| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:13 pm Post subject: Israel's War Deadline/Iran in the Crosshairs |
| Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran:
http://counterpunch.org/christison12292005.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/browse_frm/thread/611afbc821f8ed3f/79c1df0db6575182#79c1df0db6575182
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 09:03:31 -0800
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: Israel's War Deadline/Iran in the Crosshairs By JAMES PETRAS]
This is an important article by James Petras which challenges the notion that "official" Washington and Israel's global an security interests are one and the same. That the push for war against Iran by the scores of pro-Israel lobbying groups has been totally ignored by the anti-war movement as their push for war against Iraq was equally ignored and, since, vigorously denied, is unfortunately, another testament to how deeply support for Israel or the fear of provoking "antisemitism" by its "leadership" and within its ranks has left the movement, such as it is under the circumstances, not only useless, but an impediment to bringing the issues that Petras describes below to the American people.
"The principal result will be a huge escalation of war throughout the Middle East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the military forces that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and committed military and paramilitary forces could be expected to cross into Iraq. Iraqi Shiites sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most likely break their ties with Washington and go into combat. US military bases, troops and clients would be under fierce attack. US military casualties would multiply. All troop withdrawal plans would be disrupted. The 'Iraqization' strategy would disintegrate....
"Here in the United States there are few if any influential organized lobbies challenging the pro-war Israel lobby either from the perspective of working for coexistence in the Middle East or even in defending US national interests when they diverge from Israel. Although numerous former diplomats, generals, intelligence officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security advisers and State Department professionals have publicly denounced the Iran war agenda and even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their newspaper ads and media interviews have not been backed by any national political organization that can compete for influence in the White House and Congress.
"As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances."
http://www.counterpunch.com/petras12242005.html
Weekend Edition
December 24/25, 2005
Israel's War Deadline
Iran in the Crosshairs
By JAMES PETRAS
Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised as Israel's forthcoming military attack against Iran. When the Israeli Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear energy program, he said "Two thousand kilometers" the distance of an air assault.
More specifically Israeli military sources reveal that Israel's current and probably next Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's armed forces to prepare for air strikes on uranium enrichment sites in Iran According to the London Times the order to prepare for attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to the Chief of Staff. During the first week in December, "sources inside the special forces command confirmed that 'G' readiness the highest state for an operation was announced" (Times, December 11, 2005).
On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that in view of Teheran's nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions". In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by the end of March, the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the international effort has run its course".
In other words, if international diplomatic negotiations fail to comply with Israel's timetable, Israel will unilaterally, militarily attack Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate for Prime Minister, stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then when I form the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections) we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor." In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.
Even the pro-Labor newspaper, Haaretz, while disagreeing with the time and place of Netanyahu's pronouncements, agreed with its substance. Haaretz criticized "(those who) publicly recommend an Israeli military option" because it "presents Israel as pushing (via powerful pro-Israel organizations in the US) the United States into a major war." However, Haaretz adds "Israel must go about making its preparations quietly and securely not at election rallies." (Haaretz, December 6, 2005). Haaretz's position, like that of the Labor Party, is that Israel not advocate war against Iran before multi-lateral negotiations are over and the International Atomic Energy Agency makes a decision.
Israeli public opinion apparently does not share the political elite's plans for a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. A survey in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, reported by Reuters (December 16, 2005) shows that 58 per cent of the Israelis polled believed the dispute over Iran's nuclear program should be handled diplomatically while only 36 per cent said its reactors should be destroyed in a military strike.
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran. The thinking behind this date is to heighten the pressure on the US to force the sanctions issue in the Security Council. The tactic is to blackmail Washington with the "war or else" threat, into pressuring Europe (namely Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia) into approving sanctions. Israel knows that its acts of war will endanger thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, and it knows that Washington (and Europe) cannot afford a third war at this time.
The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
A March date also focusses the political activities of the pro-Israel organizations in the United States. The major pro-Israel lobbies have lined up a majority in the US Congress and Senate to push for the UN Security Council to implement economic sanctions against Iran or, failing that, endorse Israeli "defensive" action.
On the side of the Israeli war policy are practically all the major and most influential Jewish organizations, the pro-Israeli lobbies, their political action committees, a sector of the White House, a majority of subsidized Congressional representatives and state, local and party leaders. On the other side are sectors of the Pentagon, State Department, a minority of Congressional members, a majority of public opinion, a minority of American Jews and the majority of active and retired military commanders who have served or are serving in Iraq.
Most discussion in the US on Israel's war agenda has been dominated by the pro-Israeli organizations that transmit the Israeli state positions. The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward, has reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the Forward, "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (December 9, 2005).
Further stark differences occurred during the semi-annual strategic dialog between Israeli and US security officials, in which the Israelis opposed a US push for regime change in Syria, fearing a possible, more radical Islamic regime. Israeli officials also criticized the US for forcing Israel to agree to open the Rafah border crossing and upsetting their stranglehold on the economy in Gaza.
Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations immediately echoed the Israeli state line. Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the Conference, lambasted Washington for a "failure of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, December 9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following Israel's demands by delaying referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for sanction. Hoenlan then turned on French, German and British negotiators accusing them of "appeasement and weakness", and of not having a "game plan for decisive action" presumably for not following Israel's 'sanction or bomb them' game plan.
The role of AIPAC, the Conference and other pro-Israeli organizations as transmission belts for Israel's war plans was evident in their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium for non-military purposes under international supervision. AIPAC's rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons" an argument which flies in the face of all known intelligence data (including Israel's) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10 years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry.
AIPAC's unconditional and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and "pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005).
Leading US spokesmen for Israel opposed President Bush's instruction to his Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khaklilzad, to open a dialog with Iran's Ambassador to Iraq. In addition, Israel's official "restrained" reaction to Russia's sale to Teheran of more than a billion dollars worth of defensive anti-aircraft missiles, which might protect Iran from an Israeli air strike, was predictably echoed by the major Jewish organizations in the US.
Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade (Jewish Times/ Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005). In line with its policy of forcing a US confrontation with Iran, AIPAC, the Israeli PACs (political action committees) and the Conference of Presidents have successfully lined up a majority of Congress people to challenge what they describe as the "appeasement" of Iran.
Representative Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who has the dubious distinction of being a collaborator with Cuban exile terrorist groups and unconditional backer of Israel's war policy, is chairwoman of the US House of Representative Middle East subcommittee. From that platform she has denounced "European appeasement and arming the terrorist regime in Teheran". She boasted that her Iran sanctions bill has the support of 75 per cent of the members of Congress and that she is lining up additional so-sponsors.
Despite pro-Israeli attacks on US policy for its 'weakness' on Iran, Washington has moved as aggressively as circumstances permit. Facing European opposition to an immediate confrontation (as AIPAC and Israeli politicians demand) Washington supports European negotiations but imposes extremely limiting conditions, namely a rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.
The European "compromise" of forcing Iran to turn over the enrichment process to a foreign country (Russia), is not only a violation of its sovereignty, but is a policy that no other country using nuclear energy practices. Given this transparently unacceptable "mandate", it is clear that Washington's 'support for negotiations' is a device to provoke an Iranian rejection, and a means of securing Europe's support for a Security Council referral for international sanctions.
Despite the near unanimous support and widespread influence of the major Jewish organizations, 20 per cent of American Jews do not support Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians. Even more significantly, 61 per cent of Jews almost never talk about Israel or defend Israel in conversation with non-Jews (Jerusalem Post, Dec 1, 2005). Only 29 per cent of Jews are active promoters of Israel. The Israel First crowd represents less than a third of the Jewish community. In fact, there is more opposition to Israel among Jews than there is in the US Congress. Having said that, however, most Jewish critics of Israel are not influential in the big Jewish organizations and the Israel lobby, excluded from the mass media and mostly intimidated from speaking out, especially on Israel's war preparations against Iran.
The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat
The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has categorically denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, let along the United States. According to Haaretz (12/14/05), Halutz stated that it would take Iran time to be able to produce a nuclear bomb which he estimated might happen between 2008 and 2015.
Israel's Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and the Likud war propaganda is an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor Party officialsaccused Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and other defense officials of using the Iran issue in their election campaigns in an effort to divert public debate from social issues".
In a message directed at the Israeli Right but equally applicable to AIPAC and the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US, Labor member of the Knesset, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer rejected electoral warmongering: "I hope the upcoming elections won't motivate the prime minister and defense minister to stray from government policy and place Israel on the frontlines of confrontation with Iran. The nuclear issue is an international issue and there is no reason for Israel to play a major role in it" (Haaretz, December 14, 2005).
Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no proof that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized Israeli and US war plans indirectly by warning that a "military solution would be completely un-productive".
More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a nuclear power plant". Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, stated "America can take part in the international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005).
Iran also plans to build several other nuclear power plants with foreign help. This Iranian call for foreign assistance is hardly the strategy of a country trying to conduct a covert atomic bomb program, especially one directed at involving one of its principal accusers.
The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of uranium, not even reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn will take still a number of years, and overcoming many complex technical problems before it can build a bomb. There is no factual basis for arguing that Iran represents a nuclear threat to Israel or to the US forces in the Middle East.
Scores of countries with nuclear reactors by necessity use enriched uranium. The Iranian decision to advance to processing enriched uranium is its sovereign right as it is for all countries, which possess nuclear reactors in Europe, Asia and North America. Israel and AIPAC's resort to the vague formulation of Iran's potential nuclear capacity is so open-ended that it could apply to scores of countries with a minimum scientific infrastructure.
The European Quartet has raised a bogus issue by evading the issue of whether or not Iran has atomic weapons or is manufacturing them and focused on attacking Iran's capacity to produce nuclear energy namely the production of enriched uranium. The Quartet has conflated enriched uranium with a nuclear threat and nuclear potential with the danger of an imminent nuclear attack on Western countries, troops and Israel. The Europeans, especially Great Britain, have two options in mind: To impose an Iranian acceptance of limits on its sovereignty, more specifically on its energy policy; or to force Iran to reject the arbitrary addendum to the Non-Proliferation Agreement and then to propagandize the rejection as an indication of Iran's evil intention to create atomic bombs and target pro-Western countries.
The Western media would echo the US and European governments position that Iran was responsible for the breakdown of negotiations. The Europeans would then convince their public that since "reason" failed, the only recourse it to follow the US to take the issue to the Security Council and approve international sanctions against Iran.
The US then would attempt to pressure Russia and China to vote in favor of sanctions or to abstain. There is reason to doubt that either or both countries would agree, given the importance of the multi-billion dollar oil, arms, nuclear and trade deals between Iran and these two countries. Having tried and failed in the Security Council, the US and Israel would, on the scenario of the War Party, move toward a military attack. An air attack on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities would entail the bombing of heavily populated as well as remote regions leading to large-scale loss of life.
The principal result will be a huge escalation of war throughout the Middle East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the military forces that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and committed military and paramilitary forces could be expected to cross into Iraq. Iraqi Shiites sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most likely break their ties with Washington and go into combat. US military bases, troops and clients would be under fierce attack. US military casualties would multiply. All troop withdrawal plans would be disrupted. The 'Iraqization' strategy would disintegrate.
Most likely new terrorist incidents would occur in Western Europe, North America, and Australia and against US multinationals
Sanctions on Iran would not work, because oil is a scarce and essential commodity. China, India and other fast-growing Asian countries would balk at a boycott. Turkey and other Muslim countries would not cooperate. The sanction policy would be destined to failure; its only result to raise the price of oil even higher.
Here in the United States there are few if any influential organized lobbies challenging the pro-war Israel lobby either from the perspective of working for coexistence in the Middle East or even in defending US national interests when they diverge from Israel. Although numerous former diplomats, generals, intelligence officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security advisers and State Department professionals have publicly denounced the Iran war agenda and even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their newspaper ads and media interviews have not been backed by any national political organization that can compete for influence in the White House and Congress.
As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances.
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). His new book with Henry Veltmeyer, Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina, will be published in October 2005. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu
Unabridged version of above article by James Petras is included at following URL:
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005/12/james-petras-israels-war-with-iran.html
Treason at a high level: Pentagon Zionists, AIPAC and Israel
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/09/08/treason-in-high-places-pentagon-zionists-aipac-and-israel.php
Fw: Israel is the reason America is at war:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/12/25/fw-israel-is-the-reason-america-is-at-war.php
JINSA Israel firsters: 'IRAQ DOWN, IRAN LEFT TO GO' :
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/jinsa-israel-firsters-iraq-down-iran-left-to-go.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran
Wayne Madsen Report
January 2, 2006
Wayne Madsen
January 2, 2006 -- Intelligence indications and warnings abound as Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran.
Intelligence and military sources in the United States and abroad are reporting on various factors that indicate a U.S. military hit on Iranian nuclear and military installations, that may involve tactical nuclear weapons, is in the final stages of preparation. Likely targets for saturation bombing are the Bushehr nuclear power plant (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present), a uranium mining site in Saghand near the city of Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs, a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant in Lashkar Abad, and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak.
Primary target: Bushehr nuclear reactor and hundreds of Russian technicians
Other first targets would be Shahab-I, II, and III missile launch sites, air bases (including the large Mehrabad air base/international airport near Tehran), naval installations on the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, command, control, communications and intelligence facilities. Secondary targets would include civilian airports, radio and TV installations, telecommunications centers, government buildings, conventional power plants, highways and bridges, and rail lines. Oil installations and commercial port facilities would likely be relatively untouched by U.S. forces in order to preserve them for U.S. oil and business interests.
There has been a rapid increase in training and readiness at a number of U.S. military installations involved with the planned primarily aerial attack. These include a Pentagon order to Fort Rucker, Alabama, to be prepared to handle an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 trainees, including civilian contractors, who will be deployed for Iranian combat operations. Rucker is home to the US Army's aviation training command, including the helicopter training school.
In addition, there has been an increase in readiness at nearby Hurlburt Field in Florida, the home of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command. The U.S. attack on Iran will primarily involve aviation (Navy, Air Force, Navy-Marine Corps) and special operations assets.
There has also been a noticeable increase in activity at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California, a primary live fire training activity located in a desert and mountainous environment similar to target areas in Iran.
From European intelligence agencies comes word that the United States has told its NATO allies to be prepared for a military strike on Iranian nuclear development and military installations.
On November 17, 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin spent seven hours in secret discussions with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the the opening ceremonies in Samsun, Turkey for the Russian-Turkish underwater Blue Stream natural gas pipeline, festivities also attended by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
According to sources knowledgeable about the meeting, Erdogan promised Putin, who has become a close friend, that Turkey would not support the use of its bases by the United States in a military attack on Iran. That brought a series of high level visits to Turkey by Bush administration officials, including CIA chief Porter Goss, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Although Erdogan listened to Goss's and Rice's pleas for Turkish logistical, political, and intelligence help for an attack on Iran and Turkish Army Chief Yasar Buyukanit heard much the same from Pentagon officials during his recent trip to Washington, the word is that Putin now has enough clout in Ankara to scuttle any use of Turkey by the U.S. for an attack on Iran. [Mueller delivered Ankara intelligence "proof" of Iranian backing for Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas in Turkey. Intelligence agencies and business intelligence units around the world are now discounting any intelligence coming from the Bush administration as neocon propaganda invented by think tanks and discredited intelligence agencies in Washington, Tel Aviv-Herzliya, and Jerusalem].
A U.S. Attack on Iran: The Perfect Storm for wider nuclear conflict
U.S. political and military officials have also approached Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Oman, and Azerbaijan seeking their support for a U.S. attack on Iran. Ina replay of the phony pre-war intelligence on Iraq, Washington is trying to convince various countries that a link exists between Iran and "Al Qaeda."
Polish intelligence sources report that Poland's Defense Minister Radek Sikorski assured Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of Poland's support for any U.S. strike against Iran. Sikorski is a former American Enterprise Institute colleague of such neo-cons as Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, and Lynne Cheney, the so-called "Second Lady" of the United States. Sikorski and Polish Foreign Minister Stefan Meller assured Rumsfeld and Rice, respectively, that Poland would stand by the United States during the split in NATO that will occur as a result of the American strike. Polish intelligence sources, who are unhappy with the arrangement of the new right-wing government in Warsaw with the Bush administration, leaked the information about the recent U.S. demarche to NATO in Brussels about preparation for the attack.
Similar intelligence "leaks" about the U.S. attack plans were also leaked to the German magazine Der Spiegel.
European intelligence sources also report that the recent decision by Putin and Russia's state-owned Gazprom natural gas company to cut supplied of natural gas to Ukraine was a clear warning by Putin to nations like Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Moldova, France, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, and Germany that it would do the same if they support the U.S. attack on Iran. Gazprom natural gas is supplied, via pipelines in Ukraine, from Russia and Turkmenistan to countries in Eastern and Western Europe. The Bush administration charged Russia with using gas supplies as a "political tool."
Putin has additional leverage on Western Europe since former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder accepted an appointment to the board of a joint Russian-German North European Gas Pipeline Consortium that is controlled by Gazprom. The pipeline will bring Russian gas to Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands, and Britain, giving Putin additional leverage over Washington in Europe.
Southeast Asian intelligence sources report that Burma's (Myanmar's) recent abrupt decision to move its capital from Rangoon (Yangon) to remote Pyinmana, 200 miles to the north, is a result of Chinese intelligence warnings to its Burmese allies about the effects of radiation resulting from a U.S. conventional or tactical nuclear attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. There is concern that a series of attacks on Iranian nuclear installations will create a Chernobyl-like radioactive cloud that would be caught up in monsoon weather in the Indian Ocean.
Rangoon (Yangon) capital moved 200 miles north over fears of monsoon season Iran nuclear fallout?
Low-lying Rangoon lies in the path of monsoon rains that would continue to carry radioactive fallout from Iran over South and Southeast Asia between May and October. Coastal Indian Ocean cities like Rangoon, Dhaka, Calcutta, Mumbai, Chennai, and Colombo would be affected by the radioactive fallout more than higher elevation cities since humidity intensifies the effects of the fallout. Thousands of government workers were given only two days' notice to pack up and leave Rangoon for the higher (and dryer) mountainous Pyinmana.
In neighboring West Bengal, the leftist government and its national leftist allies around the country are planning massive demonstrations during Bush's upcoming trip to India. They are protesting the war in Iraq as well as the threats against Iran.
Reports from Yemen indicate that western oil companies are concerned about U.S. intentions in Iran since the southern Arabian country catches the edge of the monsoon rains that could contain radioactive fallout from an attack, endangering their workers in the country.
The Bush administration aborted last minute plans to attack Iranian nuclear and political installations prior to the 2004 presidential election. On October 9, Rumsfeld met with defense minister colleagues on the now decommissioned USS John F. Kennedy in the Persian Gulf to seek support for the attack. That meeting has been confirmed by the Danish Defense Minister who was in attendance, however, the topic of the meeting was not discussed. According to U.S. naval personnel on board the Kennedy, a special "war room" was set up to coordinate the attack. Britain, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan did not attend the meeting because of their opposition to the attack plans.
Intelligence and military officials around the world are also bracing for the results of a U.S. attack on Iran. This includes the distinct possibility of a major Shia retaliatory attack in Iraq, the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Afghanistan against U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic targets in the region. Radioactive fallout from a conventional or tactical nuclear attack on Iran will result in major problems with Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Japan, and other downwind countries in Asia and the Pacific Rim, possibly including the fall of the Pervez Musharraf government in Pakistan and replacement by a radical Islamist regime having possession of nuclear weapons. That would provoke a military response from nuclear power India.
In a counter-attack, Iran would immediately launch its Shahab I and II missiles at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad, the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, the US Navy base in Bahrain, Camp Doha base in Kuwait, Al Seeb airbase in Oman, Baghdad International Airport, the U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Iran would also launch its long-range Shahab III missiles on the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, Eilat, and the Israeli nuclear complex at Dimona. Iranian missiles would also be launched at US naval ships in the Persian Gulf and oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The virtual end of NATO as a viable defense organization may also result from an attack that will drive a final wedge between Washington and Europe. And China may elect to respond financially and militarily against the United States since Iran is China's second largest source of imported Middle East oil after Saudi Arabia and plans to use an Iranian terminal for the export of natural gas from Turkmenistan. [China now imports 60 percent of its oil needs, and Iran represents 17 percent of those imports].
Russia recently participated in, through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a three-way military exercise (code named "Indira 2005") between Russia, China, and India to prepare for any new U.S. power projections in Asia, including an attack on Iran, a prospective SCO member. Last August, Russia and China held their first-ever joint land-sea-air military exercises.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Stop a US/Israeli Attack on Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/12/30/let-s-stop-a-us-israeli-war-on-iran.php
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:11 am; edited 8 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject: Speculations over US attack against Iran |
| Der Spiegel via Info Clearing House - Dec 23, 2005
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article11373.htm
Speculations over US attack against Iran
Are the USA planing a rocket attack against targets in Iran? In secret
discussions Washington was preparing the Allies for appropriate air strikes
in 2006, agencies disclosed to day. Especially in the NATO country Turkey,
speculations about an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities are taking
place.
By Jürgen Gottschlich
Der Spiegel
Istanbul/Berlin - The News exploded like a Bomb in the tranquil prechristmas
mood.:Washington was preparing close allies for air strikes against Iran.
This was disseminated today by the German Depeschenservice in a text by the
former "FAZ" editor - Head and Secret Service Expert Udo Ulfkotte - however
substantial doubts on this matter are certainly justified.
As source given by the not undoubted journalist Ulfkotte "Western security
circles" without naming specifics. According to his statements, CIA-Chief
Porter Goss in the Turkish Capital Ankara asked M.P. Recep Tayyip Erdogan to
support the air strikes against Iranian Nuclear and Military Installations
especially with uninhibited exchange of secret information. At the present
plan the attacks were planned for 2006.
In recent weeks The governments of Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan
have been informed about the implementations of military plans. The air
strikes were described as "possible option" a specific point in time was
however, not mentioned.
CIA Chief Gloss was now to have provided the Turkish Security Administration
in Ankara with three information packages, one of which supposedly includes
that Teheran cooperate with the terror organization Al-Qaida. A further
transferred info pertains to the progress of the Iranian nuclear Armament,
it was said. According to statements from German security agencies, in
Ankara Goss assured the Turkish Government they would be informed a few
hours before the possible Air Strike and to give Turkey already the green
light for this particular day to attack depots of the separatist PKK on
Iranian territory - a curious "Green Light" however, because the PKK does
not maintain any military bases, but operates primarily in North Iraq.
The possible critical move in that situation - DDP reports - dependent
mainly on the latest antisemitic outbursts of the Iranian president Mahmud
Ahmadinedschad, whose scathing verbal attacks against Israel, prompted the
American governments stronger impression, that Teheran would not yield in
the nuclear - disagreement and were stalling for time. The News Agency cited
a high ranking German Military official, anonymously: " I would not surprise
me, if the Americans in short would not capitalize on the opportunity
delivered by Teheran. The Americans would have to Attack Iran, before they
have developed nuclear weapons. Afterwards it would be too late.
If US plans for attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities exist, or how detailed
they are is hard to estimate. Last the American discovery annalist Seymour
Hersh, reported about this in January 2005 in the "New Yorker" that secret
US Commando Groups were active in marking military targets.
The Bush Government did not deny Hersh's report at that time. They only
played it down: The article was full of "false statements" it was said in
Washington. That the central issue in the report were false, was not
disputed. Bush himself added explicitly, he didn't want to exclude the "War"
option.
Air attack after New year?
Is a military action, possibly a war in the region about to happen? In
Berlin the subject is moderated down. During the visit of defense minister
Franz Josef Jung with Donald Rumsfeld this week in Washington, the possible
Air Attack by the US on Iran did not come up as "a subject", a speaker for
SPIEGEL ONLINE said.
However, the speculation on US attacks against Iran refers primarily to
happenings in Turkey. Last week there was actually a mighty assembly of high
ranking Security Personnel from the USA and from NATO in Ankara. Within a
couple of days there was first the Chief of the FBI, then the Chief of the
CIA and last the Secretary General Scheffer in Turkey. After her visit in
Germany Coondoleezza Rize travelled to Turkey, too.
In fact Turkey's newspapers in connection with these visits have speculated
too, that an attack on Iran was being prepared. But the assumptions in
Turkey were not based on hard facts. Following the meeting of Porter Goss
with Tayyip Erdogan the leftist Cumhuriyet headlined: "Now its Iran's turn".
Substantiations: None.
The Paper noted, however, that the meeting between the CIA-Chief and Erdogan
lasted unusually over an hour, even though Goss met beforehand with the
Chief of the Turkish Secret Service. Because of that the Turkish public
deducted that it had to be something very important - detailed facts: Wrong
conclusion. Just about all media speculates over the possibility that
Erdogan and Goss could have discussed a mutual action against the PKK in
North Iraq. Possibly that Goss requested in exchange requested Turkish
secret service photographs. A possible Air Attack on Iran would certainly
not be staged from the Turkish base Incirlik, it is of course plausible that
the USA informed Turkey, to test their reaction.
Ankara is skeptical. In the past the government in Ankara was skeptical
concerning military actions by the USA to the point of directly opposed. An
offensive by US ground troops in Northern Iraq against Saddam's Regime was
even prevented by Ankara in 2003 - the lack of this second front was blamed
by Donald Rumsfield over and over for military problems in Iraq.
Now the Turkish commander in chief and the probable future chief of staff
Yasar Buyukanit both spent two weeks in Washington. Afterwards he commented
that the relationship between the Turkish Army and the US Army were again
excellent. This is therefore remarkable, because Buyukanit is one of the
Hawks in the fight against the PKK and in the past had already considered,
to himself march into North Iraq - in case the USA and the North Iraqi Kurds
would not prevent the PKK from staging attacks against Turkey.
The Turkish - Iranian relations have been chilled for a long time. Teheran
criticizes for years, that Turkey has good relations with Israel and is even
cooperating with the Israeli Military. About the anti Israeli transgressions
by Ahmadinedschad, Turkey was still not bombarded by the news media as it
was the case in Germany - they just shook their head (shrugged their
shoulder).
MP Erdogan has, however, just recently called his Israeli college Aril
Sharon and congratulated him to his recovery - The long rather withheld
contact by Erdogan with Sharon has in recently become much closer. Sharon
had recently declared, if in doubt, he would go combat those
in-love-with-nuclear Mullahs alone.
In spite of that The Turkish government spoke repeatedly against military
action against Iran and Syria. Because at least with respect to the Kurdish
question Turkey Syria and Iran are united, that there may not be an
independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. An alliance concerning these
interests does not seem to exist between Washington and Ankara. However, if
the USA plans a missile attack against Iran, Turkey must come aboard -
active or passive.
But Erdogan and his military harbor the worst fear for the whole region, in
case the USA would actually go against Iran. Western experts, too, consider
the success of a military action against nuclear installations in Iran in no
way guaranteed. Just the opposite: An attack would probably miss its aim to
stop the nuclear program and provide Ahmadinedschad with even more
supporters.
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: Pro-Israel Group Criticizes White House Policy on Iran |
| Pro-Israel Group Criticizes White House Policy on Iran
At Issue Is New Stance on Tehran's Nuclear Program
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 25, 2005; A09
After years of unwavering support for the Bush administration, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has begun to sharply criticize the White House over its handling of Iran's nuclear program.
In lengthy news releases and talking points circulated to supporters on Capitol Hill, AIPAC describes the Bush administration's recent policy decisions on Iran as "dangerous," "disturbing" and "inappropriate." One background paper suggests that White House policies are actually helping Iran -- a sworn enemy of the Jewish state -- to acquire nuclear weapons.
The tough words from one of Washington's most well-connected and influential lobbies come at a difficult time for President Bush, who has been struggling with low poll numbers and growing public discontent over the war in Iraq.
Bush raised AIPAC's concerns in a recent telephone conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair when the two discussed Iran, U.S. officials said.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has tussled with past administrations -- Democratic and Republican -- but not with Bush, who has staked his presidency on a vow to bring democracy to a region dominated by Israel's enemies -- chiefly Iran, Iraq and Syria.
At issue for AIPAC is Bush's decision last month to hold off on pushing to report Iran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council. The president and Israel have favored reporting it for the past two years. But with little support from other key U.S. allies, Bush reversed course and endorsed a Russian offer that would allow Iran to conduct some, but not all, of the nuclear work it says it needs for an indigenous nuclear energy program.
Iran has not been receptive to the Russian offer. Iranian diplomats met with their European counterparts in Vienna on Wednesday to discuss the offer. Diplomats said there were no breakthroughs, but the parties agreed to meet again in January.
If Iran accepts the terms, it would be allowed to produce unlimited quantities of converted uranium. That material would be shipped to Russia for enrichment and then returned to Iran to fuel a nuclear power reactor.
In a statement to members of Congress, AIPAC said that it "is concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said he hopes the plan "may provide a way out" of a two-year crisis over a nuclear program that Iran says is peaceful but was secretly built over 18 years.
Critics of the Russian plan, including some inside the administration, argue that it would allow Iran to master a critical component that could be diverted for atomic weapons work. Converted uranium, if enriched to bomb-grade, can be used for the core of a nuclear device.
U.N. nuclear inspectors are on the third year of an investigation of Iran's nuclear program. They have not found proof of a weapons program, but mounting evidence suggests that the Iranians have spent the past two decades acquiring the knowledge and technology that could be used to build an atomic bomb.
"This decision will facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and undermines international efforts to stop Iran from achieving such a capability," AIPAC told supporters and policymakers in a paper circulated after Thanksgiving. The position paper urged the Bush administration to work quickly toward reporting Iran's case to the Security Council, where it could face sanctions or an oil embargo.
AIPAC, which describes itself as nonpartisan, has criticized nearly every administration's Middle East policies, often speaking out when Israeli government officials express private frustration with U.S. policies.
But the news releases mark the first major criticism of the Bush White House and come as the administration is focused on problems in Iraq and has no clear path on Iran.
At the same time, Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has become increasingly hostile toward Israel. In October, two months after he took office, Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Earlier this month, he told Iranians in a nationally televised speech that the murder of 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis during World War II is "a myth."
"AIPAC is taking the public statements seriously. They're alarmed by a nuclear capability, and the administration appears to be adopting an approach that isn't changing Iranian behavior," said Dennis Ross, a U.S. envoy to the Middle East during the Clinton administration.
Ross said the criticisms, though serious, are unlikely to lead to an all-out rift between AIPAC and the administration. "At the end of the day, every administration does what it needs to do, but obviously they will have to pay attention to this," he said.
The Washington Post Company
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:57 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject: |
| Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 09:51:42 -0800
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Israel's War Deadline/Iran in the Crosshairs By JAMES PETRAS]
Given the support it has from Congress and the current weakness of the Bush administration reflected by low poll numbers and several defeats on votes in Congress, and by the fact that the lobbying groups across the board are revving up the anti-Iran rhetoric, it is likely that the Israelis believe that they can get away with attacking Iran even if the Bush administration is against it. I have been adamant that the US will not do the attacking and while there are no doubt people in the Pentagon, thanks to JINSA, who would support it, those who are responsible for extricating the US from Iraq most definitely will not be. When Israel bombed the Iraq reactor, VP George Bush wanted to sanction Israel but was overruled by Reagan and Haig and those divisions on Capitol Hill still exist. If Israel does attack Iran as Petras indicates, than the US may be blamed by the Iraqi Shia and it will make no difference. But Bush's present weakness is playing into Israel's hands, and the trial of AIPAC's Rosen is not slated to start until April 25th.
Jeff
James wrote:
Jeff,
I still think the USA will conduct the attack, however, Israel could never conduct such an attack without USA support (so whether it is the USA and/or Israel makes little difference to me as Israel will be using US weaponry and similar for it which is already widely known in the Arab/Muslim world). So do you still stand by your staunch position that the attack will not happen at all...? I just heard on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' this morning that AIPAC is being critical of the White House for its dealing with Iran's nukes.. Attacks on Iran and Syria are coming (for Israel as well just like Iraq) sooner rather than later.. I hope that I am wrong, but I don't think I will be...
Jeff Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net> wrote:
This is an important article by James Petras which challenges the notion that "official" Washington and Israel's global an security interests are one and the same. That the push for war against Iran by the scores of pro-Israel lobbying groups has been totally ignored by the anti-war movement as their push for war against Iraq was equally ignored and, since, vigorously denied, is unfortunately, another testament to how deeply support for Israel or the fear of provoking "antisemitism" by its "leadership" and within its ranks has left the movement, such as it is under the circumstances, not only useless, but an impediment to bringing the issues that Petras describes below to the American people.
"The principal result will be a huge escalation of war throughout the Middle East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the military forces that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and committed military and paramilitary forces could be expected to cross into Iraq. Iraqi Shiites sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most likely break their ties with Washington and go into combat. US military bases, troops and clients would be under fierce attack. US military casualties would multiply. All troop withdrawal plans would be disrupted. The 'Iraqization' strategy would disintegrate....
"Here in the United States there are few if any influential organized lobbies challenging the pro-war Israel lobby either from the perspective of working for coexistence in the Middle East or even in defending US national interests when they diverge from Israel. Although numerous former diplomats, generals, intelligence officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security advisers and State Department professionals have publicly denounced the Iran war agenda and even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their newspaper ads and media interviews have not been backed by any national political organization that can compete for influence in the White House and Congress.
"As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: Israel's War Deadline/Iran in the Crosshairs By JAMES P |
| Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:55:11 -0800
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Israel's War Deadline/Iran in the Crosshairs By JAMES PETRAS]
James,
Checking the site, it would not be in the purview of the CIA to arrange or discuss an attack on Iran and as the Der Speigel article maintains, all the talk of the US doing it is pure speculation. The WashPost story reemphasizes what I said about the weakened president now vulnerable to AIPAC's attack while trying to find a bright spot in Iraq and there isn't one. That Bush has been weakened by following the lobby's policies is ironic but who in the mainstream has the guts to point it out? Or the Chomskyized "left."
Jeff
Pro-Israel Group Criticizes White House Policy on Iran
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/12/25/israel-s-war-deadline-iran-in-the-crosshairs.php | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:45 am Post subject: |
| Subject: Re: Israel's War Deadline/Iran in the Crosshairs By JAMES PETRAS]
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:35:24 +0000
Escalation.
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
Last update - 14:36 24/12/2005
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/661833.html
U.S. Congress approves transfer of $600 million in aid to Israel
By Haaretz Service
The United States Congress approved Friday the transfer of $600 million
in
aid to Israel, according to media reports.
The reports state that the money is to be used to fund joint security
projects between Israel and the U.S.
Of the $600 million, $133 million will be used to develop the Arrow
missile
program, a collaborative project between Israel Aircraft Industries and
Boeing.
Some $10 million will be invested in developing a missile capable of
intercepting short-range missiles.
Israel carried out a successful test of its Arrow anti-missile system
earlier this month, which Defense Ministry officials called a response
to
the increasing threat of ballistic missiles in the region.
The test launch came as a Russian newspaper reported that Iran has
signed a
deal to buy Russian tactical surface-to-air missile systems. The
reports
comes one day after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned of the dangers
of a
nuclear Iran.
/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=661833 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/dailyUpdate.html
World > Terrorism & Security
posted January 2, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
Iran rejects Russian uranium enrichment offer
German media report US is preparing possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Tehran on Monday rejected an offer by Russia to allow Iran to enrich uranium for its nuclear reactors in Russia. Ha'aretz reports that the proposal had been put forward by Russia, which is helping Iran develop and build the reactors, as a way to allay concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its potential to be turned into a weapons program. Iran continues to insist its program is being developed solely for peaceful purposes.
The European Union had been pushing for Iran to accept Russia's offer, as it would be a way to ensure that only low-grade uranium, suitable for power stations, would be processed. But Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told Iranian TV that Iran will continue to insist on its right to enrich the material in Iran itself. He did add, however, that Iran would be willing to consider conducting certain phases of the process outside Iran.
Mr. Larijani will meet with European negotiators this month in an effort to work out some kind of understanding before the next meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in February. If an agreement about Iran's nuclear program is not reached, experts say, it is very likely that the country will be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Meanwhile, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported in its English language version over the weekend that recent stories in the German media indicate that the US may be preparing to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. The magazine cites in particular a Dec. 23 piece from the news agency DDP by Udo Ulfkotte, a journalist with strong contacts in German's intelligence services:
According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possible 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.
DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.
Ulfkotte also reported that Turkey had basically agreed to the request, and that the government had been given the green light to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day when an attack is launched.
Last week, the Berlin daily newspaper Der Tagesspiegel reported that NATO intelligence sources said the US has told its Western allies that it is investigating all possible sources of "bringing the mullah-led regime into line," including a military strike against nuclear facilities.
Ha'aretz reports, however, that some experts believe these stories may be leaks that are part of the US "psychological warfare against Iran" in an attempt to get it to agree to conditions and restrictions being placed on its nuclear program.
The Associated Press reports that Iran said Sunday it would deliver a "crushing response" to any US or Israeli attack.
James Joyner, editor of the Outside the Beltway blog and a management analyst for a Washington-area defense contractor, examines the scenarios for a US and/or Israeli preemptive strike against Iran, and finds that, at this point in time, there is "not a good set of options."
The global intelligence site Stratfor reported last week that the Israeli military chief of staff, Gen. Dan Halutz, ruled out the possibility of a preemptive strike against Iran at this time because Iran currently poses no threat to Israel and is several years away from producing a nuclear weapon.
The main reason cited for the acceleration of planning for an attack against Iran is recent statements by Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has recently called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," denounced the Holocaust as a lie, and that if it did happen, it was Europe's fault and that Israel should be moved to Europe, the US, or Canada. Reuters reports on Monday that he said Israel was created as part of a plan to move all the Jews out of Europe.
The Los Angeles Times reports on Monday that Mr. Ahmadinejad's hard-line politics may please conservatives in the country, but they are starting to worry many others in Iran.
"He is not qualified to be the president of Iran. His words so far leave no doubt to his inadequacy to the job," fretted a 38-year-old graphic designer who identified herself only as Shahnaz B., expressing a sentiment common among Iranians these days. "The US and Israel will only take advantage of his stances to further their own agendas on Iran."
News agencies reported in mid-December that there had been an assassination attempt on Ahmadinejad in the southeast section of the country, a region with a large Sunni Arab population. But Iran said that there had only been an attack by "bandits" on the motorcade of the president's security team that had killed a local driver and a member of the Revolutionary Guard. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: Time To Talk To Tehran |
| Time To Talk To Tehran
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Does President Bush intend a preventive war, early this year, to effect
the
nuclear castration of Iran? Or are we rattling sabers? What makes the
question
urgent are German reports that CIA Director Porter Goss has been in
Ankara,
Turkey, negotiating for U.S. use of bases for air strikes on Iran's
nuclear
sites. Over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said time is
running
out on diplomacy to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. The Israelis
are
warning that if diplomacy fails, and we do not haul Tehran before the
Security
Council for sanctions, Israel will denuclearize Iran herself. The end
of March is
said to be the deadline for when Israel decides whether the West is
serious.
Turning up the heat, the Israeli lobby AIPAC has begun to rap President
Bush -
for wimpishness on Iran. Prediction: If Bush does not confront or
attack
Tehran, Israel and its Amen Corner will begin to give him the same
treatment they
gave his father.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8341 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
