| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
| talknationradio.com
Francis A. Boyle on US Press re Iran and Potential US Attack on Iran
Posted on Thursday 13 September 2007
Talk Nation Radio for September 12, 2007
Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois on the Media, Iran, and Potential for US Attack on Iran.
Scroll down for transcript
Go to Archive.org to listen or download as a podcast.
http://www.archive.org/details/FrancisA.BoyleAndFaridehFarhiMediaPotentialUsAttackOnIranIaea
Download at Pacifica’s Audioport here if you are a member and try Pacifica.org.
Click here to listen to this week’s program.
Francis A. Boyle says Americans must show up in vast numbers in Washington D.C. for Sept. 14-21 Rally against the war and consider a general strike and other tactics to try to block the Bush Adm. And stop any preemptive strike against Iran. He also urges impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney to prevent wider war.
Talk Nation Radio for September 12, 2007
Produced by Dori Smith at WHUS at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, CT.
Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois on the Media, Iran, and Potential for US Attack on Iran
We asked Independent Researcher Farideh Farhi if the US Military Buildup in the Persian Gulf and new US Military base in Iraq 4 miles from Iranian border undermines the IAEA’s work on Iran. Could it spark violence or even war? Iran is being cautious but the Bush administration seems less than careful in terms of rhetoric and so does the media.
Intro: Welcome to Talk Nation Radio, a half hour discussion on politics, human rights and the environment. I’m Dori Smith. We look at the role being played by the US Press in what could be the run up to another shock and awe like strike, this time against Iran.
International and humanitarian law expert Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois has indicated that such a nightmarish scenario is possible while the Bush administration is still in office. He joins us to discuss the way some media outlets have been helping the Administration make a case for an attack on Iran. During our interview in August he pointed to a recent US Military buildup in the Persian Gulf where the US now has three US Navy Task Forces. That is the same force level America brought to bear against Iraq in 2003.
CNN, FOX, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR, have all featured interviews with a variety of guest who describe an attack on Iran as a quote ‘bad idea’ but add that it may be the ‘only choice America has.’ Israeli leaders have making the same kinds of comments in the Press. In fact, the Governing Board of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is meeting in Vienna to discuss the proposal of Director General ElBaradei.
Independent researcher Farideh Farhi joins us first to explain what is happening. She has been monitoring the IAEA’s progress on Iran during years of work on the nuclear issue. Her 2005 piece published in Middle East Report was titled, ‘Iran’s Nuclear File, the Uncertain End Game.’
Farideh Farhi: Mr. ElBaradei is asking the Governing Board to give him time to negotiate this process with Iran in the hope of resolving the crisis. He is asking the United States and Western European countries to effectively postpone the sanctions process in the United Nations until this process is finished and the world can see whether Iran can respond to those outstanding issues. This is something that the United States is unhappy with. Historically during the past five years I have noticed that whenever there are intense negotiations at the IAEA you have various newspaper stories, leaks, plants, that essentially talk about or hint at the possibility of military action against Iran.
Dori Smith: Reuters just published a piece September 10th announcing that the Pentagon will go ahead with plans to construct a new military base in Iraq just four miles from the Iranian border. Wouldn’t this increase the chance that a military exchange could occur even if the policy makers don’t necessarily want one?
Farideh Farhi: The possibility of real attacks is there, both American foreign policy and Israeli foreign policy has been based on this notion of military muscularity and projection of military power. However, there is also this reality that the Iranians have made very clear: They are preparing for that possibility. They see that as a kind of asymmetrical warfare. They are ready to defend the country and of course to create tremendous amounts of problems in other areas for American Military projection both inside Iran as well as in other parts of the region where the Iranians obviously for defensive reasons of their own have been preparing for that possibility. It is because of that that I would think that the American policy makers and Israeli policy makers would be a lot more cautious than their talks, or the way they talk about military options. I would think that they would be a lot more cautious about the actual implementation of the military option in relationship to Iran because precisely as you suggest it would create tremendous difficulties not only for the United States but also all the allies of the United States in the region.
It has been argued that the Americans and Iranians are playing a game of chicken. You know threatening each other in ways that would ultimately lead the other side to back down. The problem in this dynamic is that a mistake can lead to serious consequences. My understanding from Iranian politics, however, is that the Iranians are very careful, or are trying to be very careful, not to be drawn into a direct conflict with the United States precisely because they are aware of the awesome military power that the United States has. However, you know the Iranian leadership, or elements within the Iranian leadership, have not been known for their wisdom either.
It is a very tense and dangerous situation. From what I can understand the interlocutors in this situation, particularly the American ones, are not doing anything to reduce the tensions. In fact, for the domestic purposes, or for purposes of the policies they are pursuing in Iraq in order to justify the American Military presence in Iraq, they have every reason to accentuate the Iranian threat in the region. That creates the potential for mistakes and danger.
Dori Smith: Independent research Farideh Farhi. You can find her report online at Middle East Report.org.
(Part Two)
Intro: Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois Law School is a practitioner and advocate of International Law and Human Rights Law. His most recent book is ‘Protesting Power, War, Resistance and Law’. It is a tool for all who protest and need legal information and political insights. His previous works include ‘Destroying World Order and Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law’. The world renowned legal expert has been calling on members of Congress to bring articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney in part to prevent wider war in the Middle East. Professor Boyle welcome again to Talk Nation Radio.
Francis A. Boyle: Dori, thank you again for having me on and my best to your listening audience.
Dori Smith: IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei has accused the White House of beating the drums for war against Iran. Certainly the Press recently has been doing the same thing it seems, just comment on the implications.
Francis A. Boyle: Well it doesn’t look good. The strategy here is the same they used twice before against Iraq starting in the summer of 1990 in the run up to the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Many of these Neocons use to work for Bush Sr. including Dick Cheney, now the Vice President, who was at that time Secretary of Defense.
So they figured it worked then to sell that war they would try it again, same strategy, same approach, using many of the same arguments as in 2002. So it does appear if you look at the current pattern that it’s almost identical to the last two times up to and including the speeches to the American Legion, the Veteran’s of Foreign Wars, President Bush is now going to be speaking to the General Assembly like he did the last time on Iraq.
So the pattern is ominous. We have to tie into that the fact that there are now three US Aircraft Carrier Task Forces in the Persian Gulf. You always really have to look at not so much what they are saying as what they are doing. And here you have massive formations of US Military forces in the Gulf and in addition there is an enormous naval exercise going on right now in the Bay of Bengal that will end up in a few days and then those ships also would be in a position to strike Iran.
It has now been reported there are B-1 Bombers in Iraq. And they have moved some more F-16s in there. So the danger here is that we now have a congruence between what they are doing and what they are saying and Iran right now is just surrounded by enormous quantities of military equipment that can be used against it.
Dori Smith: Just to go over recent news reports on Iran for your comment: On August 30th William J. Broad published a story in the New York Times under the headline: “Iran Expanding Its Nuclear Program, Agency Reports,” the agency in question of course, the IAEA, had said the opposite, something that was actually included farther down in the story. Iran has enriched far less uranium than previously planned.
The President has been hostile to the IAEA and listeners may remember that Bush was hostile toward the IAEA when the agency did not cooperate with pre-Iraq rhetoric back in 2002 and 2003.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer has given various guests the opportunity to announce their support for a US strike against Iran and on September 6th the former US Military Colonel Sam Gardner told his viewers that a US air assault against Iran would likely involve B2 bombers and cruise missiles fired from airships and aircraft. And on Juan Cole’s ‘informed comment’ blog Barnett Ruben pointed out that rightwing lobby groups and the Anti-Defamation League have been pressuring the administration for an even tougher military policy on Iran —it all seems so familiar but how significant is it and what does it imply?
Francis A. Boyle: Again the pattern is very much the same and in fact last week there was a major breakthrough in relations between the IAEA and Iran. You can read this on the web site of the IAEA itself–I doubt too many of these people have bothered let alone the mainstream news media–and you will see that Iran has gone along with all of the IAEA’s requests and agreed to a work program that would resolve all outstanding issues about its nuclear program by the end of the year. So this is a fantastic opportunity for the Bush administration if it were seriously interested in dealing with this problem to sit down and negotiate in good faith with Iran. But that’s not what they want. What they want is a pretext for a military attack and Mr. ElBaradei has, by striking a deal with Iran that cannot be denied by anyone because the documentation is right there on the IAEA website, has really pulled the rug out from under them and also from under another round of sanctions at the Security Council.
Now as for Mr. Broad in the New York Times we know full well that he wrote many of those pieces of disinformation with Judy Miller on nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Times should have pushed Broad out too because he’s just propagandizing for war as is almost the entirety of the New York Times.
So to get the truth here I think you are going to have to listen to Pacifica Network, alternative news media sources and go to the Internet because the mainstream news media today is for the most part mongering for war against Iran just as it did back in 2002 against Iraq, just as it did back in 1990 against Iraq and I should point out also as it did against Yugoslavia in 1990.
Dori Smith: This militancy toward Iran could actually strengthen the Republican’s case for reelection in the upcoming State and Municipal Elections and the Presidential Elections if I guess the case can be made that a pull-out from Iraq would leave the door open to a nuclear Iran. As we discussed last time the US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad has a vision of wider or even world war in the Middle East he has been sharing. Zalmay Khalilzad in Hartford last week where he told the World Affairs Forum the US should remain in Iraq for an extended period of time and warned of a nuclear Iran. If you could just respond to the general idea that the media has been pushing Democrats into a box here, if they argue for a military pull out from Iraq it might seem like they are ignoring the potential for wider war, a nuclear armed Iran. While it’s a tortured argument to try and make a case for a preemptive strike against Iran members of the press do appear to be working to make it.
Francis A. Boyle: While everyone is focusing on Iraq the Bush administration is focusing on Iran. And I believe they know that if they attacked Iran as they see it that’s just going to wipe away their problems in Iraq and everything else. We are really seeing a play here in several acts: The first act was to attack Afghanistan using the terrible tragedy of September 11th as a pretext for a war that was already planned and indeed on or about September 11th once again there were massive quantities of US Military forces in the Gulf in the Arabian Sea in Egypt and in Turkey ready to strike.
The second act in this play to control and dominate two thirds of the world’s oil resources was to attack Iraq in 2002. The third act in this play is to attack Iran and the President has stated, and I will take him at his word that he will do it before his term in office is over. That gives us basically a year. I also think then that the Republican Party will use an attack on Iran to try to win the 2008 election to regain control of the House and the Senate and to hold on to control of the Presidency. They will certainly put the Democrats on the defensive as they have repeatedly done before.
What is going on now in my opinion in Iraq is pretty much a holding operation by the Bush administration until they attack Iran and then the entire strategic situation will turn around. You will have massive warfare in this region of the world and indeed it does appear that if they attack Iran they are also going to attack Syria. Israel will attack. You had the Israeli war plane bombing Syria, penetrating their air force. They will also in combination with Israel attack Gaza and today you have reports of Israeli military forces moving into Gaza. They will also probably move into Southern Lebanon to take out Hezbollah and indeed last summer as you know the Bush administration gave Israel the green light to try to take out Gaza, to try to take out Hezbollah, and they failed.
The Neocons, this was Elliott Abrams also apparently pressured Israel to attack Syria at that time but Israel was not willing to do it then. So if you add all of this up it reads and sounds as if we are in a pre war situation and again much like the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman explaining the outbreak of the First World War.
That brings us to the statement by Ambassador Khalilizad at the United Nations. Indeed, he studied International Relations at the University of Chicago at the same time I was there. He studied with [Albert] Wohlstetter the mentor to [Paul] Wolfowitz, and many of these other Neocons. Basically if you read between the lines of what Khalilizad said at the UN he said if the Arab and Muslim world does not do what we tell them to do we the United States are prepared to initiate a third world war. It would be a war for control of the oil and gas in the Persian Gulf and in Central Asia where about two thirds of all the world’s oil and gas is today.
So again, when you have the US Ambassador talking about world war three, where you have all of these statements, it’s extremely dangerous. We have President Putin sending strategic nuclear bombers on feints toward Norway, toward Britain, towards Guam—I would think that this is a sign that the Russians are telling us to stand down from attacking Iran. That they know what our plans are and they are indicating that they will not be pleased if we attack Iran. It is extremely dangerous.
In addition you have this incident concerning the nuclear cruise missiles from the Minot Air Base down to Barksdale. I don’t think that was a mistake. Obviously someone gave the command to do this, to transport nuclear Cruise Missiles down to Barksdale that is being used as a staging point for bombing operations in the Middle East.
As we have said before given the mentality of these Neocons, as I’ve pointed out before who really go back to Carl Schmitt, the most notorious Nazi law professor of his day, they are fully prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran. They are now making preparations for that. All of the US Aircraft Carriers there in the Persian Gulf now and in the Bay of Bengal are nuclear capable and Israel is nuclear capable. It does seem to me that we could be in a pre-war situation now as we speak.
Dori Smith: Professor Boyle Sarah Baxter writing for the Times Online discussed what she said was a Pentagon plan for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran–she said the aim would be to annihilate Iran’s military capability in three days. That piece September 2nd. Baxter also writing that Israel has made its own preparations for air strikes on Iran and would be ready to attack Iran if the Americans back down.
Francis A. Boyle: Israel is going to do exactly what we tell it to do. It could be as Vice President Cheney suggested that we would give a green light to Israel to do it and then stand back and see what happens. But they are not going to move unless we give them permission to move. It means they have to go over Iraqi airspace which we control, or coming out of Turkey and I don’t think the Turks would be very pleased with that. But it’s extremely dangerous, especially now that the United States Government officially adheres to this Doctrine of Preventive Warfare, the National Security Strategy of September 2002—written by my former classmate at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz, the Neocon, calling for preventive war and first applied against Iraq.
Then later in December of 2002 an even more ominous policy document which you can find at the web pages of the White House applying the preventive warfare doctrine to weapons of mass destruction and indicating that the United States is fully prepared to use weapons of mass destruction as part of this warfare doctrine.
You can find citations for all of this in my book Destroying World Order. So the policy, the rhetoric and most unfortunately the military presence over there in placed and basically just waiting for the order by President Bush. I think we do have some time to head this off because if my and your analysis is correct that it is a lot like what they did in 2002 they are still going to want more disinformation, more ratcheting up of the public record, but again it is still extremely dangerous. Any spark could set this off. A Tonkin Gulf incident or something like that could be manufactured. The Iranians could make a mistake or they could easily be provoked as the British last summer sent those sailors into waters that they had claimed and at that time the United States Government indicated that if they tried to do that to us we would use military force. So it’s very easy under these circumstances to provoke hostilities.
Dori Smith: In her piece Sarah Baxter also mentioned Alireza Jafarzadeh of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. He criticized the IAEA’s latest report on Iran’s enrichment program. But I couldn’t help but think of the role played by the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmed Chalabi when he was claiming that there was a lot of support for an invasion. Is this a similar situation with this man on Iran? Just comment finally on the difference between a US invasion of Iraq and what we might see during an invasion of Iran.
Francis A. Boyle: Yes, just like what happened with Iraq in 2002 and in 1990 as well you have surrogates of the United States Government whether with the Department of Defense or the CIA or think tanks affiliated with them or the Israelis, generating out propaganda and trying to make it appear as if there is some opposition here that is calling for the United States Government to liberate Iran, falling back on this bogus so-called doctrine of humanitarian intervention which I also analyze and expose in my book, Destroying World Order. And that’s another one of the prongs of the argument they are trying to use here to build consent, manufacture consent, as Noam Chomsky put it, for a war against Iran as they did on Iraq as they did on Iraq and that’s this argument about humanitarian intervention in addition to claims about weapons of mass destruction and again Iran does not have nuclear weapons at this time.
So it’s all part and parcel of this same propaganda strategy they pursued before. As you correctly point out, however, a war against Iran is going to be a very different proposition from Iraq. Iraq had been carved up, destroyed, bombed and sanctioned starting from 1990 up 2003 so there was very minimal resistance at the time against the US/UK invasion.
That’s not the case with Iran. You’ve got 60 million people there. They do have substantial quantities of military force. We saw the Hizbollah Chinese silkworm missile take out that Israeli destroyer off the coast of Lebanon last summer. Well imagine Iran doing that to an aircraft carrier in the Gulf?
They have a culture there. This is Persia. It goes back over 5,000 years, a culture and a religion, and these are very proud people and if you follow the course of the Iraq/Iran war they sustained enormous casualties. The assumption was that when Saddam Hussein launched that war with the support and encouragement of Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski that Ayatollah Kumani’s government would collapse. That’s not what happened. They fought ferociously and after several years pushed back into Iraq and were about to storm Baghdad when the Reagan Administration intervened by sending a flotilla over to the Persian Gulf and making it clear we were not going to allow them to take over Baghdad. That is why then the Bush administration and the Neocons know full well that if they are going to go to war against Iran it will not be Iraq and they will have to use nuclear weapons.
Dori Smith: Just go over once again the reasons the Neocons would want to do this and then how anti war activists can prevail.
Francis A. Boyle: We have to understand what is at stake here is two thirds of the world’s supply of oil and gas in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and that is really what the power elite that run this country are after. And then when you add in the Neocons, these are fanatical Zionists affiliated with the Likud Party and they simply are completely irrational when it comes to Arabs and Muslims. So you have both the strategic and the bigotry and racism as well.
I regret to like to say it’s sort of like what happened in World War II where the government deliberately whipped up anti-Japanese hysteria and racism as they sought to better prosecute the war to Japan up to and including accepting the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that’s the danger also of the racism and anti-Muslim bigotry here in the current climate. That it can be used to get to a point where the American people would be prepared to accept the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. I suspect we are going to be seeing more of this as time goes on.
We still have some time to head this off. Ramsey Clark has his peace march in Washington D.C. on September 15th and as many people have to go to that as possible. We need people in the streets demonstrating opposition.
Second, we have to get Congressman John Conyers to put in those bills of impeachment right away against Bush and Cheney. Back in March 2003 when we were debating putting in bills of impeachment at that time against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, before Congressman Conyers and 40 to 50 of his top advisors most of whom were lawyers, Marcus Raskin made the perspicuous point that if we do not stop Bush on Iraq what is to stop him from going after Iran? That is the position that we are in now. So those bills of impeachment must be filed immediately and everyone must get Congressman Conyers to put them in. They are there. They are just sitting there. I think you need to also work with people in his district and nationwide. If anyone could do that job for us it is Congressman Conyers.
Third, a massive campaign of civil resistance. That’s what we need. Peaceful nonviolent protests all over the country and especially in Washington D.C. to try to stop this war.
Finally, in the run up to the war against Iraq my client and friend the late great Phil Berrigan issued a call for a general strike. Unfortunately he was stricken with cancer before he could really do too much about that. But I think we need to get that organized as well. That is to select a day for a general strike and shut the entire country down and explain to the power elite that really runs this country: We are not going to tolerate what could potentially evolve into WWIII. We all have to do what our conscience tells us to do.
Dori Smith: Professor Francis A. Boyle thank you so much for talking with us.
Francis A. Boyle: Thanks once again and let’s all go out there and do our part. I think we can stop it and turn it around but it is going to take all of us to do something.
Professor Francis A. Boyle teaches international and humanitarian law at the University of Illinois. His most recent book is Protesting Power, War, Resistance, and Law, he has a lengthy CV but at least one of his notable cases is his work as counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
For Talk Nation Radio I’m Dori Smith. Talk Nation Radio is produced in the studios of WHUS at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, Connecticut. WHUS.org to listen live Wed. at 5 PM. Talk Nation.org and Talknationradio.org for transcripts and discussions.
Protests in Washington D.C. September 15, 2007 Mass March, Gathering at Noon at the White House. see also unitedforpeace.org
Philip Berrigan, 1923-2002
December 2002 quote of Philip Berrigan: ‘When I first started to envision a general strike after doing quite a bit of reading on it, the Russian model in 1905, the Solidarity in Poland and Gandhi’s work in India. I’d read about all of them in a very remarkable book on nonviolent resistance called A Force More Powerful. When I first read about that, I thought that we could, over a span of years — of course it would take a tremendous amount of work and a great deal of money — that we could go for the economy, which was the soft underbelly of the system and the empire, go for the economy and bring things to a point where we could begin to dictate to the plutocrats in Washington.’
Bio: Francis A. Boyle continues to advise and defend civil resisters like Camilio Mejia and other war resisters such as Ehren Watada, a First Lieutenant 1st LT of the US Army who in June 2006 publicly refused to deploy to Iraq. His most recent book Protesting Power: War, Resistance, and Law was written as a tool for all who protest and need legal information and political insights. The book has been described as a clarion call to citizen action against Bush administration policies in the US and other countries.
For more information about this book, See:
http://www.RowmanLittlefield.com/ISBN/0742538923
http://www.whus.org to listen live Wed. at 5 PM
Music by Fritz Heede | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:15 am Post subject: |
| Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran
(Associated Press)
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
39 minutes ago
Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.
Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."
Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.
Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.
"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."
He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.
He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.
Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.
Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.
"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.
He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.
"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.
The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.
(This version SUBS 9th graf, Iran says ..., to CORRECT word to 'program,' sted 'problem')) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
| How much does one want to bet that AIPAC's influence (for the coming war with Iran) has played a role with the Democrats as well:
Tuesday, September 18th, 2007
Headlines for September 18, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/1359244
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ElBaradei Warns Against War on Iran
- ElBaradei Accuses Democrats of Distorting Iran Nuclear Data
- Bush Nominates Michael Mukasey To Be Attorney General
- Iraqi Government to Expel Blackwater After Fatal Shooting
- Greenspan: Cost of Oil Would Be Higher If Not For Iraq War
- Iowa Democrats Exclude Kucinich & Gravel From Events
- Climate Change Activists Trek From Pole to Pole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ElBaradei Warns Against War on Iran
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei is warning no military action should be taken against Iran, and that threats of war are premature and counterproductive. On Sunday France warned that it was preparing for a possible war against Iran and the Telegraph of London reported that the Pentagon has developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran. ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there is no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran.
Mohamed ElBaradei: "I repeat: we have not seen any undeclared facilities operating in Iran, we have not seen any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized. We have not received any information to that effect. So, I haven't heard any other information, to the contrary. So while we are still concerned about the nature of the Iranian program, we should not... I do not believe, at this stage, that we are facing clear and present danger that requires that we go beyond diplomacy."
ElBaradei also urged the world to remember what happened in Iraq before considering any similar action against Tehran.
ElBaradei Accuses Democrats of Distorting Iran Nuclear Data
Meanwhile Congressional Democrats are being accused of drafting a misleading and erroneous report on Iran's nuclear program. ElBaradei said the Congressional report – released by Democratic Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey -- contained serious distortions of the IAEA's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity. The report claimed Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade level when the IAEA had only found small quantities of enrichment at far lower levels. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
| VIDEO: Fox News: It's Good for Wall Street to Bomb Iran?
Global Research, September 17, 2007
News Hounds - 2007-09-16
On yesterday's edition of Cashin' In (9-15-07), the ever-vicious Ann Coulter joined Terry Keenan and the panel of financial regulars - Dagen McDowell, Jonas Max Ferris, Jerry Bowyer and Jonathan Hoenig - to dish out more "Bomb Iran" propaganda, thus continuing the concerted effort on the part of the radical right and the Bush administration to scare Americans into war - just like they did before the attack on Iraq. Thankfully, most of the "real" business experts on the show opposed the insanity that Coulter and kindred spirit Jonathan Hoenig were promoting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6799 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
| JINSA associated Bolton (who is up at AEI currently) has mentioned that the US would support an Israeli strike on Iran.. Amy Goodman reported such in the headlines of her DemocracyNow.org headlines for today...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/19/1412234
Bolton: US Would Back Israeli Attack on Iran
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has declared the Bush administration would support an Israeli attack on Iran. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, Bolton said: “We’re talking about a clear message to Iran -- Israel has the right to self-defense -- and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks.”
Correction to Tuesday’s Headlines
On Tuesday’s program we reported the International Atomic Energy Agency is accusing Congressional Democrats of drafting a misleading and erroneous report on Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, the IAEA’s criticism has been directed at Congressional Republicans. Last year – on Sept. 12, 2006 -- the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency sent a letter to Republican Congressman, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who at the time chaired the House intelligence committee. The letter claimed Hoekstra’s report on Iran contained serious distortions of the IAEA’s own findings on Iran’s nuclear activity. Democratic Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey did not have a role in drafting the Congressional report and was publicly critical of its findings. We inaccurately described Congressman’s Holt’s role on Tuesday. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject: Iran leader denied on WTC wreath request |
| Iran leader denied on WTC wreath request
By PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site when he comes to New York City next week, but the request was denied, a police official said Wednesday.
Ahmadinejad, who is arriving Sunday to address the United Nations' General Assembly, had asked this month for permission to visit the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, police spokesman Paul Browne said.
The request to enter the fenced-in site was rejected because of ongoing construction there, Browne said.
"Requests for the Iranian president to visit the immediate area would also be opposed by the NYPD on security grounds," Browne said.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters Wednesday that the United States would not support Iran's attempt to use the site for a "photo op."
"Iran can demonstrate its seriousness about concern with regard to terrorism by taking concrete actions," such as dropping support for Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and suspending their uranium enrichment program, Khalilzad said.
Browne said Ahmadinejad had asked permission from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, U.S. Secret Service and police department. The police and the Secret Service provide security to visiting heads of state.
The Port Authority, which owns the trade center site and is the only agency that could grant him permission to go inside, said it never received such a request, contradicting the police statement.
"We have not been asked to accommodate the president of Iran," Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman said.
It wasn't clear whether Ahmadinejad wanted to descend to the base of the trade center site, where the twin towers once stood, or lay a wreath on a public sidewalk outside the site.
Telephone calls to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations were not immediately returned.
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said a visit to ground zero "is a matter for the city of New York, but it seems more than odd that the president of a country that is a state sponsor of terror would visit ground zero."
Iran and the U.S. have not had diplomatic relations since Washington cut its ties with Tehran after Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The Bush administration has accused Iran of arming Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq and seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
In a television appearance earlier this week, Ahmadinejad said his country wanted peace and friendship with the United States, as tensions continued to mount between the two countries. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: Adm. Fallon Presses Case Against Iran |
| Adm. Fallon Presses Case Against Iran
By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
(09-18) 13:11 PDT MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) --
The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is pressing Arab allies to form a more united front against Iran, seen by Washington as the region's long-term threat.
At military compounds and royal reception halls across the Persian Gulf, Adm. William Fallon is delivering personal appeals to Arab leaders to counter Iran's ambitions to expand its regional influence and move ahead with its nuclear program.
Fallon has carefully avoided publicly discussing any war contingency plans or making any direct threats against Iran, which sits in his sphere of operations. As head of U.S. Central Command, he oversees forces in Central Asia, the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.
His current 10-day trip, which began Saturday in Bahrain, was more about seeking to quietly galvanize Gulf leaders while letting others sharply escalate pressure on Tehran. On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.
"We are not looking for a new NATO-type alliance against Iran," Fallon told The Associated Press after talks with Bahrain's defense minister, Sheik Khalifa bin Ahmad Al Khalifa.
But the U.S. wants that "when they (Iran) look to the Gulf, they see a group united in response to Iranian hegemonic behavior," Fallon said.
That's not such a simple task.
Many of the small Gulf nations, including Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, have deep cultural, historical or business ties to Iran and increasingly look to Iran as a crucial source for oil and gas as their own fields begin to dwindle in coming decades. They also worry about angering local Shiite communities with affinity to Shiite heavyweight Iran.
In May, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed by authorities in Dubai — the economic dynamo of the Emirates — to lead a rare anti-American rally a day after a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney aimed at countering Tehran's influence.
Still, strong forces pull Gulf states in Washington's direction.
The Gulf's main power, Saudi Arabia, worries about its regional rival Iran increasing its influence among Shiite Muslims, who form a majority in Iraq and have significant communities among the Sunni-dominated nations of the Gulf.
Washington also has forged close military alliances across the Gulf with about 40,000 U.S. troops on land bases — including Kuwait as a key staging ground for Iraq and an expanding presence in Bahrain as host of the U.S. 5th Fleet headquarters.
"These governments realize that they cannot make an enemy of Iran because they have to live with Iran right across the Gulf. On the other hand, they don't want to harm their ties with the United States, which has many interests in the neighborhood," said Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington. "It's a very difficult spot."
Fallon carries the message that the Gulf states are an important front-line deterrent to Iran, which controls the entire northern coastline of the Gulf and could threaten critical oil tanker routes through the Strait of Hormuz.
Military officials with knowledge of Fallon's meetings also suggested that pressure from Gulf nations could dissuade Iranian naval forces from challenging U.S. and allies watching over Iraqi oil platforms and shipping lanes into Kuwait and Iraq. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
They said small vessels of Iran's Revolutionary Guard — operating independently from the regular Iranian navy — have apparently been increasing patrols just inside Iran's maritime borders near Iraq's tiny Gulf coast. This is the area where 15 British soldiers and marines were seized in March and held for 13 days by Iran, which claimed the Britons strayed into its waters.
The United States and other nations, led by Britain and Australia, currently have more than two dozen ships in the Gulf region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and two amphibious ships with their strike groups.
The Enterprise arrived last month shortly after the departure of two carriers, USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz, which had been in the Gulf since February in a show of force against Iran.
Fallon's predecessor, retired Gen. John Abizaid, said in Washington on Monday that U.S. forces have the power to "deter Iran should it become nuclear."
"We want to send Iran a message that there are no cracks between the U.S. and its allies here," Fallon said.
His views have the ear of some of the top members of the Gulf's royal families.
In Bahrain, Fallon expressed support for a possible $300 million upgrade for the nation's F-16 fleet and met with Crown Prince Sheik Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, who also serves as commander in chief of the nation's military forces.
Fallon was in the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday. Later in the day, he headed to Oman, and his tour will also take him to Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/18/international/i100002D02.DTL | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: U.S. forces seize Iranian in Iraq |
| U.S. forces seize Iranian in Iraq
Officer accused of smuggling bombs for elite Quds force
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:53 a.m. PT Sept 20, 2007
SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq - An Iranian officer accused of smuggling powerful roadside bombs into Iraq for the elite Quds force was arrested Thursday, the military said.
The suspect — a member of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards — was detained in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah, the military said.
He was allegedly involved in transporting roadside bombs, including armor-piercing explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, into Iraq, according to a statement. It said intelligence reports also indicated he was involved in the infiltration and training of foreign fighters in Iraq.
Officials have said the Bush administration is expected to soon blacklist the Quds force as a terrorist organization, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions. The move would be in response to Iranian action in Iraq and elsewhere. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
| Coming nuke attack on Iran or Internet conspiracy theory?:
From lori price:
Minot AFB Clandestine Nukes 'Oddities' -
-By Lori Price, www.legitgov. org
The following section was compiled by 'The Pundit.'
Since the Minot story broke a week ago
about the missing nukeclandestine operation from Minot,
we have the following (for those who are paying attention):
1. All six people listed below are from Minot Airforce base
2. All were directly involved as loaders or as pilots
3. All are now dead
4. All within the last 7 days in 'accidents'
Five links here:
http://www.legitgov .org/minot_ afb_nukes_ oddities. html
Reports of these accidental deaths:
http://www.kfyrtv. com/News_ Stories.asp? news=10465
http://www.shrevepo rttimes.com/ apps/pbcs. dll/article? AID=/20070915/ BREAKINGNEWS/ 70915012
http://www.kxmc. com/News/ 161562.asp
http://www.kxmc. com/getArticle. asp?ArticleId= 140988
http://www.bismarck tribune.com/ articles/ 2007/07/20/ news/state/ 136489.txt
http://www.komotv. com/news/ local/9679367. html
See the latest about the coming war with Iran via Justin Raimondo's articles at www.antiwar.com/justin and access http://www.stopthewarnow.net | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
| U.S. ramps up pressure on Iran, but goal remains elusive
By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy NewspapersWed Sep 19, 10:04 AM ET
WASHINGTON — One year after the United States launched an intensified global economic campaign against Iran with the stated aim of halting Tehran's nuclear work, the Bush administration is counting its successes— and calling for still more pressure.
In recent months, once-reluctant European countries have joined the effort, which some are calling a financial war, with more vigor.
Germany's largest bank, Deutsche Bank AG , said recently that it would stop doing business in Iran . France has trimmed export credits that encourage business in Iran and advised French firms, including the oil and gas giant Total S.A. , not to start new investments there. Even Japan , heavily dependent on Persian Gulf oil, has pulled back from energy projects in Iran .
While hard to quantify, the multi-pronged effort appears to be causing significant pain in Iran , raising the cost of doing business and delaying Tehran's plans to modernize its inefficient oil and gas industry, according to a dozen U.S. officials, Western diplomats and analysts.
In Washington , the drive for financial sanctions has proved a boon to Bush administration aides seeking to head off military operations against Iran , which Vice President Dick Cheney favors.
Whether it will succeed in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions remains to be seen.
"The Treasury has had some success in jaw-boning financial institutions. That has contributed to decisions by several big banks to stop or reduce business in Iran ," said former Treasury official Jeffrey Schott , of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
But, Schott said, "I don't think the level of (international) cooperation or intervention will produce noticeable results— and will not dissuade Iran from its policy objectives."
The U.S. and several European governments see concerted economic pressure as the best hope for a peaceful end to the long-running showdown over Iran's nuclear programs. But Russia and China worry that sanctions are a slippery slope that will lead to war.
Increased sanctions, coupled with an offer of negotiations if Iran suspends uranium enrichment, is the only approach "that can keep us from facing a disastrous alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran ," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said last month.
The financial campaign, led by the Treasury Department and based on executive orders and United Nations sanctions, has taken on new significance even as a U.S.-led drive to impose more draconian U.N. sanctions on Iran has faltered.
Envoys from six nations will meet in Washington on Friday to discuss an already-delayed third U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution. But of the six, China and Russia oppose more punishment for Iran , and Germany is unenthusiastic. The eventual resolution, if any, is expected to be watered-down, Western diplomats say.
The administration expects to impose new unilateral sanctions against the Quds Force, a paramilitary unit that's part of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps , according to a senior U.S. official. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak on the record.
Iran , which is permitted under international law to have a civilian nuclear energy program, says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes. But it has long hidden major aspects of its nuclear program that only recently have come to light.
The six nations meeting in Washington offered in June 2006 to negotiate with Iran over a package of economic, political and security incentives if it would first suspend uranium enrichment.
Neither Iran's spiritual leaders nor President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems ready to negotiate under those terms.
A draft new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concludes that hard-liners increasingly have the upper hand in Tehran , leaving a bleak outlook for deal-making, according to a former U.S. official who has been briefed on the document.
More broadly, nations from Cuba to Myanmar have managed to survive under economic assault, manipulating sanctions to blame outside forces and rally support from their people.
Another obstacle is here at home, where Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces stiff opposition from hard-liners led by Cheney. The Cheney camp argues that diplomacy and pressure are doomed to fail to stop Iran from going nuclear.
Despite the hurdles, the effort to squeeze Iran economically has scored significant gains recently.
Under Sarkozy, France has taken a much harder line with Iran than under his predecessor, Jacques Chirac .
"We have already asked a certain number of our large companies to not respond to (business) tenders, and it is a way of signaling that we are serious," French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Sunday. "We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to."
"Have the Europeans done everything they need to? No they haven't. ... Have they done more in the last year than they have in the last two decades put together? Yes," said Danielle Pletka , a vice president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute .
Said a senior Treasury official: "The trend line is quite good."
Countries of the European Union , Iran's main trading partner, have significantly cooled economic ties since the U.N. Security Council first imposed financial sanctions in December 2006 . Germany and France have both trimmed export credit guarantees.
Iran's state-owned Bank Sepah, which was named in a second Security Council resolution in March, is close to collapse, according to Pletka and Washington -based diplomats.
Yet in some cases, when Western companies and banks move out of Iran , Chinese or other Asian firms simply move in and take the business.
Pletka, however, said Chinese firms can't always provide the same technology, such as sophisticated equipment for Iran's struggling oil fields. "There are areas that the Chinese just cannot backstop," she said.
The financial war began in earnest a year ago, when Treasury Department teams began briefing foreign governments and banks on intelligence the U.S. government had gathered on Iran . Among the findings was that the Central Bank of Iran was trying to conceal its role in financial transactions in which it was involved, a practice on which banks look askance, said the senior Treasury official.
"That's just as suspicious as it sounds," he said.
Treasury blocked another state bank, Bank Saderat, one of Iran's largest, from even indirect access to the U.S. financial system through non-Iranian banks. It alleged that the bank had played a role in financing terrorism.
The Bush administration also pushed European banks to go beyond halting just dollar transactions with Iran . Many major European financial institutions now "don't want to deal with them in any currency," the Treasury official said.
Rice and other officials say the entire effort is aimed at hurting Iran's decision-makers, without punishing the country's population, which is largely pro-Western in outlook and suffers under decades of economic mismanagement. The big question is whether such targeted sanctions will work.
Said Schott: "Is it having an impact? Yeah. But compared to the damage they (the Western countries) are doing to themselves? I don't know."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Sarkozy wants tougher Iran sanctions
By ANGELA CHARLTON, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago
Accusing Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested tougher sanctions against the Mideast nation Thursday over its refusal to suspend nuclear activities.
Sarkozy, who has toughened the French position on Iran since taking office in May, called the possibility of an Iranian bomb "unacceptable."
Sarkozy was expected to discuss sanctions with other world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly next week. Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, meanwhile, was in Washington to meet with senior U.S. officials — and to discuss Iran, among other joint concerns.
If current sanctions are not sufficient, Sarkozy said, "I want stronger sanctions," he said in a televised interview. But he insisted that France does not want to see tensions lead to war.
The United States and other world powers suspect Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists it only wants nuclear technology to produce electricity. Two rounds of U.N. sanctions have failed to end the deadlock.
"It's a very difficult matter, but France does not want war," Sarkozy said. He said negotiations with Iran were still possible.
Sarkozy, known for his frank manner, dispensed with diplomatic niceties when referring to Iran's nuclear activities.
"Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb. I say to the French, 'It's unacceptable,'" Sarkozy said.
"How can we convince (the Iranians) to renounce this project as the international community has convinced North Korea and Libya? Through discussion, dialogue, sanctions," he said.
Sarkozy stepped back slightly from comments by Kouchner on Sunday that the world should "prepare for the worst" in Iran, specifically "war." Amid criticism, Kouchner later softened that, insisting he just wanted to underline the gravity of the Iranian nuclear problem.
"I would not have used the word 'war,'" Sarkozy said Thursday.
"How can we convince (the Iranians) to renounce this project as the international community has convinced North Korea and Libya? Through discussion, dialogue, sanctions," he said.
French officials this week floated plans for European sanctions against Iran beyond existing U.N. measures, which the Foreign Ministry called "insufficient."
Sarkozy's spokesman, David Martinon, said earlier Thursday that France wants European companies to be told not to seek new markets and to reduce their investments in Iran.
Martinon said such measures were being considered because it could take time for the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions.
"They are recommendations which we hope each European Union state would address to their companies which are present or which envisage having a presence in Iran," he said at a news briefing.
Under the proposal, European companies would be asked to "at least not pitch for new markets in Iran," and financial institutions recommended to reduce their investments there, he said.
Kouchner, just before leaving on his first official U.S. visit since his appointment in May, said France has moved on from the 12-year term of former President Jacques Chirac, who was a prominent critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Chirac also pushed for dialogue with Iran.
___
Associated Press writer John Leicester contributed to this report | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
