| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/war-without-end-starts-wi_b_70224.html
Philip Giraldi
War Without End Starts With Iran
Posted October 29, 2007 | 10:37 AM (EST)
That the United States government, struggling under the weight of the bloody fiasco in Iraq, might be contemplating another war must seem unimaginable to most Americans. But the political class in the United States does not necessarily relate to what is unimaginable for most people, at least not recently. Consider for a moment the evidence that war is coming. There are the words of the Great Decider himself declaring that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is no longer the only issue. Per President George W. Bush, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III it seems you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." If there were any confusion on the subject of US resolve, Vice President Dick Cheney reinforced the message in a speech before the neo-con and pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy (WINEP) in which he called Iran a "growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East," and promised "serious consequences" if the nuclear program is not abandoned. More tellingly, he also said that the United States "will not allow" an Iranian bomb. There have been additional comments from the usual members of the choir, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has referred to Iran as "a cancer."
More worrying, the president and vice president are not alone. Senator John McCain, the only Republican Presidential hopeful who actually knows something about foreign policy, recently commented that the public has no idea how close the US is to going to war with Iran. Republican Presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have repeatedly pledged that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and have stressed that they possess the iron resolve required to use America's own nuclear arsenal against And the Democrats are all lined up too with the leading candidates agreeing, without any debate, that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) formulation that "all options must remain on the table" with Iran is the appropriate policy.Tehran. The ever opportunistic Senator Hillary Clinton went one step farther, voting for the Kyl-Lieberman oxymoronic "sense of the Senate" amendment to the defense appropriations bill, which advocated labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. The Bush Administration followed through on the motion last week, declaring the Guards' Quds division a terrorist group and, for good measure, citing the Guards for proliferating weapons of mass destruction. It was the first time that part of the military of any sovereign country has been so labeled. The terrorist designation will permit unilateral military action without any process of seeking congressional approval. Not that Congress would say "no" in any event - a clear majority toes the AIPAC line on Iran. Attacking Iran is the only truly consensus issue in American politics.
The terrorist designation also makes any future negotiations with Iran impossible as the US government will not speak to terrorists and current and former Revolutionary Guard officers occupy key positions in the Iranian government and would have to be part of any serious attempt to resolve differences short of war. Kyl-Lieberman, a declaration of war without actually saying so, would virtually guarantee that talks never take place, which is precisely what the estimable Senators and their seventy-five supportive colleagues intended.
The United States is not now talking with Iran even though the President and Secretary of State insist that a diplomatic solution is being sought. The Administration is not willing to negotiate unless Tehran as a precondition gives up its nuclear enrichment program, something that Washington knows will not happen, so it is a non-starter by design. The new George Bush insistence that Iran should not be allowed to have the knowledge necessary to build a nuclear weapon is linked to Cheney's declared willingness to go to war to stop such a development. It is important to pause and think seriously about the Bush and Cheney comments, as they could have real life consequences. Quite a lot of information on building a nuclear weapon is available from public sources. It is the engineering of a bomb that is complicated. Many countries know how to build a bomb, including Japan, Brazil, South Korea, and just about every nation in Western Europe. Most also have nuclear reactors to provide energy, which Tehran claims is its own intention. Bush is not threatening to bomb Sao Paulo and Brussels. If the White House's real objection is to the fact that Iran is ruled by religious leaders who happen to be Muslims and that the country is hostile to United States and Israeli policies perhaps he should say so, though it is likely that he does not do so as it would not make a compelling case for the launching of a World War. The argument that Iran is interfering in Iraq and Afghanistan is also long on innuendo and light on facts leaving the president with fear mongering about possible global conflict as the only way to go.
War is serious business and it seems implausible for a number of reasons to suggest that the next one might be started by Iran. The threat allegedly posed by the Mullahs must be put in context. Iran is basically a third world country with a classic rentier one-commodity economy derived from its oil revenue. It has little else in the way of a real economy and, even with the oil, there is high unemployment and little future for the young people who make up most of the population. No one is emulating the Iranian political model. Its government led by Mullahs is unpopular and only experiences a surge of support when its leaders are being attacked by the US. A recent opinion poll reveals that most young Iranians actually admire the US, though not Washington's policies. Iran, with an economy only 1.4% as large as that of the US, has a gross national product (GNP) that is smaller than that of Finland and would seem to be an unlikely candidate to threaten the rest of the world. The GNP would actually be shrinking if it weren't for increasing oil prices.
The president of the United States, whose grasp of words and their meaning is admittedly fleeting, is stating that if Washington is not able to use whatever means are necessary to disarm Iran it could mean a world war. This is crazy talk and fear mongering at the highest level. It also is illogical. Tehran does not have a demonstrated military capability to attack anyone and its rulers are fully aware that the end result of an aggressive act would be their complete destruction by nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States and Israel. There is no evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, quite the contrary.
If there is a war originating in the Persian Gulf it will presumably be started by the United States or Israel. If the conflict is not contained it could indeed become global as Iran becomes a symbol for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who have come to hate the US and its policies. More than seventy million people died in the last world war and the technology of death has improved since 1945. Concerned Americans should consequently demand to know what the President is really saying and what his intentions are, particularly since the mainstream media appear to have lost interest in the subject. Does Bush really believe that Iranian knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon must be stopped by all means necessary because it will otherwise produce a world war? If he thinks that to be true, what is the evidence for such an alarmist conclusion? Or do he and Cheney think that the United States has some kind of carte blanche authority to start a series of preventive wars against selected enemies based on presumptions about intentions and capabilities? Concerned citizens might also ask why the United States is not talking to Iran in an attempt to resolve differences. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:54 am Post subject: |
| http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/103007a.html
Attacking Iran for Israel?
By Ray McGovern
October 30, 2007
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target.
Her claim last week that “the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world” is simply too much of a stretch.
To gauge someone’s reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice’s credibility suffers in comparison with that of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, who insists there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran.
If this sounds familiar, ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC’s Tim Russert, “I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong.”
Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, U.S. intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain.
Burned by the bogus “proof” adduced for Iraq—the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes—the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related “evidence.”
Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?” There is a simpler answer.
Cat Out of the Bag
The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel.
Heavy on the chutzpah, he served gratuitous notice on Washington that effectively countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions will take a “united United States in this matter,” lest the Iranians conclude, “come January ’09, they have it their own way.”
Meridor stressed that “very little time” remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so?
Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.
Truth be told, every other year since 1995 U.S. intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years.
It has become downright embarrassing — like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called “neo-conservatives” like James Woolsey, who last summer publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.
Woolsey, self-described “anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,” put it this way: “I’m afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [the Iranians] could have the bomb.”
The day before Meridor’s unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush’s apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.
The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran’s nuclear program in the bud before they leave office.
Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976 for Westinghouse and General Electric to install for the Shah (price tag $6.4 billion).
With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and are pressing for the U.S. to obliterate Iran’s fledgling nuclear program.
Anyone aware of Iran’s ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush before.
The rationale is similar to that revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10, 2002, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia:
“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is—it’s the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name...the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”
Harbinger?
The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its nuclear-related facilities.
During a Jan. 20, 2005, interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush’s second inauguration, Cheney put Iran “right at the top of the list of trouble spots,” and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
Cheney then added with remarkable nonchalance:
“Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”
Does this not sound like the so-called “Cheney plan” being widely discussed in the media today? An Israeli air attack; Iranian retaliation; Washington springing to the defense of its “ally” Israel?
A big fan of preemption, Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel’s penchant to preempt, such as Israel's air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
Ten years after the Osirak attack, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli Air Force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, “Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981.”
Nothing is known of Ivri’s response, but it is a safe bet it was along the lines of “we could not have done it without U.S. help.”
Indeed, though the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq at that point), the intelligence shared by the Pentagon with the Israelis made a major contribution to the success of the Israeli raid.
With Vice President Cheney calling the shots now, similar help may be forthcoming prior to any Israeli air attack on Iran.
It is no secret that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began to press for an early preemptive strike on Iran in 2003, claiming that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than what U.S. intelligence estimated.
Sharon made a habit of bringing his own military adviser to brief Bush with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations.
More troubling still, in the fall of 2004, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as Chair of the younger Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times.
A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush “mesmerized;” that he had our president “wrapped around his little finger.”
Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately removed from the advisory board.
An Unstable Infatuation
George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli occupied territories.
An Aug. 3, 2006, McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:
“If there’s a starting point for George W. Bush’s attachment to Israel, it’s the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, ‘Amazing Grace.’ He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved.”
Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001.
After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of “honest broker” between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit.
At that point he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians.
In Ron Suskind’s Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who was at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: “Looked real bad down there,” the president said with a frown. Then Bush said it was time to end America’s efforts in the region. “I don’t see much we can do over there at this point,” he said.
O’Neill also reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of longstanding policy.
Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and “the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians.” But according to O’Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.” O’Neill says that Powell seemed “startled.”
It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.
What Now?
The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is foot-dragging by the U.S. military.
It seems likely that the senior military have told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6—and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.
CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, “We are not going to do Iran on my watch.” And in an online Q-and-A, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently spoke of a possible “revolt” if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:
“This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. [George] Casey, the Army chief, has said...that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the ‘war’ or ‘bombing’ part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?”
How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it.
If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.
And for every Admiral Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey and other “neo-cons.”
The air campaign “will be easy,” says McInerney, a Fox News pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. “Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can’t penetrate,” he adds, and several hundred bombers, including stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:
“Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back.”
And the rationale? Since it will be a hard sell to promote the idea, against all evidence, of an imminent threat that Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, the White House PR machine is likely to focus on other evidence showing that Iran is supporting those “killing our troops in Iraq.”
The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how easily it can be done.
Madness
It is not as though we have not had statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements, and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other nations, even allies:
“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”
(George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attacking Iran for Israel (blog associated with the above article):
http://consortiumblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/attacking-iran-for-israel.html
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:05 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
| What will World War IV cost?
How about $32,000 each, $5 gas and a military draft for your kids
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:19 PM ET Oct 29, 2007
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- First, let's clear the air: Someone please tell the White House we're already fighting World War III. Yes, they're great at picking buzzwords, but the truth is our global "war on terror" has engaged (or enraged) every nation on the planet.
And according to the latest Congressional Budget Office estimates it's costing America a whopping $2.4 trillion. That's $8,000 for each of us. So what'll the coming WWIV add? And how will it impact your retirement? Scary huh!
WWIV already? Yes, the White House is preparing us for an invasion of Iran. That case has been made by many neocons, most recently by Norman Podhoretz in his new book, "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism." And as Pat Buchanan reacted on MSNBC's "Hardball" about all their warning signals: "I don't see how [the White House] can avoid attacking Iran and retaining their credibility going out of office."
So what will WWIV cost you and me personally? This is crucial, folks, because every dollar spent on expanding our global "wars on terror" will be one less dollar for your retirement nest egg, your health care, your kids education, your grandkids lifestyle -- all of which are being outsourced to a free market system that's forcing you to take personal responsibility rather than get benefits from government or Corporate America.
Shortly after I posted a column on "Disaster Capitalism" (outsourcing government and military operations to mercenaries and Corporate America) the President did threaten Iran about starting "World War III."
See previous Paul B. Farrell.
And suddenly, before you can say "veto," Congress and the media have once again caved, accepting the inevitability of WWIV in 2008, beginning with an attack on Iran.
Estimating costs easy, but politicians in denial
OK folks, I'm not a Pentagon strategist, but have some experience, starting with volunteering for the Marines in Korea. Since then stuff like military strategies, weapons, economics and financing wars have fascinated me. Everything: Big stuff like Alexander Hamilton's commitment to repay Revolutionary War debt, detailed by a Goldman Sachs vice chairman. And little stuff like the Civil War when J.P. Morgan financed a deal to buy old rifles from the U.S. Army for $3.50, refit them and sell them back to the Army for $22 each, proof "Disaster Capitalism" is nothing new for Wall Street!
Economic forecasting is also not new for me. Over the years I've had to estimate the cost impact of a Navy Weapons Systems Research Lab and the debt load of the N.Y. State New Towns Development Corporation. At Morgan Stanley I analyzed the Federal New Town Program for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and some troubled banks, even predicting that deregulation would create a debt bubble and collapse the S&L industry.
In fact, such estimates are quite simple, just politically inconvenient. One was even classified secret by the government. So let's estimate the potential economic costs of the coming WWIV:
1. Demographics
Economic costs can be estimated by extrapolating from demographics. We're already fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have a combined population of 60 million. Generals are already telling us our volunteer military and equipment are near "broken," strategically unable to engage on new fronts.
Still we are planning to attack Iran, a country of 65 million, at a time when its neighbor Pakistan, a country of 165 million, is rapidly destabilizing and it is a country that already has nuclear weapons and also offers sanctuary to Taliban and al-Qaida extremists. Others will be stirred to retaliate. So we could increase our exposure to hostile enemies by four times.
2. Geography
In addition to demographics, land mass is another factor in estimating military costs: Remember, we haven't been able to find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan for four years, even with a $50 million "dead or alive" bounty. And today our so-called ally Pakistan is offering him and his warriors a safe haven.
If we attack Iran our battlefield terrain exposure increases by 635,000 square miles on top of the 420,000 square miles in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, plus another potential 340,000 square miles in Pakistan and others. The geography alone could overwhelm a military already stretched thin. The costs will go through the roof. A military draft will be essential.
Will they listen?
I have no illusions that our political leaders will give more than lip service to any estimates of war costs. After all, they are already ignoring estimates from the CBO as well as the Government Accountability Office, driven by an ideology convinced that "deficits don't matter."
But living in denial can't erase the fact that the added debt of WWIV will have an enormous impact on America. And it will certainly have a profound personal impact on every single investor, far, far more damaging than any failure to save "enough" for retirement. Or failure to pick the right index funds. Or failure to set up a diversified portfolio.
Why? Because the cost of WWIV will overwhelm all those other mistakes we make as individual investors.
So what can you personally expect as your cost from WWIV? We know an attack on Iran will also trigger widespread insurgencies in other Muslim nations siding with Iran, likely Pakistan and Syria. We can also expect Russia and China to increase their indirect support to insurgents, to keep the war fires burning and keep the price of oil high, further undermining America's credibility and diminishing the value of the dollar as a reserve currency.
The added debt costs of World War IV seem obvious: An estimated cost of $10 trillion to fight for a decade is not unreasonable, four times the cost of the current fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global "wars on terror." And personally that will add roughly $32,000 more debt for every American -- which is more than half what the average American currently has saved for retirement.
History lesson
Underneath all these numbers, however, I feel a deep sense of sadness. Since the President's "WWIII" threat, the economic lobe in my brain has been flashing new danger signals, reminding me of a warning by Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips in "Wealth & Democracy:" "Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out."
Once again, the lessons of history have been lost on the posturing of macho egos.
Halloween's a great time for spooky warnings, even if no one listens. But maybe you also hear a growing drum beat, echoing the Iraq war run-up. Unfortunately, no new leaders seem willing to stand up to the coming "darkness" ... to use Robert Redford's recent comment in The Week magazine on the release of his new film, "Lions for Lambs:"
"I had great hopes that people would see movies like 'The Candidate' and 'All the King's Men' and say 'Hey if we're not careful, we might get snookered.' I discovered we Americans enjoy the distraction of entertainment but aren't really interested in the deeper message. We don't like to look inward; we don't like the darkness."
And that's what really saddens me: Because, paradoxically, by not looking within the darkness gets darker until it consumes our souls, like in "The Night of the Living Dead." Happy Halloween! | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
| Report: U.S. Upgrading Diego Garcia Base For Attack on Iran
The Scottish newspaper The Herald is reporting the US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for possible strikes on Iran. The U.S. has used Diego Garcia during the first Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Bush Requests $88 Million To Fit Bunker Busting Bombs on B-2 Bombers
In Washington the Bush administration has requested $88 million to fit bunker busting bombs to B-2 stealth bombers. Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned if the proposal is linked to an attack on Iran. Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia said "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan."
U.S. & France Criticize El Baradei's Comments on Iran
This comes as the UN Nuclear watchdog Mohamaed El Baradei is being criticized by some for publicly saying there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.
French defense minister Herve Morin: "Everyone has their view. Our information, and it is backed up by other countries, is contrary to IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei's comments)."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack brushed aside El Baradei's comments and urged him to not to speak about diplomatic issues. McCormack said: "He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency. I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."
Egypt Announces Plans For Nuclear Power Program
Another country in the Middle East has announced plans to move ahead with a nuclear power program. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak made the announcement in a nationally televised address.
Hosni Mubarak: "And I am speaking to you today in light of these studies and discussions, and I declare in front of you Egypt's decision to begin a program to build a number of nuclear power plants to produce electricity."
The Bush administration said the U.S. would not object to Egypt's nuclear program as long as Cairo adhered to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: Iran warns U.S. of "quagmire" |
| Iran warns U.S. of "quagmire" (Reuters)
By Fredrik Dahl
Wed Oct 31, 7:58 AM ET
Iran warned the United States on Wednesday it would find itself in a "quagmire deeper than Iraq" if it attacked the Islamic state, and Russia stepped up efforts for a diplomatic solution to Tehran's nuclear row with the West.
The warning by the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, a target of new U.S. sanctions announced last week, added to angry rhetoric between the two old foes that has prompted speculation of possible U.S. military action.
U.S. President George W. Bush this month suggested a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three but the White House said on Tuesday it remained determined to resolve the stand-off peacefully.
"If the enemies show inexperience and want to invade Islamic Iran, they will receive a strong slap from Iran," Jafari said in comments carried by the semi-official Fars News Agency.
"The enemy knows that if it attacks Iran it, will be trapped in a quagmire deeper than Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will have to withdraw with defeat," he told a parade in north-central Iran, without mentioning the United States by name.
Major powers are expected to meet in London this week to discuss a possible third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt work which it says is aimed at generating electricity but could also be used for making bombs.
Iran, hoping to ward off any further sanctions on its oil-dependent economy, agreed with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in August to clear up suspicions about its past secret nuclear activities.
The United States, saying the deal failed to address the core U.N. demand that Tehran suspend work Washington suspects is aimed at making bombs, is pushing for tougher U.N. sanctions.
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program are one of the factors that have pushed oil prices to record highs of over $90 a barrel in recent days.
"TRUST"
Russia, a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, says dialogue rather than punishment or talk of military action offers the best way to ease tension. It says the IAEA process should be given time to run its course.
Speaking after talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday evening, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, according to a transcript from his ministry:
"We encouraged the Iranian leadership to undertake further -- and preferably more active -- work with the IAEA to clear up those questions which have been raised by the agency with regard to the Iranian nuclear program's past."
Lavrov, visiting two weeks after a trip to Tehran by President Vladimir Putin, said he "underlined the importance of closing these questions as soon as possible, in order to restore trust in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's activities."
Ahmadinejad said Iran was "determined" to continue its cooperation with the agency, the ISNA news agency said.
Lavrov's visit coincided with vital talks in Tehran between officials from Iran and the Vienna-based IAEA on implementing the August agreement, entering their third day on Wednesday.
Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will report to the agency's 35-nation board of governors in mid-November. If Iran has not answered sensitive questions by then, Western powers say they will move to have harsh U.N. sanctions adopted.
In Washington, U.S. officials said they expected the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- as well as Germany to meet later this week in London to discuss new sanctions.
Britain and France back a tough line on Iran. China, like Russia, has opposed an early move to tighten economic sanctions, saying Iran should be given longer to cooperate with the IAEA.
The U.N. Security Council has already imposed two sets of limited sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt enrichment, a process to make fuel for nuclear power plants that can also, if refined further, provide material for bombs.
(Additional reporting by Moscow bureau, Ross Colvin in Baghdad, Arshad Mohammed in Washington and by Zahra Hosseinian and Edmund Blair in Tehran) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:17 am Post subject: |
| Iran Nuclear Watch [cong@armscontrolcenter.org]
Senate Letter to President Bush on Iran
Posted: 31 Oct 2007 02:00 PM CDT
Last Friday, October 26, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) began circulating a sign-on letter to prevent an "offensive" military confrontation with Iran for signatures by other Senators that will be delivered President Bush. The Council for a Livable World has led the NGO efforts to get co-signers, currently numbering at 22+ and counting. The effort is an interim measure short of passing legislation which will allow Senators to go on record stating that they do not believe the President has the authority for unilateral military action against Iran. Below is the actual letter to President Bush.
"We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.
"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran, including the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.
"We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution. At the same time, we wish to emphasize that no offensive military action would be justified against Iran without the express consent of Congress."
Iran Nuclear Watch, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:18 am Post subject: |
| October 31, 2007
For Neocons, Iran Aim Is Still Regime Change
by Gareth Porter
Vice President Dick Cheney and his neoconservative allies in the George W. Bush administration only began agitating for the use of military force against Iran once they had finally given up the illusion that regime change in Iran would happen without it.
And they did not give it up until late 2005, according to a former high-level Foreign Service officer who participated in the United States discussions with Iran from 2001 until late 2005.
Hillary Mann, who was the director for Persian Gulf and Afghanistan Affairs on the National Security Council staff in 2003 and later on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, observes that the key to neoconservative policy views on Iran until 2006 was the firm belief that one of the consequences of a successful display of U.S. military force in Iraq would be to shake the foundations of the Iran regime.
That central belief was conveyed to conservative columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times in April 2002 by prominent neocon figures who told him the Bush administration "had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East."
The Bush doctrine of preemption, they said, "had become the vehicle for driving axis of evil practitioners out of power." The removal of Saddam Hussein, according to the neocon scenario, would bring a democratic Iraq that would then spread through the region, "bringing democracy from Syria to Egypt and to the sheikdoms, emirates, and monarchies of the Gulf."
Under the influence of this central myth, after the 9/11 attacks, some of Cheney's allies in the Pentagon conceived the objective of removing every regime in the Middle East that was hostile to the U.S. and Israel.
In November 2001, Gen. Wesley Clark, who had recently retired from his post as head of the U.S. Southern Command, learned from a general he knew in the Pentagon that a memo had just come down from the office of the secretary of defense outlining the objective of the "take down" of seven Middle Eastern regimes over five years.
The plan would start with the invasion of Iraq, and then go after Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, according to an account in Clark's 2003 book, Winning Modern Wars. The memo indicated the plan was to "come back and get Iran in five years."
The neocons were very serious about going after Syria. In the weeks following the initial U.S. blow at Hussein, Paul Wolfowitz, the chief neoconservative architect of the Iraq invasion, argued unsuccessfully for taking advantage of the presumed military triumph there to overthrow the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad, according to the right-leaning Insight magazine.
But contrary to the popular notion that the neocons believed that "real men go to Tehran," no one was yet proposing that Iran should be next military target.
In September 2003, Cheney brought in David Wurmser, a close friend and protégé of Richard Perle and one of the architects of the neoconservative plan for regime change in Iraq, as his adviser on the Middle East. Wurmser had previously articulated very specific ideas about how taking down Hussein by force would help destabilize the Iranian regime.
In a 1999 book, Wurmser had laid out a plan for using the Iraqi Shi'ite majority and their conservative clerics as U.S. allies in the "regional rollback of Shi'ite fundamentalism" – meaning the Islamic regime in Iran.
But Wurmser also believed that the Ba'athist regime in Syria was an obstacle to regime change in Iran. Beginning with the "Clean Break" memo to incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which he had co-authored with Perle and Douglas Feith in 1996, he had argued that once Hussein was removed, the next step was to take down the Assad regime in Syria.
In a September 2007 interview with the Telegraph, after he had left Cheney's office, Wurmser confirmed his belief that regime change in Syria – by force, if necessary – would directly affect the stability of the Tehran regime. If Iran were seen to be unable to do anything to prevent the overthrow of the regime in Syria, he suggested, it would seriously undermine the Islamic regime's prestige at home.
From 2003 to 2005, Wurmser and the neocons were in denial about the increasingly obvious reality that the U.S. occupation of Iraq was actually boosting Iranian influence there rather than shaking the regime's power at home, according to former NSC specialist Mann. She was well acquainted with the neoconservatives' thinking from her associations with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the 1990s, and she told IPS in a recent interview that she was "astounded" to hear neocons in the administration suggest as late as 2005 that the situation in Iraq was on track to help destabilize the Iranian regime.
The neocons had long viewed the Iranian reformists, led by President Mohammed Khatami, as the primary obstacle to the popular revolution against the mullahs for which they were working. As French Iran specialist Frédéric Tellier noted in an early 2006 essay, they believed the electoral defeats of the reformists in 2003 and 2004 would also help open the way to a revolutionary political upheaval in Tehran.
In an appearance on the Don Imus show on Jan. 20, 2005, Cheney said the Israelis might attack Iran's nuclear sites if they became convinced the Iranians had a "significant nuclear capability." That remark underlined the fact that he was not thinking seriously about a U.S. strike against Iran.
By the end of 2005, however, the neocons had finally accepted the reality of the failure of the Bush administration's military intervention in Iraq, according to Mann. She also notes that the electoral victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, representing a new breed of nationalist conservative with a mass base of popular support, in the June 2005 presidential election, spelled the "death knell" to the neocon optimism about regime change in Iran.
Mann observes that the neocons had never forsworn the use of force against Iran, but they had argued that less force would be needed in Iran than had been used in Iraq. By early 2006, however, that assumption was being discarded by prominent neoconservatives.
Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute had been more aggressive than anyone else in arguing that Iraq's Shi'ites, liberated by U.S. military power, would help subvert the Iranian regime. But in April 2006, he called in a Weekly Standard article for continued bombing of Iran's nuclear sites until the Iranians stopped rebuilding them.
Within the administration, meanwhile, Wurmser was looking for the opportunity to propose a military option against Iran. In his September 2007 interview with the Telegraph shortly after leaving Cheney's office, he insisted that the United States must be willing to "escalate as far as we need to go to topple the [Iranian] regime if necessary."
That opportunity seemed to present itself in the aftermath of Israel's failed attempt to deal a major blow to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Neoconservatives aligned with Cheney argued that Iran was now threatening U.S. dominant power in the region, through its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territory and its nuclear program. They insisted the administration had to push back by targeting Iran's Quds Force personnel in Iraq, increasing naval presence in the Gulf, and accusing Iran of supporting the killing of U.S. troops.
Although the ostensible rationale was to pressure Iran to back down on the nuclear issue, in light of the previous views, it appears that they were hoping to use military power against Iran to accomplish their original goal of regime change.
(Inter Press Service)
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11836 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:06 am Post subject: |
| THE WASHINGTON NOTE
Private Note to Bush from Hagel Calls For Direct, Unconditional, Comprehensive Talks with Iran
By Steve Clemons
October 31, 2007
I have just secured a private letter -- not yet publicly released -- from Senator Chuck Hagel to President Bush and copied to Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and Stephen Hadley. I should add that I did not receive this letter from Senator Hagel but from other sources.
The letter urges the President to pursue "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran."
In the letter, both attached (Hagel letter pdf) and reprinted in full below, Hagel warns that "unless there is a strategic shift [from the current situation], I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months." Hagel continues, "I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek."
Senator Hagel encourages President Bush to take the bold strategic step of offering a completely different course for US-Iran relations. He writes about direct unconditional talks:
An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.
We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.
This letter is a call for serious, level-headed rationality from one of the Senate's most stalwart "classic conservatives."
I have since learned that the letter somehow made its way to US Central Command Commander William Fallon, perhaps through Defense Secretary Gates or other avenues, and Fallon allegedly communicated with the Senator that serious articulations of American interests and consideration of the options Hagel recommends are much needed in this current political and policy environment.
I need to also report that while I am in complete agreement with the content of Senator Hagel's letter and had the privilege of moderating a dinner discussion with him yesterday evening, the content of this letter came via other sources to me -- and I trust the Senator and his staff will respect the fact that I felt it important to bring this letter to public attention and have not violated any trust with any person in his office.
Full Text of Letter from Senator Chuck Hagel to President George W. Bush on US-Iran Policy, 17 October 2007:
October 17, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.
In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and other key states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran's nuclear program. I have supported your efforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remains one of our most effective levers on Iran.
In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regarding the situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iran has continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue is important.
I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategy is stalling. There are growing differences with our international partners. Concerns remain that the United States' actual objectives is regime change in Iran, not a change in Iran's behavior. Prospects for further action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appear increasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financial pressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran's actions, both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran's leaders appear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the United States.
Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.
Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.
An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.
We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.
I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.
Thank you for considering my views.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Chuck H.
Chuck Hagel
United States Senator
cc: Condoleezza Rice
Robert M. Gates
Stephen J. Hadley
This is a letter benchmarking the views of one of the most grounded, foreign policy savvy, common sense thinkers about the eroding state of America's military and national security portfolio. And he's a Midwestern American Republican who served in the United States Military.
Senator Hagel will be speaking for the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Thursday, 8 November, at the Capital Hilton at 11 am on the subject of America's Iran policy -- and no doubt this letter that I have secured will be among the topics of discussion.
-- Steve Clemons
This article can be viewed online at: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002471.php | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
