Author Topic: Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan  (Read 3492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan
« on: November 13, 2007, 06:47:04 am »
Is World War III on Hold?
 
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11899

Is a Bush preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, or on the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard, a more remote possibility today than it was several weeks ago?

So it would seem.

The latest indication is a candid interview in the Financial Times with Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of Central Command, who would be the Tommy Franks of any naval or air war on Iran.

"The Pentagon is not preparing a preemptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers," concluded the FT in the lead of its story.

Dealing with Iran is a "challenge," a strike is not "in the offing," Fallon is quoted. His comments, said the Times, "served as a shot across the bows of hawks who argue for imminent action."

"[G]enerally, the bellicose comments" out of Washington "are not particularly helpful," said our CentCom commander. That is naval gunfire directed right across the bow of the West Wing.

For the ranking man in Washington said to be arguing loudest for imminent action is Dick Cheney. And the most "bellicose comments" about Iran coming out of Washington have come from George W. Bush.

Here, again, is Bush at the American Legion Convention:

"Iran … is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. … Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. … Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. … Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

Last month, Bush ventured further, "f you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

If terms like "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" are not "bellicose rhetoric," what is?

Why might the administration be backing away from war on Iran?

First, Pakistan. With a nation of 170 million with nuclear weapons in a political crisis that could lead to civil war, igniting a war with Iran would seem suicidal – especially with the war in Iraq about to enter its sixth year this spring and the war in Afghanistan about to enter its seventh year next month.

Second, there is no guarantee U.S. air strikes could denuclearize Iran, except temporarily. Bombs cannot destroy knowledge. And Iran has been gaining knowledge for years on how to enrich uranium. Moreover, Iran has surely secreted away many of the centrifuges it has constructed, far from the Natanz plant – ground zero – where 2,000 or 3,000 are said to be operating.

Third, no one can predict where an attack on Iran will lead. While the United States could smash all known nuclear facilities, Iran could ship IEDs, sniper rifles, and surface-to-air missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and send in thousands of Revolutionary Guard and cause chaos in the Gulf that would double or treble the price of oil, setting off a worldwide recession. Sleeper cells could retaliate for Iranian casualties with suicide bombings at U.S. malls.

We went into Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit strategy. In Iran, other than the naval and air strikes of the first weeks, we do not know how or where the war would go. We do know the Iranians have been preparing surprises.

Fourth, Congress seems to have found its voice, and 30 senators have written to inform President Bush that he does not have the authority, absent an Iranian attack on U.S. forces, to launch a war on Iran. While Rudy Giuliani and John McCain remain hawkish, the Democratic candidates are moving in the other direction.

Fifth, there has been a downturn in roadside attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, suggesting Iran may no longer be supplying the enhanced IEDs. And U.S. forces have released several Iranians held captive in Iraq. There may be progress behind the scenes, as both countries could suffer horribly in a war.

We are not out of the woods yet. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the truth about those 3,000 centrifuges working perfectly, Iran could have the nuclear material for a single bomb in a year. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports this month on whether Iran is meeting its commitments to come clean. It is not. And the European Union will report on whether the sanctions have succeeded, or failed. And the latter is the case.

And there are those in Tehran who would relish U.S. strikes, to unite the nation against us and consolidate the mullahs' power.

Nevertheless, the forces against war now and for negotiations with Tehran – Condi Rice, Robert Gates, the Pentagon brass, the most outspoken of the retired military, and NATO Europe – seem to be gaining the ascendancy in the last great battle of the Bush presidency.

And the War Party, which began its propaganda offensive around Labor Day, seems to have shot its bolt. For now.

 

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2007, 06:52:17 am »

US softens stance on Iran strikes!!


By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:20am GMT 13/11/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TOZKBIBSV5QYHQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/13/wiran113.xml


The United States is trying to reduce tensions with Iran by playing down the possibility of launching military strikes against the country's nuclear facilities, observers believe.

A series of public statements and Washington's decision to free nine of the 20 Iranians held captive in Iraq last week suggest that America is trying to send conciliatory signals.

The Bush administration is deeply divided over how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, with Dick Cheney, the vice-president, believed to favour the military option. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Robert Gates, the defence secretary, are both thought to oppose Mr Cheney.

advertisementInstead, they advocate employing diplomatic and economic pressure to compel Iran to change course.

Significantly, service chiefs in the Pentagon are deeply sceptical of the military option.

Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central Command, which has responsibility for US forces in the Middle East, told the Financial Times that a strike was "not in the offing".

He added: "Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to do that is the real objective. Attacking them strikes me as being not the first choice."

If America did launch strikes at Iran's nuclear facilities, notably the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, Teheran would have numerous options for retaliation. It could fire missiles at Western targets in the Gulf states and sponsor attacks on US and British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hence any American attack would have to be a broad and lengthy campaign, designed to destroy Iran's ability to retaliate.

With US forces stretched thinly around the world, this would be a major undertaking.

Rosemary Hollis, the director of research at the foreign affairs think tank, Chatham House, said: "The real analysis made by the service chiefs says, 'no we do not want to go to war with Iran, but we must scare them'. We're being told that no one is going to choose to go to war with Iran, but that doesn't mean it can't happen."

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France presented a united front on the issue after meeting in Berlin. Mrs Merkel said: "We discussed how we and other European countries want to reduce our trade links with Iran."
 
 

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2007, 08:57:45 am »
Bush to Go Public on Iran’s Secret Nuclear Arms Activities


http://debka.com/article.php?aid=1314

(News from Israel!!)

 
President George W. Bush is developing a new strategy for tackling Iran’s determined pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. He sounded out French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on his new ideas when they came over separately for talks in the last few days.

He is also in rapport with Russian president Vladimir Putin through confidential channels.

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that the US president’s plan is to put before the public new findings on Iran’s nuclear secrets, drawn from data gathered by the United States, Russia, France, Germany and Israel, and use the publicity as a fulcrum to push hard for tough international sanctions.

The White House hopes thereby to compel Tehran to level on its military nuclear program, whose existence it has so far denied, and demonstrate the failure of the international nuclear watchdog’s director, Mohammed ElBaradei and his vast inspection organization, to uncover the underhand nuclear activities in progress in Iran and Syria. Washington hopes that once the real facts are in the open, Russia and China, which back ElBaradei, will endorse a third round of UN Security Council sanctions, tough enough to progressively place Iran under economic siege.

Monday, Nov. 12, Merkel hosted Sarkozy in Berlin to line up their positions in the light of their talks with the US president and a week before the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany convene ahead of a full council meeting on sanctions. Sarkozy is more fired up for harsh measures than Merkel. But even she admitted after meeting Bush at his Crawford ranch Saturday, Nov. 10, that failing diplomatic progress with Iran, “We need to think about further possible sanctions.”

Putin is the key to the imposition of multilateral sanctions and their effectiveness.

European companies, especially in Germany, fear that their economic boycott of trade with Iran will create a gap into which Russia and China will eagerly step. The failure of the Russian president’s talks in Tehran last month left him more amenable to an accommodation with Bush than before. His cooperation in the Bush strategy would leave China as the only standout.

The US president and his spokesmen have reiterated their commitment to pursuing diplomacy. On the other hand, declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps al Qods Brigade a global terrorist group has placed the US military option squarely on the table, which all the European are anxious to avert.

They will have noticed that military tensions in the region are rising again. US naval, air and marine forces are again beginning to pile up around Iran’s Gulf shores, while Tehran threatens to unleash “wave upon wave” of suicide fighters against “aggressors.”

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that in recent months, the USS Enterprise was the only US nuclear carrier cruising Gulf waters with its strike force. On Nov. 5, a second nuclear carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman set out quietly from its Norfolk base for the Gulf with 7,500 sailors and marines aboard the carrier and its strike force. It will be followed by the USS Nimitz .

All three carrier groups are escorted by fast nuclear submarines, cruisers and missile destroyers.

Upon its arrival, the Enterprise will head out of the Gulf, unless is departure is delayed by significant security concerns in the Gulf or Middle East regions. It will leave behind the two US Marine carriers the USS Wasp and the USS Kearsage , with thousands of marines and landing craft on their decks.

According to our sources in Washington, the event which galvanized the US president into launching a new initiative on Iran was the Pakistan crisis. He calculated that, if Pervez Musharraf were to be overthrown, a new regime in Islamabad, whether or not it is Islamist, could well opt for close military and political ties with Tehran. The menace of a nuclear axis between Islamabad and Tehran must be prevented at all costs. Therefore, the pressure on Iran must be ratcheted up with all speed.

The rulers of Tehran are fully aware of the sense of urgency in the White House about curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions by exposure and crippling sanctions and, DEBKAfile’s Iran sources report, are preparing counter-measures.

On Nov. 6, Muhammad Ali Hosseini, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman was asked about the threat from the Revolutionary Guards Navy chief Gen. Ali Fadwi to deploy suicide fighters if needed was the official Tehran line. He replied: “Martyrdom is a holy phenomenon that is affirmed by the Islamic religion which regards defense against aggression as a duty. Thus martyrdom is also a valuable tool for deterring attacks.”

Even the relatively moderate Iranian political circles feel bound to show the flag.

On Nov. 4, the Iranian daily Aftab-e Yazd, which speaks for Tehran’s political “reformists” (president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s main opposition), quoted ex-members of Iran’s delegation to the IAEA on ElBaradei remark, which so enraged Washington, that he has found no evidence of Tehran developing nuclear weapons:

“Trust is another issue; one has to see how much Al-Baradi’i will stand by his remarks in the future,” said one official. “I think it is unlikely he will not change them if pressured. Overall, I take a positive view of Al-Baradi’I’s statements. I believe he is acting in the framework of his duties. If he did not make these positive or peaceful statements, he would open the way for an attack by the West and the Zionists.”

A second senior Iranian official added: “The Agency has a duty to examine a country’s past and present program. Even if a country shows it is deviating from the peaceful path, the agency is not tasked with taking punitive measures against that country, but must take a corrective measure.”

Therefore, even circles in Tehran which are relatively moderate compared with the rabid president deny anyone the right to punish Iran - even if it is proven to be running a secret military nuclear program - only corrective measures which must also be negotiated. To keep them cowed, the Iranian president Monday, Nov. 12, called critics of his country's nuclear program “traitors” and vowed to expose “their collaboration with Iran's enemies.”

DEBKAfile's Tehran sources report a mounting groundswell of criticism for Iran's nuclear program prompted Ahmadinejad's denunciation.


Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2007, 09:12:58 am »
what i dont understand, if someone could clear this up, is; cant they get nukes on the black market or from russia?

and even so, as the article mentioned, sleeper cells dont need nukes to kill thousands, i could think of 50 ways but i wont, god awful truth.

also they could make dirty bombs right now.

we should leave that hornet nest well alone. bush and them are f*cking crazy!

dude, although tv shows like 24 and leaked crap from cheney makes it appear as if every arab has a nuke in his backyard...it just ain't that simple.  if they use rfid on the gillette fusion, just think of the tracking technology on nukes (including the "core" that you see in all of the action films.

cheney tried to get a couple of nukes from the navy and a shitstorm unheard of since the cuban missle crisis ensued (thank god).  even a large percentage of elites know about the dangers of a nuke falling into the wrong hands and since hiro/naga nukes have been put on hold for the most part as tactic to use in warmongering.  but the "crazies" like cheney/rumsfeld are just nuts enough to do it and i think that was one of the many reasons that gates came in.  gates is no saint he was active at covering up the iran contra stuff and does not seem to mind about never ending illegal wars.  but he does not seem to be "crazy" with a doomsday agenda.

as always we must stay focused on the real terrorists-rockefeller/rothschild/beatrice-not one war occurs without their approval.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2007, 09:21:50 am »
Twenty Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

By CASMII
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18699.htm

11/09/07 "CASMII" -- -- Five years into the US-UK illegal invasion of Iraq and its consequent catastrophe for Iraqi people, peace loving people throughout the world are appalled by the current Iran-US standoff and its resemblance to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq . The hawks, headed by Dick Cheney in Washington , are now shamelessly calling for a military attack on Iran . The same Israeli lobby which pushed for the invasion of Iraq is now pushing for a military attack on Iran . The same distortions which were attempted to dupe the western public opinion for the invasion of Iraq , are now used to pave the way for another illegal pre-emptive war of aggression against Iran . As in the case of Iraq , the UN Security Council Resolutions against Iran , extricated through massive US pressure, are meant to provide a veneer of legitimacy for such an attack.
Contrary to the myth created by the western media, it is the US and its European allies which are defying the international community, in that they have rejected negotiations without pre-conditions. They show their lack of good faith by demanding that Iran concede the main point of negotiations, namely, suspension of enrichment of uranium which is Iran 's legitimate right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, before the negotiations actually start.

The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) calls for immediate and direct negotiations between the US and Iran without any pre-conditions.

Here, we debunk the main unfounded accusations, lies and distortions by the US and Israel and their allies while highlighting the main reasons to oppose sanctions and military intervention against Iran .

Please continue reading here :
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18699.htm


Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2007, 09:24:14 am »
Iraq: Call an air strike

By Pepe Escobar
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18702.htm

"... the literature on counter-insurgency is so enormous that, had it been put aboard the Titanic, it would have sunk that ship without any help from the iceberg. However, the outstanding fact is that almost all of it has been written by the losers." - Martin van Creveld, in The Changing Face Of War, 2006 

11/09/07 "Asia Times" -- -- Amid the George W Bush administration's relentless campaign to "change the subject" from Iraq to Iran, how to "win" the war against the Iraqi resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite, now means - according to counter-insurgency messiah General David Petraeus - calling an air strike.

On a parallel level, the Pentagon has practically finished a base in southern Iraq less than 10 kilometers from the border with Iran called Combat Outpost Shocker. The Pentagon maintains this is for the US to prevent Iranian weapons from being smuggled into Iraq. Rather, it's to control a rash of US covert, sabotage operations across the border targeting Iran's Khuzestan province.

With the looming Turkish threat of invading Iraqi Kurdistan and President General President Musharraf's new "let's jail all the lawyers" coup within a coup in Pakistan, the bloody war in the plains of Mesopotamia is lower down in the news cycle - not to mention the interminable 2008 US presidential soap opera. Rosy spinning, though, still rules unchecked.

The Pentagon - via Major General Joseph Fil, commander of US forces in Baghdad - is relentlessly spinning there's now less violence in the capital, a "sustainable" trend. This is rubbish.

Fil cannot even admit to the basic fact that Baghdad has been reduced to a collection of blast-walled, isolated ghettos in search of a city. Baghdad, from being 65% Sunni, is now at least 75% Shi'ite, and counting. Sunni and Shi'ite residents alike confirm sectarian violence has died down because there are virtually no more neighborhoods to be ethnically cleansed.

When Fil says the Iraqi forces are "much, much more effective", what he means is they are much more ferocious. Terrified middle class, secular Shi'ite residents have told Asia Times Online these guards - Shi'ites themselves - roaming Baghdad with their machine guns pointing to the sidewalks are "worse than the Americans".

Violence has also (relatively) decreased because the bulk of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is still lying low, following his strict orders, even though they are being targeted by constant US air strikes on Sadr City.

The falling numbers of US deaths have also been subjected to merciless spinning. Yet already more US troops have been killed in Iraq in 2007 than in all of 2006. This temporary fall is not caused by a burst of Sunni Iraqi resistance good will - even though an array of groups has taken some time out to concentrate forces in these past few months on unifying their struggle (See It's the resistance, stupid Asia Times Online, October 17, 2007.)

Once again, Baghdad residents, who daily have to negotiate life in hell, reveal what's going on. Lately, as a Shi'ite businessman says, "We have not seen the Americans. They used to come to my neighborhood almost every day at night, with Humvees and Bradleys. They stopped at the end of September." This means less US-conducted dangerous "missions" in the Baghdad wasteland - with less exposure to snipers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) - and more time spent in ultra-fortified bases.

The Pentagon even had to admit that sniper attacks, conducted by real pros, have quadrupled during the past year and could "potentially inflict even more casualties than IEDs". The US Department of Defense's Defense Advance Research Projects Agency had to rush a program using lasers to identify snipers before they shoot.

Anyway, whenever there is a mission in Baghdad now it inevitably means an air strike. Mega-slum Sadr City residents confirm the US keeps attacking alleged Mahdi Army "terrorist" haunts - but mostly from the air.

With the US corporate media operating virtually like a Pentagon information agency, the only news fit to print is that as of early this week there were 3,855 American dead in Iraq. But most of all - and never mentioned - there were 28,451 wounded in combat. And as of October 1, there were no less than 30,294 military victims of accidents and diseases so serious they had to be medically sent out of Iraq.

When in doubt, 'liberate' from the air
Brigadier General Qasim Atta, spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, revealed this week Iraq's security forces have set up 250 spy cameras across Baghdad - presumably to track the Sunni resistance, the Mahdi Army and remaining al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers operatives. Atta has argued "the terrorists are now forced to resort to kidnappings and planting roadside bombs because our security plan is working". That's more rubbish.

Kidnapping is an established industry in Baghdad; with the exodus of the middle classes to Jordan, Syria and beyond, now there's virtually no one flush enough to be kidnapped. IEDs continue to follow wherever American convoys roam. And since they are not roaming - they stick to base - fewer IEDs are exploding. As for al-Qaeda, it has relocated from Baghdad neighborhoods such as Dora - but it will be back.

With fewer missions on the ground, the Pentagon could not but launch four times more air strikes on Iraqis in 2007 - the year of Bush's "surge" - than in the whole of 2006. Up to the end of September, there had been 1,140 air strikes. Last month, there were more air strikes than during the siege that devastated Fallujah in November 2004.

Even discounting the criminal absurdity of an occupation routinely dropping the bomb on packed neighborhoods of a city it already occupies, civilians are the inevitable "collateral damage" of these attacks - families, women, children, assorted "non-combatants". The US Air Force does not even take responsibility - claiming the air strikes are ordered by scared-to-death convoys of Humvees patrolling, say, the mean streets of Sadr City.

The Pentagon talk of "precision strikes" and "reducing collateral damage" means nothing in this context. This appalling human-rights disaster has to be attributed to counter-insurgency messiah Petraeus, the "loser", according to Martin van Creveld, who wrote the latest book on the matter, The Changing Face Of War.

But for public relations purposes inside the US, Petraeus' "by his book" approach works wonders. The Pentagon can spin to oblivion to a cowered media that US deaths are falling. Who cares what the Nuri al-Maliki "sovereign" Iraqi government says? Maliki is nothing but the mayor of the Green Zone anyway. Who cares what the "fish" - who support the "sea" of the resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite - feel? 80% of them are unemployed anyway - and they merely struggle to survive as second-class citizens in their own land.

There's hardly any electricity, fuel or food in Baghdad - everything is rationed - for anyone who's not aligned with a militia-protected faction. The only other option is to flee. With at least a staggering 4.4 million, according to the United Nations, either refugees or internally displaced, options are dwindling fast. There may be as many as 2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria alone. Damascus, in despair, has tightened its visa rules: only academics and businessmen are now entitled. No less than 14% of the entire Iraqi population has been displaced - courtesy of the Bush administration.

Oh, but the Bush administration is "winning" the war, of course. Counter-insurgency doctrine rules that the enemy must be controlled with social, political, ideological and psychological weapons, and risks have to be taken so civilians can be protected.

The surging Petraeus turned that upside down. Or maybe not - he's just providing his own scholarly follow-up to the indiscriminate bombings of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and 1970s. Petraeus, His master's voice, might as well call an air strike over the whole of Mesopotamia and then call it "victory".

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.


Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Is World War III on Hold? ..............by Patrick J. Buchanan
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2007, 05:44:03 pm »
rfid? that makes sense now, thanks sane.

I mean there must be over 100 different was to track shit from rfid to nanotech to chem/biotech etc.  and also of course the obvious fact that nukes tend to send bells and whistes off all over the place with 50 year old radiation detection technology.  who knows what kind of surveillance must be available in detecting radiation today (probably from space) when we can count the nose hairs on a person walking around grand central station.

the only way a nuke moves around is if rock/roth/bea want it to.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately