War Without End

Alpha · Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:06 am Post subject:

World briefing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330261901-103681,00.html

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

Iran fist-in-glove with Iraqi rebels: America builds its case
Simon Tisdall
Wednesday July 25, 2007

Guardian
US military spokesmen, officials and analysts are gradually adding flesh to the bones of allegations of official Iranian collaboration with Shia and Sunni insurgents in Iraq, including elements linked to al-Qaida.
The development comes amid reports that the White House is leaning towards military action against Iran over its suspect nuclear activities and supposed meddling in Iraq, and growing expectations that George Bush will extend the military "surge" to at least next summer.
A senior US official in Baghdad told the Guardian in May that Iran was fighting a proxy war in Iraq. He accused Tehran of "committing daily acts of war against US and British forces", including weapons and other assistance to militias and ad hoc cooperation with individual extremists tied to al-Qaida.
The allegations were rejected out of hand by Iran. Anti-war groups dismissed them as unsubstantiated US propaganda, reminiscent of false claims made prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In an apparent response to this scepticism Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner, of Multi-National Force Iraq, put coalition concerns on the record at an official briefing in Baghdad on July 2.
For the first time he formally accused Iran's senior leadership of instigating, or at the least countenancing, insurgent attacks. He cited an incident in Kerbala, in January, which led to the deaths of five Americans, and identified 21 "high-level operatives" who worked under clandestine Iranian direction.
"We are operating against secret cells or special groups funded, trained and armed by external sources, specifically by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force operatives," he said.
He stressed the amorphous nature of the groups, which, he said, included "rogue elements" from various backgrounds, Iraqi and external, united by a wish to fight. Gen Bergner indicated that interrogation of captured insurgents was partly the basis for the US intelligence assessments. He detailed alleged al-Quds involvement in training, at camps inside Iran, weapons supply, and funding of the special groups to the tune of $3m a month.
Unidentified western officials went even further a few days later. They told the Financial Times of evidence that Iran was allowing its territory to be used as a money and communications hub by al-Qaida members and by Iraqi Sunni insurgents fleeing coalition action.
A former Iranian official said that while there was a "successful intelligence relationship" with al-Qaida, Tehran did not supply it with weapons.
Speaking in London this week, Frederick Kagan, a noted US neo-conservative who helped inspire President Bush's surge plan, said there was no "smoking gun" proving direct, continuous, high-level, collaboration between al-Qaida and other Sunni extremists and Iran's leadership.
But he said growing evidence suggested that previous patterns of Iranian military and other assistance to Shia militias were now being repeated with respect to Sunni jihadis of all descriptions, including individual cells of al-Qaida - although not the movement as a whole. The evidence was often circumstantial but included Iranian-manufactured and -purchased arms caches found in al-Qaida and Sunni-dominated areas, including at a factory in Samarra and at another in Muqdadiyah, near the Iran border. Discovery of the bases had led to a retaliatory al-Qaida attack, he said. Training camps in Iran had also been located.
"The Iranians and al-Qaida both want the Iraqi state to fail. If Iran wanted a stable Iraq, they would be supporting [Iraq's] Shia government," Dr Kagan said. Tehran's prime motive was to ensure Iraq never again threatened Iran, as it had under Saddam Hussein. But it also wanted to "keep us bleeding" in Iraq. "Iran is supplying everybody who is engaged in violence, every faction, every accelerant of violence, including [the Shia militia] Jaish al-Mahdi and al-Qaida. This is all too well organised to be happening without regime knowledge."
With the US ever more convinced it is under sustained assault, the potential for direct confrontation with Iran can only grow.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Alpha · Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:23 am Post subject:

July 16, 2007

Impeachment or War?
Cheney Urges Bush to Strike Iran
By GARY LEUPP

http://counterpunch.org/leupp07162007.html

"Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran." That's the headline of a very frightening article by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in the London Guardian. Sub-heads:

· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out

· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

What a nightmare Dick Cheney is visiting on our planet! Isn't it time we awaken to the fact that he's a crazed monster egging on a vain, cruel, delusional religious fanatic of a president as he inflicts incalculable suffering on the Middle East, sacrificing American blood and treasure in the process? Of course many of us have awakened to that fact, one reason why 54% of us want to see Cheney impeached. Yet he's still there, operating in his highly secretive fashion, gaining rather than losing influence according to MacAskill and Borger.

"The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months," they write. They cite a "well-placed source in Washington" as stating "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." The source also states, "The balance has tilted [ towards the advocates of an attack on Iran]. There is cause for concern."

Surely that concern is felt among the highest ranks of the military as well as the average citizen whom polls indicate feels no enthusiasm for the planned assault. But Congress has cooperated fully by passing every bill or resolution against Iran backed by the horrifically influential AIPAC lobby. Recall how Nancy Pelosi omitted a requirement for Congressional authorization of any Iran attack from legislation at the Lobby's behest?

The prospect of yet another war-based-on-lies boggles the rational mind. But according to the Guardian, there was a meeting between Bush, Cheney, and Pentagon and State Department officials on Iran last month, and Bush sided with Cheney when the latter "expressed frustration at the lack of progress" on Iran. That is to say, lack of progress in moving ahead with the bombing of Iran. Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, the key State Department official responsible for Iran and an advocate of negotiation, indicated at the meeting that diplomatic talks with Iran would probably continue beyond the end of Bush's term. For Bush and Cheney that is unacceptable, especially because they don't believe the next administration will have the guts to bomb.

Patrick Cronin, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies suggested to the Guardian that Israel is calling the shots. "If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action. The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself." According to the Washington source, the administration is "reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway."

The handwriting is on the wall here. All these reports from unnamed sources about Iranian support for Iraqi "insurgents" of this or that faction. The display with much fanfare of captured weapons in Iraq identified as of Iranian manufacture. All these confident allusions to a nuclear weapons program Iran denies exists, for which the IAEA finds no evidence. All these assertions that Iran plans to cause a second Holocaust through a nuclear attack on Israel. Norman Podhoretz's Wall Street Journal op-ed piece praying for the U.S. to bomb Iran. John McCain's crooning "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran." The disinformation, distortion, even vilification of Iran in popular culture. The propaganda barrage is reminiscent of that which preceded the criminal invasion of Iraq.

The uniform support for keeping an attack "on the table" among nearly all presidential candidates. The incessant arm-twisting of governments to back sanctions on Iran. The abuse of the IAEA, forced by a majority vote to find Iran "in non-compliance" with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The huge naval buildup in the Persian Gulf. The provocative arrest of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, protested by the Iraqi puppet government itself. The demand that Iran renounce its legal right to enrich uranium---a demand designed to be rejected and to constitute a pretext for regime change. The handwriting is written in big conspicuous letters on the wall.

That doesn't mean the attack cannot be stopped. How to do so? By not giving Cheney/Bush the remainder of their term. If 54% want Cheney impeached, he should be impeached. NOW, before he's allowed to further terrorize the world. Cheney impeachment hearings will weaken Bush and increase the percentage of Americans (now 45%) favoring the president's own impeachment. All that is required here is political will in a Congress that has seen its approval rating plummet due largely to its failure to stop the administration's war. Those wishing to reverse that have an easy option: vote to impeach. And while you're at it, vote to insist on Congress's exclusive power according to the Constitution to declare war.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:42 pm; edited 4 times in total

Secret U.S. Air Force team planning Iranian strike (for Israel), led by Jews:

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3717

Diego Garcia Secretly Readied for Bunker Busters

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/10/30/diego-garcia-secretly-readied-for-bunker-busters/

B-2s being fitted for Bunker Buster Bomb - delivery to Iran

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:56:07 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort

http://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/5880/

B-2s being fitted for
Bunker Buster Bomb

Monday, 23 July 2007 Written by Alexander G. Rubio

A little noticed July 19, 2007
<http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=123187>press
release from aerospace and defense conglomerate Northrop Grumman (NYSE:
<http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NOC>NOC) reveals that the company is
undertaking the task of refitting a number of the US Air Force's B-2
Stealth Bombers with new bomb racks able to hold and deliver the
<http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070326a_nr.html>Boeing
produced 30,000 pound (13,600 kg)
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm>

Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker busting bomb:

PALMDALE, Calif., July 19, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Air Force's
B-2 stealth bomber would be able to attack and destroy an expanded set
of hardened, deeply buried military targets using a new 30,000
pound-class penetrator weapon that Northrop Grumman has begun
integrating on the aircraft.

The company is doing the work under a seven-month, $2.5 million contract
awarded June 1 by the Air Force's Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright
Patterson AFB, Ohio. [...] The new Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP),
which is being developed by The Boeing Company, is a GPS-guided weapon
containing more than 5,300 pounds of conventional explosives inside a
20.5-foot long enclosure of hardened steel. It is designed to penetrate
dirt, rock and reinforced concrete to reach enemy bunker or tunnel
installations. The B-2 is capable of carrying two MOPs, one in each
weapons bay.

The weapon is substantially larger than the previously deepest
penetrating bunker buster, the 5000 lb (2,270 kg)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28>GBU-28. It joins a select arsenal
of massive non-nuclear bombs along side the famous
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisycutter>"Daisycutter", the 15,000
pound BLU-82 bomb designed originally to create clearings in the Vietnam
jungle to enable helicopters to put down, and which had a lethality
radius of 300 metres, and the so called Mother Of All Bombs, the 30 ft
(9.17 m) long, 21,000 pound (9.5 metric tonnes) GBU-43
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB>Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB),
the hitherto most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed.

There has of course been much chatter lately that any air strikes
intended to knock out, or set back the Iranian nuclear program, located
at hardened underground facilities such as
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/natanz.htm>Natanz, would
require the use of either small tactical nuclear devices, or
conventional explosive bombs of a size and design hitherto never before
used, like the MOP.

Of course, planning, and even preparing for a contingency, does not in
itself imply any decision to launch an attack. But it might be prudent
on the part of the Iranian leadership to dig a little deeper, both in
the diplomatic bag, and in a very real and concrete sense.

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

Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans

http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.1792035.0.secret_move_to_upgrade_air_base_for_iran_attack_plans.php

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

The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Iran is bracing itself for an expected American-led air campaign. The latter is in the advanced stages of military planning.

If there were to be war between the United States and Iran, the aerial campaign would unleash fierce combat. It would be fully interactive on multiple fronts. It would be a difficult battle involving active movement in the air from both sides.

If war were to occur, the estimates of casualties envisaged by American and British war planners would be high.

The expected wave of aerial attacks would resemble the tactics of the Israeli air-war against Lebanon and would follow the same template, but on a larger scale of execution.

The U.S. government and the Pentagon had an active role in graphing, both militarily and politically, the template of confrontation in Lebanon. The Israeli siege against Lebanon is in many regards a dress rehearsal for a planned attack on Iran.1

A war against Iran is one that could also include military operations against Syria. Multiple theatres would engulf many of the neighbors of Iran and Syria, including Iraq and Israel/Palestine.

It must also be noted that an attack on Iran would be of a scale which would dwarf the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Levant. A full blown war on Iran would not only swallow up and incorporate these other conflicts. It would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.

An American-led air campaign against Iran, if it were to be implemented, would be both similar and contrasting in its outline and intensity when compared to earlier Anglo-American sponsored confrontations.

The war would start with intense bombardment and attacks on Iran's infrastructure, but would be different in its scope of operations and intensity.

The characteristics of such a conflict would also be unpredictable because of Iran's capabilities to respond. And in all likelihood, Iran would launch its own potent attacks and extend the theatre of war by attacking U.S. and American-led troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.

The United States must also take into account the fact that Iran unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon would be an opponent with the capability to resist the US sponsored attacks on the ground, but also on the sea and in the air.

Unlike the former opponents faced by the United States and its partners, Iran would be able to target the military launch pads used by the United States. Iran would also be able to attack the U.S. supply and logistical hubs in the Persian Gulf. American ships carrying supplies, troops, and warplanes would be vulnerable to Iranian counter-attacks by way of Iranian missiles, warplanes, and naval forces. It is no mere coincidence that Iran has been demonstrating its military capabilities during the “Blow of Zolfaqar” war games conducted in late August .2

Iranian Preparations for an American-led Air Campaign

The United States has continually threatened to attack Iran. These threats are made under the pretext of halting the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. The development of nuclear weapons by Iran is something the IAEA and its inspectors have refuted as untrue3, but the United States insists on continuing the charade as grounds for a military endgame with Iran.

The threat of an American-led attack against Iran with the heavy involvement of Israel and Britain, amongst others, has primed Iran to prepare itself for the anticipated moment. Over the years, this has led Iran to stride for self-sufficiency in producing its own advanced military hardware and the development of asymmetrical tactics to combat the United States.

Iranian defense planners have stated publicly that they have learned from the cases of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. They are acutely aware of the U.S. military’s heavy reliance on aerial strikes.

August 2006 saw the start of the virtually unprecedented events of the Blow of Zolfaqar war games throughout Iran and its border provinces.4 These were similar to those conducted in April 2006.
The latter were also held during a period of tense confrontation between Iran and the United States.
April 2006 was a period that could have resulted in military conflict between both the United States and Iran. In April 2006, Iran had not only dismissed the deadline set on its nuclear program, but it announced in defiance to the United States that it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

Iran has taken the opportunity of the launching of both the April 2006 and Blow of Zolfaqar war games to display its preparedness and capability to engage in combat. Additionally, Iran has taken the occasion to fine tune its defenses and mobilize its military apparatus. This exhibition of Iranian military might is intended to deter America's intent to trigger another Middle Eastern war.

During the war games, the Iranian military has adjusted and modified its air defense shield for maximum dexterity and efficiency in preparation, to stop incoming missiles and invading aircraft..5 The war games have been an opportunity for testing of Iranian capacity to wage war in the air
The Iranian military has also reported the testing of laser-guided weaponry, advanced torpedoes, ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles, bullets that pierce through bullet-proof vests, and electronic military hardware during the Blow of Zolfaqar war games.6 Surface-to-surface and ocean-to-surface missiles (submarine-to-surface missiles) in the Persian Gulf were also tested in late-August 2006. These included missiles that are invisible to radar and can use multiple warheads or carry multiple payloads to hit numerous targets simultaneously.
Iran has also tested a “2,000 pound guided-bomb with long-range capabilities.” This “2,000 pound bomb” is said to be a “special weapon developed for penetrating military, economic and strategic targets located deep underground or on the soil of the [impending] enemy.”7 In the case of war, this weapon could be directed against Anglo-American military infrastructure in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. This guided bomb is an unmanned aircraft carrying an explosive warhead. Following the execution of the Blow of Zolfaqar war games, the Iranian Defense Minister stated that “Iran now joins the few countries that possess guided missile technology,”8

Iran has also been manufacturing its own warplanes,9 submarines, attack helicopters, tanks, torpedoes, and missiles. This includes remote-controlled modified Maverick Missiles.10 Brigadier-General Amini, the Deputy Commander of the Air Branch (Air Force) of the Regular Forces, has highlighted that Iran has starting the development and manufacturing of new types of warplanes besides the “Lighting fighter jets” that have been showcased in Northern Iran.11

To discourage the United States in its plans to attack Iran, the Iranian military has additionally been showcasing its abilities to dog fight in the air with its fighter jets.12 Iranian fighter and bomber jets have been progressively equipped with advanced software and hardware, developed in Iran or by way of technology transfers from China, the Russian Federation, and the republics of the former Soviet Union.

Iranian Commanders have also stated that Iran can track and hit warplanes without using conventional radar. Iran has also been showcasing its signal jamming devices and electronic military hardware, which it compares to NATO standards13.

Warnings to the United States To Stop Its War Plans
In Iran military commanders and state officials have also directly warned the United States to halt its march towards war in the Middle East. An account of a statement by Major-General Salehi, commander of the Iranian Army, sums up the generic view of Iranian military officials and planners in the advent of another Middle Eastern war initiated by the United States;
“Pointing to the joint maneuvers to be carried out by the U.S. army [meaning military] and some other countries in the regional waters in the coming days, the General said that the U.S. presence in the region [Middle East] is considered as a threat to the security of the regional countries, and further warned Washington that in case the U.S. dares to practice threats [by actually attacking], it will then have to face a defeat as bad as the one that the Zionists [Israel] had to sustain in Lebanon.”14
The Iranian Defence Minister has said “that his ministry is now equipping the border units of the army with modern military tools and weapons in a bid to increase their military capabilities,”15 and “that any possible enemy invasion of Iran will receive a severe blow, adding that failures of alien troops [meaning U.S., British, Coalition, and NATO forces] in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught trans-regional powers extreme caution.”16

Other examples of public warnings by Iranian military commanders directed at the United States and its partners include;
Acting Deputy Commander [Brigadier-General Ahmadi] of the Iranian Mobilized Forces (Basij), noting the intensification of the psychological operations and pressures against Iran, stressed that his troops are fully prepared to encounter “any stupid act by the enemies.”17 (September 9, 2006)
[Brigadier-General Mohammad Hejazi] advised the U.S. to relinquish the idea of invading Iran, stressing that as soon as the U.S. dares to make such a big mistake, it will lose its forged reputation due to its [the U.S. military’s] frequent and shocking defeats from the Iranian troops.18 (September 10, 2006)
[Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Major-General Safavi has warned that Revolutionary Guard] ground troops form a defensive force, but meantime warned that in case any foreign threats are posed to Iran, [assured that the] IRGC adopts an aggressive strategy and hits enemy targets in strategic depth. He also described the southwestern province of Khuzestan as the most strategic region of the country, saying, “Considering that Khuzestan is a border province located at our sensitive borders with Iraq where British and American occupying troops aim at devising cultural and security plots for Khuzestani people through their intelligence organizations and bodies, IRGC and Basij troops should maintain their preparedness at [the] highest levels possible in order to confront and defuse any such measures by the enemies.”19 (September 13, 2006: Also See British Troops Mobilizing on the Iranian Border)
During the August war games, Iranian military commanders claimed, in a gesture directed towards the United States, Britain, and Israel, “that no air force of any power stationed in the Middle East is capable of confronting the Iranian military’s ground forces.”20

This might seem like a psychological tactic to influence morale on both sides and deter any possible aerial assaults against Iran. This statement cannot be easily overruled if a comprehensive analysis is made and studied. In this regard, one must look at Lebanon, where Hezbollah and the Lebanese Resistance were able to withstand Israeli air raids and overcome the Israeli military on the ground. The Lebanese Resistance is reported as being armed and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. What would an Iranian defensive of a larger magnitude, with state resources and air capabilities, be like?

The anticipation of a conflict are also coming from Iraq. Iraqi leaders have been charging that the United States and Britain plan on attacking Iran from Iraqi territory. Government representatives of Anglo-American occupied Iraq have asked that Iraq not be turned into a theatre of war between the United States and Iran. “We do not want Iraq to become an arena where other states [i.e., the United States, Britain, and Iran] settle their accounts,”21 said the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih while visiting the Iranian capital, Tehran. This message looked as if it was mainly directed at the United States, as well as Iran.

Iran Always a Military Objective for the United States Washington: “Anyone can go to Baghdad! Real Men go to Tehran!”
According to Michel Chossudovsky (The Next Phase of the Middle East War, September, 2006), the war on Iran is another phase of a “military roadmap” which includes the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) and the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon (2006) as earlier stages.
In May, 2003 after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the motto in Washington D.C. was
“Anyone can go to Baghdad! Real men go to Tehran!”
One should ask why "real" men would continue towards Tehran after the invasion of Iraq. This slogan demonstrates that Iran was an objective or a phase in a broader military operation. With that said, Washington would prefer some form of internal "non-violent" regime change in Iran leading to American control of the Iranian economy and oil resources rather than a high-risk and high cost military confrontation. The shape and nature of this conflict, however, is uncertain.

The possibility of conflict with Iran and a major aerial assault are widely known.

The United States has been planning to attack Iran for years. Colonel Sam Gardiner (Retired, U.S. Air Force) has stated that the campaign against Iran is one where “the issue is not whether the military option would be used, but who approved the start of operations already.”

The March to War with Iran and Syria

With time fleeting, the Iranian military is positioning itself in battle formations under the pretext of nationwide war games and other pretexts. Iran has been steadily strengthening its air defenses and air units in preparation for the possibility of strikes. Iranian and Syrian coordination is also intensifying with the passing of time.

An attack on Iran and Syria would be a combination of heavy air bombardment by the U.S. Air Force, including the U.S. Army’s air units. It would also include a ground offensive led by the U.S. Marines and Army from the American bases surrounding both Iran and Syria. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard would predominately manage the theatre of war in the Persian Gulf, with a view to guaranteeing the unimpeded flow of oil through the strategic Straits of Hormuz.

The Israeli military would deal with military operations in the Levant. Both Israeli troops and Israeli public opinion are being prepared for the possibility of another Middle Eastern conflict. In this context, Israel would face the possibility of aerial assaults from Iran. Iran has threatened to retaliate if it is attacked, using its ballistic missiles.

British and Australian forces in southern Iraq would deploy with the strategic aim of occupying the Iranian province of Khuzestan and securing its oil. Khuzestan is where most of Iran’s oil fields are located. Meanwhile a naval build-up is developing in the Persian Gulf which also includes the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Navy.

The United States and its partners meanwhile are continuing to marshal and siphon their forces into the Middle East and Afghanistan. Both the United States and Britain have promised troop reductions in Iraq, but are actually increasing their troop levels. It also seems that a muzzle is being placed on Lebanon to stop any attacks on Israel by the presence of troops from member states of NATO.

Syria also seems to be expecting a possible aerial campaign. A vessel sailing to Syria under the flag of Panama, the “Grigorio I,” has been reported to have been stopped off the coast of Cyprus transporting 18 truck-mounted mobile radar systems and three command vehicles for delivery to Syria. This equipment appears to be part of an air defence system.22

In Iran, the Intelligence Minister has warned that “enemies are seeking to create instability in Iran through different measures, including assassinations, explosions and extensive insecurities” and that “his forces, in cooperation and coordination with other governmental bodies, have defused enemies’ plots in different Iranian provinces, including Tehran.”23

Venezuela has also threatened to halt oil exports in the event of an Anglo-American aggression against Iran and Syria. Venezuela has gone on to caution that it will defend Iran “under threat of invasion from the United States.” This was a warning given to the United States by Venezuela during the Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cuba.24
The United States has already started to target both Iran and Syria’s financial bodies and institutions in an act of economic warfare. Syria has in step with Iran taken “preventative steps” in early 2006 by switching from using the U.S. dollar to using the Euro for all its transactions. The head of the state-owned Syria Commercial Bank has said that such measures have been taken to protect Syria from American sanctions (economic warfare).25
Actions have been taken against the large, state-owned Bank Saderat of Iran by the United States.26 The Bank Saderat has been cut off from the U.S. financial system and its network(s). This is part of a deliberate objective to financially cut off Iran from the rest of the world. Three large Japanese banks, the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation have followed in step and will terminate business with Bank Saderat.27

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

Notes
1 Seymour H. Hersh, Washing Lebanon: Washington’s Interest in Israel’s War, The New Yorker, August 14 & 21, 2006.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

2 Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?, Global Research (CRG), August 21, 2006.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAR20060821&articleId=3027

3 IAEA: US report on Iran “Outrageous,” Aljazeera, September 15, 2006.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/84145EE0-6DF6-467D-AB67-670A83EF307A.htm

4 Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?, Global Research (CRG), August 21, 2006.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAR20060821&articleId=3027
5 Iran 'successfully' tests new air defence system, People’s Daily, September 5, 2006.
http://english.people.com.cn/200609/05/eng20060905_299651.html
Iranian Missile Test; Xinhua News Agency, September 5, 2006.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/05/content_5050931.htm
6 Iran tests laser-guided bomb during war games, The Hindu, September 5, 2006.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200609051820.htm
7 Iran completes military exercise by testing 2,000-pound bomb, Pravada; September 7, 2006.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/07-09-2006/84317-weapons-0
8 Iran tests first-ever 2,000-pound guided bomb: Minister; IRNA, September 6, 2006.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0609065169142007.htm
9 Nasser Karimi, Iran deploys locally-manufactured warplane, Hindustan Times, September 6, 2006.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1787643,00050004.htm, Originally published by the Associated Press

10 Enemy Targets Destroyed by Maverick Missiles, Fars News Agency, September 6, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506140347,

Maverick missiles are American made or developed air-to-surface missiles which are conventionally used to attack armoured units, warships, air defences, military transport and logistics units, and military depots.
11 Iran to Manufacture a New Jet Fighter, Fars News Agency, September 12, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506210548
12 Complicated Dogfight Tactics Exercised during 'Blow of Zolfaqar' War Games, Fars News Agency, September 4, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8506130203
Iranian F14s Carry Hawk Missiles Successfully, Fars News Agency, September 4, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8506130205

13 Iran says ready to combat electronic warfare, Iranmania, March 5, 2006.
14 Army Prepared to Force Back Trans-Regional Threats, Fars News Agency, September 6, 2006.
http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8506140520

Trans-regional powers mean non-Middle Eastern nations with substantial force in the Middle East (the region being talked about).

15 Defense Minister: Any Foreign Aggression Responded by Force; Fars News Agency; September 2, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8506110568

16 Defence Minister: Any Military Aggression against Iran Struck Back Heavily, Fars News Agency, September 4, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506130415

17 Mobilize Forces Prepare to Encounter Enemies, Fars New Agency, September 9, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506180167
18 Basij Comander: Enemies Awe Shattered Once they Err, Fars News Agency, September 10, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506190583

19 Commander Warns o IRGC’s Aggressive Strategy in Case of Foreign Threats, Fars News Agency, September 13, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506220539

20 No Air Force Capable of Confronting Iranian Army, Fars News Agency; August 19, 2006

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505280544
21 Iraq Not a Place for Others to Settle Accounts, Fars News Agency, September 6, 2006.
http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8506140551

22 Cyprus finds air-defence systems on Syria-bond ship, Reuters, September, 2006.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=13449090&src=rss/worldNews

23 Intelligence Minister: Enemies Plots Defused in Tehran, Border Provinces, Fars News Agency, September 13, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506220518

24 Chavez pledge support for Iran, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), September 15, 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5347978.stm
25 Syria switches to euro amid sanctions threat, Xinhua News Agency, February 13-14, 2006.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/14/content_4177423.htm

26 David Lawder, US Treasury say Iran pressure can be unilateral, Reuters, September 12, 2006.
27 Three big Japan banks decide not to deal with Iran's Bank Saderat, Forbes, September 16, 2006.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/09/16/afx3021822.html

Alpha

CASMII Press Release

28 July 2007

Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham

In an alarming exposure of the acceleration and urgency of the American war party's push towards catastrophic war with Iran, Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter terrorism officer, in an interview [1] on 24th July with Anti War Radio debunked the NeoCons' repeated myth of Iran's support for AlQaeda as a pretext for war. Whilst acknowledging Iran's helpfulness in trying to establish security in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Giraldi spoke of the United States' hypocritical and illegal support for terrorist separatists groups inside Iran, and various plans and scenarios which have been drawn up to destroy Iran's military and economic infrastructure by massive bombardment, with the use of nuclear bombs a real and stated possibility.

Giraldi refuted the assumption that sharing hostilities towards the US, placed Iran and AlQaeda in the same camp and sharing similar agenda, arguing that Iran followed a very different agenda in its dealings with the US. He emphasised both the fact of Iranians' helpfulness in Iraq, in terms of pushing for greater stability, and also their help and cooperation in Afghanistan, as well as the reality of the deep hostilities between Shiia Iran and Sunni extremism of AlQaeda. Giraldi recalled the major attack against the Iranian consulate general in Afghanistan by the Taliban, a close ally of AlQaeda, in which 11 Iranian diplomats were killed, and the regular AlQaeda violent attacks against Shiia population in Iraq, and concluded that a Shiia Iranian-AlQaeda alliance was not a plausible possibility.

He described the recent New York Sun's allegation [2] that AlQaeda prisoners in Iran led terrorist operations inside Iraq under the advice of the Iranian government, as one of many propaganda pieces making a case for war. He said how in 2003, the Iranian government, through the Swiss embassy, had offered to hand over the six AlQaeda prisoners kept in Iran, which includes Osama Bin Laden's son, in exchange for the US ceasing its support for the MEK, and how this offer was rejected by the US. He said of the MEK that it was sheltered and armed by Saddam against Iran, and now supported and armed by Pentagon against Iran.

Highlighting what he called American "ultimate hypocrisy", Giraldi explained how the US government is supporting terrorist groups and ethnic division in Iran and charging the Iranians in Iraq for what the US was doing in Iran itself and with a lot more evidence. Giraldi talked of US's support for Jundullah which he described as a Sunni Baluchi separatist group in eastern Iran that has launched deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran. He also spoke of US support for separatists amongst the Arab minority which is closer to the border with Iraq.

Giraldi repeated the alarm call he first made in his revelations in the American Conservative Magazine in 2005 that Dick Cheney, who has no authority under the constitution, had ordered the air force to draw up plans for air strike against Iran that even included the use of nuclear weapons. He said he thought there was a lot of evidence since then to suggest that nuclear weapons are still very much on the table and named Republican Senators such as McCain, Gilliani and Romney who had not "flinched at all" in the debate about the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran.

He spoke of various war scenarios cooked up by the war party. One scenario was of the automatic use of the nuclear weapons in order to reach and destroy the Iranian nuclear sites buried under ground. Another scenario was to use the nuclear threat if the "Iranians continue to fight back after we staged our attack", the idea being "that's what the nukes are for, our nukes that everybody knows that we in fact do have, is to tell them, listen, you are going to sit there and take it while we bomb you for a week or two and you are not going to fight back and if you do fight back then we will use nuclear weapons on you", and he cited the example scenario of Iranians resisting by staging attack in the Strait of Hormouz or destabilising Afghanistan.

Setting out the horrifying context of the possibility of the US using nuclear strikes against Iran, under the pretext of destroying Iranian nuclear bombs which do not exist and Iran's cooperation with AlQaeda, another propaganda fabrication, Giraldi drew attention to the recent warning to Iran and the threat of war issued by AlQaeda for Iran's support for the Shiia government in Iraq, as well as AlQaeda's constant horrific attacks inside Iraq targeting Shiia population and mosques.

Prof. Abbas Edalat of CASMII said today: "Giraldi's revelations is consistent with and confirms the emergence of a shift in the dynamics of the American foreign policy decision making away from dialogue and in favour of the war. The reality of the shared strategic interests between Iran and the US in stabilising Iraq and the possibility and great benefits for both countries in reaching a rapprochement in their bilateral relationship, based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than threat and coercion, is persistently obscured and sabotaged by the fanatical warmongers of Cheney camp and the Israeli lobby, who are relentlessly pushing for war".

It is incumbent upon the media and journalists to give active voice to informed and conscientious individuals like Giraldi who have well-established connections within the intelligence community and are warning the international community about the impending catastrophic war against Iran.

For more information please contact CASMII or visit http://www.campaigniran.org

Notes

[1] http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/07/24/philip-giraldi-5/
[2] http://www.nysun.com/article/58599

[END]

Alpha · Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject:

-----Original Message-----

From: Laber, Natalie [mailto:Natalie.Laber@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: Kucinich Stands Against Drumbeat of War Targeting Iran

For Immediate Release:
Contact: Natalie Laber (202) 225-5871 (o); (202) 365-1040 (c)
Kucinich Stands Against Drumbeat of War Targeting Iran

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 31, 2007) - Today, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) led a bipartisan group of Members of Congress in voting against H.R. 2347, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 and H.R. 957, the Amendments to the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
In the 110th Congress, the House of Representatives has passed several bills calling into question the actions of either the country or leaders of Iran with respect to their foreign or domestic policy. Congress debated an additional three bills yesterday designed with the same intent, with votes on two of those bills occurring today.
Yesterday, Kucinich was the only Member of Congress to express reservations about the series of bills relating to Iran that were before Congress this week.
"The continuous renewal of U.S. objections to Iran's foreign and domestic policy can easily have the effect, intended or unintended, to beat the drum for war against Iran," Kucinich said in a speech on the floor of the House yesterday.
"Let this Congress be warned that the belligerent Bush Administration will use these resolutions against this body. They will declare the passage of these resolutions as a green light to go to war with Iran.
"This House is better served by demanding sensible and responsible diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration. We should demand that the Administration engage immediately in high-level diplomatic talks with Iran.

"By continuing to neglect this duty and engaging in the ongoing condemnation of Iran without opening the diplomatic channels, we are systemically destroying every available route to restoring peace and security in the Middle East," Kucinich said.

###

Commentary: Touching the third rail (Israel!)

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/07/31/commentary-touching-the-third-rail-israel.php

The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/07/31/the-nyt-s-new-pro-war-propaganda.php

http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2007/07/30/analysis_cheney_favors_attack_on_iran/6974/

International Intelligence - Analysis

Published: July 30, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Analysis: Cheney favors attack on Iran

By CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI International Editor
WASHINGTON, July 30 (UPI) -- Diplomatic arm-wrestling between Iran and the West over the future of the Islamic republic's nuclear program has not prevented talk of the military option as a solution to the crisis, despite the tsunami-like reaction such a military adventure would generate in the Arab and Islamic world.

Of late, there has been much speculation regarding the probability of U.S. and/or Israeli military strikes intended to destroy the Islamic republic's nuclear power sites before they become fully operational. The Iranians say the plants are being built for peaceful purposes, but Western sources believe Iran's intention is to develop military-grade nuclear material.

In fact, President George W. Bush has reiterated on numerous occasions that "everything is still on the table" when it comes to discussing Iran's nuclear development and how to sanction Iran over its continuing refusal to abide by directives from the international community.

But a well-informed source tells United Press International that according to senior U.S. intelligence officials, President Bush has definitely decided not to strike any of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons production facilities this year.

The sources say the officials stressed the words "this year," meaning in 2007. That, however, does not rule out the possibility of military intervention in 2008, right until January 2009, when Bush's term in the White House comes to an end.

This information seems to back up a report published in the July 16 issue of the London Guardian that claims President Bush gave in to Vice President Dick Cheney, accepting to carry out military action against Iran before he leaves office.

According to the Guardian, a series of meetings held during June and July involving top White House, Pentagon and State Department officials was used by the vice president to stress the point that the diplomatic approach to solving the crisis had failed. The London newspaper went on to say that the vice president was able to convince the president by saying that no future U.S. administration would have the courage to act militarily against Tehran.

At the same time, sources familiar with the intelligence community report that there have been "a lot of stories about bunker buster bombs being moved to the region." The source says, however, that there is no basis for these reports, which, according to them, are being floated by Israeli intelligence.

"This is 'PSYOP' rubbish," a well-informed source told UPI. PSYOP stands for psychological operations; or in other words, playing mind games with the enemy.

The aim of PSYOP is to demoralize the enemy by inseminating doubt among his troops as well as the local population. Psychological operations play a vital role in military and political planning of most countries.

One prime example of PSYOPs was used during Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91, when the United States led an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, which he had occupied in August 1990. By placing a Marine expeditionary force aboard Navy vessels anchored off the coast, U.S. military planners had Saddam believe that the U.S. Marines would launch a seaborne assault on Kuwait, therefore tying down large numbers of Iraqi forces and building massive defenses along Kuwait's beachfront for an attack that never materialized. Instead, the major thrust came across the desert from Saudi Arabia, a move the Iraqi leader did not expect.

Part of the task performed by PSYOPs includes developing and employing propaganda in a convincing manner.

Instead of a direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Vice President Cheney has proposed a measure that would launch a very limited military strike at one or more known Iranian training centers whose forces are being deployed to Iraq.

Cheney's proposal has gotten no approval, so far, say the sources.

Indeed, the Bush administration accuses Iran of supporting terrorism, primarily groups in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories, groups Washington considers to engage in terrorist activities. A particular point of contention between Iran and the Bush administration are accusations from Washington over the nefarious role Iran continues to play in neighboring Iraq, while Iran accuses the United States of trying to implement regime change in Iran.

One of the primary culprits accused by the Bush administration of fomenting trouble in Iraq is Moqtada Sadr, the pro-Iranian firebrand young Shiite cleric, and his Mahdi Army. It is believed that Iran supplies Sadr and his fighters with logistic and financial support, as well as weapons and improvised explosive devices.

U.S. intelligence sources, however, say that the White House estimates of the assistance provided to the Iraqi Shiite community by Iran, as well as the amounts, "are exaggerated."

Launching a war against Iran in 2008 -- their last year in office -- the Bush administration would in fact be leaving a second war they started in the Middle East for the next administration to resolve.

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

Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham

CASMII Press Release
28 July 2007
In an alarming exposure of the acceleration and urgency of the American war party's push towards catastrophic war with Iran, Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter terrorism officer, in an interview [1] on 24th July with Anti War Radio debunked the NeoCons' repeated myth of Iran's support for AlQaeda as a pretext for war. Whilst acknowledging Iran's helpfulness in trying to establish security in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Giraldi spoke of the United States' hypocritical and illegal support for terrorist separatists groups inside Iran, and various plans and scenarios which have been drawn up to destroy Iran's military and economic infrastructure by massive bombardment, with the use of nuclear bombs a real and stated possibility.
Giraldi refuted the assumption that sharing hostilities towards the US, placed Iran and AlQaeda in the same camp and sharing similar agenda, arguing that Iran followed a very different agenda in its dealings with the US. He emphasised both the fact of Iranians' helpfulness in Iraq, in terms of pushing for greater stability, and also their help and cooperation in Afghanistan, as well as the reality of the deep hostilities between Shiia Iran and Sunni extremism of AlQaeda. Giraldi recalled the major attack against the Iranian consulate general in Afghanistan by the Taliban, a close ally of AlQaeda, in which 11 Iranian diplomats were killed, and the regular AlQaeda violent attacks against Shiia population in Iraq, and concluded that a Shiia Iranian-AlQaeda alliance was not a plausible possibility.
He described the recent New York Sun's allegation [2] that AlQaeda prisoners in Iran led terrorist operations inside Iraq under the advice of the Iranian government, as one of many propaganda pieces making a case for war. He said how in 2003, the Iranian government, through the Swiss embassy, had offered to hand over the six AlQaeda prisoners kept in Iran, which includes Osama Bin Laden's son, in exchange for the US ceasing its support for the MEK, and how this offer was rejected by the US. He said of the MEK that it was sheltered and armed by Saddam against Iran, and now supported and armed by Pentagon against Iran.
Highlighting what he called American "ultimate hypocrisy", Giraldi explained how the US government is supporting terrorist groups and ethnic division in Iran and charging the Iranians in Iraq for what the US was doing in Iran itself and with a lot more evidence. Giraldi talked of US's support for Jundullah which he described as a Sunni Baluchi separatist group in eastern Iran that has launched deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran. He also spoke of US support for separatists amongst the Arab minority which is closer to the border with Iraq.
Giraldi repeated the alarm call he first made in his revelations in the American Conservative Magazine in 2005 that Dick Cheney, who has no authority under the constitution, had ordered the air force to draw up plans for air strike against Iran that even included the use of nuclear weapons. He said he thought there was a lot of evidence since then to suggest that nuclear weapons are still very much on the table and named Republican Senators such as McCain, Gilliani and Romney who had not "flinched at all" in the debate about the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran.
He spoke of various war scenarios cooked up by the war party. One scenario was of the automatic use of the nuclear weapons in order to reach and destroy the Iranian nuclear sites buried under ground. Another scenario was to use the nuclear threat if the "Iranians continue to fight back after we staged our attack", the idea being "that's what the nukes are for, our nukes that everybody knows that we in fact do have, is to tell them, listen, you are going to sit there and take it while we bomb you for a week or two and you are not going to fight back and if you do fight back then we will use nuclear weapons on you", and he cited the example scenario of Iranians resisting by staging attack in the Strait of Hormouz or destabilising Afghanistan.
Setting out the horrifying context of the possibility of the US using nuclear strikes against Iran, under the pretext of destroying Iranian nuclear bombs which do not exist and Iran's cooperation with AlQaeda, another propaganda fabrication, Giraldi drew attention to the recent warning to Iran and the threat of war issued by AlQaeda for Iran's support for the Shiia government in Iraq, as well as AlQaeda's constant horrific attacks inside Iraq targeting Shiia population and mosques.
Prof. Abbas Edalat of CASMII said today: "Giraldi's revelations is consistent with and confirms the emergence of a shift in the dynamics of the American foreign policy decision making away from dialogue and in favour of the war. The reality of the shared strategic interests between Iran and the US in stabilising Iraq and the possibility and great benefits for both countries in reaching a rapprochement in their bilateral relationship, based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than threat and coercion, is persistently obscured and sabotaged by the fanatical warmongers of Cheney camp and the Israeli lobby, who are relentlessly pushing for war".
It is incumbent upon the media and journalists to give active voice to informed and conscientious individuals like Giraldi who have well-established connections within the intelligence community and are warning the international community about the impending catastrophic war against Iran.
For more information please contact CASMII or visit http://www.campaigniran.org
Notes
[1] http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/07/24/philip-giraldi-5/
[2] http://www.nysun.com/article/58599
[END]

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

Email to Jeff Fager (who is the executive producer of CBS '60 Minutes'):

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: For Jeff Fager

Dear Mr. Fager,

I would like to know if '60 Minutes' has a segment in the works to interview respected political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about their soon to be released book (it will be available on September 4th, 2007) which was expanded from their paper ( http://tinyurl.com/obe2j ) on the pro-Israel lobby and how it pushed US to attack Iraq and is doing similar to get US to attack Iran. If '60 Minutes' does not plan to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt book, I would like to know why (I have a pretty good idea already though). The following currently can be found at www.amazon.com after doing a search there for 'Mearsheimer':

Editorial Reviews
Book Description
The Israel Lobby,” by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory. Originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy.

Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and Iran. They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest. The lobby’s influence also affects America’s relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.

Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared, “Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force.” The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certain to widen the debate and to be one of the most talked-about books of the year.
About the Author
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. He has published several books, including The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Stephen M. Walt is the Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and was academic dean of the Kennedy School from 2002 to 2006. He is the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy, among other books.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Details
Hardcover
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (September 4, 2007)
Language: English

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

Israeli Interrogators in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3863235.stm

See the following URL for more about the 'A Clean Break' as discussed by Bamford on pages 261-269/318-321 of 'A Pretext for War' (the paperback version of 'A Pretext for War' includes an additional chapter about the AIPAC espionage case which the pro-Israel biased US media is not covering either for the most part - neither is the BBC!):

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

Bamford also had the following 'Iran: The Next War' article for Rolling Stone magazine which mentions the AIPAC espionage case as well:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war

Tam Dalyell exposed the 'JINSA crowd' did initially in 'Vanity Fair' and via the articles linked at the bottom of the following URL:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/13/179248

Even Colin Powell conveyed for Washington Post editor Karen DeYoung's new bio book about him that the 'JINSA crowd' was in control of the Pentagon - one can look up 'Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs'/JINSA in the index:

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

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

BBC: The War Party (if only Americans could see such a program!)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825&q=%22The+War+Party%22

PS: Please take a look at the exchange with 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton via the 'What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?' link at the upper left of the following URL which includes a transcript of the exchange with Hamilton:

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

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

SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/reviews-of-without-precedent-inside.html

You might also be interested in viewing the following youtube video short which has the moderator of the terrorism 'expert' panel trying to cut off the 'Q & A' at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books at UCLA this past April before the main motivation for 9/11 was conveyed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ

Additional at the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php

Alpha

August 1, 2007
The New Turn
Washington's Orwellian foreign policy maneuver
by Justin Raimondo
To understand what is going on with the $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and a number of small Gulf potentates – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE – we have to go back to Seymour Hersh's last piece in the New Yorker, "The Redirection," which revealed, among other things, that the U.S. is funding Sunni radical groups possibly linked to al-Qaeda in Lebanon and in the Eastern reaches of Iran. It's all part of a new turn in American foreign policy in the Middle East, toward the Sunni "mainstream" and away from our former Shi'ite allies-of-convenience in Iraq. Having smashed the Ba'athist regime and handed Mesopotamia over to the Iranians, the Americans are taking a U-turn and aligning with their former enemies in readiness for the next war of "liberation" on the neocon agenda: the battle for Iran.
If you want to know the meaning of a new policy initiative, especially one involving such substantial sums, ask yourself, cui bono? The first answer, in this case, is the American armaments industry: those U.S. "aid" dollars are poured into the coffers of major U.S. military contractors and a host of minor ones, and the money stream flows, in turn, in the direction of certain political candidates. Palms are greased, politicians are bought, and the military-industrial-neocon complex marches on. The War Party is always feeding itself: that's why we have the most bloated military establishment in the world, with "defense" expenditures exceeding the combined military budgets of the next 30 spenders.
With billions of dollars in sophisticated satellite-guided weaponry, the Saudis obviously benefit, but there is a downside to their latest acquisitions rooted in the traditional reluctance of Saudi monarchs to maintain much of a military. The fear of a coup, or at least a rival center of power, has kept the Saudi armed forces pretty much a perfunctory affair. What the Saudis are going to do with all their new equipment is a bit of a mystery: indeed, all those new toys are a liability in another important sense. The Saudi monarchy, after all, is under attack from al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist forces and is as brittle as it ever was: if those weapons should ever fall into the hands of bin Laden or his allies, we would face the first terrorist superpower in the Middle East.
The danger of blowback is even greater in the Gulf, where the legitimacy of the ruling sheiks and emirs is shakier and fundamentalist activity (Sunni variety) is on the rise. In the case of Egypt, which is already the second biggest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, we are rewarding President Hosni Mubarak's recent crackdown on dissent, including the jailing of opposition candidate Ayman Nour (for "election fraud") and blogger Abdel Karim Suleiman (for blasphemy!). So much for "exporting democracy" as the leitmotif of American foreign policy: the "global democratic revolution" has been betrayed.
Not that there was anything to betray to begin with – it was all a lot of malarkey, anyway. Our real goals in the region have little to do with "democracy" – which, if installed in the Middle East, would give us the victory of Hamas-like groups from the Nile to the Euphrates – and everything to do with exploiting the divisions in the Arab-Muslim world.
In the "long war" we are presently engaged in, the face of the enemy is constantly shifting: it started out with the long saturnine features of Osama bin Laden staring out at us haughtily, knowingly. Lurking somewhere in the wilds of Pakistan, or perhaps Central Asia, the Scarlet Pimpernel of the Muslim world mocked us with his continued elusiveness. Yet his face soon faded from the front pages, to be replaced [.pdf] by the visage of Saddam Hussein, the secular dictator of a Middle Eastern country that had long been in the War Party's sights. With the invasion and the subsequent demise of the Ba'athist regime, the face of the enemy changed yet again, to that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust-denying bigmouth who doesn't actually control Iranian military and foreign policy and is increasingly unpopular in his own country.
Our current strategy in the Middle East is to forge the Sunni despots into a mighty defensive wall, a Maginot Line, against the rising Shi'ite tide – a tide, you'll recall, unleashed by the destruction of the Ba'athist regime and the creation of a power vacuum in Iraq that was quickly filled by the majority Shi'ite parties, which had been financed and succored by Tehran for many years. I wouldn't say this is an unintended consequence of the invasion, because it was so clearly foreseeable that it couldn't have been accidental: indeed, the principal exponent of "regime change" in Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi, was an Iranian agent, betraying U.S. secrets to Tehran and presumably keeping the mullahs apprised of his progress in gulling the Americans into going along with the war plan. After all, it served Iranian interests, as well as the War Party's: for a moment, the objectives of the Tehran's mullahs and Washington's neocons met and merged.
The strategic objective of uniting with Sunni "moderates" serves two ostensible objectives: it staves off the alleged Shi'ite menace and gives us Sunni allies in the fight against bin Laden's extremists. However, the corrupt Arab monarchs of the Kingdom, the Gulf states, Jordan, and Egypt (which is, for all intents and purposes, a monarchy) are the wrong sorts of allies. The effectiveness of bin Laden's propaganda is heavily dependent on our continued support for one of the last bastions of absolutism on earth. In a region of the world where the irresponsibility and outright decadence of the Sunni "moderate" elites is so ostentatious, it is suicidal to align ourselves with regimes that have little popular support.
Yet that is precisely what we are doing, and all in the name of fighting the latest enemy, the newest "Hitler," who – in reality – is not a credible military threat to us or anyone else in the region. Sure, the Iranians could take out Bahrain, or even Dubai, but the economic costs of such a move would far outweigh any possible benefits: the Iranians would much rather do business with Dubai than bomb it.
There is much talk of a new "cold war" with Iran. That's nonsensical, of course: to equate Shi'ism with international Communism is more than a stretch – it is utterly absurd. While Communism was a universalist creed, Shi'ism is a sectarian faith of limited appeal. While it's true that, say, a college student in the U.S. might take up Shi'ism, it is an unlikely preoccupation for a Westerner to embrace. Communism, on the other hand, presented us with a real ideological challenge, one capable of undermining us on the home front as well as abroad.
President Bush talks about winning the "ideological struggle," in Churchillian intonations, but the reality is that our actions make it all too easy for our real enemies – al-Qaeda and its allies – to garner support. This is one of al-Qaeda's chief selling points: that the U.S. is the power behind the depredations of native elites, propping up the notoriously corrupt and cruel Saudi kleptocracy and its mini-clones clustered around the Gulf and stealing the Ummah's oil wealth by selling at artificially low prices. The latest arms deal not only confirms what bin Laden has been saying – it also dramatizes Michael Scheuer's key point about our self-defeating foreign policy:
"As I complete this book, U.S., British, and other coalition forces are trying to govern apparently ungovernable postwar states in Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously fighting growing Islamist insurgencies in each – a state of affairs our leaders call victory. In conducting these activities, and the conventional military campaigns preceding them, U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."
Cui bono? Who benefits from this new turn? The answer: everyone but the American taxpayers and the nation as a whole. Yes, even the Israelis, who – in spite of an effort to stop the sale by the Lobby's more radical partisans in Congress – fully support the arms package. That's not just because they're getting a 25-percent hike in the outrageous amount of aid they already suck out of the U.S. Treasury – the Israelis also have a strategic interest in splitting the Muslim world along sectarian lines.
The consequences of this new turn in American policy are not too hard to predict. The Bush administration is setting off a regional arms race that is practically forcing the Iranians to go the nuclear route. After all, the U.S. is not about to invade North Korea, and everyone knows the reason why. If a nuclear arsenal is what it takes to stave off the American wolf and its Sunni allies, then that is the course the Iranians will take. They tried to negotiate, remember, and were rebuffed – and the latest negotiations are likely to be sabotaged by Vice President Dick Cheney, just like last time.
The antiwar movement is focused exclusively on Iraq, but that Rubicon was crossed fours years ago: now we approach the River Styx, the demarcation line between the world of the living and Hades, the land of the dead. As we make the approach, ghosts and demons weep and wail, warning us away – yet we keep on going, walking blindly ahead, until we're standing at the edge of oblivion.
It won't take much to push us over – and it's a long way down.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11379

Alpha

Subject: Briefs: USS Enterprise, strike group back in Mideast

This appears to be the moment of truth for now at least.. Does the USS Nimitz leave to be replaced by the Enterprise delaying an attack on Iran until the B-2s are ready, or does Israel launch an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities knowing that the US will be there to 'defend' the rogue state (via an AIPAC influenced US Congress) after the expected Iranian retaliation?

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=47805

Briefs: USS Enterprise, strike group back in Mideast

Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Thursday, August 2, 2007

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and its strike group returned to the Middle East on Sunday to provide air support to ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a U.S. Navy press release. The carrier replaces the USS Nimitz.
The U.S. Navy has reduced its aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf region to a single carrier, a drawdown from the fall, during which two carriers were in the region following mounting tensions with Iran.
The Enterprise left its home port in Norfolk, Va., in early July with roughly 5,000 sailors aboard. With the other ships in the strike group, a total of around 7,500 sailors and Marines are part of the group.
Iraqi army to graduate first class of comandos
The Iraqi army is scheduled to graduate its first class of highly trained commandos in a ceremony Tuesday in southern Baghdad.
According to the U.S. military command in Baghdad, the ceremony will mark the graduation of the first Iraqi Security Forces Commando Course. Though the number of graduates was not released, military officials said 75 percent of the Iraqis who started the course dropped out — 50 percent after the first day of training.
The three-week course is designed to “produce highly skilled Iraqi soldiers ready and able to conduct air and ground assaults … soldiers learned, among other things, survival skills, weapons training, obstacle and confidence skills.”
Guard unit to deploy to Afghanistan in late ’07
The 27th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the New York Army National Guard will deploy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom to train the Afghan National Security Forces, the Department of Defense announced Wednesday.
Initial personnel will begin to deploy in late 2007, with the majority of the approximately 1,700 servicemembers deploying in mid-2008, according to DOD.
Headquarters elements of the 27th Brigade Combat Team will lead the units taking over Combined Joint Task Force Phoenix VII from the South Carolina National Guard’s 218th Brigade, the Guard said, the Associated Press reported.
© 2007 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved.

I bet the lobby does indeed try to do that, Jeff.. We also have to keep in mind what might happen in Lebanon as Israel might get into it with Syria there which could bring Iran into as well.. Right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' as well..

Alpha · Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:16 am Post subject:

From: "Ed Corrigan"

Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:15:17 -0400
Subject: "Israel’s Jewish problem in Tehran, " By Jonathan Cook, 08/03/07, Information Clearing House

Here is an interesting perspective and review of the history of Middle
Eastern Jews and the current US/Israeli campaign against Iran.

Ed Corrigan

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18116.htm

Israel’s Jewish problem in Tehran

So why hasn’t Iran started by wiping its own Jews off the map?

By Jonathan Cook

08/03/07 "ICH" -- - -- Iran is the new Nazi Germany and its president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler. Or so Israeli officials have been
declaring for months as they and their American allies try to persuade
the doubters in Washington that an attack on Tehran is essential. And
if
the latest media reports are to be trusted, it looks like they may
again
be winning the battle for hearts and minds: Vice-President Dick Cheney
is said to be diverting the White House back on track to launch a
military strike.

Earlier this year Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s opposition leader and
the
man who appears to be styling himself scaremonger-in-chief, told us:
“It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself
with
atomic bombs.” Of Ahmadinejad, he said: “He is preparing another
Holocaust for the Jewish state.”

A few weeks ago, as Israel’s military intelligence claimed -- as it
has
been doing regularly since the early 1990s -- that Iran is only a year
or so away from the “point of no return” on developing a nuclear
warhead, Netanyahu was at it again. “Iran could be the first
undeterrable nuclear power,” he warned, adding: “This is a Jewish
problem like Hitler was a Jewish problem … The future of the Jewish
people depends on the future of Israel.”

But Netanyahu has been far from alone in making extravagant claims
about
a looming genocide from Iran. Israel’s new president, Shimon Peres,
has
compared an Iranian nuclear bomb to a “flying concentration camp.”
And
the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told a German newspaper last year:
“[Ahmadinejad] speaks as Hitler did in his time of the extermination
of
the entire Jewish nation.”

There is an interesting problem with selling the “Iran as Nazi
Germany”
line. If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against
Israel’s Jews as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon,
why
are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant
to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American Jews?

What is the basis for Israel’s dire forecasts -- the ideological
scaffolding being erected, presumably, to justify an attack on Iran?
Helpfully, as George Bush defended his Iraq policies last month, he
reminded us yet again of the menace Iran supposedly poses: it is
“threatening to wipe Israel off the map”.

This myth has been endlessly recycled since a translating error was
made
of a speech Ahmadinejad delivered nearly two years ago. Farsi experts
have verified that the Iranian president, far from threatening to
destroy Israel, was quoting from an earlier speech by the late
Ayatollah
Khomeini in which he reassured supporters of the Palestinians that
“the
Zionist regime in Jerusalem” would “vanish from the page of
time”.

He was not threatening to exterminate Jews or even Israel. He was
comparing Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians with other
illegitimate systems of rule whose time had passed, including the Shahs
who once ruled Iran, apartheid South Africa and the Soviet empire.
Nonetheless, this erroneous translation has survived and prospered
because Israel and her supporters have exploited it for their own crude
propaganda purposes.

In the meantime, the 25,000-strong Iranian Jewish community is the
largest in the Middle East outside Israel and traces its roots back
3,000 years. As one of several non-Muslim minorities in Iran, Jews
there
suffer discrimination, but they are certainly no worse off than the one
million Palestinian citizens of Israel -- and far better off than
Palestinians under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Iranian Jews have little influence on decision-making and are not
allowed to hold senior posts in the army or bureaucracy. But they enjoy
many freedoms. They have an elected representative in parliament, they
practice their religion openly in synagogues, their charities are
funded
by the Jewish diaspora, and they can travel freely, including to
Israel.
In Tehran there are six kosher butchers and about 30 synagogues.
Ahmadinejad’s office recently made a donation to a Jewish hospital in
Tehran.

As Ciamak Moresadegh, an Iranian Jewish leader, observed: “If you
think
Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban
are the same, and they are not.” Iran’s leaders denounce Zionism,
which
they blame for fueling discrimination against the Palestinians, but
they
have also repeatedly avowed that they have no problem with Jews,
Judaism
or even the state of Israel. Ahmadinejad, caricatured as a merchant of
genocide, has in fact called for ‘regime change’ -- and then only
in the
sense that he believes a referendum should be held of all inhabitants
of
Israel and the occupied territories, including refugees from war, on
the
nature of the government.

Despite the absence of any threat to Iran’s Jews, the Israeli media
recently reported that the Israeli government has been trying to find
new ways to entice Iranian Jews to Israel. The Ma’ariv newspaper
pointed
out that previous schemes had found few takers. There was, noted the
report, “a lack of desire on the part of thousands of Iranian Jews to
leave”. According to the New York-based Forward newspaper, a campaign
to
convince Iranian Jews to emigrate to Israel caused only 152 out of
these
25,000 Jews to leave Iran between October 2005 and September 2006, and
most of them were said to have emigrated for economic reasons, not
political ones.

To step up these efforts -- and presumably to avoid the embarrassing
incongruence of claiming an imminent second Holocaust while thousands
of
Jews live happily in Tehran -- Israel is now backing a move by Jewish
donors to guarantee every Iranian Jewish family $60,000 to settle in
Israel, in addition to a host of existing financial incentives that are
offered to Jewish immigrants, including loans and cheap mortgages.

The announcement was met with scorn by the Society of Iranian Jews,
which issued a statement that their national identity was not for sale.
“The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of
money.
Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran’s Jews love
their
Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature
political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the
identity of Iranian Jews.”

However, this financial gesture may not only be unwelcome but
self-fulfilling too, if past experience is the yardstick. Israel
introduced a similar scheme a few years ago, when Argentina’s economy
plunged into deep recession, broadcasting an offer of $20,000 to every
Jew who settled in Israel. Months later the Israeli media reported a
rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Argentina, only adding to the pressure
on Jews there to leave. Of course, there was no mention of a possible
causal connection between the attacks and Israel’s generous offer to
Jews to abandon their homeland as other Argentinians sank into poverty.

But if financial enticements -- and a possible popular backlash -- fail
to move Iranian Jews, there is good reason to fear that Israel may
resort to other, more dubious ways of encouraging them to emigrate.
That
is certainly a path Israel has chosen before with other communities of
Arab Jews, whom it has regarded either as a pool of potential spies and
agents provocateurs to be used when needed or as “human dust”, in
the
words of Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, to be
recruited to Israel’s “demographic battle” against the
Palestinians.

In “Operation Susannah” of 1954, for example, Israel recklessly
recruited a group of Egyptian Jews to stage a series of explosions in
Egypt in a bid to discourage Britain from withdrawing from the Suez
Canal zone. When the plot came to light, it naturally cast a shadow of
disloyalty over Egypt’s wider Jewish community. Following Israel’s
invasion and occupation of Sinai two years later, the government of
Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled some 25,000 Egyptian Jews and, after others
were imprisoned on suspicion of spying, the rest soon left.

Even more notoriously, Israel went to greater lengths to ensure the
exit
of the Arab world’s largest Jewish population, in Iraq. In 1950 a
series
of bombs targeted on Jews in Baghdad forced a rapid exodus of some
130,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel, convinced that Arab extremists were
behind
the attacks. Only later did it emerge that the bombs had been planted
by
members of the Zionist underground, supported by the Israeli
government.

Now, Iran’s Jews may find themselves treated in much the same manner
--
as simple human fodder. Stories are growing of Israel exploiting the
free movement between Iran and Israel enjoyed by Iranian Jews and their
Israeli relatives to carry out spying operations on Iran’s nuclear
programme. Such reports have come from reliable sources such as the
American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, citing US government
officials.

The fallout from such actions is not difficult to predict. Besieged by
the US and the international community, Tehran is cracking down on
dissent and minority groups, fearful that its own grip on power is
shaky
and that the well-publicised subversion being carried out by US and
Israeli agents is likely only to be stepped up. So far most officials
in
Tehran have been careful to avoid suggesting that Iran’s Jews have
double loyalties, as has the local Jewish community itself, both of
them
aware of Israel’s interests in provoking such a confrontation. But as
the strains increase, and Israel’s need to prove Tehran’s genocidal
intent grows ever stronger, that policy may end up being forfeited --
and with it the future of Iran’s Jews.

More important than the welfare of Iranian Jewish families, it seems,
is
the value of Iranian Jews as a propaganda tool in Israel’s battle to
persuade the world that coexistence with the Muslim world is
impossible.
For those who want to engineer a clash of civilizations, the
3,000-year-old Jewish legacy in Iran is not something to be treasured,
only another obstacle to war.

Jonathan Cook, a journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, is the author of
Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State
(Pluto Press). His website is www.jkcook.net

Alpha

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

What "Carrots" Have Been Offered to Iran?

When I first read this article I was tempted to think that Robin Wright had gone over to "the dark side" as Vice President Cheney calls it. A closer inspection reveals that she is actually compiling a list of the current "group think" among the Jacobins and their auxiliaries.

It is quite egregious for the Jacobins to argue that Iran has not responded to a diplomatic effort in which carrots and sticks have been offered. What carrots? Whenever Rice or Satterfield talk about diplomacy on Television we are treated to a vision of glowering bluster demanding Iranian compliance in Iraq. Period!!!

Our "negotiating" strategy toward Iran is nothing but a demand for their surrender. Period!! How Middle Eastern we have become in so short a time.

The AEI types that Wright mentions are consistent in the fullness of their fantasy life just as they were before Iraq.

This is log-rolling. Don't be rolled. pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802554.html?hpid=moreheadlines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy

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

In the Debate Over Iran, More Calls for a Tougher U.S. Stance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802554_pf.html

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 9, 2007; A12

Fourteen months after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered to talk to Iran, the failure of carrot-and-stick diplomacy to block Tehran's nuclear and regional ambitions is producing a new drumbeat for bolder action, including the possible use of force.

The emerging debate -- evident in an array of new reports, conferences and commentaries -- is still in the early stages, but some of the language urging the Bush administration to be more aggressive during its final 17 months is reminiscent of arguments from think tanks and commentators that shaped the case for invading Iraq.

"A lot of people were willing to give diplomacy a chance, but at some point there have to be results," said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, an advocate of the Iraq war. "It's been a year since Rice agreed to talk to the Iranians if they accepted U.N. terms, and it's only bought them more time for their nuclear program."

Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are committed to economic sanctions and pressure through the United Nations. But proponents of tougher policy reflect the views of a small part of the Bush administration open to military options if Iran does not suspend a uranium-enrichment program that can be subverted for a nuclear bomb.

The drumbeats are also louder because of Iraq. Since May, the first formal talks between U.S. and Iranian envoys in 28 years have not deterred Iranian support for Iraqi Shiite militias targeting U.S. troops and the Green Zone. Explosives that U.S. officials say come from Iran accounted for one-third of U.S. combat deaths last month in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

"Discussions about attacking Iran began with the nuclear issue, but it has now become a silver bullet to also deal with Iran's activities with Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and even to provoke a process of regime change," said Augustus Richard Norton, a retired Army colonel now at Boston University.

A possible timetable has emerged as well. "The consensus I'm hearing is to give the [U.N.] Security Council process more time but not unlimited time, and, at some point in the spring of 2008, there has to be a good hard look at whether that process should continue and whether other options should then be considered," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert for the Congressional Research Service.

Many advocates of tougher action are speaking out at a time when the administration faces an "internal crisis of confidence" over the viability of its diplomatic strategy, said Suzanne Maloney, a former Iran expert with the State Department and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "There's a sense of frustration with the strategy, even among those who favor a less kinetic approach. . . . The one clear alternative with some proponents is the bombing option," she said.

Not all those pushing for bolder action call for military force but, instead, say current policy has not changed Iran's behavior. As with Iraq, however, they do not question that Iran is working on weapons of mass destruction and is intent on dominating the region.

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute recently wrote that assuming that Iran wants stability in Iraq is "as naive as it is dangerous. . . . U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq are diametrically opposed, and will continue to be until one side wins and the other loses." He depicted diplomacy with Iran as "a mirage, a tactical tool to divert U.S. policy attention away from the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence officials charged with implementing the Iranian leadership's objectives."

"For the U.S. government to succeed in Iraq," Rubin argued, "it must engage not with the illusion of Iranian policy, but refine its strategies to neutralize and counter the Iranian strategies."

"Deterring the Ayatollahs," a new publication by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, backs economic sanctions and diplomacy, but co-editors Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt also conclude that neither may work, and that deterring Iran once it develops a nuclear weapon will be "much more difficult than deterrence was during the Cold War." Echoing arguments put forth before the Iraq invasion, contributor Gregory Giles writes that "a nuclear Iran would pose serious challenges in terms of controlling its nuclear force, the risk of transfer of nuclear technology, and possible support for WMD terror."

In the Hoover Institution's Policy Review, Kori Schake, a former member of the National Security Council in the Bush administration, outlines military options -- including destroying Iran's nuclear program, ousting the government by missile strikes and special forces operations, and a token "demonstration strike" to show Iran's vulnerability -- if Tehran obtains nuclear weapons.

The Heritage Foundation's Web site has a section labeled "Iran: The Rising Threat," advocating aggressive diplomacy and tough sanctions with a willingness to use force to stave off Iran's becoming a nuclear power. Heritage recently hosted a meeting on Iranian challenges to nuclear and energy security.

Author Norman Podhoretz goes the furthest in his Commentary essay "The Case for Bombing Iran." He warns that diplomacy with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is akin to appeasement of the Nazis.

"Like Hitler, [Ahmadinejad] is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran. . . . The plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force -- any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938," he writes.

Unlike the 2003 Iraq invasion, the next step on Iran is less clear, said Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute. "I like the idea of anything that gets rid of the nuclear weapons program and the regime, but I'm not persuaded that bombing achieves that," she said. "It may be our last option, but I'm not sure we're there yet."

Alpha · Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: PROSPECTS OF ARMAGEDDON

PROSPECTS OF ARMAGEDDON
By Abbas Edalat and Mehrnaz Shahabi

** The logic that defends past nuclear atrocities is now used to support a
strike against Iran **

Guardian (UK)
August 7, 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2143030,00.html

It is appalling, if unsurprising, to read the neoconservative cheerleader
Oliver Kamm arguing in these pages that the atomic bombs that devastated
Hiroshima and Nagasaki 62 years ago saved lives and ended suffering. The
subtext is plain. The same camp whose vocal endorsement led to the
present catastrophe in Iraq are now hawkishly gazing at Iran. The same
absurd and dangerous logic that defends the nuclear atrocities of 1945 can
now be used to support the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran
-- the threat of which in turn makes the idea of a conventional attack
appear more palatable. Now, more than ever, we should be unequivocal in
our moral position: as Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, has said, the mere possession of nuclear weapons
today should be viewed with the same condemnation and horror as we have
regarded slavery and genocide in our modern civilized world.

Astonishingly, the calamity of Iraq has failed to dampen the belligerent
clique within the White House. The arrival of an IAEA team in Tehran
yesterday to discuss inspections is equally unlikely to dissuade advocates
of a strike, nuclear or conventional. Such an assault would be in
flagrant breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but it would
hardly be the first time the U.S. has disregarded the 1968 accord.

The treaty obliges nuclear states to pursue negotiations in good faith
towards cessation of the nuclear arms race and on to disarmament. It also
guarantees non-nuclear states help with and access to peaceful nuclear
know-how and technology.

All five original nuclear states are in violation of the treaty for
failing to take effective action towards disarmament. The U.S.
systematically contravened the treaty in the 1980s and 1990s by
successfully bringing pressure to bear on western governments and
companies, as well as China and Russia, not to enter nuclear
collaborations with Iran -- which, as a signatory of the treaty, has been
entitled since 1970 to receive material, technology, and information for
the peaceful use of nuclear power. This eventually drove Iran, after the
bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant by Israel in 1981, on to the black
market in order to pursue its nuclear program. The subsequent partial
concealment of Iran's nuclear activities gave rise to western suspicion of
its nuclear ambitions, but rarely does the media characterization make
reference to the context in which the recourse to the black market took
place. It is rare, too, to see mention made of the fact that the IAEA has
found no evidence of a weapons programme after over 2,200 hours of snap
inspections of Iranian nuclear plants.

In marked contrast to Western suspicion of Iran, the real nuclear program
in Israel has been eagerly sponsored by the governments of France,
Britain, and the U.S. They have actively supported Israel's development
of an arsenal estimated to include more than 200 warheads. It is a
weapons program Tel Aviv is determined to shroud in secrecy. Mordechai
Vanunu served an 18-year prison sentence, including 12 years in solitary
confinement, after speaking publicly of Israel's possession of nuclear
weapons in 1986. Last month he was sentenced to a further six months in
prison for speaking to foreigners .

Even as Iran discusses renewed inspections with the IAEA, the risk of a
military attack on its nuclear facilities remains high. Israel's threat
to deploy nuclear bunker busters to destroy Iran's weapons potential is in
line with the U.S.'s national security strategy of 2006 and the Pentagon's
doctrine for joint nuclear operations which justifies use of tactical
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states as a "deterrent." The
ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the treaty, the U.S., and
the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory, Israel, are
contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear limitation.

Last year John McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful and an advocate
of keeping the military option against Iran on the table, was asked what
the consequence of an attack on Iran would be. His response was only one
word: "Armageddon." After three devastating wars driven by the U.S.,
Britain and Israel since 9/11, the prospect of a catastrophic war against
Iran hangs over the region.

While the world remembers Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an international
statement endorsed by dozens of leading peace, anti-nuclear, and community
organizations in the U.K., U.S. and Israel, as well as five Nobel
laureates, calls for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.
Israel could do the region a great service by announcing immediately that
it is to disable its nuclear arsenal.

--Abbas Edalat is professor of computer science and mathematics at
Imperial College London and founder of the Campaign Against Sanctions and
Military Intervention in Iran; Mehrnaz Shahabi is the campaign's executive
editor www.campaigniran.org

War Without End

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

War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative - page 7