| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:23 pm Post subject: Israel to US: NOW FOR IRAN |
| http://www.nowarforisrael.com
Israel to US: Now for Iran
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Sunday 29 August 2004, 14:00 Makka Time, 11:00 GMT
Tehran maintains its nuclear programme is for civil purposes
Related:
Pentagon rocked by Israeli spy case
Iranian nuclear plant delayed
Iran may strike if sites threatened
Having succeeded in getting the United States to invade and occupy Iraq, Israel is now making efforts to instigate the Bush administration to deal with the "Iranian threat".
This week, a high-ranking Israeli official urged the US "and the rest of the free world" to deal with the "Iranian threat before it is too late".
The remarks - reminiscent of the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion of the Arab country last year - coincided with the publication of an article by a leading Israeli military historian Martin Van-Creveld, suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants.
Writing in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on 21 August, Creveld opined that an Israeli or American (or a joint Israeli-American) attack on Iranian nuclear plants may be carried out before the US November elections.
Israel reportedly possess a big arsenal of nuclear weapons - estimates range from 100 to 400 weapons and bombs - along with efficient delivery systems, including a fleet of long-range American-supplied F-15 fighter bombers as well as the medium range ballistic missile Yeriho.
Justification
Seeking to justify Tel Aviv's fixation on Iran, Israeli leaders are citing three reasons why Iran ought to dispose of its alleged would-be nuclear capability.
"Israel simply wants to keep five hundred million Muslims in this region under the mercy of its nuclear arsenal"
Abdul Sattar Qassem,
Political Science Professor,
Najah University, Nablus,
These include the Islamist nature of the Iranian regime, Iran's refusal to recognise Israel and the Islamic republic's alleged support of resistance groups fighting Israeli occupation and colonisation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Arab East Jerusalem as well as part of Southern Lebanon.
However, according to Abdul Sattar Qassem, Professor of Political Science at the Najah University in Nablus, these are only "pretexts".
"I believe that Israel is the most dangerous state in the world today. Imagine what state the stability and security of the world would be in if the messianic Jewish extremists of Gush Euminim reached power in Israel and suddenly found themselves in control of Israel's massive nuclear arsenal."
Maintaining supremacy
Qassem believes that the sole motive behind Israel's currently evolving showdown with Iran is the Israeli determination to "maintain its nuclear monopoly and strategic supremacy in this region".
"Israel simply wants to keep five hundred million Muslims in this region under the mercy of its nuclear arsenal. The appearance of any possible strategic deterrence would upset Israel's strategic calculations and might rectify the strategic balance of power in the Middle East."
Creveld tacitly agrees, saying that "Iran would be crazy" not to try developing a nuclear capability, given Israel's aggrandising nuclear armaments, including the reported deployment of nuclear-equipped submarines in the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea and perhaps the Persian Gulf.
Israel reportedly makes nuclear
weapons at its Dimona reactor
"It all depends on Ariel Sharon - an old war-horse who back in 1982 led Israel into a disastrous invasion of Lebanon. One can only hope that this time he will think twice," the military historian said.
In the public relations battle, Israel argues that Iran is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, a claim that is much less than true since Iran has said repeatedly that it would accept any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would be acceptable to the Palestinians.
Furthermore, Iran could also make a similar argument, quoting statements by Israeli ministers and officials calling for the extermination of millions of Muslims.
No easy target
Israeli strategists recognise that attacking and destroying Iranian nuclear installations would not be an easy job.
These facilities, they admit, are widely dispersed, well-guarded and housed in underground bunkers.
"It wouldn't be as easy as the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor," said Ephraim Ascolai, a nuclear weapons expert at the Jafee Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, alluding to the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981.
But in an interview with Aljazeera.net, Ascolai pointed out that an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities was not unthinkable.
He argued, however, that the "Iranian nuclear crisis" was not an exclusively Israeli problem, but a world problem.
"You see, this is not only between Israel and Iran. The US, Australia and Europe have a vital interest in stopping Iran from going nuclear," he said.
Facing retaliation
Israel faces a host of problems carrying out a successful attack on Iranian nuclear plants, not the least of which being the would-be expected Iranian retaliation.
Iran Defence Minister Shamkhani
has warned Israel of retaliation
Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has said on more than one occasion that Tehran would carry out a massive retaliation if Israel attacked Iran.
In a recent interview with Aljazeera, Shamkhani warned that his country would not sit down idly awaiting an Israeli strike and would resort to a pre-emptive option against Israel and the US.
"The concept of a pre-emptive strike is not an American exclusivity," he said.
True, Shamkhani's statements do have a large rhetorical content since a non-nuclear Iran possesses no strategic deterrent against a supposedly nuclear Israel, backed by its guardian-ally, the US.
But it would be utterly naive to assume that the Iranians would do nothing in the face of a flagrant and unprovoked Israeli or American attack on their country.
Leaving to US
In addition, Israel would have serious logistical problems carrying out an attack on the Iranian installations.
Turkey, with its at least nominally Islamic government, is unlikely to allow Israel to use its airspace to launch attacks on a neighbouring Islamic country with which Ankara has been seeking to improve and upgrade political and economic relations.
Moreover, using the "Jordanian-Iraqi conduit" would further enforce convictions, already salient among most Arabs and Muslims, that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq was carried out first and foremost to serve Israel's regional strategic interests.
"I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it"
Ira Sharkansky,
Political Science Professor,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
This, coupled with US brazen support of Israel's settlement expansion in the West Bank, would likely bring American credibility in this part of the world to an all-time low.
In that light, Israel's most workable approach would be to leave it to the Americans, according to Ira Sharkansky, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
"I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it," he told Aljazeera.net.
And Israel, directly and through its powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been making strenuous efforts to get Washington to "do something" about Iran.
Repercussions
It is not clear yet what the repercussions of the reported FBI apprehension of an Israeli spy operating in the Pentagon will be for Israel's efforts to get the US to attack Iran.
The alleged spy - reportedly Larry Franklin, who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith - is said to have passed sensitive documents pertaining to Iran, to Israel via two AIPAC representatives.
He reportedly had a close association with two Pentagon Jewish officials, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both of whom are strong advocates of a tough American policy on Iran.
"We will not see an immediate effect, but many American officials ... would think twice before deciding to have too-close relations with Israel"
Israeli analyst Allan Pappie,
Haifa University
And Iran's alleged nuclear programme was said to be the main focus of Franklin's activities.
Israeli analyst Allan Pappie of Haifa University believes the Franklin affair will deal "a very serious blow" to American-Israeli relations at the intelligence level.
In an interview with Aljazeera.net, Pappie said the affair would have a long-term negative effect on US-Israeli relations and on the way Israel and its supporters in the US are perceived.
"We will not see an immediate effect, but many American officials, especially at the intelligence and defence levels, would think twice before deciding to have too-close relations with Israel."
Tel Aviv's most immediate and serious concern, however, may be whether the scandal will scuttle its efforts to persuade Washington to attack Iran's nuclear sites.
Aljazeera | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:30 pm Post subject: And AIPAC will be Leading the Charge for Israel |
| And I bet AIPAC is leading the charge (since they basically own the US Congress):
Saturday, August 28, 2004 (AP)
Controversy's no stranger to AIPAC, Washington's Jewish juggernaut
WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer
(08-28) 13:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
AIPAC, the Jewish lobbying juggernaut, operates in such high-stakes
politics that it inevitably has been unable to avoid occasional
unpleasantness. But almost universally, the largest pro-Israel lobby
has
found all the friends its has needed in Congress.
More often than not, the politician who tried to face down the
American
Israel Public Action Committee came out the worse for it.
In 1975, for example, President Ford was angered because Israel
refused to
end its eight-year occupation of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and ordered a
reassessment of the United States' relationship with the Jewish state.
Largely because of AIPAC, the move ended with 76 Senators reaffirming
the
special U.S.-Israeli bond.
Even friends in high places, however, have not made a perpetually
smooth
ride for AIPAC over the years.
The latest scrape came with word Friday that FBI investigators
suspect
AIPAC has acted as middleman to funnel to Israel details of secret Bush
administration deliberations about Iran, a murky assertion adamantly
denied by the group.
Founded half a century ago, AIPAC claims 65,000 members -- in all 50
states -- and says its central mission is to support U.S. interests in
the
Middle East and to advocate for a strong relationship with Israel.
It has a hold on the mechanisms of power that has been called
mystical.
Douglas Bloomfield, a former legislative director of the organization,
says it's more mundane than that.
"AIPAC is successful because it represents American national
interests,
and it works within the political forces," Bloomfield said Saturday in
an
interview.
On its Web site, AIPAC lists an agenda topped by this: "Stopping
Iran From
Acquiring Nuclear Weapons."
The item says: "AIPAC works with Congress to enact even more
comprehensive
legislation to contain Iran and to expand U.S.-Israel strategic
cooperation to build a defense against this threat."
Both Israel and AIPAC have denied the allegations that a Pentagon
official
has compromised U.S. policy deliberations about Iran to Israel. The
Pentagon, where the purported leak originated, has said little except
that
the person being investigated was not in a policy-making position.
Even in its denial of any such activity, AIPAC gave no indication of
second thoughts about its procedures or policies.
"As American citizens concerned about the enduring strength of the
U.S.-Israel relationship, AIPAC has and will continue to have
discussions
with policy-makers at all levels of government," the statement said.
"The right to petition our government is one of the fundamental
rights of
American citizens, which AIPAC members proudly exercise every day."
That they do. The organization says its representatives hold every
year
more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress and guide through the
legislative process more than 100 pro-Israel initiatives.
The organization's affinity with Congress has paid off handsomely
over the
decades, but during the 1980s new leaders turned away from relying
almost
totally on lobbying Congress to working with administrations as well.
Conflict over which side would prevail was given then as a reason for
Bloomfield's 1988 resignation as the Reagan administration was ending
and
the first President Bush was about to take office.
AIPAC was reeling from allegations that it had violated its
nonpartisan
mandate in that November's congressional elections and had mapped out a
campaign smear the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a candidate for the Democratic
presidential nomination.
Also, signs of discord were emerging in Israel's all-important
relationship with the United States. The Reagan administration had
decided
to deal for the first time with Yasser Arafat, chairman of the
Palestine
Liberation Organization, after Arafat declared his recognition that
Israel
had a right to exist.
"The partisanship that is perceived as creeping into AIPAC's
decision-making will hurt them in the long run," then-Rep. Lawrence
Smith,
a Florida Democrat, said. "They have to understand that the real
bedrock
of support for Israel is the Congress. Administrations come and go.
We're
pretty constant and reliable."
AIPAC was at the time in a bitter campaign against a proposed Reagan
administration arms sale to Saudi Arabia. That was one of the few such
battles AIPAC lost, on a 52-48 Senate vote. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:33 pm Post subject: Feith, Wolfowitz: Extensive Personal Ties to AIPAC |
| DOUG FEITH, TOP DEPUTY TO RUMSFELD
AND WOLFOWITZ AT THE PENTAGON, HAS
EXTENSIVE PERSONAL CONNECTIONS TO ISRAEL
AND THE ISRAELI/JEWISH LOBBY
MER - MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 27 August 2004:
This latest Israeli spy scandal has connections to the very top of the Pentagon. The analyst involved is thought to have been hired by and worked for non other than Douglas Feith, a man long considered by many insiders to be a kind long-time Jewish lobby operative in Washington and a man known to have long and deep connections to the Sharon regime in Israel.
Now those who are familiar with MER know that we have for a long time pointed culpability fingers at the extensive Israeli-Jewish lobby in Washington; to the many ties between the Israelis and the top Jewish neocons in the Bush government, including Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon and Eliott Abrams at the N.S.C. No doubt they are all working furiously now to contain and cover up this latest Israeli spy scandal, as they have so many times before. And in all likelihood, one way or another, they will succeed in doing so especially as neither of the political parties will dare risk truly offending 'the lobby' and Israel during this crucial pre-election season.
Many, most no doubt, of these kinds of things relating to Israel never get out into the public domain; they are buried and sucked up into official Washington where so many have so many reasons for always wanting to hush such things up. But there should be no doubt that the Israelis have infiltrated at many levels and greatly influenced in many ways U.S. policies in the Middle East, especially of late the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
The following quick list of past Israeli spy scandals all of which were covered up or sucked in one way or another include:
* Israeli Attack on U.S.S. Liberty - 1967
* Steve Bryent Israeli Spying Scandal - 1982
* Jonathan Pollard Arrested outside Israeli Embassy - 1985
* AIPAC infiltration scandal, President forced to resign - 1991
* Mossad bugging of Clinton and Monica - 1997
* Martin Indyk's Security Clearances 'temporarily' suspended - 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Probes Pentagon Spy Case
Aug. 27, 2004
FBI Probes Pentagon Spy
(Photo: CBS/AP)
The FBI believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected mole supplied Israel with classified materials that include secret White House policy deliberations on Iran.
The FBI investigation is headed by Dave Szady. (Photo: CBS)
(CBS) CBS News has learned that the FBI has a full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon.
60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected mole supplied Israel with classified materials that include secret White House policy deliberations on Iran.
At the heart of the investigation are two people who work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography that CBS News was told document the passing of classified information from the mole, to the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.
CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy."
This put the Israelis, according to one source, "inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try to influence the outcome."
The case raises another concern among investigators: Did Israel also use the analyst to try to influence U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?
With ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the analyst was assigned to a unit within the Defense Department tasked with helping develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been made aware of the case. The government notified AIPAC today that it wants information about the two employees and their contacts with a person at the Pentagon.
AIPAC told CBS News it is cooperating with the government and has hired outside counsel. It denies any wrongdoing by the organization or any of its employees.
An Israeli spokesman said, "We categorically deny these allegations. They are completely false and outrageous." The suspected spy has not returned repeated phone calls from CBS News. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:51 pm Post subject: Time to Heed Jack Bernstein's Warning - Or is It too late |
| See how American Jew Jack Bernstein wrote in 1984 (before the Israeli Mossad later murdered him in Jerusalem) that Zionists in Israel and their Zionist cronies in the USA (to include in the US ZOG -Zionist Occupied Government- and US press/media) would dupe the USA into fighting wars in the Middle East for Israel (beginning with Iraq and now moving on to Iran) with many Americans dying for Israel in the process (like we have already seen in the invasion/occupation of Iraq):
http://www.rense.com/general31/lifeof.htm
http://www.realnews247.com/uss_liberty_betrayal_moorer.htm
Admiral Thomas Moorer (an American patriot and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon):
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to [the Jews] ... They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wouldn't write anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:57 pm Post subject: Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties |
| Forwarded:
...so they caught another spy..what about the big fish .. the big
spies, wolfowitz , feith.,luti and the boys in the VPs office
The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily
26/08/2004
http://www.arabnews.com:
Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties
Michael Saba, Special to Arab News
WASHINGTON, 28 February 2004 — Stephen Green, the author featured in
last week's story, "The Article That Almost Wasn't" wrote in the
foreword to "The Armageddon Network" 20 years ago, "What you are
about to read is first a spy story. It involves, in the classic
pattern, the apparent misappropriation of highly classified
documents belonging to the US Department of Defense and unauthorized
dissemination of these materials to a foreign government."
Green went on to say, "Those that are involved in the affair are
still `at large' and in fact currently hold senior positions in the
Pentagon...." and also states, "this is an unfinished story of a
possible cover-up and effort to abort the normal investigating and
prosecutorial processes..." Green is still pursuing some of the same
individuals who were featured in "The Armageddon Network" two
decades ago but many other American journalists and media outlets
refuse to confront this issue because even though it deals with
illicit activities with a foreign country, that country is
America's "sacred cow" — Israel.
Last week we noted that over 20 major publications had rejected
Green's current article titled "The Pentagon's Internal Security
Problem: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ledeen" featured in the online
CounterPunch weekend edition of Feb. 28-29 entitled "Serving Two
Flags".
Green's article begins by pointing out that neoconservatives in the
Bush administration have effectively "gutted" traditional American
foreign and security policy. He states that notable features of the
new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force
and the undermining of the principal instruments and institutions of
international law including the UN all in the cause of fighting
terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Green adds that some feel that the underlying agenda of the neocons
is the alignment of US foreign and security policies with those of
Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing.
Green asks whether the neocons, many of whom are senior officials in
the Defense Department, National Security Council and the Office of
the Vice President, had dual agendas while professing to work for
the security of the United States against its terrorist enemies. He
then proceeds to review the internal security backgrounds of some of
the most prominent neocons and concludes that by looking at their
security backgrounds, one can answer the questions that he poses in
the article.
The individuals named in Green's article include Stephen Bryen,
Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
Let's take a closer look at these individuals and how Green compiled
the information on each of them.
Stephen Bryen and Michael Ledeen currently serve on the United
States-China Economic Security and Review Commission. Both were
appointed by the Republican congressional leaders in early 2001.
Ledeen also serves as vice chairman of this China Commission.
Additionally, according to Green, with the support of Department of
Defense (DOD) Undersecretary Doulas Feith, Ledeen was employed as a
consultant to the now infamous Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the
DOD. Much has been written about the OSP and how major intelligence
that led the US into the most recent war with Iraq was "cooked" in
the OSP.
Green states that when a former senior FBI counterintelligence
official heard of Bryen's appointment to the China Commission, he
said "My God, that must mean he has a `Q' clearance. " A "Q"
clearance, which must be approved by the Department of Energy, is
the designation for Top Secret codeword clearance to access nuclear
technology.
Ledeen serving on both the China Commission and in the OSP would
have access to classified materials and therefore would require high
level security clearance.
Bryen and Ledeen have both been investigated by the US government
extensively for improperly passing information to Israel.
In April of 1979 Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Keuch
recommended in writing that Stephen Bryen, a staff member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee undergo a Grand Jury hearing to
establish the basis for a prosecution of Bryen of espionage for
Israel. The investigation conducted over a year had over 1000 pages
of information documenting many issues regarding Bryan's
relationship with Israel and leaking information to Israel.
In Green's article he points out that after Bryen was appointed by
Richard Perle to a high level DOD position during the Reagan
administration and received another security clearance, he was
confronted various times by his colleagues and superiors including
current Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage about his
overzealous attempts to help export restricted technology to Israel.
Michael Ledeen was hired by the DOD as a consultant on terrorism in
1983 and his immediate superior was Assistant Secretary of Defense
Noel Koch. Koch told Green that Ledeen had somehow obtained
classified information that he should not have been allowed to see.
Koch then informed his executive assistant that Ledeen was to be
denied classified materials in the future.
In the mid-1990s Ledeen left the DOD and joined the National
Security Council (NSC) as a consultant. In that capacity, Ledeen
became a major player in the "Iran-Contra" scandal. Ledeen was noted
for carrying messages to then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
Ledeen had his NSC security clearance downgraded while in that
position. He moved downward from Top Secret to Secret. Also in Iran-
Contra document Oliver North recommended that Ledeen "be asked to
take periodic polygraph examinations". Noel Koch testified that he
was suspicious of Ledeen because he learned that Ledeen was
negotiating the sale of US basic TOW missiles for $2500 each when
the normal cost to another foreign government was $6800 per missile.
Throughout their governmental careers, Bryen and Ledeen have
consistently been promoted to high-level defense and security
positions by their fellow neocons; former Defense Advisory Board
Chairman Richard Perle, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and
Undersecretary of
Defense Douglas Feith.
Journalist Sy Hersh has reported that in 1970 while Richard Perle
was working for Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington, Perle was caught
by an FBI wiretap discussing classified information with an official
at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC. And according to the New
York Times, in 1978 CIA Director Stansfield Turner asked Sen.
Jackson to fire Perle after Perle was named as a recipient of an
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Perle is
currently embroiled in various other scandals including an
investigation into his business dealings with Conrad Black and the
Hollinger Corporation. Perle serves on the board of Hollinger and
allegedly received a multimillion dollar unreported payment which
potentially violates the law.
Paul Wolfowitz was brought into the US Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency (ACDA) in 1973. He was known, according to Green, for
his "strong attachment to Israel's security". In 1978 an
investigation was conducted after, according to Green, Wolfowitz
was "found to have provided a classified document on the proposed
sale of US arms to an Israeli official through an AIPAC (American
Israeli Public Affairs Committee) intermediary.
Also, according to Green, in 1990 when Wolfowitz was undersecretary
for policy in the DOD under then Secretary of Defense Richard
Cheney, an investigation was conducted that indicated "Wolfowitz had
been internally promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM 9-M
air-to-air missles" which were a restricted security item.
Douglas Feith has long been a major supporter of Israel. In 1982
Feith was a Middle East analyst for the NSC initially working under
NSC head Richard Allen in the Reagan administration. When Allen was
replaced by Judge William Clark, he fired nine staff members
including Feith. According to Green, Feith was fired because he had
been the subject of an FBI inquiry into whether, without
authorization, he had provided classified information to a
representative of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Stephen Green cites credible individuals and substantive documents
in his article on these five current (as this article was being
written Richard Perle announced his resignation from the Defense
Policy Advisory Board) US government and government-related
organizations. Though some of the 22 media outlets that rejected his
article claimed there was "nothing new" in his piece, there is, in
fact, much new and previously unreported public information in his
commentary. That new information includes the 1978 inquiry on Paul
Wolfowitz, the circumstances behind the Feith firing in 1982, the
1988 incidents concerning Bryen and the information on Ledeen
provided by Noel Koch.
The most important point in the article is not just the
interconnections of these five neocons. Perle hired Bryen 1981 to
work at DOD. Wolfowitz hired Ledeen in 1981 as a special adviser. In
2001 Feith at DOD hired Ledeen as a consultant in the OSP.
Nor is it the assistance this group has given each other over the
years. In 1973 Perle used his influence to help Wolfowitz obtain a
job with the ACDA. In 1982 Perle assisted in hiring Feith at the
DOD. In 2001 Wolfowitz helped Feith get his appointment at DOD and
Feith appointed Perle as chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory
Board.
And whatever sympathies these officials have to Israel is their own
personal choice to which they have a right. Rather though, it is
much more important that despite extensive investigations and files
that exist on these individuals concerning leaking information to a
foreign government, they continue to receive top level government
positions and the highest level security clearances. It is not
necessarily what is in these files that determines whether they
receive security clearances, it is who does the hiring or appointing
and whether the appointer feels that the appointee should receive
the security clearance. And in the cases of Bryen, Ledeen, Perle,
Wolfowitz and Feith, they each have usually managed to be the
official that makes the decision about each other.
Former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Aikens in reviewing "The
Armageddon Network" in 1984 said, "(The Armageddon Network)
describes how high-placed American government officials have
confused their loyalties; the story is a frightening one. Even more
frightening is the failure of the American government to determine
what damage has been done to the United States through their
misguided action. The book is an instructive lesson on how the
American government can be manipulated."
Sound familiar?
— Dr. Michael Saba is the author of "The Armageddon Network" and is
an international relations consultant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Probe of DOD (Feith's) Office of Special Plans
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/08/28/fbi-probes-dod-feith-s-office-of-special-plans.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties |
| | Alpha wrote: | Forwarded:
...so they caught another spy..what about the big fish .. the big
spies, wolfowitz , feith.,luti and the boys in the VPs office
The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily
26/08/2004
http://www.arabnews.com:
Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties
Michael Saba, Special to Arab News
WASHINGTON, 28 February 2004 — Stephen Green, the author featured in
last week's story, "The Article That Almost Wasn't" wrote in the
foreword to "The Armageddon Network" 20 years ago, "What you are
about to read is first a spy story. It involves, in the classic
pattern, the apparent misappropriation of highly classified
documents belonging to the US Department of Defense and unauthorized
dissemination of these materials to a foreign government."
Green went on to say, "Those that are involved in the affair are
still `at large' and in fact currently hold senior positions in the
Pentagon...." and also states, "this is an unfinished story of a
possible cover-up and effort to abort the normal investigating and
prosecutorial processes..." Green is still pursuing some of the same
individuals who were featured in "The Armageddon Network" two
decades ago but many other American journalists and media outlets
refuse to confront this issue because even though it deals with
illicit activities with a foreign country, that country is
America's "sacred cow" — Israel.
Last week we noted that over 20 major publications had rejected
Green's current article titled "The Pentagon's Internal Security
Problem: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ledeen" featured in the online
CounterPunch weekend edition of Feb. 28-29 entitled "Serving Two
Flags".
Green's article begins by pointing out that neoconservatives in the
Bush administration have effectively "gutted" traditional American
foreign and security policy. He states that notable features of the
new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force
and the undermining of the principal instruments and institutions of
international law including the UN all in the cause of fighting
terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Green adds that some feel that the underlying agenda of the neocons
is the alignment of US foreign and security policies with those of
Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing.
Green asks whether the neocons, many of whom are senior officials in
the Defense Department, National Security Council and the Office of
the Vice President, had dual agendas while professing to work for
the security of the United States against its terrorist enemies. He
then proceeds to review the internal security backgrounds of some of
the most prominent neocons and concludes that by looking at their
security backgrounds, one can answer the questions that he poses in
the article.
The individuals named in Green's article include Stephen Bryen,
Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
Let's take a closer look at these individuals and how Green compiled
the information on each of them.
Stephen Bryen and Michael Ledeen currently serve on the United
States-China Economic Security and Review Commission. Both were
appointed by the Republican congressional leaders in early 2001.
Ledeen also serves as vice chairman of this China Commission.
Additionally, according to Green, with the support of Department of
Defense (DOD) Undersecretary Doulas Feith, Ledeen was employed as a
consultant to the now infamous Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the
DOD. Much has been written about the OSP and how major intelligence
that led the US into the most recent war with Iraq was "cooked" in
the OSP.
Green states that when a former senior FBI counterintelligence
official heard of Bryen's appointment to the China Commission, he
said "My God, that must mean he has a `Q' clearance. " A "Q"
clearance, which must be approved by the Department of Energy, is
the designation for Top Secret codeword clearance to access nuclear
technology.
Ledeen serving on both the China Commission and in the OSP would
have access to classified materials and therefore would require high
level security clearance.
Bryen and Ledeen have both been investigated by the US government
extensively for improperly passing information to Israel.
In April of 1979 Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Keuch
recommended in writing that Stephen Bryen, a staff member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee undergo a Grand Jury hearing to
establish the basis for a prosecution of Bryen of espionage for
Israel. The investigation conducted over a year had over 1000 pages
of information documenting many issues regarding Bryan's
relationship with Israel and leaking information to Israel.
In Green's article he points out that after Bryen was appointed by
Richard Perle to a high level DOD position during the Reagan
administration and received another security clearance, he was
confronted various times by his colleagues and superiors including
current Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage about his
overzealous attempts to help export restricted technology to Israel.
Michael Ledeen was hired by the DOD as a consultant on terrorism in
1983 and his immediate superior was Assistant Secretary of Defense
Noel Koch. Koch told Green that Ledeen had somehow obtained
classified information that he should not have been allowed to see.
Koch then informed his executive assistant that Ledeen was to be
denied classified materials in the future.
In the mid-1990s Ledeen left the DOD and joined the National
Security Council (NSC) as a consultant. In that capacity, Ledeen
became a major player in the "Iran-Contra" scandal. Ledeen was noted
for carrying messages to then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
Ledeen had his NSC security clearance downgraded while in that
position. He moved downward from Top Secret to Secret. Also in Iran-
Contra document Oliver North recommended that Ledeen "be asked to
take periodic polygraph examinations". Noel Koch testified that he
was suspicious of Ledeen because he learned that Ledeen was
negotiating the sale of US basic TOW missiles for $2500 each when
the normal cost to another foreign government was $6800 per missile.
Throughout their governmental careers, Bryen and Ledeen have
consistently been promoted to high-level defense and security
positions by their fellow neocons; former Defense Advisory Board
Chairman Richard Perle, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and
Undersecretary of
Defense Douglas Feith.
Journalist Sy Hersh has reported that in 1970 while Richard Perle
was working for Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington, Perle was caught
by an FBI wiretap discussing classified information with an official
at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC. And according to the New
York Times, in 1978 CIA Director Stansfield Turner asked Sen.
Jackson to fire Perle after Perle was named as a recipient of an
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Perle is
currently embroiled in various other scandals including an
investigation into his business dealings with Conrad Black and the
Hollinger Corporation. Perle serves on the board of Hollinger and
allegedly received a multimillion dollar unreported payment which
potentially violates the law.
Paul Wolfowitz was brought into the US Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency (ACDA) in 1973. He was known, according to Green, for
his "strong attachment to Israel's security". In 1978 an
investigation was conducted after, according to Green, Wolfowitz
was "found to have provided a classified document on the proposed
sale of US arms to an Israeli official through an AIPAC (American
Israeli Public Affairs Committee) intermediary.
Also, according to Green, in 1990 when Wolfowitz was undersecretary
for policy in the DOD under then Secretary of Defense Richard
Cheney, an investigation was conducted that indicated "Wolfowitz had
been internally promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM 9-M
air-to-air missles" which were a restricted security item.
Douglas Feith has long been a major supporter of Israel. In 1982
Feith was a Middle East analyst for the NSC initially working under
NSC head Richard Allen in the Reagan administration. When Allen was
replaced by Judge William Clark, he fired nine staff members
including Feith. According to Green, Feith was fired because he had
been the subject of an FBI inquiry into whether, without
authorization, he had provided classified information to a
representative of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Stephen Green cites credible individuals and substantive documents
in his article on these five current (as this article was being
written Richard Perle announced his resignation from the Defense
Policy Advisory Board) US government and government-related
organizations. Though some of the 22 media outlets that rejected his
article claimed there was "nothing new" in his piece, there is, in
fact, much new and previously unreported public information in his
commentary. That new information includes the 1978 inquiry on Paul
Wolfowitz, the circumstances behind the Feith firing in 1982, the
1988 incidents concerning Bryen and the information on Ledeen
provided by Noel Koch.
The most important point in the article is not just the
interconnections of these five neocons. Perle hired Bryen 1981 to
work at DOD. Wolfowitz hired Ledeen in 1981 as a special adviser. In
2001 Feith at DOD hired Ledeen as a consultant in the OSP.
Nor is it the assistance this group has given each other over the
years. In 1973 Perle used his influence to help Wolfowitz obtain a
job with the ACDA. In 1982 Perle assisted in hiring Feith at the
DOD. In 2001 Wolfowitz helped Feith get his appointment at DOD and
Feith appointed Perle as chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory
Board.
And whatever sympathies these officials have to Israel is their own
personal choice to which they have a right. Rather though, it is
much more important that despite extensive investigations and files
that exist on these individuals concerning leaking information to a
foreign government, they continue to receive top level government
positions and the highest level security clearances. It is not
necessarily what is in these files that determines whether they
receive security clearances, it is who does the hiring or appointing
and whether the appointer feels that the appointee should receive
the security clearance. And in the cases of Bryen, Ledeen, Perle,
Wolfowitz and Feith, they each have usually managed to be the
official that makes the decision about each other.
Former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Aikens in reviewing "The
Armageddon Network" in 1984 said, "(The Armageddon Network)
describes how high-placed American government officials have
confused their loyalties; the story is a frightening one. Even more
frightening is the failure of the American government to determine
what damage has been done to the United States through their
misguided action. The book is an instructive lesson on how the
American government can be manipulated."
Sound familiar?
— Dr. Michael Saba is the author of "The Armageddon Network" and is
an international relations consultant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Probe of DOD (Feith's) Office of Special Plans
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/08/28/fbi-probes-dod-feith-s-office-of-special-plans.php |
What is not mentioned in the article above by Michael Saba is that Michael Ledeen, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are ardent Zionist (racist) Jews associated with JINSA/CSP/PNAC:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
The following is the 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article by Jason Vest which Robert Fisk refers to in the above article as having appeared in 'The Nation':
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Here is Stephen Green's article ('Serving Two Flags') which mentioned in the article above by Michael Saba:
http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html
Here is an excellent article about Zionist Jew traitor to America Richard Perle who is also mentioned in the above articles:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html
http://www.nowarforisrael.com/Rachel%20Corrie.htm
http://www.nowarforisrael.com | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:34 am Post subject: Sexed-up reports, pressure on the UN ... here we go again |
| http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/08/30/2003200847
Sexed-up reports, pressure on the UN ... here we go again
US claims over Iran's nuclear program sound eerily familiar -- but this time around, the UK is siding with France and Germany in promoting engagement
By Jonathan Steele
THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
Monday, Aug 30, 2004,Page 9 History is beginning to repeat itself, this time over Iran. Just two years after the notorious Downing Street dossier on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and the first efforts to get UN approval for war, Washington is trying to create similar pressures for action against Iran.
The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence material which puts the target country in the worst possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in "non-compliance", thereby claiming justification for going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a clique of US neoconservatives whose real agenda is regime change.The immediate focus for action against Iran is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has produced five reports on Iran in the last 14 months.
Part of the UN, with an international board which acts like a mini security council, the IAEA's reports have raised questions about Iran's professedly civilian nuclear program and its desire to create its own fuel cycle which could eventually be used to produce bombs.To satisfy its critics, Iran agreed last year to allow so-called intrusive inspections. As a confidence-building measure, it also stopped enriching uranium. In a few days' time the IAEA will issue a new report, and it is its wording which is causing the latest flurry.
John Bolton, the Bush administration's point man, has been rushing round Europe claiming the evidence of sinister Iranian behavior is clear, even though the IAEA has consistently made no such judgment. It has called for more transparency, but prefers to keep probing and, like Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in 2003, insists it needs more time.
Iran, meanwhile, says the IAEA should accept that nothing wrong has been found, close the dossier and let Iran receive the civilian nuclear technology -- with the safeguards that go with it -- which countries like Germany and France have promised.Bolton is not, at this stage, claiming to have intelligence which the IAEA's inspectors don't. After the fiasco of the US' pre-war material on Iraq, he has not started to trumpet US sources. But he is choosing to interpret the available knowledge as harshly as possible.
He is also close to the Washington hardliners in the Project for the New American Century, who created the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states and who favor regime change to deal with Islamist fundamentalism.
Norman Podhoretz, the arch-conservative editor of Commentary magazine, one of their house journals, said last week: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran at this moment, although I wouldn't be heartbroken if it happened."
There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in going to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say Iran has violated its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and take the matter to the security council for a decision on sanctions or other stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move to the UN.Second, even the US (Podhoretz excepted) is not talking about a full-scale US invasion with ground troops. It has too many soldiers tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to spare many for a third campaign.
The talk is of using US special forces or airstrikes to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, or giving a green light to Israel to do it. Slightly less impatiently, there are hints that the CIA will step up its campaign to overthrow the regime in Tehran by encouraging anti-government TV and radio broadcasts from abroad and infiltrating opposition movements.The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's stance.
Unlike with the Bush campaign against Saddam Hussein, Britain is siding this time with France and Germany. It is part of a "troika" which promotes constructive engagement rather than confrontation with Iran. Their dialogue ran into a sticky phase this summer with allegations of bad faith on both sides, but the three European states are willing to keep it going.
They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order make them want no repetition in Iraq's more populous and larger neighbor.
Even "limited" air-strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would unify the country and harden hostility to the west throughout the Middle East, especially if Washington subcontracted the attacks to the Israeli air force.Most Iraqi resistance to the US is based on nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different. People of all political persuasions in Tehran support their country's right to have nuclear power, and probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is not the most intelligent way to persuade them otherwise.
The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this spring's unfair elections, as well as the certainty that President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal with than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven years. Many are non-clerical veterans of the Iran-Iraq war who are influenced by nationalism and economic imperatives more than the revolutionary Islamic ideology of the Khomeini generation. They want better relations with the west.
Britain's difference with Washington on Iran is remarkable. It matters more than the better-publicized splits on the Kyoto environmental protocol or the international criminal court. But does Britain's alignment with France and Germany on Iran mean that Tony Blair has really parted with George Bush on a key geopolitical and military issue? Or has he not yet spotted that what he regards as the lily-livered flunkies in the Foreign Office are up to their "realist" tricks again?
They also opposed the invasion of Iraq until Ol' Laser-Eyes in Downing Street focused on the file.We will know the answer after the US election. Even if Kerry wins, European diplomats expect no major change in Washington's policy towards Iran.
Like Cuba, Iran produces special symptoms of irrationality (because of the unrevenged wound to US pride the mullahs caused when they held diplomats hostage in the embassy a quarter of a century ago).
So how will Blair cuddle up to the new president? What easier way than to break with France and Germany and show Kerry that, whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, Britain's prime minister is still best friends when it comes to being tough with Islamist bullies and taking the brave and moral route to war? Inshallah, no.
This story has been viewed 2016 times. | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:38 am Post subject: |
| | Your article is very convincing. So wanna bet? I put 50,000 $ against your 25,000 $ that will be no any war on Iran neither in this year nor in next. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
