| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
| UN Security Council won't take up Iran sanctions in 2007
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press WriterThu Dec 13, 12:01 AM ET
The U.N. Security Council will not take up new sanctions against Iran until early next year because of serious differences between the U.S. and key European nations who want tough measures and Russia and China who don't, U.N. diplomats said Wednesday.
The delay in the council's consideration of a third sanctions resolution followed a 90-minute telephone discussion Tuesday of political directors from the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany that highlighted the divide among the key players.
"I think it unlikely, unfortunately, that we will be able to make progress during 2007," Britain's U.N. Ambassador John Sauers told reporters. "We will come back to this issue in 2008."
China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya agreed, saying there isn't much time left in December and discussions are still going on in capitals.
"I think it's more likely that it will come in January to the Security Council," he told The Associated Press.
Wang said last week that the new U.S. intelligence finding that Iran halted development of a nuclear bomb four years ago raised questions about new sanctions against Tehran. "I think we all start from the presumption that now things have changed," he said.
Russia and China, both veto-wielding council members and allies of Iran, have grudgingly approved two sets of limited U.N. sanctions to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. But the Kremlin has bristled at the U.S. push for tougher measures, saying they would only widen the rift with Iran.
U.S. officials in Washington said Monday a preliminary sanctions plan drafted by France would punish the Quds Force, part of Iran's powerful and pervasive Revolutionary Guard Corps, for exporting banned weapons, and Bank Melli, one of Iran's largest banks that the United States included in its own sweeping sanctions program in October.
But U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because talks have been private, said China opposes any sanctions that would interfere with trade with Iran, and Russia opposes sanctions on any Iranian banks.
"I think there are still wide differences between on the one hand, Britain, France, Germany and the United States, on the other hand Russia and China, as to what that something should be" in a new sanctions resolution, Britain's Sauers said.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said additional pressure on Iran is essential "to incentivize it to cooperate with the international community" and suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for nuclear energy or nuclear bombs.
The new National Intelligence Estimate "has not been helpful in speeding us to get ... agreement on a resolution" but he said talks among the six countries are continuing and the political directors will decide when to transfer the Iran issue to the council.
The United States doesn't expect a transfer "for some days still," but hopefully in December, Khalilzad said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in September that Tehran would ignore Security Council demands and sanctions imposed by "arrogant powers" to curb its nuclear program.
Instead, he said, Iran had decided to pursue the monitoring of its nuclear program through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.
In a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon obtained Wednesday by the AP, Iran's U.N. ambassador said the new U.S. intelligence report showed that the pretext for referring Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council was from the outset "flawed and unfounded."
Ambassador Mohammad Khazee rejected the U.S. intelligence finding that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons program before 2003. He called the claim "totally unfounded" and part of a U.S. "fear-mongering campaign ... in order to deliberately mislead the Security Council and push the council to take unlawful action against Iran."
Khazee said the new U.S. intelligence estimate, reports by the IAEA, and statements by international figures and some Security Council members "all testify that Iran neither had any military nuclear program in the past nor does it possess any such a program at present."
Therefore, he said, the council should end "its unlawful consideration of Iran's nuclear issue" and send the dossier back to the IAEA. Any further council involvement will "undermine the credibility and authority of the IAEA," Khazee warned. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: Iran, Korea and Mideast top Rice agenda |
| Iran, Korea and Mideast top Rice agenda
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the rocky resumption of the Middle East peace process, instability in Lebanon and uncertainty in Iraq will dominate Bush administration foreign policy concerns during its final year.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press in her State Department office, Rice said Wednesday that Iran and North Korea, two of the three charter members of President Bush's "axis of evil," have a long way to go before shedding that tag despite recent developments.
"They are clearly still states about which there are significant proliferation concerns," Rice said. "It would be very irresponsible not to deal with those dangers."
Her comments follow the release of new U.S. intelligence that finds Tehran stopped nuclear weapons development in 2003 and apparent progress in efforts to get Pyongyang to abandon its atomic arms program, including unprecedented political and cultural exchanges.
A day after the New York Philharmonic announced it would play a concert in the North Korean capital and a week after word of a personal letter from Bush to leader of the communist nation, Kim Jong Il, Rice downplayed the significance of both.
"This is not a regime that the United States is prepared to engage broadly," she said. "If we are going to engage it broadly, it's clear in the program that we have laid out how that would happen, after denuclearization.
"What matters first and foremost is that we deal with the nuclear weapons programs, all of them, of the North Koreans," Rice said. "It remains a country that is dangerously armed and a considerable threat on both the proliferation front and its own program."
The letter offered the possibility for better relations with the United States if North Korea lives up to the deal it made, and underscored U.S. expectations. While unremarkable in content, the letter was a symbolic gesture to a leader Bush has ridiculed and ostracized.
As the administration tries to cope with Iran after a U.S. intelligence reassessment that the Islamic republic shelved its nuclear weapons four years ago, Rice said Tehran is still a threat.
"I don't think the (National Intelligence Estimate) gives a benign rendering of Iran," she said. "I see it as still quite dangerous."
Rice brushed aside suggestions from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the findings could open better relations with the United States, insisting that Iran must account for its past atomic weapons activities.
"Since they have embraced the NIE, I assume that they are embracing the entire thing," Rice said. "And that means that they must have had a weapons program and that means that they have a lot to answer for."
On a related matter, Rice condemned Wednesday's assassination of a top Lebanese army figure, but would not expressly blame Syria, which along with Iran is accused by the United States and others of interfering in Lebanon's internal politics as it tries to elect a new president.
She said she spoke Wednesday to Lebanon's U.S.-backed prime minister, Fuad Saniora, whose government has been paralyzed for months by a bitter political split. Parliament's election for a president have been postponed repeatedly.
"It's really important that they be able to elect a president ... and Syria and all of Lebanon's neighbors need to play a constructive role and encourage all of their allies to let that happen and not interfere with it," Rice said.
Rice said the "turbulence" at Wednesday's rocky first session in Jerusalem of Israeli and Palestinian peace talks — arranged at a U.S.-hosted conference in Annapolis, Md., last month — was to be expected.
"Both parties are committed to moving this forward and they will move this forward," Rice said of the effort to negotiate a Palestinian state by the end of 2008. "You're going to have some good meetings and some not good meetings."
As the administration enters its final year, it will face challenges to democracy in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin is likely to eschew term limits and become the country's new prime minister, and key anti-terror ally Pakistan where anti-terror ally President Pervez Musharraf is under fire.
On Russia, Rice, a former Sovietologist, said she was not particularly troubled by Putin's political aspirations but hoped that "the presidential election will look somewhat better" than parliamentary, or Duma, polls last month that were widely criticized. "I am concerned right now about the process and what clearly seems to be steps backward," she said.
In Pakistan, where the United States is torn between Musharraf and human rights and democracy concerns since a major crackdown on the opposition and declaration of emergency rule, Rice said she has hope ahead of parliamentary elections in January since Musharraf has stepped down as army chief and announced he would rescind the state of emergency next week to prepare for the elections.
"Taking off the uniform is a good step, ending the state of emergency is an essential step, holding a free and fair election is an absolutely essential step, and if they do those things it's not going to be a perfect situation but it will be much further along the road of democracy than it has been in a long time," Rice said.
___
Associated Press Diplomatic Writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: Bush Spins Iran's Centrifuges |
| consortiumnews.com
Bush Spins Iran's Centrifuges
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/120707.html
By Ray McGovern
December 8, 2007
Those who know about the centrifuges used to refine uranium tell me they must spin at an almost unrivaled velocity—almost unrivaled, because Bush administration statements are being spun at equivalent speed by White House and corporate media spiders.
Without weaver-in-chief Karl Rove and former presidential spokesman Tony Snow, it is amateur hour at the White House. And the theater would be as funny as The Daily Show were the subject not so serious.
Judging from President George W. Bush’s words and body language he is far from giving up on ways to “justify” attacking Iran’s nuclear program—weapons-related or not. He appears convinced he must honor the pledge he has made to Israel’s current leaders to eliminate what they have called an “existential threat” to Israel.
This came through in a particularly pointed way when an agitated president ad-libbed about the possibility of World War III, complaining loudly, “We’ve got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel.”
Not at all helpful to the president was the judgment of U.S. intelligence that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons-related program in 2003, a judgment the administration made public this week.
The White House knew only too well that this bombshell could not be kept secret very long—the more so since Congress’ intelligence committees, Pentagon brass, and senior CIA officials reportedly made it clear they would go public if the White House did not publish a sanitized version of the key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate.
On Oct. 26, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell launched a trial balloon, declaring he would no longer declassify and release summaries of National Intelligence Estimates, but that balloon was quickly shot down.
So what can Cheney and Bush do now to “justify” striking Iran?
Several months ago, about the time new intelligence established there was no active nuclear weapons program in Iran, there were signs in the rhetoric coming from the president and Gen. David Petraeus that the argument was going to hinge on claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were supplying the wherewithal to kill our troops in Iraq.
Petraeus was clearly ready to play that game, but his superior, Admiral “we’re-not-going-to-do-Iran-on-my-watch” William Fallon would not play along. And neither would the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is now back from a brief visit to Iraq and his caution so far on this issue suggests he is paying more heed to Fallon than to Petraeus.
In other words, there is no sign that Gates wants to abet using Iranian meddling in Iraq as a pretext for a military strike on Iran. Gates’s well-deserved chameleon-like reputation counsels caution here, since a word from Cheney or Bush could conceivably make Gates a fervent champion of this pretext for war.
But people do mature; Gates is smart; and I doubt he would want to be so closely associated with starting a regional war, if not WW III.
Spinning Centrifuges
So where does that leave the beleaguered president?
This week’s spinning by the White House and subservient media suggests the administration still thinks it can make a case for war, by obfuscating the nuclear program in Iran.
This has become clearer as administration mouthpieces blur the distinction between uranium enrichment for a civilian energy use (permitted to signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty) and the much more demanding requirements of a nuclear weapons program.
The spinners have resurrected the discredited argument that Iran’s nuclear program must be for weapons, because Iran’s oil and gas should suffice to meet all its energy requirements.
Thus, the administration’s Pravda, also known as the editorial page of the Washington Post, on Dec. 5: “Iran’s massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds...even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium.”
And thus another major administration mouthpiece, also known as the New York Times, on Dec. 6, in an op-ed, “In Iran We Trust?” by Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin: “Why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value.”
This is a familiar canard; i.e., that Iran’s claim that its nuclear program is for electricity production is given the lie by its own large oil and natural gas reserves, so uranium enrichment must be for nuclear weapons development.
Condoleezza Rice took that line over a year and a half ago (shades of those (in)famous aluminum tubes that she said could “only” be used in a nuclear application but turned out to be for conventional artillery).
At about the same time Dick Cheney complained that since the Iranians are “already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas, nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy.”
It all makes me think of Harry Truman’s complaint: “They must think we were born yesterday!”
Rice and Cheney have selective memories—or take us for fools.
Back in 1976—with Gerald Ford president, Dick Cheney his chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld secretary of defense—the Ford administration bought the Shah’s argument that Iran needed a nuclear program to meet its future energy requirements.
That argument, of course, is even more valid today, with the price that can be obtained for oil and the specter of Peak Oil.
Cheney and Rumsfeld persuaded a hesitant President Ford to offer Iran a deal that would have meant at least $6.4 billion for U.S. corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric, had not the Shah been unceremoniously dumped three years later.
The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear fuels cycle—essentially the same capability that the U.S. and Israel now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire.
A pity that our domesticated media seem unable to catch the disingenuousness.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he chaired some National Intelligence Estimates and produced/briefed the President’s Daily Brief. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
| consortiumnews.com
Neocons Down, Not Out
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/120507.html
By Robert Parry
December 6, 2007
Since the neoconservatives began to emerge as a political force in the mid-to-late 1970s, they have followed a consistent strategy of targeting the information flows inside the United States, paying particular attention to controlling the nation’s intelligence analysts and purging independent thinking from the U.S. news media.
Those were the two key switching points that allowed the neocons to push out favorable information and suppress contrary facts to shape how Americans perceived reality. Thus, the neocons could guide the public on issues such as the severity of the Soviet threat in the late Cold War or the WMD danger from Iraq and Iran this decade.
That neoconservative strategy reached its zenith after the 9/11 attacks as the U.S. intelligence community and the Washington press corps caved under intense political pressure. Essentially, President George W. Bush and the neocons got to manipulate reality itself – and they used that power to scare the heck out of the American people.
Some grassroots resistance emerged to challenge these faux realities, but it didn’t gain much traction on the national level until Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in late summer 2005 and Bush couldn’t spin his administration’s incompetent response.
Since then, the struggle has been up and down. Public revulsion over Bush’s arrogance and the neocons' bloody fiasco in Iraq led to the Republican congressional defeat in 2006. But the Democrats then frittered away their advantage with a feckless approach on Iraq troop withdrawals and a failure to mount sustained investigations of administration wrongdoing.
Then, in fall 2007, Bush and the neocons sold the Iraq War “surge” as a great success, even though the result appears to be an open-ended U.S. military occupation of a hostile Arab country with one or two American soldiers and scores of Iraqis still dying each day.
Nevertheless, the neocons were again beating their chests and baiting their opponents as defeatists who want to undermine the troops. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The ‘Triumphant’ Neocons.”]
Surprising Intel
But the neocons were dealt an unexpected body blow with the Dec. 3 release of a stunning U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, a finding that contradicted Bush’s belligerent rhetoric about Iran’s nukes possibly provoking “World War III.”
The National Intelligence Estimate knocked the wind out of the neocons’ hope for a military confrontation with Iran before the end of Bush’s term. [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Miracle: Honest Intel on Iran Nukes."]
At a Dec. 4 press conference, Bush was left sputtering an unpersuasive claim that his warning about “World War III” on Oct. 17 was uttered while his intelligence advisers were keeping him in the dark about the new information that supported the NIE.
On Dec. 5, Bush tried to regain his political balance by blaming Iran for the doubts about its nuclear program.
"The Iranians have a strategic choice to make,” Bush said in Omaha, Nebraska. “They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities and fully accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment program and come to the table and negotiate, or they can continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people. The choice is up to the Iranian regime."
Still, the NIE represented a declaration of independence by professional U.S. intelligence analysts who had been bullied by the neocons over the past three decades and especially during the run-up to the war with Iraq. [For the fullest account of this history, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege and our new book, Neck Deep.]
Campaign 2008
Though Bush and the neocons again find themselves on the defensive, the political battle is far from over. The neocons retain extraordinary strength within the U.S. news media as well as in the leading Washington think tanks and inside many of the presidential campaigns.
Except for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican contenders are enthusiastic backers of the neocon agenda of an imperial United States with an all-powerful Executive who will subordinate America's constitutional rights to the waging of an indefinite “war on terror.”
While all the Democrats criticize Bush's approach to some degree, the neocons view purported front-runner, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, as an ally who often votes with neocon hawks, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut. Until recently, Sen. Clinton was getting foreign policy advice from “surge” advocate Michael O’Hanlon.
So, if the early political handicapping holds up, the neocons could find themselves in the enviable position next fall of having a super-neocon Republican versus a neocon-lite Democrat. Then, whoever wins, the neocons can expect their policies in the Mideast to continue.
If that's how Election 2008 does turn out, the again-triumphant neocons might be looking to dish out some payback to those newly independent-minded CIA analysts. Plus, the neocons implicated in abuses during Bush’s presidency could expect to get off scot-free.
Neither a new Republican administration nor a second Clinton presidency would likely seek accountability for the crimes and other misdeeds of the Bush years. Hillary Clinton likely would follow the forgiving pattern of her husband.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he appointed neoconservative Democrat James Woolsey to head the CIA. Then, in a gesture of bipartisanship, the new President pulled the plug on ongoing investigations of Reagan-Bush-era wrongdoing regarding secret arms deals with Iran and Iraq.
By turning out the lights on that history, President Clinton apparently felt he would gain some reciprocity from the Republicans. But Clinton’s actions only emboldened the Republicans and gave the neocons time to regroup. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Clintons’ Real Trouble with Truth.”]
So, the neocons may have been staggered a few times in recent months, but it would be premature to count them out.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: "The CIA is enemy territory" Paul Wolfowitz Agains |
| "The CIA is enemy territory" Paul Wolfowitz Against US Intelligence
The following was posted at the following Internet Newsgroup URL:
http://tinyurl.com/2xxgrx
"The CIA is enemy territory" Paul Wolfowitz Against US Intelligence
The quote in the title comes from a very informative document that you can
read here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=pa...
There is a good reason why Paul Wolfowitz has no use for the CIA or the US
Intelligence Community. It has to do with the word they share in common.
Intelligence , as in something that is gathered from a study of the facts.
Something that has some basis in reality. Facts just get in the way of
people like Wolfowitz, who make up their minds what they want to do, and
then make up excuses why they have to do it.
The document above is a handy resource with links to many sources about
things said and done by and about Paul Wolfowitz. I decided to put on my hip
boots and wade into Wolfowitz's career in political propaganda, because
something about the recent Iran NIE bashing maneuver coordinated by the New
York Times and Washington Post reminds me of the run up to the war with
Iraq.
Even before 9/11, Wolfowitz is ready to invade Iraq. While Tenet and others
worry about Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, Wolfowitz wants to get on with
the Project for the New American Century ---you know, liberating oil that
was under the control of brown people. When the CIA and FBI fails to get on
board his theories that Saddam blew up the WTC in 1993 "he said something
derisive about how I shouldn't believe the CIA and FBI, that they've been
wrong."
After 9/11, Dept. Defense Sect. Wolfowitz is commissioned by Rumfeld to set
up the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, which picks and chooses which
intelligence it likes.
Critics claim that its members manipulate and distort intelligence,
"cherry-picking" bits of information that support their preconceived
conclusions. "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the
Defense Department and the intelligence community, to include its own
Defense Intelligence Agency," a defense official will tell the New York
Times. "Wolfowitz and company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support
their own preconceived conclusions. The CIA is enemy territory, as far are
they're concerned."
This group leaked material from the US intelligence community, a pattern
which will become familiar.
According to unnamed Pentagon and US intelligence officials, the group is
also accused of providing sensitive CIA and Pentagon intercepts to the
US-funded Iraqi National Congress, which then pass them on to the government
of Iran.
In 2002, after the CIA launches a covert attack in Yemen, Wolfowitz blows
the cover of the operation on national television, jeopardizing the agencies
ability to conduct similar operations in the future.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confirms that the assassination of
Qaed Senyan al-Harethi in Yemen two days earlier. was done with a US
Predator drone that struck the truck carrying al-Harethi and five others.
Initial reported suggested that the truck was destroyed by a car bomb, but
this cover story is blown when Wolfowitz brags about the success of the
operation on CNN, revealing US involvement. Newsweek reports that "The CIA,
which ran the operation, was furious with the Defense Department for blowing
its cover story." US procedures required that the Yemeni government had to
give approval of the strike in advance, and the revelation of such approval
is highly embarrassing to the Yemeni government.. The CIA view is, you dumb
bastards, this means no other country will cooperate with us!"
The next big leak, will be Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Richard Armitage's
outing of CIA operative Valeria Plame, six months later, in retaliation for
her husband, Joe Wilson's op-ed piece in the New York Times debunking claims
that Iraq tried to purchase uranium. No evidence that Wolfowitz was
involved, but Dick Cheney sure seems to have been.
The pattern here is clear. The NeoCons could care less about the operations
of the US intelligence community. They want the CIA and its partners to
produce the evidence which they need to support the operations which they
plan to launch. Leaks of classified intelligence information can and will be
made whenever Wolfowitz or the administration feels like it---and there is
nothing the US intelligence community can do about it.
During 2002, Wolfowitz grows increasingly angry at the CIA and other
intelligence agencies, as they fail (or refuse) to produce the evidence he
wants to back up the claims he is making to the press that an Iraqi diplomat
met a 9/11 hijacker in the Czech Republic.
September 23, 2002: Newsweek reports that the CIA is resisting Pentagon
demands to obtain pictures of the alleged meeting from Iraqi exiles. One
official says, "We do not shy away from evidence. But we also don't make it
up."'
Wolfowitz is also reported to have become enraged when the CIA failed to
find any useful material when he told them to dig up dirt that would
discredit Han Blix, chairman of the UN Weapons Inspection Team. By 2003, as
US intelligence is failing to provide the story that he wants to hear,
Wolfowitz and his NeoCon buddies, begin turning directly to Israeli
intelligence.
After several CIA reports downplay intelligence provided to Washington by
Israeli intelligence officials, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
and other neoconservatives working in the Pentagon begin meeting personally
with Israeli officials to hear their intelligence. The CIA's reports had
found that conclusions made by Israeli intelligence were often skewed by its
biases against the Arab world.
Note that the US intelligence community was correct when it said that Saddam
had nothing to do with 9/11, that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a
prolonged conflict and a civil war and the several hundred thousand US
troops could be involved. (If you add up the private contractors, there are
several hundred thousand over there now.). In contrast, Wolfowitz toured the
TV talk shows, declaring that we would be in and out, the war would pay for
itself with Iraqi oil, there would be no ethnic violence and the Iraqis
would greet us as liberators.
Paul Wolfowitz believes himself to be a genius. In fact, he is a Goebbels
style propaganda master.
Paul Wolfowitz is back at the White House, perhaps because time is running
out on their plans to force the US into another war for oil, this time in
Iran.
Signs that Wolfowitz is working behind the scenes will include efforts to
undermine the ability of the US Intelligence Community to gather factual
information about Iran and present it to the public. Intimations that
Israel's intelligence agency is better than that of the US and accusations
that US intelligence agencies are too political are also part of the
Wolfowitz package. Most of all, since he is attempting to discredit the
validity of their intelligence, he will attempt to cast them as liars and
cheats. It is likely that the CIA decided to reveal its "Family Jewels" last
summer in order to prevent the White House from holding the document over
its head as blackmail to keep it from releasing the Iran NIE. Since "the CIA
is enemy territory", no tactics will be too extreme.
Consider the possibility that the more you distrust the CIA, the better job
Paul Wolfowitz and his NeoCon partners are doing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes one wonder how the neocons brains are wired Not being of the same
mind-set, it's difficult for me to try and understand how they think
anything they do is on the correct path for the good of the nation.
Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Fox Noise, et al, we call them and their
ilk "batshit crazy", which they clearly are, but one would think that this
yellow belly draft-dodging coward crowd would be the quiet, lurk in the
shadows type. Not this in-your-face "I'm a Super Patriot" type of dipstick.
These clowns clearly have a mental health issue going on.
For neocons, America is enemy territory. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
| Israel still pushing for war on Iran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. report on Iran forces Israel to alter strategy.
… The Israeli dilemma is how to prove Iran is cheating without being accused of trying to push the United States into war. That is why the official strategy is to work quietly behind the scenes. …
The new Israeli strategy is based on four main elements:
· actively pushing for stiffer international sanctions on Iran, despite the U.S. report;
· working quietly behind the scenes to convince others through Israel’s own intelligence material that Iran is intent on producing nuclear weapons;
· refraining from arguing with the U.S. assessment in public, lest Israel be seen to be trying to push the United States into military action against Iran;
· and Israel keeping open its own military options. ….
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2007121120071210iranprogram.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: |
| Paul: Bush no authority to rule world
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=35091§ionid=3510203
Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:36:58
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul says President Bush has started empire-building by invading Iraq and Afghanistan and beating the drums of war with Iran.
The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 without a declaration of war by Congress was the most egregious violation of the Constitution in the last 20 years, Paul told Lahontan Valley News (LVN) prior to a campaign speech in Fallon.
He also rejected that there is any military threat to the US and said "to try to propose that the Iraqis were trying to attack us was ridiculous. Now they are doing it with the Iranians and they have proven wrong again."
During his campaign speech the Republican presidential candidate affirmed that no country has the power to control the world.
"There's no constitutional authority to rule the world," he said.
Regarding the threats the US is facing the Texas congressman said that the Chinese could bring the US to their knees with or without any other nation by just rejecting our dollar.
Paul believes financial problems, Washington's invasion of the US citizens' privacy and taxation are the major threats to the US.
MT/AA/MG | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
| Israel officials in US to discuss Iran
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 57 minutes ago
Israel has dispatched an unscheduled delegation of intelligence officials to the U.S. to try to convince it that Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapon — contrary to the findings of a recent U.S. intelligence report, security officials said.
The delegation, which set off last week on its unscheduled mission, will wind up its visit this week, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter with the media.
It was not clear what type of material the Israeli delegation — for the most part military intelligence officers — presented to U.S. officials.
The U.S. and Israel will also hold additional joint formal meetings on the matter in coming weeks, the Israeli officials said recently. Israel will use these forums to try to persuade the Americans that Iran is trying to development nuclear weapons, and intends to present information classified as top secret for security reasons, the officials said.
The U.S. report, released earlier this month, concludes Iran halted its weapons development program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen through at least through the middle of this year. The findings reversed a key conclusion from a 2005 intelligence report that Iran was developing a bomb.
Israeli officials who have reviewed all known intelligence on Iran's nuclear activities have concluded that Iran did in fact suspend its atomic weapons development in 2003, after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Israeli security officials said. But Israel is convinced the Iranians set up a new production line whose details aren't known fully to Western intelligence agencies, they said.
Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insisted that Iran hasn't abandoned its attempts to develop a nuclear weapon.
On Saturday, a senior Israeli Cabinet minister who once headed Israel's internal security agency issued the country's harshest criticism yet of the U.S. intelligence report, calling it a "misconception" that threatened to lead to a surprise regional war.
Public Security Minister Avi Dichter compared the possibility of such fighting to a surprise attack on Israel in 1973 by its Arab neighbors, which came to be known in Israel for the Yom Kippur Jewish holy day on which it began.
"The American misconception concerning Iran's nuclear weapons is liable to lead to a regional Yom Kippur where Israel will be among the countries that are threatened," Dichter said in a speech in a suburb south of Tel Aviv, according to his spokesman, Mati Gil. "Something went wrong in the American blueprint for analyzing the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat."
Dichter didn't elaborate on the potential scenario but seemed to imply that a world that let its guard down regarding Iran would be more vulnerable to attack by the Islamic regime.
Israel considers the regime in Tehran to be its biggest threat because of its nuclear ambitions, its long-range missile program and repeated calls by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to wipe Israel off the map.
Iran says its nuclear program is designed to produce energy. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:39 am Post subject: |
| Tel Aviv rocked
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/875/re5.htm
A crisis meeting indicates that Israel faces a strategic emergency following a US intelligence report that sees no threat in Iran, writes Saleh Al-Naami
The mobile phone of Dr Shlomo Segev, private physician of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, rang at around 6pm last Wednesday. It was Olmert's private secretary, asking Segev to postpone the appointment scheduled in Olmert's home, and in the presence of his wife, to schedule an operation to remove the cancerous prostate tumour Olmert suffers from. This appointment was cancelled due to an important security development -- at that time Olmert was heading an emergency meeting of the heads of the security and intelligence agencies and representatives of the Israeli atomic energy agency, as well as propaganda experts and the ministers of foreign affairs and defence. On the agenda were the claims of an American intelligence report stating that Iran had, since 2003, halted development of its nuclear arms programme. Those attending the meeting agreed that the report was a resounding blow for Israel, and some described it as a "major intelligence and diplomatic failure".
During this meeting, Olmert's tone was sharp and decisive. He directed the heads of intelligence agencies and representatives of the nuclear energy agency to "employ all of Israel's abilities and intelligence capacity to show that the American report interpreted intelligence information incorrectly". Israeli journalist Ben Kasbit, who has close ties with the intelligence agencies, says that the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, promised Olmert during the meeting that his agency would aim to prove to the world that in addition to the nuclear arms programme discontinued in 2003 and the nuclear programme for peaceful purposes that Iran is still developing, a third, secret programme exists that Iran has successfully hidden until now. Dagan promised that his agency would cooperate with others in an attempt to prove that the Iranians are trying through this secret programme to acquire military nuclear abilities without the outside world knowing.
As for propaganda, it was decided during this meeting that a relentless campaign would be waged against the American report, but not by official Israeli agencies. It was agreed during the meeting that on official military and political levels in Israel it is prohibited to appear as though Israel wants to push the American administration towards military confrontation with Iran at any price. It was thus decided that this campaign would be undertaken by Israeli propaganda experts in cooperation with retired generals, atomic energy experts, and retired heads of intelligence agencies, and in coordination with the heads of Jewish groups in the United States and all American parties that have criticised the report.
Although the basis of the propaganda campaign against the report has not been announced, a week since its commencement one can see the mechanisms used to meet its goals, and they appear contradictory and weak. Participants in the Israeli propaganda campaign have doubts about the professionalism of the report, claiming that the Americans have interpreted intelligence information incorrectly and incompletely. They also doubt the motivations of the 16 top officials in American intelligence agencies who crafted the report, many of the campaigners claiming that they issued the report based on the lessons of the war on Iraq, when the American administration justified its war on information offered by American intelligence claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction while this information was later proven wrong. Those running the Israeli campaign claim that the authors of the report wanted to prevent President Bush from waging war against Iran through publicly undermining the reasons for going to war.
Yet the Israeli propagandists contradict themselves in also claiming that the report was issued with the encouragement of Bush himself, seeking justification to not wage war against Iran since it is clearly impossible for him to do so following the report's issue. So as to add a personal character to the intelligence report, Olmert's government has allowed the leaking of a report issued by researchers in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs that claims that Bush has decided not to wage war against Iran due to his present weakness. The Israeli media had previously embellished the issue with appropriate quotes taken from a number of top Israeli officials praising Bush's determination to put an end to Tehran's nuclear programme.
Yet these Israeli propaganda efforts have not succeeded in convincing most of the Israeli media. All of the intelligence affairs commentators in Israeli newspapers, such as Ronin Bregman, Yossi Melman, Amir Oren and others, stress that the American report relied on exactly the same intelligence information available to Israel, and that the Israeli intelligence agencies do not possess any information American intelligence agencies don't have. These commentators also stress that top officials in Israeli intelligence agencies know well that they can't refute the professionalism of American intelligence agencies.
Israel has been extremely embarrassed on political and security levels by the American report because it shows Israel -- and particularly its intelligence agencies -- as a party seeking to involve Washington in a confrontation with Tehran without justification. Yet Israel has not only lost diplomatically, and in terms of media coverage. The report has also been a blow to the Israeli strategy of raising the slogan that "a nuclear Iran is a threat to world peace and security."
While Israel's bet on the Bush administration thwarting Iran's nuclear programme through military action has failed since the report's appearance, Tel Aviv realises that even the next American president won't be able to resort to a military option in confronting Iran after this report. At the same time, Tel Aviv also realises that its ability to convince the world's nations to impose strict economic sanctions on Tehran has weakened, despite the promise of Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to continue efforts to place further pressure on Tehran. Tel Aviv knows that many of the world's countries that have economic and commercial relations with Tehran have breathed a sigh of relief following the report, because it allows them to resist Washington's attempts to recruit them into an alliance against Iran.
Yet Israel's predicament following the publication of the American report does not stop here. According to decision- makers in Tel Aviv, Iran constitutes a strategic threat to Israel even without nuclear arms. According to General Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Israeli minister of infrastructure, Iran possesses a massive arsenal of ballistic missiles that could cover all of Israel. Tsevi Bareil, a well-known Israeli researcher and writer, states that the American report has caused Tel Aviv to lose "an important strategic wealth", and that Israel will find it difficult to continue marketing the stereotype it tried to spread about Iran in order to sustain on its policies in the region. For example, it will now be difficult for Israel to demand that Syria cut its relations with Iran as a condition for resuming peace negotiations. Roni Daniel, military commentator for Israeli television Channel Two, holds that the report is a harsh blow to Israel's attempts to grow closer to Arab states -- particularly Gulf States -- because it undermines Israel's argument that the Iranian threat forms a common denominator between them, creating groundwork for cooperation and mutual understanding, and even an alliance based on shared interests.
Yet most terrifying to Israeli circles is the fact that the American report paves the way for a new stage in relations between Tehran and Washington. Tel Aviv watched with extreme worry as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended the recent Gulf summit. Strategic circles in Tel Aviv claim that Ahmadinejad's attendance would not happened without a green light from Washington. At the same time, these circles worryingly point to intensified meetings between Iranian and American diplomats in Baghdad on the invitation of Nuri Al-Maliki's government with the aim of decreasing levels of violence in Iraq. Similarly, Tel Aviv is pointing to agreement on the new president of Lebanon, claiming that it indicates that a new stage of relations between the two parties is about to ensue. In general, decision-makers in Israel hold that the American report is a diplomatic gain for Iran.
In addition, the report represents a blow to the credibility of Israeli intelligence agencies that have continued to portray themselves as offering indisputable intelligence information. This development is an extremely negative one for Israel because the West -- and in particular Washington -- has often made decisions on the basis of intelligence provided by Israel. Doubt over the credibility of Israeli intelligence agencies has reached the point of Yossi Melman, intelligence correspondent for the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, accusing Israeli agencies of "cooking up" intelligence information to serve the personal interests of Israeli leaders. Melman has urged his government to respond to the suggestion of the former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevy, to engage in dialogue with Iran.
It appears, however, that decision- makers in Israel remain intent on a confrontational policy. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman noted in an interview with Channel Two last Friday that Israel was now alone confronting Iran. Whether this declaration is prelude to unilateral action remains to be seen. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
