| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: Iran receives 3rd Russian fuel shipment for nuclear power pl |
| Iran receives 3rd Russian fuel shipment for nuclear power plant
(World News) Friday, 18 January 2008, 07:55 PST
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHRAN, Iran -Iran received a third shipment of nuclear fuel from Russia on Friday for a power plant being constructed in the southern port Bushehr, Iranian radio reported.
The 10-tonne consignment arrived at the Bushehr power plant Friday morning and the remainder of the fuel will arrive in five separate shipments over the next few months, the radio report said.
Iran received the first two shipments of nuclear fuel from Russia on Dec. 17 and Dec. 28 after months of dispute between the two countries, allegedly over delayed construction payments for the reactor.
Iran has said Bushehr, the country's first nuclear reactor, will begin operating in the summer of 2008, producing half its 1,000-megawatt capacity of electricity.
Tehran heralded the first shipment as a victory, saying it proved its nuclear program was peaceful, not a cover for weapons development as claimed by the United States and some of its allies.
The United States initially opposed Russian participation in building the Bushehr reactor and supplying it with fuel but reversed its position about a year ago to obtain Moscow's support for the first set of UN sanctions against Iran.
The United States and Russia have said the supply of nuclear fuel means Iran has no need to continue its uranium-enrichment program - a process that can provide fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Iran has agreed with Russia to return the spent fuel to ensure it doesn't extract plutonium to build a bomb.
Iran insisted it would continue enriching uranium because it needs to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it was building in the southwestern town Darkhovin.
Iranian officials have said they plan to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear energy in the next two decades.
Russia's decision to begin shipping nuclear fuel to Iran followed a U.S. intelligence report released earlier this month that concluded Tehran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and had not resumed it since. Iran says it never had a weapons program. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Mission unaccomplished |
| http://www.upi.com/search/?sp=t&sLocation=sStories&ss=Arnaud+de+Borchgrave+Mission+unaccomplished
Subject: Commentary: Mission unaccomplished
Date: Friday, January 18, 2008
Commentary: Mission unaccomplished
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large
WASHINGTON , Jan. 18 (UPI) -- President Bush's Air Force One was still airborne on its way back from a six-country, eight-day tour of Middle Eastern capitals when agreements and understandings began to unravel.
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah was noncommittal on pumping more crude oil. With oil near $100 per barrel, all OPEC countries are already siphoning off at full capacity and the desert kingdom's now small extra capacity would be a drop in the global bucket. The six Gulf states , known as the Gulf Cooperation Council, have already accumulated a cool $1 trillion nest egg -- half of which is already assigned to sovereign wealth funds for investment abroad.
Bush's quid for the king's quo was $20 billion worth of high-tech military goodies over the next 10 years (still not authorized by Congress or accepted by the king, who is also shopping in the United Kingdom , France and Russia ).
Bush rang the alarm bell about Iran 's clear and present nuclear danger, but his diplomatic message had already been overshadowed by last month's National Intelligence Estimate. While his Israeli interlocutors echoed the president's Iranian concerns, Arab heads of state took comfort in the assessment of Washington 's intelligence community that said Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program when the United States invaded Iraq .
Bush's explanation that while Iran may have suspended its nuclear activities when it thought the United States might come after Iran after toppling Saddam Hussein, it no doubt resumed as soon as the Iraqi insurgency surfaced. In fact, Tehran fueled the insurgency with sophisticated IED roadside bombs and infiltrated thousands of agents to fan the flames.
The Annapolis "understanding" reached last November requires the Palestinians to "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups" from attacking Israel. The Palestinian Authority has no authority over Hamas-run Gaza , where Palestinians went right on lobbing Qassam rockets into Israel 's border villages, and Israeli soldiers and fighter bombers launched daily retaliatory raids.
Israel , for its part in the Annapolis bargain, agreed to freeze all settlements and "immediately dismantle settlement outposts since March 2001." While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his Cabinet this was a solemn obligation, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added the obligation also included a halt to construction of new housing in Arab East Jerusalem, Israeli opposition gathered its forces against implementation.
Bush also reminded Israelis of the conditions he laid down for the original road map in 2003 for a Palestinian state by 2005: Such a state had to be free of "occupation," a term he has sidestepped in the past, and "contiguous," which means dismantling Israeli settlements that now block direct access between East Jerusalem, the presumed capital of the new Arab state, and the West Bank. The Zionist Organization of America quickly disassociated itself from President Bush's peremptory formulation.
The momentum-building exercise in quick diplomacy never gathered a head of steam beyond Annapolis . No sooner had Bush moved on to the Gulf to talk up the Iranian threat than one of the partners in Olmert's governing coalition, Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, walked out, reducing his parliamentary majority to 67 out of 120 seats. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are willing or able to make the fundamental concessions required for a viable two-state solution.
Bush's principal objective was to convince sheikdoms, emirates and kingdoms ( Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ) that Iran 's nuclear threat will have to be dealt with. The six GCC countries rely on the United States as their principal security guarantor against the ambitious mullahs across the Gulf. At the same time they are fearful Bush will strike Iran 's nuclear facilities before he leaves office.
The GCC's military and intelligence establishments see Iran with formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities. This was all too evident when five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats recently maneuvered in and out of three U.S. warships steaming through the Strait of Hormuz , the channel used to export one-third of the world's daily oil production. Had they been suicide boats, they could have disabled the three U.S. warships, like the USS Cole in Aden in October 2000, stranding them a few miles from the Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas.
U.S. macro power is helpless against a single micro actor trained in asymmetrical warfare with no return address and looking forward to his reward of 72 virgins in the promised land. So while Bush talked up Iran as "the world's leading sponsor of terrorism," his princely interlocutors all enjoy, on the surface, friendly relations with Tehran . They even invited Iran 's loose-cannon President Ahmadinejad to attend the last GCC heads of state summit. Saudi King Abdullah led him into the conclave holding hands.
When Bush not only warned Abdullah about "the world's leading sponsor of terrorism" but also the "dark rule across the Middle East" that al-Qaida is planning to impose, he may have drawn the wrong conclusion from smiling faces and nodding heads. Arab culture precludes negative reactions between heads of state. Arab newspapers and the al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya television networks conveyed the message: Bush is a lame duck who will be blocked by Congress and the intelligence community if he orders airstrikes against Iran .
Bush's customary tough talk about promoting democracy in the Middle East was uttered, but sotto voce. The president's telepathic message: Previous attempts at free elections produced the victory of a terrorist organization in Gaza ; chaos in Lebanon , a surge of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt ; five years of fighting in Iraq . Free elections in Bahrain , where two-thirds of the population is Shiite and the rulers Sunni, would most probably result in a government that would ask the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters in the Gulf to pack up and move to another country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080118/COMMENTARY/638022776/1012
2008 Futurology
January 18, 2008
By Arnaud de Borchgrave - Some 14 million U.S. government documents a year are classified confidential, secret and top secret for more than 29 million that are declassified — at a total cost of $9 billion, up $3.5 billion since the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.
For the last two years, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell has been trying to make security clearances uniform and interchangeable between the 16 intelligence agencies he overseas. But he is still waiting for congressional action. If he transfers a senior employee from the National Security Agency to the CIA, the security clearance has to start all over again — and takes up to nine months. A standardized system would save $3 billion.
The cult of secrecy coupled with bureaucratic sclerosis has given some 4,000 federal employees the power to classify documents. But 84 percent of federal agencies can't keep up with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. It took the CIA 20 years to declassify the fact Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, had a taste for distilled wine. In 2006, $134 was spent creating new secrets for every dollar spent releasing old secrets.
"Yankee White" clearances are given to a select few who work directly for POTUS (the president of the United States ) and are entitled to any information anywhere irrespective of classification. The name would doubtless change under an Obama presidency. But the select few must be natural-born U.S. citizens, bereft of any foreign influence, including even naturalized foreign-born wives.
There is now belated recognition that "Open Source Information" is the missing dimension of classified intelligence. Ninety percent of government secrets are obtainable through open sources.
This belated realization moved Director McConnell to appoint an assistant director of national intelligence for open source and the National Open Source Center . OSINT now has counterparts in each of the 16 agencies. A consensus also exists that OSINT constitutes an essential component of analytical products.
President Kennedy once confided to a close friend that he got more out the New York Times than the CIA. In those days, hundreds of foreign correspondents, all recognized experts in their assigned countries and regions, frequently with better sources than the CIA station chief, were constantly ahead of the curve. Those halcyon days of foreign reporting are largely history. Drastic cost-cutting has pruned increasingly expensive foreign assignments.
Another impediment to good analytical intelligence is the youth and inexperience of some 45,000 analysts in the 16 Intel agencies. Most of them were hired after September 11, 2001. Their average length of service is just over five years — and many of the best ones are hired away by Fortune 100 corporations at triple their government salary.
Intelligence agencies, major publications and corporate chieftains the world over now turn to the Rolls Royce of open sources — Oxford Analytica. Its daily briefs draw from more than 1,000 expert professors at Oxford and universities in five continents, and former intelligence service chiefs. About 35 of them meet by conference call daily to discuss the latest crisis and assess its importance and likely impact, which is then e-mailed to 49 governments (with hundreds of access points) and hundreds of corporate clients at $100 per day.
Subscribers pay $35,000 a year for their daily assessments. "Prospects 2008" on "Key themes and issues for the year ahead" is pricey at $3,500 for nonsubscribers — and $1,000 for regular clients. Its 261 pages cover every major country, region and transnational issue (e.g., Islamist terrorism, Climate Change). Its forecast for the U.S. elections is a Democratic president, "with narrow majorities for the party in both Chambers of Congress."
Other sample predictions (among hundreds):
• Islamist terrorism is a security threat that will span a generation. The war in Iraq threatens to reinforce the threat through diffusion of tactics and the strategic distraction of the U.S.
• Political instability and fluidity in Pakistan has eased pressure on al Qaeda, which has reconstituted a base in Pakistan's northwest and maintained operational links in North Africa and elsewhere.
• Al Qaeda sympathizers of diverse national origins are acquiring urban warfare skills in Iraq . Jihadists with Iraqi experience have been linked to attacks in Saudi Arabia , Jordan and Great Britain .
• The one bright spot is Southeast Asia , where efforts to contain several organizations have yielded some successes.
• In Iran , the year ahead will determine whether the radicalism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is merely a temporary setback in Iran 's post-Khomeini path of pragmatism and reform, or a permanent repudiation of the Rafsanjani and Khatami years and a return to the turmoil of the 1980s.
• Iran 's pragmatist/reformist opposition is likely to triumph in the March 2008 Majlis elections.
• Further sanctions are unlikely to deflect Tehran from its nuclear defiance.
• Iran will press ahead with its nuclear program until it masters the fuel cycle, and then will seek serious negotiations with the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany .
• The latest U.S. intelligence estimate of Iran 's nuclear ambitions has given Tehran room to breathe.
• George Bush enters the last year of his presidency "badly wrong-footed in almost every area of U.S. Middle East policy, and risks leaving office having accomplished none of his goals in the region."
• Mr. Bush will hand on the Iraq, Iran and Israeli-Palestinian problems to his successor in substantial disarray. The Middle East democratization push he cast as the signature effort of his second term has been all but abandoned.
• Risk aversion in credit markets will be prominent in 2008. This means material retrenchment for the U.S. consumer, erstwhile motor of global growth. Nonetheless, a pickup in investment spending in the developing world will keep real growth in the 2 percent to 3 percent range. Combined with a sharply weaker U.S. currency, this will be the beginning of a long-awaited "global rebalancing."
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: Who gave Israel and Pakistan The Bomb? "The Rosenbergs |
| Who gave Israel and Pakistan The Bomb? "The Rosenbergs did it!"
By Jane Stillwater http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com
How the freak did the Soviet Union develop an atomic bomb so suddenly after America invented it back in 1945? Surely scientists in the USSR couldn't have thought it up all by themselves. They must have had help from traitors and spies.
"The Rosenbergs did it!"
And in 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for alleged treason and for allegedly giving away state secrets because a nuclear bomb is so totally complex that the Soviets couldn't have possibly dreamed one up by themselves.
Then in 1969, when Richard M. Nixon was President, Israel suddenly developed The Bomb. Now how did that happen so fast? It was claimed that Soviet scientists couldn't think that fast and yet Israeli scientists could? And come up with all that uranium too? Amazing.
"The Rosenbergs did it!"
Then in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was President, Pakistan suddenly developed The Bomb too. Now how did that happen so fast?
"The Rosenbergs did it!"
Okay. Let's try to understand this. Allegedly, North Korea and Iraq and Iran have tried for YEARS to develop The Bomb. These three countries all have -- or had -- top scientists, access to stuff that glows in the dark and the will to make nuclear weapons -- yet they all failed.
But tiny little Israel and insignificant Pakistan -- they don't even have any oil -- managed to come up with The Bomb all by themselves? Hmmm....
When the Soviet Union came up with The Bomb, U.S. prosecutors all screamed bloody murder that SOMEONE in the U.S. had to have given them the secret -- and that whoever did it was a traitor who needed to be executed. Am I correct so far? Yeah.
But when Israel and Pakistan come up with The Bomb, no one even bats an eyelash. There were no spies? There were no traitors? Israel and Pakistan just dreamed all this stuff up by themselves?
Or did the Rosenbergs come back from the grave?
****
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed shortly after 8 p.m. in Sing-Sing Prison on June 19, 1953. The first fifty-seven second jolt of electricity failed to kill Ethel. She was restrapped to the chair and given two more jolts before being pronounced dead. Ethel was the first woman executed by the United States Government since Mary Surratt was hanged for her role in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:8EJN2iPow-UJ:www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons
http://haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEngPE.jhtml?itemNo=943729&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&title='CIA%20reveals:%20We%20said%20in%201974%20that%20Israel%20had%20nuclear%20weapons%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5#top | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
| The Hormuz Hoax
Who almost started World War III?
by Justin Raimondo http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12230
Following up on the alleged incident in the Strait of Hormuz with those five Iranian speedboats, remember that radioed threat supposedly coming from the Iranian side? Now they're blaming it on – are you ready for this? – "the Filipino Monkey," some crazy guy (or guys) whose obscene remarks have come crackling over ship radios in the area for years.
Notice how quickly the official story is changing. First the transmission was a threat coming from the Iranians: now they're "unsure." This is contrary to the President's characterization of what occurred, and the Pentagon's video presentation of a threat emanating from the speedboats: the allegedly "aggressive" actions of the Iranians are underscored by an audio overlay in which a voice interpolates "I am coming to you, you will explode in a few minutes."
The Iranians are calling the US video a fabrication, and it sure does look like that. Yet the Navy Times has another explanation:
"In recent years, American ships operating in the Middle East have had to contend with a mysterious but profane voice known by the ethnically insulting handle of "Filipino Monkey," likely more than one person, who listens in on ship-to-ship radio traffic and then jumps on the net shouting insults and jabbering vile epithets.
"Navy women – a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example – who are overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment. Several Navy ship drivers interviewed by Navy Times are raising the possibility that the Monkey, or an imitator, was indeed featured in that video."
The Monkey, in this account, takes on the aura of a legend, alongside Scylla and Charybdis:
"Rick Hoffman, a retired captain who commanded the cruiser Hue City and spent many of his 17 years at sea in the Gulf was subject to the renegade radio talker repeatedly, often without pause during the so-called 'Tanker Wars' of the late 1980s. 'For 25 years there's been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,' he said. 'He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.' And the Monkey has stamina. 'He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy,' he said. 'But who knows how many Filipino Monkeys there are? Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely.'"
Spurious is right. According to this guy, there is no Filipino Monkey:
"First of all any seaman, military or commercial, can tell you their is no heckler know as the "Filipino Monkey". Rather it's a phrase that's been uttered by thousands of mariners for decades. This harassing radio call with racial origins is made over the radio when a sailor hears the distinct accent of a Filipino mariner on the VHF radio. Why is it said? Mostly out of boredom but also for the simple reason that it is sure to get a heated response.
"…Initially I was shocked that a Navy ship, or any ship, could not have known the taunt was a joke. This is seamanship 101. I clearly remember having the taunt whispered in my ear by an upperclassmen during my plebe year that the Naval Academy and by the time I received my officers license I had heard it hundreds of time. How could the officers of the cruiser Port Royal not know this was a common joke? I'm admitting still confused but after hearing the audio file I must say it doesn't sound like the typical 'Filipino Monkey' taunt."
Oh, and look over here, at this Los Angeles Times story from November 12, 1987:
"A cargo ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz recently when it was challenged by an Iranian warship demanding to know what it carried. Iranian gunboats in these waters frequently attack vessels they suspect of carrying war materials to Iraq, and for the crew of the cargo ship, it was a tense moment.
"'What is your cargo? What is your cargo?' the voice of an Iranian officer crackled over the radio.
"Before the ship's captain could respond, a third voice came on the air: 'I am carrying machine guns and hand grenades to Iraq . . . and the atom bomb.'
"The Filipino Monkey had struck again."
And again – and again.
The Monkey, the Times tells us, hated Iranians, and told them what he thought of them "in graphic terms."
The return of the Monkey is so very convenient – anything can be attributed to that mischievous imp of the perverse and the profane, including doing the voiceover for a staged Gulf of Tonkin-style "incident." Now, I'm not saying that this is so, only that several factors raise the possibility. The Navy Times interviewed "a former skipper" who "noted how quiet and clean the radio 'threat' was, especially when radio calls from small boats in the chop are noisy and cluttered. 'It's a tough environment, you're bouncing around, moving fast, lots of wind, noise. It's not a serene environment,' he said. 'That sounded like somebody on the beach or a large ship going by.'"
A large ship – there are several such in the crowded waterways of the Strait, and surely the American warships are the largest. As for beach – there's plenty to choose from. There are also plenty of US military bases for a country not quite as big as Kansas: Thumrait Naval Air Base, the Masirah Air Base, and the US Air Force stationed at Seeb International Airport, the sultanate's main air transport hub. There is also a naval base at Al Khasab, on the Musandam peninsula – the Omani side of the "beach" where captain Hoffman thinks the transmission might have come from.
I don't buy the Monkey narrative: it sounds too much like a cover story to be quite real. Time magazine, too, has its suspicions:
"There may be a serious problem here. Has the Bush administration's demonization of Iran so pervaded the U.S. government that the judgement of vital decision-makers is becoming dangerously clouded? So when a possible practical joker issues a threat to a warship, you have a Strangelovian military chain of command from Bahrain to Washington racing to insist that the crazy, murderous mullahs in Tehran are at it again."
The problem may be more serious than Time blogger Scott Macleod, reporting from Cairo, may think, but, in any case, he has lots of questions. He wants to know
"If there was any monkey business involved in how the Pentagon originally spun the sensational kamikaze angle to the press and the global public. How seriously did the officers on the three ships take the suicide-attack threat? Were they certain that it had been issued by the Iranians? Did they consider or believe that it could have come from a prankster? How carefully did the Pentagon analyze the verbal threat once it was relayed back to Washington? Were officials there completely convinced that the threat came from Iran? Or did they have doubts yet went ahead anyway and indicated to reporters that Iran did it? Were officers on the scene and Pentagon officials in Washington aware that pranksters are prevalent on the Gulf radio networks? Did they factor that into their risk assessment and into their decision to point a quick finger at Iran?"
This narrative depends on the authenticity of the Monkey – who may or may not be more than one person – but we have no proof of that , and every reason to disbelieve it. Whoever told the Americans that they were going to explode "in a few minutes" was certainly monitoring the scene at sea, perhaps in sight of the encounter: in any case, the voice did not sound Iranian, according to Farsi speakers interviewed by the Washington Post. "Some have even said the voice sounds more like Borat than a real Iranian," quips Editor and Publisher.
Gee, I wonder if they hired an actor to do the voiceover.
No one is saying that the US government, or some subterranean branch of it – perhaps a "rogue" faction, as in Iran-Contra – is responsible for what happened in the Strait of Hormuz, where a "misunderstanding" almost sparked World War III. However, it's just possible – given our government's dismal record in this regard – that we'll be talking about the Hormuz Hoax, years from now, when the history of this decade of deception is written. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:38 am Post subject: |
| General Jim David is mentioned on the cover of the third edition of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book:
From: General (Ret) James David
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:24:11 EST
Subject: Bringing Death and Destruction to Muslims--A Must Read
You must read this article. It is written by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under the Reagan Administration and the associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. This article spells out the facts and the truth, something that most journalists, writers, and politicians would never mention in fear of being labeled are a "neo-Nazi" or an "anti-Semite," the most loathsome of libels against any journalist or politician. This fear has enabled the Jewish state of Israel to continue its illegal occupation and to defy all International Law. By staying silent to Israel's crimes, we are aiding and abetting terrible deeds in the Middle East. This article should be an eye opener to all peace loving people.
Paul Craig Roberts: Leader and Vassal
Bringing Death and Destruction to Muslims
Leader and Vassal
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
After pandering to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's right-wing government last week, US president George W. Bush carried the Israeli/neoconservative campaign against Iran to Arab countries. Sounding as authentic as the "Filipino Monkey," Bush told the Arab countries that "Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror," and that "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere."
To no effect. Every country in the world, except America, knows by now that the US is the world's leading state sponsor of terror and that the neoconservative drive for US hegemony over the world threatens the security of nations everywhere. But before we get into this, let's first see what Bush means by "terrorist" and Iran's sponsorship of terrorism.
Bush considers Iran to be the leading state sponsor of terror, because Iran is believed to fund Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian ghetto. Hezbollah and Hamas are two organizations that exist because of Israeli aggression against Palestine and Lebanon. The two organizations are branded "terrorist" because they resist Israel's theft of Palestine and Israel's designs on southern Lebanon. Both organizations are resistance organizations. They resist Israel's territorial expansion and this makes them "terrorist."
They are terrorists because they don't receive billions in US military aid and cannot put armies in the field with tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships, backed up by US spy satellites and Israel's nuclear weapons--although Hezbollah, a small militia, has twice defeated the Israeli army. However, Palestine is so thoroughly under the Israeli heel that Hamas can resist only with suicide bombers and obsolete rockets. It is dishonest to damn the terrorist response but not the policies that provoke the response.
The US is at war in Iraq, because the neoconservatives want to rid Israel of the Muslim governments--Iraq, Iran and Syria--that are not American surrogates and, therefore, are willing to fund Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israeli aggression. Israel, protected by the US, has disobeyed UN resolutions for four decades and has been methodically squeezing Palestinians out of Palestine.
Americans do not think of themselves or of Israel as terrorist states, but the evidence is complete and overwhelming. Thanks to the power of the Israel Lobby, Americans only know the Israeli side of the story, which is that evil anti-semite Palestinians will not let blameless Israelis live in peace and persist in their unjustified terror attacks on an innocent Israeli state.
The facts differ remarkably from Israel Lobby propaganda. Israel illegally occupies Palestine. Israel sends bulldozers into Palestinian villages and knocks down Palestinian houses, occasionally killing an American protester in the process, and uproots Palestinian olive groves. Israel cuts Palestinian villages off from water, hospitals, farmlands, employment and schools. Israel builds special roads through Palestine on which only Israelis can travel. Israel establishes checkpoints everywhere to hinder Palestinian movement to hospitals, schools and from one enclave or ghetto to another. Many Palestinians die from the inability to get through checkpoints to medical care. Israel builds illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. Israeli Zionist "settlers" take it upon themselves to evict Palestinians from their villages and towns in order to convert them into Israeli settlements. A huge wall has been built to wall off the stolen Palestinian lands from the remaining isolated ghettos. Israeli soldiers shoot down Palestinian children in the streets. So do Israeli Zionist "settlers."
All of this has been documented so many times by so many organizations that it is pathetic that Americans are so ignorant. For example, Israeli peace groups such as Gush Shalom or Jeff Halper's Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions provide abundant documentation of Israel's theft of Palestine and persecution of Palestinians. Every time the UN passes a resolution condemning Israel for its crimes, the US vetoes it.
The Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees' film, "The Iron Wall," reveals the enormity of Israel's crimes against Palestine.
President Jimmy Carter, Israel's friend, tried to bring peace to the Middle East but was frustrated by Israel. Carter was demonized by the Israel Lobby for calling, truthfully, the situation that Israel has created "apartheid."
Historians, including Israel's finest, such as Ilan Pappe, have documented "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," the title of Pappe's book published in 2006.
Israelis, such as Uri Avnery, a former member of Israel's Knesset, are stronger critics of Israel's policies toward Palestine than can be found in America. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is more outspoken in its criticism of Israeli policies than any newspaper would dare to be in North America or Europe.
But it is all to no avail in brainwashed America where Israelis wear white hats and Arabs wear black hats.
The ignorance of Americans commits US foreign policy to the service of Israel. As Uri Avnery wrote in CounterPunch (January 14, 2008), a visitor from another planet, attending the recent press conference in Jerusalem, would conclude that Olmert is the leader of the superpower and that Bush is his vassal.
Americans don't know what terror is. To know terror, you have to be a Palestinian, an Iraqi, or an Afghan.
Layla Anwar, an Iraqi Internet blogger, describes what terror is like. Terror is families attending a wedding being blown to pieces by an American missile or bomb and the survivors being blown to pieces at the funeral of the newlyweds. Terror is troops breaking down your door in the middle of the night, putting guns to your heads, and carrying off brothers, sons, and husbands with bags over their heads and returning to rape the unprotected women. Terror is being waterboarded in one of America's torture dungeons. Terror is "when you run from hospital ward to hospital ward, from prison to prison, from militia to militia looking for your loved one only to recognize them from their teeth fillings in some morgue."
For people targeted by American hegemony, terror is realizing that Americans have no moral conscience. Terror is the lack of medicines from American embargoes that led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. When asked by Lesley Stahl if the American policy was worth the children's deaths, Madeleine Albright, President Bill Clinton's secretary of state, said "we think the price is worth it."
In the feeble minds of the White House Moron and his immoral supporters, the massive deaths for which America is responsible, including those inflicted by Israel, have nothing to do with Muslim enmity toward America. Instead, Muslims hate us for our "freedom and democracy," the real threat to which comes from Bush's police state measures and stolen elections.
There is dispute over the number of Iraqis killed or murdered by Bush's illegal invasion, a war crime under the Nuremberg standard, but everyone agrees the number is very large. Many deaths result from American bombing of civilian populations as the Israelis did in Lebanon and do in Gaza. There is nothing new about these bombings. President Clinton bombed civilians in Serbia in order to dictate policy to Serbia. But when Americans and Israelis bomb other peoples, it is not terror. It is only terror when the US or Israel is attacked in retaliation.
The Israeli assault from the air on Beirut apartment houses is not terror. But when a Palestinian puts on a suicide belt and blows himself up in an Israeli cafe, that's terror. When Clinton bombs a Serbian passenger train, that's not terror, but when a buried explosive takes out an American tank somewhere in Iraq, that's terror.
Aggressors always have excuses for their aggression. Hitler was an expert at this. So are the US and Israel.
Unfortunately for the world, there's little chance for change in America or Israel. The presidential candidates (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) who would bring change in Washington, without which there will be no change in Israel, are not in the running for their party's nomination. As John J. Mearsheimer noted on January 12 , the candidates in the running are as much under the thumb of the Israel Lobby as Bush. The candidates are Bush clones as strongly committed as Bush to hegemony, war, Israel and executive power.
The possible exception is Obama. If he is an exception, that makes him a threat to the powers that be, and, as we might have witnessed in the NH primary, the Republican- supplied, Republican-programmed Diebold electronic voting machines can easily be rigged to deny him the Democratic nomination. Hillary will not resist Israel's wishes, and her husband's presidency bombed at will his demonized victims.
There is no essential difference between the candidates or between the candidates and George W. Bush. Alabama Governor George Wallace, a surprisingly successful third party candidate for the presidency, said as long ago as 1968, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties." Today, four decades later, there's not a penny's worth of difference, not an ounce of difference. Both parties have revealed themselves to be warmonger police state parties. The US Constitution has few friends in the capital city.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Support of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians PRIMARY MOTIVAION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparations for War with Iran?
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1658
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:55 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: |
| The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Iran is bracing itself for an expected American-led air campaign. The latter is in the advanced stages of military planning.
If there were to be war between the United States and Iran, the aerial campaign would unleash fierce combat. It would be fully interactive on multiple fronts. It would be a difficult battle involving active movement in the air from both sides.
If war were to occur, the estimates of casualties envisaged by American and British war planners would be high.
The expected wave of aerial attacks would resemble the tactics of the Israeli air-war against Lebanon and would follow the same template, but on a larger scale of execution.
The U.S. government and the Pentagon had an active role in graphing, both militarily and politically, the template of confrontation in Lebanon. The Israeli siege against Lebanon is in many regards a dress rehearsal for a planned attack on Iran.1
A war against Iran is one that could also include military operations against Syria. Multiple theatres would engulf many of the neighbors of Iran and Syria, including Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
It must also be noted that an attack on Iran would be of a scale which would dwarf the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Levant. A full blown war on Iran would not only swallow up and incorporate these other conflicts. It would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.
An American-led air campaign against Iran, if it were to be implemented, would be both similar and contrasting in its outline and intensity when compared to earlier Anglo-American sponsored confrontations.
The war would start with intense bombardment and attacks on Iran's infrastructure, but would be different in its scope of operations and intensity.
The characteristics of such a conflict would also be unpredictable because of Iran's capabilities to respond. And in all likelihood, Iran would launch its own potent attacks and extend the theatre of war by attacking U.S. and American-led troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.
The United States must also take into account the fact that Iran unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon would be an opponent with the capability to resist the US sponsored attacks on the ground, but also on the sea and in the air.
Unlike the former opponents faced by the United States and its partners, Iran would be able to target the military launch pads used by the United States. Iran would also be able to attack the U.S. supply and logistical hubs in the Persian Gulf. American ships carrying supplies, troops, and warplanes would be vulnerable to Iranian counter-attacks by way of Iranian missiles, warplanes, and naval forces. It is no mere coincidence that Iran has been demonstrating its military capabilities during the “Blow of Zolfaqar” war games conducted in late August .2
Iranian Preparations for an American-led Air Campaign
The United States has continually threatened to attack Iran. These threats are made under the pretext of halting the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. The development of nuclear weapons by Iran is something the IAEA and its inspectors have refuted as untrue3, but the United States insists on continuing the charade as grounds for a military endgame with Iran.
The threat of an American-led attack against Iran with the heavy involvement of Israel and Britain, amongst others, has primed Iran to prepare itself for the anticipated moment. Over the years, this has led Iran to stride for self-sufficiency in producing its own advanced military hardware and the development of asymmetrical tactics to combat the United States.
Iranian defense planners have stated publicly that they have learned from the cases of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. They are acutely aware of the U.S. military’s heavy reliance on aerial strikes.
August 2006 saw the start of the virtually unprecedented events of the Blow of Zolfaqar war games throughout Iran and its border provinces.4 These were similar to those conducted in April 2006.
The latter were also held during a period of tense confrontation between Iran and the United States.
April 2006 was a period that could have resulted in military conflict between both the United States and Iran. In April 2006, Iran had not only dismissed the deadline set on its nuclear program, but it announced in defiance to the United States that it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time.
Iran has taken the opportunity of the launching of both the April 2006 and Blow of Zolfaqar war games to display its preparedness and capability to engage in combat. Additionally, Iran has taken the occasion to fine tune its defenses and mobilize its military apparatus. This exhibition of Iranian military might is intended to deter America's intent to trigger another Middle Eastern war.
During the war games, the Iranian military has adjusted and modified its air defense shield for maximum dexterity and efficiency in preparation, to stop incoming missiles and invading aircraft..5 The war games have been an opportunity for testing of Iranian capacity to wage war in the air
The Iranian military has also reported the testing of laser-guided weaponry, advanced torpedoes, ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles, bullets that pierce through bullet-proof vests, and electronic military hardware during the Blow of Zolfaqar war games.6 Surface-to-surface and ocean-to-surface missiles (submarine-to-surface missiles) in the Persian Gulf were also tested in late-August 2006. These included missiles that are invisible to radar and can use multiple warheads or carry multiple payloads to hit numerous targets simultaneously.
Iran has also tested a “2,000 pound guided-bomb with long-range capabilities.” This “2,000 pound bomb” is said to be a “special weapon developed for penetrating military, economic and strategic targets located deep underground or on the soil of the [impending] enemy.”7 In the case of war, this weapon could be directed against Anglo-American military infrastructure in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. This guided bomb is an unmanned aircraft carrying an explosive warhead. Following the execution of the Blow of Zolfaqar war games, the Iranian Defense Minister stated that “Iran now joins the few countries that possess guided missile technology,”8
Iran has also been manufacturing its own warplanes,9 submarines, attack helicopters, tanks, torpedoes, and missiles. This includes remote-controlled modified Maverick Missiles.10 Brigadier-General Amini, the Deputy Commander of the Air Branch (Air Force) of the Regular Forces, has highlighted that Iran has starting the development and manufacturing of new types of warplanes besides the “Lighting fighter jets” that have been showcased in Northern Iran.11
To discourage the United States in its plans to attack Iran, the Iranian military has additionally been showcasing its abilities to dog fight in the air with its fighter jets.12 Iranian fighter and bomber jets have been progressively equipped with advanced software and hardware, developed in Iran or by way of technology transfers from China, the Russian Federation, and the republics of the former Soviet Union.
Iranian Commanders have also stated that Iran can track and hit warplanes without using conventional radar. Iran has also been showcasing its signal jamming devices and electronic military hardware, which it compares to NATO standards13.
Warnings to the United States To Stop Its War Plans
In Iran military commanders and state officials have also directly warned the United States to halt its march towards war in the Middle East. An account of a statement by Major-General Salehi, commander of the Iranian Army, sums up the generic view of Iranian military officials and planners in the advent of another Middle Eastern war initiated by the United States;
“Pointing to the joint maneuvers to be carried out by the U.S. army [meaning military] and some other countries in the regional waters in the coming days, the General said that the U.S. presence in the region [Middle East] is considered as a threat to the security of the regional countries, and further warned Washington that in case the U.S. dares to practice threats [by actually attacking], it will then have to face a defeat as bad as the one that the Zionists [Israel] had to sustain in Lebanon.”14
The Iranian Defence Minister has said “that his ministry is now equipping the border units of the army with modern military tools and weapons in a bid to increase their military capabilities,”15 and “that any possible enemy invasion of Iran will receive a severe blow, adding that failures of alien troops [meaning U.S., British, Coalition, and NATO forces] in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught trans-regional powers extreme caution.”16
Other examples of public warnings by Iranian military commanders directed at the United States and its partners include;
Acting Deputy Commander [Brigadier-General Ahmadi] of the Iranian Mobilized Forces (Basij), noting the intensification of the psychological operations and pressures against Iran, stressed that his troops are fully prepared to encounter “any stupid act by the enemies.”17 (September 9, 2006)
[Brigadier-General Mohammad Hejazi] advised the U.S. to relinquish the idea of invading Iran, stressing that as soon as the U.S. dares to make such a big mistake, it will lose its forged reputation due to its [the U.S. military’s] frequent and shocking defeats from the Iranian troops.18 (September 10, 2006)
[Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Major-General Safavi has warned that Revolutionary Guard] ground troops form a defensive force, but meantime warned that in case any foreign threats are posed to Iran, [assured that the] IRGC adopts an aggressive strategy and hits enemy targets in strategic depth. He also described the southwestern province of Khuzestan as the most strategic region of the country, saying, “Considering that Khuzestan is a border province located at our sensitive borders with Iraq where British and American occupying troops aim at devising cultural and security plots for Khuzestani people through their intelligence organizations and bodies, IRGC and Basij troops should maintain their preparedness at [the] highest levels possible in order to confront and defuse any such measures by the enemies.”19 (September 13, 2006: Also See British Troops Mobilizing on the Iranian Border)
During the August war games, Iranian military commanders claimed, in a gesture directed towards the United States, Britain, and Israel, “that no air force of any power stationed in the Middle East is capable of confronting the Iranian military’s ground forces.”20
This might seem like a psychological tactic to influence morale on both sides and deter any possible aerial assaults against Iran. This statement cannot be easily overruled if a comprehensive analysis is made and studied. In this regard, one must look at Lebanon, where Hezbollah and the Lebanese Resistance were able to withstand Israeli air raids and overcome the Israeli military on the ground. The Lebanese Resistance is reported as being armed and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. What would an Iranian defensive of a larger magnitude, with state resources and air capabilities, be like?
The anticipation of a conflict are also coming from Iraq. Iraqi leaders have been charging that the United States and Britain plan on attacking Iran from Iraqi territory. Government representatives of Anglo-American occupied Iraq have asked that Iraq not be turned into a theatre of war between the United States and Iran. “We do not want Iraq to become an arena where other states [i.e., the United States, Britain, and Iran] settle their accounts,”21 said the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih while visiting the Iranian capital, Tehran. This message looked as if it was mainly directed at the United States, as well as Iran.
Iran Always a Military Objective for the United States Washington: “Anyone can go to Baghdad! Real Men go to Tehran!”
According to Michel Chossudovsky (The Next Phase of the Middle East War, September, 2006), the war on Iran is another phase of a “military roadmap” which includes the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) and the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon (2006) as earlier stages.
In May, 2003 after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the motto in Washington D.C. was
“Anyone can go to Baghdad! Real men go to Tehran!”
One should ask why "real" men would continue towards Tehran after the invasion of Iraq. This slogan demonstrates that Iran was an objective or a phase in a broader military operation. With that said, Washington would prefer some form of internal "non-violent" regime change in Iran leading to American control of the Iranian economy and oil resources rather than a high-risk and high cost military confrontation. The shape and nature of this conflict, however, is uncertain.
The possibility of conflict with Iran and a major aerial assault are widely known.
The United States has been planning to attack Iran for years. Colonel Sam Gardiner (Retired, U.S. Air Force) has stated that the campaign against Iran is one where “the issue is not whether the military option would be used, but who approved the start of operations already.”
The March to War with Iran and Syria
With time fleeting, the Iranian military is positioning itself in battle formations under the pretext of nationwide war games and other pretexts. Iran has been steadily strengthening its air defenses and air units in preparation for the possibility of strikes. Iranian and Syrian coordination is also intensifying with the passing of time.
An attack on Iran and Syria would be a combination of heavy air bombardment by the U.S. Air Force, including the U.S. Army’s air units. It would also include a ground offensive led by the U.S. Marines and Army from the American bases surrounding both Iran and Syria. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard would predominately manage the theatre of war in the Persian Gulf, with a view to guaranteeing the unimpeded flow of oil through the strategic Straits of Hormuz.
The Israeli military would deal with military operations in the Levant. Both Israeli troops and Israeli public opinion are being prepared for the possibility of another Middle Eastern conflict. In this context, Israel would face the possibility of aerial assaults from Iran. Iran has threatened to retaliate if it is attacked, using its ballistic missiles.
British and Australian forces in southern Iraq would deploy with the strategic aim of occupying the Iranian province of Khuzestan and securing its oil. Khuzestan is where most of Iran’s oil fields are located. Meanwhile a naval build-up is developing in the Persian Gulf which also includes the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Navy.
The United States and its partners meanwhile are continuing to marshal and siphon their forces into the Middle East and Afghanistan. Both the United States and Britain have promised troop reductions in Iraq, but are actually increasing their troop levels. It also seems that a muzzle is being placed on Lebanon to stop any attacks on Israel by the presence of troops from member states of NATO.
Syria also seems to be expecting a possible aerial campaign. A vessel sailing to Syria under the flag of Panama, the “Grigorio I,” has been reported to have been stopped off the coast of Cyprus transporting 18 truck-mounted mobile radar systems and three command vehicles for delivery to Syria. This equipment appears to be part of an air defence system.22
In Iran, the Intelligence Minister has warned that “enemies are seeking to create instability in Iran through different measures, including assassinations, explosions and extensive insecurities” and that “his forces, in cooperation and coordination with other governmental bodies, have defused enemies’ plots in different Iranian provinces, including Tehran.”23
Venezuela has also threatened to halt oil exports in the event of an Anglo-American aggression against Iran and Syria. Venezuela has gone on to caution that it will defend Iran “under threat of invasion from the United States.” This was a warning given to the United States by Venezuela during the Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cuba.24
The United States has already started to target both Iran and Syria’s financial bodies and institutions in an act of economic warfare. Syria has in step with Iran taken “preventative steps” in early 2006 by switching from using the U.S. dollar to using the Euro for all its transactions. The head of the state-owned Syria Commercial Bank has said that such measures have been taken to protect Syria from American sanctions (economic warfare).25
Actions have been taken against the large, state-owned Bank Saderat of Iran by the United States.26 The Bank Saderat has been cut off from the U.S. financial system and its network(s). This is part of a deliberate objective to financially cut off Iran from the rest of the world. Three large Japanese banks, the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation have followed in step and will terminate business with Bank Saderat.27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1 Seymour H. Hersh, Washing Lebanon: Washington’s Interest in Israel’s War, The New Yorker, August 14 & 21, 2006.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
2 Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?, Global Research (CRG), August 21, 2006.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAR20060821&articleId=3027
3 IAEA: US report on Iran “Outrageous,” Aljazeera, September 15, 2006.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/84145EE0-6DF6-467D-AB67-670A83EF307A.htm
4 Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?, Global Research (CRG), August 21, 2006.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAR20060821&articleId=3027
5 Iran 'successfully' tests new air defence system, People’s Daily, September 5, 2006.
http://english.people.com.cn/200609/05/eng20060905_299651.html
Iranian Missile Test; Xinhua News Agency, September 5, 2006.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/05/content_5050931.htm
6 Iran tests laser-guided bomb during war games, The Hindu, September 5, 2006.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200609051820.htm
7 Iran completes military exercise by testing 2,000-pound bomb, Pravada; September 7, 2006.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/07-09-2006/84317-weapons-0
8 Iran tests first-ever 2,000-pound guided bomb: Minister; IRNA, September 6, 2006.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0609065169142007.htm
9 Nasser Karimi, Iran deploys locally-manufactured warplane, Hindustan Times, September 6, 2006.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1787643,00050004.htm, Originally published by the Associated Press
10 Enemy Targets Destroyed by Maverick Missiles, Fars News Agency, September 6, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506140347,
Maverick missiles are American made or developed air-to-surface missiles which are conventionally used to attack armoured units, warships, air defences, military transport and logistics units, and military depots.
11 Iran to Manufacture a New Jet Fighter, Fars News Agency, September 12, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506210548
12 Complicated Dogfight Tactics Exercised during 'Blow of Zolfaqar' War Games, Fars News Agency, September 4, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8506130203
Iranian F14s Carry Hawk Missiles Successfully, Fars News Agency, September 4, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8506130205
13 Iran says ready to combat electronic warfare, Iranmania, March 5, 2006.
14 Army Prepared to Force Back Trans-Regional Threats, Fars News Agency, September 6, 2006.
http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8506140520
Trans-regional powers mean non-Middle Eastern nations with substantial force in the Middle East (the region being talked about).
15 Defense Minister: Any Foreign Aggression Responded by Force; Fars News Agency; September 2, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8506110568
16 Defence Minister: Any Military Aggression against Iran Struck Back Heavily, Fars News Agency, September 4, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506130415
17 Mobilize Forces Prepare to Encounter Enemies, Fars New Agency, September 9, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506180167
18 Basij Comander: Enemies Awe Shattered Once they Err, Fars News Agency, September 10, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506190583
19 Commander Warns o IRGC’s Aggressive Strategy in Case of Foreign Threats, Fars News Agency, September 13, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506220539
20 No Air Force Capable of Confronting Iranian Army, Fars News Agency; August 19, 2006
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505280544
21 Iraq Not a Place for Others to Settle Accounts, Fars News Agency, September 6, 2006.
http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8506140551
22 Cyprus finds air-defence systems on Syria-bond ship, Reuters, September, 2006.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=13449090&src=rss/worldNews
23 Intelligence Minister: Enemies Plots Defused in Tehran, Border Provinces, Fars News Agency, September 13, 2006.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506220518
24 Chavez pledge support for Iran, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), September 15, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5347978.stm
25 Syria switches to euro amid sanctions threat, Xinhua News Agency, February 13-14, 2006.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/14/content_4177423.htm
26 David Lawder, US Treasury say Iran pressure can be unilateral, Reuters, September 12, 2006.
27 Three big Japan banks decide not to deal with Iran's Bank Saderat, Forbes, September 16, 2006.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/09/16/afx3021822.html | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
