| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:21 pm Post subject: Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come |
| October 17, 2005
Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
by Jorge Hirsch
The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons:
The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities."
According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents – and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them – which it previously had manufactured."
According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies."
In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24 [.pdf], Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements.
Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets.
According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout).
President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program.
The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376-3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons.
Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.
How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so.
Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow.
Iran will respond – how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all.
Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used:
"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."
"Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations…"
"[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies"
"[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…"
"For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…"
"To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations…"
That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran.
The first nuclear bomb used in an act of war after "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should be code-named "Demo" – for "demonstration" that we can do it, don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East, and for the "Democrats" in Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script.
The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression.
Given these prospects, the U.S. government should be doing its utmost to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used?
And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes. Do the majority of American citizens, from whom the authority of the administration is derived, really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest?
The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off. And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents.
There is a rational way to avoid this disaster.
Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job!
The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces.
If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act.
Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649 | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:23 am Post subject: Former Shin Bet Head Tells AIPAC US Might Have to Attack Ira |
| Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:11:15 -0800
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
To:
Subject: Former Shin Bet Head Tells AIPAC US Might Have to Attack Iran
http://www.israelnn.com/print.php3?what=news&id=92054
<http://www.israelnn.com/print.php3?what=news&id=92054>
Arutz Sheva - IsraelNationalNews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send to printer
21:41 Oct-30-05 / 27 Tishrei 5766
Dichter: Military Action Might Be Necessary to Block Iran Nukes
Sunday, October 30, 2005 / 27 Tishrei 5766
(IsraelNN.com) The former head of the Shin Bet security service told a Los Angeles conference on Sunday that the U.S. might have to attack Iran to prevent further nuclear development.
Avi Dichter told the pro-Israel AIPAC conference attendees that he does not believe Iran will end its nuclear development programs without considerable pressure from the U.S. and other Western nations.
Dichter reminded the audience that it was only years after Israel was condemned for attacking Iraq’s nuclear plant in 1981 that the international community realized how necessary to world peace that operation was. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject: Iran Removing 40 Ambassadors From Posts |
| Iran Removing 40 Ambassadors From Posts
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago
Iran's hard-line government said Wednesday it was removing 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of warmer ties with the West, from their posts in a shake-up that comes as the Islamic republic takes a more confrontational international stance.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced the changes to parliament, saying "the missions of more than 40 ambassadors and heads of Iranian diplomatic missions abroad will expire by the end of the year," which is March 20 under the Iranian calendar.
Mottaki, quoted by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, did not specify which ambassadors were among those being removed.
But IRNA said they included the ambassador to London, Mohammad Hossein Adeli, one of Iran's top diplomats and a leading member of the pragmatic foreign policy wing that supports contacts with Europe.
The moves give the new government of ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the chance to purge pro-reform figures brought in by his predecessor, moderate Mohammad Khatami, and install its own supporters.
Ahmadinejad has taken a tougher line on a number of issues, particularly negotiations with Britain, France and Germany over Iran's controversial nuclear program. Hard-liners have criticized Khatami's government for agreeing to freeze much of the country's atomic activities during the talks, and Ahmadinejad already has replaced much of the negotiating team with hard-liners.
The new president, elected in June, also generated a storm of international criticism last week when he called for Israel's eradication, saying it should be "wiped off the map."
Tensions with Europe and the United States over the nuclear issue are high after Iran ended part of its freeze on nuclear activities earlier this year, resuming uranium conversion at a plant in Isfahan. Washington accuses Iran of secretly aiming to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran counters that its nuclear program is for generating electricity.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will review Iran's cooperation on the nuclear issue during a Nov. 24 meeting, and Washington is pressing for Tehran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, where it could face sanctions for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Sanctions, however, are unlikely.
Iran is sending conflicting signals to an international community concerned about its nuclear agenda, granting U.N. inspectors access to a secret military site but also saying it would process a new batch of uranium that could be used to make atomic weapons, diplomats in Vienna, Austria, said Wednesday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.
The diplomats said IAEA experts were allowed to revisit a high-security military site in Parchin as they try to establish whether Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program.
Parchin has been linked by the United States and other nations to alleged experiments linked to nuclear arms. The IAEA had for months been trying to follow up on a visit in January for further checks of buildings and areas within the sprawling military complex as it looks for traces of radioactivity.
Iran also has handed over documents and granted interviews with several senior officials believed linked to black market purchases of uranium enrichment technology, the diplomats said.
Ahmadinejad's victory in June elections sealed the decline of Iran's reform movement and solidified the control of hard-liners over the government. Some Iranians fear Ahmadinejad — a longtime member of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards — will bring back the policies of restrictions at home and confrontation abroad seen after the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
On Wednesday, more than 10,000 demonstrators shouted "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in the largest such demonstration in years.
Hard-liners organize protests at the site annually to mark the anniversary of the Nov. 4, 1979 seizure of the embassy by student militants.
Demonstrators carried a large picture of Ahmadinejad emblazoned with his quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." They burned U.S. and Israeli flags and effigies of President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon. Some wore a traditional Palestinian kaffiyah headdress, symbolizing their readiness to fight Israel.
"We have to continue our confrontation with the United States and Israel. This could help the world get rid of the arrogant powers," the hard-line Jomhuri Eslami daily said in an editorial. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:47 pm Post subject: Remarks by Stephen Hadley to AIPAC |
| Remarks by Stephen Hadley to the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee National Summit 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051031-4.html
"If freedom prevails in Iraq, others in the region -
including Syria and Iran - will be under greater
pressure to open up their repressive political
systems. And that is good news for Israel...But if we
succeed in our broader objectives in the War on Terror
and in Iraq, Israel will be more secure as a result."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/7000%2F20051031%2F1850000001.htm
Bush aide says Iraq withdrawal bad for Israel
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush's national security adviser warned that a hasty US withdrawal from Iraq would embolden extremists who seek "the eventual destruction of Israel."
In remarks prepared for delivery to the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) summit, Stephen Hadley said building democracy where Saddam Hussein's regime once stood would help that staunch US ally.
"If freedom prevails in Iraq, others in the region -- including Syria and Iran -- will be under greater pressure to open up their repressive political systems. And that is good news for Israel," said Hadley.
"For Israel should not be condemned, in the name of stability, to live in a region where despots threaten to 'wipe them off the map,'" he said, quoting comments by hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"The spread of democracy will make the Middle East a safer neighborhood for Israel. An American retreat from Iraq, on the other hand, would only strengthen the terrorists who seek the enslavement of Iraq and the eventual destruction of Israel," said Hadley.
The White House released Hadley's remarks as prepared for delivery via satellite to AIPAC's national summit in Los Angeles. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: EU Accuses Iran of Having Nuke Documents |
| EU Accuses Iran of Having Nuke Documents
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 24 minutes ago
The European Union accused Iran on Thursday of having documents that serve no other purpose than showing how to produce nuclear warheads. It and the United States warned of U.N. Security Council action, even while Iran suggested it was considering a compromise meant to reduce tensions.
Britain, in a statement on behalf of the European Union, offered new negotiations meant to lessen concerns over Tehran's insistence that it must be in full control of uranium enrichment — a possible pathway to nuclear arms.
"But Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity will remain open in all circumstances," said a statement read by Peter Jenkins, the chief British delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, outside a closed meeting of the agency's 35-nation board. Diplomats described the statement as a veiled threat of Security Council referral.
An earlier statement made available to The Associated Press was even more direct.
"Failure to make progress" on easing international concerns about Iran's nuclear program "will hasten the day when the board decides that a report to the Security Council must be made," said that statement, which was toned down before being delivered to the media.
In separate comments, the United States said that Iran cannot avoid referral to the Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but added that Washington and its European allies were delaying such a move to give Tehran a chance to defuse fears it wants to make nuclear arms.
"Iran must understand that the report to the Council is required and will be made at a time of this board's choosing," Gregory L. Shulte, the chief U.S. representative to the Vienna-based IAEA, told the agency's board.
But Washington, he said, is ready to wait in hopes that "Iran will reverse course and demonstrate" cooperation both with an IAEA probe of its nuclear activities and an international attempt to re-engage it in talks meant to reduce fears about its intentions.
In comments both to media and inside the closed board meeting, Jenkins focused on new revelations contained in a report drawn up for the board meeting by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, including a finding showing the Iranians in possession of what appeared to be drawings of the core of an atomic warhead.
In his statement to the board, also made available to the AP, Jenkins said that the documents have "no other application than the production of nuclear warheads."
"This reinforces earlier concerns aroused by possible indications of Iranian weaponization activity," he told the board, alluding to a series of findings over the past three years by IAEA experts suggesting that Iran may have experimented with procedures meant to make nuclear weapons.
The main issue is Iran's refusal to give up its right to enrichment, which can be used to generate power but also to make weapons-grade material for nuclear warheads. Iran says it wants only to make fuel, but international concern is growing that the program could be misused.
A plan floated in recent weeks foresees moving any Iranian enrichment plan to Russia. There, in theory, Moscow would supervise the process to make sure enrichment is only to fuel levels.
But Iran insists it wants to master the complete fuel cycle domestically. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in Tehran on Wednesday that, while his country was willing to resume formal talks with key European powers on its nuclear program, "naturally we aim to have enrichment on Iran's territory."
On Thursday, however, a senior Iranian diplomat appeared to soften his country's stance.
"We are considering it," Mohammed Mehdi Akhounzadeh Basti, the chief Iranian delegate to the IAEA, told The AP when asked about the plan to move Iran's enrichment program to Russia.
A separate Iranian statement prepared for the board meeting accused the "U.S. and terrorist groups" of fabricating "false allegations against Iran" in suggesting it was interested in nuclear arms.
It described the find of the warhead documents as a "minor issue" that should not detract from the "tremendous progress achieved by (the) joint cooperation of (the) IAEA and Iran" in clearing up questions about Tehran's nuclear program. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:15 am Post subject: AIPAC Has Been Under Investigation Since Early 1999 |
| Subject: AIPAC Has Been Under Investigation Since Early 1999
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2005/0511019.html
Washington Report, November 2005, page 19
Special Report
According to Indictment, AIPAC Has Been Under Investigation Since Early 1999
By Andrew I. Killgore
Who launched the current FBI investigation of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israel's principal lobby in the United States? The original version had it that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was told about the investigation soon after President George W. Bush began his first term of office. That was in early 2001.
According to a story by Laura Rozen in The Nation of July 14, 2005, President Bush, after long refusing to meet with PLO chief Yasser Arafat, had decided to meet Arafat at the September 2001 opening session of the United Nations General Assembly “if progress were made in high level talks between Palestinians and the Israelis.” Citing a Sept. 9, 2001 article by Jane Perlez in The New York Times, Rozen said that, after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush/Arafat meeting never took place. Rice, reportedly concerned over the leak of sensitive administration intelligence in the Perlez article, then demanded an FBI investigation. This meant that the investigation began in early September 2001.
But from the Aug. 4 indictment of former AIPAC foreign policy director Steve Rosen and former AIPAC Iran specialist Keith Weissman, it now appears that Rosen has been under FBI surveillance since early 1999. Specifically, the indictment says, Rosen talked on April 13, 1999 with “Foreign Official 1,” an Israeli, disclosing “codeword protected intelligence.”
The indictment of Rosen and Weissman triggered a statement by “Mideast analyst” Kenneth Pollack that he is one of the two (U.S.) government officials referred to in the Rosen and Weissman indictment as “USGO-1”; the other official, “USGO-2”, was identified by “sources” as David Satterfield, a former deputy assistant secretary of state. Pollack—husband of CNN reporter Andrea Koppel and son-in-law of ABC's Ted Koppel—formerly worked as a staffer on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council. The Pollack-Satterfield story is carried in the Aug. 31 edition of Israel's Jerusalem Post. Pollack denies giving AIPAC any classified information.
Presumably the Israel lobby's political clout would preclude an FBI investigation of the AIPAC colossus unless it had the president's approval. If the wording of Rosen's indictment is correct, it means that the investigation was ongoing during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who was all but surrounded by Zionists. The fact that the investigation is continuing means that President Bush is aware of it and, so far, approving it.
After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush/Arafat meeting never took place.
Rosen is a very, very big fish in the Israel/AIPAC Fifth Column that subverts U.S. Middle East policy. He expanded AIPAC's focus from the Congress to the State Department, the Pentagon, the White House—and to the Republican Party. According to The Washington Post of May 19, 2005, “For more than two decades Rosen has been the mainstay of AIPAC and the architect of the group's ever-increasing clout. Though Rosen is listed below Executive Director Howard Kohr on AIPAC's organizational chart, people familiar with AIPAC's history say that Kohr is a protégé of Rosen's and got that job with his help. Kohr declined to be interviewed about Rosen. ‘He [Rosen] is a quiet guy,’ said M.J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, another pro-Israel group, and a former AIPAC employee. ‘But everyone knows he's the brains behind the outfit.’”
In the above-mentioned Nation article, Rozen spoke of a “chill” in the media world from the jailing of The New York Times’ Judith Miller, and the FBI investigation of AIPAC. “The danger,” Rozen wrote, “is that this would enable the Bush administration to shape policies with even less consultation from the public and Congress.” David Ignatius took up the same “chill” line in his Aug. 24 Washington Post op-ed.
The chill effect is based on a benevolent view of AIPAC as contributing to an open debate of American foreign policy formulation. Others view AIPAC as the “800-pound gorilla” that squeezes U.S. policy into a painfully narrow Zionist-centric focus of “Israel right-or-wrong,” and “America take the hindmost.”
This 800-pound AIPAC controls some three dozen misleadingly-named pro-Israel political action committees that can and do give $100,000 to a “good” electoral candidate or withhold any money at all from a “bad” candidate. Names such as Delaware Valley PAC, Florida Congressional Committee, Georgia Peach and St. Louisians for Better Government contain no hint of Israel-Firstism, but are all part of the Israel lobby. The definition of “good” or “bad” is based entirely on whether the candidate votes, or will vote, on issues important to Israel, as defined by AIPAC. The mildest criticism of Israel earns a “bad” record, and automatic opposition by AIPAC.
The 800-pound AIPAC generously offers to provide a senator or congressman with a “free” intern for his or her office who, of course, reports back to AIPAC any slippage in support for Israel. Any reluctance to accept an intern arouses suspicion that the elected official is a secret “anti-Semite.”
AIPAC's Placement Service
This AIPAC works diligently to place neocons at the Pentagon, the White House (especially on the National Security Council staff) and State Department, and provides “experts” to testify on critical television programs. One such example is the placing of neocon Douglas Feith as under secretary of defense at the Pentagon. Feith created a private intelligence service, the office of Special Plans (OSP), which fed outlandish bits of intelligence to the White House. The OSP “proved” that Iraq had non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Feith finally has resigned his position.
Another example was the placing of the noisome neocon John Bolton as under secretary of state. Bolton is now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under an interim recess appointment.
The 800-pound AIPAC includes the Israel lobby's hometown newspaper, The Washington Post, whose journalists never write a critical word about Israel, and which recently tried to bury a story about the FBI investigation of Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin by publishing it in the “Metro” section.
This AIPAC is like a parallel government in Washington—except that it fights any American effort that Israel wants fought. It is a parallel government whose spiritual heart is in Tel Aviv, not in Washington, DC. The trials of Franklin and former AIPAC honchos Rosen and Weissman, if they occur as scheduled in January 2006, may reveal the true subversive face of AIPAC—and, finally, make it possible for the U.S. to adopt Middle East policies that promote its own interests.
Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: |
| AIPAC Israel firster traitors to America pushing US to attack Iran:
http://www.aipac.org/pc2006/ | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
