War Without End

smallaxe · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: Creating the pretext for Iran war

The object of this thread is to collect western commentary that shows Iran in a negative light to create a pretext for war, in one place. Feel free to add. I start with this article posted by harrietbuster...

smallaxe · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject:

Al-Maliki: Iraq won't be battleground for U.S., Iran
POSTED: 1:46 p.m. EST, January 31, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister said Wednesday he's sure Iran is behind some attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and he won't allow his country to be a battleground for the two nations.

"We have told the Iranians and the Americans, 'We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you, please solve your problems outside Iraq,' " Nuri al-Maliki told CNN.

"We will not accept Iran to use Iraq to attack the American forces," al-Maliki said Wednesday in an exclusive interview with CNN. (Read more of al-Maliki interview)

"We don't want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria," he added.

Asked about the role of Iran in Iraq, al-Maliki said he was confident that Iranian influence was behind attacks on U.S. forces. "It exists, and I assure you it exists," he said.

Iranian-U.S. tensions have been ratcheted up recently, with two U.S. officials theorizing about the possibility that Iran was involved in a January 20 attack that killed five U.S. soldiers.

Two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said Tuesday the Pentagon is investigating whether the attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives.

"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said, adding that the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation.

The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

The five soldiers were abducted and killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing American-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound Video)

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is only a preliminary view, and there is no conclusion. They agreed this possibility is under consideration because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the second official said.

Al-Maliki said the Americans were basing their hunches about Iranian activities in Iraq on intelligence they've amassed.

Some Iraqis speculate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the attack in retaliation for the January 11 capture by U.S. forces of five of its members in Irbil, according to a Time.com article published Tuesday. (Read the articleexternal link)

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a reputation for taking harsh and unrelenting revenge on its enemies, the Time.com article says. The five Iranians remain in U.S. custody.

Suggestions of Iranian involvement in the Karbala attack are part of a larger confrontation between Iran and the United States.

Washington accuses Tehran of fomenting terror attacks worldwide and pursuing a nuclear program that could lead to the development of weaponry. Iran has denied those assertions.

The Bush administration has authorized U.S. forces to kill or capture Iranian agents plotting attacks in Iraq, a U.S. national security official said last week. The policy, approved by President Bush in the last couple of months, is aimed at Iranian agents planning attacks with Iraqi militiamen, the official said.

Bush has said that he has no problem with the policy, if it protects U.S. soldiers. (Full story)

"If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said Monday on National Public Radio.

A top U.S. general in Iraq said Tuesday that Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with weapons, including Katyusha rockets and rocket-propelled grenades, USA Today reported.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told the newspaper that the military could trace some weapons back to Iran by their serial numbers.

The Associated Press reported last week that a second U.S. aircraft carrier is on its way to the Persian Gulf, according to U.S. officials. The officials told the AP that the USS John C. Stennis, due to arrive in Mideast waters within weeks, is intended as a warning to Iran.

CNN's Aneesh Raman, who has reported from Tehran over the past year, said Tuesday that Iranians are taking the threats seriously.

"The Iranian people are increasingly concerned that in the coming months, military action of some kind will either come into Iran, or Iran will be dragged into a broader struggle," Raman said. "Every time I went [to Iran], there was increased fear, a sense that war clouds were looming." (Watch what could happen if the U.S. opts to strike Iran Video)
Car blast kills 5 in Baghdad market

Bomb and mortar attacks Wednesday across the Iraqi capital and northward in Diyala province left 14 dead and dozens wounded, officials said.

In the deadliest attack, five people were killed and 12 others wounded when a car bomb exploded Wednesday afternoon near the Shorja market in central Baghdad, a Baghdad police official said.

Separately, four people died and 20 others were wounded when mortar rounds slammed into northern Baghdad's Adhamiya Sunni neighborhood.

Also in northern Baghdad, a car bomb blast killed two people and wounded nine in the Bab Muadham commercial area.

In western Baghdad's Mamoun neighborhood, two people were killed and three others were wounded when a car bomb detonated near a communication tower.

In southeastern Baghdad, one Iraqi was killed and six others were wounded when a car bomb exploded on a street, a Baghdad police official said.

North of the capital in Muqtadya, at least 12 Iraqi soldiers were wounded when a suicide bomber detonated a fuel truck near an Iraqi army base, a Diyala Joint Coordination Center official said. Muqtadya is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of Baquba.

A U.S. soldier was killed in combat Wednesday in Iraq's Salaheddin province, the military said. The slain soldier was from Task Force Lightning. Another soldier was wounded in the incident.

On Tuesday, two U.S. soldiers and a Marine died from "wounds sustained due to enemy action" while in Anbar province, the volatile area west of Baghdad, the military said.

Since the start of the Iraq war, 3,078 members of the U.S. military have died. Seven civilian contractors of the Defense Department also have been killed.

CNN's Barbara Starr, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Michael Ware contributed to this report.

medea · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: Why Can’t Americans See It?

medea

medea · Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=me_iran&Number=295231563#Post295231563

January 31, 2007; Patrick J. Buchanan

When Congress finally decides on just the right language for its "non-binding resolution" deploring Bush's leadership in this war, it might consider a resolution to keep us out of the next one.

For America is on a collision course with an Iran of 70 million, and the folks who stampeded us into Iraq are firing pistols in the air again.

At the annual Herzliya Conference, U.S. presidential aspirants, neoconservatives and Israeli hawks were all invoking the Holocaust and warning of the annihilation of the Jews.

Israel's "Bibi" Netanyahu, who compares Iran's Ahmadinejad to Hitler, said: "The world that didn't stop the Holocaust last time can stop it this time. ... Who will lead the effort against genocide if not us? The world will not stand up on behalf of the Jews if the Jews do not stand up on behalf of the world."

Said former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz: "Iran is the heart of the problem in the Middle East. It is the most urgent threat facing the world, and needs to be dealt with before it's too late." After meeting with the Department of State's Nicholas Burns, Mofaz called 2007 "a year of decision."

Richard Perle assured the conference that Bush will attack Iran rather than see it acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. Newt Gingrich also brought his soothing touch to the proceedings: "(C)itizens who do not wake up every morning and think about possible catastrophic civilian casualties are deluding themselves.

"Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... I'll repeat it. Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get.

"If we knew that tomorrow morning we would lose Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, what would we do to stop it?

Barmak · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:46 am Post subject:

Alpha · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:59 am Post subject:

January 30, ,2007
Is It World War III Yet?
http://newsforreal.com/

Remember when World War III was envisioned as a nuclear Armageddon? That threat hung over the heads of my generation through our entire childhoods and into our adult lives. Then it vanished along with the Soviet Union. We may face it again someday, but for right now it's gone.
What isn't gone is the threat of another World War. And, thanks to George W. Bush and his Neoncon advisers we are on the brink of just that... a major war with international implications. And like almost every other world war, it has snuck up on us. To understand how that could be so you all you need to do is look back 93 years, to June 28, 1914.
At approximately 11:00 am on June 28, 1914, Prince Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The assassin was Gavrilo Princip, a member of a Bosnian separatist group. The event was the trigger of World War I, which began less than two months after Franz Ferdinand's death, with Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia. (More)
World War I, was a global military conflict that took place mostly in Europe between 1914 and 1918. It left millions dead and re-shaped the modern world. The Allied Powers, led by France, Russia, the British Empire, and later, Italy, defeated the Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, the German Empire, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. (More)
Ferdinand wasn't the reason all Europe and the near east were thrust into years of bloody conflict. His assassination was simply the spark that ignited a long simmering toxic stew of petty gripes, border disputes, rivalries, personal hatreds and ethnic tensions. The lid had been on for a long time, the pressure had built and all it took was one moron to come along and set the whole thing off.
Exactly those conditions existed in Middle East on March 19, 2003 when George W. Bush decided it was good time to take out Saddam Hussein.
Just look at the geopolitical conditions that were boiling at the time. To the west Sunni nations, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, had each forged strong political and economic ties with the Christian/Judeao west. These nations were modernizing along western lines and falling increasingly in line with western diplomatic wishes, including tolerating and even recognizing Israel.
To the east was the 900 pound gorilla, Shiite Iran. Iran was heading in the polar-opposite direction. Iran was determined to reclaim it;s Shia's mission as keeper of the pure Islamic flame and to reinstate Islamic religious rule throughout the region.
Stuck smack in the middle were Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
Iraq, dominated by it's minority Sunnis. had fought Iran to a standstill 1980's, brutal war that killed millions on both sides. After failing to defeat Iran, Iraq attacked neighboring Kuwait, only to be thrown out by western forces a few months later.
Afghanistan, to Iran's immediate east, had been in the hands of a crackpot cult of militant Muslims, the Taliban, which the Iranian hated and feared.
Then there was Syria, a majority Sunni nation, caught between Iraq and a hard place. It had mutual enemy Israel on it's southern border and a democratic Lebanon on its western. Syria had supported Saddam's dictatorship through ties with their common Baath parties. But, having been defeated decades earlier by Israel, which still occupied captured Syrian territory, Syria had turned to Iran for help, which Iran happily provided through its proxy army, Hezbollah.
And that's where things stood on March 19, 2003 when George W. Bush assassinated his version of Archduck Ferdinand by launching a full-scale invasion of Iraq. He lit a match that ignited the highly flammable tensions that filled the region – Israel v. Palestinians, Palestinians v. Palestinians, Shia v. Sunnis, Shia v.Shia, Sunni v. Sunni, Christians v. Muslims, Muslims v. Modernity, Modernity v. Muslims, Oil consuming nations v. anyone who gets in the way of their oil supplies. If there was ever a region ready to blow, it was the Middle East on March 19, 2003.
Only a fool would strike a match anywhere near such a fuse.
Bush's reckless war tore the lid off a boiling cauldron that is now boiling over and threatens to engulf the entire region in what history will likely record as a full fledged war with worldwide implications.
The decisions Congress must make in the months ahead about what to do with our troops in that region will be shaped by how they see what's actually going on and where it's headed. Which is why they need to start framing it in terms much larger than “civil war.” Because it's no longer about just Iraq today, anymore than it was about Bosnia in 1914. It beyond that now. Way beyond that.
When this kind of war breaks out certain patterns are immediately recognizable. During World War I the world witnessed the same kind of things we are now seeing in Iraq, among which is ethnic cleansing. During WWI the Armenians were massacred by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. We can parse terms, was it a massacre or was it genocide, but whatever it was it looks a lot like what gearing up in Iraq right now. So far at least 180,000 Sunnis have be ethnically forced to out -- cleansed -- from Baghdad alone...right under the noses of US forces. Those who refuse to leave are killed.
The Saudis have taken notice and warned that if this continues they will have no choice but to begin arming and supporting Iraq's beleaguered Sunnis. Iran has countered that it would respond to that by making “trouble” for the Saudis – a thinly veiled threat to disrupt Saudi oil facilities and stir up opposition to the already fragile Saudi royal family.
Meanwhile Pakistan has been secretly rearming Afghan's defeated Taliban. Why? Because they simply do not want a US-dominated government on their border because they see the US as closer to Pakistan's mortal foe, India – a suspicion the US reinforced by singing a controversial nuclear deal with India earlier this year.
It's no coincidence that the Iran/Hezbollah./Syria axis decided now was the right moment to openly challenge the western-leaning democratic government in Lebanon. While Syria sees the destabilization of Lebanon as a bargaining chit in it's bid to reclaim the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and Hezbollah. sees it as the front line in its war against Israel, Iran sees Lebanon as the keystone in it's dream of establishing a Shia crescent running form Iran to the Mediterranean.
So what's everyone's next move? Iran knows the US can't sustain it's occupation of Iraq and is already taking an increasingly aggressive hand in shaping the new Iraq. That will mean growing Shiite control, and that will manifest itself in growing pressure on Iraq's Sunnis. The Saudis won't stand for it and will jump into the fray by backing Sunni insurgents with money and US weapons. If that doesn't turn the tide, the Saudis could provide Sunnis close air support with its formidable. modern US-supplied air force.
The Iranians don't have an air force to speak of, but they do have sophisticated long range missiles that can reach Saudi oil fields and refining facilities. One tit will be followed by one tat, then two, then three... then all hell breaks loose.
All this will force Syria to finally chose a side. Are they going to go with Iran, or throw their lot in with fellow Sunni nations. If Syria goes with Iran then Lebanon is toast and Israel will look to Jordon and Egypt to join with them in a joint defense of Lebanon against Syria and, if necessary Iran as well. Because for Israel, a Syria and Lebanon controlled by Iran would be unacceptable.
The Iranians clearly see that scenario as a real possibility, which why they are racing to get a working nuclear weapon – to make Israel think twice before taking a swing at them.
More clues emerged last week when King Hussein of Jordon announced that he'd like his country to begin its own “civilian” nuclear program – like Iran's. Why? Because he too sees something awful his way comes.
And let us not forget those Ottoman Turks of WW I. They are still around in todays Turkey. During WW I they tried to exterminate the Armenians. This time they will try to itch another scratch that's been bugging them for decades, the Kurds. Turkey would love to get rid of separatist Kurds once and for all.
The Turks caught the Armenians by surprise and with the upper hand in WW I. The Kurds will not go quietly or as easily. That fight will be particularly bloody. Turkey is a member of NATO, meaning some generals in Belgium are going to face some hard decisions. Internally Turkey itself will be torn to pieces by those who, on one side want to become part of Western Europe and those on the other side whose hearts are with their ancient Muslim roots. Turkey will not likely emerge from such a war as we know it today.
I have no idea how this would affect the Israeli/Palestinian mess, except to say that it would be supremely foolish of the Palestinians to see all the trouble around them as an opportunity to make trouble for Israel. There is no nation on earth with less of a sense of humor when cornered than Israel.
It all seems so obvious, certainly to leaders in the region who are clearly already moving on their own and in their own national interests. Only the US seems unable or unwilling to see what we've ignited over there. We got it wrong from day one, and we're still getting it wrong. First we were told the problem was the tyrant, Saddam. Then, when it got worse the problem was “dead enders,” and Saddam loyalists. When it got worse again, it was blamed on “insurgents and al Qaida.” Now that the whole country is coming apart, it's a “civil war.”
Yes. George, it's a civil war... and so much more. It's the beginning of a major regional war... call it what you want, World War III, or the Middle East War or Smack Down in the Desert. But its a more than just a civil war – a lot more. The events now unfolding may have been our doing, but their course from here on is out of our control.
Just as the first two world wars reshaped all of Europe and the near east, this war will reshape the Middle East. It will reshape the region in ways we cannot now predict or prevent. All we can do now is prepare. Act like it's an emergency, because it is:
We should withdraw our troops from Iraq immediately.
We should redirect the $8 billion a month we are wasting there by allocating half to rebuilding and repairing our own now exhausted military and national defenses
We should direct the other $4 billion a month into a crash “Manhattan Project” to develop and deploy alternative energy as quickly as possible.
There was a shred of evidence that even George W. Bush may have an inkling he's created a mess that could envelope the whole world. Last week he authorized doubling the size of our strategic oil reserves.
Good idea George, but not nearly enough. We need to go the rest of the way. A fierce storm is brewing. Now is the time to secure all loose gear and batten down our own hatches. Raise taxes, enact standby procedures for mandatory energy conservation. And no "duck and cover" BS. We need to start doing real things to prepare the kind of real shortages that will occur when oil supplies are disrupted.
It took two catastrophic world wars before Europeans got it all out of their system. Hopefully middle easterners can settle it with one. In any event, we can no longer pretend nothing has really changed. We can no longer tether our national security to the fragile threat of middle east oil. We should begin the disengagement now, in a rapid but orderly manner and prepare for the troubled days ahead.
Otherwise we risk being swept up in the maelstrom, unprepared and at the mercy of events now far beyond our control.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S.-Iran tensions could trigger war
By JIM KRANE and ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writers

2 hours, 32 minutes ago

Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.
The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn.
Iraq has become a proxy battleground between Washington and Tehran, which is challenging — at least rhetorically — America's dominance of the Gulf. That has worried even Iraq's U.S.-backed Shiite prime minister, who — in a reflection of Iraq's complexity — also has close ties to Iran.
Iran and the United States are already sparring on the ground.
On Jan. 20, militants kidnapped and killed four American soldiers in a raid in Karbala, and a fifth was killed in the firefight. A U.S. defense official said one possibility under study is that Iranian agents either executed or masterminded the attack, a suspicion based on the sophisticated and unusual methods used in the attack, including weapons and uniforms that may have been American.
He spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing.
There has been speculation that the Karbala assault may have been in retaliation for the arrest of five Iranians by U.S. troops in northern Iraq.
Those five Iranians, who were arrested in the northern city of Irbil, included two members of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard force that provides weapons, training and other support to Shiite militants in the Middle East, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said last week. Iraqi and Iranian officials maintain the five were diplomats.
Since the Karbala raid, U.S. saber-rattling has intensified. President Bush said this week that U.S. forces in Iraq would take action against Iranian operatives in the country, while insisting he had no intention of attacking Iran.
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush told National Public Radio.
Although little evidence has been made public, U.S. officials have long insisted that Iran was supplying weapons and training to Shiite militias in Iraq, including some that have killed American troops.
The No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq told USA Today in an interview published Tuesday that Iran was supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with a variety of powerful weapons, including Katyusha rockets and armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades.
"We have weapons that we know through serial numbers ... trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said.
The Air Force is considering more forceful patrols on the Iraqi side of the border with Iran to counter the smuggling of weapons and bomb supplies, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing senior Pentagon officials.
The U.S. is also building up its military presence in the Gulf in what it says is a show of strength directed at Iran. A second aircraft carrier is heading for the region, and Patriot missile batteries are being deployed.
Since Bush announced his new Iraq strategy in early January, Iranian officials have raised the alarm repeatedly that the U.S. intends to attack. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran is "ready for anything" in its confrontation with the United States.
A newspaper close to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last week threatened retaliation for any U.S. military action — including stopping oil traffic through the Gulf's strategic Hormuz Straits and attacks on U.S. interests. The top editor of the Kayhan daily warned that Iran will turn the Middle East into "hell" for the United States and Israel if America attacks.
Iran expert Ray Takeyh said the risks are all the greater because Tehran has an "unhealthy" disregard for American power, which "enhances the prospect of a miscalculation."
Prof. Gary Sick, a leading authority on Iran, believes the U.S. is seeking to divert world attention from the crisis in Iraq and organize a coalition of Israel and conservative Sunni Arab states to confront Iran.
"I see this as a very dangerous long-term policy because it promotes the idea that Sunnis and Shiites should be distrustful of each other, and I think that could come back and bite us later on," he said.
Iran and the U.S. also are in dispute over Tehran's nuclear program. The United States accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons — an allegation Tehran denies. Iran's defiant refusal to suspend uranium enrichment prompted the U.N. Security Council to impose limited economic sanctions.
The U.S. has also beefed up support for Lebanon's government in its power struggle with Hezbollah, the Shiite militia that Washington accuses of acting in Iran's interests.
But Lee Feinstein of the Council on Foreign Relations said the U.S. was finding it hard "to calibrate its message" to distinguish "between a stern message and a warning of attack."
The war of words has raised fears among both Democrats and Republicans in Congress that the United States and Iran are drifting toward armed conflict at a time when America is struggling against determined foes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It has also unnerved the Iraqi government, many of whose members have close ties to Iran.
"We have told the Iranians and the Americans, `We know that you have a problem with each other but we're asking you, please, solve your problems outside of Iraq,'" Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, told CNN on Wednesday. "We do not want the American forces to take Iraq as a base to attack Iran ... we will not accept Iran using Iraq to attack American forces. But does this exist? It exists and I assure you it exists."
As the rhetoric grows more strident, a U.S. military official in the Gulf likened the U.S.-Iran standoff to the buildup in hostility in Europe before World War I, when the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne triggered a tragic war that engulfed a continent.
"A mistake could be made and you could end up in something that neither side ever really wanted, and suddenly it's August 1914 all over again," the U.S. officer said on condition of anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the issue. "I really believe neither side wants a fight."
Iranian coast guard vessels recently veered into territorial waters on the Arab side of the Gulf, an event that could have been viewed as either a mistake or a provocation, the officer said. Both sides are on tenterhooks. "A boat crosses a line ... but what does it mean? You've got to be very careful about overreacting," the officer said.
Even if Iran pulled back from Iraq's conflict, it might not end the country's violence, said Kenneth M. Pollack, research director at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.
"The truth is that Iraq is a mess. It is in a state of low-level civil war. And all of these groups are largely self-motivated," he said on the Council on Foreign Relations Web site. "But its much easier to blame it on the Iranians."
In Tehran, political analyst Hermidas Bavand said U.S. force increases were leading many Iranians to believe Washington is looking to pick a fight.
"It's an extremely dangerous situation," Bavand said. "I don't think Tehran wants war under any circumstances. But there might be an accidental event that could escalate into a large confrontation."
___
AP writer Jim Krane reported from Doha, Qatar.

Europeans fear US attack on Iran as nuclear row intensifies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2002319,00.html

· Transatlantic rift emerges over how to handle crisis
· America builds up its naval forces in the Gulf

Ian Traynor in Brussels and Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

Senior European policy-makers are increasingly worried that the US administration will resort to air strikes against Iran to try to destroy its suspect nuclear programme.
As transatlantic friction over how to deal with the Iranian impasse intensifies, there are fears in European capitals that the nuclear crisis could come to a head this year because of US frustration with Russian stalling tactics at the UN security council. "The clock is ticking," said one European official. "Military action has come back on to the table more seriously than before. The language in the US has changed."

As the Americans continue their biggest naval build-up in the Gulf since the start of the Iraq war four years ago, a transatlantic rift is opening up on several important aspects of the Iran dispute.
The Bush administration will shortly publish a dossier of charges of alleged Iranian subversion in Iraq. "Iran has steadily ramped up its activity in Iraq in the last three to four months. This applies to the scope and pace of their operations. You could call these brazen activities," a senior US official said in London yesterday.

Although the Iranians were primarily in Shia areas, they were not confined to them, the US source said, implying that they had formed links with Sunni insurgents and were helping them with booby-trap bombs aimed at Iraqi and US forces, new versions of the "improvised explosive devices".

Senior members of the US Congress have raised concerns that the US will attack Iran in retaliation for its alleged activities in Iraq. The official said there were no plans for "cross-border operations" from Iraq to Iran. But he said: "We don't want a progressively more confident and bolder Iran ... The perception that Iran is ascendant in the region and that there are no limits to what Iran can do - that's what is destabilising."

The Americans and Europeans have sought to maintain a common front on the nuclear issue for the past 30 months, with the European troika of Britain, France and Germany running failed negotiations with the Iranians and the Americans tacitly supporting them.

But diplomats in Brussels and those dealing with the dispute in Vienna say a fissure has opened up between the US and western Europe on three crucial aspects - the military option; how and how quickly to hit Iran with economic sanctions already decreed by the UN security council; and how to deal with Russian opposition to action against Iran through the security council.

"There's anxiety everywhere you turn," said a diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "The Europeans are very concerned the shit could hit the fan."

A US navy battle group of seven vessels was steaming towards the Gulf yesterday from the Red Sea, part of a deployment of 50 US ships, including two aircraft carriers, expected in the area in weeks.

"No path is envisaged by the EU other than the UN path," the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told the Guardian yesterday. "The priority for all of us is that Iran complies with UN security council resolutions."

The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, called at the weekend for a "timeout" in the worsening confrontation in an attempt to enable both sides to save face and climb down. But the Americans rejected the proposal and European officials involved in the dispute also believe the Iranians cannot be trusted to stick to a deal.

Despite recurring tensions on the Middle East between the US and France, the French are the most hawkish of the Europeans on Iran and are said to back a US drive to tighten the noose on Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The populist and recalcitrant leader is perceived to have been weakened recently, in part because of a mishandling of the nuclear row. "One group of western countries thinks it's a good time to step up the pressure on Ahmadinejad. All options are on the table. Others are worried we might be stumbling into a war," said another diplomat familiar with the dispute.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.1152839.0.america_poised_to_strike_at_irans_nuclear_sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php

America ‘poised to strike at Iran’s nuclear sites’ from bases in Bulgaria and Romania
Report suggest that ‘US defensive ring’ may be new front in war on terror.

By Gabriel Ronay

PRESIDENT BUSH is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.

"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.

The American build-up along the BlackSea,coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.

Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.

Sofia's news ofadvanced war preparations along the BlackSea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack." Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner, "a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of this revelation.

Curiously, the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.

Before the end of March,3000 US military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April, 2006, an airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".

Romania, the other Black Sea host to the USmilitary, is enjoying adollar bonanza as its MihailKogalniceanu base at Constanta is being transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the Iran scenario.

Last week, the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanu base.Admiral GheorgheMarin, Romania's chief of staff, confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnel will be temporarily stationed in Romania".

In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the country.

Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an open threat to Russia".

SergeyIvanov, Russia's defence minister,spoke more circumspectly while emphasising Moscow's concern. He said:"Russia is not worried.Its strategic nuclear forces can assure in any circumstance its safety. Since neither Tehran, nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental missiles capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."

Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax Americana".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that what is mentioned above in the Sunday Herald article about a possible attack on Iran coming by this April seems to fit with what was mentioned in that Kuwait media report as well:

Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April

www.chinaview.cn2007-01-1415:19:28

Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/14/content_5604565.htm

KUWAIT CITY, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- 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.
Recent statements emanating from the United States indicated the Bush administration's new strategy for Iraq doesn't include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran, added the report.
The source told al-Jarallah that U.S. President George W. Bush recently had held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House, where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.
Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iranto not only Saudi Arabia but also the whole Gulf region, according to the source.
"Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country's religious influence to support the aggressive regime's ambition to expand," Dick Cheney was quoted by the source as saying.
Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said "they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony
Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007."
Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said "the U.S. and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects."
The source added that the U.S. has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up would continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month.
"U.S. forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system," the source noted.
The Bush administration believes that attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and paving the way for their democratic project, which have to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, according to the source.

Editor: Pan Letian

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Citizens for Legitimate Government
15 January 2007
http://www.legitgov.org/

All links to articles as summarized below are available here:

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April 14 Jan 2007 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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) Pushing US to attack Iran for Israel like AIPAC did to get US into the Iraq quagmire:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As a US Republican, I reject George Bush's illegal and unconstitutional plan to attack Iraq" -Scott Ritter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,805900,00.html (notice US MSM didn't carry this quote)

Ritter was right then and he is right now. See a very good recent interview:
Iraq, Iran, and WMDs Scott Ritter interviewed:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=11993

Coming War with Iran for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/25/coming-war-with-iran-for-israel.php

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So is the following 'theory' along with the unsubstantiated assertion that Iran is in violation of the NPT (while Israel isn't a signer with hundreds of its nukes pointed at Iran and elsewhere) going to be used to expand the war for Israel in Iraq to Iran and perhaps Syria as well (right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda that esteemed US intelligence author/writer Bamford discusses as well on pages 261-269/321 of 'A Pretext for War' as Bamford also wrote the 'Iran: The Next War' article for the August 10th, 2006 of 'Rolling Stone' which can be accessed via http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/28/iran-the-next-war-for-israel.php ):

PS: Look at the 'theory' the 'JINSA crowd' in control of the Pentagon is trying to use to get US to attack Iran next for Israel:

U.S. officials: Probe eyes Iran ties in Karbala attack
Story Highlights• NEW: Attacks in Baghdad, Muqtadya kill 14 and wound dozens
• Officials say U.S. probes possible Iranian ties in Karbala compound attack

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.

"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.

The official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed U.S. five soldiers.

The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

The five soldiers were abducted and killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing American-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound)

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the second official said.

The findings could ultimately prompt skepticism within the Bush administration, critics on Capitol Hill and among other Mideast nations.

Some Iraqis speculate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the attack in retaliation for the January 11 capture by U.S. forces of five of its members in Irbil, according to a Time.com article published Tuesday. (Read the article)

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a reputation for taking harsh and unrelenting revenge on its enemies, the Time.com article says.

The five Iranians remain in U.S. custody.

An inside job?
The investigation into the Karbala attack has led some officials to conclude it was an "inside job" -- that people inside the compound helped the attackers enter unstopped.

Investigators are looking at how the attackers got U.S.-style military uniforms and sport-utility vehicles similar to those used by American troops. (Watch what could happen if the U.S. opts to strike Iran)

"'Who was behind it all?' was the fundamental question," the first official said.

The U.S. military on Friday confirmed accounts that the soldiers had been abducted and driven away from their compound. The military had said in a January 20 press release only that "five U.S. soldiers were killed and three wounded while repelling the attack."

The Bush administration has authorized U.S. forces to kill or capture Iranian agents plotting attacks in Iraq, a U.S. national security official said last week.

"If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," President Bush said Monday in an interview with National Public Radio.

Car blast kills 5 in Baghdad market
Bomb and mortar attacks Wednesday across the Iraqi capital and northward in Diyala province left 14 dead and dozens wounded, officials said.

In the deadliest attack, five people were killed and 12 others wounded when a car bomb exploded Wednesday afternoon near the Shorja market in central Baghdad, a Baghdad police official said.

Separately, four people died and 20 others were wounded when mortar rounds slammed into northern Baghdad's Adhamiya Sunni neighborhood.

Also in northern Baghdad, a car bomb blast killed two people and wounded nine in the Bab Muadham commercial area.

In western Baghdad's Mamoun neighborhood, two people were killed and three others were wounded when a car bomb detonated near a communication tower.

In southeastern Baghdad, one Iraqi was killed and six others were wounded when a car bomb exploded on a street, a Baghdad police official said.

North of the capital in Muqtadya, at least 12 Iraqi soldiers were wounded when a suicide bomber detonated a fuel truck near an Iraqi army base, a Diyala Joint Coordination Center official said. Muqtadya is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of Baquba.

On Tuesday, two U.S. soldiers and a Marine died from "wounds sustained due to enemy action" while in Anbar province, the volatile area west of Baghdad, the military said.

Since the start of the Iraq war, 3,077 members of the U.S. military have died. Seven civilian contractors of the Defense Department also have been killed.

Other developments

A string of attacks Tuesday on Shiite pilgrims in Iraq and a mortar strike on a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad killed at least 48 people and wounded more than 100. The violence came on the final day of Ashura, when Shiite Muslims mark the seventh-century martyrdom of the Imam Hussein, the Prophet Mohammed's grandson. (Watch why rising Shiite power raises concerns)

In Sukariya in Salaheddin province, police seized 59 people in anti-terror raids, including three senior leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and a Libyan, a provincial security official said. Two suspected insurgents and a police officer were killed in the raids, the official said.

Iraq is at a "precarious juncture" after nearly four years of war, outgoing intelligence chief John Negroponte said Tuesday. Negroponte, nominated to become deputy secretary of state, said a long-awaited national intelligence estimate on Iraq will be sent to Congress by Monday. And Adm. William Fallon, Bush's pick to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East, warned that "time is short" to reverse the course of the Iraq war. (Full story)
CNN's Barbara Starr and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.main/index.html

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394

Smears for Fears
Wes Clark just got caught up in the rigged rules for discussing Israel-related issues in America.

By Matthew Yglesias
Web Exclusive: 01.23.07
Print Friendly | Email Article
Retired General Wesley Clark is, like me, concerned that the Bush administration is going to launch a war with Iran. Arianna Huffington spoke to him in early January and asked why he was so worried the administration was headed in this direction. According to Huffington's January 4 recounting of Clark's thoughts, he said this: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."
This, of course, is true. I'm Jewish and I don't think the United States should bomb Iran, but Thursday night I was talking to a Jewish friend and she does think the United States should bomb Iran. The Jewish community, in short, is divided on the issue. It's also true that most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it's true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war. And, last, it's true that if you read the Israeli press you'll see that right-wing Israeli politicians are anticipating a military confrontation with Iran. (For example, here's an article about the timing of the selection of a new top dog in the Israeli Defense Forces; Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying that the new leader "will have to straighten the army out, rebuild Israel's deterrence and prepare the defenses against threats, first and foremost, against Iran.")
Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it's a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got … accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism.
James Taranto, who writes the hack "Best of the Web" column for the online version of The Wall Street Journal's hack editorial page, likened Clark's views on this to the notorious anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Scott Johnson of the influential and moronic right-wing Power Line blog argued that "Clark's comments are not simply 'anti-Israel,'" and asked "[i]s it a only a matter only of parochial concern to American Jews that they are now to be stigmatized without consequence in the traditional disgusting terms -- terms that used to result in eviction from the precincts of polite society -- by a major figure in the Democratic Party?"
Needless to say, Clark did not stigmatize American Jews. Indeed, he went out of his way to note that the American Jewish community is divided on the issue. Michael Barone's sneering attack on Clark also managed, almost incidentally, to reveal Barone's own understanding that Clark's remarks are substantially correct. Barone observed that it's "interesting to see a Democratic presidential hopeful denounce 'the New York money people,' people whom Clark spent some time with in 2003-04."
And, indeed, it is interesting, for demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in discussing America's Israel policy. If you're offering commentary that's supportive of America's soi-disant "pro-Israel" forces, as Barone was, it's considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that said forces are influential in the Democratic Party in part because they contribute large sums of money to Democratic politicians who are willing to toe the line. If, by contrast, one observes this fact by way of criticizing the influence of "pro-Israel" forces, you're denounced as an anti-Semite.
Needless to say, the increasingly ridiculous Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, was swiftly located in order to ply his trademark tactic of accusing people of anti-Semitism that he knows perfectly well aren't anti-Semites. As The Jewish Week reported, "The ADL leader told Clark that he had 'bought into conspiratorial bigotry' that increasingly sees Israel, Jews and American Jewish organizations as the driving force behind U.S. involvement in Iraq and Iran." What's more, "Foxman said Clark’s comments are particularly worrisome because of the context, coming in the wake of," among other things, "a book by former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who accused Israel of pushing for war with Iran."
The context, I would say, is worrisome. "Israel" is not a unitary actor, but clearly some Israelis are pushing for war with Iran. More to the point, many American Jewish organizations are pushing for war with Iran. And before Foxman comes to lock me up, he might want to check out his own outfit's website, complete with a section on "The Iranian Threat." Meanwhile, over on AIPAC's site we can learn about the "escalating threat" from Iran. A group called The Israel Project has an Iran Press Kit page, linking only to alarmist takes on the Iranian nuclear issue and to a hawks-only set of expert sources. (Shockingly, none of these organizations are especially concerned that Israel won't join the Non-Proliferation Treaty Framework.)
For another example, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs gave Senator John McCain its "Scoop" Jackson Award in December; in his remarks accepting the award, McCain argued that "[t]he path to future success for Israel will not be an easy one, and there will be a number of difficult issues. Foremost on many minds, is, of course, Iran." He characterized "Tehran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons" as "an unacceptable risk" -- language clearly designed to lay the groundwork for war.
With this last bit, we not only see the accuracy of Clark's remark, but, once again, the stunning hypocrisy of the anti-anti-Semitism brigades. It's clear that McCain, just like Clark, sees American Jewish organizations as key players in the Iran-hawk movement in the United States, and also that he sees concern for Israeli security as motivating those groups. Nobody, however, is going to label McCain a Jew-hating conspiracy theorist -- because, of course, McCain wants to help these groups push the United States into a military confrontation with Iran. Thus, McCain gets an award, and Clark gets called an anti-Semite.
Since Clark would like to have a future in the politics game, he ended up backing down from his remarks, explaining he didn't mean what he said. Mission accomplished for those who smeared him. But would I ever suggest that Democrats have been unduly timid on the Iran issue because they fear crossing powerful "pro-Israel" institutions? Never. Only anti-Semites think stuff like that.
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer.

A Disturbing Review of the 911 Linked Israeli ‘Art Student’ Spy Ring Scandal

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index_np.html?pn=1

Congressman Dennis Kucinich was excellent on BBC World Service this now about warmongering by President Bush in his State of the Union speech earlier tonight:

http://kucinich.us/node/2256#comment-2916

Ex-State Dept. Official Warns of Broad U.S. Attack on Iran

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/23/ex-state-dept-official-warns-of-broad-u-s-attack-on-iran.php

«Babylon-2»: On US-Israeli Plans For a Nuclear War

www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4529

By Dmitriy Baklin
Global Research, January 20, 2007
Strategic Cultural Foundation, Russia

The thunderous salvos of fireworks in celebration of the New 2007 Year have quieted down, and the lengthy Christmas vacations are finally over. On these festive days, heads of all states must have been wishing their peoples peace and prosperity, health and happiness. All of them were probably sincere in saying this. For who, being in power and absolutely sane, would wish to invite disaster?
It depends on the way you look at it, though. The intentions voiced by top US and Israeli executives in December 2006 - January 2007 can hardly be referred to as good. Because intensive preparations for a nuclear missile war cannot be described as a blessing for either their own nations or any other peoples. However, it is the US and Israel that appear to be preparing such a «gift» for the world in the new 2007 year.
Preparations for the New Year celebration have for whatever reason (it would be interesting to find out the actual reason) diverted public attention from the interview which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave on December 11, 2006 to the German TV channel SAT 1. This interview, however, came as a bomb explosion. The Israeli Prime Minister, annoyed by the interviewer’s question about U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ statement that Iran had concerns about Israeli nuclear weapons, answered in exasperation, «You had better ask Gates about it!». After this, declaring that Israel «had never threatened anyone with annihilation, whereas Iran openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map», he said exactly the following, «Can you say that this is the same level, when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel (highlighted by me – D.B.) and Russia?».
In this way, therefore, Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons was finally confirmed at the top Israeli level!
So while the world community has until now been content with Israel's assertions that it will «not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East», Olmert’s words gave the world’s leading politicians a lot to think about.
It now appears that Israeli leaders from Ben-Gurion to Sharon have been hoaxing both the UN Security Council and the IAEA for no less than forty years since the nuclear reactor was built in the Dimona desert, which has never been inspected by these international organizations. Even Moses spent less time leading Jews around the desert.
Israel’s unwillingness to join the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is now viewed in a different light. And as Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has a monopoly on nuclear weapons, the secret Israeli plan for using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities is now becoming a reality.
Unlike Israel, Iran has joined the NPT and signed the additional protocol to the treaty, thus committing itself to unequivocal compliance with all provisions of these international acts. Besides, Iranian nuclear facilities are being created under IAEA’s control.
Of course, Israeli possession of nuclear weapons has been an open secret for more than a decade.
In December 2005, General Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, declared that «Israel had already for a long time – I’m stressing it – really possessed a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons».
A year later, on December 7, 2006, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in testimony to a Senate committee that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, which partly explains Iran’s desire to have nuclear weapons of its own. Notably, it is the first time that a high-ranking US official made a statement on Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, timed to recognition of this fact by the Israeli Prime Minister. Prior to this, the US administration had preferred playing up to Israel in its desire to preserve «non-transparency» of the national uranium project.
Israel’s nuclear program was launched in 1952, and the first Israeli nuclear weapons were produced as far back as 1967-1968 at the nuclear complex in Dimona in the Negev desert, located mostly underground and possessing a full cycle of nuclear weapons production.
Israel has nuclear delivery vehicles – US-built F-15 and F-16 aircraft, as well as three German-built diesel-electric submarines of the same class – Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan, capable of carrying up to 20 surface to surface torpedoes.
Israel also has in its arsenal up to 300 medium-range ballistic missiles Jericho 1 (with a range capability of 500 - 600 km) and Jericho 2 (with a range capability varying, by different estimates, between 1,500 and 3,500 km).
This is more than enough to eliminate the most serious, according to Israeli leaders, Iranian threat – its nuclear weapons production plants. Israeli special services were convinced that Iran would be able to obtain its first nuclear bomb between 2005 and 2007. Now that we are in the critical year 2007, it may only mean, according to experts from Mossad (Foreign intelligence service) and Aman (Military intelligence), that Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region is drawing close to an end. Therefore, one should hurry.
Israel already has experience of destroying nuclear facilities of its unfriendly neighbors. In 1981, the Israelis successfully planned and conducted the so-called operation «Babylon». In the course of this operation, Israeli aircraft bombed the Osirak light-water reactor under construction near Baghdad in Iraq. The Israelis conducted the air raid against Osirak, though it was being built by the French …
The currently planned Israeli attack using tactical nuclear weapons, which may be arbitrarily designated as «Babylon-2», has as its key targets the uranium enrichment centrifuges that may be used in manufacturing nuclear weapons in Natanz, the nuclear reactor and unique underground storage sites for uranium-containing gas in Isfahan, as well as the heavy water reactor in Arak. State and political leaders of Israel believe that destruction of these facilities is going to at least seriously delay implementation of the Iranian nuclear program, if not wipe it out. On the whole, there are up to six identified Iranian nuclear facilities that may become potential targets for elimination by Israeli aggressors.
The Bushehr nuclear power facility in the south of Iran with a 1,000 MW pressurized water reactor being built with Russian assistance is no exception.
Israeli and US representatives have more than once discussed the possibility of such an attack using bunker-buster bombs with nuclear warheads. True, it was said that Israel might only use tactical nuclear weapons in this operation if the US refused to participate, so that Israel would have to face Iran on its own.
No matter how one regards disclosure of Israeli plans for a «preventive» nuclear strike – an information leak meant to put pressure upon Teheran, an attempt to «untie the US hands» or preparation of world public opinion for a nuclear war to be launched by Israel, one thing is clear - Israel is backed by the US.
As far back as in 2000, Israel and the US signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation and scientific exchange in the energy field. This agreement opened access for Israeli scientists to research laboratories of the US Department of Energy and its impressive array of data in the field of nuclear engineering. Signing this agreement, the US actually canceled the restrictions imposed on Israel after it refused to join the NPT.
Doing this, the US, on one hand, ensured itself, with the help of Israel and its «non-transparent» nuclear potential, comprehensive control over the Middle Eastern region. On the other hand, in the event of Israeli nuclear aggression against Iran, which may go beyond the boundaries of the Middle and Near East, the US will wash its hands, affixing the blame to Israel’s intransigently belligerent posture. It is not at all concerned that a considerable group of states may get involved in the conflict, too.
The operation planned by Washington and Tel Aviv is going to be the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945 when the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus starting the first epoch of nuclear wars in the world’s history. And though the TNT equivalent of the bombs Israel plans to use is 15 times less than that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the consequences of their use are going to be terrible.
The thing is not even that Iran may stop its 2.5 million barrels per day oil export or, say, block the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil exports is taken out on a daily basis. Even the bleak prospect of having Iranian anti-ship missiles turn the Persian Gulf into a mass grave for the US Navy group, which is currently deployed there and which may well participate in the strike against Iran, may seem only an overture to a greatest tragedy. Though, for the US, losing even a single aircraft carrier may be equal, in terms of its psychological effect, to the events of September 11, 2001.
It may not be ruled out that Iran – the country which is not called anything but «terrorist №1» in both Israel and the US – may make a retaliatory move, using its Shahab-3 missiles equipped with radiological warheads, better known as warheads of the so-called «dirty» type. Such a warhead may be equipped with 500-700 kg of semi-enriched dustlike uranium concentrate. Even a single missile launch may mean a dozen of Chernobyls for Israel and the US army group – just as for other countries in the Middle East.
Would it not be advisable for «hot heads» in Israel and the US to heed the words of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who referred to Iran’s desire to possess a nuclear potential as an attempt to establish a power balance in the region, noting that Iran needs a nuclear arsenal as deterrence against Israel?
By the way, this is not the first time that these opinions have been voiced in the US. On November 16, 2005, the US National Security Archive disclosed documents dating back to Richard Nixon’s presidential term, which indicate that the US Department of State during the Cold War was seriously concerned that its key Middle Eastern ally might launch a nuclear arms race in the region.
A 1969 memorandum from Assistant Secretary of State Joseph J. Sisco refers to existing intelligence on «Israel’s rapidly developing a capability to produce and deploy nuclear weapons», despite its commitment not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region.
Joseph J. Sisco asked Secretary of State William Rogers to try and curb Israeli ambitions before it is too late. «If this process continues, and it becomes generally assumed that Israel has the bomb, it will have far-reaching and even dangerous implications for the U.S.», —the Assistant Secretary of State wrote. Speaking of the perilous consequences, he especially emphasized that «Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons would do nothing to deter Arab guerrilla warfare…, on the contrary it would add a dangerous new element to Arab-Israel hostility …».
This gives added substance to the warning that came in Dmitry Sedov’s article «2007 to open a new page in the world’s history», in which the author refers to motivations underlying Teheran’s aspirations for nuclear parity with Israel and the likelihood of a regional nuclear conflict.
Dmitry Sedov also refers to ways of avoiding this conflict. If the world community is genuinely interested in finding a solution for this problem, «there immediately emerges an option for establishing a regional nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Under this option, Israel would get an official guarantee of military assistance from the US in the event of a military aggression and would destroy its bombs, whereas Iran would light-heartedly renounce uranium enrichment, buying finished fuel elements from Russia». In this case, however, one would need to «take a step towards settlement of the Middle Eastern problem on principles of equality, which appears unthinkable to the US and Israel. For the following step would mean radical concessions on the part of Israel, which would be the only way to peace, – withdrawal from occupied territories to the boundaries defined by the UN, and establishment of an independent Palestinian state». And this is something to which Washington and Tel Aviv are adamantly opposed.
It should be unambiguously stated that, in the event of an Israeli nuclear attack against Iran, the US will automatically become an accessory of the aggressor in creating nuclear weapons, their proliferation in the Middle East and their use in an armed conflict that cannot help growing into a big nuclear war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Dmitriy Baklin , Strategic Cultural Foundation, Russia , 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JINSA/PNAC Neocon Perle: Bush would approve Iran attack:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/22/jinsa-pnac-neocon-perle-bush-would-approve-iran-attack.php

Iran prepares public for possible clash with the US:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/22/jinsa-pnac-neocon-perle-bush-would-approve-iran-attack.php

smallaxe · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject:

Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs

John Byrne
Published: Thursday February 1, 2007

Citing Pentagon officials, Fox News Channel is reporting that two Iraqi generals are suspected of complicity in a Jan. 20 attack in Karbala, Iraq that killed five US troops.

"There are 2 senior Iraq generals that US officials say are now suspect of involvement in an attack against American forces in Karbala on Jan. 20th," a Fox News host reported on air. "A number of people were killed. These gunmen apparently stormed an Iraqi security dressed like American soldiers and driving SUVs. So again, US officials are saying that 2 senior are suspected of taking part in an insurgent attack that killed 5 American soldiers."

The fake US military convoy that kidnapped and killed 5 soldiers had previously been blamed on Iranian elements.

"We have Pentagon officials telling us this was incredibly sophisticated orchestrated attack, at troubling attack from their perspective," Fox News Reporter Mike Emanuel reports live on air. "There's a great investigation underway trying to figure out exactly how this happened and who may have been behind it. There is some suggestion due to the level of sophistication, planning, coordination, perhaps Iranian agents had been involved in some way. Now we have sources telling us that at least 2 top iraqi generals are the center of this investigation being looked at to see if whether they may not be loyal allies ot the united states, after all. Whether they may be traitors in betraying US forces serving in Iraq trying to help their country."

Originally, the US said the five soldiers had been killed during fighting, but the Associated Press revealed the US statement was a lie.

"It makes you wonder if they are able to pass themselves off as Americans and get into this place in Karbala, could they do further attacks in places like the Green Zone," Emanuel continued. "Driving up in SUVs looking like they are an American security detail or American forces going into other places, other locations and perhaps put more Americans at risk. So, there are a lot of questions at this point. Again, it's early on in the investigation. We're hearing sources whether they're looking at the possibility that Iranian elements, parts of the Iranian government may have been involved. Now, the latest, 2 Iraq generals under suspicion."

More details as they become available.

DEVELOPING...

smallaxe · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject:

Official Lies Over Najaf Battle Exposed
by Dahr Jamail

with Ali al-Fadhily

NAJAF, Iraq - Iraqi government lies over the killing of hundreds of Shi'ites in an attack on Sunday stand exposed by independent investigations carried out by IPS in Iraq.

Conflicting reports had arisen earlier on how and why a huge battle broke out around the small village Zarqa, located just a few kilometers northeast of the Shi'ite holy city Najaf, which is 90 km south of Baghdad.

One thing certain is that when the smoke cleared, more than 200 people lay dead after more than half a day of fighting Sunday Jan. 28. A US helicopter was shot down, killing two soldiers. Twenty-five members of the Iraqi security force were also killed.

"We were going to conduct the usual ceremonies that we conduct every year when we were attacked by Iraqi soldiers," Jabbar al-Hatami, a leader of the al-Hatami Shi'ite Arab tribe told IPS.

"We thought it was one of the usual mistakes of the Iraqi army killing civilians, so we advanced to explain to the soldiers that they killed five of us for no reason. But we were surprised by more gunfire from the soldiers."

The confrontation took place on the Shi'ite holiday of Ashura which commemorates Imam Hussein, grandson of the prophet Muhammad and the most revered of Shi'ite saints. Emotions run high at this time, and self-flagellation in public is the norm.

Many southern Shi'ite Arabs do not follow Iranian-born cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They believe the religious leadership should be kept in the hands of Arab clerics. Al-Hatami and al-Khazaali are two major tribes that do not follow Sistani.

Tribal members from both believe the attack was launched by the central government of Baghdad to stifle growing Shi'ite-Sunni unity in the area.

"Our convoy was close to the al-Hatami convoy on the way to Najaf when we heard the massive shooting, and so we ran to help them because our tribe and theirs are bound with a strong alliance," a 45-year-old man who asked to be referred to as Ahmed told IPS.

Ahmed, a member of the al-Khazali tribe said "our two tribes have a strong belief that Iranians are provoking sectarian war in Iraq which is against the belief of all Muslims, and so we announced an alliance with Sunni brothers against any sectarian violence in the country. That did not make our Iranian-dominated government happy."

The fighting took place on the Diwaniya-Najaf road and spread into nearby date-palm plantations after pilgrims sought refuge there.

"American helicopters participated in the slaughter," Jassim Abbas, a farmer from the area told IPS. "They were soon there to kill those pilgrims without hesitation, but they were never there for helping Iraqis in anything they need. We just watched them getting killed group by group while trapped in those plantations."

Much of the killing was done by US and British warplanes, eyewitnesses said.

Local authorities including the office of Najaf Governor Asaad Abu Khalil who is a member of the pro-Iranian Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) had claimed before the killings that a group of primarily foreign Sunni fighters with links to al-Qaeda had planned to disrupt the Ashura festival by attacking Shi'ite pilgrims and senior ayatollahs in Najaf. The city is the principal seat of religious learning for Shi'ites in Iraq.

Officials claimed that Iraqi security forces had obtained intelligence information from two detained men that had led the Iraqi Scorpion commando squad to prepare for an attack. The intelligence claimed obviously had little impact on how events unfolded.

Minister of Interior Jawad al-Bolani announced to reporters at 9am Sunday morning that Najaf was being attacked by al-Qaeda. Immediately following this announcement the Ministry of National Security (MNS) announced that the dead were members of the Shi'ite splinter extremist group Jund al-Sama (Army of Heaven) who were out to kill senior ayatollahs in Najaf, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Iraq's national security advisor Muaffaq al-Rubaii said just 15 minutes after the MNS announcement that hundreds of Arab fighters had been killed, and that many had been arrested. Rubaii claimed there were Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians and Afghans.

But Governor Khalil's office backed away from its initial claims after the dead turned out to be local Shi'ite Iraqis. Iraqi security officials continue to contradict their own statements. Most officials now say that the dead were Shi'ite extremists supported by foreign powers.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has a pattern of announcing it is fighting terrorists, like its backers in Washington. Many Iraqis in the south now accuse Baghdad of calling them terrorists simply because they refuse to collaborate with the Iranian-dominated government.

Cowboy · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject:

The islamoleft leaps to the defense of the terrorists. Laughing

The terrorists received warning, and still shot down a US helicopter, killing 2 US military.

Attacking Americans is a bad, fatal idea.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Creating the pretext for Iran war