War Without End

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:19 am; edited 19 times in total

Will the White House Moron Bring On Armageddon?: Iran given June 29 deadline to respond to anti-nuke offer

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/06/13/will-the-white-house-moron-bring-on-armageddon.php

Pentagon confirms Iranian directorate as officials raise new concerns about war:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/06/16/office-of-special-plans-at-work-again-this-time-on-iran-inte.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iraq quagmire made it impossible to bomb Iran for
Israel last year, but the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon cabal via Cheney's
office can't wait to get another war going for Israel in accordance
with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed US intelligence author
James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321 of his 'A Pretext for War'
book (be sure to get the paperback version which includes an additional
chapter on the AIPAC/spying for Israel case which the serving Israel
first US press/media hasn't covered for the most part either):

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/010606iranstrike.htm

Former CIA Analyst Says
Iran Strike Set For June Or July

6-1-6
Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from
his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that
staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order
to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military
strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or
July.

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

Israel's Olmert wants US to 'deal with' (bomb!) Iran :

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/21/israel-s-olmert-wants-us-to-deal-with-bomb-iran.php

“Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran next!”

http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php

Scroll down to the 'Pro-Israel lobby under attack' UPI article at
the following URL:

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

Whose War? (Israel's war):

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Zionists manipulating public opinion to get US to attack Iran:

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/06/manipulating-public-opinion.html

Even Cindy Sheehan wrote that her son died for a PNAC Neocon agenda to benefit Israel:

http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/sidebar/2124791/

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan-mother-of-spc-casey.html

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html

Mandatory Draft Bill Snuck In - To Be (for Iran?!):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/29/mandatory-draft-bill-snuck-in-to-be-debated-on-6-6-6.php

Even the white supremacist/racist David Duke put together the following about Ray McGovern's courage:

http://www.davidduke.com/?p=311

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

Dissident Voice: OSP now The Office of Iranian Affairs:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/30/dissident-voice-osp-now-the-office-of-iranian-affairs.php

'Iraq War Conceived in Israel' author on Karen Kwiatkowski's radio program (General Janis Karpinski addressed the JINSA/PNAC Neocon 'war for Israel' agenda as well via the link for her radio broadcast which is also included at the following URL):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/17/iraq-war-conceived-in-israel-author-on-karen-kwiatkowski-s.php

Iran Won't Give Up Nuclear Program Under Western Pressure But Agrees To Talks...

www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/03/iran-wont-give-up-nuclea_n_22150.html

Israeli Professor: 'We Could Destroy All European Capitals':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2006/04/29/israeli-professor-we-could-destroy-all-european-capitals.php

Did Israelis train the US marines involved with the Haditha massacre?:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/30/did-israelis-train-us-marines-in-the-haditha-massacre.php

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

Looks like the US government is even looking into getting a military draft into place (especially for when the Middle East explodes after Iran is bombed):

Mandatory Draft Bill
Snuck In - To Be

Debated 6-6-6
6-4-6
On February 14, 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel (Democrat - NY) introduced a bill (Universal National Service Act of 2006 - HR 4752 IH) aiming at drafting everyone - men and women alike - from the ages of 18 to 42 into the military for a minimum period of 2 years.
Or to quote the bill: "To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
The House is to convene on June 6 (06/06/06] to debate and possibly adopt this bill, that is, unless a vast public outcry succeeds in derailing this insanity, which you can do by writing a letter of protest to your congress person through
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm or http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
Phone calls are even better. The numbers of all US Representatives are at:
http://clerk.house.gov/members/index.html
If you question the validity of this bill, go to:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752

Alpha

June 1, 2006
Too Stupid for Citizenship
Will Americans fall for Bush's lies again?

by Charley Reese

If we allow the Bush administration to drag this country into a war with Iran, we should all burn our voter-registration cards and go ahead and admit that we are no longer worthy of being citizens of a self-governing republic.

For heaven's sake, the administration is employing the same tactics it used to justify the war against Iraq – refusal to negotiate, lies, disinformation, and demonization of the Iranian leader. Are we going to fall for the exact same con job all over again? If so, we are far too dumb to be trusted near a voting booth.

Recently, a story was floated that the Iranians had passed legislation requiring religious minorities to wear an identifying badge. "Nazi, Nazi" cried the neocon warmongers. Trouble is, the story was completely false. No such legislation was passed, and this bit of disinformation was knocked askew by the representative of Iran's Jewish community in the Iranian Parliament.

The source of the story was an Iranian who had been a big shot when the Shah was in power and is now with a public-relations firm that represents – surprise – many of the neoconservatives.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also told a big whopper when he said Iran was only months away from making a nuclear bomb. No nuclear expert I'm aware of agrees with that assessment, and Olmert is no nuclear expert. Even assuming Iran wants a bomb, it is years away from being able to produce one.

It's clear that the Bush administration has chosen war. One, it refuses to negotiate with Iran; two, it refuses to recognize Iran's right, as a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes; three, it has already set up an office in the Pentagon and another in the State Department to agitate for regime change; and four, it has begun its anti-Iranian propaganda campaign.

President Bush is a liar when he says he wants to use diplomacy to end the crisis. In the first place, he created the crisis; in the second place, he refuses to negotiate; and in the third place, he has, for all practical purposes, issued an ultimatum: Give up your right to enrich uranium, or we'll attack.

No country in the world wants us to attack Iran except Israel. That's no surprise. If the American people haven't figured out that Israel exerts an undue and injurious influence on the American government, then that's another reason for them to tear up their voter-registration cards.

And if driving toward war with Iran isn't bad enough, the Bush administration has restarted the Cold War with Russia by its incessant criticism of Vladimir Putin's government. I think, sometimes, that the whole Bush administration is out of touch with reality and should be on medication, starting with the president and vice president.

When you consider the wars, the profligate spending, the out-of-control debt and trade deficits, the refusal to control the borders, the alienation of most of the world and the constant spitting on the Constitution and civil liberties, you can conclude that this administration is going to destroy the United States as we know it. I don't say that lightly. I never in a million years would have imagined that this administration would do what it's done.

And if you are one of those armchair jingoists who thinks it's fun to kill foreigners, just keep that thought in mind when you have to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline and the economy comes crashing down on your head. Sure, we can damage Iran's nuclear facilities and kill a lot of Iranians, but we can't do it and keep the oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf at the same time.

It isn't out of concern for the Iranians that the rest of the world doesn't want a war. It's because other nations recognize the damage it will cause the world economy. It's also because they recognize that this is a phony crisis, like Iraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction.

Even if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, so what. We have thousands; the Israelis have hundreds. Iran isn't going to attack anybody. It hasn't attacked anyone in the past 100 years.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9066

Alpha

Is America Becoming a Police State? :

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9001

Fascism: Are We There Yet?:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8992

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

Historic Factors Leading to the Rise of Fascist States:

1) Massive public investment in the military-industrial complex;

2) Expansion of global influence through military conflict / occupation / acquisition of resources

3) Ownership and control of the media and information outlets by the ruling elite

4) Growing disparities between economic classes, with a greater consolidation of wealth among the ruling elite

5) Suppression of labor movements and workers' rights initiatives

6) Diminution of individual civil rights (usually under a pre-text of fear) and intolerance for dissenting points of view

7) Subversion or elimination of democratic election processes.

Alpha

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=722604&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Last update - 14:29 04/06/2006

The Americans only understand force

By Zvi Bar'el

In the wake of the package that Washington and its friends are offering Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent new "partner" George Bush another missive, in which he writes: "After I heard Madam Condoleezza Rice's proposal for the stick and carrot package you are preparing for us, after deep rumination and out of a recognition of our shared mission for world peace, of which I wrote to you in my previous letter, I am offering cooperation on the following basis: We are prepared to cease uranium enrichment for a period of 10 years on condition that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and place its nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision; that you, the Americans, recognize the legitimacy of Hamas and immediately lift the international sanctions on the Palestinian Authority; that you stop harassing our friend Syria and cancel the trade embargo you imposed on the Syrian banks; that you work to change Resolution 1559 in a manner that legalizes the status of Hezbollah arms.

"If we can reach an understanding on these matters, Mr. Bush, we can also discuss the situation of Iraq and assist you in setting a date soon for the withdrawal of your troops from that conquered country. After all, Mr. President, if you and Israel maintain that we constitute an existential threat, you will doubtless be glad to remove this threat by forfeiting lesser matters such as Hezbollah and Hamas."

Because Western powers are not the only ones capable of drafting "stick and carrot" packages. Iran also knows how to spell those two words, especially when it is holding a large and threatening stick.

Out of a recognition of the spine-chilling power that such a letter could transmit to the back of the State of Israel, let it be said at once: The letter has not yet been sent, but it is possible it is already in the works. Because within five weeks Iran has gone from being a threatened country to a country "whose arguments should be heard" and a "partner for negotiations." In other words, whoever wants Iran to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ostensibly ought to also accept its right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, a right set down in that same treaty. And whoever does not believe Iran's peaceful intentions finds he must prove that through more than ordinary muckraking; he has to put Iran to a real test. Negotiate with it. Nothing more or less than the way in which Washington is dealing with North Korea.

And that is how the American proposal was conceived. Not out of a fundamental understanding that the United States can no longer operate alone to implement its strategic aspirations. This time Washington, too, is required to demonstrate its purity of intentions and display a diplomatic willingness before firing. This is the most important strategic product of the war against Iraq, and Iran is its first beneficiary.

It may be presumed that Washington has looked inward and found the wisdom to ask itself: And what will happen if Iran agrees to negotiations? Ahmadinejad indeed rejected the initiative, but that, one may surmise, is only the beginning of the negotiations over the negotiations. A month ago he explained to anyone who would listen that Iran is now speaking from the position of a nuclear power and that it how it expects to be treated. That is, it wants to conduct direct negotiations with the U.S. with no preconditions and it will want to take part also in global policy making. Thus he also wrote to Bush in the famous letter that Rice dismissed as a "philosophical" document. The 18 pages of that philosophical document might turn out now to be a working paper. And therefore, if the issue is Iraq, Iran will want to be a partner, and all the more so when it comes to the Palestinian question.

And Israel? It too has a small and existential lesson. It might also have to pay something for the sake of the diplomatic campaign against Iranian nuclear power. It will suddenly learn that the very willingness to negotiate, even with a country that is considered the enemy of humanity, is not the prize but merely the means of obtaining it.

Alpha

Proving the Case
War, War and More War is What Bush Really Wants
By BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA analyst

George W. Bush. "Dubya." In the media, the practice of using the W to distinguish the current president from his father is common. George Senior has two middle initials -- H and W -- but few media flacks seem to use them. Nevertheless, two beats one, and adding to the fetid miasma constantly enveloping Washington these days is the old but oft-repeated rumor about a dominating motivation of Bush Junior -- that he would do almost anything to assure that his own reputation surpasses that of his father in historians' future rankings of presidents. It seems to me that we might in common courtesy push him a little more quickly than might otherwise occur, at least in the name game, toward equality with (though not superiority over) his father -- by giving him the honor and dignity of two middle initials. We should decree that henceforth the son shall be known as George P. W. ("Perpetual War") Bush. Instead of just "Dubya," how about calling him "Pee Dubya?"

Is it unfair to label the current president "Pee Dubya?" No, it is not. Let's look at a little background. Back on March 16, 2006, the White House published a new document, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This replaces or, more properly, supplements an earlier document with the same title that the White House put out in 2002.

Most people in the U.S. and elsewhere did not pay much attention to the new version of this document, because it is loaded with clichés and much of it reads like the propaganda put out by far too many current Bush administration spokesmen these days. It is not an inspired piece of writing. The first two pages contain a cover letter from George W. Bush to "My fellow Americans" that seems particularly propagandistic. In these two pages, the words "democracy" or "democratic" appear seven times; the words "freedom" or "free," eleven times.

But the document is nonetheless important. Perhaps the major difference between the 2006 and the 2002 version is the greater bluntness with which the new version proclaims that the U.S. is in a struggle that will last for many years and defines who our alleged principal enemy is. Several recent speeches of Bush had already presaged this bluntness, but the new White House document puts the same thoughts into the most prestigious and official foreign policy pronouncement that the present administration makes public.

In the very beginning of the paper, immediately following Bush's covering letter, the "ultimate goal" of the U.S. is described as "ending tyranny in our world." A cliché? Of course, but noteworthy for its arrogance. The paper then continues, "Achieving this goal is the work of generations. The United States is in the early years of a long struggle. . . . The 20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over the threats of fascism and communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded not in secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion." Later in the document, this statement appears: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." This comparison of 20th century threats with 21st century threats makes it quite clear that the Bush administration foresees new world wars in the 21st century that may be every bit as bad as the world wars of the 20th. And there are no statements that the U.S. will make any great efforts to avoid such wars. "Pee Dubya" just doesn't seem to care.

Nowhere in the 2002 version of The National Security Strategy were such comparisons of 20th century fascism and communism with 21st century "militant Islamic radicalism" made, although a formulation almost as blunt did appear in a very high-level U.S. publication (for the first time that this writer can recall) -- in the 9/11 Commission Report released in July 2004.

The 9/11 Commission, consisting of both Republicans and Democrats appointed by the leaders of both parties, issued a report that contained absolutely no dissents or even hints of disagreements. The commissioners unanimously concluded, in what was a key passage of the report, that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism,' some generic evil. . . . It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. . . . Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the 'head of the snake,' and it must be converted or destroyed. . . . [This] is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground -- not even respect for life -- on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated. . . . This process is likely to be measured in decades, not years." The only things missing from this diatribe were the comparisons with fascism and communism.

So, from 2002 to 2004 and then to 2006, there was a progression -- a gradually increasing willingness at top levels of the government to talk explicitly about Islamic extremism as the cause of all our troubles and to talk more openly and bluntly about a conflict lasting for "decades" or "generations." At lower levels around Washington, among mid-level neocon officials and media representatives of the neocons such as Charles Krauthammer, such bluntness has been in evidence for a considerably longer period. But by 2006 the bluntness was also an open part of the presidentially-approved dogma in the highest level U.S. documents.

All this seems intended to provide Bush a stronger reason to support the "clash of civilization" notion originally conceived by the neocons and long backed by many Christian fundamentalist leaders in the U.S., as well as by Israeli right-wingers. And since this conflict will last for "generations," won't it also promise great profits for those arms-makers who are among Bush's strongest supporters and largest contributors? And isn't it also intended to make it easier for the Bush administration to continue giving its close ally Israel a free hand to do whatever it wants to those "Muslim extremists" who recently won a democratic election in the West Bank?

Let's look more closely at this picture of a conflict lasting for decades that the Bush administration wants to drag us into. Some among us, including me, would argue the contrary case, that if the U.S. actually changed its foreign policies, ceased its drive for political and economic domination over areas of the world that Arabs and Muslims consider to be theirs, and seriously addressed their legitimate grievances on the Palestine-Israel issue, we could reduce the threat of terrorism against us and our allies in far less time. Taking a moral stand for a change, if only by backing away from imperialism, would have the dual benefit of being moral -- a nice change of pace -- and pragmatically of vastly enhancing the U.S. image around the world and undermining the terrorists' anti-American case.

Let's look more closely also at the claim that Islamist terrorism is the great danger of the present. Danger to whom? If you were a Muslim, might you not figure instead that the greatest danger to you was U.S. and Israeli aggression and Christian fundamentalist extremism, given some of the statements certain fundamentalist leaders in the U.S. have made about Islam? Put another way, might you not see the greatest danger to you arising from the alliance of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism arrayed against your world?

Let's take one more example. One of the action recommendations in the 9/11 Commission's report is this: "The problems in the U.S.-Saudi relationship must be confronted, openly. . . . [An effort should be made to work toward] a shared interest in greater tolerance and cultural respect, translating into a commitment to fight the violent extremists who foment hatred." If we say that about the U.S.-Saudi relationship, should we not ask that problems in the U.S.-Israeli-Muslim relationship be confronted just as openly? If you were a Muslim, would you not regard it as equally important to global peace that the U.S. work for tolerance and cultural respect in both America and Israel as well, and work toward translating that into a commitment to fight extremists who foment hatred of Islam in both nations?

The new 2006 version of the National Security Strategy paper also deals with U.S. policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Syria. It will not be news to readers that there is nothing in the document about the timing of even a partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Every reference to Iraq is written in a manner intended to persuade readers that U.S. forces will remain in the country indefinitely. Nor will it be news that the administration plans to continue employing preemptive military action in the region whenever and wherever it decides to do so. The paper contains no serious restrictions on any future U.S. preemptive military actions.

Syria and Iran are lumped together as "allies of terror" in the 2006 version, and they are told that "the world must hold these regimes to account." The document contains nothing on specific U.S. plans for Syria, but Iran receives considerably more detailed treatment. The U.S. alleges that Iran "has violated its Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards obligations" and says that "we may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." The paper threatens "confrontation" if diplomatic efforts do not succeed and goes on to say that the U.S. also has "broader concerns. . . . The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom." How much of this is bluff and how much is not is impossible to know for sure, but at the least, the document intentionally leaves the impression that some form of U.S., or U.S.-Israeli, military action against Iran, possibly involving nuclear weapons, is likely in coming months.

A digression is necessary here. This writer's belief is that the only long-term hope the world has of avoiding a quite widespread further proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations in the coming decade is for the U.S. to undertake honest and serious multilateral negotiations aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons everywhere. In the specific case of Iran, if we in the U.S., without launching a war, seriously want that country to forgo nuclear weapons, we should understand that Iran, despite its present denials, almost certainly wants a capability to acquire such weapons in the future, just as the Bush administration believes. Iran wants them, or will want them, first, because Israel has them; second, because the U.S. has them; and third, because numerous other nations have them. As a proud country, Iran believes it is equally entitled to them, and that belief will not change. Furthermore, in the eyes of most Muslims around the world and many other people too, Iran, with a population of close to 70 million, clearly has as much right as Israel, with a population less than one-tenth as large, to have nuclear weapons.

To reemphasize the essential point, in a world where the dominant system of governance continues to be based on sovereign nation-states, the only hope, without a war, of persuading Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program is for the U.S. to end its own monumental hypocrisy on nuclear weapons. The U.S. government itself would have to undertake a major change of policy. It would have to accept the proposition, very publicly, that until the U.S. is willing to eliminate its own nuclear weapons, other nation-states around the world, including Iran, have just as much right to them as the U.S., Israel, Russia, China, England, France, India, Pakistan -- and yes, North Korea. Then, as already mentioned, the U.S. would have to begin negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons everywhere, and it would have to stop immediately all planning to expand the varieties of weapons in its own nuclear arsenal. It would also have to stop Israel from doing the same.

From here on, what would happen next becomes even more speculative. Assuming it was possible to convince most of the major powers including the U.S. to begin multilateral talks on nuclear disarmament, the negotiations would undoubtedly require several years. In the end, the United Nations or some new international organization would most likely need a strong international military force, not dominated by the U.S., to enforce and verify any agreement, with respect to both nation-states and non-state entities. Under any circumstances, such negotiations would be exceedingly difficult.

As a simultaneous and indispensable step in this scenario, parallel negotiations on a nuclear-free zone in the entire Middle East, including Israel, would also have to be undertaken simultaneously with the global nuclear disarmament talks. Most Arab nations in the past have already supported a nuclear-free zone, while Israel has been the stumbling block. But the U.S. would have to refuse to be a partner of Israel in these negotiations, because to do so would cause the negotiations to fail miserably. Instead, we would deliberately and openly have to change our policy toward Israel and put whatever pressure on that country might be necessary to bring about a nuclear-free zone. Specifically, the U.S. would probably have to announce that future U.S. aid to Israel would be tied to the successful establishment of such a zone. Stringent enforcement and verification measures would be needed.

Now let's come down to earth. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to envisage a situation in which any conceivable U.S. administration would at present accept even step one of this scenario -- that is, even beginning a process of negotiating away its own nuclear weapons.

Therefore, any Iranian government will in the end consider that it has as much right as the rest of us to have its own nuclear weapons, regardless of the fact that it has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. It could quite truthfully charge that the U.S. itself had already violated the NPT, and that therefore Iran was entitled to do the same. Even if Teheran, under pressure, were to sign new agreements, now or in the future, to forgo such weapons, the new agreements would be meaningless as long as the U.S., Israel, and other nuclear nations insisted that they could keep and expand their own nuclear arsenals.

Many people are aware that the critical bargain reached in the 1970 NPT -- the bargain that made the treaty possible -- was a trade-off: the acceptance of continued non-nuclear-weapons status by states without those weapons, in return for the simultaneous agreement by states possessing nuclear weapons to pursue good-faith negotiations on nuclear, as well as general and complete, disarmament, "under strict and effective international control." These provisions had no teeth, and certainly many "realists" in the U.S. foreign policy establishment thought the provisions were so unrealistic that they would not and could not be enforced. And in truth they never have been. Nevertheless, the existence of these provisions was necessary to the NPT's ratification by numerous countries, and they give any state dissatisfied with progress toward nuclear disarmament -- including Iran -- an excuse to abrogate or ignore the treaty.

While the niceties of international law on this issue may not be a major concern to most people, another question truly is vital. Which is more important -- stopping the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran, or stopping the U.S. government and/or the government of Israel from instigating a war against Iran? If it is impossible to do both without military action, this question must be addressed. To this writer, the answer is crystal clear: The single most urgent objective right now is preventing a war, possibly nuclear, from being started by the U.S. and/or Israel against Iran. Such a war would be disastrous, and we should be doing whatever we can, with the highest possible priority, to prevent it from ever happening.

From 1945 until the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, the U.S. never once took military action to prevent other nations from simply acquiring nuclear weapons. And numerous other nations did in fact acquire them. Washington relied instead on deterrence and containment to prevent other nations from using such weapons after they had been developed. Deterrence and containment may not be perfect policies, but they have a successful track record and can probably be applied more successfully than other policies to subnational groups as well as nation-states. It is also quite likely that Iran itself, whenever it decides that it must have its own nuclear weapons more quickly than it now seems to want them, will conclude that it too needs them for deterrent rather than preemptive and aggressive purposes against the U.S. and Israel. The point is that for Iran as well as the U.S., deterrence and containment turn out still to be better policies than the recklessness of preemption. We should therefore strongly reject any U.S.- or Israeli-initiated military actions or coup attempts against Iran. The consequence of such actions would almost certainly be a new world war.

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades, CounterPunch's history of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. He can be reached at Kathy.bill@christison-santafe.com.

War Without End

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

Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June Or July