| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: |
| Iran tops list of state terror sponsors
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago
The State Department has once again designated Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, accusing the Islamic Republic of aiding extremists throughout the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.
Although the designation is not new, the release of the department's annual global survey of terrorism comes at a delicate moment — just days ahead of a possible meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iran's top diplomat.
Rice could meet Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki when they both attend a weekend conference of Iraq's neighbors aimed at boosting stability in a nation where the report says terrorist attacks, some backed by Iran, killed more than 13,000 civilians in 2006.
"Should the foreign minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won't be rude," President Bush said Monday. "She's not a rude person. I'm sure she'll be polite."
Such a meeting on the sidelines of the conference in Egypt would be the highest-level contact between Iran and the United States since 2004.
The Bush administration in the past has resisted engaging Iran diplomatically on Iraq because of the stalemate over Tehran's uranium enrichment program, its long-standing support for anti-Israel groups and what the U.S. characterizes as a growing role in fueling the Iraqi insurgency.
But, in recent days, the administration has signaled more flexibility and Bush said if Rice meets Mottaki she will "be firm in reminding the representative of the Iranian government that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people than isolation."
Bush called Iran "a significant threat to world peace" and apart from its nuclear ambitions, which Washington believes includes attempts to construct an atomic bomb, Monday's terrorism report detailed alleged Iranian misbehavior.
Iran was singled out for criticism in a year that saw a surge of more than 25 percent in terrorist attacks that killed 40 percent more people than in 2005. Much of the increase was in Iraq where extremists used chemical weapons and suicide bombers to target crowds.
The State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 says Iran is the "most active state sponsor" of terrorism with elements of its government — notably the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence ministry — supporting many extremist groups in Iraq and elsewhere.
The two "were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hezbollah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals," the report said.
The Revolutionary Guard has been "linked to armor-piercing explosives that resulted in the deaths of coalition forces" and has helped, along with Lebanon's radical Hezbollah movement, train Iraqi Shiite extremists to build bombs, it said.
At the same time, "Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, rhetorically, operationally and financially," the report said, adding Iran has yet to identify, try or turn over senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003.
Of the total 14,338 attacks that took place in 2006, 6,630 were in Iraq as were 13,340 of the 20,498 deaths from terrorist strikes.
Attacks also soared in Afghanistan, where 749 were recorded in 2006, a 50 percent rise from 2005 when 491 attacks were tallied, the report said.
___
On the Net:
Terrorism Report — http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: |
| Iran standing firm in nuclear dispute
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
Iran accused the United States and other world powers of being the true nuclear threats Tuesday at a meeting hamstrung by Tehran's opposition to language calling for full compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Amid closed-door talks aimed at ending the impasse, France criticized Iran for defying a U.N. Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms, and urged Iran to "comply with its international obligations."
The conference, which began Monday and lasts two weeks, is intended to help prepare for a full review of the treaty in 2010.
Iran opposed wording in the meeting's agenda that mentions the "need for full compliance with the treaty." The agenda must be adopted by consensus before delegates can move on to more substantive issues.
If Iran digs in its heels, it could force the meeting to adjourn to a later date. Alternatively, delegates could take up agenda items not contested by Tehran, giving time for a compromise.
Tehran remained unbowed.
"We cannot go along with this kind of agenda," Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian delegate, told The Associated Press, complaining the agenda text "highlights a particular position" over other issues crucial to strengthening the treaty.
Iran was dispatching a senior official from Tehran to argue its position Wednesday, diplomats at the meeting told the Associated Press.
A senior diplomat from a nonaligned nation, which usually supports Iran in showdowns over its nuclear program, said Tuesday that even nonaligned countries were puzzled by Iran's move. Another diplomat said Cuba, Egypt and South Africa — all traditional Iranian allies — were urging Tehran to modify its stance.
Several diplomats expressed surprise at Iran's position, noting Tehran has always maintained its nuclear activities — including a program to enrich uranium that has led to U.N. sanctions — are in compliance with the treaty.
But another diplomat familiar with the issue said Iran was worried about being bullied and considered the text "an additional provocation." He said Iran's assertiveness also could reflect its belief that it was seeing signs of compromise from the West on its refusal to freeze enrichment totally.
All the diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue with the media.
In comments to the meeting, Soltanieh took aim at the U.S. and other nuclear weapons states, describing "their thousands of nuclear weapons ... and their possible use as the most serious threat to the very existence of humankind."
The United States seeks "to rationalize the development and stockpiling of a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons and their use in conventional conflicts," he asserted.
Again rejecting a U.N. Security Council demand that Tehran halt uranium enrichment program, Soltanieh said Iran "will not stand still in the face of intimidation and threats, and will never give up its inalienable rights."
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty calls on nations to pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear powers — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — to move toward nuclear disarmament. India and Pakistan, known nuclear weapons states, remain outside the treaty, as does Israel, which is considered to have such arms but has not acknowledged it.
Both Iran and North Korea have tested the 37-year-old treaty's effectiveness. North Korea pulled out in 2003 and went on to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran argues it has a right to pursue uranium enrichment under the treaty.
Chief French delegate Jean-Francois Dobelle, in a statement to the meeting, urged Iran "to comply with its international obligations," adding that any revision of the treaty "should deal with and respond to the challenge raised by the continuation of the Iranian nuclear program."
Alluding to Iran — which the West accuses of hiding behind the nonproliferation treaty to develop a weapons program — Dobelle said: "It is not acceptable for a small number of states ... to breach their obligations, while at the same time claiming the benefit of their rights."
Officials from some 130 of the treaty's 189 signatory countries are attending the conference, excluding North Korea. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: A High Price to Pay for Ignorance |
| http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=10900
May 2, 2007
A High Price to Pay for Ignorance
Philip Giraldi
The Pentagon and White House continue to argue that they are not planning a war against Iran in spite of the continuing buildup of naval forces in the Persian Gulf, which will peak with the arrival of a third carrier group at the end of May. The naval aviation and missile resources available, which are not being used to support combat operations in neighboring Iraq, far exceed any reasonable level required to send Iran a warning or to reassure Gulf Arab allies. The carrier concentration has even weakened U.S. ability to respond militarily elsewhere, most particularly in the Western Pacific, where an unpredictable North Korea continues to pose a genuine threat. Multiple carrier groups in the Persian Gulf can only mean that another preemptive war, this time against Iran, is either about to take place or is being viewed as a serious option.
Critics of an air and naval assault on Iran have provided many good reasons why war between Washington and Tehran would be a disaster for U.S. global interests, ranging from a spike in oil prices to the unleashing of worldwide terrorism. What is not being appreciated clearly either by the media or policy-makers is the central dilemma in war planning with Iran, which is the apparent lack of reliable intelligence on Iranian intentions and capabilities. Planning for war without good information has a surreal quality, like a blind man trying to describe something he cannot see, with guesses and "what-ifs" replacing certainties.
There has been a notable silence on Iran coming from the intelligence community. Late in 2006, shortly before he was forced to resign over his unwillingness to cook the intelligence on Iran, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte responded to congressional criticism by conceding that there were major deficiencies in what information was being obtained about the Islamic Republic. Since that time, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran has been stalled because of White House demands that the product be more useful, i.e., demonstrative of Iranian bad behavior and intentions. CIA analysis suggests that it cannot be demonstrated that Tehran currently has a nuclear weapons program, though the case either for or against Iran rests on a paucity of information, not on a solid understanding of what is going on inside the country and among its leadership. On a purely practical level, leaving moral and ethical considerations aside, until the United States can answer key questions about Iran, including its ability to retaliate, its terrorism resources, and the nature and location of its nuclear program, no military action should be contemplated.
The impending intelligence failure on Iran is very similar to that which took place regarding Iraq, and for many of the same reasons. From a practical point of view, it is very difficult to spy on a country if you do not have an embassy in its capital and also have an embargo or sanctions in place that prohibit business relations. It is even more difficult when that country has a very small group of decision-makers that control all information carefully. Spy fiction notwithstanding, most effective agents are volunteers who offer to provide their services, whether for money or for idealism. Oleg Penkovsky, the Russian who was the most important Western spy of the 20th century, was an idealistic volunteer who had to make several attempts to contact the British and American embassies in Moscow before he finally succeeded. Put simply, when the volunteer cannot reach you, you don't have any spies. It is reasonable to assume that America has very few real spies inside Iran.
Politicians who are ignorant of the Middle East frequently confuse advocacy with intelligence and allow the former to become the basis for policy formulation, sometimes by default. Lacking good intelligence resources, much so-called information that is reaching policy-makers in Washington comes from émigré groups and lobbyists with an agenda – again very much like what happened in the lead-up to the Iraq war. These groups are all interested in emphasizing the threat from Iran, not in objective analysis that might exonerate the mullahs.
The leading Iranian émigré group is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which pretends to have a network of independent sources within Iran but actually is largely dependent on information from Israeli intelligence. The "critical analysis" of events in Iran that reaches policy-makers in Washington frequently comes from it and other lobbying and advocacy groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), all of which share an "Iran agenda" that calls for regime change. AIPAC is known to be the source of a position paper on Iran that most congressmen rely on to shape their own views. Israel's advocates, including peripatetic politicians such as ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, make frequent visits to the United States, where they have good access to the media and potential supporters, to reinforce the case that Iran must be dealt with forcefully.
There is also a tactical problem caused by poor intelligence. Without good information, Iran's nuclear program becomes hard to target in a military sense, and a massive air and sea attack might not even solve the alleged problem. There are hundreds of known nuclear-related targets in Iran, with many others still undiscovered and hidden. Many of the sites are located in cities, meaning that an attempt to take them out would result in numerous civilian casualties. Iran has been preparing for an American attack for some years, and there are reports that many of the sites are deep underground and hardened with layers of concrete, meaning that a genuine attempt to completely destroy them could require tactical nuclear weapons. The unilateral use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. would change the world, and not for the better, as it would let the genie out of the bottle and create the worst possible precedent for other nuclear powers like India, Pakistan, and Israel.
Poor intelligence also means that Iran's capacity for retaliation is unclear. If one of the purposes of war is to inflict more damage on the enemy than the enemy inflicts on you, it is essential to know your foe's capabilities. One possible retaliatory scenario considered to be likely and currently being war-gamed by the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies involves Iran's stirring-up of its Shi'ite co-religionists in neighboring Iraq against American forces, cutting supply lines and making every Iraqi neighborhood a safe haven for insurgents. Today's chaos in Baghdad would look positively benign in comparison to the national uprising that would ensue.
Iran could also use its missiles and biological and chemical weapons to strike against other U.S. forces in the region, in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. It could effectively attack regional U.S. friends and allies such as the Emirates, Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. It might, for example, call on the Shi'ite majority in Bahrain to rebel and overthrow the Sunni emir, leading to an immediate loss of the base for the U.S. Sixth Fleet. It almost certainly would use Silkworm missiles and suicide boats to close the narrow Straits of Hormuz, cutting off petroleum from the entire Gulf region and driving oil up to $400 per barrel. If it were really lucky, it could sink an American aircraft carrier.
Worldwide, Iran could have Hezbollah terrorist cells believed to be underground in the United States and Europe stage terrorist attacks. It could destabilize all of Asia by assassinating Presidents Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, possibly resulting in an Islamic Republic in Pakistan that would be armed both with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Attacking Iran for the wrong reasons and with the same poor intelligence that produced the Iraq catastrophe would cause American influence and power to collapse throughout the Middle East and central Asia, an extremely high price to pay for ignorance. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
| Iran nuclear program 'able to mass produce centrifuges'. 02/05/2007. ABC News Online
[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1912801.htm]
Last Update: Wednesday, May 2, 2007. 8:08pm (AEST)
Iran nuclear program 'able to mass produce centrifuges'
Iran has signalled further progress in its disputed nuclear program, with a senior official telling a newspaper it can mass produce centrifuges used for enriching uranium.
Ali Akbar Velayati, an international affairs adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has told the Jomohouri Eslami newspaper, "Right now we have obtained the technology for mass production of centrifuges".
He has also made clear Iran's determination not to bow to western pressure and give up its atomic work, indicating that if Tehran did so, the west would only step up pressure in other areas.
"If we retreat in our nuclear issues tomorrow, they will have a problem with our missiles development," he said.
Iran is embroiled in a deepening stand-off with the west over its atomic ambitions.
Major powers suspect it seeks to build bombs but Tehran says it only wants to generate electricity so that it can export more of its oil and gas.
- Reuters
Australian Broadcasting Corporation | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
| U.S. raids in Iraq target Iranian arms
By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 14 minutes ago
U.S. forces broke up a Shiite militant cell believed to be smuggling an armor-piercing Iranian weapon responsible for an increasing number of American and Iraqi deaths, the military said. Sixteen suspected militants were arrested Friday in the Baghdad raid.
The military also announced that its forces had discovered and destroyed several caches of weapons over the last few months south of Baghdad, including Iranian-made rockets and mortars.
Roadside bombs have long been the No. 1 killer of U.S. and Iraqi forces in Iraq, but the use of the Iranian explosively formed penetrators, or EFP's, is rising. The weapons, which hurl a fist-sized lump of molten copper, can pierce even U.S. armored vehicles newly designed to deflect roadside bombs.
In Sadr City, the Baghdad slum that is home to Shiite militias allied with radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, coalition raids rounded up 16 suspected members of a militant cell that brought in the Iranian weapons, as well as militants seeking terrorist training, the U.S. said. Intelligence reports also indicate the cell is linked to kidnappings in Iraq, the statement said.
The military said over the last six months U.S. forces have found and destroyed four caches of Iranian-linked weapons around Mahmoudiya, a mostly Shiite enclave surrounded by Sunni-dominated areas about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Sectarian violence and attacks by militias and insurgents on American and Iraqi forces are common in the area.
Iranian officials deny importing weapons or militants into neighboring Iraq, but The Washington Post reported Friday that attacks in Iraq involving Iranian-made EFPs reached a record high last month.
Quoting Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who oversees day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, the paper said the number of attacks with the projectiles rose to 65 in April, most of them in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad. Officials said the projectiles are used almost exclusively by Shiite fighters against U.S. military targets.
EFPs were first reported used in Iraq in 2005 against British forces in the south, but have grown increasingly common, primarily in Baghdad.
The Post quoted Odierno as saying that before April, the month with the greatest number of projectile attacks was December 2006, with 62. It said the use of projectile weapons has risen over time as other types of bombs have become less effective against added U.S. armor.
Overall attacks using roadside bombs doubled in Iraq from 2006 to 2007 and number about 1,200 a month, the Post said. They cause roughly 70 percent of the casualties suffered by U.S. troops, the paper said.
Also Friday, the U.S. military identified two more top al-Qaida aides killed during an operation earlier this week targeting Muharib Abdul-Latif al-Jubouri, a senior propagandist for the terror network.
The American operation north of Baghdad led to days of conflicting reports from the Iraqi government that the leaders of al-Qaida and its front group, the Islamic State of Iraq had been killed.
The chief U.S. military spokesman on Thursday said the U.S. did not have the bodies of al-Qaida boss Abu Ayyub al-Masri or Islamic State leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and did not know "of anybody that does."
The military on Friday identified two of the other slain militants as al-Jubouri's spiritual guide Sabah Hilal al-Shihawi and a foreign fighter, Abu Ammar al-Masri, who it said was helping with insurgent activity and infrastructure support for al-Qaida.
Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, another U.S. military spokesman, said Friday that Abu Ammar al-Masri is unrelated to the al-Qaida boss.
Also Friday, a U.S. soldier was killed and two were wounded when their patrol was hit by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. Since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003, at least 3,357 members of the U.S. military have died, according to an Associated Press count.
Separately, a roadside bomb killed five Iraqi policemen on a patrol in western Baghdad.
Seven bodies were found floating in the Diyala River in Baqouba, 35 miles
northeast of Baghdad, and snipers were preventing police and medical teams from recovering from the remains along with other bodies spotted in recent weeks from the waterway, police said. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: |
| Rice, Iranian have little contact
By ANNE GEARAN and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers 14 minutes ago
Iran's foreign minister boycotted a dinner of diplomats where he was to be seated directly across from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ostensibly because a female violinist entertaining the gathering was dressed too revealingly.
"I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.
Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki met earlier at a lunch Thursday but exchanged only pleasantries. Neither appeared ready to make the first move for a real meeting.
"You can ask him why he didn't make an effort," Rice told reporters Friday. "I'm not given to chasing anyone."
According to Iraq's foreign minister, Iranian and American ambassadors did meet Friday for more serious talks on the sidelines of the conference to stabilize Iraq — the second such encounter since March 10.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the ambassadors' meeting was "positive" and said the two rival nations, both allies of the Baghdad government, should ease their disputes, which the Iraqis argue are only fueling their country's chaos.
The United States accuses Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons as well as funneling money and weapons the Shiite militias responsible for much of Iraq's violence. Iran denies both accusations and in a speech Friday, Mottaki assailed the United States for the terrorism and violence he said resulted from its "occupation" of Iraq, saying the Americans "should not finger point or put the blame on others."
Iraq and its neighbors on Friday issued a declaration aimed at rallying support for the Shiite-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from long-reluctant Sunni Arab countries.
Arab nations committed to stop foreign fighters from crossing their territory to join Iraq's insurgency. The Iraqis, in turn, vowed to do more to include Iraq's Sunni Arabs in the political process.
But both sides remained deeply suspicious. "We will see the extent of the seriousness and commitment among these nations to what they signed today," al-Maliki said.
Mottaki's speech to the conference blamed the U.S. military presence for Iraq's turmoil and demanded the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq in January. Iran claims the five are diplomats.
"There should be no doubt that the continuation of and increase in terrorist acts in Iraq originates from the flawed approaches adopted by the foreign troops," Mottaki said. "The United States must accept the responsibilities arising from the occupation of Iraq."
Mottaki stayed away from the diplomats' dinner Thursday night, where a place had been set for him across from Rice. Through a translator, Mottaki told reporters Friday that there were problems with "Islamic standards" at the gathering. "There was something wrong with that so I offered my apologies," Mottaki said. "There was no other reason."
Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit told The Associated Press that Mottaki stayed in the hotel Thursday night and did not come down to the dinner, held in the hotel's beachfront restaurant. "He wasn't there; he was in the hotel the whole time."
Mottaki, speaking Friday as Rice left Sharm el-Sheik, said there was no time during the conference to meet Rice. He said planning and political will on both sides was needed for a substantive meeting.
"It should be clear what we trying to get from the meeting, what are we going to discuss," he said. "Such meetings should not be something theatrical. They should be substantive."
He also called U.S. policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon a "failure," adding, "These policies have to change."
Going into the summit, the Iraqi government had hoped for a breakthrough meeting between Rice and Mottaki. Instead, their only direct contact was the wary exchange of pleasantries over lunch Thursday, punctuated by a wry, somewhat mysterious comment by Mottaki.
The Iranian entered the lunch, greeting the gathered diplomats with the Arabic phrase, "As-salama aleikum," a Muslim greeting often used by Iran's Farsi speakers meaning "Peace be upon you," according to an Iraqi official who was present.
Rice replied to him in English, "Hello," then added: "Your English is better than my Arabic," according to the Iraqi official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the lunch was private.
Aboul Gheit then piped in, telling Mottaki, "We want to warm the atmosphere some."
Mottaki smiled and replied in English with a saying: "In Russia, they eat ice cream in winter because it's warmer than the weather" — more or less meaning, "You take whatever atmosphere-warming you can get."
"That's true," Rice replied, according to the Iraqi official.
After lunch, Egypt's Aboul Gheit told the AP he would try to arrange a further informal meeting between Rice and Mottaki at a gala dinner being thrown by the Egyptians Thursday night on the beach of a nearby resort hotel.
"Why not?" Aboul Gheit said. "It is only one table." But asked if he would seat Rice and Mottaki next to each other, he said, "No, no."
___
Associated Press correspondent Edith M. Lederer contributed to this story. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:49 am Post subject: |
| Dick Cheney warns Iran from deck of aircraft carrier in Gulf
By Graham Bowley
Friday, May 11, 2007
Vice President Dick Cheney used the setting of an aircraft carrier in the Gulf to deliver a stern message to Iran on Friday, warning that the United States would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons or gain the upper hand in the Middle East.
"With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike," he said in a speech on board the U.S.S. John C. Stennis, according to a pool report provided by journalists traveling with Mr. Cheney.
"We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region," he said.
Cheney said that the United States was determined, in the event of any crises in the region, to keep the sea lanes of the Gulf open, the Associated Press reported.
The aircraft carrier was about 20 miles off the coast of Abu Dhabi, one of the United Arab Emirates, according to the pool report. Cheney traveled to the Emirates following a two-day visit to Iraq, and will be making other stops in the Middle East on his week-long trip.
Cheney's message seemed particularly pointed because, according to the pool report and the Associated Press, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is scheduled to visit Abu Dhabi himself in the next few days.
His speech to American service members on board the carrier also seemed intended to reassure them that a strong American presence would be maintained in the region for some time.
"I want you to know that the American people do not support a policy of retreat," Cheney said. "We want to complete the mission, get it done right, and return with honor."
On Thursday in Iraq, Cheney spoke to American troops stationed near Saddam Hussein's birthplace, Tikrit, telling them in somber tones that they still had a tough fight ahead of them.
His assessment stood in stark contrast to the one he made two years ago, when he declared in an interview with CNN that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes."
The United States remains at odds with Iran over its nuclear program. Iran says the program is peaceful but America and its Western allies say it is intended to build weapons. The Bush administration has also expressed concerns about Iranian involvement in Iraq; officials have said that weapons are being smuggled into Iraq from Iran and that the insurgents who assemble and placing bombs in Iraq may be getting training in Iran. The Iranian government denies sponsoring or encouraging terrorism.
Cheney visited the U.S.S. John C. Stennis before, in March 2002, at a time when he was trying to build support for the invasion of Iraq, the Associated Press noted.
On Friday, standing in front of five F-18 Super Hornet warplanes and a huge American flag on the hangar deck of the carrier, Cheney spoke to some 3,500 service members, according to the AP. He sounded a hard line, saying the United States must hold firm in Iraq and confront Iran if necessary, the agency reported.
His tour of the Middle East will also include visits to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting for this article from Baghdad. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: Bush doesn't want detente. He wants to attack Iran |
| Bush doesn't want detente. He wants to attack Iran
The US has swept aside repeated overtures from Tehran. Is it any wonder if the Islamic Republic now wants the bomb?
By Alain Gresh
05/15/07 "The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2079828,00.html> " -- -- In the next few days an unprecedented meeting between US and Iranian officials is expected to take place in Baghdad; both sides have insisted that discussions are limited to Iraq. Could this first official encounter since the Islamic revolution herald detente between Washington and Tehran?
At the moment nothing suggests that is likely, as each country continues to try to mobilise the states of the region. The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been touring the Arab world, reiterating Washington's determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, is visiting the UAE, the first by an Iranian leader since independence in 1971 and all the more important because of a serious territorial dispute. Responding to the threatening noises from Cheney, President Ahmadinejad declared: "The US cannot strike Iran. The Iranian people can protect themselves and retaliate."
Although the US administration's current priority is Iraq, it has not given up on Iran. Silently, stealthily, unseen by cameras, the war on Iran has begun. Many sources confirm that the US has increased its aid to armed movements among the ethnic minorities that make up about 40% of Iran's population. ABC News reported in April that the US had secretly assisted the Baluchi group Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), responsible for a recent attack that killed 20 Revolutionary Guards. According to an American Foundation report, US commandos have operated inside Iran since 2004.
President Bush categorised Iran as part of the "axis of evil" in 2002; the following year he said the US "would not tolerate" an Iranian nuclear weapon. It is worth recalling the context in which these statements were made. Tehran had actively helped the US to overthrow the Taliban. At a meeting in Geneva on May 2 2003 between Javad Zaraf, the Iranian ambassador, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan, the Tehran government submitted a proposal for general negotiations on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and security, and economic cooperation. The Islamic Republic said it was ready to support the Arab peace initiative tabled in 2002 and help to transform Hizbullah into a political party. And in December 2003, Iran became one of the few countries to sign the additional protocol to the non-proliferation treaty, which strengthens the International Atomic Energy Agency's supervisory powers.
However, the US swept all these overtures aside since its only objective is to overthrow the mullahs. To create the conditions for military intervention, it constantly brandishes "the nuclear threat". In 1995 the director of the US arms control and disarmament agency said Iran could have the bomb by 2003; Clinton's defence secretary William Perry predicted 2000, a forecast repeated by Israel's Shimon Peres. Yet last month the IAEA considered that it would be four to six years before Tehran had the capability to produce the bomb.
What is the truth? Since the 1960s, Iran has sought to develop nuclear power in preparation for the post-oil era. Technological developments have made it easier to pass from civil to military applications. Have Tehran's leaders decided to do so? There is no evidence that they have. Is there a risk that they may? Yes, for obvious reasons.
During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran, but there was no outcry in the US, whose troops are now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two neighbouring countries, Pakistan and Israel, have nuclear weapons. No Iranian leader could fail to be aware of this situation.
So how is Tehran to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, a move that would start a new arms race in an unstable region and deal a fatal blow to the non-proliferation treaty? Contrary to common assumptions, the main obstacle is not Tehran's determination to enrich uranium. Iran has a right to do so under the non-proliferation treaty but has always said it was prepared to impose voluntary restrictions on that right and to agree to increased IAEA inspections.
The Islamic Republic's fundamental concern lies elsewhere. Witness the agreement signed in 2004 with France, Britain and Germany, in which Iran agreed to suspend enrichment on the understanding that a long-term agreement would "provide firm commitments on security issues". Washington refused to give any such commitments and Iran resumed its programme.
The EU chose to follow Washington's lead. The proposals of the five members of the UN security council and Germany in June 2006 contained no guarantee of non-intervention in Iranian affairs. In response, Tehran suggested "that the western parties who want to participate in the negotiation team announce on behalf of their own and other European countries, to set aside the policy of intimidation, pressure and sanctions".
Without such a commitment escalation is inevitable. Ahmadinejad's election as president in 2005 has not made dialogue any easier, given his taste for provocative statements about the Holocaust and Israel. But Iran is a big country rich in history, and there is more to it than its president. There is much tension within the government, and Ahmadinejad had severe setbacks both in the local elections and in elections to the Assembly of Experts last December. There are substantial challenges, economic and social, and forceful demands for more freedom, especially among women and young people. The only strong card the regime has to win their loyalty is nationalism, a refusal to accept the kind of foreign interference Iran suffered throughout the past century.
Despite the disaster in Iraq, there is no indication that Bush has given up the idea of attacking Iran. The insistence at the weekend by Gordon Brown that there would be no attack on Iran seems unwarranted optimism rather than objective assessment. The idea of an assault against Iran is after all part of the Bushite vision of a "third world war" against "Islamic fascism", an ideological war that can end only in complete victory.
The demonisation of Iran, aggravated by the attitude of its president, is part of this strategy and may well culminate in yet another military venture. That would be a disaster, not only for Iran and the Arab world, but for western, and especially European, relations with the Middle East. Europe's newest leaders - Nicolas Sarkozy and Brown - would do well to remember that.
? Alain Gresh is a specialist on the Middle East for Le Monde Diplomatique, where a longer version of this article appeared
? Le Monde Diplomatique
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17701.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:19 am Post subject: |
| Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
ABC News, May 22, 2007
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a
covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government,
current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the
Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed
a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan
that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda,
disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international
financial transactions.
"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the
president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall
American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime,"
said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt
with Iran and other countries in the region.
A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said,
"The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA
spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on
allegations of covert activity."
The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year
and received approval from White House officials and other officials
in the intelligence community.
Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop
its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq.
"There are some channels where the United States government may want
to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the
administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence
finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News
consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism
official.
Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the
covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being,
has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran.
"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military
strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come
to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than
upsides."
Continues at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070523&articleId=5734 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
