| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: Bush all set to attack Iran: Report |
| Sunday, February 18, 2007
World
Bush all set to attack Iran: Report
Press Trust of India
London, February 17: The Bush administration's preparation to strike Iran is complete with the top commander of the US Central Command having received computerised plans for ‘Operation Iranian Freedom’, a report has said.
"American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD (weapons of mass destruction) facilities and will enable President George Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons," the journal New Statesman has claimed.
In a story titled Attack-Revealed: America's Plans to Invade Iran, the journal quoting British military sources, said ‘the US military switched its whole focus to Iran’ as soon as Saddam Hussein was removed from power. The White House continued this strategy, even though it had American forces bogged down in Iraq.
The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANT (Theatre Iran Near Term).
Even as the sending of a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf has been highlighted, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice.
The report said any US general planning to attack Iran could now assume that at least 10,000 targets could be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
URL: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=81587
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC) pushing 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
Weekend Edition
February 24 / 25, 2007
"An American Strike on Iran is Essential for Our Existence"
AIPAC Demands "Action" on Iran
By GARY LEUPP
http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp02242007.html
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
Stop the Iran War (for Israel) Before It Starts:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/02/07/stop-the-iran-war-before-it-starts-scroll-down-to-the-bold.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how credible the article is, but I do think the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal via Cheney's office (and the Christian evangelical whackos who want Bush to bring about their long awaited rapture via the Battle Armageddon) have convinced Bush to attack Iran (scroll down to the Scottish Sunday Herald article and Kuwait media report at the following URL as both convey the attack on Iran will take place by this coming April - whether Israel or the US starts it is another question as I would tend to think that Israel will initiate the attack with US being there to 'defend' the rogue state with the AIPAC hacked Congress falling all over themselves to 'support' our 'ally' Israel):
Creating the pretext for Iran war
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2007/01/31/creating-the-pretext-for-iran-war.php
PS: One thing for sure is that the US networks won't give you the full story (look at how they basically served as a PR arm for the Bush regime with 'coverage' of the 'Iranian' EFP presentation in Baghdad the Sunday before last).
Reza responded?:
you really believe this article?
> Sunday, February 18, 2007
>
>
> World
>
>
> Bush all set to attack Iran: Report
>
> Press Trust of India
>
> London, February 17: The Bush administration's preparation to strike
Iran is
> complete with the top commander of the US Central Command having
received
> computerised plans for 'Operation Iranian Freedom', a report has
said.
> "American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran
extend
> far beyond targeting suspect WMD (weapons of mass destruction)
facilities
> and will enable President George Bush to destroy Iran's military,
political
> and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons,"
the
> journal New Statesman has claimed.
> In a story titled Attack-Revealed: America's Plans to Invade Iran,
the
> journal quoting British military sources, said 'the US military
switched its
> whole focus to Iran' as soon as Saddam Hussein was removed from
power. The
> White House continued this strategy, even though it had American
forces
> bogged down in Iraq.
> The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle
plans and
> spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian
> Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has
inherited
> computerised plans under the name TIRANT (Theatre Iran Near Term).
> Even as the sending of a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf has been
> highlighted, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a
month's
> notice.
> The report said any US general planning to attack Iran could now
assume that
> at least 10,000 targets could be hit in a single raid, with warplanes
flying
> from the US or Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
>
>
> URL: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=81587
>
>
> http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
Two triggers
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
Deadline
Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm
Published: 2007/02/19 23:26:26 GMT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Good News
By Sam Gardiner
02/19/07 "LC" -- 02/17/07 -- For those concerned about a possible war with Iran should turn up their worry-dials two notches. This morning’s news has a couple dark clouds.
IED’s Inside Iran - If you have not been reading foreign press, you might have missed two explosions this past week in Iran. One of them killed 11 and injured 31 members of the Revolutionary Guard, and the other was near a school.
Although the devices were not IED’s like those found in Iraq, the explosions were in the area a group sponsored by the United States may be operating. The area in Iran is Sistan-Baluchestan near the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sy Hersh and a number of other reporters have said this is the area in which the MEK (or the mouthful name Mujahedin-e Khalq) have been operating.
This morning a Chinese newswire is reporting that the Iranians have evidence linking the attacks to the United States.
According to the report, “Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an ‘informed source’ was quoted as saying.”
The issue is not that “informed source” has switched sides, although I find quoting him to be interesting. This, however, ratchets up the tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Even if the United States were behind the operation, it is unlikely the Iranians would find weapons and materials that would be identifiable as American. US organizations that are involved in covert operations are very good about not leaving signatures that can be traced.
That is even more of a concern. The Iranians are choosing to make an issue.
Surge within the Surge - We have known before that five brigades were being sent to Baghdad. On Friday, the Department of Defense announced that an additional 1,000 troops from the 3rd Infantry Division Headquarters were being sent 90 days early. According to the announcement, these additional troops and a two star general were needed to do command and control in Baghdad.
This is a strange announcement because it was the same day that in a video press conference from Baghdad the commander of the division now operating there told reporters saw no command and control problems.
The announcement is a concern because if some of the brigades that are supposedly part of the Iraq surge were to go to the Iranian border, an additional headquarters would be required. We may be seeing that unfold.
Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17121.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bomb explodes in Tehran near last blast
1 hour, 19 minutes ago
A bomb exploded in southeastern Iran late Friday, near the site where an earlier explosion this week killed 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, the state-run news agency IRNA reported.
"Minutes ago, the sound of a bomb explosion was heard in one of Zahedan's streets," the agency said. The report offered no further details, including whether there were casualties.
On Wednesday, a car blew up a bus owned by the elite troops in Zahedan, capital of the Sistan-Baluchestan province on the border with Pakistan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/17/content_5751122.htm
Report: Weapons used in attack in Zahedan, Iran come from U.S.
www.chinaview.cn 2007-02-17 18:59:10
TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Explosive devices and arsenals used in a terrorist attack in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Wednesday came from the United States, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday.
Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an "informed source" was quoted as saying.
The source further pointed out that Jundallah, a shadowy Sunni militant group, had several plots for assassinating Sunni and tribal leaders to sow discord and foment conflicts between the Shiite and Sunni citizens in Sistan-Baluchestan province.
On Wednesday morning, an explosive-laden car exploded in Zahedan as a bus, belonging to ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, passed by, killing at least 11 people and injuring 31 others.
Jundallah has reportedly claimed responsibility for the Wednesday attack. Iran has blamed the group for past killings in the area bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So far a total of 65 suspects in addition to the three people responsible for the bomb attack have been arrested, the official IRNA news agency reported Thursday, quoting Brigadier General Mohammad Gaffari, a senior police officer in Sistan-Baluchestan province.
Jundallah also claimed responsibility for a second bombing on Friday in Zahedan, which caused no casualties.
Related:
Report: Security restored in Zahedan after 2nd bombing
TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Local police have restored full security in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan where a second bomb exploded Friday night, the official IRNA news agency reported on Saturday.
Friday's bombing, which caused no casualties, came after another explosion earlier this week in the same city that had killed 11 people.
Bomb explodes in southeastern Iran
TEHRAN, Feb. 16 (Xinhua) -- A bomb exploded in southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Friday, in the same city where another explosion earlier this week had killed 11 people, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"The sound of a bomb explosion was heard minutes ago in one of the streets in Zahedan," IRNA said without giving further details.
Iran arrests more suspects for bomb attack in Zahedan
TEHRAN, Feb. 15 (Xinhua) -- More suspects have been arrested over the deadly bomb attack against members of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran's southeastern city of Zahedan, the official IRNA news agency reported on Thursday.
"Some key members linked with the Jundallah terrorist group were arrested last night," said Brigardier General Mohammad Gaffari, a senior police official in Sistan-Baluchestan province.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report: five arrested on suspicion of involving in Iran's blast
TEHRAN, Feb. 14 (Xinhua) -- Five people were arrested on suspicion of involving in a car bomb attack in Iran's southeastern city of Zahedan on Wednesday morning which killed at least 11, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"Five people suspected of involvement in the huge blast had been arrested," said Soltan-Ali Mir, director-general for political affairs in office of Sistan-Baluchestan province's governor.
IRNA: 18 killed in car-bomb explosion in Iran
TEHRAN, Feb. 14 (Xinhua) -- Eighteen people were killed on Wednesday in a car bomb explosion in Iran's southeastern city of Zahedan, the official IRNA news agency reported.
The explosion occurred around 6:30 a.m.(0300 GMT) in Ahmadabad district on the outskirts of Zahedan, the report said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JINSA/PNAC (war for Israel) Neocon Richard Perle speaks at MEK terrorist event in D.C.:
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/terrorist-group-to-hold-convention-in.html
The MEK is mentioned in the following article:
The White House
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:49 pm; edited 5 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: |
| COUNTDOWN TO WAR WITH IRAN
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144143&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144131&contentPK=16664369&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
11:00 - 17 February 2007
Ad mullahs and crazed ayatollahs - if US and British newspapers couldn't find them, they'd have to make them up. Especially now when the US's response to its military failure in Iraq is to fabricate the case for war on Iran. In coming months, vast acreage of newsprint will be devoted to pump-priming us with fear that Iran is nuclear enemy number one. The Iranian President Ahmedinejad will fill the post of "New Hitler" vacated by Saddam. Politicians will perform somersaults to justify a pre-emptive strike, possibly as soon as April.Ready-made dossiers are already being circulated to provoke the necessary agitated mood. Which is why the US chose this moment to leak "evidence" that the Iranians are promoting Sunni insurgents' attacks on its troops. Why Iran would do this when its natural affinity is with the Shia majority in Iraq, condemned the 9/11 attacks, and supported the US in Afghanistan, is not made clear. It will not be examined too closely because to do so would be to allow too many questions to muddy our vision.
It will not be explained that in 2005 the supreme authority in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa which forbade the stockpiling, production, and use of nuclear weapons. Nor the complication that others believe an Iranian nuclear weapon is the only safeguard against the US using a "battlefield" - or low-yield - nuclear bomb on Iran. And will anyone pick up on this observation by President Chirac - stating the obvious? "Where would it (Iran) fire that bomb? At Israel? It wouldn't have travelled 200 metres through the atmosphere before Tehran was razed."
A script is being played out as surely as during the lead-up to the war on Iraq - but this time at an accelerated rate.
Already, for instance, the fiction is perpetuated on mainstream TV that Ahmedinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". I have no illusions about this populist and regressive president. But Ahmedinejad never made the quoted remark. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting a statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", just as had the Shah's regime in Iran.
That reference to the "page of time" suggests he did not expect it to happen soon, nor even believed that Iran would be involved in making it happen. But the propaganda impact of this distortion increases each time it is repeated. It entrenches the view that Iran is threatening to exterminate Jews.
These anomalies will be overlooked if we are panicked into supporting the Bush administration's next act of military lunacy. Those Christian fundamentalists of the White House feel they have nothing left to lose. The "cakewalk" of Iraq has become a bloodbath. US imperialism has lost the political, ideological and moral argument, and it is left only with the gun, the boot, and the bomb to ensure tame or favourable regimes.
Attacking Iran will be an 11th-hour attempt by the US to reassert its superpower status in a world where this is challenged by nations such as China. War now seems to be the option of choice for a country which is the world's largest debtor nation, and whose politicians regard militarism as a means of enforcing corporate interests, not least in respect of gas and oil links to Israel and the Mediterranean Sea.
This policy falls under the aegis of what the neo-cons themselves call the Project for the New American Century, named after an institute which mapped out its vision as far back as 2000 - before the 9/11 attacks. (To access details, for your own reference, see www.newamericancentury.org)
How soon might the next war start? Some reports suggest the US is only awaiting the most opportune moment - which could be any time this year - or may prompt Israel to act as its proxy. That could mean bombing nuclear facilities close to Tehran which could pump radioactive plutonium over a city of around 12 million people. The result could be a Middle East war cascading worldwide. Several senior Pentagon and White House figures, after all, have openly canvassed for the use of "battlefield" nukes on Iran. This might not be the spark for outright nuclear conflagration, but it would bring that possibility much closer.
In any event, we would be told that wartime realities dictate we must rally in common purpose. War abroad would be paralleled by political and legalistic authoritarianism at home.
Little of this seems close as we sit in the comfort zone of our liberal democracy and are largely unmolested by the state.
Yet historical evidence suggests that we often sleepwalk into the most cataclysmic events. There may be little prospect of us halting this descent into hell once it has begun. Bush and his sponsors will have unleashed a war of uncontrollable savagery.
I hope I am very wrong. But if this sounds crazy, consider what those crazies in the White House have already done in Iraq.
Why would they stop now?
nyoung@westernmorningnews.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded:
Mr. Leupp,
The Office of Iranian Affairs is actually at the State Department as it is the Iranian Directorate which is the department at the Pentagon (I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'Iranian' EFP presentation in Baghdad last Sunday came out of the Iranian Directorate which replaced Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans that cooked and and manipulated the 'intel' to get US into the Iraq quagmire for Israel - http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0213-20.htm ):
Iran: a Chronology of Disinformation
http://counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html
By GARY LEUPP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabricating the Case Against Iran By Larry Chin
Al-Jazeerah, carolynbaker.org, February 12, 2007
http://aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2007%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/12%20o/Fabricating%20the%20Case%20Against%20Iran%20By%20Larry%20Chin.htm
[Journalist Larry Chin reveals superbly documented evidence of the Bush administration's rhetoric and actions which are propelling the U.S. into a frightening conflagration with Iran--CB]
Bush administration pushes for attack with provocations, espionage, official deceptions, and false flag terror
The Bush administration will attack Iran as early as spring 2007. The administration is on total war footing.
Over the next few months, the administration and its allies and functionaries will create and provoke a pretext that forces a political consensus behind an attack on Iran. Any or all of the following may occur:
Violent resistance to US occupation within Iraq is blamed on Iran. As previously noted, the idea that Iran is arming Iraqi attacks against US forces is a central theme of new Bush administration propaganda. Paul Pillar, former CIA officer and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is among many critics arguing that Iran is not behind the attacks. This will not stop the Bush-Cheney apparatus from spewing lies to the contrary.
A major terror attack against US interests is blamed on Iran. In a recent testimony before the US Senate, Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that the Bush administration is headed down a “downhill track towards a head-on conflict with Iran and much of the world of Islam”---and that the conflict may begin with a major terror attack, either domestically or overseas, against Americans by Iran. (See also here, and here.)
In Brzezinski’s words, the Bush administration’s mismanagement of Iraq is an “historic, strategic and moral calamity”, “driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris” that “intensifies regional instability” and (of primary, if not sole concern to Brzezinski) “undermines America’s global legitimacy”. Brzezinski, a chief architect of the US “Grand Chessboard” geostrategy, which laid the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s “mishandling” of the war. The Bush administration has longed for the right moment to set off "the next 9/11".
Iraq-Iran diplomacy characterized as terrorist interference by Iran.
Real and imaginary Iranian responses to Bush administration rhetoric or provocations will be characterized as war provocation by Tehran.
New evidence of Iranian nuclear “intentions” will be “found”, and presented to the “international community”, in order to sanction punishment.
Will the world fall for it again?
Gates lays the propaganda groundwork
In a just-completed testimony that may lay the official foundation for the coming Iran attack, Defense Secretary and Iran-Contra participant Robert Gates has asserted that Iran is “very much involved” in arming Iraqi “militants”.
This new assertion (which Gates has not backed with verifiable proof from a credible source) is based on serial numbers allegedly found on the remnants of bombs used against US forces in Iraq. Gates also stated that material seized during the (illegal and Bush-ordered) raid of the Iranian liason office in Irbil, Iraq is being included in the larger case of cooked and false intelligence against Tehran.
Gates, who skated into his post as Donald Rumsfeld’s replacement posing as a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy, is now the Bush administration’s number one weapon of mass deception on Iran.
Covert operations
The Iran-Iraq region has been brimming with CIA activity for well over a year. It is already a known fact that George W. Bush personally ordered provocative covert operations several months ago, aimed at baiting Iran into a war.
Iran’s intelligence minister Gholam Hossein Ejeli claims that Iran has uncovered a network of 100 CIA and Mossad agents.(Also see here.)
This comes in wake of a Bush "shoot to kill" order: hunt down and kill Iranians in Iraq.
Militarily and politically encircled
Events are unfolding exactly as warned by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, whose book Target: Iran has predicted every step the criminal Bush administration and its allies have taken.
In the view of John Pilger, the war is already on.
As noted by Dmitriy Sedov, preparations for devastation of Iraq in the spring are well underway. Among the many clear signs:
“-The UN Security Council Resolution envisions that a further tightening of the sanctions imposed on Iran must take place after February 21, 2006. From the standpoint of international law, this is a pretext (essentially a poor one, but one that does exist) to legalize an aggression against a country.
-Two US aircraft carrier groups armed with nukes are moving into the region. The US aircraft carrier groups have been on missions 5 times over the past 15 years. In 4 cases out of 5, they launched military offensives. In March 2007, both groups are to take their combat positions.
-Additional ground forces are shifted to the border between Iraq and Iran. Preparations for a new phase of hostilities are underway.
-In February, Patriot missile defense systems will be ready to defend Israel and the aircraft carrier groups from enemy airstrikes.
-British combat engineers are entering the regions of the future fighting, clearly in order to operate in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranians are most likely to lay mines.
-The US and Israel launched a powerful information and propaganda campaign preparing the global public opinion for aggression.
-CENTCOM’s Commander John Abizade, an opponent of the war with Iran, resigned. His position was taken over by Admiral W. Fallon, a veteran of the 1991 Iraq and 1995 Bosnia campaigns.”
The Bush administration is pushing for a “surge” of up to 50,000 troops to the Middle East. Although ostensibly for Iraq, but this force is clearly intended to coincide with action against Iran.
The murder and cover-up of an Iranian diplomacy effort
In 2003, Tehran sent a sweeping proposal to the Bush administration (via the Swiss Embassy) for dialogue and regional cooperation. Bush administration officials confirm that this memo was widely circulated and discussed---and flatly rejected by the White House.
New charges of possible criminal cover-up have emerged regarding the sudden "memory lapse" of top Bush administration figures regarding this proposal.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice confirmed the memo in a recent interview on National Public Radio (“what the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States”), but suddenly reversed course. She now claims “I don’t remember ever seeing any such thing”. According to the Washington Post, Flynt Leverett, Rice’s staff member at the National Security Council, the Iranian proposal was received, and discussed.
In an interesting twist, Leverett claims that it was not his responsibility to “put it on Rice’s desk” because Iran-Contra co-conspirator Elliot Abrams was in charge of Middle East policy. Like Rice, Abrams, who now serves as the deputy national security adviser in charge of Middle East “democracy promotion”, also claims “no memory of any such fax and never saw or heard any such thing.
Former State Department officials also claim to have seen the Iranian offer, and note that it was incorporated into a 2003 memo to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, proposing a “grand bargain” with Iran. According to the officials, Powell did not forward the memo to the White House.
Worldwide “terrorism” resurgence
The Bush administration’s buildup comes simultaneous with new and resurfacing threats from “terrorists” working covertly on behalf of Anglo-American interests. Bush-Cheney’s “war on terrorism” criminal network is ramping up for a new phase of violence that it will connect to Iran.
According to unnamed US and British intelligence officials, "Al-Qaeda" has regrouped, and is once again “capable and intent on launching mass attacks around the globe”.
In Afghanistan, under US occupation (and, not surprisingly, in the middle of a once again mushrooming heroin industry), the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, both of which serve as military-intelligence fronts for the US, are “back”. New York Times reporter Carlotta Gall reports that the new Taliban surge in Afghanistan is connected to Pakistan, and Pakistan’s ISI. In course of her investigation, Gall was assaulted by ISI agents.
Gall has clearly hit a major nerve. Pakistani civilians "fear the ISI", and for good reason.The activities of the ISI (a virtual branch of the CIA), the connection between the CIA and the ISI, cuts directly to the heart of ongoing Anglo-American military-intelligence operations across the Middle East and Central Asia. Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was murdered in 2002 during his investigation of the ISI, and connections between the ISI and “Al-Qaeda”, and 9/11.
Even as Tehran has attempted repeatedly to assist the Bush administration in hunting down terrorists, the Bush administration continues to blame terrorism on Tehran. A report that Osama bin Laden’s son was located in Iran will no doubt be used as fodder by the Bush propaganda apparatus.
Wag the dog
In addition to its many long-term geostrategic agendas behind an attack on Iran, the publicly despised Bush administration is facing political fallout domestically, and competition from the neoliberal faction (the Democrats) positioning for new political gains.
The administration also faces the prospect of embarrassing, and potentially devastating, revelations from the Scooter Libby/Dick Cheney/Plamegate trial, and other investigations of Bush administration crimes. Cheney, and George W. Bush himself, have now been directly implicated in the Libby proceedings.
In other black eye for the administration, a just-released report from the Pentagon's Inspector General blasts Office of Special Planning, headed by neocon (Project for a New American Century) stalwart Douglas Feith, for manufacturing “dubious” intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, including a “predisposition” to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda.
The greater the damage to the Bush administration, the greater the odds of a new “wag the dog” distraction--- "the next 9/11"---orchestrated by the Bush administration and Karl Rove.
Washington virtually silent on Iran
The “mismanagement” of the Iraq occupation, and feeble attempts to wrestle control of the Iraq political agenda, remains the focus of endless Washington political posturing and procedural wrangling.
Iran, and Bush-Cheney’s provocations, have not been major topics of argument. Based on what little discussion there has been on Iran, the leading Democrats are reportedly split over the issue.
But they are uniformly behind the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism”, which seals Iran’s fate. A convincing pretext would easily bring the Democrats in line to support an attack.
Iran’s oil
According to Michael Klare, conflict with Iran must be viewed as a chapter of resource war. According to some Iranian estimates, there is enough energy to last many decades. The Bush administration must also be infuriated that Tehran has shown intense interest in doing energy business with foreign investors (not American ones), and maintains good ties with both China and Russia.
As Peak Oil and Gas makes itself in earnest, and the lifeblood of the Anglo-American empire disappears drop by drop, Iran’s geostrategic importance (as a target) looms.
The gates of hell open wider
Some skeptics have maintained for years that the Bush administration will not attack Iran, based on the rational concept that not even the Bush administration and its neocons would be insane enough risk a full-blown superpower nuclear war.
But in a testimony before Congress, Robert Gates declared that the Pentagon, indeed, has plans for full-scale war against Iran, Russia and China. This statement, a virtual promise of world war, suggests that the Anglo-American establishment is prepared to wage the endless war. So much for sanity.
In his strongest criticism yet, Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the Bush administration for its “almost uncontained use of military force” and “unilateral, illegitimate actions”. Said Putin, “One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.”
The next murderous overstep will be the destruction of Iran.
Larry Chin is an Associate Editor of Online Journal, and a contributor to Centre for Global Research and formerly to From The Wilderness.
This article was first published by www.carolynbaker.org
http://carolynbaker.org/archives/fabricating-the-case-against-iran-another-carolyn-bakerorg-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran says will not halt uranium enrichment
By Parisa HafeziSun Feb 18, 7:16 AM ET
Iran will not agree to suspend uranium enrichment as demanded by the U.N. Security Council, which has given Tehran until February 21 to halt sensitive atomic work, the Foreign Ministry said on Sunday.
The United Nations slapped sanctions on Iran in December, barring the transfer of sensitive materials and know-how to the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. It threatened further action if Iran did not heed U.N. demands.
"Suspension is unacceptable. There are no grounds to do that. This issue belongs to the past. There is no legal and logical justification for that," spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a weekly news conference.
Iran previously suspended enrichment work under an agreement with European states that broke down in 2005.
Other top Iranian officials have also insisted Iran will press ahead with its nuclear program, which the West believes is a clandestine program to build atomic bombs. Iran denies this, saying it only wants to make fuel for power plants.
"Nuclear energy is the country's future and destiny," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, was quoted by Etemad-e Melli newspaper as saying.
"If a nation does not care about its energy sources in the future, it must rely on arrogant powers (the West)," he said.
Iran sits on the world's second biggest oil and gas reserves but says it wants to build a network of nuclear power plants to prepare for the day when its energy supplies run out and to ensure it maximizes energy exports in the meantime.
Visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad renewed his country's support for Iran's nuclear activities, saying it was entitled to them as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
State television said that, in a joint Iranian-Syrian statement, "Syria expressed its support for Iran's peaceful nuclear program."
Iranian officials have indicated they might consider some compromise proposals, including one that Iran continue spinning the enrichment centrifuges it already has, but without injecting the uranium feedstock.
Diplomats say several Western countries oppose this idea because it could still help Iran to master the process.
Tehran has so far enriched tiny quantities of uranium to the low levels needed for power plant fuel. However, it has said it is determined to increase output by installing a network of thousands of centrifuges.
Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
| Another pretext (like a Gulf of Tonkin event) ready to be used to get the war going with Iran?:
Officials: Iranian patrol boats probe Iraqi waters
Story Highlights
• Officials: Iranian patrol boats recently entered Iraqi waters near oil terminals
• U.S. Navy officer says Iran trying to see what response its actions get
• Iran's actions the subject of recent U.S. military briefings, officials say
• U.S. assessment is Iran trying to raise its military presence in Persian Gulf
From Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iranian patrol boats have increased attempts in the last week to assess defenses near Iraqi offshore oil terminals, U.S. military officials said Monday.
The Iranian actions at the northern end of the Persian Gulf have been a subject of operational briefings for U.S. military personnel in recent days, the officials said.
The officials -- who said they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter -- said that the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf.
Officials said that for several months they have seen Iranian flagged vessels attempt to approach oil terminals in the area, but activity rose last week.
On at least two days, Iranian patrol boats crossed into Iraqi waters at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, the officials said.
The boats stayed inside Iraqi waters for several minutes before Iraqi security forces told them to leave. The Iranian boats did not approach the oil terminals.
Iraqi security forces recently took over the main responsibility for guarding the terminals, although U.S. naval forces remain nearby.
A senior U.S. Navy officer said he thinks Iran is trying to see what response its actions get from Iraqi and U.S. naval forces. The Navy officer said that in the last several months Iranian naval forces have expanded their area of operations inside the gulf, often increasing activity in offshore areas for training and exercises.
The U.S. Navy has encountered Iranian ships and small fishing vessels in several cases, but there have been no hostilities, the officer said.
The intelligence assessment is that in many cases the Iranians are watching the U.S. Navy to see how it operates. The officer confirmed to CNN that the Navy has increased its security precautions when dealing with Iranian entities on the water to ensure there are no miscommunications or miscalculations.
U.S. ships will continue to render assistance to stranded mariners, including Iranians, the officer said, but will be cautious in approaching any Iranian boats seeking U.S. naval assistance.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/19/iran.iraq/index.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
| IRGC wargames start across Iran
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0702192243125306.htm
Tehran, Feb 19, IRNA
Iran-IRGC-Exercise
The Islamic Revolution's Guard Corps (IRGC) Monday launched a three-day military exercise in 16 provinces across the country.
IRGC ground forces consisting of 20 brigades will test the most modern arms in the exercises that are held annually.
The IRGC military exercises, dubbed Eqtedar, started with the firing of short, medium and long-range missiles.
The IRGC ground maneuvers are aimed at maintaining its different units' combat readiness.
The guards will practice various kinds of military tactics including those involved in asymmetrical warfare.
The Fajr-3, Fajr-5 and Zelzal missiles with various ranges will be fired during the three-day wargames.
Talking to IRNA, Commander of IRGC Ground Forces Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi said the current Eqtedar (Grand) military maneuvers will be conducted in three stages.
He further said that the exercises will be the biggest conducted by the IRGC ground forces in the current Iranian year (stated March 21, 2006).
The exercises are to be conducted in accordance with the established military doctrine of the IRGC ground forces, the commander said.
The military exercises are being held simultaneously in 16 provinces -- Tehran, Khuzestan, Kermanshah, Isfahan, Fars, Kohgilouyeh and Boyer Ahmad, Gilan, Qazvin, Markazi, Kordestan, Kerman, South Khorassan, Zanjan, Semnan, Mazandaran and Qom.
The wargames are the second launched by the IRGC in a period of one month.
The IRGC earlier this year staged naval and air maneuvers aimed at testing the defence capabilities and preparedness of its ballistic missile units.
1422/2321/1414
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran says tests missiles able to sink "big warships" (Reuters)
Thu Feb 8, 4:59 AM ET
Iran's Revolutionary Guards test fired missiles in wargames on Thursday which a commander said could sink "big warships" in the Gulf, Sea of Oman and the north of the Indian Ocean, the state broadcaster said.
Iran is at loggerheads with the United States over its disputed nuclear program and what Washington calls its meddling in Iraq. The United States has ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf to step up pressure on Iran.
"These missiles, with a maximum range of 350 km (220 miles), can hit different kinds of big warships in all of the Persian Gulf, all of the Sea of Oman and the north of the Indian Ocean," senior Revolutionary Guards naval commander Ali Fadavi said.
Fadavi was also quoted by the state broadcaster's Web site as saying that the warhead of this missile had the capacity to sink "all kinds of big warships."
State television reported that the missile tests, staged on the second day of wargames by the Guards' naval and air units, were "to show that Iran is able to confront any possible threats."
Washington accuses the Iran of seeking to develop atomic weapons, a charge Iran denies. Tehran also dismisses allegations that it is backing militants in Iraq. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: US 'Iran attack plans' revealed (BBC Exclusive) |
| US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
Two triggers
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
Deadline
Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm
Published: 2007/02/19 23:26:26 GMT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush all set to attack Iran: Report
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/02/18/bush-all-set-to-attack-iran-report.php
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
Not Good News
By Sam Gardiner
02/19/07 "LC" -- 02/17/07 -- For those concerned about a possible war with Iran should turn up their worry-dials two notches. This morning’s news has a couple dark clouds.
IED’s Inside Iran - If you have not been reading foreign press, you might have missed two explosions this past week in Iran. One of them killed 11 and injured 31 members of the Revolutionary Guard, and the other was near a school.
Although the devices were not IED’s like those found in Iraq, the explosions were in the area a group sponsored by the United States may be operating. The area in Iran is Sistan-Baluchestan near the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sy Hersh and a number of other reporters have said this is the area in which the MEK (or the mouthful name Mujahedin-e Khalq) have been operating.
This morning a Chinese newswire is reporting that the Iranians have evidence linking the attacks to the United States.
According to the report, “Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an ‘informed source’ was quoted as saying.”
The issue is not that “informed source” has switched sides, although I find quoting him to be interesting. This, however, ratchets up the tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Even if the United States were behind the operation, it is unlikely the Iranians would find weapons and materials that would be identifiable as American. US organizations that are involved in covert operations are very good about not leaving signatures that can be traced.
That is even more of a concern. The Iranians are choosing to make an issue.
Surge within the Surge - We have known before that five brigades were being sent to Baghdad. On Friday, the Department of Defense announced that an additional 1,000 troops from the 3rd Infantry Division Headquarters were being sent 90 days early. According to the announcement, these additional troops and a two star general were needed to do command and control in Baghdad.
This is a strange announcement because it was the same day that in a video press conference from Baghdad the commander of the division now operating there told reporters saw no command and control problems.
The announcement is a concern because if some of the brigades that are supposedly part of the Iraq surge were to go to the Iranian border, an additional headquarters would be required. We may be seeing that unfold.
Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17121.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bomb explodes in Tehran near last blast
1 hour, 19 minutes ago
A bomb exploded in southeastern Iran late Friday, near the site where an earlier explosion this week killed 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, the state-run news agency IRNA reported.
"Minutes ago, the sound of a bomb explosion was heard in one of Zahedan's streets," the agency said. The report offered no further details, including whether there were casualties.
On Wednesday, a car blew up a bus owned by the elite troops in Zahedan, capital of the Sistan-Baluchestan province on the border with Pakistan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/17/content_5751122.htm
Report: Weapons used in attack in Zahedan, Iran come from U.S.
www.chinaview.cn 2007-02-17 18:59:10
TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Explosive devices and arsenals used in a terrorist attack in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Wednesday came from the United States, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday.
Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an "informed source" was quoted as saying.
The source further pointed out that Jundallah, a shadowy Sunni militant group, had several plots for assassinating Sunni and tribal leaders to sow discord and foment conflicts between the Shiite and Sunni citizens in Sistan-Baluchestan province.
On Wednesday morning, an explosive-laden car exploded in Zahedan as a bus, belonging to ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, passed by, killing at least 11 people and injuring 31 others.
Jundallah has reportedly claimed responsibility for the Wednesday attack. Iran has blamed the group for past killings in the area bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So far a total of 65 suspects in addition to the three people responsible for the bomb attack have been arrested, the official IRNA news agency reported Thursday, quoting Brigadier General Mohammad Gaffari, a senior police officer in Sistan-Baluchestan province.
Jundallah also claimed responsibility for a second bombing on Friday in Zahedan, which caused no casualties.
Related:
Report: Security restored in Zahedan after 2nd bombing
TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Local police have restored full security in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan where a second bomb exploded Friday night, the official IRNA news agency reported on Saturday.
Friday's bombing, which caused no casualties, came after another explosion earlier this week in the same city that had killed 11 people.
Bomb explodes in southeastern Iran
TEHRAN, Feb. 16 (Xinhua) -- A bomb exploded in southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Friday, in the same city where another explosion earlier this week had killed 11 people, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"The sound of a bomb explosion was heard minutes ago in one of the streets in Zahedan," IRNA said without giving further details.
Iran arrests more suspects for bomb attack in Zahedan
TEHRAN, Feb. 15 (Xinhua) -- More suspects have been arrested over the deadly bomb attack against members of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran's southeastern city of Zahedan, the official IRNA news agency reported on Thursday.
"Some key members linked with the Jundallah terrorist group were arrested last night," said Brigardier General Mohammad Gaffari, a senior police official in Sistan-Baluchestan province.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report: five arrested on suspicion of involving in Iran's blast
TEHRAN, Feb. 14 (Xinhua) -- Five people were arrested on suspicion of involving in a car bomb attack in Iran's southeastern city of Zahedan on Wednesday morning which killed at least 11, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"Five people suspected of involvement in the huge blast had been arrested," said Soltan-Ali Mir, director-general for political affairs in office of Sistan-Baluchestan province's governor.
IRNA: 18 killed in car-bomb explosion in Iran
TEHRAN, Feb. 14 (Xinhua) -- Eighteen people were killed on Wednesday in a car bomb explosion in Iran's southeastern city of Zahedan, the official IRNA news agency reported.
The explosion occurred around 6:30 a.m.(0300 GMT) in Ahmadabad district on the outskirts of Zahedan, the report said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JINSA/PNAC (war for Israel) Neocon Richard Perle speaks at MEK terrorist event in D.C.:
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/terrorist-group-to-hold-convention-in.html
The MEK is mentioned in the following article:
The White House
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: |
| Scroll down (at following Democracy Now URL) to see what Hedges says about coming Iran attack:
Monday, February 19th, 2007
Chris Hedges on “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America”
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/19/1545218 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: |
| Iran dismisses force threat over nuclear program
By Reuters
Wednesday February 21, 12:40 AM
By Mark Heinrich
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran dismissed on Tuesday threats of force to make it back down over its nuclear programme and said only negotiations -- without the precondition that it stop enriching uranium -- could resolve the dispute.
"Maybe there are certain groups or countries willing to coerce Iran ... Iran's nuclear dossier cannot be resolved through force and pressure," said Ali Larijani, Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator.
Larijani was in Vienna to meet the head of the U.N. watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, on the eve of a United Nations deadline for it to back down on a programme the West suspects aims to develop nuclear weapons.
The U.N. Security Council will consider fresh sanctions on Iran if it fails to comply.
Iran says its programme is purely peaceful. "We would give the necessary assurances and guarantees that there will be no deviation ever towards nuclear weapons," Larijani told reporters, without specifying what the guarantees would be.
"If the other side expresses concerns about possible deviations of Iran's activities in the future, we have no objections to settling these concerns at the negotiating table," he said after meeting ElBaradei.
ElBaradei is expected to report to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday that Tehran has defied a 60-day deadline to suspend enrichment, as demanded in a Dec. 23 resolution that also banned transfers of technology and know-how to Iran's atomic programme.
Washington has not ruled out military action but says it is seeking a diplomatic solution and is not planning a war.
The United States has piled on pressure by sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf and slapping sanctions on some Iranian banks and companies.
The British Broadcasting Corporation quoted unnamed diplomatic sources as saying contingency planning for any U.S. attack went beyond targeting atomic sites to include most of Iran's military infrastructure.
In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran wanted negotiations "under just conditions".
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities," he told a rally, broadcast on state TV.
Washington brushed off that idea.
"Do you believe that's a serious offer?" said a White House spokesman.
U.S. WARSHIPS MOVE IN
The U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and warships in its group joined another U.S. carrier in the strategic Gulf waterway on Monday, the U.S. Navy said.
Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, commander of the Stennis strike group, said in a statement his ships were "here to help foster stability and security in the region". Analysts regard the deployment as a warning to Iran to retreat from enrichment work.
The BBC said in its report of possible U.S. action: "It is understood that any such attack -- if ordered -- would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres."
Nuclear targets would include the uranium enrichment facility of Natanz in central Iran where Tehran operates a few hundred centrifuges at a research level but plans to install thousands to achieve so-called "industrial-scale" enrichment.
ElBaradei said in a Financial Times interview that Iran would be able to install 3,000 centrifuges as the basis for industrial scale fuel production in six to 12 months.
Diplomats monitoring IAEA inspections have said Tehran has set up several cascades (interlinked networks) of 164 centrifuges each in the plant and is poised to activate them to feed in uranium for refinement into fuel at any time.
One diplomat said a nine-tonne container of uranium hexafluoride gas, the feedstock for nuclear fuel, had been lowered into the plant in recent days.
ElBaradei noted intelligence estimates that Iran remains four to eight years away from mastering the means to assemble an atom bomb, assuming it wanted one, and that meant ample time remained for talks. Sanctions alone would not work, he said.
Larijani previously said Iran might consider some kind of compromise deal, such as restrictions on the level to which Iran is allowed to enrich uranium. Diplomats say another proposal could let Iran run some centrifuges without injecting feedstock.
Diplomats say the West opposes such steps as Iran would be able to practise skills required to perfect the process.
(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran, Boris Groendahl in Vienna and Dubai bureau)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran wants unconditional nuclear talks
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Tuesday defied international calls for it to stop enriching uranium, a day before a U.N. deadline for it to back down.
It said it wanted talks on its nuclear programme but free of the precondition that it stop enrichment -- unless the rest of the world did the same, a suggestion Washington immediately dismissed as unserious.
Tehran says its enriched fuel is only for power plants but the West suspects it wants to refine uranium to the higher degree needed for the core of atom bombs.
"They tell us 'Come and negotiate on Iran's nuclear issue but the condition is to stop your activities'," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally, broadcast on state TV.
"We have said that we want negotiations and talks but negotiations under just conditions."
The U.N. Security Council will consider fresh sanctions on Iran if it fails to comply.
The final say rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei but Ahmadinejad's comments were in line with his and other senior officials'. All have vowed to pursue atomic work.
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities," he said.
Washington brushed off that idea.
"Do you believe that's a serious offer?" said a White House spokesman.
The United States has piled on pressure by sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf and slapping sanctions on some Iranian banks and companies.
Washington has not ruled out military action but says it is seeking a diplomatic solution and is not planning a war.
The BBC quoted unnamed diplomatic sources as saying contingency planning for any U.S. attack went beyond targeting atomic sites to include most of Iran's military infrastructure.
Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was to meet the head of the U.N. watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, in Vienna on Tuesday. Iran has often sought 11th-hour talks before deadlines over its atomic ambitions.
ElBaradei is expected to report to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday that Tehran has defied a 60-day deadline to suspend enrichment, as demanded in a December 23 resolution that also banned transfers of technology and know-how to Iran's atomic programme.
He said an Iranian refusal could bring tougher penalties.
Larijani said after a meeting in Vienna with Belgium's foreign minister, before his session with ElBaradei, that "we had good talks on reasonable approaches we could take to restart negotiations". He did not elaborate. Belgium has just become a non-permanent member of the Security Council.
U.S. WARSHIPS MOVE IN
The U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and warships in its group joined another U.S. carrier in the strategic Gulf waterway on Monday, the U.S. Navy said.
Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, commander of the Stennis strike group, said in a statement his ships were "here to help foster stability and security in the region". Analysts regard the deployment as a warning to Iran to retreat from enrichment work.
The BBC said in its report of possible U.S. action: "It is understood that any such attack -- if ordered -- would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres."
Nuclear targets would include the uranium enrichment facility of Natanz in central Iran where Tehran operates a few hundred centrifuges at a research level but plans to install thousands to achieve so-called "industrial-scale" enrichment.
ElBaradei said in a Financial Times interview that Iran would be able to install 3,000 centrifuges as the basis for "industrial scale" fuel production in six to 12 months.
Diplomats monitoring IAEA inspections have said Tehran has set up several cascades (interlinked networks) of 164 centrifuges each in the plant and is poised to activate them to feed in uranium for refinement into fuel at any time.
One diplomat said a nine-tonne container of uranium hexafluoride gas, the feedstock for nuclear fuel, had been lowered into the plant in recent days.
ElBaradei noted intelligence estimates that Iran remains four to eight years away from mastering the means to assemble an atom bomb, assuming it wanted one, and that meant ample time remained for talks. Sanctions alone would not work, he said.
Larijani previously said Iran might consider some kind of compromise deal, such as restrictions on the level to which Iran is allowed to enrich uranium. Diplomats say another proposal could let Iran run some centrifuges without injecting feedstock.
Diplomats say the West opposes such steps as Iran would be able to practice skills required to perfect the process.
(Additional reporting by Mark Heinrich and Boris Groendahl in Vienna and Dubai bureau) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:23 am Post subject: |
| http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1426601.ece
The Times
February 23, 2007
Fears grow over Iran
Tom Baldwin in Washington and Philip Webster, Political Editor
Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. Hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall are expected to be increased to thousands by May when Iran moves to “industrial-scale production”. Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one.
But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.
Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.
The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.
But Mr Blair, in a BBC interview yesterday, said: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran . . . What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”
The diplomatic options will be on the table on Monday when representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany meet in London to begin drafting a new resolution.
It was notable that Mr Blair’s remarks yesterday closely resembled those of Jack Straw last year, who said that an attack on Iran was “inconceivable”, angering Washington and perhaps contributing to his removal as Foreign Secretary.
The Prime Minister’s comments reflect what British officials have been saying privately for some time, but also show a growing streak of independence from Mr Bush. The White House was unhappy with the timing of Mr Blair’s announcement this week on withdrawing 1,600 British troops, concerned that it undercut Mr Bush’s efforts to shore up support for his troop surge on Capitol Hill while sending out “mixed messages” to the Iranians.
Britain has also privately expressed concern over the handling of the US military briefing last week which alleged that the “highest levels” of the Iranian Government were behind the supply of weapons to Iraqi militias.
- Mr Straw, the Leader of the Commons, did break ranks yesterday by declaring that the Government was committed to a full inquiry into mistakes made in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
He said that he was ready “in due course” for a wider inquiry than those held to date. However a Downing Street spokesman said yesterday that there would come a time to “look at these issues”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final Punch (War with Iran)
As the voice of reason, from a traditionalist viewpoint, is being hushed or sidelined, the warmongers’ hold on Washington is still as tight as ever, one of whom is Israel and its dedicated friends on Capitol Hill.
By Ramzy Baroud
PalestineChronicle.com
The configuration of the New Middle East — as envisaged by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the Israeli war against Lebanon in July-August 2006, most certainly has no place for more than one regional power broker, namely Israel.
Under such an arrangement — subservient Arabs and Iran governed by an all powerful Israel and supervised, even from afar by the seemingly philanthropic United States — would ensure Israel’s ‘security’, which has for long served as a casus belli, and supposed American interests in the region; regardless of what one thinks of such logic, in Washington, it is still prevailing.
With the elimination of Iraq — not just Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party as some in the mainstream media tirelessly reiterate, but rather Iraq as a strong Arab nation with immense regional influence — the long sought pact is close at hand. Iran, however, remains the only menacing reality that stands between Israel and its powerful Washingtonian allies and this New Middle East.
This means that the war of words between Teheran and Washington is mostly inspired by this redoubtable strategic chasm: where Washington strives to knock the Iran factor out of the regional equation, and Teheran pushes with all of its might to keep itself pertinent, indeed equally relevant to the shaping of the region’s future.
This conflict has been reduced, as required by rhetorical necessity, to that of Iran’s alleged intent to manufacture nuclear weapons, a right that has been exclusively reserved for Israel, who possesses hundreds of nuclear heads and the technology to deliver them, even past the threshold of its intended targets, neighbouring Arab capitals.
Iran might in fact be aspiring to obtain nuclear technology to produce the lethal weapon, to assert itself regionally, to create an equilibrium of terror, and to — in this age of global unipolarity — shield itself from the troubling fate of its neighbour to the West.
The Iraq and Korea example are textbook illustrations of how small countries with or without deadly means of defence are treated with partiality in the global arena; Iraq, who possesses no weapons of mass destruction is experiencing prolonged genocide, while North Korea has admitted, even boasted about the possessing and testing of its nuclear capabilities and is now being rewarded with generous US aid packages and security guarantees. Chances are also great that Kim Jong II will not meet the gallows, unlike Saddam and will die peacefully in his bed. (Professor Steven Weber’s article in the January-February issue of Foreign Policy Magazine: How Globalization Went Bad, offers a detailed elaboration on this topic.) It’s also important to note that the Koreans pose no danger to Israel, a fact that must have relegated their threat level significantly.
Thus the escalating war of words between the US and Iran must be settled somehow in a manner that yields a favourable solution for both sides, or military confrontation is simply unavoidable.
The British Guardian revealed in a mid-February report, quoting US officials and analysts, that the Bush administration is in the “advanced stages” of preparing for a military strike, targeting Iran’s nuclear sites. Though US deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, Mark Kimmitt dismissed allegations that his country is seeking a military confrontation with Teheran, the US action — the intensification of its naval build up, seeking the elimination of Iranian ‘agents’ in Iraq, and so forth — suggests that the Guardian report is quite accurate in its estimation.
Iran is still unwavering, however. Iran’s state television quoted the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 17, as he defended the country’s pursuit for nuclear technology. “Oil and gas reserves won't last forever. If a nation doesn't think of producing its future energy needs, it will be dependent on domination-seeking powers,” he was reported as saying. Again, regardless of the dialectics of Khamanei’s rationale, the US understands this view as continuing ‘defiance’, an understanding that positions the military option, from the US viewpoint, as inevitable.
US Democrats are practically ruling out any serious challenge to Bush’s war policies — House leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed from the outset any possibility to impeach the president despite his administration’s unequalled indiscretions, to say the least, of dragging the country into a most destructive war under false and largely forged pretexts. At the US Senate and for the second time in a week, Republicans managed to block a ‘debate’ on a resolution that would simply ‘rebuke’ the president for his Iraq troop buildup. Even if the debate convened and a resolution was passed, it would remain pitifully lacking, for it is simply non-binding.
It is unlikely that Iran will back down; again the North Korea lesson is too fresh, too poignant to ignore. Moreover, the Islamic Republic has a formidable power base in Iraq and Lebanon: Shia militias and the Hezbollah resistance movement respectively; the former is capable of worsening the US army’s plight in Iraq by several fold if decided to join the ongoing Sunni resistance, and the latter has proved an insurmountable foe to Israel in their latest military showdown last summer.
Naturally, the US — which is caught in an unwinnable war in Iraq, confined and blinded by its bizarre alliance with Israel, which is more of a liability to Washington than a strategic advantage and who is watching its own New World Order faltering under its feet, with Latin America going its separate ways, and China moving into what has been the unchallenged domains of the United States for decades — should be expected to avoid a military confrontation at any cost. Savvy US diplomat and former Secretary of State James Baker had many ominous warnings in his Iraq Study Group recommendations. A traditionalist and a pro-business politician, Baker knows well that without a quick exit from Iraq, chaos will befall the waning empire, which is ultimately bad for business. Baker also knows that without solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US regional woes will amplify beyond repair.
But as the voice of reason, from a traditionalist viewpoint, is being hushed or sidelined, the warmongers’ hold on Washington is still as tight as ever, one of whom is Israel and its dedicated friends on Capitol Hill.
Evidently, Israel is a prime cheerleader for war, and most likely Israeli agents are working overtime to provide the needed case for war; at least we know, through news reports that Israeli agents are actively involved in Iraq and there is a possibility that they have penetrated the Iranian domain as well, through the northern Kurdish areas. Last November, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appointed a major war advocate, Avigdor Lieberman, as the country’s Minister of Strategic Affairs and also as Deputy Prime Minister. Lieberman’s appointment was principally aimed at ‘countering’ the Iranian threat; championing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, has recently visited Washington to largely discuss the Iranian threat and won standing ovations and endless praise of Democrats and Republicans alike.
Other Israeli politicians have been adamant in their efforts to convince Washington that a war against Iran will yield strategic dividends and will ease the US mission in reigning in occupied Iraq, and will provide Israel with the security it covets. Of course, Israel knows well the disastrous affect that a war on Iran will bring to the waning American empire (even if merely by observing the Iraqi situation) but it matters little in the end, as long as the Iranian threat is eliminated, or so goes the Israeli logic.
-Ramzy Baroud’s latest book, The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press), is available at Amazon.com and also from the University of Michigan Press. He is the editor of PalestineChronicle.com; his website is ramzybaroud.net
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-02220760810.htm
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:06 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 am Post subject: |
| US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say Vienna sources
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2019666,00.html
· Tip-offs did not lead to signs of banned activity
· IAEA report raises pressure for new sanctions
Julian Borger in Vienna
Friday February 23, 2007
The Guardian
A Tehran student supports the nuclear programme. Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty
Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.
The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.
That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, and raises the possibility that the US might resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.
At the heart of the debate are accusations, spearheaded by the US, that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations. "They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities."
"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."
One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.
Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.
"First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away," one official said. "The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer."
IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.
A western counter-proliferation official accepted that intelligence on Iran had sometimes been patchy but argued that the essential point was Iran's failure to live up to its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
"I take on board on what they're saying, but the bottom line is that for nearly 20 years [the Iranians] were violating safeguards agreements," the official said. "There is a confidence deficit here about the regime's true intentions."
That deficit will be deepened by yesterday's IAEA report. It concluded bluntly: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities", in defiance of a December UN ultimatum to stop. The report noted that Iran had continued with the operation of a pilot enrichment plant.
Furthermore, the report said that Iran had informed the agency of its plan to install 18 arrays, or cascades, of 164 centrifuges in an underground plant by May - a total of nearly 3,000. At the moment, Iran's centrifuges are being used to make low-enriched uranium, but if they were switched to making highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium, they could produce enough for a bomb in less than a year.
Dr ElBaradei's report said that Iran had so far not agreed to the IAEA installing remote monitoring devices in the enrichment plant to keep constant tabs on what the Iranians were doing with them.
Furthermore, the IAEA still has a string of questions about the Iranian programme that remain unanswered. Until they are, the agency will not give Iran a clear bill of health.
One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake in October 2005. That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.
Last night Iran, which says its nuclear fuel programme is designed only to produce electricity, remained defiant. "Regarding the suspension mentioned in the report, because such a demand has no legal basis and is against international treaties, naturally, it could not be accepted by Iran," Muhammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told Reuters in Tehran. Mr Saeedi said the report showed that returning to talks was the best way to resolve the dispute.
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he was "deeply concerned". "I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the demands as soon as possible and engage in negotiations with the international community so that we can resolve this issue peacefully."
Q&A
28.04.2006: Iran's nuclear programme | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
| Cheney: All options open for Iran (this tells me that war with Iran is inevitable as it should serve as a reality check for those who doubted that war with Iran would manifest)
Cheney: All options open for Iran
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday renewed Washington's warning to Iran that "all options" are on the table if the country continues to defy U.N.-led efforts to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear programs.
At a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Cheney also said that Washington was "comfortable" with Britain's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and that it was up to Australia to decide if it would do the same.
He also promised that the case of an Australian who has been detained without trial at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for more than five years was being dealt with as quickly as possible.
Cheney said the United States remained "deeply concerned" about Iran's activities, including the "aggressive" sponsoring of terrorist group Hezbollah and inflammatory statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He said top U.S. officials would meet soon with European allies to decide the next step toward planned tough sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. (Watch the debate on whether sanctions against Iran can be effective -- 2:06)
"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference," Cheney said.
"But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table," he said.
The White House has previously made similar comments.
"We believe it would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear power," he said.
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 nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Thursday that Iran had not only ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze the enrichment program, but had expanded that program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges. (Full story)
Enriched uranium fuels nuclear reactors but, enriched further, is used in nuclear bombs.
The IAEA report came after the expiration Wednesday of a 60-day grace period for Iran to halt uranium enrichment.
Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that Iran would resist "all bullies," and appeared to dismiss the IAEA report, saying it was of no importance if countries did not believe Iran's nuclear activities were peaceful. (Full story)
On Iraq, Cheney sidestepped a question about whether the White House had asked the British government to redeploy troops into another part of Iraq rather than withdraw them.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has outlined a plan to withdraw about 1,600 troops from southern Iraq in the coming months, and to reduce Britain's 7,100-strong contingent further by late summer. (Full story)
"They have to make decisions with respect to their forces based upon what they think makes sense," Cheney said.
"They are going to continue to have a major presence there. They are also, I believe, beefing up their operations in Afghanistan," Cheney said. "So we are very comfortable with that decision."
Britain said Friday it will increase its troop strength in Afghanistan to bolster NATO forces battling Taliban militants. British media reported 1,000 additional soldiers would join the more than 5,000 British troops already in Afghanistan. (Full story)
Cheney declined to say if he had asked Howard during talks held Saturday to add to the 1,400 troops Australian has in and around Iraq.
"Those decisions are obviously to be made by the Australian government based on their considerations as well as ... the conditions on the ground in that part of the world," Cheney said. "It's not for us to stress to our allies what their appropriate response might be."
Further informal talks were believed to be set for when Howard hosted Cheney later Saturday for lunch at his harborside mansion. Cheney was due to leave Australia on Sunday.
Howard said he had expressed Australia's concern at the length of time it was taking to bring David Hicks, a former kangaroo skinner who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 on the Taliban side, before a military trial.
Cheney said that there had been legal setbacks to the military commission process, but that "Mr. Hicks is near the head of the queue."
"I can assure you we will be doing everything we can to deal with these matters in as expeditious manner as possible," Cheney said.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/cheney.asia.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney warns on Iran's nuclear ambition (Reuters)
By Caren BohanFri Feb 23, 10:53 PM ET
Vice President Dick Cheney said on Saturday that the United States and its allies must not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and raised concerns about Tehran's actions and "inflammatory" rhetoric.
The stern comments from Cheney, who is known for his hawkish views, followed Tehran's refusal to heed a U.N. deadline to halt uranium enrichment and a vow by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stand up to the rest of the world and not show weakness by acceding to the West's demands.
"They have made some fairly inflammatory statements," Cheney said of Iran at a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "They appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons."
Iran insists it is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that its enrichment activities are for peaceful purposes.
In addition to Iran, the two leaders touched on issues ranging from the Iraq war to China and Australian Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks.
Howard pressed his insistence on a speedy trial for Hicks.
Howard also offered warnings about Iran, saying that a sudden withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would only bolster Iran's clout and influence in the Middle East.
"I can't think of a country whose influence and potential clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran would be," if the United States and its allies were to be forced to exit Iraq, Howard said.
"That would be a nightmare scenario," he added.
Cheney said he was concerned about Iran's "fairly aggressive" role in the Middle East, as well as its decision to ignore the U.N. deadline.
He said "all options are on the table" on Iran. The Bush administration has long maintained that it is focused on diplomacy but tacitly acknowledges that the military option has not been ruled out.
Still, the administration's tough comments on Iran have been met with concern by some in the U.S. Congress and have even rattled financial markets.
Cheney said that a peaceful resolution to the nuclear standoff with Iran was "still our preference."
The Weekend Australian newspaper reported on Saturday that Cheney had endorsed U.S. Republican Senator John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s view that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.
CHINA, IRAQ
Cheney, who stopped in Australia after a visit to Tokyo, had harsh words about China in a speech on Thursday, citing concerns about its rapid military buildup.
Howard took a decidedly softer tone on China, saying Australia takes a "realistic" view of Beijing's government but also values its close ties with the country.
Anti-Iraq war protesters have scuffled with police during Cheney's visit. The war has become a growing problem for Howard's conservative government, which has slumped in opinion polls ahead of elections due in the second half of 2007.
Cheney underscored that he had no intention of trying to press Howard for a bigger troop contribution in Iraq because such decisions were up to Australia.
He said that Hicks was "near the head of the queue" to be tried and that every effort was being made to move the legal process forward.
But he added some aspects of the process were out of the Bush administration's control because it could not interfere in the judicial system.
(Additional reporting by Paul Tait in SYDNEY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney defends Iraq war, attacks critics
By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 19 minutes ago
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a series of blunt and sometimes biting statements during a visit to Asia, defended the Iraq war, attacked administration critics at home and warned that the U.S. would confront potential adversaries abroad.
His visit was meant to thank Australia and Japan for their support in Iraq. But a series of public appearances and media interviews, Cheney's tone was typically feisty.
Answering growing criticism in the U.S. and Australia, he defended the Iraq war as a "remarkable achievement" in one speech, and dismissed suggestions his influence in Washington is waning.
At a news conference Saturday, Cheney warned that "all options" are on the table if Iran continues to defy U.N.-led efforts to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions, leaving the door open to military action.
Cheney's support for the Iraq war — he is considered one of the key proponents of the 2003 invasion — drew protesters into Sydney's streets for two days.
But the crowds were small and the clashes brief, and Cheney enjoyed a generally warm welcome, including lunch at Australian Prime Minister John Howard's harborside mansion and a cruise past the Sydney Opera House.
On Saturday, he held talks with Howard — who at one point felt compelled to defend his friendly relations with the White House.
In Japan, Cheney asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record)'s opposition to President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq would "validate the al-Qaida strategy."
A furious Pelosi complained to the White House that Cheney was impugning the patriotism of critics of the war. Cheney refused to back down: "I said it and I meant it," he told ABC News. "I didn't question her patriotism, I questioned her judgment."
He took a similarly uncompromising stand on Iran, criticizing its defiance of a U.N. deadline for freezing its uranium enrichment programs. While the White House seeks a peaceful resolution to the problem, he said, he did not rule out military action.
Cheney was more diplomatic, but no less direct, on Friday when he discussed North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and China's rapid modernization of its 2.3 million-strong military forces.
Noting that China — an emerging economic power — had hit a defunct weather satellite with a missile last month, Cheney said that some of the country's actions were at odds with its pledge to develop peacefully.
In the same speech, though, he praised China for its help in persuading North Korea to seal its main nuclear reactor in exchange for oil. But Cheney added North Korea had "much to prove," namely that it would honor the deal.
Michael McKinley, an expert in Australia-U.S. relations at the Australian National University, said Cheney's association with an Iraq policy that many see as a failure has made him unpopular, but it is too soon to write off his influence.
Cheney is still a force in the White House, McKinley said, and "in the area of foreign and defense policy, he is the power."
During Cheney's visit to Australia — one of the United States' staunchest allies in Iraq — he said history would ultimately judge the war a success, pointing to the end of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and Iraq's democratic elections. The U.S., he said, has put Iraq "well on the road to establishing a viable democracy."
Cheney told ABC News that media speculation that he had lost influence within the Bush administration was inaccurate, just as earlier speculation that he was the all-powerful was wrong.
"I think people fall into the trap of focusing on that and talking about it and reporters writing about it, but it rarely reflects reality," he said. "So I don't worry about those stories."
Howard, who faces increasing pressure to begin withdrawing Australian troops and did not attend Cheney's speech on Friday, rejected suggestions the government was keeping a polite distance from the vice president during the visit. National elections are due later this year.
"It's never a political liability, ever, for the prime minister of Australia to have a good relationship with the president and the vice president of the United States," Howard said.
Cheney seemed comfortable knowing that not all Australians like him, telling The Australian that not all the gestures directed as he cruises around in his motorcade are friendly waves.
"Driving through Sydney is a lot like driving through New York City," Cheney said. "You get some waves, and then you get some other waves. And that goes with living in a democracy. ... That's as it should be."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Cheney Needs Someone To Trick Iran Into Starting A War, Fallon Is The
Perfect Guy To Do It.
By TheProgressiveCurmudgeon
Created Feb 4 2007 - 1:08pm
Pundits speculate that Adm. William Fallon was made head of Central
Command because a war against Iran will be a Navy show. In fact,
intelligence sources say he’s the perfect guy to trick Iran into
starting a war against the US.
When Pres. Bush named Admiral William Fallon to run Central Command
which includes Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan Washington’s chattering
classes and the blogsphere were full of both informed and idle
speculation about the real reason behind the nomination. After all, it
was the first time a Navy man would run the entire US war making
apparatus in the world’s most volatile tinderbox.
So, speculation ranged from the punishment theory based on the fact that
the Army had botched Iraq and a guy with no attachment to the debacle
was needed, to the new eyes argument that cited two carrier strike
groups will soon be on station in the Persian Gulf and a third readying
to head that way -- so with Iran in the White House’s bulls eye, a Naval
officer was needed to manage what was likely to be a mostly Navy operation.
While there are elements of truth in the guesses, the real reason is
much murkier and has to do with Fallon’s previous postings to NATO and
as Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff for the US Atlantic
command.
If Cheney needs someone who knows how to trick Iran into starting a war,
then Adm. Fallon is the perfect guy to do it, states a former
intelligence officer familiar with Fallon and who asked for anonymity
because he was discussing classified information. At NATO and in the
Pentagon, he was responsible for the Navy’s undersea black operations.
NATO, the Navy and the Cold War
It is no secret that the Bush administration, starting with Vice Pres.
Dick Cheney and rippling down throughout the upper echelons of the
Pentagon and State Dept., is stuffed with aging cold warriors left over
from the days when there was one enemy, the Soviet Union. In those
simpler and, in many ways, less dangerous days, all of America’s
military and technological might was brought to bear in figuring out
ways to check-mate the Soviets.
Perhaps the cleverest development came in the late 1970s and early
1980s, when defense contractors figured out how to fool navigational
aids aboard Soviet nuclear submarines. Very bright boffins, juju men and
techheads created highly sophisticated computer programs and gadgetry
that, somehow, gave Russian subs false information on their location,
the depth of the seas below them and whose ships and submarines were
nearby. Naval intelligence sources now say that work was well along on a
project that would have enabled the US to reprogram missiles aboard
Soviet submarines. Best of all, the Soviets never knew that the Pentagon
was playing with the Russian’s XBox.
The black project worked well in theory, on paper and in simulations,
but the Pentagon wanted to know if it would work in a real-time
situation. So, the Navy played a mischievous little game. In conjunction
with NATO’s highest command levels in Brussels, Washington selected a
Soviet sub cruising in the Baltic Sea and decided to find out what would
happen when it flipped the switch.
What happened when the program was activated is that the hapless Russian
nuclear submarine, armed with missiles and a boatload of secrets, that
was chosen for the test lost its bearings and ran aground off the
Scandinavian coast. For the Kremlin, it was a military and public
relations nightmare: There was one of its ships marooned in full sight,
its misadventure photographed daily by the world’s media, and unable to
free itself. Norway, which wasn’t in on the secret, began a rescue and
salvage operation but was discretely told to stand down by NATO commanders.
Eventually, the submarine was freed but not before the US had collected
computers full of valuable electronic intelligence about the Russian
submarine fleet’s capabilities.
Old Dog, Old Tricks
When Adm. Fallon was with NATO as Assistant Chief of Staff, Plans and
Policy for Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, he was not only let in on
the secret, he was involved in planning and executing war games that
invoked the high tech strategy. Naval officers and able seamen alike
were learning how to fool the enemy.
It may have been his most important job at NATO, states a retired naval
intelligence officer who served at one time under Fallon and was given
anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the subject. The
tactics built around the capability are incredibly complex, mostly to
mask the fact that the US Navy can fiddle with any ship’s navigation. In
submarine warfare, this becomes an extremely valuable tool.
As it happens, Iran has a small but workable submarine fleet with
well-trained officers and sailors, but with dated computer, navigational
and warfare command equipment. It’s the only nation in the region with
submarines as part of its defence forces.
So, it makes sense for Adm. Fallon to be put in charge of the command
that is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and would fight Iran. When the
administration decides the time is right, the old seadog would use some
of his old tricks to trigger the war.
According to several intelligence sources in the Pentagon and elsewhere
in the US government, the battle plan calls for the Navy to use its
technology to confuse Iranian submarines and other vessels. In the
process, it is hoped that they will inadvertently create an encounter
with the large and growing US fleet in the Persian Gulf. Once provoked,
President Bush would go on television to say that he has ordered a
defensive response to protect the fleet and American interests and
demand Congress expand the 2002 authorization that let him invade Iraq.
Meanwhile, missiles and aircraft stationed on the Persian Gulf fleet
would launch attacks on Iran’s seaports, air bases and command and
control facilities while long-range bombers that are now being ferried
into Bulgaria and Romania would go after Iran’s nuclear reactors and
other known facilities.
And, as all of the pieces are being moved into place, The White House is
ratcheting up its rhetoric and getting Israel to do the same thing.
Cheney’s Deep Involvement
As happened in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq war, Vice Pres. Cheney
is deeply involved in both the intelligence and operational planning as
well as in making sure that the Defense and State departments are on
side or at least kept on the sidelines.
Cheney has made at least four secret trips to Langley (where the CIA is
located) to discuss Iran, in the past six weeks insists an intelligence
source. And it’s a straight replay of 2002. When he is presented with
facts that contradict his view, he dismisses them and openly criticizes
the analysts who tell him what he doesn’t want to hear.
But two things are markedly different in 2007 as opposed to five years
ago, according to this source.
First, the Company isn’t going to let Cheney and his senior staff bully
them into either agreeing or shutting up like happened with Iraq, he
declares. Second, the Democrats run Congress and, hopefully, they’ll
stop the White House bullshit before it floods the country.
One reason several of the military and intelligence sources quoted in
this story said they are willing to discuss Iran is to prevent what they
called another disaster being blamed on the armed forces and the
nation’s intelligence agencies.
We know they (Iran) are a decade away from making even one primitive
nuclear weapon, one of them said. The Israeli’s know it, too. It’s
interesting that two governments under the gun, so to speak, for
military disasters and deeply unpopularity are teaming up to create a
new ‘crisis’ to re-focus the public’s attention.
Added a high level Army officer with access to Pentagon intelligence who
is clearly distressed about what he sees unfolding, They made us fight
in Iraq when we didn’t want to and with a strategy that was doomed to
failure from the start. I’ll be Goddamned if we’re going to let them
(the White House and civilian leadership in the Pentagon) fuck us again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casus Belli, Anyone?
Prediction: This nation will go to war with Iran, and it will do so with the
full consent of Congress.
by John Atcheson
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0219-26.htm
Once more to the battlements we are marched. Once more our passions are
inflamed by rumor, innuendo and lies.
Sunni insurgents supported by Saudi oil money are responsible for some 90%
of US casualties, but our president, the ethical infant, points to Iran.
And once more the Main Stream Media idly mumbles the infant?s mantra, as he
sets the dogs of war nipping at our heels.
Prediction: This nation will go to war with Iran, and it will do so with the
full consent of Congress.
Oh, we will not preemptively attack. No. Instead, we will respond to an
Iranian provocation which is all but inevitable. Why? Because the infant is
making it so.
Look at the by now familiar pattern.
First, the administration has begun to "catapult the propaganda" making the
case that Iran is an "evildoer" equipping our enemies with armor-piercing
weapons.
The MSM has scarcely mentioned that the anti-tank shells offered as "proof"
of Iran's intent have English lettering on them, or that the shaped charges
the anonymous administration briefers put on display are an old technology
thats been around since the turn of last century, easily made by hand and
used in World War II and by the IRA.
Second, Bush has parked two aircraft carrier groups within striking distance
of Iran, even as he seeks once more to whip up a jingoistic frenzy here at
home. A carrier group is a formidable force. Even one has enough fire power
to turn Iran into a pile of rubble. Two could turn it into molten glass.
And according to some sources, a third may be on the way.
It gets worse. Last month, the US attacked an Iranian consulate in the Iraqi
town of Irbil and seized five Iranian diplomats as well as computers and
other property. What makes the US claims of espionage questionable is the
fact that Irbil is in Kurdish controlled territory, and the consulate was
set up with the full knowledge of the Kurdish government. Kurdish territory
would be an odd place for Iran to locate a spy network, as it is relatively
peaceful, the Kurds have been tolerant of Shiites, supportive of the US, and
Irbil is far from the centers of US activity.
So this is the situation. Bush is escalating his saber-rattling; a nuclear
force capable of annihilating Iran three times over is hovering within
striking distance of Tehran; Iran is flanked by tens of thousands of US
troops to the North in Afghanistan and nearly 150,000 US troops to the south
and west in Iraq; and the US is committing provocative acts against Iranian
citizens and property.
Imagine the US with foreign troops on our Canadian and Mexican borders, a
massive naval presence on our coasts, and the seizure of a US consulate in
Mexico, and you get a picture of just how trigger happy Iran?s President
Ahmadinejad must be.
It?s only a matter of time before an extremely nervous and politically
vulnerable Ahmadinejad pulls his twitching trigger finger ? whether by
mistake, or out of fear, or out of political calculation in order to shore
up his flagging support at home. Which is exactly the response Bush is
working to provoke. And once he does, Bush will let lose the apocalypse, in
the name of "protecting our men and women in harm?s way."
Far fetched? Not really.
Bush considered just such a ploy in order to launch his Iraq war. In his
book, Lawless World, author Phillipe Sands outlines a conversation between
Blair and Bush in which Bush proposes painting UN markings on a US U-2 spy
plane and flying it over Iraq in hopes that Hussein would attempt to shoot
it down, and provide him with his excuse to launch his war. The conversation
took place just five days before Powell?s now infamous UN speech, and Bush
suggested it when several people present in the meeting were concerned that
there was not enough real evidence to convince the Security Council that
Hussein was hiding WMDs. Had Powell?s speech not been as effective as it
was, can anyone now doubt that some young U-2 pilot would have been sent to
face death to give Bush his war?
Take no comfort in the administration?s claims that it is not seeking war
with Iran. Remember Bush?s fatuous denials about war in the fall of 2002 and
winter of 2003, even as troops, materials and weapons pored into Kuwait?
Remember the press?s silence? And Congress?s.
And when Iran?s president Ahmadinejad does slip up and provide Bush with his
casus belli for this latest war will anyone have the courage to oppose the
ethical infant this time?
Will anyone point out that this whole sad sequence was set in place by Bush,
in yet another of his marches of folly?
Certainly not the MSM who are more interested in maintaining "balance" than
uncovering and reporting truth.
Certainly not the Congress ? many of whom can?t choke out an admission that
they were wrong on Iraq to this day, even after all that?s happened.
Certainly not the people, who seem all too ready to be herded, sheep-like,
into an Orwellian world of perpetual war against ill-defined enemies
shrouded in the veils of our own fear and ignorance.
Who, then, will risk the wrath of an inflamed public whipped into a frothing
frenzy by this hate-mongering ethical infant as he calls for Iranian scalps?
Who will plead for sanity? Who will halt this second descent into utter
madness?
No one.
Just as with Iraq, the silence of otherwise good men and women will become
the greater evil, and the cradle of civilization will become civilization?s
sepulcher, and its rivers and sands will run redder yet with the blood of
the young and the innocent, the old and the infirm.
And when the inevitable result happens ? when US troops are no longer merely
caught in a crossfire between two warring factions, but instead become the
primary target of both ? how many Mea Culpas will we have to endure?
And will those Mea Culpas bring back the dead?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Bush Official Accuses White House of "Trying To Push" a First Strike from Iran
Warns public that the Bush Administration is looking for a pretext to justify a broader, regional conflict
Deniz Yeter, Global Research.ca
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
This paper originally appeared as a news article on Truthout.org, and is republished here in its full editorial version.
Hillary Mann Leverett, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2004, until she left the Administration, has issued a sober warning to the public concerning Bush's intentions with Iran.
Last week in an interview on CNN(1) she accused the Bush Administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict" from Iran as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" against the country's crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to "an all-out invasion like what happened with Iraq."
Her warning came a day after sources revealed to Newsweek(2) that "a second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf" and "that a third carrier will likely follow" to replace one of the strike carriers already in the Gulf.
In response, "Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week in a highly publicized test."
When asked what the Bush Administration should do in its confrontation with Iran, Hillary Mann suggested that "we should do what Nixon and Kissinger did with China in the early 1970s."
"We should respond positively, [and] constructively to Iranian overtures, to enter into comprehensive talks with Iran and to strike a grand bargain.
"A grand bargain would mean we would have to make some concessions, and it would mean the Iranians would have to make some important concessions.
"But at the end of the day I think there is a path.
"The Iranians have put this on the table before."
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:17 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
