| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:08 pm Post subject: Beeman: US to Attack Iran Soon? |
| From: Carol Moore in DC <endviolence@carolmoore.net>
Date: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:15 am
Subject: Beeman: US to Attack Iran Soon?
This article flawed by not talking about Israel's determined need to
bomb the Bushehr plant before it receives nuclear materials in late
fall, early winter, like they did the Iraqi plant in the 1980s. And then
there is the complicated relation of an Iran war to Israel's coming
problems getting settlers out of Gaza. I'd assume they'd wait til that
was done -- or abandoned as a project -- so August - September seems
like more of a possibility. However, with Bush/Sharon/Neocons eager to
invade another country and on hair trigger alert, it doesn't take much
to get a war going. And what a great excuse to re-start the draft!! CM
_________________
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=9da0bcd682e7e4b57a\
d05d619b4a18c3
News Analysis: U.S. Attack on Iran May Be in the Cards
June 28, 2005
By WILLIAM O.BEEMAN Pacific News Service
TEHRAN, Iran--The United States may still attack Iran, and for all the
wrong reasons.
Two recent analyses, both appearing a day before Iranians elected former
Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency on June 23, reveal
how this may happen and what the logic behind such an attack may be.
The first analysis, by former United Nations nuclear arms inspector
Scott Ritter and distributed through the Al Jazeera Web site, claims
that the U.S. assault on Iran has already begun. Ritter asserts that the
terrorist organization, the Mujaheddin-e Khalg (known as the MEK or MKO
in the West) is operating as a strike force under CIA direction, and
that the United States is preparing to stage military attacks with U.S.
troops from the neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan.
The second analysis appears in the Boston Globe. Ray Takeyh, senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, claims that the "counter
reform" movement that led to Ahmadinejad's victory at the polls is
entirely the doing of Iranian chief jurisprudent Ali Khamene'i. Takeyh's
analysis echoes an infamous paper issued by the Committee on the Present
Danger--an organization of ex-Cold Warriors that has retooled itself as
an anti-terrorist organization. That report, issued Dec. 20, 2004, was
entitled "Iran: A New Approach," and was authored by Mark Palmer and
George Schultz. Its main point was to paint Khamene'i as a Saddam-style
dictator.
Both of these analyses have inherent flaws, but taken together they
spell something quite ominous. Ritter's pronouncement that the attack is
already underway seems premature, despite the fact that Seymour Hersh
predicted that it would happen about now in "The Coming Wars" in the New
Yorker on Jan. 24 and 31 of this year. But he does appear to be
reporting on movement that significant elements in the Bush
administration favor, and for which they may have laid the groundwork.
There are a lot of random facts that lend credence to Ritter's claims.
Last year, there were fake elections in Azerbaijan. The ex-dictator of
that country, octogenarian Haidar Aliev was rumored to have died two
months before the election. The installation of his unqualified
ne'er-do-well son, Ilham, to applause from the Bush administration
allowed the completion of an oil pipeline from the Caspian region across
former Soviet Georgia to Turkey, bypassing Iran.
Additionally, there have been continued contacts between Iranian
Azerbaijani separatist Mahmudali Chehregani and the Bush administration.
Moreover, there are apparently real plans for the Bush administration to
establish a military base in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the better to
stage the kind of attack on Iran about which Ritter is writing.
There is continued administration contact and support for the MEK, and
support from a number of U.S. senators and congresspeople. Ritter's
scenario begins to look probable, if not real.
However, Takeyh's piece (along with the paper from the Committee on the
Present Danger) is the more dangerous of the two analyses, because of
its attribution of a genuine social movement to a single person. This
makes it tempting for administration hawks in possession of limited
intelligence (of all sorts), and who are susceptible to the avalanche of
neoconservative blather on Iranian politics to think that toppling
Khamene'i will bring the whole Islamic Republic down like a house of
cards. This is truly dangerous thinking, and it is blatantly not in the
long-term interests of the United States or Iran for the U.S. government
to act upon such a flawed assumption.
The election results took almost all Iranian analysts by surprise.
However, this development should not have been unforeseen.
Iran is still engaged with internal revolutionary dialog. The original
Revolution of 1978-79 was a drive for purification of the Iranian soul
as much as anything else. This need for spiritual and moral purity was
the element that engaged the middle and upper classes in the end,
encouraging them to oust the shah against their own economic interests.
The pull of the spiritual is obviously still strong in Iran, and
Ahmadinejad has been able to embody this successfully in his image of
simplicity, humility and spirituality. He further combines his image
with an economic message that promises that the fruits of the
revolution--namely the elevation of the mostazefin (downtrodden)--can
still be achieved.
Ahmadinejad's persona and his message are clearly irresistible to people
who see the original ideals of the revolution slipping away through the
increasingly Westernized behavior and sensibilities of the salons and
boutiques of North Tehran. In short, the social forces that brought
Ahmadinejad to the presidency are real, broad and clearly very powerful.
Any American move to attack Iran, or to try to achieve regime change
through the narrow measure of trying to topple Khamene'i or any limited
group of individuals will fail. The Iranian public supporting
Ahmadinejad and what he represents will reject any replacement for the
current government, and the rest of the Iranian population will consider
anything initiated by the United States to be tainted.
The day when Washington will finally try to understand Iran on its own
terms may come. But the world may have to wait for a very long time for
this to take place.
William O. Beeman observed the Iranian presidential elections from
Tehran. He is professor of anthropology and director of Middle East
Studies at Brown University. His forthcoming book is The 'Great Satan'
vs. 'Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other?
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:13 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:12 pm Post subject: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel for Bushehr Power Plant in Fe |
| From: Carol Moore in DC <endviolence@carolmoore.net>
Date: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:06 pm
Subject: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel for Bushehr Power Plant in Few Months
So Israel has to hurry up and get the US to bomb it's nuclear facilities
before the biggest plant receives its fuel. ;-(
http://mosnews.com/news/2005/06/23/iranrusfuel.shtml
Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel for Bushehr Power Plant in Few Months —
Iranian Official
Created: 23.06.2005 12:30 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:57 MSK
The first delivery of Russian nuclear fuel for Iran’s first nuclear
power reactor in the southwestern Iranian city of Bushehr will take
place within months, a senior Iranian atomic energy official was quoted
by Al Jazeera as saying.
The 1,000 MW reactor is 84 percent complete and commissioning will start
by the end of 2006, Asadollah Saboury, the Atomic Energy Organization’s
vice president said during a visit by journalists to the plant,
construction of which first started in the 1970s.
“The fuel is in Russia and ready to be transported, and it will be
delivered soon but the exact date will remain confidential,” he added.
Asked when the fuel will arrive in Iran, he replied: “God Willing, in a
few months!”
Iran and Russia signed a landmark fuel accord earlier this year, paving
the way for the firing up of the station in southern Iran, a project the
United States claims is being used as a guise for weapons development.
According to the deal, which capped an 800-million-dollar contract to
build and bring the Bushehr plant on line, Russia, which has been facing
mounting U.S. pressure to halt nuclear cooperation with Iran, will
provide the reactor, the first of what Iran hopes will be up to 20
similar reactors, with the necessary nuclear fuel on condition that Iran
sends back spent fuel.
Saboury asserted the arrangement left no room for Iran diverting the
fuel to military purposes.
“Bushehr is entirely under the supervision of the IAEA (International
Atomic Energy Agency). The fuel will be verified before it is sent to
Iran and the IAEA inspectors will be here to open the seals,” he said.
Washington, backed by Israel, has repeatedly claimed that the Islamic
Republic is covertly trying to build atomic weapons, charges Tehran
denies.
Russian diplomats say the United States has been trying to halt Moscow’s
cooperation with Iran’s nuclear ambitions “on a daily basis” - but
Russia is set to build a second reactor at Bushehr along with plants at
other locations.
Iran’s nuclear program is crucial for the country to meet increased
energy demands from a burgeoning population. The country is also going
to obtain the technology for producing fuel.
Under a deal between Tehran and the European Union, trying to persuade
Iran to suspend its nuclear program, the Islamic republic agreed to
suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment. Yet it asserts it
will never give up its plans to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle, and
warned that the suspension would not last much longer.
Asked how long it would take Iran to start making enriched uranium once
the suspension was lifted, Saboury said: “Considering the existing
situation, I can tell you (it would be) very few years. It is not in the
range of months.” | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
