| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:17 am Post subject: |
| Glasgow Herald: Target Iran -- Parts 1 and 2
Glasgow Herald: Target Iran -- Parts 1 and 2
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1791455.0.target_iran_part_2.php
SundayHerald (Glasgow)
Target Iran part 1
By Trevor Royle, Diplomatic Editor
Will America attack?
AS PRESIDENT George W Bush nears the closing phase of the second term
of his presidency, Iran has been much on his mind. Should he throw
caution to the wind and launch air strikes to destroy the country's
fledgling nuclear facilities or should he follow the route of diplomacy
by exerting pressure of a more subtle kind? The rationale is that it
might be possible to bypass President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and open
lines of communication with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, who is the ultimate authority for the country's foreign and
security policy. According to US intelligence, cracks have opened up
in Iran's complicated political system and the CIA has advised Bush
that there is a window of opportunity for these to be exploited. As
ever in Washington's corridors of power, there have been compelling
arguments on both sides, with the hawks arguing for an immediate attack
and the moderates making a case for a more measured approach which will
not embroil the US in further misadventures in the Middle East.
For the past few months it has seemed vice-president Dick Cheney's
appeals for a massive and effective strike would win the day.
The Pentagon was indirectly involved in last month's Israeli air
strikes on a suspected nuclear cache in northeast Syria, and many saw
this as a dry run for what could happen to Iran's top nuclear plants at
Natanz and Bushehr. Plans had been drawn up for a similar strike - the
US has the wherewithal, using cruise missiles or precision air attacks
using bunker-busting munitions - but these have now been put on the
back burner to give diplomacy a chance.
Instead of ordering a series of pinpoint raids against the two
facilities and against positions held by the Revolutionary Guards, Bush
has decided to follow a new plan which will use the muscle of economic
sanctions and will rely heavily on covert operations within Iran in a
bid to destabilise the administration. This has been accompanied by a
new feeling within the US State Department that the nuclear threat is
secondary and can be contained and that the real danger lies in Iran's
sponsorship of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "For the
time being the president prefers to listen to Secretary Rice and to
sideline Cheney and the neocon right-wing think-tanks who have been
preaching surgical strike," said a US diplomatic source. "I don't
think he wants another Iraq on his hands, he wants to give diplomacy a
chance and to ratchet up the rhetoric. I guess he wants Ahmadinejad to
sweat a little."
The thinking behind the new policy has been engineered largely by the
secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, who has the powerful backing of
Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, the
influential head of US Central Command. Both have cautioned against the
kind of air strikes which were used by the previous administration
against Iraq and Serbia on the back of economic sanctions. This time
round the feeling is that any aggressive act against Iraq would be
countered by massive retaliation in which Iranian-backed terrorist
groups would attack high-value Western targets in the Middle East, such
as oil terminals in the Gulf.
If that happened, say counter-terrorism experts, the results would be
disastrous for the region's and the world's economy. They also counsel
that it is well within the capabilities of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards to mount such attacks. "Insurance costs would skyrocket, causing
oil prices to triple and triggering a global recession," claimed Gary
Sick, a former presidential military adviser. "The economic
consequences would be enormous, far greater than anything we have
experienced with Iraq so far." With that scenario in mind the Bush
administration is putting its faith in a new policy which will target
the 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guard, which is regarded as the
administration's main prop. Not only does it enjoy a special status
from the years of the war with Iraq between 1980 and 1988, when it was
hailed as the nation's guardian, but it has grown to become a sprawling
independent organisation with its own economic and business interests,
which include construction and oil and gas exploration. As US treasury
secretary Hank Paulson put it, the organisation is "so deeply
entrenched in Iran's economy and commercial enterprises that if you're
doing business with Iran, you are doing business with the Guard".
THAT gives it considerable power within the Iranian body politic but,
as an anonymous Iranian economist quoted by one news agency explained,
it also makes it a target: "When you create a big body that does
everything you make yourself vulnerable if that body comes under
pressure." Against that background the Americans will be attempting to
create a "coalition of the willing" similar to the one that was put
together in advance of the 2003 regime change in Iraq. Next month the
US will take its case to the UN in an attempt to prevent the sanctions
being written off as unilateral measures aimed at punishing Iran.
This, though, will not be an easy task. In the Security Council the US
can count only on the support of Britain. China and Russia have already
given notice that they are opposed to sanctions, and President Vladimir
Putin's visit to Tehran earlier this month gave ample notice of where
the Russian leader's sympathies lie. On Friday, during a meeting with
EU leaders in Lisbon, Putin brought home the point that sanctions were
not the answer when he gave a robust response to a question about
Washington's new policy. "To run around like a madman waving a knife is
not the best way forward. Why drive the situation into a dead end?" he
asked. To further complicate matters, it is also possible that Italy
and Germany will oppose the move. Both enjoy long-standing trade links
with Iran and fear these could be lost to Russia, which has already
been involved in constructing the Bushehr facility.
However, it will be the stance taken by Moscow and Beijing that will
give Secretary Rice most pause for thought. China is the world's
biggest investor in Iran and Russia is responsible for providing Iran
with its nuclear technology. This led Nicholas Burns, US
under-secretary of state, to say Russia should stop selling weapons to
Iran and China should stop investing in the state. "They China are now
the number one trade partner with Iran," he said in an interview with
the BBC. "It's very difficult for countries to say we're striking out
on our own when they've got their own policies on the military side,
aiding and abetting the Iranian government in strengthening its own
military." Recent experience does not offer much hope, to Burns's
thinking. Sanctions alone did not bring down Slobodan Milosevic in
Serbia or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both were eventually toppled by the
use of force - the shock and awe of bombing raids followed by the
deployment of ground forces. As things stand that option is not being
considered. Neither, though, does it fully address the rhetorical
question put by a US diplomatic source last night: "If all else fails,
what then?"
Glasgow Herald
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1791455.0.target_iran_part_2.php
Target Iran part 2
By James Cusick, Westminster Editor
Will America attack? .... And what would gordon brown do then?
IN WASHINGTON
in July 2002, Jack Straw, then the foreign secretary, and Lord
Goldsmith, then the attorney-general, were both reminded by US
officials that Tony Blair had promised President George W Bush that the
UK would support US military action in Iraq. To deliver on his promise,
Blair ideally wanted an "international coalition" to be put together,
and the United Nations given more time to carry out checks on Iraq's
claimed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Straw and Goldsmith were
told military action had become inevitable because Washington was
convinced of the link between Iraq's WMD and terrorism.
Last week the US again resorted to the same language linking WMD and
terrorism. There have so far been no promises from Gordon Brown, but
the prime minister, often seen as hesitant - or worse, invisible - when
it comes to foreign policy crises, may soon have to decide how far he
can support US efforts to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Time may appear to be on Brown's side. Inside the US intelligence
community, the widespread assumption is that Iran is perhaps five years
away from building a usable nuclear bomb. Within that time-frame the PM
has reason to remain confident that the best weapon to unleash against
Iran is his favourite - the force of economics. Although Brown agrees
with the US assessment that the world is at risk from Iran's nuclear
programme, he has faith that sanctions, beefed up and internationally
enforced, can be effective.
In his Downing Street meeting last week with the Israeli prime
minister, Ehud Olmert, Brown said: "We are absolutely clear that we are
ready and will push for further sanctions against Iran."
Olmert offered only a qualified approval of Brown's faith in economics.
"Economics sanctions are effective. But they are not sufficient. So
there should be more," he said.
But more of what? The new sanctions imposed by the US last week point
to a hiking up of pressure on the UN Security Council to agree further
sanctions against Iran. The Security Council will discuss the issue
next month. But in further parallels with the run-in to the war in
Iraq, there is no immediate consensus of opinion, with Russia and China
both accused by the US of aiding and ... | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
| http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/27/wbomb127.xml
We must bomb Iran, says US Republican guru
By Toby Harnden in New York
Last Updated: 2:14am BST 27/10/2007
A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.
Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks
Analysis: Iran and US in political flux
US elections coverage in full
The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.
Podhoretz is a founder of neoconservatism
"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.
"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful.
"People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set it back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions."
Although Mr Podhoretz said he did not speak for Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor whom he briefs daily appears to have embraced at least the logic of his hard-line views.
During a visit to London last month, Mr Giuliani said Iran should be given "an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years".
Mr Podhoretz said: "I was very pleased to see him say that. I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow ... I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out and say we have to bomb - it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign."
advertisementBut Mr Podhoretz’s 77 years and his position as a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual means he can not only think the unthinkable but say the unsayable.
"My role has simply been to say what I think," he said, explaining that he takes part in weekly conference calls and is in daily email contact with the Giuliani campaign.
He is the most eminent of a clutch of uncompromisingly hawkish aides assembled by Mr Giuliani. They include Daniel Pipes, who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should "inspire fear, not affection", and Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who has argued that Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is "dangerous" and signals American "weakness" to Teheran.
"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."
Mr Podhoretz’s thesis is that the war on terror is in fact World War Four and that the 42-year-long Cold War should be more properly described as World War Three.
Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, by President George W. Bush in 2004, Mr Podhoretz later sought a rare one-on-on audience with the US commander-in-chief. They met in New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel in the spring.
The author of the recent World War IV: the Long Struggle Against Islamofacsism spent about 35 minutes outlining his case for air strikes against Iran as Mr Bush’s then chief adviser Karl Rove took notes.
"Whether I had any effect on him I truly don’t know but I sure tried my best to persuade him," he said.
"He was very cordial. He was warm. He listened. He occasionally asked a question as I made the case but he was truly poker faced."
Mr Podhoretz left the meeting unshaken in his belief that Mr Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office.
"The spirit of the questions was not to try to refute or contradict what I was saying. I didn’t get any negative vibes."
He said that now "the debate [over Iran] is secretly over and the people who are against military action are now preparing to make the case that we can live with an Iranian bomb".
Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Giuliani, however, would countenance Teheran acquiring a nuclear weapon and either one would authorise military action once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programme.
"Unlike a ground invasion where you’ve got to mass hundreds of thousands of troops, it takes six months and everybody knows you’re mobilising, with air strikes, we’ve got three carriers in the region and a lot of submarines," Mr Podhoretz said.
"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be sure to read the 'Thinking about (Jewish) Neoconservatism' article which is linked near the top of the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/neoconservatism-as-a-jewish-movement.php | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:48 am Post subject: |
| Iran: The Road to Armageddon?
www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7193
By Felicity Arbuthnot
Global Research, October 27, 2007
Global Research and the UN Observer
Reminder to the crusading Armageddonists ..... “Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20: 13
.
They are at it again. Remember when Milosovic was labelled “the butcher of Belgrade”, the new Hitler?
Then Saddam Hussein was “the butcher of Bagdad” and, of course the most dangerous man since Hitler - with weapons of mass destruction which could be unleashed on the world “in forty five minutes”.
Colin Powell lied to the U.N., about the danger Iraq posed to the planet; George Bush lied to anyone who would listen; Tony Blair lied to Parliament and aides concocted dossiers so dodgy they were laughable, yet in spite of the millions who marched, protested and knew the lies for what they were, there were millions who bought fiction as fact.
And here we go again. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (wait for “the tyrant of Tehran”) threatens the planet, is supplying weapons to Iraq's resistance, is destabilising the region and the paradise that is occupied Iraq.
Whilst there are indeed plenty of Iranians or Iranian sympathisers in Iraq, they came in with the occupiers. Many in high places in Iraq's corrupt, militia driven, American puppet government, speak Farsi, not Arabic.
The increasingly hysterical claims regarding Iran, the latest threat to life as we know it, is being brought to you by the very same warmongers who wrought the duplicity that resulted in Iraq's murderous decimation, the hawks' nest which is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and their friends.
A glance at the AEI website lists those including:
Paul Wolfowitz (“entrepreneurship and development”),
Michael Rubin (“Arab democracy”),
Richard Perle (“defence ...intelligence”),
Joshua Muravchik (“global democracy”),
John Bolton (“foreign policy”),
Lynne Cheney, whose husband, as ever, is believed a driving force behind the attack plan (“culture and education”),
Michael Ledeen (latest book: “The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots Quest for Destruction”),
Daniell Pletka (“Vice President for foreign and defence policy studies”) who, writing in the “Wall Street Journal” (28th September 2007) referred to Iran's “illegal nuclear weapons ... Washington's impotence” and “clear information of a link to a weapons of mass destruction programme”. This in spite of the International Atomic Energy Authority finding no indication of such programmes.
It all sounds chillingly familiar.
Interestingly, an item on the Institute's list of “Research Projects” is “Global Investment in Iran”. Surely a matter for Iran - or does the AEI already regard Iran's oil fields and assets as their fiscal frolic zone?
Orchestration is continuing apace:
“Even as we are succeeding in Iraq” (really?) “Iran is working against us ... we will not achieve peace in the region if we ignore this threat”, writes Ledeen. Further, there are clear plans to liberate Iran's women, Afghan style: “Since 1979, Iran has changed from a society where women could attend university and have careers, to one where they are second class citizens ... sold as slaves ...”. writes Diana Furchgott-Roth in the New York Sun (14th September 2007.)
There must be two Irans: “Literacy is well over ninety percent, even in the rural areas and in 2005, more than sixty five percent of students entering university were women. The voices that come through most strongly on the Iranian blogosphere are those of this educated, young generation.” Over sixty five percent of this country of seventy million are under thirty years old.
“I feel cold when I think about a possible war against my homeland”, wrote one blogger: “My picture of war hasn't come from Hollywood movies, I have seen the pain, the kids tears, bloody streets ...” In a picture showing a meeting of the Tehran Photographers Association, the venue is packed with vibrantly dressed women - and one man. (See : Inside Iran, New Internationalist, March 2007: www.newint.org )
Iran is not perfect, but where is? Britain's Prime Minister Brown "refuses to rule out" joining the US military intervention - to decimate for “democracy” and plunder resources. According to the Sunday Telegraph (1st October 2007), a dossier is being drawn up on Iran's violations of International Law, as with Iraq. “Violations of International Law”? Two countries, Britain and America have not alone violated, but torn up International Law. Yet again, who guards the guards?
Can a nation, which even invaded Grenada (which has no armed forces, main exports: bananas, nutmeg, mace; a war for nutmegs?) in 1983, totalling a psychiatric hospital (24th anniversary, 25th October) population 94.103 (1994) v. United States, population 260.713.000 (1994) because it was a “threat”, be trusted?
But the war drums are beating: “WE MUST bomb Iran”, is the header for Josua Muravchik's Los Angeles Times article (19th June 2007.)
He begins with quotes straight from the Pentagon's Iraq propaganda handbook: “...since the country's secret nuclear programme was brought to light ... the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.” Tehran has “spurned” a “string of concessions”; the UN Security Council was derelict in its duty toward the Iranian threat.
The completion of Iran's nuclear arsenal grows closer daily, this “premier state sponsor of terrorism” could “slip nuclear material to terrorists”. The bomb Iran doesn't have, would, of course “constitute a dire threat to Israel's six million population”. No mention of Israel being the fifth largest nuclear power on earth, without a blink towards the non-proliferation treaty, or indeed even an admission of having such weapons.
However Iran's non-weapons: “would spend finis to the entire non-proliferation system”. The “...global struggle” with Iran is “akin” to the forty year one with the Soviet Union and - wait for it – “a clash of civlisations”.
“The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force ... by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets.... What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy ...'” is Murachik's conclusion. “Deja vu, all over again.”
Not mentioned, anywhere, in the demented rhetoric regarding an attack on Iran, is the “A” word: Armageddon. “Likely targets for saturation bombing” (that look likely to involve tactical nuclear weapons) “are the Bushehr nuclear power plant” (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present) “a uranium mining site at Saghand” (near a major city, Yazd) “the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility at Arak, the Arkedan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Enrichment Facility and Nuclear Technology Centre in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Cnetree, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility .... a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant at Lashkar Abad and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak”.(Wayne Madsen: http://www.entimesreport.com/Attack_on_Iran.html )
These were facilities, many begun after the US/UK overthrow of Iran's democratically elected, democratic Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, after he had nationalised the country's oil. The coup was engineered by the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore. General Norman Schwartzkopf's father then travelled to Iran, to help train Savak, the murderous, ruthless, secret police of America's friend, the Shah.
However, modern history aside, forget global warming.
Consider the enormity of the seemingly proposed attack, apart from the unimaginable horror of those fried and irradiated in the immediate vicinity and surrounding countries (including “allied”, troops throughout the region.).
This is a succinct description of what the explosion of just one nuclear power plant generated, Chernobyl, in 1986: “Irradiated human cells splinter into fragments called micronuclei ... a definitive pre-cursor of cancer. During the nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl, the ...radiation released was the equivalent of four hundred atomic bombs ... Exposed Russians quickly developed blood cell micronuclei ...” (The Radiation Poisoning of America, Amy Worthington, 9th October 2007: http://www.globalresearch.ca )
The plight of the children and the Chernobyl region's cancers twenty one years on, have become an ongoing, tragic, global health study, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the residents of the Pacific islands, after the British and French nuclear tests. Chernobyl's radiation traversed the globe within days. In the highlands of the U.K., Wales and Cumbria, livestock straying in affected areas are still inedible and unsaleable. Chernobyl was doused from the air with fire retardant, by crews, which, in spite of protection by heavily leaded cockpit floors, reportedly, not one has survived the ravaging resultant cancers. If Chernobyl was four hundred atomic bombs, see the above list and do the maths. Don't forget to add the “coalition's” democratic nuclear weapons dropped on them.
Norman Podhoretz, one of the founding fathers of neo-conservatism in the United States, is gung-ho, another one reportedly urging Bush to bomb Iran. He told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You are the only one with the guts to do it.”(Sunday Times, 1st October 2007.) A holocaust by any other name ...
Mohammad Mossadegh and Saddam Hussein made fatal mistakes. They nationalised their countries' oil. Saddam Hussein finally tied the noose around his neck, when he switched Iraq's oil revenues out of US Dollars and into Euros in 2000.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also vowed to switch from US Dollars and move to a currency “further east”.
As Iraq, is this really about a nuclear threat?
Will the millions who believed the last great lie, be fooled again? If they are not, will it make any difference, in the illegal space the US and UK Administrations inhabit?
On the ground in the Middle East (or in this case on the water) it seems not. Here is a communication from a Landing Signals Officer* (an LSO directs carrier aircraft whilst landing) on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most strategically vital oil routes, which is controlled by Iran.
The LSO is convinced Iran will be attacked, commenting that “... all Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished (meaning) all targets have been chosen, prioritized and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers ...” Further, the LSO comments, there is deep disquiet amongst senior officers about “staging a massive attack on Iran”. However, “I have seen more than one senior Commander disappear ...”; it's weird, because everyone who has “disappeared” has questioned this mission.
How limited would the attack be?
“I don't think it's limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every Tomahawk, we have an inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden (with) thousands of targets. I believe no American will know when it happens, until after it happens.”The LSO ponders that discussing a secret attack is “treason” but is so concerned “something tells me to tell it anyway.”
“Yes, we are going to hit Iran big time. Whatever political discussion that is going on is window dressing ... a red herring. I see what's going on here below deck, in the hangers and weapons bay - and I have a sick feeling about how it is going to turn out.'”
Would the US Administration really endanger the entire planet?
Here is a story told to me by Bernard Lown, one of co-founders of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) during the Reagan era. http://www.ippnw.org Lown worked closely with another eminent fellow cardiac surgeon, the (then) USSR's Yevgeny Chazov. Since physicians know no borders, they had formed a friendship, then a movement, which bridged the cold war, the Reagan “Evil Empire” (re. the Soviet Union) nonsense and within two years, had doctors and surgeons from eighty two countries spreading the word, that even cardiac arrest paled against nuclear war.
In 1995, IPPNW collectively won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Since Lown travelled, lecturing, to the USSR frequently and had built trust over many years at all levels, the US State Department asked if he would engage in some unofficial diplomacy. Relations between the two countries were far worse than most realised. After one such visit to Moscow, I met Lown in Paris. We sat in dappled Spring sun, at a pavement breakfast café - fresh squeezed orange, coffee, croissants.
“I came back two days ago and went to talk (at the State Department) of the concerns in Moscow. Afterwards, a senior official - a household name (he declined to divulge) walked me to the exit. As we neared the exit, he put his arm round my shoulders:
'Don't worry, Professor Lown, if there is a nuclear war, we will be the first ones to rise up and meet Jesus in the sky.'” Lown, used to the vagaries of the unwell, responded: “Tell me, does anyone else in this building feel as you do?”
“Oh yes, many of us do.”
The swathe of “household names”, from the Reagan era, are now in the Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute.
The Armageddonists are back.
The world should be very afraid - or should the physicians in white coats move in?
Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist and activist who has visited the Arab and Muslim world on numerous occasions. She has written and broadcast on Iraq, her coverage of which was nominated for several awards. She was also senior researcher for John Pilger's award-winning documentary,
"Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq". http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partID=4
and author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of “Baghdad” in the “Great Cities” series, for World Almanac Books (2006.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note
*Regarding the LSO, this came from a second, but highly trusted source, who for obvious reasons, would not divulge the name or further details of the LSO.
Please also see:
Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html
Religious Extremists in America (Christian Zionists)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_UoHfCUBiEM
Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=220960
Military Religious Freedom Foundation http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org
Al-Bushra http://www.al-bushra.org
Christians be aware!
http://www.nwo101.com/2007/10/christians-be-aware.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: ElBaradei says he has no evidence Tehran is developing nukes |
| U.N. concerned about anti-Iran rhetoric
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516968/
ElBaradei says he has no evidence Tehran is developing nuclear weapons
The Associated Press
Updated: 2:32 p.m. PT Oct 28, 2007
WASHINGTON - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.
"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.
"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran this month of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program. She said there is no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the IAEA about its intentions.
Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if Iran were found to be working toward developing a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration announced harsh penalties against the Iranian military and state-owned banking systems in hopes of raising pressure on the world financial system to cut ties with Tehran.
‘We cannot add fuel to the fire’
ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.
"I'm very much concerned about confrontation, building confrontation, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and inspection," he said.
"My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire," ElBaradei added.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed that the current "hot rhetoric" from the U.S. could prove dangerous.
"We ought to make it clear that there's always a military option if Iran goes nuclear, but that we ought to just speak more softly because these hot words that are coming out of the administration, this hot rhetoric plays right into the hands of the fanatics in Iran," said Levin, D-Mich.
‘We're sending mixed signals’
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said strong action might be needed because he does not believe the United Nations adequately has kept Iran in check.
"I think the United Nations' efforts to sanction Iran have been pitiful because of Russia and China vetoing a resolution. The European Union has some sanctions. They're fairly weak."
"So in this regard, I agree with the following, that the diplomatic efforts to control Iran need to continue. They need to be more robust but we're sending mixed signals," Graham said.
ElBaradei spoke on CNN's "Late Edition," and Levin and Graham appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation."
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516968/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ElBaradei: Military Strike On Iran ‘Would Lead Absolutely To Disaster’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/28/baradei-iran-disaster/
Prior to the Iraq war, International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei warned there was “no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.” He was subsequently smeared by the administration, but ultimately vindicated as the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize for getting it right.
Today on CNN, ElBaradei sounded alarms about the Bush administration’s increasingly hawkish rhetoric in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. “We have the time” to use diplomacy, ElBaradei urged. There is “no military solution” with Iran:
I very much have concern about confrontation, building confrontation, Wolf, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiations and inspections. … My fear if that we continue to escalate from both sides from both sides that we would end up into a precipice, we would end up into an abyss.
Watch it:
ElBaradei poured water over Vice President Cheney’s confident declaration last week that “Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this.” While ElBaradei did not rule out Iran having an “intent” to obtain nuclear weapons, he explained that there is no evidence that Iran is currently pursuing such a program right now:
I have not received any information that there is a concrete, active nuclear weapon program going on right now. … We have information that there have been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran right now. … But have we seen having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns.
ElBaradei also urged the U.S. to halt its fiery rhetoric and directly engage Iran in talks: “The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody.”
Filed under: Iran
Posted by Satyam October 28, 2007 3:00 pm
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:48 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
| Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1792035.0.0.php
The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military sources.
The improvement of the B2 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft.
That would allow them to carry experimental 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete.
One MOP - known as Big Blu - has already been tested successfully at the US Air Force proving ground at White Sands in New Mexico. Tenders have now gone out for a production model to be ready for use in the next nine months.
The "static tunnel lethality test" on March 14 completely destroyed a mock-up of the kind of underground facility used to house Iran's nuclear centrifuge arrays at Natanz, about 150 miles from the capital, Tehran.
Although intelligence estimates vary as to when Iran will achieve the know-how for a bomb, the French government recently received a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran will be ready to run almost 3000 centrifuges in 18 cascades by the end of this month. That is in defiance of a UN ban on uranium enrichment and would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon within a year.
Diego Garcia, part of Britain's Indian Ocean Territory, has several current missions. US Air Force bombers and Awacs surveillance planes operate from its 12,000ft runway and the USAF Space Command has built a satellite tracking station and communications facility.
The Ministry of Defence says the US government would need Britain's permission to use the island for offensive action. It has already been used for strategic strike missions during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars against Iraq.
The UK "sovereign territory" has a garrison of 50 British and 3200 US military personnel.
The atoll, the largest in the Chagos Archipelago chain, lies about 1000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka. It is ideally placed for strategic missions in the Middle East.
The US Department of Defence request for special bomb racks was hidden in a £95bn request to the US Congress last week for extra emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The new Big Blu bomb is 20ft long, weighs 30,000lb and carries 6000lb of high explosives. It is designed to go deeper than even existing nuclear bunker-busting weapons.
The bomb is designed to be dropped from as great a height as possible to achieve maximum velocity and penetrating power, guided on to target by satellite and accurate to within a few feet.
Each B2 bomber would be able to carry only one weapon because of its weight. The B2s, normally based at Barksdale, Missouri, flew round-trip strikes against Baghdad in 2003, but would ideally be positioned closer to its targets for missions against Iran.
The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for a range of attacks on Iran. The likeliest is a five-day bombardment, aiming to disable nuclear facilities and all major airbases and radar facilities; the most devastating would involve air and cruise missile attacks on 1000 targets, including headquarters and barracks of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, over more than a month.
The US branded the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation last week in the latest round of diplomatic sanctions against Tehran.
12:16am today
By IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent
Back
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071028/COMMENTARY/110280008/1012/commentary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogowar in the blogosphere
October 28, 2007
Arnaud de Borchgrave - Journalism of verification in the blogosphere has been displaced by a journalism of assertion where rumors become facts and facts are censored by omission. Hardly surprising then that 200 million Americans, two-thirds of the population, concede they don't understand foreign policy issues. And only one third say they understand major domestic issues.
Jay Leno's jaywalking interviews confirm these higher and lower percentages. With 80 million blogs and more than 1 billion people now online, it becomes increasingly difficult to sort factoid from fact and truth from untruth.
Today, all you need to become an online know-it-all is a Web site, a blog and an attitude. Creative reporting is the new genre. And you achieve instant mass readership by turning your darkest suspicions into reality.
No wonder newspapers are losing readers and advertising revenue — and shedding domestic and foreign bureaus. Newspapers are dull next to the fantasy lucubrations dished out as hard news, or an unconfirmed front-page report next to the hard "fact" moving through the blogosphere courtesy of electronic tools that ensure mass diffusion.
A conservative journalist, speaking at a think tank meeting, said he hoped President Bush would order the bombing of Iran in his last few days at the White House in January 2009. Iranian retaliation? "The Iranians are already attacking us in Iraq ," he responded matter-of-factly. The bombs-away-over-Iran advocates are unfazed by Iran 's retaliatory capabilities. They dismiss a wider conflict, much the way the way they portrayed a cakewalk in Iraq .
But "What World War III May Look Like" is already a cyber favorite. Picture a minor incident involving a U.S. Marine patrol operating out of the new base at Badrah on the Iranian border, posits former CIA operative Philip Giraldi.
Superior Iranian forces claim the Americans strayed inside Iranian territory, and surround the Marines. They refuse to surrender and open fire. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards (which the Senate branded an "international terrorist group") return fire. Helicopter gunships are called in and artillery fire is directed at Iranian military targets. Mr. Bush calls it an act of war and, in an emotional speech to the nation, orders U.S. forces into action."
The rest of the scenario has a plausible ring. The U.N. Security Council votes 17-1 ( U.S. veto) urging restraint. In the U.N. General Assembly, only the United States., Israel, Micronesia and Costa Rica support Mr. Bush's decision.
Overwhelming U.S. air and naval superiority destroy Iran 's principal air, naval and army bases. Revolutionary Guard facilities are obliterated, as are known nuclear research and development sites. Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons destroy communications centers and command and control facilities. But there are still large numbers of civilian casualties and widespread radioactive contamination as many targeted sites are in or near population centers.
The U.S. media, which had (by and large) backed the administration's plans to engage Iran , rallies round the flag, praising the surgical strikes designed to cripple Iran 's nuclear weapons program.
No sooner do the Pentagon and the White House call the attacks a complete success than Iran strikes back. With five years to prepare, Iran has hidden and hardened many military and nuclear facilities. A large percentage of them are undamaged.
The aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower operating in the Gulf is hit by a Chinese Silkworm cruise missile. Three other support vessels are also hit and are severely damaged when attacked by small craft manned by suicide bombers. Pro-Iranian riots break out in Beirut . Lebanese soldiers open fire at the crowds. In the south of Lebanon , Hezbollah fires salvoes of rockets into Israel . The Israeli Air Force responds by bombing Lebanon and Syria . Iranian Shahab-3 missiles also strike Israel , killing a number of civilians. The Israeli Defense Force is mobilized. Syria and Lebanon also mobilize.
Baghdad rioters attack U.S. troops. Insurgency mortar shells hit the U.S. Embassy. Snipers attack U.S. soldiers all over Iraq . Shi'ite oil workers sabotage Saudi Arabia 's eastern oil fields. Hundreds of alleged saboteurs are shot dead by Saudi security forces. An oil tanker hits a mine in the Strait of Hormuz . Oil tops $200 a barrel. Wall Street suffers its biggest loss in 20 years. The Dow plummets more than 800 points.
The U.S. offers Iran a cease-fire. Iran rejects it. Tehran orders the assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Pakistan 's Pervez Musharraf flees to Dubai . Pakistan 's tribal areas that shelter Osama bin Laden declare their independence. U.S. troops fight their way out of Baghdad with heavy casualties. Rioters in Basra cut the main roads to Kuwait that supply U.S. forces.
And it's downhill from there. Anti-U.S. Pakistani forces seize control of Pakistan 's nuclear arsenal. NATO's European forces in Afghanistan disengage from what they say is now a civil war. Taliban reconquers Kabul . The Shia Afghan north and Mazar-I-Sharif secedes to join Iran . Waves of Iranian troops cross into Iraq where they are greeted by Iraqi militias. Shi'ite clerics take over the government in Baghdad . U.S. troops fight their way back into their bases.
A Hezbollah-led coalition takes over in Beirut . Iranian Silkworm missiles set Saudi's eastern oil fields ablaze. The Saudi monarchy declares its neutrality and pledges not to assist the U.S. Kuwait and Egypt follow suit.
In Bahrain, rampaging Shi'ite crowds depose "King" Sheik Khalifa, establish an Islamic Republic and demand the U.S. 5th Fleet dismantle its headquarters and go home. The Dow Jones loses another 1,000 points.
China and Russia refuse U.S. requests for mediation. Suicide bombers attack London , Washington , New York and Los Angeles . The attacks are poorly planned and produce few casualties, but panic sets in. The White House tells Iran 's theocracy to cease and desist or nukes will be used on select targets. Tehran refuses.
Israel is shelled from Lebanon and Syria . Rioting rocks the West Bank and Gaza . Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas flees to Cairo . The U.S. drops a neutron-type bomb on Iran 's nuclear center at Natanz, already bombed and destroyed.
Defiant Iran fires volleys of Silkworms at U.S. ships. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistan 's religious extremists, backed by radical elements in the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, occupy parliament. India launches a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan 's suspected nuclear centers. But the nukes are elsewhere and Pakistan strikes back — bombing New Delhi .
At this point, World War III is under way — or World War IV, as the neoconservatives now call what we're already in against al Qaeda. World War III, for them, was the Cold War.
Those hoping Mr. Bush will bomb Iran 's nuclear facilities before he leaves office should think again.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:27 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: US: Iran seeks nuclear weapons |
| US: Iran seeks nuclear weapons
AFP - 2 hours 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) - - The White House warned Monday that there was no doubt that Iran seeks atomic weapons, rebuffing the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency after he said there was no evidence for such a charge.
"This is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon," spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters.
Uranium enrichment and reprocessing produces fuel for nuclear reactors, but can also be a key step to creating the core of an atomic bomb. Iran says it wants a civilian energy program, not an atomic arsenal.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN atomic watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with their bellicose rhetoric.
Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they will never suspend enrichment, in flagrant defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to suspend the process.
"We have put on the table for Iran a path for them to get a civil nuclear program. And all they have to do to get there is to suspend its enrichment of reprocessing of uranium and they can come to the table and we can have a further discussion," said Perino.
"It's the Iranians who have decided not to be at that table," she said.
The United States has sharply escalated its rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, while slapping a new set of sanctions on its Revolutionary Guards, accused of spreading weapons of mass destruction, and its elite Quds Force, which was designated as a supporter of terrorism.
"Iran is the largest national security challenge we have in regards to nuclear weapons today," said Perino, who contrasted Tehran's approach to North Korea's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
"We are in discussions with North Korea, through the six-party talks, and that is because North Korea agreed to give up its weapons and make a full declaration of activities that they've been pursuing," she said.
She was referring to negotiations grouping China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea and the United States, and a deal offering Pyongyang economic and diplomatic rewards if it gives up it nuclear weapons program.
"Iran could have the same option, but they've chosen not to," the spokeswoman said. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
| GOP Senator: Bush 'dead right' about 'World War III' with Iran
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/GOP_Senator_Bush_dead_right_about_1028.html
Nick Langewis and David Edwards
Published: Sunday October 28, 2007
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appear on CBS' Face the Nation to discuss the Bush Administration's posturing against Iran, and whether or not "World War III" is imminent, given increasing rhetoric among the Administration and the news media alike.
Levin and Graham both see Iran as a danger, and both in one way or another support the "military option" to address it. Levin seeks a more diplomatic approach with a secondary "military option" in light of recent sanctions, and insists that the zeal with which the Administration props up Iran as a threat will only serve to strengthen the "fanatics" that will present themselves as martyrs in the public eye.
Graham calls for the United States to be aggressive in seeking to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Graham insists that "time is not on our side" against a regime that has openly expressed what he says is a desire to "destroy Israel," and that he says seeks to enrich uranium for weapons purposes rather than simply adopt nuclear power.
Video and transcript of the exchange can be viewed below, as broadcast on CBS' Face the Nation on October 28, 2007.
#
TRANSCRIPT:
MR. SCHIEFFER: ....Joining us now from Marquette, Michigan, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin. And with us from Greenville, South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham.
Gentlemen, welcome to both of you.
Obviously, no news to you that last week the Bush administration levied sweeping new sanctions against the Revolutionary Guard in Iran and Iranian banks in an effort to pressure Iran to change its policy about trying to develop a nuclear weapon. I guess the question that a lot of people are asking -- and I'll start with you, Senator Levin -- does this mean we're headed toward war with Iran if these sanctions don't work?
SEN. LEVIN: Well, I hope not. I think the sanctions are the right way to go, a lot of diplomatic pressure, a lot of economic pressure. Most importantly, keep the world together against Iran. Right now we've got most of the world, I think just about every country, that does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. It's in no one's interest that they have it. And I think most countries, including Russia as well as Israel, obviously, but other countries in the region are not going to stand by and just simply watch if Iran gets to the point where they actually are getting to a nuclear weapon.
And so my belief is that we ought to dial-down the rhetoric. We ought to make it clear that there's always a military option if Iran goes nuclear but that we ought to just speak more softly. Because these hot words coming out of the administration, this hot rhetoric plays right into the hands of the fanatics in Iran. They like to be called an evil empire. These fanatics love to have that weapon in their hands that the West is beating up on them and threatening them. So we should speak more softly, carry a big stick as Teddy Roosevelt said.
MR. SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator, you say that nobody is just standing by including Russia, but President Putin of Russia seems to be standing by. He doesn't seem to want any part of these sanctions. And if you take what he says in public at face value, he seems to be saying that Russia could live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
SEN. LEVIN: Well, I've not spoken with Putin, but I've spoken with the Russian defense minister, and I think also the Russian willingness to support sanctions and enforce the sanctions which have been adopted is an important indicator. They're not going to go quite as far as we would, because they're playing a little bit of politics, too, with Iran. But I think it is clear, and our intelligence community thinks it is very clear that Russia will not stand by while Iran has a nuclear weapon, particularly if there is any likelihood that they could threaten its use.
MR. SCHIEFFER: Well, do you agree with that, Senator Graham?
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I have a little different take. I think Russia's sending all the wrong signals to Iran. When the Russian president goes to Iran and does a news conference with the Iranian president, embraces him, calls for other nations not to consider attacking Iran, it sends the wrong signal. I think the United Nations' efforts to sanction Iran have been pitiful because of Russia and China vetoing a resolution. The European Union has some sanctions. They are fairly weak. We're having stronger sanctions, but they're unilateral. So in this regard, I agree with the following that the diplomatic efforts to control Iran need to continue. They need to be more robust, but we're sending mixed signals. The U.N. is becoming ineffective when it comes to regulating rogue regimes. And Russia is sending all the wrong signals, as far as I'm concerned, so I understand why the president had to do what he did unilaterally.
MR. SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, let's listen to something that the president said last week.
You talked about some tough rhetoric, Senator Levin. Here's one of the things the president said.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: (From videotape.) We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
MR. SCHIEFFER: So, Senator Graham, is he overstating the case there? Are we heading toward World War III? I think that's what people want to hear -- I mean, they want to know. That's what they want to know the answer to here.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I think the president is dead right that the Iranian president has told the world that he desires to destroy the state of Israel. I don't think they're making any bones about they're trying to develop a nuclear weapon program not peaceful nuclear power. So I'm taking the Iranian president at his word. Their actions speak louder than anything else. They're clearly going down the uranium enrichment road that would lead to weapons material not peaceful nuclear power. So I think the president is justified in trying to wake up the world, wake up Russia, wake up the United Nations, the European Union to do something about this. If everybody likes Israel and loves Israel, as we all say we do, we need to be more aggressive. We don't need to talk softly. We need to act boldly, because time is not on our side.
MR. SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Levin, what if these sanctions don't work? Is it fair to start talking about some sort of a strike against Iran? And if so, what kind of a strike would that be?
SEN. LEVIN: It's important we keep a military option on the table. But it is also important that we not play right into the hands of the same fanatic who threatens Israel by talking about attacking Iran so much. What we've got to do is let Iran know and let the world know that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I agree with what Lindsey has said. That is Iran's goal. By the way, when the president says that we're not going to tolerate them having the knowledge, that is too far, that is an overstatement. I don't think we can stop them from having the knowledge. What we've got to stop them from doing is acquiring a nuclear weapon.
It's important that we do that, and there's two ways to do it. One is to unite the world, to have very strong sanctions, to keep tightening that rope around Iran to make sure that they don't get to where they want to go, to do everything possible to avoid it. But not just give Iran the propaganda weapon. Don't give them the can of gasoline that they want to pour onto the fire. Don't give them the weapon that they use against us that we're trying to bully them, we're trying to dominate them. And that's what this hot rhetoric does when it's just constantly repeated about World War III or that we're going to use a military option. Vice President Cheney just goes way too far. The president went too far this week.
MR. SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think the president ought to tell Vice President Cheney to kind of tone down what he's been saying here?
SEN. LEVIN: Well, lots of luck.
# | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
| ElBaradei: Military Strike On Iran ‘Would Lead Absolutely To Disaster’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/28/baradei-iran-disaster/
Prior to the Iraq war, International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei warned there was “no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.” He was subsequently smeared by the administration, but ultimately vindicated as the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize for getting it right.
Today on CNN, ElBaradei sounded alarms about the Bush administration’s increasingly hawkish rhetoric in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. “We have the time” to use diplomacy, ElBaradei urged. There is “no military solution” with Iran:
I very much have concern about confrontation, building confrontation, Wolf, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiations and inspections. … My fear if that we continue to escalate from both sides from both sides that we would end up into a precipice, we would end up into an abyss.
Watch it:
ElBaradei poured water over Vice President Cheney’s confident declaration last week that “Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this.” While ElBaradei did not rule out Iran having an “intent” to obtain nuclear weapons, he explained that there is no evidence that Iran is currently pursuing such a program right now:
I have not received any information that there is a concrete, active nuclear weapon program going on right now. … We have information that there have been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran right now. … But have we seen having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns.
ElBaradei also urged the U.S. to halt its fiery rhetoric and directly engage Iran in talks: “The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody.”
Filed under: Iran
Posted by Satyam October 28, 2007 3:00 pm | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
