| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: |
| U.S. driving Turkey, Iran together, former U.S. envoy warns
By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — The retired general who served as President Bush 's special envoy to deal with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) said the United States has failed to keep its promises to Turkey to confront the Kurdish terrorist group, and Turkey may feel that it has no choice but to attack the PKK's sanctuary in northern Iraq .
Retired Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston , in a brief interview, declined to say why he stepped down several weeks ago. But published reports have said that he was frustrated by the Bush administration's failure to act against the PKK.
In his first extended comments since his departure, Ralston told McClatchy Newspapers that the United States is unwittingly "driving, strategically, the Turks and the Iranians together" because both nations share concerns about violent Kurdish separatist groups.
"The U.S. government should make good on the commitments they have made to the Turks," Ralston said.
Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States , while the United States and Iran are increasingly in confrontation across a range of issues.
The White House and the U.S. military have appeared leery about opening a new front in the war in Iraq — particularly in generally stable northern Iraq — by launching assaults against the PKK. Neither the U.S.-backed Iraqi government nor the semiautonomous Kurdish Regional Government has shown any inclination to go after the group.
The officer who commands U.S. forces in northern Iraq , Maj. Gen. Benjamin Nixon , last week said he planned to do "absolutely nothing" to curb PKK activities.
Ralston, a vice chairman of the Washington -based Cohen Group , a consulting firm, said the statement was "directly opposite" promises Bush has made to Turkey .
Asked whether the Turkish military would invade northern Iraq , which PKK fighters use to launch attacks into Turkey , Ralston said: "They're going to have to, in the absence of the U.S. doing anything." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:40 am Post subject: |
| U.S. wants new Iran sanctions expedited
By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 2, 6:48 PM ET
U.S. officials said Friday that Russia and China were keeping the U.N. Security Council from moving quickly enough toward a third set of sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said there was an urgent need to ratchet up pressure over the issue, despite agreement Friday among the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany, to come up with a new sanctions resolution if November reports by the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency do not show improved Iranian cooperation.
"The U.S. believes very strongly there is a need to accelerate the diplomacy, to strengthen the sanctions," Burns told The Associated Press after a meeting in London of the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France and Germany. "We want a diplomatic solution, we do not want to give up on diplomacy, but we need the help of the P5 (permanent Security Council members) countries to do that, particularly the support of Russia and China."
A senior Security Council diplomat at U.N. headquarters in New York said the five permanent members had not yet agreed on sanctions to be included in the new resolution. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because discussions are continuing.
A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe a closed-door meeting, said the Russian and Chinese delegations had come to the London session "unprepared" to do the work needed to finalize a third sanctions resolution, suggesting that neither Moscow nor Beijing had signed off on even the basic elements that they could accept in a draft text.
Burns said the U.S. believes China has increased trade with Iran in the last six months, sending the wrong signal about the international community's attitude toward the nuclear program.
"We are disappointed by the lack of cooperation by China on a third Security Council resolution," Burns said. "We don't think that China is moving with us."
Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington that Russia and China, "do not seem to have quite the sense of urgency that we and the other members do about moving forward."
Russia and China did not comment. But Moscow in particular has spoken strongly against new sanctions on Iran, particularly unilateral measures imposed recently by Washington against Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.
"Why worsen the situation by threatening sanctions and bring it to a dead end?" Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Portugal last week. "It's not the best way to resolve the situation by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts from the other permanent Security Council members plus Germany agreed last month in New York to consider new sanctions only if new reports show Iran continuing to defy the Security Council and IAEA.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei will report to the U.N. next month on Iran's compliance with its pledge to clear up all unanswered questions on past nuclear activities — most of them clandestine until unveiled four years ago. EU chief negotiator Javier Solana is due to submit a report on whether Iran is ready to heed Security Council demands that it suspend uranium enrichment — which can create both nuclear fuel and material for the fissile core of warheads.
The British Foreign Office said the Security Council members and Germany had agreed Friday to "finalize a text for a third U.N. Security Council Sanctions resolution with the intention of bringing it to a vote in the U.N. Security Council unless the November reports of Dr. Solana and Dr. ElBaradei show a positive outcome of the efforts."
Iran has repeatedly said it will not freeze enrichment and IAEA officials have privately said Tehran is expanding the program.
The IAEA report on how far Iran has gone in fully revealing its nuclear past will likely be more controversial than Solana's, possibly pitting Russia and China against the United States, Britain and France over interpreting whether Tehran has gone far enough.
Even if the world powers ultimately agree on the need for new sanctions, their imposition could be months away, judging by past disputes pitting Moscow and Beijing against their Western negotiating partners about how harsh such punishments should be.
The diplomats who met in London on Friday will hold talks again on Nov. 19 to assess the pending reports, a British Foreign Office spokesman said.
Britain and France have backed the U.S. call for a third round of sanctions if Iran continues to refuse to suspend enrichment.
Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, said in Tehran that talks between Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog were making progress and he warned the U.S. to avoid resorting to threats.
"The U.S. is making mistakes. Iran is having talks (with the IAEA) and has said it will respond to IAEA questions. They are gradually coming and taking their response. One has to wait, talk and make discussions," he said.
___
Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, Edith Lederer in New York and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: |
| November 3, 2007
Go Ahead On – Start WWIII
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11849
by Gordon Prather
A couple of weeks ago, Russian President Putin made a historic visit to Iran, nominally to attend a summit of the Caspian Sea littoral states – Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran.
The summit, itself, resulted in a number of "milestone" agreements, including one prohibiting other countries (such as the United States) from using – "in any circumstances" – territory or facilities of any Caspian Sea littoral state (such as Azerbaijan) for "use of force or aggression" against another (such as Iran).
And if that message wasn’t clear enough, Putin also met privately with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, declaring afterwards in a joint press conference that "Iran is an important regional and global power."
Putin also took the opportunity to tell the world that he had seen no "evidence" – Director-General ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency hasn’t even found an "indication" – that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Therefore, Russia would go ahead and complete the IAEA Safeguarded nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
Talk about pinning the tail on Bush’s donkey with a nail-gun.
But, protested Bush, who had just been told by Putin that he wouldn’t even be allowed to launch a "surgical" attack – much less another war of aggression – against Iran from our "temporary" air base in Azerbaijan,
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel."
(That’s a lie, of course. Ahmadinejad has never made such an announcement.)
As Bush must know, even if Ahmadinejad wanted to merely effect regime change in Israel – much less destroy the country – he couldn’t. Iran’s President is not – even in time of war – commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces. Or even of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Condi-baby has just designated to be somehow involved in "nuclear proliferation."
Of course, in time of wars declared by our Congress, our President is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. And Bush believes – or acts as if he believes – our Congress has declared war on anyone Bush "determines" to be a terrorist or on any state Bush "determines" to be a supporter of terrorists.
So, quoth Bush,
"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 (the Iranians) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
It’s frequently difficult – sometimes impossible – to make sense of Bush’s pronouncements.
But apparently, Bush recently told Russian President Putin that World War III could result not because Iran allegedly has nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel, or not because Iran has the capability of making the fissile material absolutely necessary for making nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel, or not even because Iran allegedly wants to make nukes with which to allegedly attack Israel.
Taking Bush literally, all it will take for the Israelis or the United States to attack Iran, risking WWIII – with the United States and Israel on one side and Russia and China on the other – is some indication that some Iranians know how to make a nuke [.pdf].
Now, Putin has frequently expressed his opposition to the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons. But, Putin has repeatedly expressed his support for the "inalienable right" (guaranteed by the NPT) to the use of atomic energy by the Iranians, for peaceful purposes, to be verified by the IAEA.
The Israelis – on the other hand – have repeatedly expressed their outrageous view that the capability of enriching the Uranium-235 content of large amounts of natural uranium to any level is tantamount to having the capability to make a nuclear weapon.
Are they serious?
Well, back in 1981 Israel "took out" Osiraq, a French-built IAEA-safeguarded research reactor, apparently because they had concluded that Saddam Hussein expected Osiraq – in lieu of the Tooth Fairy – to miraculously leave a few nuclear weapons under his pillow.
Since 1991, thanks to the IAEA, the whole world has known that Saddam began his quest for nuclear weapons as a direct result of the Israeli raid on his IAEA Safeguarded research reactor.
Here are excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 487 condemning the Israeli pre-emptive strike.
"Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that, in accordance with that treaty, Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date;
"Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel – in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;
"Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;
"Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime, which is the foundation of the non-proliferation treaty."
Now, Bush the Younger has apparently adopted the equally idiotic and outrageously inflammatory view of the Israelis about Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded programs.
Nevertheless, it was something of a surprise when Zogby America’s latest poll of likely voters revealed that 52 percent "would support a US military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon."
Worse still, according to Zogby, 53 percent believe it is "likely" that the United States will be "involved" in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election.
It’s too bad Zogby didn’t phrase the first question this way;
"Given that the IAEA continues to verify that Iran is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as is their "inalienable right" as a signatory to the NPT;
Would you support a US or Israeli strike – in violation of the UN Charter – against Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded nuclear facilities, including the nuclear power plant nearing completion by the Russians at Bushehr?
Would you support such a strike even if it resulted in World War III, with US-Israel on one side, and Russia-China-Islam on the other?" | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: |
| Cheney: Iran war still a possibility
Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:45:41
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=29701§ionid=351020104
US Vice President Dick Cheney says Washington considers military action against Iran as a possible solution to Tehran's nuclear standoff.
"Nobody wants to resolve this by any means other than peacefully, if it is at all possible," Cheney said Friday.
During his speech at World Affairs Council in Dallas, he repeated the accusations against Iran, claiming that Tehran seeks nuclear weapons.
The American vice president, who was interrupted by anti-war protestors, also claimed that a nuclear Iran would be a threat to US national security.
The US allegations have been rejected by Iranian officials and the UN nuclear watchdog as baseless.
Iran has repeatedly emphasized its nuclear program is a peaceful one.
MD/HGH/RA
Forwarded:
You might be interested in my comments for Congresswomen Jane Harman and Diane Watson (along with General Eaton who revolted against Rumsfeld) via the link at www.neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com
This is a must watch documentary about AIPAC (note the mention by Colin Powell's former assistant Lawrence Wilkerson near the end about WW 3 if Iran is attacked next for Israel):
AIPAC's Push for War with Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6SQ02gqqao
My comments for Barbara Slavin (who has the new book out about Iran)are included via the following link from http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com
Re: AIPAC is Pushing US to War with Iran for Israel (see the Scott Ritter youtubes in the comments section for how he mentioned AIPAC and that nukes might be used on Iran as well):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Check this out about Podhoretz as well:
http://tinyurl.com/2zu4sn
Ellen wrote:
The American people are so goddam dumb that we’ll be paying for its colossal dumbness, stupidity, insularity, celebrity-stunned-fascination, trivia-game delight, and sports-team delirium, when things really explode against us. Sorry. I’m in a rage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: charlie
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: 'Invade and bomb (Iran) with Hillary and Rahm' by Justin Raimondo
Is it any wonder that so many people in EU look at the American people with disbelief?
Chris
'Invade and Bomb With Hillary and Rahm'
Why war with Iran is likely
by Justin Raimondo
They're ginning up another war, and the target is Iran.
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11846
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:01 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: |
| Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:15:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jane stillwater"
Subject: RE: Why "war" with Iran is likely
When I was in Iraq, I chatted with an Irish contractor for (I think) KBR. Basically, he said that a surgical strike against Iran was a good thing. "But what if Iran retaliates?" I replied.
"They won't." The neo-con Israelis and the American neo-cons have done these surgical strikes before and gotten away with it. A few hundred scientists dead? No big deal. And now they think that they can do it again with impunity.
"We did it before and didn't get our hands slapped."
What scares the heck out of me, however, is that Pakistan already HAS nuclear weapons and appears to be totally unstable right now. The chances are totally much higher of nukes falling into the hands of "terrorists" in Pakistan than in Iran. But Is anyone talking about a surgical strike there? No.
PS: Does anywone know how to organize a book tour for me? This winter? Hopefully someplace warm?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 3, 2007
Go Ahead On – Start WWIII
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11849
by Gordon Prather
_____________________
It is a losing cause trying to help prevent this (especially when the Israel first US media is pushing for it as well and won't convey the truth about the agenda by letting Americans know about the Mearsheimer/Walt book and similar to the extent that it should have by now - the AIPAC and Norman Podhoretz youtube videos at the end of the following piece by Raimondo are must views if you haven't already accessed them):
November 2, 2007
'Invade and Bomb With Hillary and Rahm'
Why war with Iran is likely
by Justin Raimondo
They're ginning up another war, and the target is Iran:
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11846
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AIPAC's Push for War with Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6SQ02gqqao
Re: AIPAC is Pushing US to War with Iran for Israel (see the Scott Ritter youtubes in the comments section for how he mentioned AIPAC and that nukes might be used on Iran as well):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Mainstream Media is Selling US another War:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/10/31/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-36.php
Jewish Neocon Podhoretz Wants Iran Bombed for Israel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w
Podhoretz is mentioned in the 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article (by Kevin MacDonald) 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
The youtube posted is a segmented, American version of a documentary prepared by Marije Meerman of VPRO, a Netherlands production company.
The following links to the full 50-minute version, with English subtitles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98
Meerman and VPRO also prepared "Endgame: A Future Scenario for Israel."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHtgYCS12ZE | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
| Senators warn Bush has no authority on Iran
Nov 1 06:40 PM US/Eastern
Thirty US senators wrote to President George W. Bush Thursday, warning he had no authority to launch military action against Iran, and expressing concern about the administration's "provocative" rhetoric.
The senators, 29 Democrats and one independent, urged the resolution of disputes with the Islamic Republic through diplomacy.
"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," the letter signed by senators including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden said.
The letter warned that a resolution passed by the Senate in September, calling for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, should not be used as a pretext for war.
It hit out at "provocative statements and actions" by the administration on Iran, after Bush last month warned Tehran must be barred from nuclear weapons to avoid the prospect of "World War III."
"These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy," the letter, coordinated by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, said.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a fierce critic of the administration's policies, sent his own letter this week to Bush, reportedly calling on him to open direct talks with Tehran.
His staff confirmed the letter had been sent, but declined to release a copy. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: |
| The attack on Iran will widen the conflict in the Middle East and could even result in the next world war as well.. We are living in very dangerous times... The new book out by Mearsheimer and Walt (www.israellobbybook.com) conveys the agenda behind the war with Iraq and the coming one with Iran... It was mentioned during the recent call for USA Today writer Barbara Slavin who appeared on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' for her new book about Iran (click on her picture at the following URL as you might want to access the Scott Ritter youtube links in the comments section there as well - Scott mentioned that AIPAC has been pushing for war with Iran and that nukes might be used on Iran):
http://tinyurl.com/22br9u
Look at the write-up below about how high the oil price might go as well:
Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Philip Giraldi (access the 'What WW 3 would look like? article via the following URL):
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/11/01/philip-giraldi-7/#comment-19787
Check out the following 'Iran: A Bridge Too Far?' article as well:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm
Charlie Cressman wrote:
I think you're right; however, these fools never have been deterred by the likely sequellae from their attacks on Islamic countries. With oil hovering around $90 bbl and the dollar reeling against all major currencies, a Zio-inspired attack on Iran will have dire consequences. Consider some of the often reported scenarios:
After a made-for-TV extravaganza of waves of B-1, B-2 and carrier-based warplanes combined with hundred of cruise missile salvos, many observers may be deluded to think that the Iranians could never have survived such shock and awe. Several days later, however, America finds that its attacks were less than successful as retaliatory missile attacks of Onyx and Sunburn missiles sink a US aircraft carrier with over 5000 sailors and airmen on board as well as two tankers heading out of the Strait of Hormuz with full cargos of oil.
The US threatens to hit all known Iranian military sites with neutron bombs. Russia and China increase nuclear alert levels.
Lloyds of London drops all liability coverage for Gulf shipping, effectively suspending all oil exports from the Persian Gulf, accounting for two-thirds of the world's supply and 70% of Japan's and Europe's. Oil hits $200 bbl. and the pump price in the US moves to $7.00/gallon. The Dow drops 2500 points.
The UN condemns the US attacks and China and Russia call an emergency session of the Security Council.
Islamic rage against the US and Israel leads to a popular revolt in Pakistan and Musharraf is deposed and replaced by an Islamist lieutenant general from the ISI, the pro-Taliban military intelligence service of Pakistan. India reacts and puts its nuclear forces on the highest alert.
Ten days after the US air campaign, Iran sends 200,000 Revolutionary Guards into Shi'a areas of southeastern Iraq as a show of solidarity with its co-religionists. The US command declares an emergency and scrambles to secure an escape route to Kuwait, where it's increasingly evident that escape thorough the Strait of Hormuz is going to be extremely risky given the Iranian missile threat. The Dow drops to 10,000 and gas rationing begins in Europe, Asia and parts of North America.
I think you get the idea. The neocons' lunacy could put the US military force in Iraq in dire circumstances and necessitate a fighting retreat into Kuwait or north through Kurdistan into Turkey. Iraq would disintegrate and Iran would become the de facto overlord. The Israeli situation could become a strategic nightmare...
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:35 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
