Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[bigron]

Bush Must Be Stopped Before Starting War With Iran

By JOE PARKO
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080728/OPINION03/807280349/1008/OPINION01

08/02/08 "Tennessee Voices" -- 24/07/08 -- -The Bush administration, in rhetoric that is eerily similar to that used to build the case for a war against Iraq, asserts that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-U.S. groups in Iraq and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets.

It dismisses t

The White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. I suspect it never will. And when Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if Tehran does not halt its alleged nuclear weapons program, what he is really telling us is we should prepare for war.

An attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel and the ensuing regional war will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, we barrel mindlessly toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation. No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.

The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. This price increase will devastate the U.S. economy. The ensuing retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on U.S. military installations in Iraq, will leave hundreds, maybe thousands, dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, will see an attack on Iran as a war against Shiism. They will turn with rage and violence on us and our allies. Hezbollah will renew attacks on northern Israel, while Hamas increases its attacks in southern Israel. And the localized war in Iraq will become a long, messy and protracted regional war that, by the time it is done, will most likely end the American empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins.

The Israeli leadership, like the Bush White House, is increasingly bellicose and threatening. The Israeli prime minister, after a recent 90-minute meeting with Bush in the White House, said the two leaders were of one mind. "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat," Ehud Olmert said. "I left with a lot less questions marks (than) I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House."

This time around, unlike the war with Iraq, the Washington bureaucracy, loathed by the Bush White House, did not remain silent and complicit. The NIE on Iran's nuclear program released Dec. 3 distinguished Iran's enrichment of uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had halted in 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Adm. Fallon, who put his country and his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it, and lost his job as the head of Central Command. He has been replaced with Gen. David Petraeus, whose devotion to his career admits no such moral impediments.

The American people must act to stop this madness. We must raise our voices in protest. We must demand that Congress exercise its constitutional authority and block a war on Iran. We cannot allow the Bush neocons to act out their final bloody fantasy and destroy all hopes for peace in the Middle East.

Joe Parko is a retired college professor. He lives in Crossville, where he serves on the steering committee of Cumberland Countians for Peace and Justice.

[bigron]

We Lie and Bluster About Our Nukes - And Then Wag Our Fingers At Iran

By failing to disarm and breaking the rules when it suits, nuclear states are driving proliferation as much as Ahmadinejad

By George Monbiot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/29/nuclear.defence

02/08/08 "The Guardian" -- - 29/07/08 -- What is the Iranian government up to? For once the imperial coalition, overstretched in Iraq and unpopular at home, is proposing jaw, not war. The UN security council's offer was a good one: if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment programme, it would be entitled to legally guaranteed supplies of fuel for nuclear power, assistance in building a light water reactor, foreign aid, technology transfer and the beginning of the end of economic sanctions. The US seems prepared, for the first time since the revolution, to open a diplomatic office in Tehran. But in Geneva, 10 days ago, the Iranians filibustered until the negotiations ended. On Saturday President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has now doubled the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium. A fourth round of sanctions looks inevitable.

The unequivocal statements Barack Obama and Gordon Brown made in Israel last week about Iran's nuclear weapons programme cannot yet be justified. Nor can the unequivocal statements by some anti-war campaigners that Iran does not intend to build the bomb. Why would a country with such reserves of natural gas and so great a potential for solar power suffer sanctions and the threat of bombing to make fuel it could buy from other states, if it accepted the UN's terms?

Those who maintain that Iran's purposes are peaceful clutch at the National Intelligence Estimate published by the US government in November. While it judged that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, it saw the country's civilian uranium programme as a means of developing "technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so". The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency notes that no fissile material has been diverted from Iran's stocks, but raises grave questions about some of the documents it has found, which suggest research into bomb-making (Iran says the papers are forgeries). Those of us who oppose an attack on Iran are under no obligation to accept Ahmadinejad's claims of peaceful intent.

Nor do we have to accept the fictions of our own representatives. The security council's offer to Iran claimed that resolving this enrichment issue would help to bring about a "Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction". But like every other such document, it made no mention of the principal owner of weapons in the region: Israel. According to a leaked briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Israel possesses between 60 and 80 nuclear bombs. But none of the countries demanding that Iran scraps the weapons it doesn't yet possess are demanding that Israel destroys the weapons it does possess.

This subject is the great political taboo. Neither Brown nor Obama mentioned it last week. The US intelligence agencies provide a biannual report to Congress on the weapons of mass destruction developed by foreign states, which covers Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others, but not Israel. During a parliamentary debate in March the British defence minister Bob Ainsworth was asked whether he thought that Israel's nuclear weapons are "a destabilising factor" in the Middle East. "My understanding," he replied, "is that Israel does not acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons." Does Mr Ainsworth really buy this nonsense? If so, can we have a new minister? If Iran builds a bomb, it will do so for one reason: that there is already a nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, by which it feels threatened.

But we make the rules and we break them. The non-proliferation treaty (NPT) obliges the five official nuclear states, of which the UK is one, to work towards "general and complete disarmament". On Friday, the Guardian published the notes for a speech made last year by a senior civil servant, which suggested that the decision to replace the UK's nuclear missiles had already been made, in secret and without parliamentary scrutiny. Since then defence ministers have told the Commons on five occasions that the decision has not yet been made. They appear to have misled the House.

At the Geneva conference on disarmament in February, one delegate pointed out that the "chances of eliminating nuclear weapons will be enhanced immeasurably" if non-nuclear states can see "planning, commitment and action toward multilateral nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon states" like the UK. If the nuclear states "are failing to fulfil their disarmament obligations", other nations would use this as an excuse for maintaining their weapons. Who was this firebrand? Des Browne, the secretary of state for defence. A man of the same name is failing to fulfil our disarmament obligations.

Browne claims that Britain must maintain its arsenal because of proliferation elsewhere, just as those proliferating elsewhere say that they must develop their arsenals because the official nuclear nations aren't disarming. With the exception of France, none of the other European states feels the need to deploy nukes. But the UK keeps preparing for the last war. Of course, no one is refusing to disarm; it's just that the task keeps getting pushed into the indefinite future. Opponents of British nuclear weapons maintain that a new generation of warheads would survive until 2055.

The permanent members of the UN security council draw a distinction between their "responsible" ownership of nuclear weapons and that of the aspirant powers. But over the past six years, the UK, US, France and Russia have all announced that they are prepared to use their nukes pre-emptively against a presumed threat, even from states that do not possess nuclear weapons. In some ways the current nuclear stand-off is more dangerous than the tetchy detente of the cold war.

The danger has been heightened by the US government's current offensive. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, is demanding that other countries accept her plans to destroy the last remaining incentive for states to abide by the NPT. The treaty grants countries which conform to it materials for nuclear power on favourable terms. It's a flawed incentive - as the spread of civil nuclear programmes makes the proliferation of military material more likely - but an incentive nonetheless. Now Rice insists that India should have special access to US nuclear materials despite the fact that it has not signed the NPT and has illegally developed nuclear weapons.

If she is successful, this effort - and the concomitant US demand that India is recognised as an official nuclear power - will blow the NPT to kingdom come. The treaty which survived the cold war, and which remains the most important of the wilting guarantees against global annihilation, is being nuked for the sake of a few billion dollars of export orders.

Here's where it gets really depressing. The Bush administration's proposal has been supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama. The contrast between Obama's position on India and his statements on Iran could not be greater, or more destructive of the inflated hopes now vested in him.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's insistence that Iran enriches its own fissile material, and the guessing game he is playing with Israel, the atomic energy agency and the UN security council is irresponsible and staggeringly dangerous. But if I were in his position I might be tempted to do the same.

www.monbiot.com 

[bigron]

Cheney weighs fratricide to sell war on Iran



Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:43:56
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=65445&sectionid=3510203
 
 
Prominent journalist Seymour Hersh exposes details of a plan considered by US Vice President Dick Cheney on how to provoke war with Iran.

"There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war [with Iran]," Hersh said recently in reference to the subject of discussion at a meeting held at Cheney's office.

In a July article published in the New Yorker, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist revealed information about covert US operations carried out in Iran. He did not disclose the content of the talks with Cheney in his article.

In a recent interview with Think Progress, however, Hersh exposed that the meeting witnessed Cheney mulling over a proposal to dress up Navy SEALs as Iranians and shoot them in order to trigger a war with Iran.

"The one (plan) that interested me the most was why don't we build - we in our shipyard - build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy SEALs on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Strait of Hormuz, start a shoot-up," he revealed in his recent interview.

"Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can't have Americans killing Americans. That's the kind of - that's the level of stuff we're talking about. Provocation."

The well-known journalist added that the proposal was ultimately rejected.

"Look, is it high school? Yeah. Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We're playing, you know, who's the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran," he continued.

Hersh argues that should Washington engineer 'the right incident', Americans will 'support' going to war with Iran.

Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Myron Hersh first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War.

MD/HGH/AA
 

[bigron]

To Provoke War

Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them

By Faiz
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/

01/08/08 "Think Progress" --- Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.
In Hersh’s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources.

During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Watch it:
Sy Hersh at Campus Progress journalism conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slgBrbNXrbs&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20398.htm

 
Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, “if you get the right incident, the American public will support” it.

“Look, is it high school? Yeah,” Hersh said. “Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran.”

Transcript:

HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected — which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn’t accepted — one of the items was why not…

There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

So I can understand the argument for not writing something that was rejected — uh maybe. My attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats.

But the point is jejune, if you know what that means. Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the incident was the American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.

…What happened in the Gulf was, in the Straits, in early January, the President was just about to go to the Middle East for a visit. So that was one reason they wanted to gin it up. Get it going.

Look, is it high school? Yeah. Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran.

[bigron]

August 4, 2008

To Prevent War With Iran,
a Paradigm Shift Is Needed
 
by Muhammad Sahimi


The latest report on Iran's uranium enrichment program by the International Atomic Energy Agency, made public in early June, provides strong evidence that the facts on the ground are changing. According to the report, Iran has been making progress in mastering uranium enrichment technology. It has managed to increase the efficiency of the enrichment process by assembling a relatively large number of cascaded centrifuges. It has also been able to manufacture (although not yet in significant numbers) the more advanced IR-2 and IR-3 centrifuges that spin several times faster than the primitive P-1 centrifuges that it has installed in its uranium enrichment facility (UEF) at Natanz. The faster centrifuges, when cascaded and operated for an extended period of time, would enable Iran to produce enriched uranium more rapidly.

However, Iran's progress, while significant, is not alarming. The fact is, there is no direct connection between Iran's UEF in Natanz, which produces low-enriched uranium (LEU), and what would be needed for producing high-enriched uranium (HEU) for a nuclear weapon. The Natanz facility is also safeguarded by the IAEA. To advance to the point where it can produce HEU, Iran must take many steps that would need several years of work, all progressing according to schedule without any hitches.

More specifically, to go from LEU to HEU, Iran must have the following:

High-quality LEU to be converted to HEU. Although Iran has produced a significant amount of LEU, its quality is, at least at this stage, dubious.
A large number of cascaded centrifuges that can work for a long time, without interruption.
High explosives for triggering a nuclear explosion.
Complete designs for a nuclear bomb and warhead.
Missiles or aircraft to deliver the nuclear warheads to their intended targets.
Iran must also do the following:

Leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expel the IAEA inspectors (à la North Korea), and start a crash program to convert the UEF at Natanz to produce HEU. The breakout time – the time that it would take to transform the Natanz facility – is, at the minimum, six to nine months.
Carry out tests – of the type that other nuclear powers perform – to make sure that its nuclear weapon works properly.
Iran must do all of these while even its most minor moves are being closely monitored and scrutinized by the international community.

There is no evidence that Iran has the necessary materials or is in a position to successfully make them and take all the above steps in a short time, even if it has every intention of doing so. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program stated that Iran is unlikely to be able to make a nuclear weapon before 2013.

But this has not stopped the neoconservatives and their allies in the Israel lobby, as well as the government of Israel, from issuing dire warnings about how close Iran is to making a nuclear weapon. John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute both published articles in the Wall Street Journal urging military attacks on Iran. Benny Morris, the supposedly moderate Israeli historian, published an op-ed in the New York Times about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran with nuclear warheads (neither newspaper has published an op-ed that refutes the claims made in those articles). Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy published a "manifesto" claiming that Iran will not be able to respond effectively to any military attacks, hence encouraging such attacks. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi also visited Washington.

But while Tehran is making progress in its nuclear program, it has also significantly increased its cooperation with the IAEA. All of Iran's six original breaches of its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA have now been explained to the IAEA's satisfaction. Iran has allowed the IAEA inspectors to visit the site where it manufactures its more advanced centrifuges. The IAEA has carried out 14 unannounced visits to Iran's nuclear sites within the last year, resulting in de facto compliance with some of the most important provisions of resolutions of the United Nations Security Council against Iran, as well as the Additional Protocol that Iran has not ratified.

Iran's progress in mastering the uranium enrichment technology for making LEU means that the present approach of the P5+1 group – Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia, plus the United States – for dealing with Iran's nuclear program is obsolete. They have been insisting that Iran must first freeze its enrichment activities before any meaningful negotiations can take place between them and Iran. Their rationale is that, by freezing enrichment activities, they will prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear program. But placing a red line on acquiring the knowledge that could be used for making nuclear weapons has not prevented Iran from making progress. In fact, not only has Iran already crossed that red line, it has also become more resolute in defending its fundamental rights under the NPT. Practically speaking, a nation cannot be told to forget what it already knows.

Therefore, if the P5+1 group is interested in keeping Iran's nuclear capability latent, and would like to accomplish this goal peacefully, it needs a paradigm shift in its approach to Iran and its nuclear program, as all other efforts have failed.

The prudent starting point for the new paradigm is transforming the P5+1 group to a P5+2 group, not by adding another nation to the group, but by having the U.S. play a dual role. The U.S. cannot continue its present course, namely, making the toughest demands on Iran while not negotiating directlywith Iran. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has expressed a desire to establish a formal U.S. interest section in Tehran by stationing American diplomats there. Iran has responded positively. Thus, by establishing the interest section the U.S. will be in direct contact with Iran, while also being part of the P5+1 group, making it a P5+2 group.

The second step of the paradigm shift should be returning Iran's nuclear dossier to the IAEA. Many legal scholars believe that the sending of Iran's dossier to the UNSC and the ensuing sanctions have been based on questionable legal arguments, in violation of many provisions of the NPT and the UN Charter. I have discussed these in detail elsewhere. Briefly, the Board of Governors of the IAEA exceeded its authority when it demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program, and it again violated its bylaws when it sent Iran's nuclear dossier to the UNSC, because the IAEA has not found Iran in violation of the NPT agreement nor in breach of its Safeguards Agreement about "further[ing] a military purpose," nor does the Board have the legal authority to demand a suspension.

The UNSC resolutions against Iran have been filed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which is, however, exclusively for "Actions with respect to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or acts of aggression." The UNSC must first identify the threat that Iran's program poses against peace and international security. According to Article 41 of the UN Charter, without such findings, the UNSC cannot issue any resolution under Chapter VII and impose any sanctions. However, the UNSC referred merely to the demand of the IAEA as its justification. In legal jargon, this is an ultra vires act, in excess of the UNSC's power.

Thus, it is necessary to return Iran's dossier to its rightful place, the IAEA. Legal issues aside, the return will help serious negotiations begin. The Iranian leaders correctly recognize that if they suspend their nuclear program on the order of the UNSC, ending the suspension will also require UNSC authorization, which will never come, because the U.S., France, and Britain will veto any such attempt. Iran would effectively give up its right to the enrichment technology if it were to give in to such a demand now. Thus, realistically, so long as its dossier is before the UNSC, Iran will not suspend its uranium enrichment program.

On the other hand, Iran has indicated that, if its nuclear dossier is returned to the IAEA, it will officially ratify and implement the Additional Protocol that allows for intrusive, unannounced visits to anywhere in Iran by the IAEA. That will also allow the IAEA to visit Iran's conventional military sites in its quest for establishing or refuting a link between them and Iran's nuclear program.

The third part of the new paradigm would be the implementation of the "freeze for freeze" proposal, according to which no further sanctions against Iran will be brought before the UNSC if Iran does not increase the number of its centrifuges at Natanz (which currently stands at about 3,500). The temporary freeze is supposed to be implemented for six weeks, during which negotiations are supposed to commence. Various reports indicate that Iran has accepted the proposal, made by the European Union, but the U.S. opposes it.

The fourth step is to develop a new framework for defining what constitutes a freeze, for implementation of a possible longer-term suspension of Iran's enrichment activity, if the two sides can agree on it. For example, Iran's uranium conversion facility (UCF) at Isfahan, which makes uranium hexafluoride, the feedstock for uranium enrichment, is not even covered by the Safeguards Agreement so long as the product is simply stored (or exported). Therefore, insisting that the Isfahan UCF must be shut down is counterproductive, as well as illegal.

Moreover, one cannot simply shut down a large number of cascaded centrifuges, as it would damage the UEF through severe corrosion and other factors. So a possible new definition of freezing would be to stop feeding the centrifuges with nuclear feedstock, injecting instead an inert gas, rather than to shut them down completely.

Finally, the U.S. keeps demanding that Iran suspend all of its "reprocessing activities." But Iran does not have any such facility or activities. One either reprocesses the spent fuel of a nuclear reactor or the products of a heavy water nuclear reactor, both of which produce plutonium. Iran has neither.

Demonstrating such flexibility will have two major benefits. One is that it would elevate Iran to a respected negotiation partner, from its present position of being treated like a servant, constantly threatened and ordered to carry out the demands made on it. The second benefit would be that it would obligate Iran to respond in kind. Many times in the past Iran has expressed such willingness, provided that it is treated with the respect that a major regional power deserves.

With the paradigm shift in place, the negotiations can begin in earnest on the scope of Iran's enrichment program and its strict control by the IAEA. Given Iran's advancements in the enrichment technology, it is no longer realistic to demand that it give up its rights to uranium enrichment. Therefore, alternative solutions must be considered, including the establishment of a multinational consortium on Iran's soil for uranium enrichment. Peaceful resolution of the conflict will go a long way toward creating a more stable and less volatile Middle East, which would be beneficial to all sides.
 

 
 
 
 

 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=13250 
 

[Optimus]

Iran Escalates Military Rhetoric
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?ref=middleeast
By NAZILA FATHI
Published: August 5, 2008

TEHRAN — Iran warned on Monday that it could easily close a critical Persian Gulf waterway for oil shipments and claimed possession of a new long-range naval weapon that could sink enemy ships nearly 200 miles away.

It was unclear what provoked the warning, made by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, but it followed the weekend expiration of an informal deadline for Iran to respond to incentives from world powers to curb its uranium enrichment activities. The United States, which has warships deployed in the Persian Gulf, has said new sanctions should be imposed on Iran for failing to respond to the deadline.

The Iranian warning coincided with word that Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, spoke by phone on Monday with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. Mr. Solana was expected to report back on the conversation to the representatives of the six countries — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — that are leading the demands that Iran stop enriching uranium, Agence France-Presse reported.

In comments carried by the semiofficial Iranian news agency Fars, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said that Iran was capable of imposing “unlimited controls” at the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, an important international oil route.

“Closing the Strait of Hormuz for an unlimited period of time would be very easy,” he was quoted as saying.

General Jafari gave no details about the type of naval weapon involved in the recent test, but he said it was Iranian-built and “unique in the world.”

He said it would have the range to reach enemy warships in the Persian Gulf, an apparent reference to United States warships which have been conducting naval maneuvers in the Gulf.

“The Guards have recently tested a naval weapon which I can say with certainty that the enemy’s ships would not be safe within the range of 300 kilometers,” General Jafari was quoted as saying. “Without any doubt we will send them to the depths of the sea.”

Iran has made similar claims about its military capabilities but military analysts have treated them with caution. Early last month, Iran announced it had test-fired a number of missiles in war-game maneuvers, including at least one the government in Tehran described as having the range to reach Israel and another that it said was a relatively new torpedo called a Hoot missile, whose name means whale in Iranian. But military analysts said those war games featured more bluff and exaggeration than real displays of menacing new power and said the statements about the range of the largest missile were misleading.

General Jafari’s comments escalated the rhetorical exchange between Iran and the United States over Iran’s civilian nuclear program, which Washington and many Western governments have warned could be used to cloak the development of a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.

The Bush administration has refused to rule out a military option, and in June Israel’s air force rehearsed what American intelligence officials described as a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Representatives of the six nations met with Iranian officials in Geneva on July 19, with a senior American official taking part for the first time. The talks seemed to produce no progress on the chief demand — that Iran stop uranium enrichment — but the six powers gave Iran two weeks to respond to their latest proposal before it would be withdrawn.

Specifically, the world powers wanted Iran to accept a formula known as freeze-for-freeze. Under this plan, Iran would not expand its nuclear program, and the United States and other powers would not seek new international sanctions for six weeks to pave the way for formal negotiations. The proposal, first offered last year, is intended to give Iran economic and political incentives to stop enriching uranium.

Iran dismissed the deadline and on Saturday President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran would not move an inch on its nuclear rights, although he said it welcomed talks.

“We will take part in any negotiations and talk about any issue which consolidates our nuclear rights,” he said during a meeting with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, according to the Iranian presidency Web site.

After Iran’s failure to reply by the deadline, the United States on Sunday said that the United Nations Security Council now had no choice but to expand sanctions. The Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions since 2006.

“It is clear that the government of Iran has not complied with the international community’s demand to stop enriching uranium and isn’t even interested in trying,” said Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the United States mission to the United Nations, according to Reuters.

“They leave the Security Council no choice but to increase the sanctions, as called for in the last resolution passed,” he added.

[Optimus]

Iran tests 'new anti-ship weapon'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7541070.stm
August 4, 2008

Iran says it has tested a new advanced weapon to sink enemy ships.

The Revolutionary Guards commander said the weapon had a range of more than 300km (180 miles) and used technology never seen before.

The test comes two days after an international deadline passed for Iran to answer questions about its controversial nuclear programme.

The US said missing the deadline left the UN with no alternative other than to impose further sanctions on Iran.

Iranian officials said the country's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has spoken by phone to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

Mr Solana had given Iran until last Saturday to respond to an offer not to impose further sanctions against Iran in return for a freeze on its uranium enrichment programme.

Neither side has said whether Iran responded to the offer, or whether it made counter proposals.

Domestic technology

Revolutionary Guards commander Gen Mohammad Ali Jafari did not say where or when the new weapon was tested or what kind of technology it used.

"The weapon has been developed entirely using domestic technology and according to our information so far no country has used this technology before," Gen Jafari said.

"We can confidently say that none of the enemy's vessels or warships operating in a radius of more than 300km from Iran's borders will be safe from this weapon, and without a doubt, they will be sunk deep into the region's waters."

Correspondents say Iran often boasts about developing long-range weapons, while Western military experts often cast doubt upon the claims.

In July, the Revolutionary Guards tested missiles and torpedoes in the Gulf and claimed to have tested a new Shahab missile with a range of 2,012km (1,250 miles).

US and other Western officials described that round of weapons tests as "provocative" at a time of rising tension in the nuclear standoff.

Iran says its nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful. Israeli leaders have threatened to intervene militarily against Iran if it develops nuclear weapons technology, while the US has not ruled out the use of force.

[HYDROGENPAL]

Its all a ploy That we all feed into by the elite and we eat it up like good sheeple.
The weapon they are talking about is all staged propaganda for haarp to blast a plasma beam down on a u.s. ship set up their by the very people that want total control.
“There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war,” Hersh explained. “The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.”

[Switters]

We are getting very close here.  I hear that Tehran will have a written response to demands tomorrow.

And I hate to say that but I'm actually encouraged that the big 6 are only talking about increased sanctions at this point.  I thought there would be bombs flying last night or today.

And I think we all know that there's a HIGH probability that a war with Iran will turn out to be WWIII.  I just can't see Russia and China allowing the United States' Imperialism to go unchecked anymore.

[HYDROGENPAL]

Reports of military equipment, half-tracks, tanks, missal launchers in the Texas/Mexico border areas. Trainloads of UN and all sorts of foreign East German and Russian military equipment spotted all over the country! Russian artillery, trucks, missile launchers stored at Biloxi, MS., Fort Polk, LA., and Fort Dix, NJ. It would appear from long term reports, that massive military equipment and personnel are stored underground in the mountain range areas of Texas/ Mexico borders.
Thousands upon thousands of UN troops training in US for so called "MJTF  and Joint UN / American Training Exercises.


Russian Military Police training US police in Kansas; Brutalization of US Citizens and domestic riot control exercises.

The US is being conditioned to accept domestic violence and terrorism, so government and MJTF/FEMA can step in, and send citizens to military concentration camps.

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/new_world_order/news.php?q=1205528935

[bigron]

Iran builds advanced naval weapon 


04/08/2008 05:18:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=147366

 
 Iran developed a high-tech naval weapons system capable of targeting any warship within a range of 300 kilometers from its shores.




A top Iranian commander explained that the weapons system introduces state-of-the-art technology never used before.

"The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps recently tested a naval weapon which is definitely capable of sending any warship within a distance of 300 km to the bottom of the sea," IRGC Commander Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari told reporters Monday.

"The weapon design and production technology used in this weapon is completely indigenous to Iran and has never been employed by any other country," he added.

Jafari said the new weapon has gone into mass production after successful testing.

The commander also commented on Iran's ability to close off the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. "The length of Iran's coastline along the Strait of Hormuz, its unique geographical position, and the coastal heights make it possible for Iran to close off the strait," said Jafari.

He added that Iranian armed forces could easily block the strait for an infinite time' using the available military equipment.

In early July, IRGC staged a major military maneuver to demonstrate its defense capabilities amid escalating US and Israeli threats of a strike against the country's nuclear facilities.

Jafari pointed out that the maneuver had achieved all its objectives, despite efforts made by Western media outlets to portray it otherwise.

"Eight missiles were fired simultaneously; however, poor images captured on camera gave rise to certain ambiguities," he said, referring to some speculations about the failure of the military exercise.



-- AJP

 

[bigron]

Mullen warns against USS Liberty redux


Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:06:57
By Press TV
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=65632&sectionid=3510203
 
04/08/08 "Press TV" -- - The top American military officer has warned Israel against orchestrating 'USS Liberty Part II' to provoke a US-led war against Iran.

In early July, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen visited Israel to discuss the Iranian nuclear program with his Israeli counterpart, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, and other Israeli officials.

During the talks, Adm. Mullen cautioned that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 is the type of incident that should be 'avoided in any future military actions' in the Middle East, the Jerusalem Post reported.

The USS Liberty, a $40m state-of-the-art surveillance ship, was 'inadvertently' attacked by Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats in international waters north of the northern Sinai Peninsula coast.
 
The USS Liberty was attacked by Israel in 1967.
The attack, which lasted at least 40 minutes, claimed the lives of 34 American soldiers and wounded at least 170 crewmembers.

Although there are many conspiracy theories as to why Israel committed such a 'mistake' against its closest ally, former US seamen who served on Liberty claim authorities are guilty of a cover-up.

American Free Press quoted Adm. Mullen as saying that it is very 'important' at this time that 'history not repeat itself', referring to increasing speculation that Israel might stage another such scenario to push the US into a war with Iran.

Israel, the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, accuses Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of pursuing a nuclear weapons program and threatens to take military action against the country should Tehran continue uranium enrichment.

While Washington echelons are said to agree with the views of Tel Aviv on Tehran, the release of a Dec. 3 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has rapidly weakened the prospects of the US participating in an attack on Iran.

This is while, according to US and Israeli intelligence services, an Israeli strike would only 'cripple' the Iranian nuclear drive and not destroy it.

Israel is reportedly lobbying the Bush administration to launch a joint attack on Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009.

In an Aug. 2 interview with the USS Liberty radio show, former army intelligence officer and CIA analyst Ray McGovern claimed Israel is planning a scenario similar to that of the 67 Liberty incident.

"It is obviously something bigger. The name of the game is to 'decapitate the Iranian nuclear program' whether it is aimed at a weapon or not," said McGovern.

The war threats and speculation come despite the UN nuclear watchdog declaring that Iran is enriching uranium to 3 percent, a rate consistent with electricity generation.

The most recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran.

[bigron]

August 5, 2008

Iran Issues New Warnings After Defying a Deadline


By NAZILA FATHI
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin


TEHRAN — Iran warned Monday that it could easily close a critical Persian Gulf waterway to oil shipments and said that it had a new long-range naval weapon that could sink enemy ships nearly 200 miles away.

The warning, by the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, followed the weekend expiration of an informal deadline for Iran to respond to an offer of incentives from six world powers to stop enriching uranium.

The United States, which has warships deployed in the Persian Gulf, has said new sanctions should be imposed on Iran for failing to respond to the deadline. On Monday, a State Department official said the six powers — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — had agreed to pursue new sanctions, but it remained unclear what they might be or which nations would take part.

In comments carried by the semiofficial Iranian news agency, Fars, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, said Iran was capable of imposing “unlimited controls” at the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, an important oil route.

“Closing the Strait of Hormuz for an unlimited period of time would be very easy,” he was quoted as saying.

“The Guards have recently tested a naval weapon which I can say with certainty that the enemy’s ships would not be safe within the range of 300 kilometers,” General Jafari was quoted as saying. “Without any doubt we will send them to the depths of the sea.”

General Jafari gave no details about the type of weapon tested, but he said it was Iranian-built and “unique in the world.”

He said it would have the range to reach enemy warships in the Persian Gulf, apparently a reference to United States warships, which have been conducting naval maneuvers there.

Iran has previously made similar claims about its military abilities, but analysts have treated them with skepticism. Last month, Iran said it had test-fired a number of missiles in war-game maneuvers, including at least one that the government in Tehran described as having the range to reach Israel and another that it said was a relatively new torpedo called a Hoot missile (the name means whale in Persian).

Western military analysts said that those war games featured more bluff than real displays of new power and that the statements about the range of the largest missile were misleading.

General Jafari’s comments were the latest sign of tensions between Iran and the United States over Iran’s civilian nuclear program, which Washington and other Western governments have warned could be used to cloak the development of a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.

The Bush administration has refused to rule out a military option, and in June Israel’s air force carried out what American intelligence officials described as a rehearsal for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Representatives of the six nations met with Iranian officials in Geneva on July 19, with a senior American official taking part for the first time. The talks seemed to produce no progress on the chief demand — that Iran stop uranium enrichment — but the nations gave Iran two weeks to respond to their latest proposal before it would be withdrawn.

Specifically, the nations wanted Iran to accept a formula known as freeze-for-freeze. Under the plan, Iran would not expand its nuclear program, and the United States and the other powers would not seek new international sanctions for six weeks to pave the way for formal negotiations. The proposal, first offered last year, is intended to give Iran incentives to stop enriching uranium.

Iran dismissed the deadline; on Saturday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran would not move “one iota” on its nuclear rights, although he said it welcomed talks.

At the United Nations, diplomats said Monday that they were assessing their options. “We are in the process of consulting with our partners, but the sense is that there is not much by way of a positive reaction from Iran at the moment,” said Jean-Pierre Lacroix, France’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations.

The State Department official, Gonzalo Gallegos, said the United States was disappointed that Iran had not responded. “The pressure on Iran to comply with the demands of the international community and its obligations will only grow,” he said.

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, spoke by telephone on Monday with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. The French Foreign Ministry said Mr. Solana was expecting a further written response from Iran on Tuesday.

Graham Bowley and Neil MacFarquhar contributed reporting from New York, and Helene Cooper from Washington.

[bigron]

August 5, 2008

Preparing for War Through Negotiations?
 
by Babak Rahimi


The latest series of test missiles launched by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the northern part of the Persian Gulf and the eastern Hormuz Strait has fueled new concerns over a military conflict in the region. Despite apparent diplomatic progress between Tehran and six world powers in recent weeks, the report of missile tests has added a renewed sense of uneasiness over the fate of negotiations about Iran's controversial nuclear program. A specter of conflict now haunts the region, with the Iranian, Israeli, and American militaries making serious preparations for a possible military conflict.

The military strategy behind the display of high-tech missiles by Tehran is the same as it has been in the past: to exhibit the regime's progress in producing advanced conventional military technology as a way to deter what it perceives as American aggression. But the recent spectacle also shows Tehran's immediate readiness for military confrontation. As a response to recent reports of Israeli naval training missions over the Mediterranean and planned U.S.-led war games in the Persian Gulf, the Revolutionary Guard is eager to demonstrate its determination to strike back at American forces and Israel, with Haifa as one of the targets of the newly improved Shahab missiles.

In many ways, Iran's decision to test the missiles is closely connected with the recent restructuring of the command units within the Revolutionary Guard leadership as well as the appointments of Mohammad Hejazi as head of the Sarallah division, a military unit in the IRGC, and Hussein Hamedani as the vice commander of the Basij Corps. Both are major hard-liners who share a long record of military experience and enjoy close relations with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The changes in the Guard's command structure may only be a routine operational procedure, but they also reflect a new organizational tactic of appoint new leadership in order to eliminate the possibility of espionage and to maintain readiness in case of confrontation.

In light of rising tensions, the view inside Iran is alarmist. Among the public, fear of an American attack remains high in the busy streets of Tehran. On the state level, U.S.-led efforts to isolate Iran through sanctions and calls for military action by a number of American and Israeli politicians have reinforced the perception that Washington is blindly determined to undermine the Islamic Republic and thwart the country's regional influence, which has grown since the fall of the Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. The government believes that one of the best ways to counteract perceived American aggression, backed by predominantly hostile Sunni Arab states in the Persian Gulf, where the U.S. maintains large bases, is to establish a prominent military force equipped with high-tech weaponry.

The main source of conflict lies in the standoff over the terms of preconditions set out in the nuclear negotiations by the five Security Council states, plus Germany (5+1). The provision requires Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium in exchange for a freeze on sanctions and economic and technological benefits included in an incentive package originally offered in 2006. However, the latest meeting in Geneva, which for the first time in 30 years brought together American and Iranian high-ranking diplomats to the negotiations table, reveals the fundamental flaw in the logic of enrichment suspension, both on a short- and long-term basis. By advancing the "freeze-for-freeze" proposal that obliges Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium for the immediate freeze of additional sanctions for a six-week period, the six powers have, once again, helped the hard-liners to reinforce the view in Iran that the West, meaning Washington, aims to keep the country backward, an affront to an independent nation seeking to become a symbol of a non-Western form of modernity. In a country with competing centers of power, the hard-liners, who wield major political influence on foreign affairs, have been able to successfully depict the ongoing nuclear negotiations as a form of Western paternalism and stalling them as a way of resisting foreign aggression.

What the six powers continue to ignore is Tehran's main objective for continuing the talks: to display strength and, with increased pressure, to maintain political hegemony on the domestic front. The nuclear talks also serve as a stage to resolve Washington's Iran policy, not to reach a technical diplomatic compromise over the procedural production of uranium. What the freeze-for-freeze proposal has failed to include is a comprehensive response to Iranian concerns over the U.S. policy of economic and political pressure, which has only made Tehran's hard-liners more assertive in both domestic and foreign affairs.

By adopting a rigid position on Iran's nuclear program, the 5+1 has injected a prerequisite into the negotiation that has fed the conspiratorial fantasies of the ideologues, who use such paranoia to bolster their political legitimacy in domestic debates. Recalling how Washington set aside $75 million in 2006 to inspire regime change, the hard-liners are using the current precondition to make the claim that the West hides sinister intentions behind the negotiations, and thus Iran must expand its military. Iran's latest missile display therefore serves to demonstrate what may happen in case diplomacy fails: an arms race that may end in open conflict.

In many ways, the push to make Iran accept the suspension of its uranium-enrichment program plays right into the hands of the hard-liners. The preconditional logic of the negotiations provides a way for the hard-liners to exploit the talks to their advantage. In turn, the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, who has had considerable control over Iran policy since 2005, point to the stalemate as evidence of Iran's stubbornness about its nuclear development and, accordingly, to justify the use of force.

A common narrative in Washington is that additional pressure on Tehran would ultimately bring Iran to its knees, gradually leading to a total change of its political order. What this view fails to grasp, however, is that increased pressure only encourages the Islamic Republic to stiffen its position, beef up its military, and hasten the development of its nuclear program for possible non-civilian purposes in order to curb a perceived military threat. Meanwhile, attempts to directly engage with the Iranian regime are a step forward, as is the realization that an effective diplomatic stance includes reconsidering sanctions and the presence of American troops in neighboring countries.

The ultimate challenge for Washington is not resolving the nuclear issue, but designing a new Iran policy with the aim of normalizing relations. This would stir debate in Iran's public sphere and cause major ideological problems for the reactionary ideologues, who thrive on foreign threats. A new policy could enable ordinary Iranians to demand changes in Iran's domestic and foreign policy.
 

 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rahimi.php?articleid=13254 

[HYDROGENPAL]

there plan is in action and they will make it happen.
While the world watches the start of the olypics the world will be endowed with a war
a war of not only a physical but more so of the mind.
A war that will sweep us all into complete control

[Optimus]

Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda! Gee thanks Murdoch!


OPINION 
 
While Diplomats Dither,
Iran Builds Nukes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789278252611717.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
By JOHN R. BOLTON
August 5, 2008; Page A19

This weekend, yet another "deadline" passed for Iran to indicate it was seriously ready to discuss ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Like so many other deadlines during these five years of European-led negotiations, this one died quietly, with Brussels diplomats saying that no one seriously expected any real work on a Saturday.

The fact that the Europeans are right -- this latest deadline is not fundamentally big news -- is precisely the problem with their negotiations, and the Bush administration's acquiescence in that effort.

The rationality of continued Western negotiations with Iran depends critically on two assumptions: that Iran is far enough away from having deliverable nuclear weapons that we don't incur excessive risks by talking; and that by talking we don't materially impede the option to use military force. Implicit in the latter case is the further assumption that the military option is static -- that it remains equally viable a year from now as it is today.

Neither assumption is correct. Can we believe that if diplomacy fails we can still take military action "in time" to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons? "Just in time" nonproliferation assumes a level of intelligence certainty concerning Iran's nuclear program that recent history should manifestly caution us against.

Every day that goes by allows Iran to increase the threat it poses, and the viability of the military option steadily declines over time. There are a number of reasons why this is so.

First, while the European-led negotiations proceed, Iran continues both to convert uranium from a solid (uranium oxide, U3O8, also called yellowcake) to a gas (uranium hexafluoride, UF6) at its uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although it is a purely chemical procedure, conversion is technologically complex and poses health and safety risks.

As Isfahan's continuing operations increase both Iran's UF6 inventory and its technical expertise, however, the impact of destroying the facility diminishes. Iran is building a stockpile of UF6 that it can subsequently enrich even while it reconstructs Isfahan after an attack, or builds a new conversion facility elsewhere.

Second, delay permits Iran to increase its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU) -- that is, UF6 gas in which the U235 isotope concentration (the form of uranium critical to nuclear reactions either in reactors or weapons) is raised from its natural level of 0.7% to between 3% and 5%.

As its LEU stockpile increases, so too does Tehran's capacity to take the next step, and enrich it to weapons-grade concentrations of over 90% U235 (highly-enriched uranium, or HEU). Some unfamiliar with nuclear matters characterize the difference in LEU-HEU concentration levels as huge. The truth is far different. Enriching natural uranium by centrifuges to LEU consumes approximately 70% of the work and time required to enrich it to HEU.

Accordingly, destroying Iran's enrichment facility at Natanz does not eliminate its existing enriched uranium (LEU), which the IAEA estimated in May 2008 to be approximately half what is needed for one nuclear weapon. Iran is thus more than two-thirds of the way to weapons-grade uranium with each kilogram of uranium it enriches to LEU levels. Moreover, as the LEU inventory grows, so too does the risk of a military strike hitting one or more UF6 storage tanks, releasing potentially substantial amounts of radioactive gas into the atmosphere.

Third, although we cannot know for sure, every indication is that Iran is dispersing its nuclear facilities to unknown locations, "hardening" against air strikes the ones we already know about, and preparing more deeply buried facilities in known locations for future operations. That means that the prospects for success against, say, the enrichment facilities at Natanz are being reduced.

Fourth, Iran is clearly increasing its defensive capabilities by purchasing Russian S-300 antiaircraft systems (also known as the SA-20) directly or through Belarus. In late July, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and his spokesman contradicted Israeli contentions that the new antiaircraft systems would be operational this year. Assuming the Pentagon is correct, its own assessment on timing simply enhances the argument for Israel striking sooner rather than later.

Fifth, Iran continues to increase the offensive capabilities of surrogates like Syria and Hezbollah, both of which now have missile capabilities that can reach across Israel, as well as threaten U.S. troops and other U.S. friends and allies in the region. It may well be Syria and Hezbollah that retaliate initially after an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, thus making further strikes against Iran more problematic, at least in the short run.

Iran is pursuing two goals simultaneously, both of which it is comfortably close to achieving. The first -- to possess all the capabilities necessary for a deliverable nuclear weapon -- is now almost certainly impossible to stop diplomatically. Thus, Iran's second objective becomes critical: to make the risks of a military strike against its program too high, and to make the likelihood of success in fracturing the program too low. Time favors Iran in achieving these goals. U.S. and European diplomats should consider this while waiting by the telephone for Iran to call.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

[Optimus]

Kuwaiti Daily: Israel, U.S. Readying To Attack Iran
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/8953.htm

The Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reports, citing Gulf diplomatic sources in Washington, that the date of an Israeli and American attack on Lebanon and Iran is approaching.

According to the sources, preparations for the attack were coordinated during recent frequent visits by senior Israeli officials to the U.S., and that Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has gotten a green light from President Bush to carry out an extensive aerial and ground attack against Hizbullah. The sources added that this attack, which could be in late September or early October, would be a prelude to an expected attack on Iran in November or December.

It was also reported that the Israelis had reported to the Bush administration on the transfer of surface-to-air missiles from Iran to Hizbullah, that the missiles had already been positioned in the Beq'a Valley and at the foot of Mt. Lebanon, and that all Hizbullah missiles were deployed in extensive areas of the country.

Also according to the sources, Syria was refraining from arming Hizbullah with similar missiles that it and Iran received several months ago from Russia. They said that in recent talks in Turkey between Israeli and Syrian representatives, Syria had received guarantees that it would not be attacked, and at the same time the Syrian representatives announced the removal of a surface-to-air missile network from the western mountain chain bordering Lebanon, placed there out of fear of an Israeli aerial attack.

The Iranian daily Kayhan, which is close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated that the frequent trips by senior Israeli officials to Washington attest to Israel's fear of concessions being made by the U.S. in light of Iran's increasing demands, and that these trips were unplanned and not routine.

Sources: Al-Siyassa, Kuwait, August 5, 2008; Kayhan, Iran, August 4, 2008



Posted at: 2008-08-05

[bigron]

Wednesday, August 06, 2008


US Air Force think tank warns against attack on Iranian nuclear facilities
 
Jim Lobe

Inter Press Service
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=94802#


WASHINGTON: Amid rising speculation about the possibility of an Israeli or US bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month, a major study produced for the US Air Force by a top defense think tank concluded that US military action against Iran was "likely to have negative effects for the United States."

The study, by the RAND Project AIR FORCE, a division of the California-based RAND Corporation, was released July 9, the same day that Tehran test-fired missiles in an apparent response to reports the previous week that Israel had carried out secret exercises designed to simulate a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities the previous month.

But amid all the fireworks, the report, which also called for a multi-faceted strategy designed to encourage democratic development in Iran, was ignored by the mainstream media.

Entitled "Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities," the 156-page report also called for Washington to "tone down" its policy statements supporting "regime change" and to "discourage Iranian ethnic groups from revolting against the regime." Both policies, it said, are likely to be counter-productive.

Instead, according to the three main authors of the study, Washington should adopt a more patient approach, "designed to create conditions for effective relations [with Tehran] over the long haul."

As with the Soviet Union, with "Iran, the US government will again need to keep an eye on the long term, communicating with the current government but also encouraging more discussion among Iranians and more contacts and interactions between Iranians and Americans."

"Societies and governments change. The US government has some ability to foster favorable trends in Iran, but these policies will take time to come to fruition," said the report, which also noted that Iran "appears to be on its way to becoming a nuclear power."

Speculation about a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has, in fact, subsided somewhat over the past three weeks, although the issue has flared again as a result of successive visits by Israel's chief of staff and defense minister, Ehud Barak, over the past week. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times reported last week that top US officials had reassured Barak that the military option was still "on the table."

Still, most analysts believe that while such an attack - either by Israel or the US - remains possible, it is not probable, if for no other reason than the military brass in the Pentagon, especially the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has made his opposition to the idea increasingly clear over the past month.

In addition, the decision to send a high-ranking State Department official to participate for the first time in talks 10 days ago with Iran as part of the "Five+1" process that also involves France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China has been taken as a signal that Washington is increasingly committed to diplomacy as the means to address its concern over Tehran's nuclear program.

If, in addition, the State Department receives White House approval for opening an Interests Section in Tehran - a move that is currently the subject of discussions at the highest level of the administration - the likelihood of an attack before President George W. Bush leaves office will recede even further.

In that respect, the RAND study bolsters those who favor engagement with Iran, even as it also supports the maintenance of certain kinds of sanctions, notably the embargo on certain high-tech gas liquefaction technologies, as a bargaining chip for future negotiations with Tehran. To increase pressure on the regime, the report also recommends expanding contingency plans to seize Iranian foreign bank and commercial accounts and encouraging US allies to bar certain Iranian officials associated with the nuclear program from obtaining visas for foreign travel.

As for the possibility of an attack, however, the report is clear that such an option will almost certainly be counter-productive, particularly with respect to Washington's hopes that it could result in diminished support for the regime or even its overthrow.

"A large majority of Iranians strongly believe that Iran has the same right as other nations to develop nuclear energy, including the construction and operation of nuclear enrichment facilities," it said. "If Iran's facilities were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would likely be widespread."

The most likely response, indeed, would be a "strong push to retaliate (as) [c]ritics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent" in the nationalist backlash that would ensue.

Moreover, such an attack "would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear program," according to the authors. While it might set back the economy in certain ways, the resulting increase in oil prices would enable the government "to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current program without major budgetary consequences."

Another option, a blockade of Kharg Island, Iran's main loading terminal, or the Straits of Hormuz to prevent Iranian oil from being exported, would indeed have a "devastating effect" on Iran's economy, but it would also "probably do more to solidify public support for the regime than weaken it," according to the report, which also noted the likelihood that such a step would ensure a sharp rise in global oil prices and probably result in Iranian attacks on tanker traffic in the Gulf.

The report also warned against covert action programs designed to aid minority opposition groups, as "Iranian security forces have convincingly shown that they can handle restive ethnic groups, and violent opposition to Iranian rule is more likely to entrench the current security and political forces than to elicit a positive change in regime policies."

Instead, Washington should concentrate its efforts on fostering conditions for a more pluralistic Iran in favor of a more patient approach toward a regime that the report said "most Iranians perceive ... as legitimate." It called for greater funding for programs that facilitate contacts between Iranians and US citizens and to encourage US officials and citizens to provide interviews and commentary for Iranian media.

"At the same time, it should "mute US policy statements advocating regime change" as the government often uses these as "an excuse for detaining individuals seeking more freedom."

The report also calls for support of IMF and World Bank efforts to encourage better economic management and cease opposition to Iran's accession to the World Trade Organization.
 
 

[bigron]

 U.S. warns of 'punitive' action on Iran


Story Highlights :

Iran may face "punitive" action over latest nuclear developments, officials say

White House spokesman says latest response from Iran insufficient

Western powers have offered incentives for cutback in Tehran's nuclear plan



BANGKOK, Thailand (CNN) -- Iran may face "punitive" measures because of its insufficient response to an incentives package offered in return for a cutback in its nuclear program, a senior White House official said Wednesday.

"In the absence of a positive response to the generous offer that we provided in our incentives package, I think that the allies will have no choice but to take further measures that would be punitive," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Speaking aboard Air Force One en route to Thailand, the next stage of a week-long Asian tour by President George W. Bush, she said Iran's response to the package "doesn't look like it's anything worth writing home about."

The political directors of the "P5 plus one" group -- China, France, Britain, Russia, the United States and Germany -- will hold a conference call on Wednesday to discuss next steps in regards to Iran.

A top United Nations' nuclear official agency is manwhile due head to Iran Thursday for talks with officials amid the current continued diplomatic sparring between Iran and Western powers over the Iran's nuclear ambitions

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Wednesday that its deputy director general Olli Heinonen is headed there, but did not elaborate on the agenda.

Two senior U.S. officials told CNN Tuesday that Iran's response to an international offer of incentives in return for a cutback in its nuclear program is not acceptable.

"It doesn't seem to be what we are looking for," one said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the diplomacy involved.

The officials said the one-page document, sent Tuesday from top Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, says the Iranians are "ready to provide a clear response" to the offer -- once those world powers that tendered it "provide a clear response" to the questions Iran posed in a paper it submitted late last month at talks in Geneva.

That "non-paper" -- or off-the-record statement -- submitted by Iran at Geneva was dismissed by the "P5 plus one" group as unclear and not a positive response.

"It's another non-answer," another senior U.S. official said of Tuesday's new document. "It doesn't say anything. They are still pretending they are responding."

The political directors of these six countries will hold a conference call on Wednesday to discuss next steps.

The U.S. State Department said this week more sanctions against Iran would be considered in the absence of a positive response.

These Western powers want Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, fearing it is a step toward developing a nuclear weapon. Tehran contends it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful domestic purposes.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/06/iran.iaea/index.html 

[Triadtropz]

I believe the Iran war, is a chinese trap.. the US just might step into..I think the red army is using Iran as a proxy to start a much larger war.

[HYDROGENPAL]

"In the absence of a positive response to the generous offer that we provided in our incentives package, I think that the allies will have no choice but to take further measures"

of cours ethey would say that.
Do what I tell you and you can have a clondike bar. lol

[Dok]

Iran 'promises final response'
06/08/2008 11:44  - (SA)   


 
US expects Iran to reject deal
 

Washington - Six world powers are to confer by telephone on Wednesday on whether to seek new sanctions or keep talking to Iran after its ambiguous response to their offer to resolve the dispute over its allegedly arms-targetted nuclear programme.

Iran promised in a letter on Tuesday a final response to the offer, but said it first needed some clarifications about the proposals, an EU source said.

Negotiators from United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China "have scheduled a conference call for tomorrow", said US State Department spokesperson Gonzalo Gallegos.

Iran's demand for more information came in the form of a letter to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana that was also circulated late on Tuesday to the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany, who are seeking to persuade Tehran to end its uranium enrichment programme.

The Iranian authorities "say there will be a response but that clarification is needed on certain points of the offer", the European source told AFP.

"They've hit the ball back. We must analyse whether it's just another way to gain time or if it's serious," she added.

The Iranian letter was received three days after an initial weekend deadline set by the United States and its allies.

'We are going to have no choice...'

A source with Iran's Supreme National Security Council told AFP that a message had been handed over to Solana, who has been leading negotiations on behalf of the six world powers, but confirmed it did not contain the awaited final response.

"The message delivered today is not Iran's response to the six countries," the source said.

The six powers had offered Iran negotiations on a package of technological incentives if it suspends the sensitive process of uranium enrichment, which the West fears could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Tehran has steadfastly refused to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, which it says are only aimed at producing fuel for nuclear power for a growing population.

The United States said Iran faced "additional measures" if it did not respond clearly, indicating it risked further UN Security Council sanctions.

"If we are not going to receive a clear response, a clear message from them, we are going to have no choice but to pursue additional measures," Gallegos said.

Along with the threat of further sanctions, Washington has warned that the option of military action against Iran remains open if Tehran sticks to its defiant line.

Anti-ship missile

In seeking new UN sanctions, Washington is assured the support of Britain and France, both of whom have used stronger language in dealing with Iran, but its unclear whether the other three powers would follow suit.

Russia and China, two of Iran's biggest trading partners, are usually reticent in adopting sanctions and have not commented on Iran's letter to Solana.

Germany, one of whose companies recently signed a controversial contract to build three liquefied natural gas plants in Iran, is also keeping its cards close to its chest.

Amid the continued tensions, Iran said on Monday it had successfully test-fired an anti-ship missile with a range of 300km that would allow it to close the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman.

"Given the equipment our armed forces have, an indefinite blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be very easy," said the commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari.

But Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that any move by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be "self-defeating" because its economy is so heavily dependent on income from oil exports.

[Nailer]

I just wish that if we are going to war with Iran , do it and get it over with or just say forget it and concentrate on developing / perfecting cars that run on water.

[Optimus]

Rice: Time Has Run Out For Iran
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011863565
August 7, 2008 9:06 a.m. EST

Kris Alingod - AHN News Writer

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned Iran it could face more sanctions for giving an inadequate response to a multilateral proposal to suspend its uranium enrichment.

"[Iran] should have felt like time is running out quite a long time ago," Rice told Politico on Wednesday. "What is happening to Iran is that its isolation is costing them... I think that's one reason that you're seeing them trying to give half-answers rather than simply saying no. But the fact is we won't accept half-answers, either."

"And so we're now going to begin to consult on how to get back on the second track, which is to move again toward ... a Security Council resolution," she added.

The interview is Rice's first public comment since the State Department said Tuesday that Iran's much-awaited response to an incentives package from the U.N. Security Council and the P5+1, a group of six nations in talks with the Islamic nation, was "a stalling tactic." The P5+1 consists of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the U.S.

The Security Council had given Iran until last Saturday to respond to the proposal. It said on Monday "in the absence of a clear, positive response from Iran, we have no choice but to pursue other measures against Iran."

The Security Council and the P5+1 are now "beginning to consider the possible outlines of another sanctions resolution," according to State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos Iran has received international condemnation for its nuclear proliferation program, which it has said is for non-military purposes. It has received three sets of U.N. sanctions.

[Cywar]

False Flags, Lies & Nuclear Bombs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9uAw1MnEi8

[Dan]

we will hear this shit all winter just like we did with Iraq.  Remember that no one wanted to invade Iraq until it was drilled into our heads that they had WMD's.  Then it was accepted that we invaded.  The UN gave ample opportunity for Iraq to comply and they never did.  Remember all that crap?  Now it is happening again.  With Iran.  Something will happen in spring.  After McCain wins the election.  (Out of the two, I hope it is Obama myself though I am a RP guy)  

The reason stuff always happens in spring is because it gives the longest available timeline before winter sets in.  everything is harder in the winter.  It goes way back that you try not to war in the winter.

no matter how you look at it, the whole situation is F'ed up.

Dan

[Geolibertarian]

we will hear this shit all winter just like we did with Iraq.  Remember that no one wanted to invade Iraq until it was drilled into our heads that they had WMD's.  Then it was accepted that we invaded.  The UN gave ample opportunity for Iraq to comply and they never did.  Remember all that crap?  Now it is happening again.  With Iran.  Something will happen in spring.  After McCain wins the election.  (Out of the two, I hope it is Obama myself though I am a RP guy)  

The reason stuff always happens in spring is because it gives the longest available timeline before winter sets in.  everything is harder in the winter.  It goes way back that you try not to war in the winter.

You're forgetting something, though. The NWO orchestrated 9/11 as a pretext to (among other things) launch an October invasion of Afghanistan that had already been decided on and militarily preped for prior to 9/11.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html

So it's far from certain that they'll wait until spring, especially with the economy in virtual free fall.

[bigron]

Thursday, August 07, 2008
05:45 Mecca time, 02:45 GMT   
News Americas 
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008870164958321.html
 
Iran 'faces further sanctions' 
 
 
Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes .
 
Western powers have agreed to consider further United Nations sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme after it failed to respond adequately to an incentives offer.

Britain said the six major powers involved in the talks had agreed in a joint telephone call they had "no choice" but to pursue further sanctions.

A US state department spokesman also said they were considering the "possible outlines" of a resolution on sanctions.


The call for further sanctions followed a one-page letter sent by Iran to major powers on Tuesday containing no reply to an offer by Russia, China, the US, Germany, Britain and France of further talks and an incentives package if Iran freezes expansion of its nuclear work.

Western powers accuse Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons but Iran says its programme is only for peaceful energy purposes.


'No firm agreement'

However, Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the UN, said there was no definite agreement among the six powers for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran.

"It may well be that in the course of those discussions some members of the six raised the issue of the sanctions," Churkin said.

"But to the best of my knowledge there has been no firm agreement or understanding or concerted work in this regard."

Churkin also said Moscow had not set a deadline for Iran to respond to the offer, and that ministers from the six powers would meet in September to discuss Iran.

Al Jazeera's correspondent at the UN, John Terret, said according to UN sources, nothing concrete would happen until the UN General Assembly meets in September, when the six powers would have the chance to try to convince Iran to get on board or get the unanimity needed for sanctions.

Also, a senior official from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, is heading to Tehran on Thursday to try to offer the Iranians the clarification they are seeking on the offer, he said.

'Clear choice'

Kim Howells, a British foreign office minister, said the UK was disappointed by Iran's response so far.

"Iran has a clear choice: Engagement or isolation. We regret that Iran's leaders appear to have chosen isolation," he said.

"If Iran continues to refuse to come to the negotiating table, the international pressure on Iran will only grow," he said.

The UK had warned that a lack of a positive answer from Tehran by the end of Tuesday would prompt the six powers to ask the UN Security Council to take further punitive measures.

The new deadline was set after Iran ignored a previous demand to respond by last weekend to the proposed package, insisting no such deadline had been set.

The UN has already imposed three sets of sanctions against Iran over the dispute.

Israel, which is concerned about a threat from a potentially nuclear Iran, said on Thursday that Iran was trying to buy time by giving "evasive" replies and the UN should impose strong sanctions.

"Every day that the centrifuges continue to spin brings Iran closer to a nuclear weapons capability and threatens the stability and security of the region and the world," Sallai Meridor, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said.

Tensions were again heightened on Monday when Iran said it had successfully test-fired an anti-ship missile with a range of 300km that would allow it to close the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, one of the world's busiest oil shipping routes.
 
 
 

[Optimus]

Sen. Joe Lieberman: Iran's Activities 'An Act of War'
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Lieberman_Iran/2008/08/07/119751.html
Thursday, August 7, 2008 9:00 AM

By: David A. Patten  
 

Sen. Joseph Lieberman termed Iran's training of Iraqi insurgents "an act of war" in a Florida appearance Wednesday evening on behalf of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.


The independent Democrat from Connecticut spoke at length about the threats facing both the state of Israel and the United States during a town hall meeting at the Palm Beach Synagogue in South Florida, describing McCain as ready to face global dangers as commander-in-chief from his first day in office.



Lieberman said that by loosing its elite Kuds revolutionary force to train extremists to fight in Iraq, the Iranian regime has "been responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq." "This is really an act of war," Lieberman added, "A proxy act of war."



Citing the threat of terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions, Lieberman praised McCain's experience, saying it had given him "good judgment in war and in peace." Lieberman said McCain is an "idealistic realist" who understands that when confronting al-Qaida and Iran's extremist leaders, "You can not sweet talk them into being reasonable, you can't give them a warm embrace and think they're suddenly going to become our friends."



In an obvious reference to Sen. Barack Obama's plan to negotiate readily with foreign despots, Lieberman said McCain would "never be so confused as to think you can sit down with our enemies without preconditions, unless it will really benefit ourselves." He added that Americans must understand that Iran is the No. 1 challenge to American foreign policy.



In reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Lieberman said, "History should have taught us that when we hear a leader of a state make statements so extreme as to seem almost unbelievable, we should take that seriously." Ahmadinejad, he said, regularly leads the Iranian masses in chants of "Death to America."



"We've got to take that seriously," Lieberman said, "because he means it seriously." Early in his remarks, Lieberman drew applause after he announced that former Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky had endorsed McCain.



Asked later if he agreed with Sharansky that an Obama presidency was "a risk" to Israel, Lieberman told Newsmax: "I guess I'd say it affirmatively: A McCain presidency will be good for the state of Israel."
 

[Optimus]

Aug 7, 2008 14:57 | Updated Aug 7, 2008 15:36
'2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
By ADAM GONN, THE MEDIA LINE NEWS AGENCY

Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.

Kuwait began finalizing its "emergency war plan" on being told the vessels were bound for the region.

The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed "force-protection policy."

While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line's defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.

Within the last month, the Roosevelt completed an exercise along the US east coast focusing on communication among navies of different countries. It has since been declared ready for operational duties. The Reagan, currently with the Seventh Fleet, had just set sail from Japan.

The Seventh Fleet area of operation stretches from the East Coast of Africa to the International Date Line.

Meanwhile, the Arabic news agency Moheet reported at the end of July that an unnamed American destroyer, accompanied by two Israeli naval vessels traveled through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean. A week earlier, a US nuclear submarine accompanied by a destroyer and a supply ship moved into the Mediterranean, according to Moheet.

Currently there are two US naval battle groups operating in the Gulf: one is an aircraft carrier group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, which carries some 65 fighter aircraft. The other group is headed by the USS Peleliu which maintains a variety of planes and strike helicopters.

The ship movements coincide with the latest downturn in relations between Washington and Teheran. The US and Iran are at odds over Iran's nuclear program, which the Bush administration claims is aimed at producing material for nuclear weapons; however, Teheran argues it is only for power generation.

Kuwait, like other Arab countries in the Gulf, fears it will be caught in the middle should the US decide to launch an air strike against Iran if negotiations fail. The Kuwaitis are finalizing details of their security, humanitarian and vital services, the newspaper reported.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman - lie just across the Gulf from Iran. Generals in the Iranian military have repeatedly warned that American interests in the region would be targeted if Iran is subjected to any military strike by the US or its Western allies.

Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, while there is a sizeable American base in Qatar. It is assumed the US also has military personnel in the other Gulf states, The Media Line's defense analyst said.

Iran is thought to have intelligence operatives working in the GCC states, according to Dubai-based military analysts.

The standoff between the US and Iran has left the Arab nations' political leaders in something of a bind, as they were being used as pawns by Washington and Teheran, according to The Media Line analyst.

Iran has offered them economic and industrial sweeteners, while the US is boosting their defense capabilities. US President George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have paid visits to the GCC states in a bid to win their support.

[Optimus]

Israel Considering Military Strike on Iranian Nuclear Sites
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399124,00.html
Thursday, August 07, 2008

JERUSALEM —  Israel is building up its strike capabilities amid growing anxiety over Iran's nuclear ambitions and appears confident that a military attack would cripple Tehran's atomic program, even if it can't destroy it.

Such talk could be more threat than reality. However, Iran's refusal to accept Western conditions is worrying Israel as is the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran.

The Jewish state has purchased 90 F-16I fighter planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran, and will receive 11 more by the end of next year. It has bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads — in addition to the three it already has.

And this summer it carried out air maneuvers in the Mediterranean that touched off an international debate over whether they were a "dress rehearsal" for an imminent attack, a stern warning to Iran or a just a way to get allies to step up the pressure on Tehran to stop building nukes.

According to foreign media reports, Israeli intelligence is active inside Iranian territory. Israel's military censor, who can impose a range of legal sanctions against journalists operating in the country, does not permit publication of details of such information in news reports written from Israel.

The issue of Iran's nuclear program took on new urgency this week after U.S. officials rejected Tehran's response to an incentives package aimed at getting it to stop sensitive nuclear activity — setting the stage for a fourth round of international sanctions against the country.

Israel, itself an undeclared nuclear power, sees an atomic bomb in Iranian hands as a direct threat to its existence.

Israel believes Tehran will have enriched enough uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year or 2010 at the latest. The United States has trimmed its estimate that Iran is several years or as much as a decade away from being able to field a bomb, but has not been precise about a timetable. In general U.S. officials think Iran isn't as close to a bomb as Israel claims, but are concerned that Iran is working faster than anticipated to add centrifuges, the workhorses of uranium enrichment.

"If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon," said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week.

"Israel takes (Iranian President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding its destruction seriously. Israel cannot risk another Holocaust," Mofaz said.

The Iranian leader has in the past called for Israel's elimination, though his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while others say a better translation would be "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.

Iran insists its uranium enrichment is meant only for electricity generation, not a bomb — an assertion that most Western nations see as disingenuous.

Israeli policymakers and experts have been debating for quite some time whether it would even be possible for Israel to take out Iran's nuclear program. The mission would be far more complicated than a 1981 Israeli raid that destroyed Iraq's partially built Osirak nuclear reactor, or an Israeli raid last year on what U.S. intelligence officials said was another unfinished nuclear facility in Syria.

In Iran, multiple atomic installations are scattered throughout the country, some underground or bored into mountains — unlike the Iraqi and Syrian installations, which were single aboveground complexes.

Still, the Syria action seemed to indicate that Israel would also be willing to use force preemptively against Iran.

"For Israel this is not a target that cannot be achieved," said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, former head of Israel's army intelligence.

However, it's unlikely Israel would carry out an attack without approval from the United States.

Recent signs that Washington may be moving away from a military option — including a proposal to open a low-level U.S. diplomatic office in Tehran and a recent decision to allow a senior U.S. diplomat to participate alongside Iran in international talks in Geneva — are not sitting very well with Israel.

That may help explain recent visits to Jerusalem by Mike McConnell, the U.S. director of national intelligence, and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each of whom delivered a message to Israel that it does not have a green light to attack Iran at this time.

Senior Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they do not wish to appear at odds with their most important ally, said they were concerned about a possible softening of the U.S. stance toward Iran.

Apparently to allay Israeli concerns, Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran. And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran, said a senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions over the issue have not been made public.

With sanctions and diplomacy still the international community's preferred method to get Iran to stop building the bomb, an Israeli strike does not appear imminent.

If it did attack, however, Israel would have to contend with upgraded Iranian defense capabilities, including 29 new Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile systems Iran purchased from Russia last year in a $700 million deal.

Russia has so far not gone through with a proposed sale to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles, an even more powerful air defense system than the Tor-M1. An Israeli defense official said the deal is still on the table, however. This is a big source of consternation for Israel because the system could significantly complicate a pre-emptive Israeli assault on Iran.

Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers — something Israel failed to do in its 2006 war against Hezbollah. It's widely assumed that Israel is seeking to obtain bunker buster bombs, if it hasn't already done so.

Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.

America's ability to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is far superior to Israel's.

Unlike Israel, the United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.

Yet the cost of an attack — by the U.S., Israel or both — is likely to be enormous.

Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.

It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq by revving up Shiite militias there just as Washington is showing some important gains in reining in Iraqi chaos.

It could activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. And it could strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles — something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.

Perhaps most importantly, any strike on Iran — especially if it's done without having exhausted all diplomatic channels — could have the opposite of the desired effect, "actually increasing the nationalist fervor to build a nuclear weapon," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli and expert on Iranian affairs.

Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"A two, three-year delay is not worth it. For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes," he said.



 

[Optimus]

Rice on possible Israeli strike on Iran - we don't say yes or no to Israeli military operations
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-27092-israelnews-rice-possible-israeli-strike-iran-we-dont-say-yes-or-no-israeli-mili

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday refrained from saying the U.S. would prevent Israel from mounting a much-touted attack against Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear aspirations. "We don't say yes or no to Israeli military operations. Israel is a sovereign country," Rice said in an interview with Yahoo! News.

[bigron]

Russia set no nuclear deadline for Iran 


07/08/2008 11:09:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=148375

 
 Russia says it never set a deadline for Iran to respond to a P5+1 incentives package that requires Tehran to halt uranium enrichment.



"We haven't set any deadlines ourselves for their response and there is ongoing dialogue," Russian envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin said on Wednesday.

He was referring to a proposal drawn up by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1). The package would provide Iran political and economic benefits if Tehran halts its nuclear work.

The US and its European allies say an informal deadline to respond to the package expired on Saturday, suggesting that further UNSC sanctions await Tehran.

"We certainly do not believe that it is a foregone conclusion that it (the dialogue) is not going to be successful," the Russian envoy continued, adding that he believes there is 'potential' in the talks on the incentives package.

While the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Tehran is enriching uranium to 3 percent, a rate consistent with electricity generation, the West accuses Iran of making efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

Under US pressure, the UN Security Council has intervened in the nuclear case and has imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran.

Iran, however, has vowed to continue dialogue to assert its rights to the peaceful application of nuclear technology as stated under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki commented on the issue last week and said that any ultimatum would damage the ongoing dialogue between Iran and world powers.



-- AJP

 

[bigron]

Iran’s vaunted 300-km range sea missile is non-existent

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=5493

August 7, 2008, 7:08 PM (GMT+02:00)

 DEBKAfile’s military sources discount the claim by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Maj. Gen. Ali Jafari that Iran had test-fired a new naval weapon that could destroy any vessel within a 300-km range.

Jafari boasted to reporters Mon. Aug. 4: “Today the IRGC has the capability to target the enemies’ targets with a wide range of missiles and in a few minutes in case of any attack.”

Responding to a question, Jafari said: “The Strait of Hormuz is an important and strategic strait. … Considering its proximity to our shores, it is completely within the range of our weapons and shutting the strait for an unlimited time is easily possible. There are no limits for us in this regard.”

Wednesday, an American spokesman commented that closure of the Strait, through which 40 percent of the world’s oil passes, would hurt Iran most of all because its own oil exports and refined fuel products imports would be blocked.

Western intelligence sources were skeptical about the IRGC commander’s boast of a sophisticated sea missile as “propaganda fantasy” and unfounded. If Iran has such a weapon, they said, why don’t they exhibit it?

Jafari said the missiles were test fired as scheduled but admitted “unprofessional photography made the tests seem bogus.”

DEBKAfile’s military sources have confirmed after checking the story out that Moscow is withholding a consignment of advanced S-300 anti-air missile batteries promised Iran and will not send them out in the near future.

Sources in Washington, Moscow and Tel Aviv recently claimed that deliveries were due in early September, which would have seriously impeded a possible Israel Air Force strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

[bigron]

US sources hint that by rejecting Iran sanctions, Moscow opens door to Israeli attack


DEBKAfile Special Report
http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=5491

August 7, 2008, 7:04 PM (GMT+02:00)

 
Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin: Nyet to Iran sanctions

Sources in Washington commented Wednesday night, Aug. 6, that, while it is unlikely that Israel would attack Iran without US approval, this might change if tough sanctions were taken off the table. They reported Israel was building up its strike capabilities for an attack, had purchased 90 F-16I planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran and would receive another 11 by the end of next year. The Jewish state had also bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads, in addition to the three already in service with its navy.

According to foreign media, Israel is active inside Iranian territory.

DEBKAfile reports that this information was leaked by Washington sources, apparently to warn Moscow that by closing the door to sanctions, it was opening the door to an Israeli attack.

A few hours earlier by Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin: “There have been no firm agreements or understandings or any kind of concerted work” against Iran over its nuclear program.” He took exception to US and British statements that a fourth round of UN Security Council sanctions was on the cards against Iran for its ambiguous response to the six-power incentives.

The sources disclosed that Israel, believing Tehran will have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year or 2010 at the latest, is worried about Washington’s softening on Iran and intention to open a US office in Tehran.

Washington sources report that Israeli is building up its strike capabilities and appears confident that a military attack would cripple Tehran’s nuclear program even if its installations were too widely scattered to be completely wiped out.

US, British, Russian, Chinese, French, German and European officials spoke by conference earlier in the day. The US and Britain said they had agreed to consider a possible fourth round of UN Security Council sanctions for lack of a clear yes or no from Tehran on the suspension of uranium enrichment in return for incentives.

This the Russian ambassador denied. He also said Moscow had set no deadline for Iran to respond to the offer made on June 19. “The negotiating track is open, there are contacts between the parties,” he said. While Russian would have preferred a clear response, “It’s more complicated than that as we all know.”

He suggested that further talks among the six powers would take place in September on the sidelines of the next UN General Assembly.

[HYDROGENPAL]

http://137.229.36.30/cgi-bin/riometer/riom2_sel.cgi

haarp is going crazy

and so are the earth quackes exactly where haarp is
DO you feel tired?
They are pulsing something big.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/180_50.php

[roguewerks]

Aug 7, 2008 14:57 | Updated Aug 7, 2008 15:36

'2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf'


Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.
A US Navy aircraft carrier.

A US Navy aircraft carrier.
Photo: AP
Slideshow: Pictures of the week

Kuwait began finalizing its "emergency war plan" on being told the vessels were bound for the region.

The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed "force-protection policy."

While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line's defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.

Within the last month, the Roosevelt completed an exercise along the US east coast focusing on communication among navies of different countries. It has since been declared ready for operational duties. The Reagan, currently with the Seventh Fleet, had just set sail from Japan.

The Seventh Fleet area of operation stretches from the East Coast of Africa to the International Date Line.

Meanwhile, the Arabic news agency Moheet reported at the end of July that an unnamed American destroyer, accompanied by two Israeli naval vessels traveled through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean. A week earlier, a US nuclear submarine accompanied by a destroyer and a supply ship moved into the Mediterranean, according to Moheet.

Currently there are two US naval battle groups operating in the Gulf: one is an aircraft carrier group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, which carries some 65 fighter aircraft. The other group is headed by the USS Peleliu which maintains a variety of planes and strike helicopters.

The ship movements coincide with the latest downturn in relations between Washington and Teheran. The US and Iran are at odds over Iran's nuclear program, which the Bush administration claims is aimed at producing material for nuclear weapons; however, Teheran argues it is only for power generation.

Kuwait, like other Arab countries in the Gulf, fears it will be caught in the middle should the US decide to launch an air strike against Iran if negotiations fail. The Kuwaitis are finalizing details of their security, humanitarian and vital services, the newspaper reported.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman - lie just across the Gulf from Iran. Generals in the Iranian military have repeatedly warned that American interests in the region would be targeted if Iran is subjected to any military strike by the US or its Western allies.

Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, while there is a sizeable American base in Qatar. It is assumed the US also has military personnel in the other Gulf states, The Media Line's defense analyst said.

Iran is thought to have intelligence operatives working in the GCC states, according to Dubai-based military analysts.

The standoff between the US and Iran has left the Arab nations' political leaders in something of a bind, as they were being used as pawns by Washington and Teheran, according to The Media Line analyst.

Iran has offered them economic and industrial sweeteners, while the US is boosting their defense capabilities. US President George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have paid visits to the GCC states in a bid to win their support.

[Optimus]

Thursday, August 7, 2008
Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran
http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/08/massive-us-naval-armada-heads-for-iran.html
 
Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force".

The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.

They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.

Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.

The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.

The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:

Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer

Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer

USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer

USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship

Also likely to join the battle armada:

UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships

French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships

Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships. The following USN ships took part (as the "enemy" forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in:

USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser
USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser
USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser
USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer
USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer
USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate

The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps).

The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with. This is a most serious game of military brinkmanship with major nuclear armed powers that have profound objections to the neo-con grand strategy and to western control of all of the Middle East's oil supply.

The Russian Navy this spring sent a major battle fleet into the Mediterranean headed by the modern aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov and the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Moskva. This powerful fleet has at least 11 surface ships and unknown numbers of subs and can use the Russian naval facility at Syria's Tartous port for resupply. The Admiral Kuznetsov carries approximately 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The warplanes are mostly the powerful Su-33, a naval version (with mid-air refueling capability) of the Su-27 family. While the Su-33 is a very powerful warplane it lacks the power of the stealth USAF F-22. However, the Russians insist that they have developed a plasma based system that allows them to stealth any aircraft and a recent incident where Russian fighters were able to appear unannounced over a US Navy carrier battle group tends to confirm their claims. The Su-33 can be armed with the 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missile (NATO code name SS-N-22 Sunburn) and the even more powerful P-800 Oniks (also named Yakhonts; NATO code name SS-N-26 Onyx). Both missiles are designed to kill US Navy supercarriers by getting past the cruiser/destroyer screen and the USN point-defense Phalanx system by using high supersonic speeds and violent end maneuvers. Russian subs currently use the underwater rocket VA-111 Shkval (Squall), which is fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes and reaches a speed of 360kph (230mph) underwater. There is no effective countermeasures to this system and no western counterpart.

A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons.

Kuwait has activated its "Emergency War Plan" as it and other Gulf nations prepare for the likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East involving weapons of mass destruction.

The two-ton elephant in the living room of the neo-con strategy is the advanced biowar (ABW) that Iran, and to a lessor extent Syria, has. This places the motherlands of the major neo-con nations (America, France, the United Kingdom), as well as Israel, in grave danger. When the Soviet Union fell the Iranians hired as many out-of-work former Soviet advanced biowar experts as possible. In the last 15 or so years they have helped to develop a truly world class ABW program utilizing recombination DNA genetic engineering technology to create a large number of man made killer viruses. This form of weapon system does not require high tech military delivery systems. The viruses are sub-microscopic and once seeded in a population use the population itself as vectors. Seeding can be done without notice in shopping malls, churches, and other public places. The only real defense to an advanced global strategic biowar attack is to lock down the population as rapidly as possible and let those infected die off.

Unless the public gets it act together and forces the neo-cons to stop the march to yet another war in the Middle East we are apt to see a truly horrific nightmare unfold in OUR COUNTRIES.

[bigron]

Egypt warns Israel against war on Iran

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:36:29 GMT
 http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=65896&sectionid=351020101
 
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit says an Israeli attack on Iran may cause heavy losses for Tel Aviv and the region as a whole.

In an interview with the Egyptian Nile TV channel, Abul Gheit expressed his doubt over the effectiveness of military strikes against Iran for solving the standoff over the country's nuclear program.

Gheit's comment came after Israeli officials mulled a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic to halt its atomic drive. The Egyptian minister added, "Iran has the right to have a peaceful nuclear program."

"The West should try to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue through political and diplomatic settlement," said Abul Gheit.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also has not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program if it is deemed necessary, but he has said that diplomatic solutions should be executed to keep Tehran from "becoming a nuclear power".

In a move to show the readiness of its armed forces for possible threats, Iran recently test-fired a number of short, medium and long range missiles during a military war-game in the Persian Gulf.

 

[bigron]

August 8, 2008

The Iranian Chess Game Continues
 
by William O. Beeman


Diplomacy between Iran and the United States has entered the opening gambit stage, and Iran appears to be winning at this point.

The game began on July 19, when Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili met with European negotiators with an American diplomat, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns, present for the first time at such a meeting since the Iranian hostage crisis.

The presence of Burns riled many anti-Iranian forces, resulting in a flurry of pronouncements and articles about American "capitulation" to Iran. The recriminations continued. On Aug. 5, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, a notorious anti-Iran detractor, wrote a fulminating article in the Wall Street Journal titled "While Diplomats Dither, Iran Builds Nukes."

The Bush administration clearly found itself in a difficult situation, needing to placate hawks like Bolton and Vice President Dick Cheney while seeming to allow diplomacy to have a chance, so they made the talks not about substance, but about power – which side could compel the other to toe the line.

So the Bush administration started with a big lie. At the time of the July meeting the press and the State Department announced that Iran had a two-week deadline to respond to the European proposals (the exact details of which remain secret, but which are presumed to include an extensive basket of technology, economic, and trade incentives).

There was no such deadline. It appears to have been a fiction. However, this falsehood gave Washington and the press the opportunity on Aug. 2 to announce that Iran had "rejected" the deadline. The New York Timeswent so far as to call it an "informal deadline," a head-scratching concept.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was reported by Agence France Press to have said, "The language of deadline-setting is not understandable to us. We gave them our response within a month as we said we would; now they have to reply to us."

Even the State Department itself had to back down from the fictional deadline. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack threatened further sanctions if Iran did not respond on Wednesday, July 30. But he had changed his tune on Saturday, Aug. 2, the putative deadline. "I didn't count the days. It's coming up soon," he said. And when asked when Washington would pull incentives off the table designed to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program, McCormack said "there is no indication of that."

So little happened at the July 19 meeting, it could hardly be called a diplomatic encounter. In fact, Iran has been pursuing a productive diplomatic course. Rather than responding to deadlines and ultimatums, Iran has steadily put forward proposals for resolving its differences with the European and American governments over its nuclear energy program. It is clear that Iran will not give up its "inalienable right" to peaceful development of nuclear energy, as enshrined in Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it (but not India, Pakistan, or Israel) is a signatory. It seeks other means, short of suspending uranium enrichment, to assure the world that it has no active nuclear weapons program.

Iran's proposal for negotiations presented to the European Nations is titled "The Modality For Comprehensive Negotiations" and sets out three stages of proceedings:

Preliminary Talks. Overall determination of the negotiating timetable.
Start of Talks. Actions against Iran would be suspended and common ground matters would be discussed.
Negotiations. Actual negotiating stage which the Iranians envision should last two months, but could be extended by mutual consent.
Iran does not agree in this document to suspend uranium enrichment. The document states in the negotiation stage that determinations regarding Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty would be "concluded in the UNSC [United Nations Security Council] and fully and completely returned to the Agency [The International Atomic Energy Agency]."

This is a reasonable blueprint for forward negotiations, and it represents a real diplomatic effort on Iran's part. By contrast, the United States seems to have acted with a combination of bluff and muscle, and it has gotten nowhere for its efforts.

This has not stopped the United States and its European allies for calling on Aug. 4 for more sanctions based on Iran's violation of the "informal deadline." This is an astonishing exercise in diplomatic audacity – calling for punishment where there could be no violation, there being no mutual agreement of the conditions under which actions would be declared a violation. Unfortunately, the political climate against Iran being what it is, such an unwarranted, bellicose move will likely go unquestioned.

Except by Iran.

Iran had its own gambits in mind to retain control of the process. After the accusations and the threats by the European and U.S. consortium, they countered with a grim reminder that they could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which two-thirds of OPEC crude oil passes. They tested some new conventional missiles. Then they announced that they would indeed answer the European proposals – but in their own time and on their own timetable, according to their own agenda. They were clearly working through their own negotiation plan step by step, catching the United States off guard, and throwing everyone in Washington off their game, leaving them to continue their slow burn.

The question is whether, out of frustration or pique, the impatient Washington detractors will upset the table.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.
 

 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/beeman.php?articleid=13267