Showing posts with label Attack on Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attack on Iran. Show all posts
Friday, May 18, 2012
U.S. House passes new red line bill on Iran
Even as a second round of talks with Iran is slated about its nuclear program the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that threatens an attack when Iran obtains " nuclear weapons capability."
The present U.S. policy is that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. At present U.S. intelligence believes that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. The new red line that Iran cannot cross is that even the capability to produce nuclear weapons is unacceptable. "Nuclear weapons capability" is undefined and by some interpretations could already apply to Iran.
The vote on the bill passed overwhelmingly by 401-11. In spite of denials by both U.S. military and intelligence officials hawks continue to claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
That Iran simply has the capability of building nuclear weapons is itself a reasonable ground for a preventative attack according to the new hawkish doctrine.. However, there would be no imminent threat and any attack would not be self defense but a war of aggression. This means nothing to U.S. policy makers since they believe they determine the rules on such issues.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson who was formerly chief of staff for Colin Powell said: “This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran….it’s effectively a thinly-disguised effort to bless war.” Ironically, the U.S. resolution would provide Iran a good reason for an attack on the U.S. since it is an imminent threat to Iran. For more see this article.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Obama administration supports quickly sending bunker buster bombs to Israel
U.S. officials report that Netanyahu the Israeli Prime Minister has formally asked the Defense Secretary Panetta to approve the sale of GBU-28 bunker buster bombs to Israel. These bombs could be used in an attack on Iran.
In added pressures President Obama according to reports told Panetta to work directly with Israeli officials and to consider the request favorably. The aim is to send the weapons as soon as possible.
Along with the refueling aircraft, also requested, the bunker bombs would be key to any Israeli attack on Iran. Many Iranian nuclear facilities are highly reinforced.
Israel did receive some of the bombs in 2009 but receiving more has not just practical value but also is symbolic in that Obama can be seen as on side with the hawkish Netanyahu government.
Although Obama has so far opted for diplomacy and severe sanctions he has also said that he will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. In particular he rejected the idea of containment of a nuclear Iran. This certainly keeps an attack on the table. Sending bunker-bombs is also a sign of support for an attack on Iran.
At present however Iran has agreed to negotiations and also has agreed to let IAEA inspectors in to a secret military facility. For more see this article.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Retired Generals and Intelligence Officers tell Obama not to attack Iran
An ad by the National-Iranian council in the Washington Post has a letter to President Obama urging him to resist pressures to attack Iran. The ad is signed by a number of former military and intelligence officials. The ad can be accessed here
Signers of the letter include: ""Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr., retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, retired Army Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, retired Army Maj. Gen. Rudolph Ostovich III, former deputy director of National Intelligence for analysis Thomas Fingar, former CIA national intelligence officer Paul Pillar, and retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.""
The letter claims that war should be undertaken only if the U.S. or an ally is attacked. However Obama is following in the footsteps of Bush with a doctrine of pre-emptive war. Although Obama is certainly more willing than many Republicans to follow a diplomatic route he has assured Netanyahu that a military attack is still on the table. Obama specifically said that he would not settle for containment of a nuclear Iran.
The ad has statements by U.S. officials including Leon Panetta Secretary of Defense and form Defense Secretary Gates that argue attacking Iran would be a mistake.
Opposition to attacking Iran is common both among military and intelligence leaders but it seems their point of view is drowned out by hawkish politicians especially among the Republicans and by lobbyists for the Israeli viewpoint. For more see this article.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Think Tank: Israel could use tactical nuikes in Iran attack.
If this happened Israel might have trouble denying it has nuclear weapons! Of course maybe they could say they borrowed them from the US. It is hard to predict what will happen if Israel attacks Iran with conventional weapons let alone nuclear ones. Probably Israel will choose not to use the nuclear option and reserve it for defense. No doubt Israel will be happy should the U.S. attack Iran and save Israel the trouble.
By Dan Williams – Fri Mar 26, 7:13 am ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Deeply concerned as it is by the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel has never even hinted at using atomic weapons to forestall the perceived threat.
But now a respected Washington think tank has said that low-radioactive yield "tactical" nuclear warheads would be one way for the Israelis to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment plants in remote, dug-in fortifications.
Despite the 65-year-old taboo against carrying out -- or, for that matter, mooting -- nuclear strikes, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says in a new report that "some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels."
But other independent experts are on record warning that such a scenario is based on the "myth" of a clean atomic attack and would be too politically hazardous to justify.
In their study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program," CSIS analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman envisage the possibility of Israel "using these warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons" given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie.
Ballistic missiles or submarine-launched cruise missiles could serve for Israeli tactical nuclear strikes without interference from Iranian air defenses, the 208-page report says. "Earth-penetrator" warheads would produce most damage.
Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's sole atomic arsenal. Israeli leaders do not comment on this capability other than to underscore its deterrent role; President Shimon Peres has said repeatedly that "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region."
A veteran Israeli defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said preemptive nuclear strikes were foreign to the national doctrine: "Such weapons exist so as not to be used."
Friday, February 12, 2010
Who wants to bomb Iran?
This is a valuable list of some of the most important people advising the Obama administration to bomb Iran. Of course many of them would also be just as happy if Israel bombed Iran as well and some expect that Israel will do so if Obama does not. So far Obama is still pursuing sanctions but with his recent falling out with China it is unlikely that he can get support to pass stronger sanctions through the UN. Any attack on Iran would be bound to cause unpredictable repercussions throughout the region.
Who Wants to Bomb Iran?
Meet the men calling on Barack Obama to launch airstrikes against the Islamic Republic.
BY DAVID KENNER
February 10, 2010 "FP" -- They're back! The "Bomb Iran" crowd is making a big return to the political center stage after months of puzzlement over what to do about developments in the Islamic Republic. Hawks such as Daniel Pipes and John Bolton are arguing that Iran is dead-set on its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal -- and point to developments such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement this weekend that Iran would enrich its uranium stocks to 20 percent to argue that diplomatic avenues have reached a dead end. The would-be bombers fear that the mullahs will leverage their nuclear capability to expand Persian influence through the Arab world and beyond -- and argue that the United States must do anything in its power, including the use of force, to stop them.
This movement had its heyday in neoconservative circles in 2006 and 2007, following Iran's official announcement that it had started to enrich uranium and the subsequent U.S.-led push in the U.N Security Council for additional sanctions. And who could forget 2008 presidential candidate John McCain's memorable "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" gaffe, sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann"? In the wake of Iran's contested election last June, pro-bomb pundits have argued that the popular unrest -- including the imminent anti-regime protests scheduled for Feb. 11, the anniversary of the Islamic Republic -- far from meaning the United States should hold back, presents a perfect opportunity to target the increasingly unpopular leadership of the Iranian regime. Needless to say, it doesn't appear that Obama will be taking their advice any time soon; administration officials have strongly suggested they prefer to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomacy and sanctions.
The Iran hawks are supported by the Obama administration's old nemesis Dick Cheney, who noted in an interview with Fox News last August that he was "probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues" in the Bush administration. Without further ado, here is FP's guide to this belligerent minority.
Daniel Pipes
Perch: Director of the Middle East Forum, Hoover Institution visiting fellow
Money quote: "[Obama] needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations. Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear-weapon capacity." --Feb. 2, 2010, National Review
Justification: Pipes's argument was not exactly framed in such a way as to gain adherents within the White House. However, his cold-blooded political justification is enough to make Dick Morris or Karl Rove blush: He cites five polls suggesting a military strike against Iran possesses the support of a solid majority of Americans and posits that others would undoubtedly "rally around the flag," supporting Obama were he to unleash the bombers. Sarah Palin picked up this argument in an interview with Fox News on Feb. 7, claiming that a decision by Obama to declare war on Iran could boost his chances for re-election in 2012 -- though she incorrectly cited Patrick Buchanan as the source of the idea.
And lest Obama fear that this electoral masterstroke would devolve into an Iraq-style quagmire, Pipes assures us that the United States could limit itself to airstrikes and employ only a few boots on the ground, "making an attack more politically palatable."
John Bolton
Perch: Senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
Money quote: "Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.... Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently." --July 2, 2009, Washington Post
Justification: Although the unrest following Iran's contested presidential election this past June convinced many pundits that a U.S. military strike would be counterproductive, Bolton took the opposite tack: With Iran's hardliners "unmistakably back in control" following the first round of protests, he argued, the timing was ripe to convince the Iranian people that targeted airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were the fault of their dictatorial government, and not a foreign power.
Notably, Bolton doesn't believe the Obama administration will do what he thinks needs to be done in Iran (nor, truth be told, was he sanguine that the Bush administration would listen to his advice in 2008). Instead, he's putting all his faith in Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, referring to the logic of an Israeli strike as "nearly inexorable."
Norman Podhoretz
Perch: Editor at large, Commentary magazine
Money quote: "In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of force -- any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938." --June 2007, Commentary
Justification: Podhoretz, the author of World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism and one of the intellectual godfathers of the neoconservative movement, regards the showdown with Iran as the latest front in a "protracted global struggle" that has taken the United States from Baghdad to Kabul. In each case, he argues, the United States is defending itself from "Islamofascism" -- the intellectual cousin of communism and Nazism that threatens to overwhelm the United States and its allies militarily, and also erode Western values from within.
Podhoretz sees Ahmadinejad as occupying the revolutionary vanguard of this movement: The first step in the Iranian president's quest to transform the global balance of power will be to fulfill his promise to "wipe Israel off the map." From there, Podhoretz fears, a nuclear-armed Iran will attempt to establish its hegemony over the Persian Gulf -- and then extend its scope of influence into Europe. Finally, the coup de grâce: Iran will commit itself to neutering U.S. influence worldwide, and perhaps even attempt to fulfill its goal of "a world without America."
As in the struggle against Hitler, the only option presented to the United States when faced with an enemy of such sprawling ambition, Podhoretz believes, is the use of military force. A U.S. air campaign, he hopes, could set back the Iranian nuclear program indefinitely and also provide the political preconditions for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic -- a message that he also delivered in private meetings with President Bush. The only question, in his eyes, was whether Bush would summon the political fortitude to order the strike before he left office. As he wrote: "As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will."
Joshua Muravchik
Perch: Foreign Policy Institute fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies
Money quote: "We must bomb Iran. It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.... Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it." --Nov. 19, 2006, Los Angeles Times
Justification: Frustrated by the United States' inability to convince Russia or China to commit to a truly biting sanctions regime -- and despairing that Iran's hard-liners could ever be forced from power -- Muravchik believed the West's only remaining option was to destroy Iran's nuclear program before it could produce a bomb. Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would allow the Islamic Republic to establish regional hegemony over the Middle East, pose an existential to Israel's, and erode what is left of the international nonproliferation regime, Muravchik feared. There was also the danger that Iran could "slip nuclear material to terrorists" -- and not only its clients, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, but also al Qaeda.
Muravchik also took to the pages of Foreign Policy to make the case that full-throated advocacy of a U.S. military strike against Iran was what neoconservatives needed to overcome the stigma that had accumulated around the movement in recent years.
Thomas McInerney
Perch: Retired lieutenant general of the U.S. Air Force
Money quote: "A military option against Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible.... President Bush is right when he says Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The prospect of leaders like Ahmadinejad, who advocates wiping Israel 'off the map,' with their hands on nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. Diplomacy must be pursued vigorously, but the experience with Iraq suggests there's little reason for optimism. Thus, a viable military option is imperative." --April 24, 2006, Weekly Standard
Justification: McInerney has put more thought into the actual details of a U.S. military strike on Iraq than most other analysts. In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, McInerney laid out a two-pronged strategy, kicked off by "a powerful air campaign that will hit within 36 to 48 hours over 1,500 aim points" in Iran, including its nuclear development facilities, air defenses, and its Shehab-3 missile sites.
This would soften up the Islamic Republic for the second part of the campaign -- covert military operations designed to encourage Iran's population to rise up in rebellion. McInerney is enamored of the prospects for division presented by Iran's many ethnic minorities. Iran "is ripe for political discontent, and ripe for people to let the people have their country back," he argued. McInerney's plan raised consternation in liberal circles, who pointed out that he had suggested a similar plan in 2002 to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. McInerney, however, appeared undoubted by the U.S. experience in Iraq, countering that Operation Iraqi Freedom "was a brilliant campaign done in 21 days."
Max Boot
Perch: Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
Money quote: "If Israel's intelligence agencies can provide reasonable assurance that the Israeli Air Force can derail the Iranian program for, say, six years, then the case for action becomes inescapable. But if they can only delay Iran for six months, is it really worthwhile to risk all the consequences that would come from an air strike? Perhaps so; perhaps the loss of Israeli prestige and deterrence advantage from Iran going nuclear would be so great that even a symbolic strike is worthwhile." --July 2, 2009, Commentary
Justification: Following the post-election protests that rocked Iran last June, Max Boot echoed Bolton's remarks regarding the increasing attractiveness of an Israeli airstrike on the country's nuclear facilities. But it wasn't the first time that he called for a more aggressive policy toward Iran -- back in 2006, Boot laid out a plan to "do to Iran what the Iranians are doing to us in Iraq" by fomenting ethnic divisions within the country, and funneling weapons and money to anti-regime militias within the country. The only other option, in Boot's eyes, would be a U.S. airstrike -- a development that will become inevitable once the current policy of "half-hearted multilateral negotiations backed by toothless U.N. resolutions fails. (Or, rather, once its failure can no longer be denied.)"
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comments (29)
Click here to learn how to post a comment .Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. See our complete Comment Policy.
More
Sign up for our Daily Email Newsletter
Please help Support Information Clearing House
One-Time Donation
$
Recurring Monthly Donation
$
Thank you for your support
Easy Site NavigatorComments
fhf
February-11-10Pilger is right, has a point, and basically tries to promote peace by catching out elements in our society that detract from it. Avatar is a failure i...
/article24639.htmConcerned AmericanPak
February-11-10Pakistan is the model for Iran, how to be friend with the Americas and the West. A Tim tested and successful formula which only coasted...
/article24647.htmTurtle
February-11-10A constitutional amendment would bring more money and extend corruption to the four corners of the country as the corps try to prevent 3/4 of the stat...
/article24644.htmsijepuis
February-11-10Excellent, enlightening article. But Dresden, if epic in its horror, was by no means a singular example of gratuitous, lesson-serving slaughter dur...
/article24631.htmimtiaz bachani
February-11-10the speech should not be spread only in America but the whole world this is because the whole worlds policies are affected by Americans i even feel th...
/article24641.htm
To embed this widget into your site, just copy this HTML:
Visit JS-Kit for more information.
Admin Console
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Search Information Clearing House
HOME
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Who Wants to Bomb Iran?
Meet the men calling on Barack Obama to launch airstrikes against the Islamic Republic.
BY DAVID KENNER
February 10, 2010 "FP" -- They're back! The "Bomb Iran" crowd is making a big return to the political center stage after months of puzzlement over what to do about developments in the Islamic Republic. Hawks such as Daniel Pipes and John Bolton are arguing that Iran is dead-set on its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal -- and point to developments such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement this weekend that Iran would enrich its uranium stocks to 20 percent to argue that diplomatic avenues have reached a dead end. The would-be bombers fear that the mullahs will leverage their nuclear capability to expand Persian influence through the Arab world and beyond -- and argue that the United States must do anything in its power, including the use of force, to stop them.
This movement had its heyday in neoconservative circles in 2006 and 2007, following Iran's official announcement that it had started to enrich uranium and the subsequent U.S.-led push in the U.N Security Council for additional sanctions. And who could forget 2008 presidential candidate John McCain's memorable "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" gaffe, sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann"? In the wake of Iran's contested election last June, pro-bomb pundits have argued that the popular unrest -- including the imminent anti-regime protests scheduled for Feb. 11, the anniversary of the Islamic Republic -- far from meaning the United States should hold back, presents a perfect opportunity to target the increasingly unpopular leadership of the Iranian regime. Needless to say, it doesn't appear that Obama will be taking their advice any time soon; administration officials have strongly suggested they prefer to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomacy and sanctions.
The Iran hawks are supported by the Obama administration's old nemesis Dick Cheney, who noted in an interview with Fox News last August that he was "probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues" in the Bush administration. Without further ado, here is FP's guide to this belligerent minority.
Daniel Pipes
Perch: Director of the Middle East Forum, Hoover Institution visiting fellow
Money quote: "[Obama] needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations. Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear-weapon capacity." --Feb. 2, 2010, National Review
Justification: Pipes's argument was not exactly framed in such a way as to gain adherents within the White House. However, his cold-blooded political justification is enough to make Dick Morris or Karl Rove blush: He cites five polls suggesting a military strike against Iran possesses the support of a solid majority of Americans and posits that others would undoubtedly "rally around the flag," supporting Obama were he to unleash the bombers. Sarah Palin picked up this argument in an interview with Fox News on Feb. 7, claiming that a decision by Obama to declare war on Iran could boost his chances for re-election in 2012 -- though she incorrectly cited Patrick Buchanan as the source of the idea.
And lest Obama fear that this electoral masterstroke would devolve into an Iraq-style quagmire, Pipes assures us that the United States could limit itself to airstrikes and employ only a few boots on the ground, "making an attack more politically palatable."
John Bolton
Perch: Senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
Money quote: "Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.... Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently." --July 2, 2009, Washington Post
Justification: Although the unrest following Iran's contested presidential election this past June convinced many pundits that a U.S. military strike would be counterproductive, Bolton took the opposite tack: With Iran's hardliners "unmistakably back in control" following the first round of protests, he argued, the timing was ripe to convince the Iranian people that targeted airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were the fault of their dictatorial government, and not a foreign power.
Notably, Bolton doesn't believe the Obama administration will do what he thinks needs to be done in Iran (nor, truth be told, was he sanguine that the Bush administration would listen to his advice in 2008). Instead, he's putting all his faith in Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, referring to the logic of an Israeli strike as "nearly inexorable."
Norman Podhoretz
Perch: Editor at large, Commentary magazine
Money quote: "In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of force -- any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938." --June 2007, Commentary
Justification: Podhoretz, the author of World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism and one of the intellectual godfathers of the neoconservative movement, regards the showdown with Iran as the latest front in a "protracted global struggle" that has taken the United States from Baghdad to Kabul. In each case, he argues, the United States is defending itself from "Islamofascism" -- the intellectual cousin of communism and Nazism that threatens to overwhelm the United States and its allies militarily, and also erode Western values from within.
Podhoretz sees Ahmadinejad as occupying the revolutionary vanguard of this movement: The first step in the Iranian president's quest to transform the global balance of power will be to fulfill his promise to "wipe Israel off the map." From there, Podhoretz fears, a nuclear-armed Iran will attempt to establish its hegemony over the Persian Gulf -- and then extend its scope of influence into Europe. Finally, the coup de grâce: Iran will commit itself to neutering U.S. influence worldwide, and perhaps even attempt to fulfill its goal of "a world without America."
As in the struggle against Hitler, the only option presented to the United States when faced with an enemy of such sprawling ambition, Podhoretz believes, is the use of military force. A U.S. air campaign, he hopes, could set back the Iranian nuclear program indefinitely and also provide the political preconditions for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic -- a message that he also delivered in private meetings with President Bush. The only question, in his eyes, was whether Bush would summon the political fortitude to order the strike before he left office. As he wrote: "As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will."
Joshua Muravchik
Perch: Foreign Policy Institute fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies
Money quote: "We must bomb Iran. It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.... Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it." --Nov. 19, 2006, Los Angeles Times
Justification: Frustrated by the United States' inability to convince Russia or China to commit to a truly biting sanctions regime -- and despairing that Iran's hard-liners could ever be forced from power -- Muravchik believed the West's only remaining option was to destroy Iran's nuclear program before it could produce a bomb. Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would allow the Islamic Republic to establish regional hegemony over the Middle East, pose an existential to Israel's, and erode what is left of the international nonproliferation regime, Muravchik feared. There was also the danger that Iran could "slip nuclear material to terrorists" -- and not only its clients, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, but also al Qaeda.
Muravchik also took to the pages of Foreign Policy to make the case that full-throated advocacy of a U.S. military strike against Iran was what neoconservatives needed to overcome the stigma that had accumulated around the movement in recent years.
Thomas McInerney
Perch: Retired lieutenant general of the U.S. Air Force
Money quote: "A military option against Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible.... President Bush is right when he says Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The prospect of leaders like Ahmadinejad, who advocates wiping Israel 'off the map,' with their hands on nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. Diplomacy must be pursued vigorously, but the experience with Iraq suggests there's little reason for optimism. Thus, a viable military option is imperative." --April 24, 2006, Weekly Standard
Justification: McInerney has put more thought into the actual details of a U.S. military strike on Iraq than most other analysts. In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, McInerney laid out a two-pronged strategy, kicked off by "a powerful air campaign that will hit within 36 to 48 hours over 1,500 aim points" in Iran, including its nuclear development facilities, air defenses, and its Shehab-3 missile sites.
This would soften up the Islamic Republic for the second part of the campaign -- covert military operations designed to encourage Iran's population to rise up in rebellion. McInerney is enamored of the prospects for division presented by Iran's many ethnic minorities. Iran "is ripe for political discontent, and ripe for people to let the people have their country back," he argued. McInerney's plan raised consternation in liberal circles, who pointed out that he had suggested a similar plan in 2002 to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. McInerney, however, appeared undoubted by the U.S. experience in Iraq, countering that Operation Iraqi Freedom "was a brilliant campaign done in 21 days."
Max Boot
Perch: Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
Money quote: "If Israel's intelligence agencies can provide reasonable assurance that the Israeli Air Force can derail the Iranian program for, say, six years, then the case for action becomes inescapable. But if they can only delay Iran for six months, is it really worthwhile to risk all the consequences that would come from an air strike? Perhaps so; perhaps the loss of Israeli prestige and deterrence advantage from Iran going nuclear would be so great that even a symbolic strike is worthwhile." --July 2, 2009, Commentary
Justification: Following the post-election protests that rocked Iran last June, Max Boot echoed Bolton's remarks regarding the increasing attractiveness of an Israeli airstrike on the country's nuclear facilities. But it wasn't the first time that he called for a more aggressive policy toward Iran -- back in 2006, Boot laid out a plan to "do to Iran what the Iranians are doing to us in Iraq" by fomenting ethnic divisions within the country, and funneling weapons and money to anti-regime militias within the country. The only other option, in Boot's eyes, would be a U.S. airstrike -- a development that will become inevitable once the current policy of "half-hearted multilateral negotiations backed by toothless U.N. resolutions fails. (Or, rather, once its failure can no longer be denied.)"
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comments (29)
Click here to learn how to post a comment .Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. See our complete Comment Policy.
More
Sign up for our Daily Email Newsletter
Please help Support Information Clearing House
One-Time Donation
$
Recurring Monthly Donation
$
Thank you for your support
Easy Site NavigatorComments
fhf
February-11-10Pilger is right, has a point, and basically tries to promote peace by catching out elements in our society that detract from it. Avatar is a failure i...
/article24639.htmConcerned AmericanPak
February-11-10Pakistan is the model for Iran, how to be friend with the Americas and the West. A Tim tested and successful formula which only coasted...
/article24647.htmTurtle
February-11-10A constitutional amendment would bring more money and extend corruption to the four corners of the country as the corps try to prevent 3/4 of the stat...
/article24644.htmsijepuis
February-11-10Excellent, enlightening article. But Dresden, if epic in its horror, was by no means a singular example of gratuitous, lesson-serving slaughter dur...
/article24631.htmimtiaz bachani
February-11-10the speech should not be spread only in America but the whole world this is because the whole worlds policies are affected by Americans i even feel th...
/article24641.htm
To embed this widget into your site, just copy this HTML:
Visit JS-Kit for more information.
Admin Console
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Search Information Clearing House
HOME
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Gulf Countries speak out against military option against Iran
This is from AFP through Yahoo. Even though the Gulf States are concerned about growing Iranian influence in the region they are probably even more concerned about US military adventurism against Iran. The new intelligence estimate has done nothing to dampen the US ardour for painting Iran as the Great Satan in the region threatening Israel with annihilation--even though Israel has itself a nuclear deterrent!
Gulf countries speak out against military option in Iran by Ali Khalil
Sat Dec 8, 9:57 AM ET
Gulf countries, cautious about the nuclear standoff between the United States and Iran, signalled loudly at a regional security conference on Saturday their opposition to any military option against Tehran.
Washington, wrong-footed by its own National Intelligence Estimate in its accusations that Iran wanted nuclear weapons, has emphasised that no options have been ruled out in forcing it to end its nuclear enrichment programme.
The NIE on Tuesday said that Iran, which insists its current programme is for peaceful power generation, had halted a secret nuclear weapons programme four years ago.
"We want the military factor (of Iran's nuclear programme) to be eliminated," the secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Abdulrahman al-Attiyah told AFP on Saturday.
"What we care for in the GCC is finding solutions that enhance security and stability ... and believe in dialogue as a way to solve the crisis," between the West and Iran, he said.
Gulf countries remain wary of Iran's nuclear ambitions but do not want to see its standoff with the West escalating into a military confrontation.
"We are not for the military confrontation option," said Attiyah.
Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamed bin Jassem al-Thani went further, calling on Washington to engage Tehran in dialogue to reach a solution.
"Direct talks do not mean agreeing (from the start) with the other party," he told conference delegates on Saturday, among them US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
Qatar, one of the key US-allies in the region, hosts the US army's Central Command which directed the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
But in a surprising move, it invited Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend a GCC annual summit on Monday, making him the first Iranian president to take part in a Gulf leaders summit.
"I don't think we can try to solve our problems through trying to seal Iran (off from) the region. They are a very important player," he said defending Qatar's decision.
He also reiterated that being "pushed into a military confrontation with Iran" would not be in the interest of the GCC countries.
Toby Dodge, a Middle East consulting senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said the GCC fears of military escalation in the Gulf were justified.
"Iran would retaliate to any (US) military action and the Gulf region would be affected... I assume that their strategy is to support an active US policy to restrain Iran (on the nuclear front), but short of military action," he told AFP.
But he said that the GCC fears go beyond Iran's nuclear programme to encompass Tehran's "ambition for regional hegemony."
GCC countries are worried about "Iran's dominance in the region," agreed Mamoun Fandy, who is also an IISS senior fellow for Gulf security.
"Iran is winning in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Iran is winning the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt," he told AFP referring to Tehran's clout over Islamist movements in the Sunni-dominated Arab countries.
Qatar's premier echoed that same concerns in addressing delegates in the security conference, which was snubbed by Iran in the last minute, saying that it is "very important that nobody tries to dominate the region."
Iraq meanwhile welcomed the intelligence report saying it was "very encouraging".
"We think it will prompt Iran towards more moderation," Iraq's National Security Advisor, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, told AFP.
Gates meanwhile reiterated Washington's view that Iran's foreign policy was a threat to the United States, the Middle East and all countries within range of missiles which he said Tehran was developing.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Gulf countries speak out against military option in Iran by Ali Khalil
Sat Dec 8, 9:57 AM ET
Gulf countries, cautious about the nuclear standoff between the United States and Iran, signalled loudly at a regional security conference on Saturday their opposition to any military option against Tehran.
Washington, wrong-footed by its own National Intelligence Estimate in its accusations that Iran wanted nuclear weapons, has emphasised that no options have been ruled out in forcing it to end its nuclear enrichment programme.
The NIE on Tuesday said that Iran, which insists its current programme is for peaceful power generation, had halted a secret nuclear weapons programme four years ago.
"We want the military factor (of Iran's nuclear programme) to be eliminated," the secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Abdulrahman al-Attiyah told AFP on Saturday.
"What we care for in the GCC is finding solutions that enhance security and stability ... and believe in dialogue as a way to solve the crisis," between the West and Iran, he said.
Gulf countries remain wary of Iran's nuclear ambitions but do not want to see its standoff with the West escalating into a military confrontation.
"We are not for the military confrontation option," said Attiyah.
Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamed bin Jassem al-Thani went further, calling on Washington to engage Tehran in dialogue to reach a solution.
"Direct talks do not mean agreeing (from the start) with the other party," he told conference delegates on Saturday, among them US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
Qatar, one of the key US-allies in the region, hosts the US army's Central Command which directed the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
But in a surprising move, it invited Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend a GCC annual summit on Monday, making him the first Iranian president to take part in a Gulf leaders summit.
"I don't think we can try to solve our problems through trying to seal Iran (off from) the region. They are a very important player," he said defending Qatar's decision.
He also reiterated that being "pushed into a military confrontation with Iran" would not be in the interest of the GCC countries.
Toby Dodge, a Middle East consulting senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said the GCC fears of military escalation in the Gulf were justified.
"Iran would retaliate to any (US) military action and the Gulf region would be affected... I assume that their strategy is to support an active US policy to restrain Iran (on the nuclear front), but short of military action," he told AFP.
But he said that the GCC fears go beyond Iran's nuclear programme to encompass Tehran's "ambition for regional hegemony."
GCC countries are worried about "Iran's dominance in the region," agreed Mamoun Fandy, who is also an IISS senior fellow for Gulf security.
"Iran is winning in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Iran is winning the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt," he told AFP referring to Tehran's clout over Islamist movements in the Sunni-dominated Arab countries.
Qatar's premier echoed that same concerns in addressing delegates in the security conference, which was snubbed by Iran in the last minute, saying that it is "very important that nobody tries to dominate the region."
Iraq meanwhile welcomed the intelligence report saying it was "very encouraging".
"We think it will prompt Iran towards more moderation," Iraq's National Security Advisor, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, told AFP.
Gates meanwhile reiterated Washington's view that Iran's foreign policy was a threat to the United States, the Middle East and all countries within range of missiles which he said Tehran was developing.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Attack on Iran: Morality Lost in Garden of Deceits
Bakhtiar somehow fails to notice that an attack on Iran -now routinely denied--is being sold using new bait: the role of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reports on Iranian involvement especially the Revolutionary Guards in Iraq are routine. Iranians kidnapped as suspect even when the Iraq government protests.
Bakhtar correctly notes the cheerleader role of France with Sarkozy as president.
Attack on Iran: Morality Lost in the Garden of Deceits
By Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
10/06/07 "ICH" -- --- Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war (Julius Caesar Act III, Scene I). The call for war against Iran was issued by no other than Mr. Bernard Kouchner the foreign minister of France, a country with the motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. France the home of Voltaire and Rousseau is now calling for war against a country that has never threatened France or its neighbours. France a nuclear power with illustrious colonial past is urging others to be aware of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose.
From the other side of the Atlantic we hear the same cries for more war, death and destruction. As though the death of 650000 Iraqis was not enough, we are urged to prepare ourselves for another war. We are told that by killing more civilians, creating more refugees, destroying more bridges, power plants, schools, hospitals and factories we are going to be safer and live better lives.
Recently Mr. Greenspan told us what we already knew: namely that Iraq was invaded because of its oil. This of course was not the first time that we heard this and it certainly will not be the last either. But who cares? Here we see President Bush and his allies illegally attacking and destroying a country, making millions homeless and starting a civil war without a slightest sign of remorse. They went to steal the natural resources of Iraq and they did it and are doing it. And now they want more. Yesterday it was Iraq; tomorrow it will be Iran and the day after it will be Venezuela. When the president of the world’s only superpower acts like a thief, what protection is there for the rest of the world? The very same people that brought us the Iraq tragedy are using the same excuses to repeat their misdeeds again.
In late August, “Iran and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency released a plan laying out a step-by-step timetable of cooperation with the goal of resolving by December issues that have been under investigation for four years. Agency officials have praised the timetable as a breakthrough and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Tuesday said the investigation into his country’s nuclear activities was now closed.”
This agreement was hailed as a success by the IAEA and UN. The problem with this agreement is that it takes away the excuse needed by Bush and Co to implement their strategy of strangling Iran and get their hands on Iran’s oil and gas. Naturally, just like the case in Iraq, they have dismissed the agreement saying that it was not enough. Then the talk of war intensified, with US, Israel and then France talking loudly about an eventual attack on Iran. The main aim of these shrill voices is to take the people’s attention away from the IAEA-Iran agreement and back to some illogical talk of Iran’s threat to the world.
It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, people will eventually come to believe you. Having used this tactics in Iraq with some success, they believe they can do it again. They believe that people will eventually come to believe that Iran is a serious threat to the world and grudgingly accept another war. And the good thing about this is, so they believe, that this time they don’t even have to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by Iran. They just have to say that they have prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the “future”. Very logical, isn’t it?
The fact that these same countries posses lots of nuclear weapons is irrelevant, so we are told. We are to believe that Israel, Pakistan, India, US, UK, France, China and Russia are all exception to the rules. Other countries that enrich Uranium are also exceptions. It is only Iran with its vast natural resources that is a danger to the world peace and prosperity.
Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and last year was involved in one of the most savage attacks on Lebanon. She also recently bombed Syria. Yet we hear no protest from the so called “civilized world”. Pakistan, a dictatorship, with its tremendous security problems (Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc) has nuclear weapons and is awarded F16s. India tested nuclear weapons and was awarded trade and nuclear technology transfer agreements.
What is the moral lesson from all this? There is none; the law of the jungle rules. Those who can steal will steal. Those who can rape will do so with impunity. There is no punishment for the strong; it is the weak that has to pay. Meanwhile we pretend to believe all their lies and keep hoping for cheaper oil and higher share prices; otherwise we have to face our own complicity in their crimes. After all who elected them and who re-elected them? Our very silence makes us an accomplice.
As you read this you should think about all those Iraqis that have been killed, the 2.5 million Iraqis that had to flee the carnage in their country and a similar number of internal Iraqi refugees. You should think about all the lies that you have been told and ask yourself these questions: do I want another incident like Iraq? Can I stay silent and accept more killings and destruction? Is it OK for the powerful to commit armed robbery?
If one finds it difficult to answer these questions, then perhaps one should follow what Bertrand Russell said: “We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side: one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach”.
Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway. He is a management consultant and a contributing writer for many online journals. He can be contacted by e-mail at:Bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no
Bakhtar correctly notes the cheerleader role of France with Sarkozy as president.
Attack on Iran: Morality Lost in the Garden of Deceits
By Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
10/06/07 "ICH" -- --- Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war (Julius Caesar Act III, Scene I). The call for war against Iran was issued by no other than Mr. Bernard Kouchner the foreign minister of France, a country with the motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. France the home of Voltaire and Rousseau is now calling for war against a country that has never threatened France or its neighbours. France a nuclear power with illustrious colonial past is urging others to be aware of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose.
From the other side of the Atlantic we hear the same cries for more war, death and destruction. As though the death of 650000 Iraqis was not enough, we are urged to prepare ourselves for another war. We are told that by killing more civilians, creating more refugees, destroying more bridges, power plants, schools, hospitals and factories we are going to be safer and live better lives.
Recently Mr. Greenspan told us what we already knew: namely that Iraq was invaded because of its oil. This of course was not the first time that we heard this and it certainly will not be the last either. But who cares? Here we see President Bush and his allies illegally attacking and destroying a country, making millions homeless and starting a civil war without a slightest sign of remorse. They went to steal the natural resources of Iraq and they did it and are doing it. And now they want more. Yesterday it was Iraq; tomorrow it will be Iran and the day after it will be Venezuela. When the president of the world’s only superpower acts like a thief, what protection is there for the rest of the world? The very same people that brought us the Iraq tragedy are using the same excuses to repeat their misdeeds again.
In late August, “Iran and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency released a plan laying out a step-by-step timetable of cooperation with the goal of resolving by December issues that have been under investigation for four years. Agency officials have praised the timetable as a breakthrough and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Tuesday said the investigation into his country’s nuclear activities was now closed.”
This agreement was hailed as a success by the IAEA and UN. The problem with this agreement is that it takes away the excuse needed by Bush and Co to implement their strategy of strangling Iran and get their hands on Iran’s oil and gas. Naturally, just like the case in Iraq, they have dismissed the agreement saying that it was not enough. Then the talk of war intensified, with US, Israel and then France talking loudly about an eventual attack on Iran. The main aim of these shrill voices is to take the people’s attention away from the IAEA-Iran agreement and back to some illogical talk of Iran’s threat to the world.
It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, people will eventually come to believe you. Having used this tactics in Iraq with some success, they believe they can do it again. They believe that people will eventually come to believe that Iran is a serious threat to the world and grudgingly accept another war. And the good thing about this is, so they believe, that this time they don’t even have to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by Iran. They just have to say that they have prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the “future”. Very logical, isn’t it?
The fact that these same countries posses lots of nuclear weapons is irrelevant, so we are told. We are to believe that Israel, Pakistan, India, US, UK, France, China and Russia are all exception to the rules. Other countries that enrich Uranium are also exceptions. It is only Iran with its vast natural resources that is a danger to the world peace and prosperity.
Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and last year was involved in one of the most savage attacks on Lebanon. She also recently bombed Syria. Yet we hear no protest from the so called “civilized world”. Pakistan, a dictatorship, with its tremendous security problems (Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc) has nuclear weapons and is awarded F16s. India tested nuclear weapons and was awarded trade and nuclear technology transfer agreements.
What is the moral lesson from all this? There is none; the law of the jungle rules. Those who can steal will steal. Those who can rape will do so with impunity. There is no punishment for the strong; it is the weak that has to pay. Meanwhile we pretend to believe all their lies and keep hoping for cheaper oil and higher share prices; otherwise we have to face our own complicity in their crimes. After all who elected them and who re-elected them? Our very silence makes us an accomplice.
As you read this you should think about all those Iraqis that have been killed, the 2.5 million Iraqis that had to flee the carnage in their country and a similar number of internal Iraqi refugees. You should think about all the lies that you have been told and ask yourself these questions: do I want another incident like Iraq? Can I stay silent and accept more killings and destruction? Is it OK for the powerful to commit armed robbery?
If one finds it difficult to answer these questions, then perhaps one should follow what Bertrand Russell said: “We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side: one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach”.
Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway. He is a management consultant and a contributing writer for many online journals. He can be contacted by e-mail at:Bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Former CIA official expects war with Iran.
This is from Harper's. It is just another in a line of articles predicting an attack on Iran. Given that Iran has come to some accomodation with nuclear watchdogs it may be a bit more difficult but not impossible for Bush to attack anyway. I am sure that the US will not call it war but just a routine pre-emptive strike or some other euphemism.
Speaking From Experience, Part II: Former CIA official expects war with Iran
DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED September 4, 2007
Until recently, I thought the odds that the United States would attack Iran were less than fifty-fifty, but the chances of a military confrontation are clearly growing (as my colleague Scott Horton has been reporting on for some time). Earlier this year, I asked a former CIA official, who was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War and served in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, if he though the administration was planning a military strike. “I don’t think the administration is about to carry out military action,” he told me. “The military does not want to do this. We will lose planes if there is a massive air strike over Iran. We’ll have pilots killed and captured.”
Yesterday, I called the official—who speaks with me only off the record—and he now believes a military strike is likely. Here are his comments, which I offer not as an endorsement of an invasion, but because of his knowledge and insights into what might lay ahead:
It looks like a military strike is in the works and I base that on two things: observable fact and the rhetoric emanating from the White House. There’s a lot of movement of troops and materiel into the region–it’s stuff the United States can’t hide. It’s a huge expense to put Navy battle groups in the Gulf and we’ve got three of them there. We’ve also moved new fighter planes to Guam amidst much public fanfare. You can plainly see the upturn in US Naval activity in and around the Norfolk Naval installations. The movement of ships, re-supply, ammunition loading and general level of activity is high.
The Naval facilities and the ammunition loading areas are well known, and the activity is readily visible, especially at night. There’s a stream of ships coming in to load up and when they take off new ones come in. There’s only one part of the world where all that stuff is heading. Also, everyone I know who would be involved in an attack on Iran–pilots and other air assets–is gone. Normally some of them are around but now all of them are away at the same time.
The other evidence of a likely strike is all the harsh talk from the White House. President Bush has been talking about Iran a lot more recently, and he put the Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorist groups. Whatever you think of the president, he has said he won’t let Iran move forward with its nuclear program. I’d take him at his word.
And it’s doable. The only part of the military that’s not stretched to the limits in Iraq is the Air Force. It will be a multi-day, multi-target air campaign–not ‘Shock and Awe,’ which wasn’t shocking and didn’t awe anyone, but a savage blow struck against President Ahmadinejad. We shouldn’t hit Iran’s Navy or Air Force but target the nuclear sites and the Revolutionary Guard. A measured response helps Ahmadinejad because he’s saying the Americans won’t attack, or can’t hurt, Iran. A disproportionate response will be hard for him to explain to the Iranian public.
Speaking From Experience, Part II: Former CIA official expects war with Iran
DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED September 4, 2007
Until recently, I thought the odds that the United States would attack Iran were less than fifty-fifty, but the chances of a military confrontation are clearly growing (as my colleague Scott Horton has been reporting on for some time). Earlier this year, I asked a former CIA official, who was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War and served in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, if he though the administration was planning a military strike. “I don’t think the administration is about to carry out military action,” he told me. “The military does not want to do this. We will lose planes if there is a massive air strike over Iran. We’ll have pilots killed and captured.”
Yesterday, I called the official—who speaks with me only off the record—and he now believes a military strike is likely. Here are his comments, which I offer not as an endorsement of an invasion, but because of his knowledge and insights into what might lay ahead:
It looks like a military strike is in the works and I base that on two things: observable fact and the rhetoric emanating from the White House. There’s a lot of movement of troops and materiel into the region–it’s stuff the United States can’t hide. It’s a huge expense to put Navy battle groups in the Gulf and we’ve got three of them there. We’ve also moved new fighter planes to Guam amidst much public fanfare. You can plainly see the upturn in US Naval activity in and around the Norfolk Naval installations. The movement of ships, re-supply, ammunition loading and general level of activity is high.
The Naval facilities and the ammunition loading areas are well known, and the activity is readily visible, especially at night. There’s a stream of ships coming in to load up and when they take off new ones come in. There’s only one part of the world where all that stuff is heading. Also, everyone I know who would be involved in an attack on Iran–pilots and other air assets–is gone. Normally some of them are around but now all of them are away at the same time.
The other evidence of a likely strike is all the harsh talk from the White House. President Bush has been talking about Iran a lot more recently, and he put the Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorist groups. Whatever you think of the president, he has said he won’t let Iran move forward with its nuclear program. I’d take him at his word.
And it’s doable. The only part of the military that’s not stretched to the limits in Iraq is the Air Force. It will be a multi-day, multi-target air campaign–not ‘Shock and Awe,’ which wasn’t shocking and didn’t awe anyone, but a savage blow struck against President Ahmadinejad. We shouldn’t hit Iran’s Navy or Air Force but target the nuclear sites and the Revolutionary Guard. A measured response helps Ahmadinejad because he’s saying the Americans won’t attack, or can’t hurt, Iran. A disproportionate response will be hard for him to explain to the Iranian public.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Cheney Urges Strikes on Iran
Bush's demonising of Iran hardly fits in with Karzai's and Maliki's views. At the same time as Maliki visits Iran the US hits hard at Shiites in Sadr City. One moment the main enemy is Al Qaeda in Iraq the next Iranian backed Shiites. US policy in Iraq seems hopelessly confused and ineffective. Even semi-puppet governments are parting ways with the policy.
Cheney urging strikes on Iran
By Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thu, August 9, 2007Ben Curtis/AP
WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.
At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said.
Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.
Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.
The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.
Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.
For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.
The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.
But so far that course has failed to halt what American military officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq. Last month they accounted for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to the military.
Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.
The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."
Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.
Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.
"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.
He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."
The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.
Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs, which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.
Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a multinational force spokesman, said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, which lead to the deaths of five American soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran.
Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor.
Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.
Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.
Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.
The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally, and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government.
A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the American position worried him.
The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence inside Iraq," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."
Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran policy.
Until now, some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.
Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.
Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.
Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.
Cheney urging strikes on Iran
By Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thu, August 9, 2007Ben Curtis/AP
WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.
At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said.
Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.
Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.
The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.
Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.
For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.
The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.
But so far that course has failed to halt what American military officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq. Last month they accounted for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to the military.
Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.
The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."
Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.
Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.
"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.
He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."
The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.
Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs, which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.
Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a multinational force spokesman, said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, which lead to the deaths of five American soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran.
Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor.
Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.
Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.
Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.
The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally, and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government.
A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the American position worried him.
The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence inside Iraq," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."
Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran policy.
Until now, some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.
Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.
Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.
Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Cheney pushing for Action on Iran
It seems that there is no stopping Cheney and the neo-conservative cabal. An attack on Iran could very well divert attention from the mess in Iraq and serve to unite the populace behind a very unpopular president but perhaps not. I rather expect that Israel will be given the job of attacking Iran. However, many including myself, expected an attack several months ago.
Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran
· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian
While Dick Cheney, left, favours military threats, Condoleezza Rice, centre, prefers diplomacy. George Bush, right, has sided with Cheney. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.
No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.
Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.
At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.
Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran
· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian
While Dick Cheney, left, favours military threats, Condoleezza Rice, centre, prefers diplomacy. George Bush, right, has sided with Cheney. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.
No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.
Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.
At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The New Drumbeat on Iran
Every opportunity seems to be taken to paint Iran as the new great enemy but Americans so far do not seem to have reacted very strongly to the attempt to drum up support for attacking Iran. The Bush administration may go ahead anyway and try to at least set back Iran's nuclear programme by a bombing campaign.
The new drumbeat on Iran / The Guardian
Stephen Kinzer
July 11, 2007 6:30 PM
Why attack Iran? War hawks in Washington are having trouble answering
that question. Even their dire warnings about Iran's nuclear program
have not been enough to alarm Americans already weary of Middle East
conflicts.
Now the war drums have taken on a different tone. The Bush
administration is testing a new rationale for attacking Iran: We must
strike because Iranians are killing our soldiers in Iraq.
This is not simply a charge made by one state against another in the
hope that a misguided policy will be changed. It is also part of a
calculated effort to find an argument for bombing Iran that Americans
will accept.
The politically ambidextrous Senator Joseph Lieberman, a vigorous
supporter of Israel and the Iraq war, floated the new gambit a couple
of weeks ago. He calculated that Iran-trained units fighting in Iraq,
and weapons from Iran or manufactured with Iranian help, have been
responsible for the death of 200 American soldiers.
If Iran does not change course, he said, the United States should
"take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them
from killing Americans in Iraq."
Soon afterward, American press officers in Iraq began asserting that
Iran is shipping weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias, specifically
"penetrators" that can make roadside bombs more potent. Then last week
a senior American commander in Iraq, General Kevin Bergner, charged
that Iranians had helped plan a January attack in Karbala that left
five American soldiers dead.
"The reality of this is that they're killing American forces," the
general said.
Are Iranians really involved in the Iraq conflict, even arming and
training militia units fighting US troops? Probably. Might factions
within the diffuse, multi-polar Iranian government be encouraging such
aid? Possibly. Iran has deep strategic interests in Iraq, its large,
predominantly Shiite neighbor and longtime rival. It would be
unthinkable for Iran to adopt a "hands-off" policy while Iraq's future
is being decided.
By invading Iraq, the United States deposed an old order and arrogated
to itself the right to design a new one. Others - Iraqis, Iranians,
Syrians, Saudis, Kurds, Turks and a host of radical Jihadis - had
different ideas. They have insisted on their right to influence the
course of events in a suddenly chaotic Iraq. Americans threw Iraq up
for grabs, and cannot now complain that many are grabbing for it.
The larger question is whether Iran's involvement in Iraq - even if
Iran could be found directly responsible for the death of Americans -
is so outrageously provocative that it justifies an American attack.
History argues that it is not.
Most American soldiers killed in the Korean War fell victim to mines,
bombs or bullets made in China. General Douglas MacArthur - sounding
much like some in Washington today - wanted to carry the war into
China itself. President Harry Truman wisely refused and, when
MacArthur persisted, relieved him of his command.
During the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam with
weapons and ammunition that killed thousands of American soldiers. Yet
no one in the Johnson or Nixon administrations ever considered
attacking Moscow in retaliation.
Nor did the Sandinista government in Nicaragua try to attack the
United States during the 1980s, when American weapons and
American-trained fighters were killing Nicaraguan soldiers and
civilians. Helping friends during wartime is a tactic as old as proxy
war itself.
Accusing Iran of deep involvement in the Iraq war is more than a way
to lay the groundwork for a US attack. It also provides a scapegoat
for America's looming defeat. By this rationale, the American
occupation would have succeeded, and Iraq would now be blooming and
tranquil, if only Iran had not interfered and ruined everything.
Not even Americans are likely to swallow that one. Most reject the
various rationales the Bush administration has so far offered to
justify a possible attack on Iran. If they remain hostile to the idea,
President Bush will eventually have to ask himself a fateful question:
Should I attack anyway?
Attacking Iran would accomplish at least one thing Bush must be
seeking. It will assure that future historians will not remember the
invasion of Iraq as his biggest blunder.
The new drumbeat on Iran / The Guardian
Stephen Kinzer
July 11, 2007 6:30 PM
Why attack Iran? War hawks in Washington are having trouble answering
that question. Even their dire warnings about Iran's nuclear program
have not been enough to alarm Americans already weary of Middle East
conflicts.
Now the war drums have taken on a different tone. The Bush
administration is testing a new rationale for attacking Iran: We must
strike because Iranians are killing our soldiers in Iraq.
This is not simply a charge made by one state against another in the
hope that a misguided policy will be changed. It is also part of a
calculated effort to find an argument for bombing Iran that Americans
will accept.
The politically ambidextrous Senator Joseph Lieberman, a vigorous
supporter of Israel and the Iraq war, floated the new gambit a couple
of weeks ago. He calculated that Iran-trained units fighting in Iraq,
and weapons from Iran or manufactured with Iranian help, have been
responsible for the death of 200 American soldiers.
If Iran does not change course, he said, the United States should
"take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them
from killing Americans in Iraq."
Soon afterward, American press officers in Iraq began asserting that
Iran is shipping weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias, specifically
"penetrators" that can make roadside bombs more potent. Then last week
a senior American commander in Iraq, General Kevin Bergner, charged
that Iranians had helped plan a January attack in Karbala that left
five American soldiers dead.
"The reality of this is that they're killing American forces," the
general said.
Are Iranians really involved in the Iraq conflict, even arming and
training militia units fighting US troops? Probably. Might factions
within the diffuse, multi-polar Iranian government be encouraging such
aid? Possibly. Iran has deep strategic interests in Iraq, its large,
predominantly Shiite neighbor and longtime rival. It would be
unthinkable for Iran to adopt a "hands-off" policy while Iraq's future
is being decided.
By invading Iraq, the United States deposed an old order and arrogated
to itself the right to design a new one. Others - Iraqis, Iranians,
Syrians, Saudis, Kurds, Turks and a host of radical Jihadis - had
different ideas. They have insisted on their right to influence the
course of events in a suddenly chaotic Iraq. Americans threw Iraq up
for grabs, and cannot now complain that many are grabbing for it.
The larger question is whether Iran's involvement in Iraq - even if
Iran could be found directly responsible for the death of Americans -
is so outrageously provocative that it justifies an American attack.
History argues that it is not.
Most American soldiers killed in the Korean War fell victim to mines,
bombs or bullets made in China. General Douglas MacArthur - sounding
much like some in Washington today - wanted to carry the war into
China itself. President Harry Truman wisely refused and, when
MacArthur persisted, relieved him of his command.
During the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam with
weapons and ammunition that killed thousands of American soldiers. Yet
no one in the Johnson or Nixon administrations ever considered
attacking Moscow in retaliation.
Nor did the Sandinista government in Nicaragua try to attack the
United States during the 1980s, when American weapons and
American-trained fighters were killing Nicaraguan soldiers and
civilians. Helping friends during wartime is a tactic as old as proxy
war itself.
Accusing Iran of deep involvement in the Iraq war is more than a way
to lay the groundwork for a US attack. It also provides a scapegoat
for America's looming defeat. By this rationale, the American
occupation would have succeeded, and Iraq would now be blooming and
tranquil, if only Iran had not interfered and ruined everything.
Not even Americans are likely to swallow that one. Most reject the
various rationales the Bush administration has so far offered to
justify a possible attack on Iran. If they remain hostile to the idea,
President Bush will eventually have to ask himself a fateful question:
Should I attack anyway?
Attacking Iran would accomplish at least one thing Bush must be
seeking. It will assure that future historians will not remember the
invasion of Iraq as his biggest blunder.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Pulling the Trigger on Iran
No doubt many neo-cons would like a military confrontation with Iran but the idea that this would be a success for them is quite doubtful. Any attack on Iran would have repercussions in Iraq, especially in the Shia south and Iran may be able to do considerable damage before it is incapacitated. Restive Shias in moderate Arab countries might rise up and cause problems throughout the so-called moderate Arab states. Talk of an Iran attack seems to have cooled down a bit during the last few weeks.
Pulling the Trigger on Iran
Posted by Patrick Foy on April 26, 2007
The casus belli for “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, the invasion of Iraq, was a fraud. We know that now. Even though there was no threat whatever to the United States from Iraq, the decision was made by Richard Cheney in consultation with his junior associate, George W. Bush, to invade and occupy Iraq, a country which had been decimated by an economic embargo and whose army had been cut by two-thirds since 1991. Once the predatory decision had been made, it was necessary to fabricate a plausible justification for it, to “fix the intelligence around the policy”, to use the British phraseology. This required months of a carefully calibrated propaganda campaign to misinform the American public and pressure the U.S. Congress and Senate for the authorization to attack. At the UN in the Security Council, a similar mendacious strategy was underway. At the same time, the White House was suggesting that it did not actually need authorization from the Congress or the UN to initiate hostilities. Why not? Because G.W. Bush is POTUS 43, the commander-in-chief, and as such he can do as he pleases when it comes to national security affairs. The same argument will be made if and when the U.S. attacks Iran.
Let’s be clear. Oil-rich Iraq had nothing to do with the national security of the United States. From the very start, going back to Saddam’s attempted annexation of Kuwait in 1990, Iraq was and remains a political football. What has been done to Iraq by successive Administrations in the name of the American people--beginning with H.W. Bush and “Operation Desert Storm” in 1991 and continuing with Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright and the murderous economic sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990’s, and highlighted by the bizarre 1998 “Iraq Liberation Act” of Congress, which passed 360-38 in the House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate, and finally in 2003, the invasion of Iraq itself, endorsed by the Democratic leadership on Capital Hill--all of this was based upon American domestic politics and constant pressure from the U.S. Israel Lobby, and not on the legitimate national security concerns of the the United States. What is happening now in 2007 is more of the same, to wit, more politics: the Democrats, many of whom were cheerleaders for the war when it began, are trying to make whatever political mileage they can from the obvious disaster this war has become. There are some intellectually honest individuals, like Congressman John Murtha and Senator Chuck Hagel, but they are the exceptions.
Meanwhile, Dick Cheney and what is left of his dwindling gang of “neocons” want to attack Iran, in a last gasp of recklessness and myopia. Bush Jr. is on board, as before, for reasons which remain unclear and unimportant. But the scenario employed to take out Iraq will not work. Why not? Because Cheney and Bush have been exposed as duplicitous. They have hardly an ounce of credibility left. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” has degenerated into a nightmare and many of the “neocon” operatives who carried it out from the Pentagon and from the White House have wisely fled the scene of the crime. One of them, I. “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff as well as a counselor to the President, has been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with covering up the White House disinformation campaign. In short, the same dog won’t hunt.
Still, attacking Iran is on Tel Aviv’s wish list, as clearly evidenced by AIPAC’s “Policy Conferences” in Washington from the last 3 or 4 years, so something has to be worked out before Cheney and Bush leave office. Actually, the situation is not looking all that bad on Capital Hill for reinstating “the clash of civilizations”, despite the Iraq fiasco. The me-too Democrats, in particular those running for President in 2008, and especially the Republicans running for President, are on record that “all options are on the table” when it comes to Iran. To translate, under the right circumstances, Democratic leaders, and all Presidential contenders, will go along with a U.S. attack on Iran. It just requires the right setup. The White House has only to prepare the bogus circumstances, like it did prior to “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Fine and dandy. Once again, the Democrats are enabling Cheney and Bush to launch another unprovoked war. It was your country.
But there may be an unforeseen problem for the war party. Two months ago, on April 25th, the London Sunday Times reported (”US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack” by Michael Smith & Sarah Baxter) that a handful of generals and admirals would not obey White House orders to attack Iran, but would resign in the face of such an order. This is astonishing and unprecedented, if true. It appears that a significant number of U.S. military officers have concluded that the two gentlemen in charge at the White House are not playing with a full deck. What does it mean for the warmongers? How will the White House, in cooperation with their “neocon” brain trust, railroad America into another unnecessary war? The largely overlooked and unheralded article in the London Sunday Times provides a good clue. “A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: ‘The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.’” Read that again. The scenario is in place.
Taking the vice admiral’s statement at face value, this indicates that the White House has ordered the U.S. fleet to attack Iran in the event Iran takes action against any country in the region. An instant war trigger. No need for Congress to act. The me-too Democrats and the brain dead Republicans can relax, sit back and enjoy it. There is no alliance, formal or informal, and no treaty which would require the U.S. to attack Iran in the event Iran “targets” other countries in the region. The only reason Iran would target anybody would be in the event Iran had been targeted first, and Iran was attempting to launch a counter-attack, in other words, defending itself. Get the drift? It is entirely possible that a nuclear-armed Tel Aviv, acting “on its own” but in coordination with Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, David Wurmser and maybe even with George W. Bush, will initiate hostilities with a bombing run and/or cruise missile attack on Iran. Then, as soon as Iran attempts to react, Iran will get clobbered with a massive “shock and awe” blitzkrieg carried out by the U.S. air force and navy, which attack will virtually destroy the Iranian military and the Iranian nuclear energy program as well. The final mission accomplished. Cheney and Bush will be back on top in Washington. The shameful and shameless me-too Democrats will be out maneuvered yet again. Life is beautiful. The revenge of the neocons will be complete.
Patrick Foy is author of The Unauthorized World Situation Report
Pulling the Trigger on Iran
Posted by Patrick Foy on April 26, 2007
The casus belli for “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, the invasion of Iraq, was a fraud. We know that now. Even though there was no threat whatever to the United States from Iraq, the decision was made by Richard Cheney in consultation with his junior associate, George W. Bush, to invade and occupy Iraq, a country which had been decimated by an economic embargo and whose army had been cut by two-thirds since 1991. Once the predatory decision had been made, it was necessary to fabricate a plausible justification for it, to “fix the intelligence around the policy”, to use the British phraseology. This required months of a carefully calibrated propaganda campaign to misinform the American public and pressure the U.S. Congress and Senate for the authorization to attack. At the UN in the Security Council, a similar mendacious strategy was underway. At the same time, the White House was suggesting that it did not actually need authorization from the Congress or the UN to initiate hostilities. Why not? Because G.W. Bush is POTUS 43, the commander-in-chief, and as such he can do as he pleases when it comes to national security affairs. The same argument will be made if and when the U.S. attacks Iran.
Let’s be clear. Oil-rich Iraq had nothing to do with the national security of the United States. From the very start, going back to Saddam’s attempted annexation of Kuwait in 1990, Iraq was and remains a political football. What has been done to Iraq by successive Administrations in the name of the American people--beginning with H.W. Bush and “Operation Desert Storm” in 1991 and continuing with Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright and the murderous economic sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990’s, and highlighted by the bizarre 1998 “Iraq Liberation Act” of Congress, which passed 360-38 in the House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate, and finally in 2003, the invasion of Iraq itself, endorsed by the Democratic leadership on Capital Hill--all of this was based upon American domestic politics and constant pressure from the U.S. Israel Lobby, and not on the legitimate national security concerns of the the United States. What is happening now in 2007 is more of the same, to wit, more politics: the Democrats, many of whom were cheerleaders for the war when it began, are trying to make whatever political mileage they can from the obvious disaster this war has become. There are some intellectually honest individuals, like Congressman John Murtha and Senator Chuck Hagel, but they are the exceptions.
Meanwhile, Dick Cheney and what is left of his dwindling gang of “neocons” want to attack Iran, in a last gasp of recklessness and myopia. Bush Jr. is on board, as before, for reasons which remain unclear and unimportant. But the scenario employed to take out Iraq will not work. Why not? Because Cheney and Bush have been exposed as duplicitous. They have hardly an ounce of credibility left. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” has degenerated into a nightmare and many of the “neocon” operatives who carried it out from the Pentagon and from the White House have wisely fled the scene of the crime. One of them, I. “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff as well as a counselor to the President, has been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with covering up the White House disinformation campaign. In short, the same dog won’t hunt.
Still, attacking Iran is on Tel Aviv’s wish list, as clearly evidenced by AIPAC’s “Policy Conferences” in Washington from the last 3 or 4 years, so something has to be worked out before Cheney and Bush leave office. Actually, the situation is not looking all that bad on Capital Hill for reinstating “the clash of civilizations”, despite the Iraq fiasco. The me-too Democrats, in particular those running for President in 2008, and especially the Republicans running for President, are on record that “all options are on the table” when it comes to Iran. To translate, under the right circumstances, Democratic leaders, and all Presidential contenders, will go along with a U.S. attack on Iran. It just requires the right setup. The White House has only to prepare the bogus circumstances, like it did prior to “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Fine and dandy. Once again, the Democrats are enabling Cheney and Bush to launch another unprovoked war. It was your country.
But there may be an unforeseen problem for the war party. Two months ago, on April 25th, the London Sunday Times reported (”US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack” by Michael Smith & Sarah Baxter) that a handful of generals and admirals would not obey White House orders to attack Iran, but would resign in the face of such an order. This is astonishing and unprecedented, if true. It appears that a significant number of U.S. military officers have concluded that the two gentlemen in charge at the White House are not playing with a full deck. What does it mean for the warmongers? How will the White House, in cooperation with their “neocon” brain trust, railroad America into another unnecessary war? The largely overlooked and unheralded article in the London Sunday Times provides a good clue. “A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: ‘The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.’” Read that again. The scenario is in place.
Taking the vice admiral’s statement at face value, this indicates that the White House has ordered the U.S. fleet to attack Iran in the event Iran takes action against any country in the region. An instant war trigger. No need for Congress to act. The me-too Democrats and the brain dead Republicans can relax, sit back and enjoy it. There is no alliance, formal or informal, and no treaty which would require the U.S. to attack Iran in the event Iran “targets” other countries in the region. The only reason Iran would target anybody would be in the event Iran had been targeted first, and Iran was attempting to launch a counter-attack, in other words, defending itself. Get the drift? It is entirely possible that a nuclear-armed Tel Aviv, acting “on its own” but in coordination with Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, David Wurmser and maybe even with George W. Bush, will initiate hostilities with a bombing run and/or cruise missile attack on Iran. Then, as soon as Iran attempts to react, Iran will get clobbered with a massive “shock and awe” blitzkrieg carried out by the U.S. air force and navy, which attack will virtually destroy the Iranian military and the Iranian nuclear energy program as well. The final mission accomplished. Cheney and Bush will be back on top in Washington. The shameful and shameless me-too Democrats will be out maneuvered yet again. Life is beautiful. The revenge of the neocons will be complete.
Patrick Foy is author of The Unauthorized World Situation Report
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
US continues preparations for Iran strike: Russian General
This is not surprising but the report may be a bit alarmist. With all the forces in the Gulf there could easily be another incident that could be used as a pretext for an attack. Both Israel and the US are determined to stop Iran's nuclear program one way or another.
Russian General Says U.S. Continues Preparations for Iran Strike
Created: 09.04.2007 09:44 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:38 MSK
MosNews
The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems Colonel General Leonid Ivashov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
“Preparations to strike Iran’s strategic facilities continue. Three major groups of U.S. forces are still in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Altogether, they have up to 450 cruise missiles on alert,” the general said.
“Military operations against Tehran will begin with the launch of at least two unexpected strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles and air power in order to disable Iran’s air defense capabilities,” he said.
“According to our data, up to 150 aircraft are to be involved in each strike on Iran. Land-based air defense systems will be disabled in the first place, then mobile short-range systems, which Tehran has (including some 30 new systems),” he said.
Primary targets will include command centers, air defense installations, the navy, airfields, ports and docking facilities, the general said.
“Nuclear facilities may be secondary targets. According to expert assessments, at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed in order to stop Iran’s nuclear program,” Ivashov said.
Ivashov did not rule out that nuclear weapons may be used against Iran.
“Combat nuclear weapons may be used for bombing. This will result in radioactive contamination of the Iranian territory, which could possibly spread to neighboring countries,” he said.
“If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran,” Ivashov said, adding that such a “development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world.”
Russian General Says U.S. Continues Preparations for Iran Strike
Created: 09.04.2007 09:44 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:38 MSK
MosNews
The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems Colonel General Leonid Ivashov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
“Preparations to strike Iran’s strategic facilities continue. Three major groups of U.S. forces are still in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Altogether, they have up to 450 cruise missiles on alert,” the general said.
“Military operations against Tehran will begin with the launch of at least two unexpected strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles and air power in order to disable Iran’s air defense capabilities,” he said.
“According to our data, up to 150 aircraft are to be involved in each strike on Iran. Land-based air defense systems will be disabled in the first place, then mobile short-range systems, which Tehran has (including some 30 new systems),” he said.
Primary targets will include command centers, air defense installations, the navy, airfields, ports and docking facilities, the general said.
“Nuclear facilities may be secondary targets. According to expert assessments, at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed in order to stop Iran’s nuclear program,” Ivashov said.
Ivashov did not rule out that nuclear weapons may be used against Iran.
“Combat nuclear weapons may be used for bombing. This will result in radioactive contamination of the Iranian territory, which could possibly spread to neighboring countries,” he said.
“If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran,” Ivashov said, adding that such a “development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world.”
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Some Consequences of an Attack on Iran
Some of these consequences may be a bit hyped but certainly consequences akin to these are likely if the attack occurs. Even the UK sailor incident sent oil prices up.
Shock and Awe II - The Consequences of an US attack on Iran / Politics / Iran
Apr 04, 2007 - 04:21 PM
By: Nadeem_Walayat
The British and American public appear to being hyped up towards a possible attack against Iran . Despite recent rhetoric. the actual consequences of an attack need to be fully investigated before another ‘Mission Accomplished' photo opportunity turns into something far worse than the quagmire in Iraq, which so far is on target to cost over $1 trillion, with estimates being revised higher every quarter.
A ground invasion of Iran is not possible, not with the USA tied down in both Iraq and Afghanistan . Therefore any attack would only be ariel attacks, most probably limited to Iran 's nuclear and key military infrastructure. Still this ‘ Shock and Awe II' would involve thousands if not tens of thousands of missiles and ordinance. So on a scale similar if not greater to the attack on Iraq in 2003.
An attack on Iran will likely have the following consequences -
1. Crude Oil – This one is easy, the price of oil would likely jump to a new high, how high is unknowable, but the immediate response would be a price north of $80. the consequences of this on a weakening world economy is obvious – Recession 2008.
2. Financial Markets Panic – Financial markets seek stability and order, not chaos, an attack against Iran would reek of panic, the last throw of the dice before the Neo-cons lose control of the White House.
3. Unknown Knowns – Iran probably has anticipated an attack and it is highly likely some unknown strategic retaliatory action is planned. As to what ? I can only speculate that Iran would seek to draw Israel into another war with Lebanon but on a much grander scale. There is speculation that Hezbollah possessed advanced Iranian missiles to be launched in the event of an attack against Iran .
4. IRAQ – At this point in time most of the conflict against the Co-alition in Iraq is from the Sunni insurgency. Should an attack against Iran occur, then the fallout would be double if not triple the current level of insurgency as the Shiite's are the defacto government and majority of the population of Iraq .
5. Objective 1 – Get Rid of Iranian Nuclear Programme – An attack would reinforce Iran 's resolve that the only deterrence against attack would be for Iran to double its efforts to secure a nuclear deterrence regardless of the consequences.
6. Objective 2 - Weakening Iran , may have the exact opposite effect, out of the fires of 'Shock And Awe' we may in 3 years time awaken to an fundamentalist Iranian super state that engulfs most of Iraq and parts of Saudi Arabia . The Iranians sacrificed some 1,000,000 soldiers in the war against Iraq , and it is not inconceivable that another 1,000,000 will be sacrificed or as the Shiite ideology would have it Martyred in the formation of an Iranian super state.
I am of the opinion that an attack against Iran would be a disaster. Iran is not Iraq , it has not been disarmed over the last 10 years. It will have the effect of opening Pandora's box, the consequences of which we would have to live with for decades and in far greater magnitude than the fallout from the disaster that is Iraq .
I am more or less certain that this time, Britain would not ally itself in an attack on Iran , therefore this time, the USA would truly have to go it alone. The recent release of the 15 British Navy personnel is likely to further diffuse the situation in Britain.
I still consider an attack against Iran during 2007, as a very low probability, less than 15% chance of occurring. The only realistic way to deal with Iran 's nuclear ambitions is via negotiations and security guarantees, which is the primary purpose of an Iranian nuclear programme, i.e. to secure against another war similar to that which cost Iran 1 million lives during the 1980's when Iraq attacked Iran .
However, should the US attack Iran , then Gold and Oil and related companies are set to benefit. The stock markets (apart from the Military industrial complex), will take a hit. Which would represent a good buying opportunity, for adding to investments in the emerging markets, i.e. China , India , Brazil , Russia etc.
By Nadeem Walayat,
Editor of The Market Oracle.
Copyright © MarketOracle.co.uk 2007
The
Shock and Awe II - The Consequences of an US attack on Iran / Politics / Iran
Apr 04, 2007 - 04:21 PM
By: Nadeem_Walayat
The British and American public appear to being hyped up towards a possible attack against Iran . Despite recent rhetoric. the actual consequences of an attack need to be fully investigated before another ‘Mission Accomplished' photo opportunity turns into something far worse than the quagmire in Iraq, which so far is on target to cost over $1 trillion, with estimates being revised higher every quarter.
A ground invasion of Iran is not possible, not with the USA tied down in both Iraq and Afghanistan . Therefore any attack would only be ariel attacks, most probably limited to Iran 's nuclear and key military infrastructure. Still this ‘ Shock and Awe II' would involve thousands if not tens of thousands of missiles and ordinance. So on a scale similar if not greater to the attack on Iraq in 2003.
An attack on Iran will likely have the following consequences -
1. Crude Oil – This one is easy, the price of oil would likely jump to a new high, how high is unknowable, but the immediate response would be a price north of $80. the consequences of this on a weakening world economy is obvious – Recession 2008.
2. Financial Markets Panic – Financial markets seek stability and order, not chaos, an attack against Iran would reek of panic, the last throw of the dice before the Neo-cons lose control of the White House.
3. Unknown Knowns – Iran probably has anticipated an attack and it is highly likely some unknown strategic retaliatory action is planned. As to what ? I can only speculate that Iran would seek to draw Israel into another war with Lebanon but on a much grander scale. There is speculation that Hezbollah possessed advanced Iranian missiles to be launched in the event of an attack against Iran .
4. IRAQ – At this point in time most of the conflict against the Co-alition in Iraq is from the Sunni insurgency. Should an attack against Iran occur, then the fallout would be double if not triple the current level of insurgency as the Shiite's are the defacto government and majority of the population of Iraq .
5. Objective 1 – Get Rid of Iranian Nuclear Programme – An attack would reinforce Iran 's resolve that the only deterrence against attack would be for Iran to double its efforts to secure a nuclear deterrence regardless of the consequences.
6. Objective 2 - Weakening Iran , may have the exact opposite effect, out of the fires of 'Shock And Awe' we may in 3 years time awaken to an fundamentalist Iranian super state that engulfs most of Iraq and parts of Saudi Arabia . The Iranians sacrificed some 1,000,000 soldiers in the war against Iraq , and it is not inconceivable that another 1,000,000 will be sacrificed or as the Shiite ideology would have it Martyred in the formation of an Iranian super state.
I am of the opinion that an attack against Iran would be a disaster. Iran is not Iraq , it has not been disarmed over the last 10 years. It will have the effect of opening Pandora's box, the consequences of which we would have to live with for decades and in far greater magnitude than the fallout from the disaster that is Iraq .
I am more or less certain that this time, Britain would not ally itself in an attack on Iran , therefore this time, the USA would truly have to go it alone. The recent release of the 15 British Navy personnel is likely to further diffuse the situation in Britain.
I still consider an attack against Iran during 2007, as a very low probability, less than 15% chance of occurring. The only realistic way to deal with Iran 's nuclear ambitions is via negotiations and security guarantees, which is the primary purpose of an Iranian nuclear programme, i.e. to secure against another war similar to that which cost Iran 1 million lives during the 1980's when Iraq attacked Iran .
However, should the US attack Iran , then Gold and Oil and related companies are set to benefit. The stock markets (apart from the Military industrial complex), will take a hit. Which would represent a good buying opportunity, for adding to investments in the emerging markets, i.e. China , India , Brazil , Russia etc.
By Nadeem Walayat,
Editor of The Market Oracle.
Copyright © MarketOracle.co.uk 2007
The
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Attack on Iran on Good Friday?
Reports from anonymous intelligence sources are always suspect but we will see on Good Friday how good this source is! Of course the report is that the US is ready to attack! So nothing could happen and the source still be right. This person would be a good soothsayer or oracle!
'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerusalem Post staff and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 1, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.
According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.
Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."
Iran fears strike by 'warmongers'
THE IRANIAN THREAT
JPost.com special: news, opinion, blogs and more
The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.
The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."
"I warn the dear leaders and Muslim brothers in the neighboring countries of the occupied territories that this suicidal attack of the Zionists is threatening them," he said.
The countries in danger, he said, were "Lebanon and Syria, and later Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."
Also on Saturday, Russia urged Britain and Teheran to resolve the dispute over 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran last week, a local news agency reported.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin urged the two sides to provide the United Nations with their own assessments as to what happened and where exactly the detention occurred so that the body could conduct an independent probe.
"We hope these actions will provide a foundation for the soonest possible resolution of the crisis," Kamynin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the captured British sailors and marines trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for failing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.
"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.
The European Union grappled with a double bind over Iran Saturday - the country's nuclear program and its seizure of the British troops - and reported no progress on either issue.
A debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions had been scheduled as a key agenda item but "was overshadowed to a certain extent by the issue of the sailors and marines," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after hosting a two-day EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany.
The Foreign Ministry in Iran dismissed the EU's "biased and meddlesome" comments on the captured troops, saying the dispute solely involved the governments of Iran and Britain.
Speaking to reporters in Bremen, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Iran to resolve the crisis over the military personnel peacefully, saying London remains open to dialogue.
"We encourage Iran to peacefully resolve this issue," she said.
"We continue to express our willingness to engage in dialogue and discussions with Iran," she added. "That is very much in the best interest of our people and that is our foremost concern."
"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," she said. "What we want is a way out of it."
AP contributed to this report.
'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerusalem Post staff and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 1, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.
According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.
Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."
Iran fears strike by 'warmongers'
THE IRANIAN THREAT
JPost.com special: news, opinion, blogs and more
The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.
The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."
"I warn the dear leaders and Muslim brothers in the neighboring countries of the occupied territories that this suicidal attack of the Zionists is threatening them," he said.
The countries in danger, he said, were "Lebanon and Syria, and later Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."
Also on Saturday, Russia urged Britain and Teheran to resolve the dispute over 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran last week, a local news agency reported.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin urged the two sides to provide the United Nations with their own assessments as to what happened and where exactly the detention occurred so that the body could conduct an independent probe.
"We hope these actions will provide a foundation for the soonest possible resolution of the crisis," Kamynin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the captured British sailors and marines trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for failing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.
"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.
The European Union grappled with a double bind over Iran Saturday - the country's nuclear program and its seizure of the British troops - and reported no progress on either issue.
A debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions had been scheduled as a key agenda item but "was overshadowed to a certain extent by the issue of the sailors and marines," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after hosting a two-day EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany.
The Foreign Ministry in Iran dismissed the EU's "biased and meddlesome" comments on the captured troops, saying the dispute solely involved the governments of Iran and Britain.
Speaking to reporters in Bremen, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Iran to resolve the crisis over the military personnel peacefully, saying London remains open to dialogue.
"We encourage Iran to peacefully resolve this issue," she said.
"We continue to express our willingness to engage in dialogue and discussions with Iran," she added. "That is very much in the best interest of our people and that is our foremost concern."
"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," she said. "What we want is a way out of it."
AP contributed to this report.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Even if Iran does meddle in Iraq, this does not justify US attack on Iran
The author makes some good points. It is quite probable that there is some Iranian equipment and involvement in Iraq even though US intelligence is meant to show more than there is. What has always completely baffled me is how so many US authorities speak with moral indignation about Iran interfering in Iraq when the US and allies in an illegal war overthrew the legitimate Iraqi government, installed their own provisional govt. etc. and continue to occupy the country and control many jails as well as turning over the former rule to be tried and executed.
What if Iran Is
Interfering in Iraq?
Faulty premises will lead us to another war
by Michael Perry
Anti-warriors and even formerly gullible reporters are taking issue with Bush's claims that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, but this could represent a serious strategic mistake in our efforts to prevent another war.
Choose your battles wisely.
We are witnessing the Bush administration's attempt to frame the debate about a (supposedly unplanned) military confrontation with Iran. Bush wants the debate to be about whether Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents. Why? First, because this is a debate that Bush can win. Second, holding such a debate postpones discussion of much more important issues, in particular the unspoken assumption that if Iran is supporting attacks against the U.S. military in Iraq, then the U.S. has reasonable grounds to wage war against Iran. Also postponed (perhaps until it's too late to matter) is a debate on the broader proposition that a military confrontation with Iran is necessary, or even useful, to the American people.
If the key question is whether or not Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, Bush will win. Despite the administration's shameful lies preceding the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and regardless of the quality of the evidence that Bush shows, it is probably true that the Iraqi insurgents are getting material support from individuals within Iran, albeit individuals completely unconnected to the Iranian government. Borders never have been as solid as the lines mapmakers draw to represent them. With virtual certainty, we can say that there are some weapons moving into Iraq from Iran – perhaps not a significant amount, but a quantity greater than zero. So Bush could win the debate on a technicality: some Iranians are helping the insurgents kill American soldiers.
Furthermore, it is possible that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving material support from individuals in the Iranian government and military, without the knowledge of the Iranian leadership. Think about it. The U.S. invaded and occupies Iran's neighbor, in clear defiance of international law, in violation of the most basic moral precepts, and in disregard of world opinion. From its forward base in occupied Iraq, the U.S. presents an obvious threat to the people of Iran. At least some individuals in the Iranian government may have perceived this threat and reacted, perhaps overreaching their official authority to do so.
But let's go even further and say, for the sake of argument, that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving officially authorized aid from the Iranian state. It is true that having a neighboring nation in chaos does not generally benefit any country, but the Iranians have been under the gun from the U.S. for a very long time – decades, in fact. The recent threats and provocations from the Bush administration make it clear that Iran is an imminent target. I'm quite sure the Iranians realize that the quagmire in Iraq is the primary impediment to an American invasion of Iran. Troubles for U.S. forces in Iraq may buy the Iranians more time. Could the Iranians be so blind to their own self-interests?
Beyond the practical justifications for Iranian involvement in Iraq, there are also moral rationales. If Russia were to invade Mexico, at least some in the U.S. government would support the Mexican insurgents against the Russian occupiers. And most Americans would back such assistance. Aiding one's neighbors against an unwelcome occupation is not only reasonable, it is generally considered worthy of respect.
If we engage Bush in his debate, on his terms, then we might score a few quick victories. The shoddy quality of Bush's current "evidence" is just as apparent as before the Iraq invasion, but eventually some genuine proof of Iranian "interference" may arise. And if such proof does surface, we will have missed the opportunity to refute the unspoken assertion that the U.S. should attack Iran if it is supporting Iraqi insurgents. By then, the bombs will already be falling, shredding delicate flesh and scarring the land – perhaps with nuclear warheads.
We must frame the debate about the actions of our supposedly democratic government. Quit arguing over whether Iranians are aiding their neighbors and, by extension, defending themselves. They have every right to – the U.S. is the aggressor in Iraq, and will be again if it attacks Iran.
So What if Iran Is
Interfering in Iraq?
Faulty premises will lead us to another war
by Michael Perry
Anti-warriors and even formerly gullible reporters are taking issue with Bush's claims that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, but this could represent a serious strategic mistake in our efforts to prevent another war.
Choose your battles wisely.
We are witnessing the Bush administration's attempt to frame the debate about a (supposedly unplanned) military confrontation with Iran. Bush wants the debate to be about whether Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents. Why? First, because this is a debate that Bush can win. Second, holding such a debate postpones discussion of much more important issues, in particular the unspoken assumption that if Iran is supporting attacks against the U.S. military in Iraq, then the U.S. has reasonable grounds to wage war against Iran. Also postponed (perhaps until it's too late to matter) is a debate on the broader proposition that a military confrontation with Iran is necessary, or even useful, to the American people.
If the key question is whether or not Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, Bush will win. Despite the administration's shameful lies preceding the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and regardless of the quality of the evidence that Bush shows, it is probably true that the Iraqi insurgents are getting material support from individuals within Iran, albeit individuals completely unconnected to the Iranian government. Borders never have been as solid as the lines mapmakers draw to represent them. With virtual certainty, we can say that there are some weapons moving into Iraq from Iran – perhaps not a significant amount, but a quantity greater than zero. So Bush could win the debate on a technicality: some Iranians are helping the insurgents kill American soldiers.
Furthermore, it is possible that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving material support from individuals in the Iranian government and military, without the knowledge of the Iranian leadership. Think about it. The U.S. invaded and occupies Iran's neighbor, in clear defiance of international law, in violation of the most basic moral precepts, and in disregard of world opinion. From its forward base in occupied Iraq, the U.S. presents an obvious threat to the people of Iran. At least some individuals in the Iranian government may have perceived this threat and reacted, perhaps overreaching their official authority to do so.
But let's go even further and say, for the sake of argument, that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving officially authorized aid from the Iranian state. It is true that having a neighboring nation in chaos does not generally benefit any country, but the Iranians have been under the gun from the U.S. for a very long time – decades, in fact. The recent threats and provocations from the Bush administration make it clear that Iran is an imminent target. I'm quite sure the Iranians realize that the quagmire in Iraq is the primary impediment to an American invasion of Iran. Troubles for U.S. forces in Iraq may buy the Iranians more time. Could the Iranians be so blind to their own self-interests?
Beyond the practical justifications for Iranian involvement in Iraq, there are also moral rationales. If Russia were to invade Mexico, at least some in the U.S. government would support the Mexican insurgents against the Russian occupiers. And most Americans would back such assistance. Aiding one's neighbors against an unwelcome occupation is not only reasonable, it is generally considered worthy of respect.
If we engage Bush in his debate, on his terms, then we might score a few quick victories. The shoddy quality of Bush's current "evidence" is just as apparent as before the Iraq invasion, but eventually some genuine proof of Iranian "interference" may arise. And if such proof does surface, we will have missed the opportunity to refute the unspoken assertion that the U.S. should attack Iran if it is supporting Iraqi insurgents. By then, the bombs will already be falling, shredding delicate flesh and scarring the land – perhaps with nuclear warheads.
We must frame the debate about the actions of our supposedly democratic government. Quit arguing over whether Iranians are aiding their neighbors and, by extension, defending themselves. They have every right to – the U.S. is the aggressor in Iraq, and will be again if it attacks Iran.
q
What if Iran Is
Interfering in Iraq?
Faulty premises will lead us to another war
by Michael Perry
Anti-warriors and even formerly gullible reporters are taking issue with Bush's claims that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, but this could represent a serious strategic mistake in our efforts to prevent another war.
Choose your battles wisely.
We are witnessing the Bush administration's attempt to frame the debate about a (supposedly unplanned) military confrontation with Iran. Bush wants the debate to be about whether Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents. Why? First, because this is a debate that Bush can win. Second, holding such a debate postpones discussion of much more important issues, in particular the unspoken assumption that if Iran is supporting attacks against the U.S. military in Iraq, then the U.S. has reasonable grounds to wage war against Iran. Also postponed (perhaps until it's too late to matter) is a debate on the broader proposition that a military confrontation with Iran is necessary, or even useful, to the American people.
If the key question is whether or not Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, Bush will win. Despite the administration's shameful lies preceding the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and regardless of the quality of the evidence that Bush shows, it is probably true that the Iraqi insurgents are getting material support from individuals within Iran, albeit individuals completely unconnected to the Iranian government. Borders never have been as solid as the lines mapmakers draw to represent them. With virtual certainty, we can say that there are some weapons moving into Iraq from Iran – perhaps not a significant amount, but a quantity greater than zero. So Bush could win the debate on a technicality: some Iranians are helping the insurgents kill American soldiers.
Furthermore, it is possible that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving material support from individuals in the Iranian government and military, without the knowledge of the Iranian leadership. Think about it. The U.S. invaded and occupies Iran's neighbor, in clear defiance of international law, in violation of the most basic moral precepts, and in disregard of world opinion. From its forward base in occupied Iraq, the U.S. presents an obvious threat to the people of Iran. At least some individuals in the Iranian government may have perceived this threat and reacted, perhaps overreaching their official authority to do so.
But let's go even further and say, for the sake of argument, that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving officially authorized aid from the Iranian state. It is true that having a neighboring nation in chaos does not generally benefit any country, but the Iranians have been under the gun from the U.S. for a very long time – decades, in fact. The recent threats and provocations from the Bush administration make it clear that Iran is an imminent target. I'm quite sure the Iranians realize that the quagmire in Iraq is the primary impediment to an American invasion of Iran. Troubles for U.S. forces in Iraq may buy the Iranians more time. Could the Iranians be so blind to their own self-interests?
Beyond the practical justifications for Iranian involvement in Iraq, there are also moral rationales. If Russia were to invade Mexico, at least some in the U.S. government would support the Mexican insurgents against the Russian occupiers. And most Americans would back such assistance. Aiding one's neighbors against an unwelcome occupation is not only reasonable, it is generally considered worthy of respect.
If we engage Bush in his debate, on his terms, then we might score a few quick victories. The shoddy quality of Bush's current "evidence" is just as apparent as before the Iraq invasion, but eventually some genuine proof of Iranian "interference" may arise. And if such proof does surface, we will have missed the opportunity to refute the unspoken assertion that the U.S. should attack Iran if it is supporting Iraqi insurgents. By then, the bombs will already be falling, shredding delicate flesh and scarring the land – perhaps with nuclear warheads.
We must frame the debate about the actions of our supposedly democratic government. Quit arguing over whether Iranians are aiding their neighbors and, by extension, defending themselves. They have every right to – the U.S. is the aggressor in Iraq, and will be again if it attacks Iran.
So What if Iran Is
Interfering in Iraq?
Faulty premises will lead us to another war
by Michael Perry
Anti-warriors and even formerly gullible reporters are taking issue with Bush's claims that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, but this could represent a serious strategic mistake in our efforts to prevent another war.
Choose your battles wisely.
We are witnessing the Bush administration's attempt to frame the debate about a (supposedly unplanned) military confrontation with Iran. Bush wants the debate to be about whether Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents. Why? First, because this is a debate that Bush can win. Second, holding such a debate postpones discussion of much more important issues, in particular the unspoken assumption that if Iran is supporting attacks against the U.S. military in Iraq, then the U.S. has reasonable grounds to wage war against Iran. Also postponed (perhaps until it's too late to matter) is a debate on the broader proposition that a military confrontation with Iran is necessary, or even useful, to the American people.
If the key question is whether or not Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgents, Bush will win. Despite the administration's shameful lies preceding the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and regardless of the quality of the evidence that Bush shows, it is probably true that the Iraqi insurgents are getting material support from individuals within Iran, albeit individuals completely unconnected to the Iranian government. Borders never have been as solid as the lines mapmakers draw to represent them. With virtual certainty, we can say that there are some weapons moving into Iraq from Iran – perhaps not a significant amount, but a quantity greater than zero. So Bush could win the debate on a technicality: some Iranians are helping the insurgents kill American soldiers.
Furthermore, it is possible that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving material support from individuals in the Iranian government and military, without the knowledge of the Iranian leadership. Think about it. The U.S. invaded and occupies Iran's neighbor, in clear defiance of international law, in violation of the most basic moral precepts, and in disregard of world opinion. From its forward base in occupied Iraq, the U.S. presents an obvious threat to the people of Iran. At least some individuals in the Iranian government may have perceived this threat and reacted, perhaps overreaching their official authority to do so.
But let's go even further and say, for the sake of argument, that the Iraqi insurgents are receiving officially authorized aid from the Iranian state. It is true that having a neighboring nation in chaos does not generally benefit any country, but the Iranians have been under the gun from the U.S. for a very long time – decades, in fact. The recent threats and provocations from the Bush administration make it clear that Iran is an imminent target. I'm quite sure the Iranians realize that the quagmire in Iraq is the primary impediment to an American invasion of Iran. Troubles for U.S. forces in Iraq may buy the Iranians more time. Could the Iranians be so blind to their own self-interests?
Beyond the practical justifications for Iranian involvement in Iraq, there are also moral rationales. If Russia were to invade Mexico, at least some in the U.S. government would support the Mexican insurgents against the Russian occupiers. And most Americans would back such assistance. Aiding one's neighbors against an unwelcome occupation is not only reasonable, it is generally considered worthy of respect.
If we engage Bush in his debate, on his terms, then we might score a few quick victories. The shoddy quality of Bush's current "evidence" is just as apparent as before the Iraq invasion, but eventually some genuine proof of Iranian "interference" may arise. And if such proof does surface, we will have missed the opportunity to refute the unspoken assertion that the U.S. should attack Iran if it is supporting Iraqi insurgents. By then, the bombs will already be falling, shredding delicate flesh and scarring the land – perhaps with nuclear warheads.
We must frame the debate about the actions of our supposedly democratic government. Quit arguing over whether Iranians are aiding their neighbors and, by extension, defending themselves. They have every right to – the U.S. is the aggressor in Iraq, and will be again if it attacks Iran.
q
Friday, January 26, 2007
Attack on Iran would be 'catastrophic' IAEA head claims
As is noted talk about an attack may encourage those who say nuclear bomb development is the only way to defend Iran against Israel and the US.
If a US attack were nuclear this would even up the ante. The US no longer regards nuclear weapons as purely defensive nor will it commit itself not to using them against non-nuclear powers. Therefore if you are a non-nuclear power you can still expect an attack. You might as well go nuclear as has Pakistan, India, and of course Israel, although somehow I doubt Israel expects an attack by the US!
Attack on Iran would be 'catastrophic', IAEA says
2:15PM Friday January 26, 2007
By Stella Dawson
DAVOS, Switzerland - An attack on Iran would be catastrophic and
encourage it to develop a nuclear bomb, Mohamed ElBaradei, director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday.
"It would be absolutely counterproductive, and it would be
catastrophic," ElBaradei said at a discussion on nuclear proliferation
at the World Economic Forum.
The Bush administration in recent weeks has toughened its stance
against Iran, which the West has accused of seeking to secretly build
an atomic bomb, raising fears among political and business leaders
that the US plans an attack.
President George W. Bush has moved an additional aircraft carrier into
the Gulf and told Iran that he would not allow it to provide weapons
and support to insurgents in Iraq.
Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against
Iran on the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in
Iraq, although many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too
much for Israel to destroy alone.
The United Nations imposed sanctions in December to prevent Iran using
its nuclear energy programme for military weapons, and Iran this week
banned 38 IAEA nuclear inspectors.
ElBaradei, head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, has been engaged in
meetings here at the gathering of world political and business
leaders. He said diplomacy is the only way forward, and talk of
military action can only backfire.
"This strengthens the hands of those in Iran who say 'let's develop a
bomb to protect ourselves," he said.
The Bush administration has said it wants a diplomatic solution and
that it is not preparing to attack either Iran or Syria.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz also warned against an attack,
while Iran's former president Mohammad Khatami urged calm to reduce
tensions over Iran's nuclear programme.
"If there is military action, it will have catastrophic results, not
only in the region, but the whole world," Aziz said.
"I hope they would be good enough in managing the situation. We deeply
need patience and understanding and not to get too emotional," Khatami
said.
ElBaradei said force should not be ruled out, but past experience has
shown that it should not be used with haste, citing Iraq where no
evidence of nuclear weapons was found after the US-led invasion.
"I am convinced that the only way forward in Iran is engagement,"
ElBaradei said. "We have to invest in peace," he said, adding that if
the international community failed to do that "the consequence will be
10 times worse."
"I hope we will stop speaking about a military option and focus on
finding a solution," ElBaradei said.
Iran says it needs nuclear power to generate electricity but the West
fears it is secretly seeking an atom bomb. In December, the United
Nations imposed sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear
materials and technology to try and stop enrichment work that could
produce bomb material.
--
If a US attack were nuclear this would even up the ante. The US no longer regards nuclear weapons as purely defensive nor will it commit itself not to using them against non-nuclear powers. Therefore if you are a non-nuclear power you can still expect an attack. You might as well go nuclear as has Pakistan, India, and of course Israel, although somehow I doubt Israel expects an attack by the US!
Attack on Iran would be 'catastrophic', IAEA says
2:15PM Friday January 26, 2007
By Stella Dawson
DAVOS, Switzerland - An attack on Iran would be catastrophic and
encourage it to develop a nuclear bomb, Mohamed ElBaradei, director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday.
"It would be absolutely counterproductive, and it would be
catastrophic," ElBaradei said at a discussion on nuclear proliferation
at the World Economic Forum.
The Bush administration in recent weeks has toughened its stance
against Iran, which the West has accused of seeking to secretly build
an atomic bomb, raising fears among political and business leaders
that the US plans an attack.
President George W. Bush has moved an additional aircraft carrier into
the Gulf and told Iran that he would not allow it to provide weapons
and support to insurgents in Iraq.
Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against
Iran on the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in
Iraq, although many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too
much for Israel to destroy alone.
The United Nations imposed sanctions in December to prevent Iran using
its nuclear energy programme for military weapons, and Iran this week
banned 38 IAEA nuclear inspectors.
ElBaradei, head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, has been engaged in
meetings here at the gathering of world political and business
leaders. He said diplomacy is the only way forward, and talk of
military action can only backfire.
"This strengthens the hands of those in Iran who say 'let's develop a
bomb to protect ourselves," he said.
The Bush administration has said it wants a diplomatic solution and
that it is not preparing to attack either Iran or Syria.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz also warned against an attack,
while Iran's former president Mohammad Khatami urged calm to reduce
tensions over Iran's nuclear programme.
"If there is military action, it will have catastrophic results, not
only in the region, but the whole world," Aziz said.
"I hope they would be good enough in managing the situation. We deeply
need patience and understanding and not to get too emotional," Khatami
said.
ElBaradei said force should not be ruled out, but past experience has
shown that it should not be used with haste, citing Iraq where no
evidence of nuclear weapons was found after the US-led invasion.
"I am convinced that the only way forward in Iran is engagement,"
ElBaradei said. "We have to invest in peace," he said, adding that if
the international community failed to do that "the consequence will be
10 times worse."
"I hope we will stop speaking about a military option and focus on
finding a solution," ElBaradei said.
Iran says it needs nuclear power to generate electricity but the West
fears it is secretly seeking an atom bomb. In December, the United
Nations imposed sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear
materials and technology to try and stop enrichment work that could
produce bomb material.
--
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Coming War Against Iran
The Coming War Against Iran
st
This is an excellent summary of the main evidence for a buildup towards an eventual war against Iran
Thursday, 25 January 2007
By Daan de Wit
Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran.
The Coming War Against Iran
By Daan de Wit
01/25/07 "ICHBlog" -- - Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran.
Bush and Cheney have less than two years to go in their current role and want to go down in the history books as the heroes of the Pax Americana, as the men who managed to conquer the Middle East and its oil, as the men who took full-spectrum dominance seriously, while in their own country booking successes through exorbitant profits for the military-industrial complex and the realization of radical legislation. The prelude was long and the path was full of obstacles, but the goal of a third great war - a war with Iran - is increasingly within sight. Dan Plesch in The Guardian sums it up in one sentence: 'All the signs are that Bush is planning for a neocon-inspired military assault on Iran'.
'Americans don't have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush's "surge" speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East', writes Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan. 'Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush's nationwide address, NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said "there's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue — in the country and the world — in a very acute way"', writes Robert Parry. Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, himself a presidential candidate for 2008, says: '"The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran," he said, adding that the Bush administration is "treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on".' ING Wholesale Banking warns in their report [PDF] Attacking Iran that the financial markets could be in for 'a heavy shock' in the event of a preemptive attack on Iran. The report is practical as well; under the heading 'Top trades in the event of an attack on Iran', advice for buying and selling can be found, such as: 'Buy Oil and Gold, Sell industrial commodities'. Meanwhile the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is letting it be known that he disposes over the same devotion as his adversary Bush: '"Today, with the grace of God, we have gone through the arduous passes and we are ready for anything in this path," state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Thursday'.
Speculation over the beginning of the attack on Iran
In reference to the American raid on an Iranian consulate in Irbil, Northern Iraq, in which five Iranians were taken into custody, John Pike of Global Security points to the presence of two aircraft carriers in the Gulf (other warships are steaming in that direction) and to the surge-speech by George W. Bush, in which he announced that Patriot missiles would be deployed in member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), like Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia. 'Iran has denounced the Patriot deployment as part of U.S. plan to turn Arab countries into a front line of protection for Israel', writes Associated Press. Bush: 'We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.' Pike speaking to CNN: '[...] It's looks to me like the United States is, at least, raising its capabilities in preparation for possible military confrontation with Iran."' Pike considers it a strong possibility that this confronation will take place this year, and has even published a 'Countdown time line' with potential dates on which an attack is likely. In Pike's opinion, February of 2007 is a genuine possibility for a strike on Iran. February is also the month in which Ahmadinejad will be announcing progress with their nuclear program, and will also mark the end of the sixty-day period given to Iran in UN resolution 1713 [PDF] to bring an end to their nuclear program. On February 21st, the IAEA will deliver a report on Iran, something which Israel and the U.S. will again be able to seize upon when pointing to Iranian negligence.
The editor-in-chief of the Arab Times is expecting an attack before April: 'U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the Gulf.' The Arab Times is basing its opinion on only one source. ING Wholesale Banking writes [PDF] in the preface to their report on Iran: 'We outline a scenario in which Israel attacks 5 or 6 of Iran's nuclear facilities in late February or March 2007, with strikes that may be completed within hours, days or at most weeks.'
What could also hasten an attack on Iran are two divergent realities, namely that the announced Tor-M1 air defense system is now being delivered to Iran, and that Bush's comrade-in-arms Tony Blair will be stepping down this year. In a recent announced that he wants to make more money available for the British army.
Banks putting Iran under pressure
The latest news doesn't portend anything good, but those who read between the lines can see that other preparations are also being made. Comparable to an extent with the No Fly Zone War, which preceded the latest war against Iraq, Iran is being softened up in advance: 'While people are concerned with Iraq and the gathering armada in the Persian Gulf, United States has been quietly carrying out a not so covert economic war against Iran', writes Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar. 'The attack on Iranian economy started in earnest in early 2006. United States began putting considerable pressure on international banks and financial institutions to cut their ties with Iran. Countries also were pressured to reduce their economic contact with Iran. [...] Governments, companies and financial institutions are under intense pressure to terminate all dealings with Iran. But so far Iran has managed to sustain, albeit with great difficulty, its oil industry and financial institutions functioning.' Little by little banks are severing their ties with Iran: '"The reason: oil transactions are in dollar assets. To the extent that any banks have to convert their assets into dollars, they must use U.S. facilities and can be subject to U.S. sanctions", says Stuart Eizenstat, former American Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs to Michael Hirsh, who writes: 'Recently the Iranians have countered, threatening to do business in Euros, but one by one, European banks are falling under U.S. pressure as well. On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal reported that Commerzbank, Germany's second largest, will stop handling dollar transactions for Iran—making it the last European bank to agree to do so.'
Anti-Iranian propaganda
An argument often used against Iran concerns the aggressive pronouncement by its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinjehad that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Jonathan Steel, columnist for The Guardian, has subjected this statement and the translations thereof to further investigation. He has inquired with the BBC, among others. Steel: 'As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they [the BBC] had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October. Here is what the spokesman told me about the "off the map" section: "The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history". [...] So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.' Steel makes it clear that Ahmadinejad expressed a wish for a different government in Israel, not the destruction of Israel; 'He was not making a military threat'. The Jewish community in Iran isn't itching to flee either: only 152 of the 25,000 responded to calls from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
Then there is also the statement by Ahmadinejad in which he denies the Holocaust, that the Holocaust would be a myth. Kein Krieg! checked into it and it appears that Ahmadinejad is critical of the exploitation of the Holocaust. So the subject of his feelings on this is not the Holocaust itself, but rather what he sees as the exploitation thereof. From his statements it would be more proper to infer that he acknowledges the Holocaust - not that he denies it. This is the complete inverse of his words, which was corrected by Kein Krieg!, but has already done its propagandistic job in the minds of the public at large. And speaking of propaganda: 'The American Jewish Committee took out a full page ad [PDF] in The New York Times showing Iran in the center of concentric circles, including all the Middle East and beyond, asking: "Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe?"' Ex-Premier and leader of the Likud party Benjamin Netanyahu: "The year is 1938 and Iran is Germany," said Netanyahu, reiterating his message from last month in Los Angeles.' Whereby it was noted: 'Except that 2003 was also 1938, when Natanyahu said the same thing about Iraq. [...] And while he's calling Mahmoud Ahmadinjad Hitler these days, in the past he had bestowed that honor on Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat.' Cheney is operating on the same wavelength as Netanyahu: '"So the threat that Iran represents is growing," he [Cheney] said, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Mr. Hussein', writes The New York Times with subtlety.
Criticism of the neoconservative plans for Iran
Should it come to war, then the advice of Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, could end up being heeded. He is pleading for the impeachment of Bush as a way to prevent the war. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a presidential candidate for 2008, is threatening impeachment if Bush declares war on Iran. The criticism by Roberts is in line with that of Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who warns that Bush could order a 'Gulf of Tonkin type situation', i.e. a false-flag operation, as an excuse to attack Iran. The Republican Senator Chuck Hagel: '"I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it (last) Wednesday night"', who together with two Democrats and a Republican has introduced a resolution opposing the plans of President Bush. The White House even dragged Al Qaida into it in order to take the sting out of the criticism. Bush: 'Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on 60 Minutes brushed aside Congress as irrelevant. "I fully understand [the Congress] could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." Asked if he had sole authority "to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," Bush replied, "In this situation I do, yeah."'
Republican Rep. Walter Jones is determined to carry through on his resolution H.J. Res 14: 'Our constitution states that--while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars--only Congress has the power to authorize war', to which The Nation adds: 'Such a basic expression of the separation of powers should be obvious. But with the Bush Administration, one never knows.' The Wall Street Journal sees the seething criticism of Bush's plans as well and writes: 'Of more concern to U.S. lawmakers is the potential that these U.S. actions against Iran could escalate. Under one possible scenario, U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria in pursuit of suspected insurgents or their allies, or use alleged Iranian activities inside Iraq as a pretext for a wider assault on Iran. The fear is that any such military activities could ignite a wider conflict." The potential for sparking a wider conflict is great," said Trita Parsi, an Iran analyst and president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington. "I think that if we're going for a confrontation with Iran, the pretext will be Iraq."' Nicholas Burns sees it from a different perspective: 'Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said the administration is seeking to counter Iranian provocations across the region as part of a broader strategy. "Iran needs to learn to respect us," he said. "And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."'
War against Iran: Bush and Cheney have nothing to lose.
The decisions that Bush announced in his speech followed the replacement of the generals who were critical of some of the Bush policies, John Abizaid and George Casey, and John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence. This makes it clear that the neoconservative wind, after all the scandals and the dramatic turn of events in the war in Iraq, hasn't died down yet. Mainstream critic Keith Olbermann writes [video]: 'Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" - only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.' He compares Bush to the drunk who, beaten to the ground, asks who the next one is that wants a beating.
Bush and Cheney are again determined to defy the criticism in order to carry out an almost endless War against Terrorism: '"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term', says Cheney. War is not a means but an end in itself. Insurgents in Iraq aren't the problem, but those who oppose the war certainly are. But those critics are out of the way now: The critical generals have been replaced and the voice of the people along with the the opinions of the soldiers in Iraq are being ignored; discussions with Iran and Syria are being rejected; Patriot missiles are on their way and could intercept an Iranian counterattack following an Israeli and/or American attack; the warships in the Gulf could respond to these attacks by bombing Iraq with full force; the announced troop escalation in Iraq could eliminate Iran's potential trump card - attacks on Americans in and around the Iraqi Green Zone; the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Olmert (following the debâcle in Lebanon) are doing very poorly in the opinion polls, thus a spectacular attack by Israel, followed by America, could likewise render spectacular results for the status of both heads of state. Bush and Cheney have taken a beating, but they have not been defeated. Moreover, they have nothing to lose.
The Coming War Against Iran - Part 1 - 14
http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/407.html
st
This is an excellent summary of the main evidence for a buildup towards an eventual war against Iran
Thursday, 25 January 2007
By Daan de Wit
Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran.
The Coming War Against Iran
By Daan de Wit
01/25/07 "ICHBlog" -- - Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran.
Bush and Cheney have less than two years to go in their current role and want to go down in the history books as the heroes of the Pax Americana, as the men who managed to conquer the Middle East and its oil, as the men who took full-spectrum dominance seriously, while in their own country booking successes through exorbitant profits for the military-industrial complex and the realization of radical legislation. The prelude was long and the path was full of obstacles, but the goal of a third great war - a war with Iran - is increasingly within sight. Dan Plesch in The Guardian sums it up in one sentence: 'All the signs are that Bush is planning for a neocon-inspired military assault on Iran'.
'Americans don't have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush's "surge" speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East', writes Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan. 'Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush's nationwide address, NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said "there's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue — in the country and the world — in a very acute way"', writes Robert Parry. Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, himself a presidential candidate for 2008, says: '"The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran," he said, adding that the Bush administration is "treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on".' ING Wholesale Banking warns in their report [PDF] Attacking Iran that the financial markets could be in for 'a heavy shock' in the event of a preemptive attack on Iran. The report is practical as well; under the heading 'Top trades in the event of an attack on Iran', advice for buying and selling can be found, such as: 'Buy Oil and Gold, Sell industrial commodities'. Meanwhile the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is letting it be known that he disposes over the same devotion as his adversary Bush: '"Today, with the grace of God, we have gone through the arduous passes and we are ready for anything in this path," state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Thursday'.
Speculation over the beginning of the attack on Iran
In reference to the American raid on an Iranian consulate in Irbil, Northern Iraq, in which five Iranians were taken into custody, John Pike of Global Security points to the presence of two aircraft carriers in the Gulf (other warships are steaming in that direction) and to the surge-speech by George W. Bush, in which he announced that Patriot missiles would be deployed in member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), like Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia. 'Iran has denounced the Patriot deployment as part of U.S. plan to turn Arab countries into a front line of protection for Israel', writes Associated Press. Bush: 'We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.' Pike speaking to CNN: '[...] It's looks to me like the United States is, at least, raising its capabilities in preparation for possible military confrontation with Iran."' Pike considers it a strong possibility that this confronation will take place this year, and has even published a 'Countdown time line' with potential dates on which an attack is likely. In Pike's opinion, February of 2007 is a genuine possibility for a strike on Iran. February is also the month in which Ahmadinejad will be announcing progress with their nuclear program, and will also mark the end of the sixty-day period given to Iran in UN resolution 1713 [PDF] to bring an end to their nuclear program. On February 21st, the IAEA will deliver a report on Iran, something which Israel and the U.S. will again be able to seize upon when pointing to Iranian negligence.
The editor-in-chief of the Arab Times is expecting an attack before April: 'U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the Gulf.' The Arab Times is basing its opinion on only one source. ING Wholesale Banking writes [PDF] in the preface to their report on Iran: 'We outline a scenario in which Israel attacks 5 or 6 of Iran's nuclear facilities in late February or March 2007, with strikes that may be completed within hours, days or at most weeks.'
What could also hasten an attack on Iran are two divergent realities, namely that the announced Tor-M1 air defense system is now being delivered to Iran, and that Bush's comrade-in-arms Tony Blair will be stepping down this year. In a recent announced that he wants to make more money available for the British army.
Banks putting Iran under pressure
The latest news doesn't portend anything good, but those who read between the lines can see that other preparations are also being made. Comparable to an extent with the No Fly Zone War, which preceded the latest war against Iraq, Iran is being softened up in advance: 'While people are concerned with Iraq and the gathering armada in the Persian Gulf, United States has been quietly carrying out a not so covert economic war against Iran', writes Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar. 'The attack on Iranian economy started in earnest in early 2006. United States began putting considerable pressure on international banks and financial institutions to cut their ties with Iran. Countries also were pressured to reduce their economic contact with Iran. [...] Governments, companies and financial institutions are under intense pressure to terminate all dealings with Iran. But so far Iran has managed to sustain, albeit with great difficulty, its oil industry and financial institutions functioning.' Little by little banks are severing their ties with Iran: '"The reason: oil transactions are in dollar assets. To the extent that any banks have to convert their assets into dollars, they must use U.S. facilities and can be subject to U.S. sanctions", says Stuart Eizenstat, former American Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs to Michael Hirsh, who writes: 'Recently the Iranians have countered, threatening to do business in Euros, but one by one, European banks are falling under U.S. pressure as well. On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal reported that Commerzbank, Germany's second largest, will stop handling dollar transactions for Iran—making it the last European bank to agree to do so.'
Anti-Iranian propaganda
An argument often used against Iran concerns the aggressive pronouncement by its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinjehad that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Jonathan Steel, columnist for The Guardian, has subjected this statement and the translations thereof to further investigation. He has inquired with the BBC, among others. Steel: 'As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they [the BBC] had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October. Here is what the spokesman told me about the "off the map" section: "The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history". [...] So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.' Steel makes it clear that Ahmadinejad expressed a wish for a different government in Israel, not the destruction of Israel; 'He was not making a military threat'. The Jewish community in Iran isn't itching to flee either: only 152 of the 25,000 responded to calls from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
Then there is also the statement by Ahmadinejad in which he denies the Holocaust, that the Holocaust would be a myth. Kein Krieg! checked into it and it appears that Ahmadinejad is critical of the exploitation of the Holocaust. So the subject of his feelings on this is not the Holocaust itself, but rather what he sees as the exploitation thereof. From his statements it would be more proper to infer that he acknowledges the Holocaust - not that he denies it. This is the complete inverse of his words, which was corrected by Kein Krieg!, but has already done its propagandistic job in the minds of the public at large. And speaking of propaganda: 'The American Jewish Committee took out a full page ad [PDF] in The New York Times showing Iran in the center of concentric circles, including all the Middle East and beyond, asking: "Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe?"' Ex-Premier and leader of the Likud party Benjamin Netanyahu: "The year is 1938 and Iran is Germany," said Netanyahu, reiterating his message from last month in Los Angeles.' Whereby it was noted: 'Except that 2003 was also 1938, when Natanyahu said the same thing about Iraq. [...] And while he's calling Mahmoud Ahmadinjad Hitler these days, in the past he had bestowed that honor on Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat.' Cheney is operating on the same wavelength as Netanyahu: '"So the threat that Iran represents is growing," he [Cheney] said, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Mr. Hussein', writes The New York Times with subtlety.
Criticism of the neoconservative plans for Iran
Should it come to war, then the advice of Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, could end up being heeded. He is pleading for the impeachment of Bush as a way to prevent the war. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a presidential candidate for 2008, is threatening impeachment if Bush declares war on Iran. The criticism by Roberts is in line with that of Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who warns that Bush could order a 'Gulf of Tonkin type situation', i.e. a false-flag operation, as an excuse to attack Iran. The Republican Senator Chuck Hagel: '"I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it (last) Wednesday night"', who together with two Democrats and a Republican has introduced a resolution opposing the plans of President Bush. The White House even dragged Al Qaida into it in order to take the sting out of the criticism. Bush: 'Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on 60 Minutes brushed aside Congress as irrelevant. "I fully understand [the Congress] could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward." Asked if he had sole authority "to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," Bush replied, "In this situation I do, yeah."'
Republican Rep. Walter Jones is determined to carry through on his resolution H.J. Res 14: 'Our constitution states that--while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars--only Congress has the power to authorize war', to which The Nation adds: 'Such a basic expression of the separation of powers should be obvious. But with the Bush Administration, one never knows.' The Wall Street Journal sees the seething criticism of Bush's plans as well and writes: 'Of more concern to U.S. lawmakers is the potential that these U.S. actions against Iran could escalate. Under one possible scenario, U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria in pursuit of suspected insurgents or their allies, or use alleged Iranian activities inside Iraq as a pretext for a wider assault on Iran. The fear is that any such military activities could ignite a wider conflict." The potential for sparking a wider conflict is great," said Trita Parsi, an Iran analyst and president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington. "I think that if we're going for a confrontation with Iran, the pretext will be Iraq."' Nicholas Burns sees it from a different perspective: 'Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said the administration is seeking to counter Iranian provocations across the region as part of a broader strategy. "Iran needs to learn to respect us," he said. "And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."'
War against Iran: Bush and Cheney have nothing to lose.
The decisions that Bush announced in his speech followed the replacement of the generals who were critical of some of the Bush policies, John Abizaid and George Casey, and John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence. This makes it clear that the neoconservative wind, after all the scandals and the dramatic turn of events in the war in Iraq, hasn't died down yet. Mainstream critic Keith Olbermann writes [video]: 'Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" - only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.' He compares Bush to the drunk who, beaten to the ground, asks who the next one is that wants a beating.
Bush and Cheney are again determined to defy the criticism in order to carry out an almost endless War against Terrorism: '"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term', says Cheney. War is not a means but an end in itself. Insurgents in Iraq aren't the problem, but those who oppose the war certainly are. But those critics are out of the way now: The critical generals have been replaced and the voice of the people along with the the opinions of the soldiers in Iraq are being ignored; discussions with Iran and Syria are being rejected; Patriot missiles are on their way and could intercept an Iranian counterattack following an Israeli and/or American attack; the warships in the Gulf could respond to these attacks by bombing Iraq with full force; the announced troop escalation in Iraq could eliminate Iran's potential trump card - attacks on Americans in and around the Iraqi Green Zone; the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Olmert (following the debâcle in Lebanon) are doing very poorly in the opinion polls, thus a spectacular attack by Israel, followed by America, could likewise render spectacular results for the status of both heads of state. Bush and Cheney have taken a beating, but they have not been defeated. Moreover, they have nothing to lose.
The Coming War Against Iran - Part 1 - 14
http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/407.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
Mike Dunleavy the governor of the US state of Alaska is intending to introduce legislation that will repeal the two state boards which regu...
-
(August 11 ) In recent weeks, a recurring problem has been that Russia has intercepted US surveillance planes over the Black Sea as they wer...
