| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
| Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group Enters Persian Gulf
Sailors, Marines ready to conduct security, humanitarian mission.
USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group Public Affairs
USS KEARSARGE, At Sea, Sept. 12, 2007 — USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group entered the Persian Gulf in September to conduct maritime security operations in regional waters and provide air support to ground forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We bring a wide range of capabilities to the table that will ensure the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment are met."
Capt. Robert Bougher
commander, Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group
The Norfolk-based ships entered the region as part of an ongoing rotation of forces, demonstrating the United States’ continued resolve toward enhancing regional security and promoting long-term stability.
Kearsarge ESG is comprised of amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, embarked Marines of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall, guided-missile frigate USS Carr, guided-missile cruiser USS Vicksburg, and fast-attack submarine USS Miami.
Capt. Robert Bougher, commander of the Kearsarge ESG, said the strike group enters the Persian Gulf able to perform a full-spectrum of capabilities that can counter any threat, as well as provide humanitarian aid and disaster relief, if requested.
“We trained hard to prepare ourselves for the challenge of this deployment, and I’m completely confident that we will complement our regional and Coalition partners well,” said Bougher. “We bring a wide range of capabilities to the table that will ensure the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment are met.”
The expeditionary strike group supports every major maritime warfare function, including air defense, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, air strike capability and missile defense.
The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit is a force capable of conducting amphibious operations, aviation operations and ground combat operations. The unit is composed of a ground combat element, battalion landing team, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, an aviation combat element, Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 261 (Reinforced), a logistics combat element, Combat Logistics Battalion 22 and its command element.
Kearsarge ESG is also capable of providing advanced disaster relief and medical support. Kearsarge alone can treat more than 600 patients while still providing essential treatment to crew members and embarked troops.
While operating in the Mediterranean, the strike group visited
MH-53 Sea Stallions, CH-46 Frogs, and AH-1 Cobras line the flight of amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge in the Atlantic Ocean, Aug. 1, 2007. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd class William S. Parker
13 ports in eight nations and participated in more than 20 community relations events in two weeks, further strengthening partnerships between the United States and partner countries.
After transiting the Suez Canal, the group made a brief stop in Djibouti to provide humanitarian supplies to two charities through the Navy’s program “Project Handclasp.”
Through this and other humanitarian efforts, the Navy is able to promote mutual understanding, respect and good will between Americans and the citizens of other countries.
Maritime security operations help set the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment and complement the counterterrorism and security efforts in regional nations’ littoral waters. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
| Channel 4 News Interviews President Ahmadinejad
Video and Transcript
We accuse the English and the US of occupying and violating Iraq. I think the US and Britain should amend their own views and behaviour; if they want to blame others for their defeat then they can be sure that their defeats will be repeated.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18376.htm
Channel 4 News Interviews President Ahmadinejad:
Video and Transcript
09/13/07 -- - -We've dissected the Ahmadinejad interview live on Channel 4 News last night and have produced a comprehensive verbatim translation and the original video in Farsi.
Click Here To Watch The Interview
Q: Mr President, thank you very much for agreeing to talk to us tonight. Let me start with Iraq. Both the UK and the US have accused Iran of fighting a proxy war inside Iraq. Is that true?
A: In the name of God, first I would like to express my greetings to all your good audience and a good evening to all the people of England.
What you are saying is an allegation; we also accuse the English and the US of occupying and violating Iraq. I think the US and Britain should amend their own views and behaviour; if they want to blame others for their defeat then they can be sure that their defeats will be repeated.
Obviously we do distinguish differences between England and the US in Iraq. We think that the British government has more quickly and more successfully realised the situation in Iraq, and withdrawing from Basra was the right thing to do and we hope they will continue this.
We are the country that has sustained the most damage from the lack of security in Iraq because the nations of Iraq and Iran are closely intertwined - our nations have been friends for thousands of years. Every year millions of Iraqis and Iranians travel to each others' countries and the security of Iraq has a direct impact on our security and vice versa. We want security in Iraq. And let me tell you one thing - you know the people of Iraq are a great nation with culture and civilisation, they have always been against occupations and they still are.
Q: It is true that there are factions that you support in southern Iraq you support. Therefore, do you regard it as a victory for Iran that the British left Basra?
A: Does the English government think it has been defeated by Iran in Iraq or by the people of Iraq?
Q: Well, by Iran. By formal forces - Revolutionary Guard - all sorts of people who are supporting the factions in southern Iraq. A: Well you are wrong, you are definitely wrong and this will mean future decisions are also mistaken. We feel that both England and the US should understand the conditions of Iraq; the nation of Iraq is a courageous nation, a great nation that is against occupations and will not tolerate occupation. The Iraqi people do no need the Iranians in order to defend themselves they are able to defend themselves.
Q: It's very difficult for us to find the division between the influence in southern Iraq, where you have a lot because of they are your Shia brothers and sisters, and actual military involvement. The British say they have troops killed by bombs made in Iran. A: Well look, we have influence all over Iraq because we have good relations with them. We have historical good relations with the Kurds in Northern Iraq and the president of Iraq is Kurdish and friendly and sincere with us - we talk about private issues together.
We also have a sincere relationship with the Sunni sect in Iraq, the head of the Iraqi Parliament is Sunni and he has a very good relationship with us and also the prime minister of Iraq is Shia and has a good relationship with us. Your problem, the problem of England and the US is that you do not have a good relationship with any of them. The problem is that you are uninvited guests.
Q: Can you use your influence to help free the five British hostages who are held there? Four security men and a computer technician who have now been hostage for over a hundred days. Would you use your influence?
A: We can help to sort out the problems in Iraq regarding the re-establishment of security and peace. We can help the occupiers to leave Iraq and we have announced this repeatedly. If the US and the English governments amend their behaviour and direction in Iraq they won't have any problems and there won't be any need for these problems.
We feel that they should officially recognise the nation of Iraq and the rights of its people. The problem is that they have gone there for the oil and to dominate the region and the people of Iraq have stood up before them and until they recognise the rights of the Iraqi people this will continue and it has nothing to do with Iran. We will be prepared if the Iraqi government asks us, to help the with the problems in Iraq.
Q: Can we move onto the nuclear issues then. Today Dr Larijani has repeated there will be no freeze on the enrichment of uranium. And immediately America is calling for UN sanctions - that's the UN, not just America. What will happen if there are sanctions against you?
A: Well look, the nuclear issue is very clear. We are a member of the agency and we work within its framework and we have observed all our obligations but unfortunately we have not used all our rights in the way that they are put in the agency's regulations and the main reason is the American's hostility towards the Iranian nation.
The Iranian nuclear issue is a political one which the US is pursuing and the main reason is American enmity to Iran. They have always been our enemies and it is not that important to us. From the beginning we have said that things should be done through the agency and the agency is fulfilling its obligations. What the Americans say is not important to us.
Q: Your secrecy indicates you do want a bomb. Many people would say you feel threatened by Israel, by Pakistan. You do want a bomb don't you?
A: We don't need a bomb, we are fundamentally opposed to the bomb for various reasons. The main reason is we are ideologically against bombs and politically it is not beneficial.
Q: If that's true, will you take me to (the nuclear research facility at) Natanza? That place no-one has been further than their front door. Would you take me there?
A: Would the British government allow us in to see their nuclear installations? Or the American government allow us to see their nuclear installations? We under the observation of the agency, the agency comes to visit.
Which country has done what we have done? Isn't that asking too much?
Q: Let me ask, hand on heart - you do not want a bomb? A: What do we want a bomb for? The British and Americans have them - what does that serve?
No we don't need it and we have a solution for the Israeli Zionist Regime. We told them that they should let the Palestinians express their views in a referendum so that the people can chose - we think that this is a humanitarian approach. We are fundamentally opposed to war.
Q: You have said that you want Israel off the map. You really cannot accept the existence of Israel?
A: We do not accept or officially recognise Israel. They are occupiers and illegitimate. But our approach is humanitarian. I ask you where is the Soviet Union now - has it been wiped out or not? It has been wiped out without a war. Let the Palestinian people chose.
It will happen.
Q: But you speak with more determination. The collapse of Soviet Union was a surprise - you're saying you want Israel off the map now.
A: Because we analyse the problems of the region meticulously. We do not deceive ourselves. We say a regime that does not have a proper philosophy of existence, which is an occupier which bullies people, and which is without culture and civilisation and which has all the powers of the region against it - this cannot survive.
Q: Do you regret denying the holocaust?
A: I had asked a couple of questions about the holocaust and I'm sorry that some European politicians and governments instead of responding to a couple of scientific questions by a university lecturer, they made it a political issue.
I asked these two questions and I ask them of you now. First, if the holocaust is a historical fact then they should investigate it because we allow everything to be investigated
Q: But documentation is enormous...
Do we have more evidence about the holocaust or about freedom, mathematics and physics?
Q: There are people watching this programme, whose parents, sisters and aunts perished in the concentration camps.
A: Why are you accusing me? My question is pretty clear - I say if a historical event has happened we should let the scientists investigate it - maybe new dimensions will be uncovered and new issues will be discovered - why don't they allow it?
This is suspicious. And then my second question is, if the holocaust had taken place where did it take place? What role did the Palestinian people play? The Palestinians were innocent. Why should they be punished, why should their land be occupied, why should they be killed and why should they be turned in to wanderers? These are my two questions.
Q: The issue will remain and I think the majority of people in world will not agree with you.
A: Well you are wrong. Carry out a referendum in Europe and the European people would agree with me. If the English government and the German government and all the European governments, if we go to international organisations and carry out a free referendum in Europe you will see that the European people will agree with me. I just raised a couple of questions, I did not make a judgement.
Interview - Farsi version
Q: Let me take you back to the present problem of the nuclear. Are you saying you will never cease enrichment?
For what reason should we stop? Why don't the Brit and Americans stop? Why should we stop?
Q: You don't fear an American or Israeli bomb?
A: Because we are peaceful. For what reason, who is going to fight us, tell me? Is England going to fight us?
No no, for what reason? Some people in America do exist who would like to use military force when they have lost a logical argument however there are many wise people in the US too. We see that as a very small probability, however we are ready for anything.
But I ask you, why shouldn't the US be stopped if we who are just starting a nuclear programme are being stopped? Is our peaceful approach a danger and the US bombs not a danger? What sort of logic is that? I think one cannot run the world on such a logic. This is a defeated logic.
Q: When you were elected the poor believed you'd reduce their suffering - but with high unemployment - the poor are poorer - can you afford these conflicts with outside world?
A: I'm very happy that you speak as a representative of our nation, that's very interesting. Where have you heard that our people say such things?
I have also mentioned this before the election and our people made their choice with full awareness and Iran has stood up firmly regarding the nuclear issue. You can see in all the cities and rural areas, our nation is shouting out for it - it belongs to them. The government belongs to the people and works for the people. In Iran there isn't a distance between the government and the people, we are one.
Q: Contact between the US and Iran has so far been between ambassadors - one in Iraq and one here but negotiations have to be at top.
Would it be useful for Gordon Brown or Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel to be directly involved?
A: We would welcome that, we are interested in dialogue with Mrs Merkel, Mr Sarkozy with the respected Prime Minister of England - we don't have any problems with communication. After the revolution they were all against us and then our nation succeeded and we actually announced that we would forget about the past. we want to have friendly relations - if someone wants to impose on us then we won't accept it.
In friendly conditions we would talk to everyone - in fact we prefer to work more with the Europeans because we think in a way that the European nations have also been innocent, the European people have suffered two wars and the European people carry the weight of conflict, they stand in the shadow of threats and we think you can work better with the Europeans.
Q: You started tonight by sending your good wishes to the people of the United Kingdom. Can you reassure British parents and say that no Iranians are involved in the killing of British solders?
A: I tell you and I also tell the good people of England; the people of England saw the good will of the Iranian people regarding the navy personnel. We are deeply sorry about the events in Iraq, we are also sorry about the Iraqi people being killed as well as that your soldiers are being killed.
We think that this war should not exist. There can be friendship and peace - why should there be an occupation in which killings take place? Our message is that of friendship for all - we like all nations we also like all human beings. Whoever is killed we are distressed, we don't rejoice in it because your soldiers are also human beings, poor things, they do not know where they are.
These fifteen English naval personnel they did not even know where they were - why should English youth come to Iraq and be killed - for what reason? The English people should be in their country and serve their own people. We are not happy we would like to have peace and friendship for every one - we have mentioned that we are prepared to help end the war so that there is peace and brotherhood for all.
Q: President Ahmadinejad Thank you very much indeed for agreeing us to talk to us, I'm very grateful
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comments (47) Comment (0) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: |
| U.S. Strike on Iran Set For Right Before '08 Election, After Nominations
Report: US to attack Iran in 8-10 months
Sep 13, 2007 6:50 | Updated Sep 13, 2007 6:50
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Germany's unwillingness to impose further sanctions on Iran has pushed the United States closer towards a decision on a military strike.
A satellite image showing the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant.
According to the report, Germany's decision has spurred senior US army officials to try and convince US Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice to abandon once and for all the diplomatic route of preventing a nuclear Iran. The report further stated that the date of preference for an attack against Iran is in eight to 10 months - after the US presidential candidates for both the Democrats and the Republicans have been chosen, but before the major presidential campaign kicks off.
The report stated that the attack would be comprised of two main strategies: cutting off the Iranian gas supply, which the US hopes would pressure the Iranian people towards action against their government, and an aerial bombing campaign, which would be meant to paralyze Iranian defenses and allow American bombers to destroy the nuclear facilities.
Opponents to a military strike claim that an attack would require at least one week of intense bombing, and that it would only set the Iranian nuclear program back a few years, the report said. Two other claims of the opponents is that an American strike would provoke Iran into attacking Israel, and that abandoning diplomatic action would negatively impact Iraq and the US troops stationed there.
http://www.jpost. com/servlet/ Satellite? cid=118941139641 9&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle% 2FShowFull | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smug |
| US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling and nuclear fears (Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts warn):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0%2C%2C2169798%2C00.html
Julian Borger and Ian Black
Saturday September 15, 2007
The Guardian
The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning.
US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days, with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.
The involvement of a few hundred British troops in the anti-smuggling operation also raises the risk of their involvement in a cross-border clash.
US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed would be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this week by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.
"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said.
Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and warned: "I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have created in Iraq."
In such circumstances, last week's Israeli air strike against a mystery site in northern Syria has triggered speculation over its motives. Israel has been silent about the attack. Syria complained to the UN security council but gave few details. Some say the target was Iranian weapons on their way to Hizbullah in Lebanon, or that the sortie was a dry run for a US-Israeli attack on Syria and Iran. There is even speculation that the Israelis took out a nuclear facility funded by Iran and supplied by North Korea
The situation is particularly volatile because the struggle for influence threatens to exacerbate a confrontation over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.
"Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The talk is of multiple targets," said Mr Cronin. "In Washington there is very serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at seriously because there is only six months to 'do something about Iran' before it will be looked at as a purely political issue."
US presidential elections are due in November 2008, and military action at the height of the campaign is usually seen by voters as politically motivated.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions."
US and British officials have complained to Iran about the use by Shia militias in Iraq of what they say are Iranian-made weapons. The main concern is the proliferation of roadside bombs that fire a bolt of molten metal through any thickness of armour, which the officials say must have been made in Iran.
A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner, raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US military headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American soldier and wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran.
Gen Bergner used to work in the White House, where he was aligned with administration hawks, and his dispatch to Baghdad was seen by some as a move to increase pressure on Iran.
"There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something about this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that respect, border control is a sensible solution."
Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and participating in or endorsing American actions. British officials insist that Washington has given no sign it is ready to abandon diplomacy and argue that UN sanctions are showing signs of working. They point to the resurgence in Iran of Hashemi Rafsanjani, seen as a pragmatic counterweight to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted by Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of Iraq. If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and Iran, Iran has blinked first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece
British soldiers return to action as tensions between US and Iran grow
Published: 12 September 2007
British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".
In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.
The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.
The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq. Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of particular concern to them."
The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.
The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.
The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state".
In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation" he said.
The Royal Welsh battle group, with Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured vehicles, is conducting out regular exercises at the Basra air base in preparation for any re-entry into the city. No formal handover of Basra to the Iraqi government has yet taken place and the UK remains responsible for maintaining security in the region.
The Iraqi commander in charge of the southern part of the country, General Mohan al-Furayji, said he would not hesitate to call for British help if there was an emergency.
While previous US military action has been primarily directed against Sunni insurgents, it is Shia fighters, which the US accuses Iran of backing, who now account for 80 per cent of US casualties.
For the British military the move to the border is a change of policy. They had stopped patrols along the long border at Maysan despite US concerns at the time that the area would become a conduit for weapons into Iraq.
The decision to return to the frontier has been heavily influenced by the highly charged and very public dispute with the United States. British commanders feel that they cannot turn down the fresh American request for help after refusing to delay the withdrawal from Basra Palace. They also maintain that the operation will stop Iranian arms entering Basra.
Brigadier Bashall said: "We are not sitting here idly at the air bridge. The security of Basra is still our responsibility and we shall act where necessary. We are also prepared to restore order in Basra City if asked to do so."
The US decision to build fortifications at the Iranian border, after four years of presence in Iraq, shows, say American commanders, that the "Iranian threat" is now one of their main concerns.
Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, commander of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs had been used against his forces killing nine soldiers. "We've got a major problem with Iranian munitions streaming into Iraq. This Iranian interference is troubling and we have to stop it," he told The Wall Street Journal this week.
Meanwhile at a conference in Baghdad on regional co-operation, Iran claimed the US was supporting groups mounting attacks from Iraqi territory in the Kurdish north.
Said Jalili , Iran's deputy foreign minister, last night said: "I think [the US and its allies] are going to prevaricate with the truth because they know they have been defeated in Iraq and they have not been successful. And so they are going to put the blame on us, on the other side."
C-SPAN 'Washington Journal' viewer calls about Mearsheimer/Walt and the coming war with Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/09/06/walt-mearsheimer-book-mentioned-to-gao-head-david-walk.php
Anti-Iran hype reaches fever pitch
By Khody Akhavi
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II12Ak01.html
War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/04/09/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative.php
Jim Moran's Mouth, Again
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401542.html?sub=AR
justicequest2000 wrote (in the comments section associated with the above Op-Ed appearing in the Washington Post today):
Can I assume that Mr. King hasn't even read the new book (The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy - see israellobbybook.com) by respected political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC, JINSA, etc) and how it pushed for the attack on Iraq and has been doing similar to get US to attack Iran. Can I assume that Mr. King also hasn't read the third edition of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book either. Mr. King might be interested in accessing the following URL as well which conveys how CBS '60 Minutes' is refusing to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt book:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/09/06/walt-mearsheimer-book-mentioned-to-gao-head-david-walk.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
| http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml
Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 3:20am BST 16/09/2007
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Dick Cheney ('The Man') with George W Bush
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
advertisementA prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".
He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."
Possible flash points: Click to enlarge
Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.
The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.
"Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with."
The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".
Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.
"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: Gates: U.S. pursuing diplomacy with Iran |
| Gates: U.S. pursuing diplomacy with Iran (AP)
21 minutes ago
The Bush administration is committed, for now, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.
Speculation has persisted about preparations for a military strike against Iran for its alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program.
Gates, in a broadcast interview, said he would not discuss "hypotheticals" about what President Bush "may or may not do."
"I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using," the Pentagon chief said.
"We always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing," he added.
The diplomatic approach takes center stage at a conference in Washington on Friday. The U.S. hosts the U.N. Security Council's four other permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia — plus Germany to press for new penalties against oil-rich Iran.
These countries have sought for almost two years to use punishments — actual or threatened — to persuade Tehran to drop disputed nuclear work. Two rounds of mild penalties have not slowed or stopped the activities.
Washington has been the chief proponent of world sanctions against Iran, while Russia, which has trade and military ties to Iran, has proved the most reluctant member of the coalition.
The U.S. contends Iran's nuclear power program is a cover for developing weapons. Tehran insists it wants to master the technology to meet future power needs.
The administration is expected to soon blacklist a unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial penalties. The step would be in response to Iran's involvement in Iraq and elsewhere.
Last week, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters he had solid evidence, including the explanations of captured Iranian agents, to support his claim that Iran was behind lethal attacks in Iraq. Petraeus warned Congress that the U.S. already was fighting a "proxy war" with Iran.
Gates spoke on "Fox News Sunday." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: US says 'all options' on table with Iran, but prefers diplom |
| US says 'all options' on table with Iran, but prefers diplomacy (AFP)
by Jitendra Joshi 3 minutes ago
The United States will stick to diplomatic and economic pressure to force Iran to halt its nuclear drive, but "all options are on the table," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.
Interviewed on Fox News, Gates also said the United States would have a "real problem" if Syria and North Korea are collaborating on a nuclear program, but refused to confirm reports to that end.
Asked if President George W. Bush would consult Congress before launching any strikes on Iran, Gates said he would not be drawn on "hypotheticals."
"I will tell you that I think the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat ... through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach," he said.
Iran vehemently denies Western allegations it is seeking an atomic weapon, saying its nuclear drive is aimed at providing electricity for a growing population whose fossil fuels will one day run out.
"We always say all options are on the table," Gates said. "But clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one we're pursuing."
The five permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany are due to meet to discuss a new draft UN resolution on sanctions against Iran on September 21 in Washington.
The United States has never ruled out taking military action against Iran but on Friday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei brushed off the notion that it could now threaten the Islamic republic.
He said that Bush had been defeated in his Middle East plans and would one day stand trial for "atrocities" committed in Iraq.
The US and Iranian envoys to Baghdad have held two rounds of landmark talks in Baghdad on Iraqi security this year, but Khamenei's comments underlined the degree of enmity that remains between the two sides just on this issue.
Washington also accuses Iran of providing sophisticated weaponry to Shiite militias in Iraq, and Syria of turning a blind eye to infiltration of its borders by Sunni insurgents, charges both governments deny.
Announcing a limited pullout of troops from Iraq on Thursday, Bush demanded that Iran and Syria end attempts to "undermine" the government of insurgency-wracked Iraq.
The top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, last week accused Iran of fighting a "proxy war" in Iraq through the covert operations unit of its elite Revolutionary Guards.
But the Pentagon chief ruled out using US forces to chase Shiite extremists in Iraq over the Iranian border.
"First of all, there's a question of just how much intelligence we have in terms of specific locations and so on," Gates said on Fox.
"But beyond that, I think that the general view is we can manage this problem through better operations inside Iraq and on the border with Iran -- that we can take care of the Iranian threat ... inside the borders of Iraq.
"Don't need to go across the border into Iran."
Gates refused to confirm the veracity of leaked intelligence reports suggesting that North Korea may be helping Syria build a nuclear weapons facility.
"But all I will say is we are watching the North Koreans very carefully. We watch the Syrians very carefully," he said.
"If such an activity were taking place, it would be a matter of great concern because the president has put down a very strong marker with the North Koreans about further proliferation efforts and obviously any effort by the Syrians to pursue weapons of mass destruction would be a concern.
"I think it would be a real problem," Gates said.
A senior North Korean diplomat has dismissed the reports of nuclear collaboration with Syria, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said Sunday.
And Syria angrily denied as US "lies" suggestions that it was receiving nuclear material from North Korea, after foreign media reports that Israeli warplanes had launched an air strike on a possible joint nuclear project.
Gates declined to comment on the reported Israeli raid. Syria says its air defenses fired on Israeli warplanes that had dropped munitions deep inside its territory in the early hours of September 6. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: |
| France says must prepare for possible war with Iran
By Francois Murphy 51 minutes ago
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday his country must prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear program, but he did not believe any such action was imminent.
Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's major powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting atom bombs, and said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic.
"We must prepare for the worst," Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."
Asked about the preparations, he said it was normal to prepare for various eventualities.
"We are preparing ourselves by trying to put together plans that are the chiefs of staff's prerogative (but) that is not about to happen tomorrow," he added.
Tehran insists it only wants to master nuclear technology to produce electricity, but it has yet to comply with repeated U.N. demands that it suspend uranium enrichment and other sensitive work that could potentially be used in producing weapons.
Kouchner's comments follow a similarly hawkish statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who said last month in his first major foreign policy speech since taking office that a diplomatic push by the world's powers was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."
Asked if France was involved in any planning towards war, he said: "The French army is not at the moment associated with anything at all, nor with any maneuver at all."
"PEACE IS IN YOUR INTEREST"
France has said repeatedly it wants the U.N. Security Council to pass tougher sanctions against Iran over its failure to dispel fears that it is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons.
"We do not want to signal anything other than 'peace is in your interest, and in ours too,"' Kouchner said, adding that the door should be left open to negotiations with Tehran, but Paris has made a suspension of nuclear work a condition for talks.
The United States, Germany, France and Britain have led a diplomatic drive to punish Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program. They succeeded in persuading reluctant Russia and China to back two U.N. sanctions resolutions.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran would not give up its nuclear program.
"Of course we will not abandon our right to nuclear technology," he told state television. "They (the West) talks about imposing sanctions on Iran, but they can not do it."
Washington says the time has to expand the penalties and has called a September 21 meeting of the six powers to discuss a third sanctions resolution to submit to the U.N. Security Council.
Kouchner said France had asked its biggest companies, including oil giant Total and gas firm Gaz de France, not to bid for projects in Iran.
"We have already asked a certain number of our large companies to not respond to tenders, and it is a way of signaling that we are serious," Kouchner said.
"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies. But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."
In addition, Paris and Berlin were preparing possible European Union economic sanctions against Tehran, Kouchner said.
"We have decided to ... prepare ourselves for possible sanctions outside the U.N. sanctions and which would be European sanctions. Our German friends proposed it. We discussed it a few days ago," Kouchner said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush setting America up for war with Iran
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/09/13/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-16.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: '600 Iranian missiles pointed at Israel' |
| '600 Iranian missiles pointed at Israel'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 17, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six hundred Iranian Shihab-3 missiles are pointed at targets throughout Israel, and will be launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday.
"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."
According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.
The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km, and can reach anywhere in Israel.
On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the nuclear Iranian crisis forces the world "to prepare for the worst," and said that in this case it "is war."
Kouchner emphasized, however, that negotiations should still be the preferred course of action.
Kouchner, quoted by French daily Le Figaro, added that "Iran does whatever it pleases in Iraq ... one cannot find in the entire world a crisis greater than this one."
In response to Kouchner's comments, Iran's state-owned news agency accused France of pandering to the interests of the United States.
"The new occupants of the Elysee (Presidential palace) want to copy the White House," the IRNA news agency said in an editorial. The editorial added that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was taking on "an American skin."
Kouchner's statements came just hours after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the Bush administration's commitment, at least for the time being, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411419433&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
