-MnM57DlQBrp4QTtM0wb6swk-Q
July 24, 2008

Iran has signalled it will no longer co-operate with International Atomic Energy Agency experts investigating for signs of nuclear weapons programmes, confirming that the probe - launched a year ago with great expectations - was at a dead end.

Coming from Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the announcement compounded international scepticism about denting Tehran's nuclear defiance just five days after Tehran stonewalled demands from six world powers to suspend activities that can produce the fissile core of warheads.

Besides demanding a stop to uranium enrichment - which can create both fuel and the nuclear missile payloads - the international community has also been pressuring Tehran to co-operate with the IAEA in its probe of allegations that Tehran hid attempts to make nuclear arms.

That investigation was launched a year ago under a so-called "work plan" between the Vienna-based agency and Tehran.

Back then, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei hailed it as "a significant step forward" that - if honoured by Iran - would fill in the missing pieces of Iran's nuclear jigsaw puzzle; nearly two decades of atomic work, all of it clandestine until revealed by dissidents nearly six years ago.

And he brushed aside suggestions that Iran was using the work plan as a smoke screen to deflect attention away from its continued defiance of a UN Security Council ban on enrichment.

But the plan ran into trouble just months after it was put into operation. Deadline after deadline was extended because of Iranian foot-dragging. The probe, originally to have been completed late last year, spilled into the first months of 2008, and then beyond.

Iran remains defiant, saying evidence from the US and other board members purportedly backing the allegations was fabricated, and Aghazadeh appeared to signal that his country was no longer prepared even to discuss the issue with the Vienna-based IAEA.

Investigating such allegations "is outside the domain of the agency," he said. Any further queries on the issue "will be dealt with in another way," he added, without going into detail.

Britain, one of the main critics of Iran's nuclear activities, was critical. "We are concerned by reports that Iran is refusing to co-operate with the IAEA on allegations over nuclear weapons," a spokesman for the Foreign Office said.

[Optimus]

Iran Faces `All Options' Over Atomic Work, Israeli General Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aoE065bAelu8&refer=home
By Jonathan Ferziger

July 24 (Bloomberg) -- Israel's top military commander said he told U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon officials that both countries must be ready to use force to stop Iran's nuclear development program if diplomacy fails.

``We all realize, both the Americans and us, that all options must be prepared,'' Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi said in an interview from Washington on Israel Radio. ``There is no doubt that diplomacy must be given priority.''

Ashkenazi, Israel's military chief of staff, is in Washington all week for talks with the U.S. on strategic cooperation amid escalating tensions with Iran.

Iran test-fired a missile on July 9 that it said was capable of reaching Israel. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the next day that Iran will have to confront ``the power and capability of the United States'' if it attacks Israel.

Ashkenazi said he met with Cheney and held talks with top military officials at the Pentagon. He is scheduled today to meet with Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Optimus]

Sanctions, diplomacy, missiles
U.S. takes aim at Iran’s sovereignty
http://www.workers.org/2008/world/iran_0731/
By Sara Flounders
Published Jul 24, 2008 5:29 AM
 
What is the significance of the widely publicized announcement that the Bush administration has finally agreed to talk to Iran?

Have U.S. aircraft carriers, nuclear-armed and powered submarines, destroyers or missiles been pulled back from Iran’s coast? Has Washington renounced its years of sabotage, assassinations and other covert actions inside Iran? Will any of the many sanctions imposed to constrict Iran’s development be lifted or even eased?

On July 19 Undersecretary of State William Burns sat in on a six-nation gathering in Geneva and “observed” nuclear negotiations between Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili and Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The talks are scheduled to resume in August, but Burns will not return for them. The one-time presence of this third-ranking diplomat is supposedly enough to show that Washington has made an effort at a diplomatic solution.

U.S. participation in the meeting came after increasingly frantic appeals from European powers and from the feudal and military regimes in the Persian Gulf region for diplomacy rather than war. They fear the destabilizing consequences of another U.S. attack. Even in top circles of the U.S. ruling class and military command, concern has been expressed about the risks and dangers of a new war.

Following his appearance at the Geneva meeting, Burns and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in Abu Dhabi with foreign ministers and senior officials of the six Gulf states, along with Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. At the meeting Rice warned that Iran had two weeks to halt its development of nuclear energy or face further “punitive measures.” Iran will also be the main topic at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers the following day.

Washington says its possible next step is to push for an intense level of international sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. If council members don’t go along with its demands, the U.S. is threatening military action.

To reinforce the threat, Rice’s statement was immediately followed by an announcement from Israeli military adviser Amos Gilad that Israel was preparing to attack Iran if diplomacy failed—and that the U.S. would not veto such action.

Although Burns sat in on the Geneva meeting, the U.S. did not give its agreement to a European proposal that, in exchange for an Iranian “freeze” on its enrichment of uranium, a six-week “freeze” be put on more restrictive sanctions against Iran. Lifting the existing sanctions was not even proposed.

U.S. sanctions have been imposed on Iran since the 1978 Iranian Revolution. Soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.N. Security Council imposed three new rounds of sanctions on Iran. Now Washington is demanding new and far harsher sanctions—despite International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) reports that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and a similar conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate report of December 2007, endorsed by the 17 top U.S. spy agencies.

Iran has every right under international law and treaties to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Its nuclear power plants are all under the inspection and safeguards of the IAEA. The IAEA has continually said that there has been no illicit diversion of declared nuclear material.

It is now clear that the State Department’s one-day venture into talks with Iran was merely positioning by Washington to get its allies to agree on far harsher economic sanctions and other efforts to sabotage Iran’s national development.

Iran’s real crime

Iran has a severe energy shortage. Although it is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, its ability to refine crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel is limited. As a country with a history of underdevelopment, Iran must import more than half its refined petroleum products to fuel its new industries and a modern transportation system. Iran is now the second-largest importer of gasoline and diesel fuel in the world. (Toronto Globe and Mail, July 22)

A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and imposing “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” This would amount to a blockade—an act of war—and a threat to Iran’s sovereignty. It is also an example of how U.S. policy is aimed at keeping resource-rich countries underdeveloped and under its control.

At the same time that the U.S. is trying to cripple Iran’s economy, supposedly over its nuclear program, it is pursuing a deal with India to provide it nuclear fuel and technology. India is not yet a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or a member of the IAEA. Iran is both.

Iran’s real crime, in the eyes of the Pentagon and the corporate oil giants who determine U.S. policy, is that it is determined to use its resources for the further development of its own economy. The other oil-producing states in the region are corrupt semi-feudal regimes, each with a compliant and dependent ruling class. These regimes are under the total control of U.S. corporations and banks. The largest portion of their vast revenue from oil sales is wasted in purchases of U.S. weapons systems or invested in U.S. banks.

Millions of Iranian people participated in the 1978 revolution that overthrew the corrupt U.S.-backed shah. Since then, great social advances have transformed Iran. Once the people liberated their oil resources from the control of giant U.S. and British corporations, billions of dollars were available to develop Iranian industries and social services.

In less than two decades, Iran moved from 90 percent illiteracy for rural women to full literacy; more than half the university graduates are now women. Stunning improvements in totally free as well as subsidized health care meant record-breaking improvements in life expectancy, birth control and infant mortality. Even according to World Bank figures, Iran has exceeded the social gains of any other country in the region.

This is what U.S. policy makers are determined to reverse. They want control of the vast wealth that comes from every aspect of exploration, pumping, transport and refining of the planet’s most valuable and needed resource. They are willing to destroy millions of lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on war in this struggle.

Past history of U.S. talks

It is important to recall the many rounds of talks between U.S. and Iraqi delegations before the war. The U.S. repeatedly demanded the authority to carry out inspections in Iraq any time, any place, to search for non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” Just before the Pentagon attack, there was the heaviest round of diplomatic talks involving Iraq, members of the U.N. Security Council and Washington’s European allies. The talks were aimed at imposing still stricter sanctions, supposedly to gain Iraq’s total disarmament. This was years after U.N. inspectors had declared Iraq fully disarmed.

It is also important to remember the U.S./NATO “peace talks” with the Yugoslav government in Rambouillet, France. U.S. negotiators gave Yugoslavia an ultimatum: accept total U.S./NATO military occupation and dismemberment or face massive bombardment. When the Parliament of the Yugoslav Federation voted overwhelmingly to refuse the NATO “peace” demand of occupation of their sovereign territory, the Pentagon began 72 days of massive bombardment followed by the NATO seizure of Kosovo.

The U.S. conducted five years of “peace negotiations” with theVietnamese while escalating its bombardment, including carpet bombing.

Secretary of State Rice has announced the U.S. is considering the establishment of an “interests section” in Tehran and compared it to the interests section that the U.S. has maintained for decades in Cuba. “We have an interests section in Cuba, so I wouldn’t read thawing of relations into anything,” she said. Throughout the decades that Washington has maintained an interests section in Havana, the blockade of Cuba, sabotage and attempted assassinations of Cuban leaders have continued.

U.S. “talks” are too often preparation for the next stage of war. It is important for the movement on a global scale to remain on the alert and to understand that U.S. imperialism’s aims and plans have not changed.

[bigron]

Russia against setting deadline for Iran 



24/07/2008 05:10:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=143797


 
 Russia opposes setting a U.S.-proposed fortnight deadline for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment.


Russia's foreign minister says his country opposes setting a US-proposed fortnight deadline for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment.

"There should be no artificial limits, either in the sense of some kind of deadline, like 'tomorrow or never', or in the endless dragging out of the process," Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying.

He was clearly referring to a two-week deadline the U.S. has set for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment or face further sanctions against its nuclear program.

Iran has been asked to respond to the package of incentives put forward by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. The package offers advantages in exchange for Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment.

The US accuses Iran of developing secret nuclear weapons program but the Islamic Republic denies the charges, stressing it is only seeking a peaceful nuclear program.



-- AJP

 

[JEH]

If Iran would become a state of Russia, there would be no problem.

[bigron]

Neocons Lash Out at White House for Diplomatic Overtures to Iran


Conservative Scholar: ‘Only Birds Left in Administration Are Poultry’

By Marc Perelman
Thu. Jul 24, 2008

http://www.forward.com/articles/13852/

The Bush administration’s recent diplomatic overtures toward Iran have unleashed a torrent of criticism from neoconservatives and have fueled concerns in Israel that Washington is shelving the option of using military force against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

After months of rejecting the possibility of negotiating with Iran until it suspends nuclear enrichment, the administration sent a high-level envoy July 20 to European-led talks with Iranian diplomats on the nuclear issue. Washington also has suggested a willingness to open a low-level diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since 1979. And Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has signaled a preference for a diplomatic solution to the standoff.

Veteran Iran hands see the developments as evidence that President Bush has decided, at least for now, to give the State Department the lead on Iran policy. The White House’s shift has infuriated the advocates of regime change who held sway in Bush’s first term but have since been gradually sidelined.

“This is a major shift, but I see it in the context of any second term administration’s Hail Mary pass to secure a legacy,” said Michael Rubin, a former Iran analyst at the Pentagon who is now working at the American Enterprise Institute. “What we see now is the State Department running the show. [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice is a chameleon, and will always go with whatever side is up.”

While rumors of impending military operations by Israel or the United States against Iran continue to surface, the latest developments mark the second time in the past year that an official American decision has drawn the ire of both defense hawks in the United States and Israel’s political and military establishment. This past December a report representing the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had likely stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The intelligence estimate prompted furious reactions from Israeli officials. The most prominent critic of the assessment was Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is scheduled to travel to Washington to try to prevent the Bush administration from shelving the military option.

The Israeli military’s chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, was also in Washington last week to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. Ashkenazi, as well as other Israeli officials, stressed that Jerusalem has not seen a change in America’s basic policy toward Iran.

Speaking to reporters after a July 23 reception at the Israeli embassy, Ashkenazi said that the United States and Israel are “united in their approach” that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. “There is no doubt that the priority is to do it in a way of diplomatic actions and sanctions,” he said. “I think this is the preferred way.” But, the lieutenant general added, both Washington and Jerusalem understand the need “to prepare all other options.”

On the diplomatic front, the Bush administration sent William Burns, the third-ranking official in the State Department, to a July 20 meeting in Geneva with European and Iranian diplomats. But Washington has since indicated that the diplomat’s involvement was a “one-off.” The administration has said that the discussions did not yield concrete results, and indicated that it would pursue further sanctions against Tehran if it refuses to suspend enrichment activities.

Such indications, however, have done little to placate those advocating a robust American policy on Iran.

“For a long time, the Bush administration maintained a studied ambiguity regarding Iran’s nuclear buildup,” said Laurent Murawiec, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan policy research organization Hudson Institute. “From the issuance of the NIE onward, it stopped doing so: In effect, it surrendered. Gone are considerations of the nature of the Iranian regime, its strategies, its intents. Everything is now vested in the ‘process,’ whereby diplomats exchange niceties, arrive nowhere and call it negotiations. Once dubbed part of the ‘Axis of Evil,’ Iran is now a legitimate partner, regardless of its hugely destabilizing action in Lebanon, Gaza, etc. The only birds left in the administration are poultry. Ms. Rice is the fowl in chief.”

Leading neoconservative John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control before he was appointed ambassador to the United Nations in 2005, has expressed a similar view. Recently, he has spoken out publicly against engagement with Iran several times, blasting the Bush administration for what he describes as a betrayal of its principles in order to save its legacy.

Gary Sick, who served as an Iran specialist at the National Security Council in the late 1970s, said that insofar as arguing that the Bush administration has fundamentally shifted away from its Iran policy earlier in the presidency, Bolton was “absolutely right.”

“While much of the world was hyperventilating over the possibility that the United States (and maybe Israel) were getting ready to launch a new war against Iran, Bolton was looking at the realities and concluding that far from bombing, the U.S. was preparing to do a deal with Iran,” Sick wrote in a recent posting. “He will have observed that the worst of the neocons (including himself) are now writing books and spending more time with families and friends, cheerleading for more war by writing Op-Eds from the outside rather than pursuing their strategies in policy meetings in the White House.”

Larry Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to then-secretary of state Colin Powell during Bush’s first term and has since become one of the neoconservatives’ most prominent critics, cautioned that administration hawks might again return to favor in Washington.

The decision to send Burns to Geneva, Wilkerson said, was “a sign that the administration believes it has gained some strategic leverage vis-à-vis Iran and that it can now pursue what Bush has said he was pursuing all along — real diplomacy. This means that Rice is ascendant and [Deputy National Security Advisor] Elliott Abrams and Dick Cheney are in their boxes. How long this lasts, however, is a good question.”

With reporting by Nathan Guttman in Washington.

[MountainResistance]

i know this is off topic but does anyone know what happened to the  nwo.info  site?

[Boubear]

Report: Convoy shipping arms to Hizbullah destroyed in Tehran blast

London-based Daily Telegraph reports of mysterious blast in military convoy leaving Revolutionary Guards Base last weekend. At least 15 people killed in explosion, but Iranian authorities seeking to silence incident

Ynet
Published:    07.25.08, 10:09 / Israel News

Was sabotage responsible for disrupting a shipment of arms from Iran to Hizbullah ? The London-based Daily Telegraph newspaper reported Friday of a mysterious explosion which devastated an Iranian supply convoy intended to reach Hizbullah.

According to the report, the strong blast took place in one of Tehran's suburbs as a military convoy left a Revolutionary Guards' ammunition storehouse. At least 15 people were killed in the explosion.

Western sources reported that the blast took place on July 19 and that the convoy was carrying military equipment for the Lebanese terror organization.

It was also reported that senior Revolutionary Guards officials banned the Iranian media from reporting the explosion, even though it was heard throughout the capital. The Guards launched an investigation into the incident.

An official source told the newspaper that the strong explosion was heard across Tehran, adding that the Revolutionary Guards were trying to silence the incident despite the fact that many people were killed.

Additional explosions and mysterious incidents which have taken place in Iran recently are being investigated by the Revolutionary Guards. In one of the incidents, a blast rocked a mosque in the city of Shiraz, where weapons were being displayed, killing 11 people.

Iranian Intelligence Minister Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei said following the incident that the main suspect in the affair was arrested.

"The terrorist group had ties with the US and Britain. These countries were informed of the arrest by the Foreign Ministry," he said, "but the countries did nothing to prevent these terror groups' activity."

Link

[Biggs]

A PRETTY DAMNHED CLEAR CASE OF SOME SORT OF COVERT OR PROXY OPS CARRIED OUT BY US/UK/ISRAEL, EITHER DIRECTLY VIA SPECIAL FORCES OR THROUGH JANDULLAH, KJAP OR OTHER TERRORIST PROXY GROUP

Iran convoy attacked reportedly while taking arms to Hezbollah

By Haaretz Service

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1005551.html



An Iranian military convoy attacked in a mysterious explosion last week was delivering a load of military equipment to the Hezbollah militant group at the time of the blast, western officials told the London Daily Telegraph in a report published on Friday.

Details of the explosion, which occurred near a Revolutionary Guards' munitions warehouse in the Tehran suburb of Khavarshahar and left 15 people dead, were blacked out even in Iranian media.

Western officials told the Telegraph that the Revolutionary Guards had launched an investigation into the cause mystery blast, which apparently took place on July 19.    Advertisement


"This was a massive explosion that was heard throughout Tehran," an official told the Telegraph. "Even though lots of people were killed, the Revolutionary Guards are trying to conceal what really happened."

The Guards are investigating the possibility that the explosion was the result of sabotage, the officials said. There have been a number of unexplained explosions in Iran of late, including on at a mosque in Shiraz during a military exhibition, and another at a missile site.

The West believes Iran has been increasing its military support of Hezbollah recently, in case of a future armed confrontation over its nuclear program.

Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles sent via Turkey, according to intelligence received in Israel. Turkish authorities are unaware of the arms shipments, which are in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 that brought an end to the Second Lebanon War.

Some of the weapons include long-range missiles that are being transfered through flights using Turkey's airspace, as well as overland though Turkey, under the guise of civilian cargo. From Turkey, the missiles are transfered to Syria and then Lebanon. Turkey has not permitted the use of its territory for such transfers.

Sources in Jerusalem said earlier this year that Israel is concerned Iran might start moving weapons to Hezbollah by means of ships that anchor in the Beirut port.

The sources said oversight of marine vessels by UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was not efficient enough to enforce an embargo on weapons shipments into Lebanon and to pinpoint such shipments.

[bigron]

If Iran is Attacking It Might Really be Israel

By Philip Giraldi

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/07/24/if-iran-is-attacking-it-might-really-be-israel/

25/07/08 "American Conservative" -- - The Benny Morris op-ed in the NYT last Friday should provide convincing evidence that Israel really really really wants an attack against Iran sooner rather than later. Morris is close to the Israeli government and his case that Iran must be bombed soon and with maximum conventional weaponry to avoid using nukes later was clearly intended to push the United States to do the attacking. The likelihood that Dick Cheney is almost certainly supportive of a US pre-emptive strike and might well be pulling strings behind the scenes, possibly without the knowledge of the Great Decider, makes the next several months particularly significant if a war is to be avoided.

Some intel types are beginning to express concerns that the Israelis might do something completely crazy to get the US involved. There are a number of possible “false flag” scenarios in which the Israelis could insert a commando team in the Persian Gulf or use some of their people inside Iraq to stage an incident that they will make to look Iranian, either by employing Iranian weapons or by leaving a communications footprint that points to Tehran’s involvement.

Those who argue that Israel would never do such a thing should think again. Israel is willing to behave with complete ruthlessness towards the US if they feel that the stakes are high enough, witness the attack on the USS Liberty and the bombing of the US Consulate in Alexandria in the 1950s. If they now believe that Iran is a threat that must be eliminated it is not implausible to assume that they will stop at nothing to get the the United States to do it for them, particularly as their air force is only able to damage the Iranian nuclear program, not destroy it.

Philip Giraldi is a former officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency . During the 2008 presidential primaries, Giraldi served as Ron Paul's foreign policy adviser.

[Biggs]

STILL A VERY LONG WAY SHORT OF THE NUMBER NEEDED TO MAKE FISSIONABLE MATERIAL, BUT DOUBTLESS THIS WILL BE USED AS A SOURCE OF FURTHER PROPAGANDA

Report: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran now has 6,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium
ALI AKBAR, The Associated Press

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m45990&hd=&size=1&l=e

July 26, 2008
TEHRAN, Iran

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Iran now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in the number of uranium-enriching machines in its nuclear program, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

The new figure is double the 3,000 centrifuges Iran had previously said it was operating in its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

"Islamic Iran today possesses 6,000 centrifuges," Ahmadinejad told university professors in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

The assertion that Iran has reached that goal is certain to further rankle the United States and other world powers. Washington and its allies have been demanding a halt to Iran's enrichment out of fear it is intent on using the technology to develop weapons.

Iran vehemently denies those allegations and says it is interested in enrichment only for its nuclear power program.

The White House said that Iran's pronouncement does not facilitate a resolution to the nuclear standoff.

"Announcements like this, whatever the true number is, are not productive and will only serve to further isolate Iran from the international community," said White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. "We have offered a generous incentives package to the Iranians, we urge them to suspend enrichment and accept the package. If they don't, more sanctions are the next step."

Ahmadinejad made the announcement a week after the U.S. reversed course by sending a top American diplomat to participate in negotiations with Iran, prompting hopes for a compromise.

But those talks fizzled when Iran refused to consider a revised deal that involves suspending enrichment, and the six negotiating powers — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — gave Iran two weeks to respond positively or face a new round of sanctions.

Iran already is under three sets of U.N. sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment.

In April, Ahmadinejad said Iran had begun installing 6,000 centrifuges at Natanz. His reported comments Saturday provided the first public assertion that Iran has reached that goal.

Ahmadinejad asserted that Iran's interlocutors had agreed to allow it to continue to run its program as long as it was not expanded beyond 6,000 centrifuges, state radio reported.

"Today, they have consented that the existing 5,000 or 6,000 centrifuges not be increased and that operation of this number of centrifuges is not a problem," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying on Saturday.

A report by the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency that was delivered to the Security Council in May said Iran had 3,500 centrifuges, though a senior U.N. official said at the time that Iran's goal of 6,000 machines running by the summer was "pretty much plausible."

Uranium can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or as the core for atomic warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment.

The workhorse of Iran's enrichment program is the P-1 centrifuge, which is run in cascades of 164 machines. But Iranian officials confirmed in February that they had started using the IR-2 centrifuge that can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate.

A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that ultimately will involve 54,000 centrifuges.

Ahmadinejad called the U.S. participation in the latest round of nuclear talks "a victory for Iran."

In a major shift in the Bush administration's policy, Undersecretary of State William Burns joined envoys from the five other nations in Switzerland at talks July 19 on Iran's nuclear program.

In the past, the U.S. said it would join talks only if Iran suspends uranium enrichment first.

"The presence of a U.S. representative ... was a victory for Iran, irrespective of the outcome. ... The U.S. condition was for Iran to suspend enrichment but they attended (the talks) without such a condition being met," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in the state radio report.

On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad praised the U.S. participation at the talks as a step toward recognizing Tehran's right to acquire nuclear technology.

The negotiating powers — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany — have offered a package of technological, economic and political incentives in return for Iran's cooperation to suspend uranium enrichment or at least not to expand it.

The revised deal delivered last month — which Iran refused to consider at the talks July 19 — envisions a six-week commitment for Iran to stop expanding enrichment. In return, the six nations would agree to a moratorium on new sanctions for up to six weeks.

That is meant to create the framework for formal negotiations that the six nations hope would secure Iran's commitment to an indefinite ban on enrichment.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

[bigron]

Last update - 09:35 28/07/2008     
 
 
Pentagon chief: War with Iran would be 'disastrous' 

 
By Amir Oren, Haaretz Correspondent 
 
  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1005910.html



A war with Iran would be "disastrous on a number of levels," according to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

In an article appearing in the latest issue of Parameters, the U.S. Army War College quarterly, Gates wrote that with the army already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, "another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need" - despite the fact that Iran "supports terrorism," is "a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia and, in my judgment, is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons."

Nevertheless, he continued, "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat, either directly or through nuclear proliferation."
 Advertisement
 
Gates offered these remarks on Iran as commentary on how to apply an axiom uttered by General Fox Connor in the early 20th century: "Never fight unless you have to." But this is not the first time he has warned against war with Iran; he also did so in a speech at West Point, the U.S. military academy, three months ago. The current article is based on that speech.

Any statement by Gates bears special importance because Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential hopeful who generally opposes the current administration's foreign and defense policy, has praised Gates lavishly and even hinted that he might ask him to retain his post under an Obama presidency.

Meanwhile, in another document bearing his signature that is due to be published soon, the 2008 National Defense Strategy, Gates omits Israel from the list of the United States' main allies.

The National Defense Strategy is an official document that reflects the secretary's directives to the armed forces. It replaces the version issued in 2005 by Gates' predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld. Although Gates signed off on the document about a month ago, it has yet to be published officially; however, a copy appears on the Inside Defense Web site.

In this document, too, Gates wrote that Iran's support for terror, efforts to undermine the nascent democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and pursuit of nuclear weapons constitute a serious challenge to the security of the region ¬ one that U.S. policy must address.

However, he also used the document to discuss America's allies.

"Our closest allies - the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Other long standing alliances NATO, Japan and South Korea foremost among them. We will work to expand and strengthen other relationships, including with India," the document states.

But Israel, which has been listed in other documents as an important U.S. ally, does not appear in this document at all.

The possibility that Gates might retain his post should Obama win the presidency in November emerged from an interview that the Democratic candidate gave to Defense News earlier this month.

"Secretary Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise," the publication quoted Obama as saying. "But whether that means he would continue in that position, or would even want to, I think that's something that will be determined later. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself."