War Without End

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:31 pm; edited 15 times in total

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/816046.html

Last update - 19:58 22/01/2007

Prominent lobbyist Perle: U.S. will attack Iran if it obtains nukes
By Yossi Melman and Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondents

President George Bush will order an attack on Iran if it becomes clear to him that Iran is set to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities while he is still in office, Richard Perle told the Herzliya Conference on Sunday. Perle is close to the Bush administration, particularly to Vice President Richard Cheney.

The leading neoconservative and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute addressed the session on Iran's nuclear program. He said that the present policy of attempting to impose sanctions on Iran will not cause it to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and unless stopped the country will become a nuclear power.

A less decisive opinion was expressed by Dr. Robert Einhorn, who until 2001 was senior advisor to the secretary of state on nuclear nonproliferation, chemical, biological and missile delivery systems. Einhorn told the conference that of all available options, including the military one, he preferred continued pressure on Iran that would force its leadership to pay a political, economic or other price and conclude on its own that its nuclear aspirations were harming its interests.

Einhorn emphasized, however, that the military option still exists and can be carried out on short notice. Natanz, the nexus of Iran's uranium enrichment program, would be a major target of such action.

Dr. Gary Samore, Director of Studies at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, told the Herzliya Conference he believed Iran was still years away from attaining nuclear weapons capability, He admitted that at this stage it would be difficult to judge whether Iran has a second, secret nuclear program parallel to its declared one. Samore said that even if it this is the case Iran still cannot yet create enough fissionable material to make its first nuclear bomb.

Dr. Eli Levita, deputy director of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, did not discuss the Israeli position. Instead, he emphasized that since 1989 the world has been in what he called the "third nuclear age." He said this age, which would continue until approximately 2011, was characterized by destabilization of the nuclear order and the appearance of new nuclear powers. The war in Iraq, Levita explained, was the first war to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The next age, the fourth age according to Levita, could see the rise of Iran as a nuclear power, the disintegration of Pakistan as a result of its possession of nuclear weapons, serious consequences resulting from the continuing crisis in North Korea and the danger of nuclear weapons finding their way to terror groups.

Netanyahu on Iran
Opposition head Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Iranian nuclear threat extensively in his speech at the conference. According to Netanyahu, the threat should be countered with a series of steps to explain the situation in the international arena, as well as with economic sanctions.

He proposed starting with a divestment by major U.S. pension funds of companies doing business in Iran.

"I call on the world that did not stop the Holocaust to stop investing in Iran to prevent genocide," he said, recommending garnering international support to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to trial for genocide.

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

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355234,00.html

Ex-US official: Bush would approve Iran attack

Richard Perle says, ‘If strike on Iran required US participation for success, president would agree'

Yaakov Lappin

If all options were exhausted in the attempt to stop the Iranian nuclear project, and US military involvement was needed for a successful strike on Tehran, US President George Bush would give the green light for the operation, former director of the US Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, Richard Perle, told the Herzliya Conference on Sunday evening.

Nuclear Threat

US under secretary of state: We won't allow nuclear Iran' / Yaakov Lappin

(VIDEO) Nicholas Burns says ‘There is no doubt Iran seeking nuclear military weapons; stationing of two battle groups in Persian Gulf is part of our response’; adds: We are committed to being Israel's strongest security partner
Full Story

"The worst outcome is a failed military option," Perle said. Discussing a possible US involvement in a strike on Iran , he added: "Would this president do it? I think that until the day he leaves office, this is a president that, if he is told, 'Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,' I have very little doubt that this president would order the necessary military action."

Perle began his speech by saying it wasn't clear whether "it's our time or Iran's that is over."

He said the "current policy… will not by itself lead the Iranians to abandon their nuclear weapons program. If we continue to do what we are doing, Iran will become a nuclear weapons state."

"Iran with nuclear weapons will not be so easily deterred and contained as we sometimes think, as we have become accustomed to deterrence in the Cold War," Perle said, adding: "When deterrence fails, it fails not gently, but catastrophically."

Nuclear grievous damage

Perle hypothesized a nightmare scenario, saying: "In possession of nuclear weapons, or even in possession of nuclear material, Iran is perfectly capable of using its terrorist networks to enable others to inflict grievous damage."

"At some point, those of us who believe that the current policy will not lead to an abandonment of nuclear weapons (by Iran)… have to begin to face the question of when is the point of no return," Perle added.

Perle expressed astonishment at the lack of support granted by the West to Iranian opposition movements who wish to overthrow the regime of the Ayatollahs.

"I'm not convinced that we have a lot of time. Given the peril that would result, its astonishing to me that we do not now have a serious political strategy with Iran," he said, adding he thought regime change is "the only significant effective way" to deal with the Iranian threat.

"If we continue on our current course, we have only a military option. So what I'm urging, and this should have happened a very long time ago, is that we make a serious effort to work with the internal (Iranian) opposition," Perle said.

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

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/22/1455241

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

A former top State Department official is warning the Bush administration has drawn up plans for a broad attack against Iran. The official, Wayne White, said "I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike." Up until 2005 White was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research. White predicted a war against Iran would likely destabilize the Middle East for years. On Sunday, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said President Bush will order an attack on Iran if it becomes clear to him that Iran is set to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. Perle's comments came during a conference in Israel.

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

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070124-093916-1688r

Subject: Commentary: Hawks and doves over Iran
Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Commentary: Hawks and doves over Iran
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large
WASHINGTON , Jan. 24 (UPI) -- "Cataclysmic ... Apocalyptic," said Gianfranco Fini , Italy 's former deputy prime minister and foreign minister, and leader of the National Alliance. He had just been asked for the likely reaction of America 's NATO allies in the event of Israeli and/or U.S. air strikes against Iran 's nuclear facilities.
Stubbing out his second cigarette over breakfast at the Italian Embassy residence, he said the consequences of such an attack on Iran would be "unimaginable and without precedent." Fini reminded his breakfast guests that European nations trade extensively with Iran .
Some allies would presumably recall their ambassador from Washington and some might even break diplomatic relations.
At the opposite end of the spectrum of reactions was a major Gulf state official. Speaking privately, not for quotation, he said, "if I had to choose between living with a nuclear Shiite Iran across the Gulf from us, and the bombing of Iran's nuclear installations, with all the dire consequences of such an attack, I would still opt for bombing."
The six Gulf Cooperation Council countries, all Sunni, do not publicly endorse such an attack. But they all share the same fear about a nuclear Iran . Saudi Arabia 's outgoing ambassador to the United States , Prince Turki al-Faisal, has said publicly the kingdom would be firmly opposed to military operations against Iran .
"What we're not interested in is another war in the region," said Mohammed al-Naqbi, chairman of the Gulf Negotiations Center . " Iraq is your problem not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran . Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess."
"Neocon" elder statesman Richard Perle, speaking at the annual Herzliya Conference in Israel last Sunday, said president Bush will order an attack on Iran if it becomes clear to him that Iran is set to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, at the same conference, summed up the sentiment of four presidential aspirants by saying, " Iran must be stopped, Iran can be stopped, and Iran will be stopped."
On his most recent trip to Israel , Tom Lantos, D-Calif., was asked time and again by his interlocutors, "What are you waiting for to attack Iran 's nuclear installations?" In Israel , the perception, clear across the political spectrum, is that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is plotting a "second Holocaust" against Israel by way of a nuclear weapon lobbed by missile into an Israeli city.
Reinforcing these hair-raising suspicions was Iran 's veto of 38 nuclear inspectors from a longer list submitted by the United Nations, presumably retaliation for minor slap-on-wrist trade sanctions imposed by the Security Council last months.
Overlooked in this picture is the fact Ahmadinejad has no control over Iran 's nuclear program and cannot order around his own military. His only authority is over his cabinet. Armed forces, Revolutionary Guards, intelligence, Parliament, and media are the purview of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and 14 senior Grand Ayatollahs.
Wayne White, former deputy director of the State Department's Office of Analysis for the Middle East (under the Bureau of Intelligence and Research) said the Bush administration has drawn up plans for a broad attack against Iran . "I've seen some of the planning," said White, "and you're not talking about a surgical strike." Most Middle Eastern experts in the United States , Europe and the Arab world predict an attack on Iran would destabilize the Muslim world for years.
Ignored by the hawks is the rising chorus against Ahmadinejad's anti-U.S. and anti-Israel foreign policy from within the upper echelons of the mullahocracy. His state visits to America 's self-avowed enemies in Venezuela , Ecuador and Nicaragua were denounced as "wasteful" and "irresponsible."
As was the "unrealistic" budget he submitted to parliament. Attempts to impeach him gathered 38 signatures, short of the 72 required. Ethnic and religious fissures abound in the body politic. Iran 's senior dissident cleric, Hossein Ali Montazeri, blasted Ahmadinejad's "radical and provocative slogans" against the West on the nuclear issue.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff has disclosed Vice President Dick Cheney rejected an Iranian offer in 2003 to help the United States stabilize Iraq . According to Lawrence Wilkerson, who was close to Powell for 16 years, Tehran also offered to end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Those were the heady days when Iran could not believe its luck. The United States had "taken out" its two mortal enemies -- Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Sunni tyranny in Iraq -- and Iran was still in a covertly conciliatory mood via-a-vis the American giant next door.
This flickered out when the U.S. military in 2004 took on Shiite militias that were under the indirect control of Iran 's Revolutionary Guards. Today, if an air campaign were launched by Israel and/or the United States against Iran , an all-out guerrilla jihad ordered by Tehran could easily lead to a precipitous and humiliating withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .
As long as Israel to the west and Pakistan to the east are full-fledged nuclear weapons powers, with missile delivery systems, Iran will not abandon its own quest that has been underway for the past two decades.
Those who argue the pros and cons of U.S. air strikes posit Bush's six-year legacy: Iraq as the biggest blunder in U.S. history, which relegates him in some surveys to one of the three worst presidents in U.S. history. Hence the temptation for a lame duck president to double down by reducing Iran 's nuclear facilities to rubble. The cons in this argument can see the NATO effort in Afghanistan imploding; Pakistan 's Musharraf siding with his Muslim fundamentalists against a close alliance with the United States and helping restore a "moderate" Taliban regime in Kabul ; Iraq and Iran signing a mutual-assistance military alliance.
How different would the picture be if Israel were to attempt a military solution against Iran ? Israel has always thought air strikes appear to be out of the question because of limited air-to-air refueling tanker capacity. Operation Babylon II -- Babylon I was launched in 1981 when Israeli aircraft pulverized the Osirak light-water reactor under construction near Baghdad -- would most probably come by air, but not in aircraft. Israel has some 300 medium-range ballistic missiles ( Jericho 2 has a range of between 1,500 and 3,500 km) that are accurate within 50 feet. Some Jerichos have low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons designed to penetrate the thickest concrete that protects some of Iran 's underground targets.
Israel believes it cannot wait much longer. For the past four years, Mossad and Israeli military intelligence have estimated the critical point of no return in Iran's nuclear timetable was somewhere between 2005 and 2007. But the powers that be in the Jewish state would, of course, much prefer to have the United States do the job. For the first time since the invasion of Iraq , the U.S. Navy will have two aircraft carrier battle groups and cruise missile capabilities on escort ships close to Iran . Also part of the lethal mix are B-52 and B-2B bombers based in Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean .
U.S. air strikes against Iranian supply routes into Iraq would be the first step on a new escalator.

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

Ignore the Israel lobby's push for war with Iran:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/24/ignore-israel-lobby-s-war-push.php

International Mobilization To Stop U.S. Attack on Iran:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/25/international-mobilization-to-stop-u-s-attack-on-iran.php

Video: Recent US actions could signal Iran conflict, despite White House denials; GOPer's bill requires Congress OK on Iran

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Recent_US_actions_could_signal_0112.html

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

U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/20/u-s-plans-envision-broad-attack-on-iran-analyst.php

Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/28/iran-the-next-war-for-israel.php

Esteemed intelligence author/writer James Bamford discusses the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda of the JINSA/PNAC Israel first Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser from pages 261-269/321 of his 'A Pretext for War' book:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php

Pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) Pushing for US to attack Iran for Israel:

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

A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/10/08/a-war-for-israel-colin-powell-seems-to-think-so.php

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

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355144,00.html

US under secretary of state: We won't allow nuclear Iran'

(VIDEO) Nicholas Burns says ‘There is no doubt Iran seeking nuclear military weapons; stationing of two battle groups in Persian Gulf is part of our response’; adds: We are committed to being Israel's strongest security partner
Yaakov Lappin

VIDEO - There is no doubt that Iran's nuclear program is an attempt by the Islamic Republic to gain military nuclear weapons, and the United States will not allow Tehran to go nuclear, the US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador Nicholas Burns, said during the Herzliya Conference Sunday evening.

"Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, there's no doubt about it," Burns said, adding: "There's no debate among experts. It's seeking a nuclear weapon at its plant at Nantz."

Watch live broadcast of Herzliya Conference

The US under-secretary added that his country "is not seeking, at all, a confrontation with Iran," but said that "the policy of the United States is that we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state." His declaration was met with applause among the delegates attending the conference.

"The US has not gone out to look for an argument with Iran," Burns emphasized, but Iran has refused to back down in its attempt to destabilize the region, prompting the US to station "two battle groups in the Persian gulf," and to target Iranian networks enabling attacks on US soldiers in Iraq. "We have an absolute right to defend our soldiers," he added. .

Burns outlined a series of diplomatic steps taken by Washington against Iran, and urged the countries of the European Union to end their economic cooperation with the Islamic Republic.

'2007 year of decision'

He also highlighted Iran's divisive role in the Middle East, support of Palestinian terror groups, Hizbullah, and attempt to topple the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

"In Lebanon, in a couple days time, President Chirac will host a conference, so that the democratic nations stand up in the world against Hizbullah, against those who want to destabilize the democratic government of Siniora," Burns said, adding that the US will help this effort.

"We're all going to defend a democratically elected government from that axis…and we're going to help democracy survive and hopefully prosper," he said. Burns expressed hope that Iran would return to the negotiating table, and said the offer for negotiations was still open.

He affirmed Washington's close alliance with Jerusalem, saying: "We are committed to our alliance with Israel. We are committed to being Israel's strongest security partner. I can't remember a time when the relationship between our two countries was stronger than it is today."

Transportation Minister and former defense minister Shaul Mofaz, who had met with Burns before their joint appearance at the Herzliya conference, said the coming year would be a crucial time for deciding the future of the Middle East.

"The year of 2007 is a year of decisiveness," Mofaz said. "Iran of 2007 has all the components to threaten us existentially, and the whole of the region."

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes he is on a divine mission. I'm the last person to call him insane," Mofaz said. "Although I am not qualified as a psychologist, it's clear to me we are dealing with a person driven by an extremist ideology, who is determined to fulfill his mission," he added.

"Iran is the heart of the problem in the Middle East. It is the urgent threat to the world. And it must be dealt with, before it's too late," he said, adding: "The world can't allow a situation in which a fundamentalist country - that doesn't hide its intentions - holds nuclear weapons. The free world doesn't have the privilege to drag its feet on Iran and hope for best."

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

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

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/20/u-s-plans-envision-broad-attack-on-iran-analyst.php

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:15 am; edited 2 times in total

Iran prepares public for possible clash

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI,

Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 19 minutes ago

Iran conducted missile tests Monday as its leadership stepped up warnings of a possible military confrontation with the United States.

In another show of defiance, Tehran said Monday it had barred 38 United Nations nuclear inspectors from entering the country, apparently in retaliation for a U.N. Security Council resolution last month imposing limited sanctions on Iran.

The drum-beating suggested Iran does not intend to back down in its standoff with the West. It could also aim to rally the public behind the government and silence increasingly bold criticism at home of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's antagonism toward the United States.

Iran's leaders have touted the possibility of a U.S. attack since President Bush announced on Jan. 9 the deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf region, a move U.S. officials have said is a show of strength directed at Iran.

Last month, the Security Council imposed limited trade sanctions on Iran over its refusal to cease uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear energy or bombs.

The Iranian military on Monday began five days of maneuvers near the northern city of Garmsar, about 60 miles southeast of Tehran, state television reported. The military tested its Zalzal-1 and Fajr-5 missiles, the report said.

The Zalzal-1, able to carry a 1,200-pound payload, has a range of 200 miles. That would put Iraq, U.S. bases in the Gulf, and eastern Saudi Arabia in its range. The Fajr-5, with a 1,800-pound payload, has a range of 35 miles.

Neither could reach Israel, but Iran has other missiles that can. It was not known whether the missiles tested are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The Iranian show of strength came as the American aircraft carrier USS Stennis was heading toward the Gulf, joining the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in a beefed-up American military presence. The Stennis is expected to arrive in late February.

The U.S. is also deploying Patriot missiles and nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf and F-16 fighter planes to the Incirlik base in neighboring Turkey.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup aimed to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.

Washington and its allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop atomic weapons. Tehran denies the allegation, insisting its nuclear activities are aimed only at producing energy. The U.S. also accuses Iran of backing militants fueling Iraq's violence.

The U.S. buildup has sparked loud warnings from Iranian officials that the United States will attack.

U.S. officials have long refused to rule out any options in the faceoff with Tehran, but say military action would be a last resort.

A military official told the Associated Press Iranian forces have been put on high alert. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information to the media.

Over the past few days, hardline newspapers have threatened suicide attacks against American targets and claimed missiles fired from Iran would turn Israel into "a scorching hell" if the U.S. takes military action.

One of the papers that carried the threats on Monday is close to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — suggesting the highest levels are involved in ringing the alarm over the American deployment.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack rebuked Iran on Monday for barring the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, saying it was "another example of the Iranians trying to dictate the terms to the international community — in this case, the IAEA."

The rejected officials are on a list of potential inspectors drawn up by the IAEA to visit and monitor Iran's nuclear facilities. Countries submitting their nuclear programs to IAEA purview have the right to ask that certain experts be taken off rosters of inspecting teams.

"The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the U.N. nuclear watchdog's list remain eligible, but did not explain how Iran decided which inspectors to bar.

Analysts said the decision appeared to be a measured retaliation for the U.N. sanctions.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said designating inspectors was a confidential matter between the IAEA and the country concerned. But she added that the agency had enough investigators lined up to conduct inspections in Iran.

"In this case, we are discussing with Iran its request for withdrawing the designation of certain safeguards inspectors," she said.

It was not the first time Iran had asked the IAEA to bar certain inspectors from visiting the country.

Tehran last spring asked the agency to remove the head of the inspection team probing the country's nuclear program. More recently, Tehran delayed entry visas for some inspectors late last year, including Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's deputy director general in charge of the Iran nuclear dossier.

Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran is "ready for anything" in its confrontation with the United States. At the same time that he soundly rejected criticism at home over his policies.

Iranian reformers and conservatives, who were once allies of Ahmadinejad, now accuse him of hurting Iran with his virulent anti-U.S. rhetoric, while failing to repair Iran's weakening economy. Rising prices have fueled anger against the president.

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

http://www.rawstory.com/printstory.php?story=4464

After query, AP says nuke watchdog didn't respond to after hour calls on Iran nuke claim

01/22/2007 @ 12:50 pm
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna

Update: After an inquiry by RAW STORY, the Associated Press' Director of Corporate Communications Jack Stokes said they could not reach the spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency after running a story asserting that Iran had barred 38 IAEA inspectors.

Advertisement
"IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming and other agency officials did not immediately return after-hours calls from The Associated Press," AP reporter NASSER KARIMI wrote.

Raw Story's Larisa Alexandrovna received comment from the agency shortly after the story broke this morning. AP's original article didn't indicate if they'd called the IAEA about Iran's claims before filing with the headline, "Iran bars 38 IAEA nuclear inspectors."

Stokes did not say why the AP called the agency after hours.

#
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is disputing claims that Iran has barred 38 nuclear inspectors from visiting the country, RAW STORY can reveal.

A Reuters report earlier today -- followed up by a report from AP -- sent shockwaves through the international community by airing allegations that Iran had kicked out inspectors from the U.N. atomic watchdog organization. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki posited that Iran had barred 38 inspectors with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

This, however, does not align with comments from the IAEA itself. Shockingly, no comment from the agency appeared in either Reuters or AP's article.

"We are discussing with Iran its request for withdrawing the designation of certain safeguards inspectors," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said, in response to an email query from RAW STORY.

"It should be noted however," she added, "that there are a sufficient number of inspectors designated for Iran and the IAEA is able to perform its inspection activities in accordance with Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement."

Fleming did not say Iran had barred inspectors. She added, "Details of inspector designation is a confidential matter between the IAEA and the country concerned."

Sources within the IAEA told the German Press Agency (dpa) that while the ban was not a normal daily occurrence, there were still 150 designated inspectors for Iran, and that other countries had also, on occasion, withdrawn designations.

Raw Story's Michael Roston contributed reporting for this update.

Alpha · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: AIPAC prepares for war with Iran

WINEP is a spinoff of AIPAC.
WINEP prepares for war with Iran.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy
PolicyWatch #1179
Iran's Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare
By Fariborz Haghshenass
December 21, 2006

For more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its
defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian
Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the
United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its
revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval
warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build
on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.

*Revolutionary Naval Warfare
*During the Iran-Iraq War, the armed forces of Iran -- particularly the
Revolutionary Guards (or Pasdaran) -- developed a war-fighting doctrine
in accord with the country's revolutionary ideology. Based on Shiite
religious concepts, the doctrine reflects Iran's Alavi and Ashurai
heritage. It draws inspiration from Ali (cousin and son-in-law of the
Prophet Mohammad), who chose to avoid confrontation when challenged by
Arab rulers of his time, and waited for twenty-four years before
assuming the caliphate, as well as from the devotion of his son Hussein,
who faced a superior enemy and died in battle on the plains of Karbala
on the tenth day of Muharram in the year 680 (Ashura).

Revolutionary Shiite values such as stoic endurance and devotion to the
cause are granted equal, if not superior, status to the traditional
military principles of mission accomplishment and the achievement of a
military objective. According to this doctrine, the mere act of
fighting, exerting maximum effort, and fulfilling one's religious (and
national) duty to the fullest is an end in itself. The result or outcome
is of secondary importance. For adherents, martyrdom is a welcome
prospect. A readiness to die, however, is not considered a substitute
for lethality and effectiveness. On the contrary, the Iranian concept of
Alavi/Ashurai warfare relies not just on spiritual commitment, but also
on high-tech weaponry and innovative tactics -- a combination employed
to great effect on the ground in southern Lebanon by Iran's protege, the
Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, in its war with Israel this summer.

The most prominent expression of this doctrine was a series of naval
battles with the U.S. Navy in April 1988. These took place during the
final phases of the Iran-Iraq War, when hopelessly outclassed Iranian
forces battled U.S. naval units in the Persian Gulf. Iran incurred heavy
losses in the process. The experience taught Iran that large naval
vessels are vulnerable to air and missile attacks, confirmed the
efficacy of small boat operations, and spurred interest in missile-armed
fast-attack craft. It also allowed Iran to expand the use of swarming
tactics that form the foundation of its current approach to asymmetric
naval warfare.

*Naval Swarming Tactics
*Swarming tactics are not new; they have been practiced by land armies
for thousands of years. Such tactics require light, mobile forces with
substantial striking power, capable of rapidly concentrating to attack
an enemy from multiple directions and then rapidly dispersing.

Iranian naval swarming tactics focus on surprising and isolating the
enemy's forces and preventing their reinforcement or resupply, thereby
shattering the enemy's morale and will to fight. Iran has practiced both
mass and dispersed swarming tactics. The former employs mass formations
of hundreds of lightly armed and agile small boats that set off from
different bases, then converge from different directions to attack a
target or group of targets. The latter uses a small number of highly
agile missile or torpedo attack craft that set off on their own, from
geographically dispersed and concealed locations, and then converge to
attack a single target or set of targets (such as a tanker convoy). The
dispersed swarming tactic is much more difficult to detect and repel
because the attacker never operates in mass formations.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Pasdaran navy used mass swarming tactics;
as a result, its forces proved vulnerable to attack by U.S. naval and
air power. Because of this, it is unlikely that such tactics would be
used for anything but diversionary attacks in the future. In today's
Iranian naval forces, mass swarming tactics have largely given way to
dispersed swarming.

Dispersed swarming tactics are most successful when attackers can elude
detection through concealment and mobility, employ stand-off firepower,
and use superior situational awareness (intelligence), enabling them to
find and engage the enemy first. This accounts for a number of trends in
Iranian naval force development in the past two decades. The first is
the acquisition and development of small, fast weapons platforms --
particularly lightly armed small boats and missile-armed fast-attack
craft; extended- and long-range shore- and sea-based antiship missiles;
midget and diesel attack submarines (for intelligence gathering, covert
mine laying, naval special warfare, and conventional combat operations);
low-signature reconnaissance and combat unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs);
and the adaptation of the Shahab-3 medium-range surface-to-surface
missile armed with a cluster warhead reportedly carrying 1,400 bomblets,
for use against enemy naval bases and carrier battle groups.

Iran has also sought to improve its ability to achieve surprise by
employing low-observable technologies (such as radar-absorbent paints),
strict communications discipline, stringent emissions control measures,
passively or autonomously guided weapons systems (such as the Kowsar
series of television-guided antiship missiles), and sophisticated
command-and-control arrangements. To support its naval swarm tactics,
Iran has encouraged decentralized decisionmaking and initiative, as well
as autonomy and self-sufficiency among naval combat elements.

*Wartime Operations
*In wartime, Iranian naval forces would seek to close the Strait of
Hormuz and destroy enemy forces bottled up in the Persian Gulf;
therefore speed and surprise would be key. Iranian naval forces would
seek to identify and attack the enemy's centers of gravity as quickly as
possible and inflict maximum losses before contact with subordinate
units were lost as a result of enemy counterattacks. Geography is Iran's
ally. Because of the proximity of major shipping routes to the country's
largely mountainous 2,000-kilometer coastline, Iranian naval elements
can sortie from their bases and attack enemy ships with little advance
warning. Meanwhile, shore-based antiship missiles can engage targets
almost anywhere in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. To achieve the
latter capability, and to improve the survivability of its shore-based
missile force, Iran has devoted significant efforts to extending the
range of locally produced variants of a number of Chinese shore-based
antiship missiles such as the HY-2 Silkworm and the C-802 (from 50 to
300 kilometers and from 120 to 170 kilometers, respectively). It has
also introduced the use of helicopter-borne long-range antiship missiles.

To ensure that it can achieve surprise in the event of a crisis or war,
Iran's naval forces keep U.S. warships in the region under close visual,
acoustic, and radar observation. The Iranian navy commander -- Rear Adm.
Sajad Kouchaki, one of the architects of the country's naval doctrine --
recently claimed that Iranian submarines continually monitor U.S. naval
movements, frequently at close range, and have even passed underneath
American aircraft carriers and other warships undetected. Iranian UAVs
also frequently shadow U.S. carrier battle groups in the area.

*Conclusion
*Current Iranian naval deployments are aimed at deterring an American
attack and -- in the event of hostilities -- entrapping and destroying
U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, at which time U.S. regional bases
would be targeted with rocket and missile strikes as well. Iranian naval
forces would conduct simultaneous close-in and stand-off attacks,
relying on swarming tactics developed and refined during the Iran-Iraq
War and highlighted in recent naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. The
performance of Lebanese Hizballah guerrillas, who used similar tactics
against much larger and more powerful Israeli ground forces in southern
Lebanon last summer, provides some insight into what the U.S. Navy
should expect in the event of a confrontation with Iran in the Persian
Gulf.

/Fariborz Haghshenass is an expert on the Iranian military.

/View this PolicyWatch on our website at
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite
1050 Washington DC 20036
Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 ·

Alpha

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

By Dmitriy Baklin

Global Research, January 20, 2007
Strategic Cultural Foundation, Russia

The thunderous salvos of fireworks in celebration of the New 2007 Year have quieted down, and the lengthy Christmas vacations are finally over. On these festive days, heads of all states must have been wishing their peoples peace and prosperity, health and happiness. All of them were probably sincere in saying this. For who, being in power and absolutely sane, would wish to invite disaster?
It depends on the way you look at it, though. The intentions voiced by top US and Israeli executives in December 2006 - January 2007 can hardly be referred to as good. Because intensive preparations for a nuclear missile war cannot be described as a blessing for either their own nations or any other peoples. However, it is the US and Israel that appear to be preparing such a «gift» for the world in the new 2007 year.

Preparations for the New Year celebration have for whatever reason (it would be interesting to find out the actual reason) diverted public attention from the interview which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave on December 11, 2006 to the German TV channel SAT 1. This interview, however, came as a bomb explosion. The Israeli Prime Minister, annoyed by the interviewer’s question about U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ statement that Iran had concerns about Israeli nuclear weapons, answered in exasperation, «You had better ask Gates about it!». After this, declaring that Israel «had never threatened anyone with annihilation, whereas Iran openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map», he said exactly the following, «Can you say that this is the same level, when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel (highlighted by me – D.B.) and Russia?».

In this way, therefore, Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons was finally confirmed at the top Israeli level!

So while the world community has until now been content with Israel's assertions that it will «not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East», Olmert’s words gave the world’s leading politicians a lot to think about.

It now appears that Israeli leaders from Ben-Gurion to Sharon have been hoaxing both the UN Security Council and the IAEA for no less than forty years since the nuclear reactor was built in the Dimona desert, which has never been inspected by these international organizations. Even Moses spent less time leading Jews around the desert.

Israel’s unwillingness to join the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is now viewed in a different light. And as Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has a monopoly on nuclear weapons, the secret Israeli plan for using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities is now becoming a reality.

Unlike Israel, Iran has joined the NPT and signed the additional protocol to the treaty, thus committing itself to unequivocal compliance with all provisions of these international acts. Besides, Iranian nuclear facilities are being created under IAEA’s control.

Of course, Israeli possession of nuclear weapons has been an open secret for more than a decade.

In December 2005, General Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, declared that «Israel had already for a long time – I’m stressing it – really possessed a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons».

A year later, on December 7, 2006, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in testimony to a Senate committee that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, which partly explains Iran’s desire to have nuclear weapons of its own. Notably, it is the first time that a high-ranking US official made a statement on Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, timed to recognition of this fact by the Israeli Prime Minister. Prior to this, the US administration had preferred playing up to Israel in its desire to preserve «non-transparency» of the national uranium project.

Israel’s nuclear program was launched in 1952, and the first Israeli nuclear weapons were produced as far back as 1967-1968 at the nuclear complex in Dimona in the Negev desert, located mostly underground and possessing a full cycle of nuclear weapons production.

Israel has nuclear delivery vehicles – US-built F-15 and F-16 aircraft, as well as three German-built diesel-electric submarines of the same class – Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan, capable of carrying up to 20 surface to surface torpedoes.

Israel also has in its arsenal up to 300 medium-range ballistic missiles Jericho 1 (with a range capability of 500 - 600 km) and Jericho 2 (with a range capability varying, by different estimates, between 1,500 and 3,500 km).

This is more than enough to eliminate the most serious, according to Israeli leaders, Iranian threat – its nuclear weapons production plants. Israeli special services were convinced that Iran would be able to obtain its first nuclear bomb between 2005 and 2007. Now that we are in the critical year 2007, it may only mean, according to experts from Mossad (Foreign intelligence service) and Aman (Military intelligence), that Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region is drawing close to an end. Therefore, one should hurry.

Israel already has experience of destroying nuclear facilities of its unfriendly neighbors. In 1981, the Israelis successfully planned and conducted the so-called operation «Babylon». In the course of this operation, Israeli aircraft bombed the Osirak light-water reactor under construction near Baghdad in Iraq. The Israelis conducted the air raid against Osirak, though it was being built by the French …

The currently planned Israeli attack using tactical nuclear weapons, which may be arbitrarily designated as «Babylon-2», has as its key targets the uranium enrichment centrifuges that may be used in manufacturing nuclear weapons in Natanz, the nuclear reactor and unique underground storage sites for uranium-containing gas in Isfahan, as well as the heavy water reactor in Arak. State and political leaders of Israel believe that destruction of these facilities is going to at least seriously delay implementation of the Iranian nuclear program, if not wipe it out. On the whole, there are up to six identified Iranian nuclear facilities that may become potential targets for elimination by Israeli aggressors.

The Bushehr nuclear power facility in the south of Iran with a 1,000 MW pressurized water reactor being built with Russian assistance is no exception.

Israeli and US representatives have more than once discussed the possibility of such an attack using bunker-buster bombs with nuclear warheads. True, it was said that Israel might only use tactical nuclear weapons in this operation if the US refused to participate, so that Israel would have to face Iran on its own.

No matter how one regards disclosure of Israeli plans for a «preventive» nuclear strike – an information leak meant to put pressure upon Teheran, an attempt to «untie the US hands» or preparation of world public opinion for a nuclear war to be launched by Israel, one thing is clear - Israel is backed by the US.

As far back as in 2000, Israel and the US signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation and scientific exchange in the energy field. This agreement opened access for Israeli scientists to research laboratories of the US Department of Energy and its impressive array of data in the field of nuclear engineering. Signing this agreement, the US actually canceled the restrictions imposed on Israel after it refused to join the NPT.

Doing this, the US, on one hand, ensured itself, with the help of Israel and its «non-transparent» nuclear potential, comprehensive control over the Middle Eastern region. On the other hand, in the event of Israeli nuclear aggression against Iran, which may go beyond the boundaries of the Middle and Near East, the US will wash its hands, affixing the blame to Israel’s intransigently belligerent posture. It is not at all concerned that a considerable group of states may get involved in the conflict, too.

The operation planned by Washington and Tel Aviv is going to be the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945 when the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus starting the first epoch of nuclear wars in the world’s history. And though the TNT equivalent of the bombs Israel plans to use is 15 times less than that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the consequences of their use are going to be terrible.

The thing is not even that Iran may stop its 2.5 million barrels per day oil export or, say, block the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil exports is taken out on a daily basis. Even the bleak prospect of having Iranian anti-ship missiles turn the Persian Gulf into a mass grave for the US Navy group, which is currently deployed there and which may well participate in the strike against Iran, may seem only an overture to a greatest tragedy. Though, for the US, losing even a single aircraft carrier may be equal, in terms of its psychological effect, to the events of September 11, 2001.

It may not be ruled out that Iran – the country which is not called anything but «terrorist №1» in both Israel and the US – may make a retaliatory move, using its Shahab-3 missiles equipped with radiological warheads, better known as warheads of the so-called «dirty» type. Such a warhead may be equipped with 500-700 kg of semi-enriched dustlike uranium concentrate. Even a single missile launch may mean a dozen of Chernobyls for Israel and the US army group – just as for other countries in the Middle East.

Would it not be advisable for «hot heads» in Israel and the US to heed the words of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who referred to Iran’s desire to possess a nuclear potential as an attempt to establish a power balance in the region, noting that Iran needs a nuclear arsenal as deterrence against Israel?

By the way, this is not the first time that these opinions have been voiced in the US. On November 16, 2005, the US National Security Archive disclosed documents dating back to Richard Nixon’s presidential term, which indicate that the US Department of State during the Cold War was seriously concerned that its key Middle Eastern ally might launch a nuclear arms race in the region.

A 1969 memorandum from Assistant Secretary of State Joseph J. Sisco refers to existing intelligence on «Israel’s rapidly developing a capability to produce and deploy nuclear weapons», despite its commitment not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region.

Joseph J. Sisco asked Secretary of State William Rogers to try and curb Israeli ambitions before it is too late. «If this process continues, and it becomes generally assumed that Israel has the bomb, it will have far-reaching and even dangerous implications for the U.S.», —the Assistant Secretary of State wrote. Speaking of the perilous consequences, he especially emphasized that «Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons would do nothing to deter Arab guerrilla warfare…, on the contrary it would add a dangerous new element to Arab-Israel hostility …».

This gives added substance to the warning that came in Dmitry Sedov’s article «2007 to open a new page in the world’s history», in which the author refers to motivations underlying Teheran’s aspirations for nuclear parity with Israel and the likelihood of a regional nuclear conflict.

Dmitry Sedov also refers to ways of avoiding this conflict. If the world community is genuinely interested in finding a solution for this problem, «there immediately emerges an option for establishing a regional nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Under this option, Israel would get an official guarantee of military assistance from the US in the event of a military aggression and would destroy its bombs, whereas Iran would light-heartedly renounce uranium enrichment, buying finished fuel elements from Russia». In this case, however, one would need to «take a step towards settlement of the Middle Eastern problem on principles of equality, which appears unthinkable to the US and Israel. For the following step would mean radical concessions on the part of Israel, which would be the only way to peace, – withdrawal from occupied territories to the boundaries defined by the UN, and establishment of an independent Palestinian state». And this is something to which Washington and Tel Aviv are adamantly opposed.

It should be unambiguously stated that, in the event of an Israeli nuclear attack against Iran, the US will automatically become an accessory of the aggressor in creating nuclear weapons, their proliferation in the Middle East and their use in an armed conflict that cannot help growing into a big nuclear war.

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

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Dmitriy Baklin , Strategic Cultural Foundation, Russia , 2007

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4529

Alpha · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: U.S. warns Iran to back down

U.S. warns Iran to back down

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.
Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was "not possible" until Iran halts uranium enrichment.
"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.
"Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us," Burns continued.
Iran is in a standoff with the West over its defiance of U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is aimed solely at generating energy, but the United States and some of its allies suspect it is geared toward making weapons. The U.N. imposed limited sanctions on Iran last month.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran is "ready for anything" in its confrontation with the United States.
Iran conducted missile tests on Monday, the first of five days of military maneuvers southeast of Tehran.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. buildup in the Gulf was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.
The American aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and several accompanying ships are heading toward the Gulf to join an aircraft carrier group already in the region, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Stennis is expected to arrive in late February.
The Stennis's arrival in the Middle East will mark the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq invasion in 2003 that the United States has had two carrier battle groups in the region.
The U.S. Navy said Tuesday that the minesweeper USS Gladiator arrived in the Persian Gulf, one of six such ships — four American, two British — now plying the Gulf for anti-ship mines. U.S. officials have long said Iran was likely to block busy Gulf shipping lanes in a conflict.
Some among the audience of Dubai-based diplomats and analysts complained that American wars in the Middle East were already threatening the region's stability and asked Burns to sort out Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict before turning attention to Iran.
"What we are not interested in is another war in the region," Mohammed al-Naqbi, who heads the Gulf Negotiations Center, told Burns. "Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran. Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess."
Burns' speech appeared to respond to similar comments by Iranian officials in Dubai and Bahrain last month. In December, Iran's top national security adviser, Ali Larijani, appealed to Gulf Arabs to shut down American bases on their soil and instead join Iran in a regional security alliance.

Alpha · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject:

McCain says Bush listened to Cheney too much (as if if we didn't know that already!):

This story brought to you by Politico.com

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4B002C86-3048-5C12-00AE9F1E1C922D9D

McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy
By: Roger Simon
January 22, 2007 11:40 PM EST
With his presidential hopes tied to an administration whose Iraq policy he supports but cannot control, John McCain for the first time blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the "witch's brew" of a "terribly mishandled" war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat.
McCain also for the first time opened the door to the possibility of a U.S. troop pullback to the borders of Iraq should the president's planned troop surge fail.
Although McCain had once lavished praise on the vice president, he said in an interview in his Senate office: "The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense."
McCain added: "Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." Donald Rumsfeld served as President Bush's secretary of defense from January 2001 to December 2006. Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.
McCain has long criticized Rumsfeld, but in July 2004 at a campaign rally in Lansing, Mich., McCain said he had "known and admired" Cheney for more than 20 years and described him as "one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had.''
But that was then and this is now, and now McCain is making clear his frustrations with the Bush administration, the Iraqi military and "bureaucratic resistance" in the Pentagon to a troop surge.
McCain said in the interview that the success of the American mission in Iraq "will be directly related to the ability of the Iraqi military to take up responsibilities. Their record is terrible." Also, he said, "There is still enormous bureaucratic resistance (to the troop surge) in the Pentagon, and it bothers me a great deal. The bureaucrats in the military are saying this is a terrible strain on the (National) Guard and the active duty forces, and it is. There is only one thing worse than an over-stressed military, and that's a defeated military. And we are on the verge of that."
McCain said that even the planned insertion of 21,500 new U.S. troops into Iraq, which he supports, may not succeed. "I don't know if this is enough troops or not," McCain said. "I can't guarantee success by doing this."
The Arizona Republican, whose 2008 presidential campaign is well under way even though he has not yet officially announced, is keenly aware of how his support for the Iraq war is making him increasingly unpopular.
"The irony of all this for me is that I am the guy that for three years -- more than three years -- has said, 'You don't have enough troops there! And you are not running this war right! And you've (ital) got (unital) to change!' " McCain said. "And now I find myself the object of scorn because I think we can't afford to leave."
But McCain also said a withdrawal of troops to the borders of Iraq could be an option if the troop surge fails.
"If this strategy doesn't succeed, we will have to devise another strategy," McCain said. "But I have to hasten to add there are no good options." One of those options, McCain said "is to withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering. Maintaining our bases in Kuwait and other places. There are a lot of scenarios." But he also said the current troop surge strategy "has to be given time."
McCain's support for the Iraq war is unpopular with Democrats and Independents and is losing support within his own party, including among some of his fellow Republican senators. Sen. Chuck Hagel, Neb., has called the troop surge "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."
Without naming names, McCain said, "It is ironic that many of my colleagues who are now wavering were those who were down the line in support (of the war) and would come back from Iraq saying that everything is fine and the troops are wonderful and it's the media (that is the problem). And I came back from my first trip saying, 'You better get more boots on the ground! You better change this.' Now I am (ital) hung (unital) with it. It's fascinating!"
"Life isn't fair, as Jack Kennedy said," McCain added with his typical mordancy.
McCain will almost certainly announce his presidential candidacy soon, but he said, "This whole Iraq situation has really diverted most of my attention."
In the primaries, McCain is in danger of being whipsawed between Republican conservatives who think he is not really one of them and Republican centrists who are opposed to the war.
"There are still some elements of the party that are very skeptical about me," McCain acknowledged. "I think also, even amongst Republicans, there is a real concern about my position on the war in Iraq."
He did, however, give a peek at his game plan to gain the White House. "Most people in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, people around the country know me rather well," he said. "It's not as if I am a blank slate out there. Most of them, I think, have confidence that I have the experience, knowledge and background that, even though they disagree with me on a specific issue, they think I will do the right thing. Or at least what I believe is right."
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company

Alpha

January 22, 2007
Intelligence vs. Evidence
The Axis of Deception is lying us into war – again

by Justin Raimondo
In his most recent peroration defending our escalating war of "liberation" in the Middle East, our Dear and Glorious Leader opined that Iran was stirring the Iraqi pot, and he strongly implied that they'd better back off – or else. Vowing to guarantee Iraq's borders and territorial integrity, the president declared:
"This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
These charges have been persistently pressed by this administration since the U.S. colonial administration set up shop in the Green Zone: first, the insurgency was said to consist primarily of "foreign fighters" and Ba'athist "dead-enders," as Rumsfeld put it. Later, however, as the popular character of the insurgency became undeniable, the party line shifted to pointing the finger at Iran and its ally Syria: the mullahs of Tehran are arming and funding the Sunni insurgency, as well as aiding and encouraging Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, a radical Shi'ite militia. Resistance to the Americans has nothing to do with the daily depredations and humiliations of an occupied people: Iraqis acting at the behest of "foreign" influences, i.e., the Iranians, are killing increasing numbers of American soldiers as well as their fellow Iraqis.
The British dispute this, with Defense Secretary Des Browne averring:
"I have not myself seen any evidence – and I don't think any evidence exists – of government-supported or instigated armed support on Iran's part in Iraq."
The British military backs him up. "It's a question of intelligence versus evidence," says Basra-based Brig. James Everard of Britain's 20th Armored Brigade. "One hears word of mouth, but one has to see it with one's own eyes."
This "intelligence" vs. evidence dichotomy is useful in understanding how we got dragged into Iraq in the first place. You'll recall that we had scads of intelligence coming at us, including on the front page of the New York Times, such that even most war opponents – present company excluded – conceded that Saddam undoubtedly did have "weapons of mass destruction," but that, for other reasons, we ought to at least delay attacking him. There was, however, as some of uspointed out at the time, no hard evidence of Iraq's fabled WMD. Like tales of the Yeti and the Loch Ness monster, breathless stories of the Saddam Bomb, ubiquitous since the early 1990s, turned out to be utterly false, imaginative narratives spun by Ahmed Chalabi and his fellow "heroes in error," with a little help from Judith Miller. I suppose it takes a libertarian to fully appreciate the irony of how American taxpayers paid for their own deception.
Once again, we are seeing the victory of "intelligence" over solid evidence, this time in the run-up to war with Iran. Wayne White, until 2005 the deputy director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's Near Eastern Division, has this to say about allegations of Tehran's ties to Iraqi insurgent groups:
"I have no doubt whatsoever that al-Quds forces are on the ground and active in Iraq. That's about it. I saw evidence that Moqtada al-Sadr was in contact with Sunni Arab insurgents in western Iraq, but I never saw evidence of Iran in that loop."
The New York Sun piece in which this citation appears purports to reveal "Iran's Secret Plan for Mayhem" in Iraq, supposedly based on captured "secret documents" – and also reminds readers that "in 2003, coalition forces captured a playbook outlining Iranian intentions to support insurgents of both stripes, but its authenticity was disputed."
Yeah, I'll bet – not that the history of the gang that lied us into war would in any way cause us to suspect the authenticity of key documents and other "intelligence" produced by them. The same lie factory that churned out war propaganda based on lies, half-truths, and outright forgeries is being revved up once again, this time in the service of a new and even more dangerous war plan.
White, who worked as a top analyst for the State Department's own intelligence agency, has also revealed the frightening scope of this administration's war intentions:
"I've seen some of the planning. … You're not talking about a surgical strike. You're talking about a war against Iran that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years. We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability."
Forget the Iraqi civil war: the consequences of a U.S. military confrontation with Iran could prove particularly deadly to our troops in Iraq, where they are sitting ducks for Iranian attacks. As White puts it:
"'I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure,' which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in Iraq, which could be confined to that country."
Numerousreports that the president is determined to confront Iran, one way or another, before leaving the White House have to be taken seriously, and there are at least some indications that even the Democratic leadership in Congress is finally beginning to notice that we're headed for war with Tehran. Harry Reid has openly warned the administration that the president would need congressional authorization before unleashing American bombers, and others, including Joe Biden, have struck the same pose.
One wonders, then, why House Joint Resolution 14 – legislation recently introduced by Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) which explicitly forbids a U.S. attack on Iran, except in response to a "demonstrably imminent" attack on U.S. forces or interests – has yet to attract more than a dozen or so co-sponsors. Unlike the weak palliatives offered up on the Iraq question by the Democrats, the Jones resolution is a binding one.
Although I started making inquiries last week, I have yet to get an answer from Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office as to her position on H.J. Res. 14. It's now quite popular to be antiwar when it comes to Iraq, but Iran is a different story altogether. Hillary Clinton, who seems on track to grasp the Democrats' presidential nomination, has criticized the Bush administration for being too soft on Tehran, and Howard Dean takes the kooky "Objectivist" position that the Iraq war is a case of attacking the wrong enemy, the right one being Iran.
Unless the Democrats and the fast-rising antiwar faction of the Republicans in Congress are willing to go on record as explicitly forbidding an attack on Iran, the presidential exercise of the military option will hang over our heads like a veritable sword of Damocles.
Confronted with this obstacle to his war plans, will a president who believes he has absolute power in wartime assert his supremacy and provoke a constitutional crisis? Given the legendary cowardice of the Democrats on questions of war and peace, we may never get to find out.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10368

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

January 23, 2007
The X Factor in 2008 – Iran

by Patrick J. Buchanan
After a weekend in which 29 Americans died and the 82nd Airborne deployed in Baghdad, what the Iraq war will mean to the politics of 2008 becomes clear.
Hillary Clinton's early Saturday announcement of her exploratory committee was brilliantly executed and captured front page, cable, and network coverage all weekend. But it was a decision forced upon her.
Barack Obama, the "rock star," has been poaching on Hillary's donor lists and offering Democrats, in the style of New York mayoral candidate John V. Lindsay in 1965 ("He is fresh, and they are all tired"), a post-Bush-Clinton-Bush politics that says, "Good-bye to all that."
John Edwards has pitched his tent in the Cindy Sheehan camp. The Sunday preceding Dr. King's birthday, he rose in New York City's Riverside Church, where King had denounced the Vietnam War, to decry President Bush's surge as "the McCain Doctrine," called for immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 U.S. troops, and threw down the gauntlet to Hillary, declaring, "Silence is betrayal."
By midweek, Hillary was out with her own plan for redeployment.
The Democratic nominee will likely be one of these three. In every national or Iowa-New Hampshire poll, they are first, second, or third. But there is a wild card.
On Feb. 25, America will watch the Academy Awards, where the Oscar for best documentary will likely go to An Inconvenient Truth. If Al Gore wins the Oscar, addresses the nation for two minutes on global warming and the war, then appears on Oprah, Leno, Letterman, Stewart, and Colbert, a subsequent declaration of candidacy would put him in the top tier. And unlike Edwards and Hillary, Gore opposed the war in Iraq.
In the Democratic Party, the Iraq war is a lost cause that ought never to have been begun and any candidate who has not come to that position by February 2007 will not be in the hunt.
In the Republican Party, the war is less likely to bring about the unity Democrats will have achieved by year's end. For by summer's end, the surge will be over. While there may have been a temporary reduction in massacres by then, no one believes an additional 21,500 troops in a Texas-sized nation of 26 million can turn around a war Gen. Colin Powell says we "are losing" and Bush concedes "we are not winning."
Already, near a fifth of the Republicans in the Senate, including Chuck Hagel and presidential candidate Sam Brownback, have come out against the surge. The front-runners, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, however, still back the president.
But while McCain is far out in front in raising money and lining up support, he is also the single national figure, beyond Bush and Dick Cheney, most identified with the least popular war in U.S. history. If McCain wishes to be president, it would be best for him for this war to be in its final act, one way or the other, by 2008.
If the war has been lost by then, as many believe it is already, McCain can say: Rumsfeld lost it because he fought it the wrong way, and we shall never do that again. But if the war is still going on, it will be the issue of 2008, and it is hard to see America voting to continue or embrace the "McCain Doctrine" and escalate by sending in 100,000 more troops.
The GOP is thus looking at a situation in 2008 where the party will be as divided as Democrats were with Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, Bobby Kennedy, and LBJ in 1968, while Democrats will be as united as the GOP was under Nixon. Had George Wallace, who got 13 percent, been out of the '68 race, Nixon would have won in a landslide.
Is there anything that might alter the course of events and affect the war picture by 2008? Indeed: a preemptive strike on Iran.
Should it occur, writes Wayne White, an intelligence officer at the State Department until 2005, "such action would likely involve not only taking out widely dispersed nuclear-related targets and nearby anti-aircraft defenses, but also portions of the Iranian air force assigned to defend these targets. And that's just for starters."
"In order to reduce Iran's ability to retaliate in the Persian Gulf, such a plan probably would also include taking out Iran's array of anti-ship missiles along the northern coast of the Gulf, its Kilo-class submarines, other naval assets, and even some targets related to Iran's long-range missile capacity."
Is such an attack being considered? Nick Burns, No. 3 at State, was at the Herzileah Conference this weekend. "Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon – there's no doubt about it," Burns told the Israelis. "The policy of the U.S. government is that we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state."
Burns was cheered and echoed by ex-Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz: "The year of 2007 is the year of decisiveness. … The free world doesn't have the privilege to drag its feet on Iran and hope for best."
Democrats failed to stop this war. Can they stop the next one? Or do they suspect and support what they think is coming?
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10378

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

To: "rbleier" <rbleier@igc.org>
From: "Ronald" <rbleier@igc.org>

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:03:26 -0500
Subject: [IntelligentMinds] *D.Lindorff: Iraq war was no blunder: prelude to attacking Iran

Very important article. See my comments in double brackets and for those with html, in italics and in red.
Ronald
Thanks to JG for spotting this one.
http://bleiersblog. blogspot. com
http://desip. igc.org
.

Dave Lindorff wote:(excerpt)

So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq's army and most of the country's civil service managers, that it boggles the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or incompetence. (L. Paul Bremer, for instance, who made the "dumb" decision about dismantling the Iraqi army, prior to becoming Iraq's occupation viceroy, had headed the nation's leading risk assessment consultancy, and surely knew what all the risks were of his various decisions.)

Dave Lindorff: Was Iraq War a 'Blunder' or Was It Treason?
By
Created 01/22/2007 - 9:19am
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Published on BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflas h.com/articles)

by Dave Lindorff, co-author of "The Case for Impeachment [0]"

New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), is calling President Bush's invasion of Iraq a "stark blunder" and says that his new scheme to send 21,500 more troops into the mess he created is just digging the hole deeper.

I wonder though.

It seems ever more likely to me that this whole mess was no blunder at all.

People are wont to attribute the whole thing to lack of intelligence on the president's part, and to hubris on the part of his key advisers. I won't argue that the president is a lightweight in the intellect department, nor will I dispute that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and that whole neocon gang have demonstrably lacked the virtues of reflection and humility. But that said, I suspect that the real story of the Iraq War is that Bush and his gang never really cared whether they actually would "win" in Iraq. In fact, arguably, they didn't really want to win.

What they wanted was a war. [[They wanted permanent war. 911 was their vehicle. From the beginning they insisted that it was a WAR on terror, not a police action.]]

If the war they started had ended quickly with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that would have served their purposes, at least for the short term. Bush would have emerged from a short invasion and conquest a national hero, would have handily won re-election in 2004, and would have gone on to a second term as a landslide victor. But if it went badly, as it has, they figured he would still come out ahead. He would be a wartime president, and he'd make full use of that role, expansively misdefining his "commander in chief" title to imply authority over the Congress and the courts, to grab power heretofore unheard of for a president. [[At a certain moment, certainly by the time they cashiered their first pro-counsel, Jay Garner, they needed a rationale to stay, create permanent bases, and continue their overriding mission which was to destroy Iraq. They had two reasons.

1.They are about destruction. What does it mean to say that the Bush-Cheney (Rumsfeld) administration is about destruction? It means they are nihilists. That means they believe in destruction for its own sake. They pretend to believe that reconstruction will follow destruction. Their understanding of Year Zero is that first everything will be destroyed and then a new reborn society will follow. But their track record for reconstruction is what it is.

2.They wanted to ensure Israel's domination of the Middle East by crushing any possiblilty of a challenging Arab power.

This, I suspect, was the grand strategy underlying the attack on Iraq.

If I'm right, there may have been method to the madness of not building up enough troops for the invasion to insure that U.S. forces could occupy a destroyed Iraq and help it rebuild; method to the madness of allowing looters free sway to destroy the country's remaining post-invasion infrastructure; method to the madness, even, of allowing remnant forces of Hussein's to gather up stockpiles of weapons and even high-density explosives, so they could mount an effective resistance and drag out the conflict.

So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq's army and most of the country's civil service managers, that it boggles the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or incompetence. (L. Paul Bremer, for instance, who made the "dumb" decision about dismantling the Iraqi army, prior to becoming Iraq's occupation viceroy, had headed the nation's leading risk assessment consultancy, and surely knew what all the risks were of his various decisions.)

We expect a measure of idiocy from our elected leaders and their appointees, but not wholesale idiocy!

This disaster has been so colossal, it almost had to have been orchestrated.

If that's the case, Congress should be taking a hard look at not just the latest installment of escalation, but at the whole war project, beginning with the 2002 campaign to get it going. Certainly throwing 21,500 new troops into the fire makes no sense whatever. If 140,000 of the best-equipped troops in the world can't pacify Iraq, 160,000 aren't going to be able to do it either. You don't need to be a general to figure that out. Even a senator or representative ought to be able to do it. So clearly Congress should kill this plan.

Since it's not about "winning" the war, it has to be about something else. My guess would be it's about either dragging things out until the end of 2008, so Bush can leave office without having to say he's sorry. But of course, it could also be about something even more serious: invading Iran. [[Yes of course. Iran is next if Congress will allow him, but I'm afraid that train has already left the station. It's about permanent war. Their projected war against Iran will allow them to stay in Iraq and their war against Iran will allow them to stay in Iraq if a wider war against Russia and China -- not to mention other lesser powers has not already begun.]]

We know Bush is trying mightily to provoke Iran. He has illegally attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq (an act of war), taking six protected consular officials there captive. He is sending a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and is setting up Patriot anti-missile missile bases along Iran's western border. This buildup has all the earmarks of a pre-invasion. All that's needed now is a pretext -- a real or faked attack on an American ship, perhaps, ala the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that launched America into the Vietnam War.

The way I see it, either way the president is committing treason, because he is sending American troops off to be killed for no good reason other than for aggrandizing power he shouldn't have, and/or simply covering his own political ass.

[[Yes it's treason just like 911 and so many more of the crimes committed by this outlaw regime. But it's not about aggrandizing power: they already have all the power. It's about using their power to make war, to destroy. And it's not realpolitick or for any vicious but self serving reason. It's about destruction and suicide. All that is necessary to understand destruction as their motive is to consider the implications of endless war. Endless war means self destruction as well.]]

Treason is the number one impeachable crime under the Constitution, and we're at a point where Congress is going to have to act or go down in history as having acquiesced in the worst presidential crime in the history of the nation. [[It's even more than that. It's about survival. Once we attack Iran, the consequences could include nuclear war -- just as the Israelis have recently warned.]]

DAVE LINDORFF is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappe ning.net [1] and at www.counterpunch. org [2].

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

Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/734
Links:
[1] http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
[2] http://www.counterpunch.org/

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

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

Heads Up: US War Plans Versus Iran Updated:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/16/heads-up-us-war-plans-versus-iran-updated.php

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

January 19, 2007
Stop the Next War
Before it starts. Support H. J. Resolution 14.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10353

by Justin Raimondo
The times, they sure are a-changin'! Why, I remember when you could count congressional opponents of the war on the fingers of one hand. Back then, it was just the likes of Ron Paul and Neil Abercrombie who were introducing resolutions trying to get us out of the Iraqi quagmire, but today there are no less than eleven such resolutions vying for attention. The great problem with most of them is that they are either unconstitutional – such as the Kennedy bill, that would prohibit the spending of war funding on Bush's "surge" – or non-binding resolutions, which have no effect except to distance Democrats who initially voted for the Iraq war from their own handiwork.
All these legislative initiatives deal with Iraq, with only one – House Joint Resolution 14 – confronting the key issue on the war-and-peace front: Iran. This is a binding resolution that forbids the President from ordering an attack on Iran absent military action against U.S. forces, or a demonstrably imminent threat of attack. Authored by Rep. Walter B. Jones, of North Carolina – the formerly pro-war Republican who did a dramatic turnaround long before it became fashionable to do so – the resolution has an impressively bipartisan list of co-sponsors, including GOPers John Duncan (Tennessee), Wayne Gilchrest (Maryland), and Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman from Texas whose announcement of a presidential exploratory committee is causing muchexcitement in antiwar circles.
If H.J. Res. 14 ever sees the light of day on the House floor, it will be a miracle. Yet miracles have been known to happen. On the other hand, of all possible Speakers, Nancy Pelosi seems one of the least likely to let it come to a vote, let alone throw her support behind it. I had a call into her office early this [Thursday] morning, but, as we posted this piece – some 10 hours later – I had yet to hear from her representatives as to their position on the Jones resolution. The likely answer – given Pelosi's past position – is that she's opposed, just as she opposed a previous resolution by Lynn Woolsey (D-California), calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (now the official Democratic majority position). Can the Speaker be persuaded to evolve, as it were, and go with the flow, California-style, of her own party, the grassroots of which are undoubtedly opposed to war with Iran?
There is reason to doubt it. Madam Speaker, after all, co-sponsored a bill during the last session of Congress, introduced by Rick Santorum and Ileana Ross-Lehtinen, both Republicans, that not only tightened sanctions on Iran, but also made "regime change" in Tehran official U.S. policy. The measure was originally opposed by the President, and the Republican leadership, on the grounds that it would interfere with efforts to negotiate with Tehran, but the AIPAC lobby, in a show of bipartisan strength, forced the White House to accept a compromise bill, which was eventually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
Last year, the Israel lobby in the U.S. launched a major campaign to demonize the Iranians and ramp us up for a showdown with Tehran. The last AIPAC national convention, held in Washington, D.C., featured lurid exhibits detailing the horrors – and imminence – of a nuclear-armed Iran. Here is what Pelosi had to say about Iran to the 2006 AIPAC conference:
"The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology. Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror."
As the Israelis, and their American lobby, push Washington to take action against Tehran, Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are meekly going along, just as they went along with the President in the run-up to war with Iraq.
The Democrats are trying to cover up their co-responsibility for the Iraq disaster by offering up all kinds of symbolic, non-binding resolutions disdaining the "surge," and calling for "phased redeployment" (which, one gathers, is distinct from simple withdrawal). This is pure show-boating. The only resolutions that matter are H.J. Res. 14, and H.R. 413, introduced by Rep. Sam Farr, which repeals the Iraq war resolution of 2002 outright, and requires the President to start withdrawing the troops. This one has zero co-sponsors – and that ought to tell us everything we need to know about our elected representatives' seriousness when it comes to stopping this war.
The irony is that the Farr legislation would have the plurality of votes if the various "antiwar" bills were submitted to a popular referendum. The Democrats, however, are not about to ride this horse, perhaps for fear it might throw them. The greater danger, however, is that they'll be trampled in the general stampede to get ahead of the issue as popular opposition to our crazed foreign policy increases by leaps and bounds.
The Farr resolution embodies what needs to be done as far as Iraq is concerned: it corrects the big mistake of 2002, and counterposes a course diametrically opposed to the escalation favored by the administration. If the Democrats had any brains, they would immediately embrace it – yet they are still stuck in the 2002 zeitgeist, which prevented them from halting or even delaying the rush to war.
The Jones resolution has the best chance of passing, and it is, at the same time, the most pressing. Iraq, after all, was yesterday: Iran is tomorrow. The time to stop a war is before it starts: the most we can do, at this particular moment, is to prevent the current war from spreading. And that is precisely what is behind the "surge," as I pointed out the other day: it's no accident that the "new" strategy being pushed by the President was announced in tandem with freshprovocations directed at the Iranians.
The groundwork for forcible "regime change" in Iran was laid by both parties: plans even now being hatched in the Pentagon were funded by Pelosi and her fellow Democrats, in alliance with the most pro-war Republicans. Now that the Democrats are in power, at least in Congress, they have no intention of reversing their stance. Democratic party chairman Howard Dean asserts that the great "tragedy" of our involvement in Iraq is that we aren't free to go after "the real enemy," which, says the Screamer, is Iran. And Hillary Clinton, the party's leading contender for the presidential nomination, out-neocons many Republicans when it comes to Iran:
"Let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."
For those Kossacks and antiwar Democrats who have placed their hopes in Barack Obama, the supposed anti-Hillary expresses his view on the Iran war question in eerily similar language, averring that all options, including war with Iran, are "on the table." The leading Democrats are expending all their political capital on opposing Bush's "surge," and yet Michael Moran, in a piece posted on the Council on Foreign Relations website, identifies a "surge" of an entirely different sort than the one named in the Democrats' toothless resolutions. It is a surge "in the direction of Iran."
According to Moran, the USS Stennis, an aircraft carrier, and its attendant battle group, will meet the USS Eisenhower and its flotilla in the Arabian Sea in the first weeks of February. The Brits, too, have built up their naval forces in the area. Yet it isn't just the gathering of this armada that lends support to the view that the Bush administration means to attack Iran. Moran underscores the turnabout of newly-installed SecDef Robert Gates, who now opposes dealing with Iran and/or Syria in order to secure a political settlement for the entire region. "Gates agreed with that premise in 2004 when he co-chaired a CFR Independent Task Force on Iran," Moran notes. "CFR President Richard N. Haass reiterated it this summer in a CFR.org interview."
As the diplomatic option is being rapidly foreclosed by an apparent policy shift in Washington, the military option seems in the ascendancy. The movements of American and British forces, in tandem with the ratcheting up of the administration's bellicose rhetoric, are seen in the region as preparations for war with Iran, and Tehran is not sitting idly by.
The War Party hopes the mullahs can be lured by some provocation into making the first move, and Rep. Ron Paul has rightly warned against another "Gulf of Tonkin incident." Not a single Democratic, or Republican, presidential candidate, aside from Paul, has come out against the administration's warmongering when it comes to Iran. Yet the American people, in their overwhelming majority, oppose another war in the Middle East.
Isn't democracy wonderful?
So, you thought you voted for a new era of diplomacy as opposed to perpetual war? You've been bamboozled, and badly – so what are you going to do about it?
What's needed is a popular outpouring of support for H. J. Res. 14 – and you can do your part by calling the office of La Pelosi, urging her to let the House vote on the Jones resolution, and urging her to support it. That number is: 202-225-4965.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10353

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

Walter Jones Meets Rudyard Kipling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-pinkerton/walter-jones-meets-rudyar_b_39022.html

"If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied."
Those bitter words do not come from some folk-singing anti-war protestor. They come from a conservative Englishman, Rudyard Kipling, in his collection, "Epitaphs of the Great War." And those same words were heard today on Capitol Hill from Rep. Walter Jones, a conservative Republican of North Carolina.
When he spoke, Jones was thinking about the Iraq war--but he was also looking ahead to a possible war with Iran.
The Congressman from the Third District of North Carolina is a remarkable figure. In almost all respects, he is an orthodox Southern Republican; his lifetime vote-rating from the American Conservative Union, over his seven terms in Congress, is 93 out of a possible 100. And so it was no surprise that Jones was one of 296 Members of the House to vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution on October 10, 2002.
But three years ago, Jones had his own moment of epiphany. At the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq, leaving behind a widow and three young children, Jones concluded that he had made a mistake in voting to authorize the war. Moreover, he concluded that he had been lied to by the Bush Administration. And he said so--frequently, publicly, loudly. The White House and the Republican Party establishment were not pleased, but since his Damascene conversion, Jones has been re-elected twice, by wide margins.
Now Jones has a new cause: making sure that the United States does not go to war with Iran without specific Congressional authorization. In other words, no "accidental" spillage of the fighting from Iraq into Iran. It's worth underscoring that Jones is no dove, nor even a Christian pacifist. He supported, and supports, the war in Afghanistan, and proudly represents the Marine bases at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point, as well as Seymour Johnson AFB.
But the courtly Jones has chosen to put principle, as he sees it, ahead of partisan or personal loyalty. As he said at today's press conference at the House Press Gallery, "the Bible and the Constitution" guide him in all his actions. And so far, he said, with visible humility, the 600,000 people he represents agree with him as he prepares to challenge many of his fellow Republicans on the issue of presidential war powers.
Mindful of the war drums beating loudly--many from within the Executive Branch--in favor of a military confrontation with Iran, Jones makes a simple point: The White House must ask Congress for permission. To that end, Jones has authored House Joint Resolution 14, which would require the President to "receive specific authorization ... prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran." Six other Congressmen joined him today: Neil Abercrombie (D-HA), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), John Larson (D-CT), Marty Meehan (D-MA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX). The other four co-sponsors, who could not be in attendance, include Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).
But Jones is undeniably the leader of this particular effort. Representative Larson of Connecticut, who as Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, set a generous bipartisan tone by reaching across the aisle, figuratively, to say to Jones, "Walter, you deserve a great deal of credit, you have shown a great deal of courage." Then, Larson ripped into the Bush Administration for "doing away with 50 years of deterrence, diplomacy, and containment," leading to "the quagmire of Iraq."
Abercrombie of Hawaii was equally praising of Jones, and equally condemnatory of the White House. Abercrombie called the silver-haired North Carolinian "the conscience of the Congress," and then, like Larson before him, turned his rhetorical ire against "neoconservative ideologues promoting the agenda they had from the beginning--to go war with Iran and Syria."
Meehan of Massachusetts, who voted for the war five years ago, sounded a caustic note: The administration had "lied so many times," he declared, that Congress had no choice but to assert itself. Neal, also of Massachusetts, recalled the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, in which Congress authorized the escalation of the Vietnam War, as a mistake not to be repeated. The Bay State lawmaker reminded his colleagues, "Members of Congress don't serve under the President of the United States. They serve with the President."
Also speaking up for Constitutional procedure was Paul of Texas. One of just six Republicans who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002, Paul said it was "redundant," but nonetheless necessary, for Congress to assert its sole authority to authorize a war. "Isn't it sad," he lamented, "that we're introducing a resolution restating the Constitution?"
Gilchrest of Maryland, who earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star as a Marine in Vietnam, recalled being at boot camp at Parris Island when Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved. He and his fellow Marines simply assumed, he said, that politicians in Washington were wise and far-seeing. Since then, he added, he has learned to mistrust "end justifies the means" ideology.
The seven Members of Congress who assembled today agree on very little. Indeed, it's no sure bet that they would all oppose a hypothetical Iran war resolution; three of them, after all--Gilchrest, Jones, and Meehan--voted for the Iraq war resolution. Yet what brought these seven individuals together in support of House Joint Resolution 14 was their shared determination to make sure that the Executive Branch consults the Legislative Branch according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Of course, HJ Res 14 will not necessarily have an easy time becoming law. The Bush Administration will likely oppose any limitation on its war powers, and the Democratic leadership, for its part, seems reluctant to confront the President on Constitutional issues.
So that puts the burden on Jones & Co. And while Jones has relatively little power in the House, he has something that is nonetheless powerful: the courage of his convictions, steeled by the experience of signing thousands of condolence letters to those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. "I have hurt so badly," Jones said today, thinking back on the last five years since the pro-war vote that he now regrets. That intensity will keep him going, and it will surely inspire others.
And if the subject is inspiration, one's thoughts return to Kipling, to the same "Epitaphs of the Great War," which includes this sextain, entitled, "A Dead Statesman":
"I could not dig: I dared not rob/ Therefore I lied to please the mob/ Now all my lies are proved untrue/ And I must face the men I slew/ What tale shall serve me here among/ Mine angry and defrauded young?"
Whatever happens to Jones in the future, he seems sure of facing it with a clear conscience, unlike Kipling's Dead Statesman. Jones has cleared his conscience the only way he knows how--through prayerful repentance, followed by equally powerful determination. What Congress will do next, of course, is a far murkier question.

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

http://queen-of-swords.dailykos.com/

The Jones Resolution for Avoiding War with Iran
by Queen of Swords
Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:21:16 PM PST
Patrick Buchanan had some good thoughts recently on both the Democratic efforts to end the war and a bit of resourceful and positive action now being taken by Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/buchanan.cgi/Conservatism/Mr_Bush_Meet_Walter.html?seemore=y

Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Mr. Bush: Meet Walter Jones

America is four years into a bloody debacle in Iraq not merely because Bush and Cheney marched us in, or simply because neocon propagandists lied about Saddam’s nuclear program and WMDs, and Iraqi ties to al-Qaida, anthrax attacks and 9-11.

We are there because a Democratic Senate voted to give Bush a blank check for war. Democrats in October 2002 wanted the war vote behind them so they could go home and campaign as pro-war patriots.

And because they did, 3,000 Americans are dead, 25,000 are wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, 1.6 million have fled, $400 billion has been lost and America stands on the precipice of the worst strategic defeat in her history.

Yet, Sens. Clinton, Biden, Kerry and Edwards—all of whom voted to give Bush his blank check—are now competing to succeed him. And how do they justify what they did?

“If only we had known then what we know now,” they plead, “we would never have voted for the war.” They are thus confessing to dereliction in the highest duty the Founding Fathers gave Congress. They voted to cede to a president their power to take us to war.

Now they wash their hands of it all and say, “It’s Bush’s War!”

And now George Bush has another war in mind.

In his Jan. 11 address, Bush said that to defend the “territorial integrity” of Iraq, the United States must address “Iran and Syria.”

“These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

The city sat bolt upright. If Bush was talking about Iranian agents inside Iraq, he has no need of a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, nor for those Patriot missiles he is sending to our allies.

But does Bush have the authority to take us to war against Iran?

On ABC last Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while denying Bush intends to attack Iran, nonetheless did not deny Bush had the authority to escalate the war—right into Iran.

George Stephanopoulos: “So you don’t believe you have the authority to go into Iran?”

Stephen Hadley: “I didn’t say that. That is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal questions.”

Any doubt how Attorney General Gonzales would come down on those “legal questions”? Any doubt how the Supreme Court would rule?

Biden sputters that should Bush attack Iran, a constitutional crisis would ensue.

I don’t believe it. If tomorrow Bush took out Iran’s nuclear facilities, would a Senate that lacks the courage to cut funds for an unpopular war really impeach him for denying a nuclear capability to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bush’s lawyers would make the same case Nixon made for the 1970 “incursion” into Cambodia—and even a Nixon-hating Democratic House did not dare to impeach him for that.

Bush’s contempt for Congress is manifest and, frankly, justified.

Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on “60 Minutes” brushed aside Congress as irrelevant.

“I fully understand (the Congress) could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.” Asked if he had sole authority “to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do,” Bush replied, “In this situation I do, yeah.”

Is Congress then impotent, if it does not want war on Iran?

Enter Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina.

The day after Bush’s threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, “Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran.” Under HJR 14, “Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran.”

Jones’ resolution further declares, “No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.”

If we are going to war on Iran, Jones is saying, we must follow the Constitution and Congress must authorize it.

If Biden, Kerry, Clinton and Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to start a war on Iran. And America should pay no further attention to the Democrats’ wailing about being misled on the Iraq war.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

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

One can hear JINSA/PNAC Neocon Richard Perle basically lying to Congressman Walter 'Freedom Fries' Jones about his co-authoring of the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda via the audio link for their exchange at the following URL:

http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/operating-off-different-agenda.html

More about Perle's co-authoring of the 'A Clean Break' agenda which was the blueprint for the invasion of Iraq with Syria and Iran to come next is included at the following URL from pages 261-269/318-321 of esteemed US intelligence author/writer James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php

Jim Bamford had mentioned that Congressman Jones had told him that his 'A Pretext for War' book had been instrumental in turning Jones against the Iraq quagmire.

Iran: The Next War (Bamford's article which appeared in the August 10th, 2006 of 'Rolling Stone' magazine):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/28/iran-the-next-war-for-israel.php

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

U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby:

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

Buchanan: Bush's ace up his sleeve (Attack Iran!):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/13/buchanan-bush-s-ace-up-his-sleeve-attack-iran.php

Raimondo: It's All about Iran:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/01/16/raimondo-it-s-all-about-iran.php

Alpha

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394
Smears for Fears
Wes Clark just got caught up in the rigged rules for discussing Israel-related issues in America.
By Matthew Yglesias
Web Exclusive: 01.23.07
Print Friendly | Email Article
Retired General Wesley Clark is, like me, concerned that the Bush administration is going to launch a war with Iran. Arianna Huffington spoke to him in early January and asked why he was so worried the administration was headed in this direction. According to Huffington's January 4 recounting of Clark's thoughts, he said this: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."
This, of course, is true. I'm Jewish and I don't think the United States should bomb Iran, but Thursday night I was talking to a Jewish friend and she does think the United States should bomb Iran. The Jewish community, in short, is divided on the issue. It's also true that most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it's true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war. And, last, it's true that if you read the Israeli press you'll see that right-wing Israeli politicians are anticipating a military confrontation with Iran. (For example, here's an article about the timing of the selection of a new top dog in the Israeli Defense Forces; Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying that the new leader "will have to straighten the army out, rebuild Israel's deterrence and prepare the defenses against threats, first and foremost, against Iran.")
Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it's a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got … accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism.
James Taranto, who writes the hack "Best of the Web" column for the online version of The Wall Street Journal's hack editorial page, likened Clark's views on this to the notorious anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Scott Johnson of the influential and moronic right-wing Power Line blog argued that "Clark's comments are not simply 'anti-Israel,'" and asked "[i]s it a only a matter only of parochial concern to American Jews that they are now to be stigmatized without consequence in the traditional disgusting terms -- terms that used to result in eviction from the precincts of polite society -- by a major figure in the Democratic Party?"
Needless to say, Clark did not stigmatize American Jews. Indeed, he went out of his way to note that the American Jewish community is divided on the issue. Michael Barone's sneering attack on Clark also managed, almost incidentally, to reveal Barone's own understanding that Clark's remarks are substantially correct. Barone observed that it's "interesting to see a Democratic presidential hopeful denounce 'the New York money people,' people whom Clark spent some time with in 2003-04."
And, indeed, it is interesting, for demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in discussing America's Israel policy. If you're offering commentary that's supportive of America's soi-disant "pro-Israel" forces, as Barone was, it's considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that said forces are influential in the Democratic Party in part because they contribute large sums of money to Democratic politicians who are willing to toe the line. If, by contrast, one observes this fact by way of criticizing the influence of "pro-Israel" forces, you're denounced as an anti-Semite.
Needless to say, the increasingly ridiculous Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, was swiftly located in order to ply his trademark tactic of accusing people of anti-Semitism that he knows perfectly well aren't anti-Semites. As The Jewish Week reported, "The ADL leader told Clark that he had 'bought into conspiratorial bigotry' that increasingly sees Israel, Jews and American Jewish organizations as the driving force behind U.S. involvement in Iraq and Iran." What's more, "Foxman said Clark’s comments are particularly worrisome because of the context, coming in the wake of," among other things, "a book by former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who accused Israel of pushing for war with Iran."
The context, I would say, is worrisome. "Israel" is not a unitary actor, but clearly some Israelis are pushing for war with Iran. More to the point, many American Jewish organizations are pushing for war with Iran. And before Foxman comes to lock me up, he might want to check out his own outfit's website, complete with a section on "The Iranian Threat." Meanwhile, over on AIPAC's site we can learn about the "escalating threat" from Iran. A group called The Israel Project has an Iran Press Kit page, linking only to alarmist takes on the Iranian nuclear issue and to a hawks-only set of expert sources. (Shockingly, none of these organizations are especially concerned that Israel won't join the Non-Proliferation Treaty Framework.)
For another example, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs gave Senator John McCain its "Scoop" Jackson Award in December; in his remarks accepting the award, McCain argued that "[t]he path to future success for Israel will not be an easy one, and there will be a number of difficult issues. Foremost on many minds, is, of course, Iran." He characterized "Tehran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons" as "an unacceptable risk" -- language clearly designed to lay the groundwork for war.
With this last bit, we not only see the accuracy of Clark's remark, but, once again, the stunning hypocrisy of the anti-anti-Semitism brigades. It's clear that McCain, just like Clark, sees American Jewish organizations as key players in the Iran-hawk movement in the United States, and also that he sees concern for Israeli security as motivating those groups. Nobody, however, is going to label McCain a Jew-hating conspiracy theorist -- because, of course, McCain wants to help these groups push the United States into a military confrontation with Iran. Thus, McCain gets an award, and Clark gets called an anti-Semite.
Since Clark would like to have a future in the politics game, he ended up backing down from his remarks, explaining he didn't mean what he said. Mission accomplished for those who smeared him. But would I ever suggest that Democrats have been unduly timid on the Iran issue because they fear crossing powerful "pro-Israel" institutions? Never. Only anti-Semites think stuff like that.
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer.

Alpha · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject:

http://www.rawstory.com/comments/26119.html

January 23rd, 2007 at 13:45:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edwards in Israel takes aim at Iran
Raw Story

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (NC-D) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO...

Alpha

International Mobilization To Stop U.S. Attack on Iran

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4567

By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

Global Research, January 24, 2007
Dissident News

Anyone, including those in Iranian political circles, who cherished the illusion that the Cheney-Bush cabal was not committed to a new war in Southwest Asia, has had to abandon such dreams in the wake of George W. Bush’s Jan. 10 speech on his “new” policy for Iraq. The so-called “surge” in troop strength for Iraq which Bush announced, was recognized, correctly, by all in the region, as a commitment to open a new war front, this time against Iran or Syria. This analysis, which EIR had been circulating for weeks, including during a visit to Tehran in late November-early December, was finally embraced as the correct reading.

Bush said that he would not only deploy 21,500 more troops to Iraq, but that he would pursue foreign elements working with the insurgency (read: Syria and Iran). Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad both echoed the new policy. Not only would the U.S. forces now pursue Iranian and Syrian elements inside Iraq, suspected of working with the insurgency, but they would also engage in “hot pursuit” into Iran itself. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, whether he thought the Administration did not have the authority to engage in cross-border incursions into Iran, said, “I didn’t say that.”

Thus, what is “new” in the crazy line emanating from the White House, is not the number of troops to be beefed up in Iraq. What is “new” is the propaganda line being spread to justify military action against Iran. Due to the fact that the U.S. has not succeeded in producing any smoking gun to show that Iran’s nuclear program were military, and in fact, could not do so, it is difficult for Washington to present the nuclear program as a casus belli, even despite the unfortunate UN Security Council’s December resolution, calling on Iran to suspend its enrichment activities. The new indictment against Iran is therefore that it has been feeding the anti-U.S. resistance in Iraq with men and matériel.

‘Sheer Insanity’

Combined with the highly visible increase in U.S. military deployments to the Persian Gulf, the President’s announcement has led to a dramatic escalation of activity opposing military action against Iran on Capital Hill, and in other quarters. Leading Senators, including Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) have come forward to assert that the President has no authority to do something as insane as to attack Iran. Legislation on that precise point has already been introduced by a group of Republicans and Democrats in the House, and can be expected to be pursued in the Senate as well. Columnists are also warning about the potential of a provocation being carried out by the U.S. forces in the area, which could serve as a “Gulf of Tonkin” pretext for war.

Retired military figures have also upped their profile in opposing action against Iran. These include retired Generals Barry McCaffrey, Joseph Hoar, and William Odom, who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18, primarily against the Iraq “surge” policy. Most blunt was McCaffrey, who said the public threats against Iran by the Administration were “sheer insanity,” and that if the plan for military action went ahead, “this is truly the most significant blunder in strategic thinking we will have seen since World War II.”

Internationally, initiatives have been taken by French President Jacques Chirac, who is sending a special envoy to Iran, and by Russian officials, who are blowing the whistle on U.S. plans. As for the Arab states in the region, who are being wooed to support the plan, they have coolly recommended to the Administration that it carry out talks with Iran. They have been rebuffed.

Overall, a certain degree of fatalism pervades the capitals of Europe and Asia, vis-à-vis being able to stop the British-crafted, but Bush/Cheney initiated plans to hit Iran. They rightly look to the United States for the decisive action. For that to be effective, the timetable will have to be moved rapidly indeed, but the aggressive intention to prevent such a disaster is palpable on Capital Hill.

War Preparations Ongoing

Col. San Gardiner (USAF ret.), who has an excellent track record regarding military operations in the Southwest Asia theater, issued a new warning on Jan. 16, entitled “Escalation Against Iran.” After noting the fact that a second carrier strike group was leaving the U.S. on Jan. 16, Gardner listed a number of steps he expects the U.S. will take, if indeed it is on the warpath. First, he said to expect a barrage of articles in the media, planted by a National Security Council staff-led group, commissioned to produce “outrage” against Iran.

Then, he wrote, expect some European-based missile defense assets to be deployed to Israel, plus additional U.S. Air Force fighters deployed into Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan. He wrote that some of the “surge” troops sent into Iraq will be sent to the Iranian border. Then, “As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see the USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used,” Gardiner writes, “to refuel the U.S.-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll be only days away from a strike.”

Gardiner’s forecast of a massive media campaign has already been confirmed. Arabic media in the region have begun denouncing Iran’s nuclear program as being dangerous, and claiming that Hezbollah, Hamas, et al., are Iranian agents committed to destabilizing the region. British and other Western press organs have been working overtime to paint the picture of the looming Iranian threat, which, they claim, is poised to take over security, political, and oil installations in Basra, for example, as soon as British troops leave.

Gardiner is one of the most competent analysts in the field, but not the only one to blow the whistle. Former CIA and Bush Administration National Security Council senior official Flynt Leverett wrote in the Washington Note after Bush’s Jan. 10 speech, that the aircraft carrier groups deployed to the region must be there “to provide the necessary numbers and variety of tactical aircraft” for attacks against Iran, because land-based assets could not be used for political reasons. Furthermore, Leverett wrote, the only reason Bush would deploy Patriot batteries to the Persian Gulf, is to deal with Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, “the only missile threat in the region.”

A full-page article in the Jan. 13 Le Figaro made the same point, stressing that the second aircraft carrier group being sent in, the USS Stennis, “will not only be deployed to make a show of force, but will be involved in combat operations.” A most telling sign of a move toward a conflict came in a report issued by the ING bank in the Netherlands, which forecast the impact on financial flows of a military confrontation with Iran.

And from Russia, former Black Sea Fleet Commander Adm. Eduard Baltin said on Jan. 9 that the presence of so many U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf waters points to the likelihood of a U.S. attack against Iran. He emphasized that currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the area. “The presence of the submarines indicates that Washington has not abandoned plans to launch a sudden attack against Iran,” the Admiral said. He blamed the Jan. 8 collision between a U.S. submarine and a Japanese oceanliner near the Strait of Hormuz on the fact that U.S. submarines needed to operate at a relatively higher level than their usual depths, to get clearer vision enabling them to zero in on likely targets.

Baltin noted that, in previous conflicts, U.S. submarines “clean up the road” for air strikes by destroying enemy air defense installations.

Facts, Not Words

Bush’s threat to go after suspected Iranian elements inside Iran, is backed up by ongoing action. Already, at Christmastime, the U.S. forces in Iraq had seized two Iranians on charges they were planning military attacks. The move was protested by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s office which stated the two were “invited by the President to Iraq … within the framework of an agreement between Iran and Iraq to improve the security situation.” Then, on Jan. 11, U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate office in Irbil, arresting six staffers and seizing computers and documents. U.S. helicoptors had landed on the roof and soldiers had broken down the doors. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali Hosseini charged the raid was in violation of international law. Other protests came from the Iraqi government, the Kurdish regional government, and the Russian Foreign Ministry, because the persons detained were diplomats.

Furthermore, Washington-based sources have told EIR there are plans ready to launch aerial strikes against a key Iranian Revolutionary Guard site in the suburbs of Tehran, the headquarters of the al-Quds Brigade. Such an insane option is reportedly being hotly debated in Administration circles, as some relatively sane elements recognize this would trigger a regional explosion.

On the diplomatic level, Secretary of State Rice’s visit to the region only underlined the threat of military action. Rice met in Kuwait with her counterparts in the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, and Jordan (GCC+2), and attempted to mobilize them against Iran. Although she succeeded in getting the participants to sign a joint declaration accepting the U.S.’s “commitment” (through the surge policy) to “defend security of the Gulf, the territorial integrity of Iraq,” etc., the Saudis openly declared they supported only the stated “goal,” with reservations about the means. And, most significantly, the Kuwaiti Emir told Rice that if she wanted peace in the region, she should talk to the Iranians and Syrians. Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah, told Rice it was important to have a “dialogue with Syria, in particular, and with Iran in the interest of Gulf security in general.”

Iran Responds

The most recent speech by Bush has erased any remaining doubts in Iran that Washington is bent on confrontation. One of the many Iranian political figures whom EIR met in December in Tehran, summed up the mood there in an e-mail message: “Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair have practically declared war on Iran and have definitely turned up the heat against Iran to the level of a devastating military clash between the Christian West and the Muslim East. I am very disturbed by the prospect of this new development.”

On the official level, the government responded by preparing for an assault. Mohammed Saeedi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said that, though he deemed it “highly improbable” that the country’s nuclear installation would be bombed, they were being protected by special precautions. At the same time, Iran invited members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, from the Non-Aligned, G77, and Arab League, to travel to Iran to visit its nuclear sites.

On the diplomatic level, Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council and chief negotiator on the nuclear issue, travelled to Saudi Arabia for talks with the leadership there. He delivered letters from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Saudi King Abdallah, in which Iran offered collaboration to stabilize the situation in Iraq, in particular. The response, said Ahmadinejad, “generally, was positive.” Reports (later denied by the Iranians), had it that the letter suggested the Saudis try to intervene with the United States, to prevent the worst.

Chirac Steps In

Just as tensions were reaching a fever pitch, a report appeared of a bold initiative by French President Jacques Chirac, to stave off the war threat. As reported in Le Monde on Jan. 16, Chirac wanted to send his Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy to Tehran, to reestablish direct contact, a move which would contrast with the declared Bush-Cheney approach. The French Foreign Ministry confirmed Jan. 16 that a high-level emissary would be sent to discuss matters pertaining to the Middle East, Lebanon, etc. Iranian sources reached by EIR said the Chirac initiative was very important, but could give no details.

According to an account in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung Jan. 17, the secret diplomacy has been going on for some time. In July, Paris sent Jean-Claude Cousseran, former head of foreign intelligence; in September, Chirac received an envoy of Ahmadinejad; in October, diplomatic advisor Maurice Gourdault-Montagne met the Iranian advisor in Geneva. Gourdault-Montagne then met Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, in Bahrain, at a conference last month. Then the idea emerged to invite Douste-Blazy. He was to go in January, but the trip was cancelled two days before.

The line in the French press is that Chirac wants to open talks with the Iranians, to get them to rein in Hezbollah, so that Chirac’s planned donor conference (Paris III) on Jan. 25, with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, will be a success. Given the current drive for military aggression against Iran, it is far more likely that Chirac is hoping to avert a war.

Condi Rice was not pleased, to say the least. When apprised of the French move, she said she thought, “We all need to stay focussed” on Iran’s alleged violations of the Security Council. She made clear she did not accept the notion that France could violate U.S. policy on Iran: “I think that at this point in time” (referring to the Security Council resolution of December), “that this is not the time to break a longstanding American policy of not engaging with the Iranians bilaterally.”

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.

JINSA/PNAC Neocon Perle: Bush would approve Iran attack