| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: Hedges: It's Insane to Attack Iran, Devastating Consequences |
| Waging war on Iran 'insane'
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=58483§ionid=351020104
Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:40:47
President George W. Bush's vision to wage war on Iran is 'insane' and 'incomprehensible', prominent journalist Christopher Hedges says.
During a Q&A at the recent 2008 Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, Hedges said political analysts in American and Middle Eastern affairs could not justify the Bush Administration's plans to attack Iran.
"It is so insane to attack Iran. It is almost incomprehensible for those of us who come out of Middle East," said Hedges, who spent seven years in the region, mostly as the Middle East Bureau Chief for The New York Times.
In spite of a Dec 3 National Intelligence Estimate conceding with 'high confidence' that Iran is not conducting a nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration insists that 'all options' - including the use of military force - are on the table to counter 'Iran's threat' to Israel and the Middle East.
"The consequences would be devastating and so counterproductive to us, and everyone who lives in Middle East," Hedges continued.
"The intelligence estimate (on Iran) was an effort by our 16 intelligence agencies to speak out with one voice against a war in Iran in a way they didn't in the lead-up to war in Iraq," the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter added.
However, pointing to the resignation of Admiral Fallon, Hedges stated that the NIE report on Iran's nuclear program had not persuaded the administration to 'count out' a military option against the country.
His remarks came amid reports that the US president is drawing up plans to launch an air strike against Iran 'within two months'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hedges: It's Insane to Attack Iran, Devastating Consequences
See video:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/hedges-its-insane-to-attack-iran.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlyj6D5qmk&feature=PlayList&p=E99D8873F5892DD5&index=0&playnext=1
President Bush intends to attack Iran in coming months :
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/05/20/president-bush-intends-to-attack-iran-in-coming-months.php | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: US, Israel: World not doing enough to counter Iran |
| US, Israel: World not doing enough to counter Iran
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer 52 minutes ago
The United States and Israel said Tuesday the rest of the world isn't doing enough to stop Iran from getting the bomb and accused Iran of continuing a covert drive for nuclear weapons, although U.S. intelligence has said Tehran quit its active warhead program years ago.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israel's embattled leader, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, both used speeches to a pro-Israel lobbying group to complain that European and other nations are undermining the hard line against Iran's nuclear program by pursuing business relationships with Tehran.
"Our partners in Europe and beyond need to exploit Iran's vulnerabilities more vigorously and impose greater costs on the regime — economically, financially, politically and diplomatically," Rice said.
Olmert went further, saying in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that other countries should penalize Iran by barring business travelers, blocking financial transactions and imposing sanctions on Iran's import of refined gasoline and on countries that perform that task for oil-rich but facilities-poor Iran.
"Each and every country must understand that the long-term cost of a nuclear Iran greatly outweighs the short-term benefits of doing business with Iran," Olmert said.
Neither Olmert nor Rice mentioned Olmert's legal and political woes. A corruption investigation threatens to bring down Olmert's government and perhaps with it U.S. hopes for a framework Mideast peace deal this year.
Rice said the Mideast peace effort begun by President Bush must carry over to his successor, a note of caution amid the dire political crisis in Israel. Rice said there is still a chance to frame a deal between Israel and the Palestinians this year, although she said the goal is admittedly ambitious.
"The goal itself, though, will endure beyond the current U.S. leadership," Rice said. "I believe that the administration's approach to this problem will and must endure."
On Iran, Rice appeared emboldened by a recent skeptical report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog. A U.N. report Monday suggested that Tehran was stonewalling investigators and possibly withholding information crucial to the U.N. nuclear monitor's probe of allegations it did nuclear arms research.
The U.N. Security Council has passed three rounds of mild sanctions aimed at getting Iran to give up the most troublesome aspects of its nuclear program. The United States and some others also have separate sanctions that go further. The United States has almost no dealings with Iran and has little direct economic leverage there.
Rice indirectly criticized Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for his willingness to talk to Iran, the rising Mideast power that Israeli leaders consider their greatest enemy. Iran's hardline president regularly says Israel must be wiped off the map. On Tuesday he told a European audience that Israel is "doomed to go."
Rice scoffed at Iran's claim that its nuclear program is intended only to produce electricity. Why then would Iran keep inspectors away from some sites, reject a generous offer of civilian nuclear help from Russia or maintain part of its program under military control, Rice asked.
"Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's just hard to imagine that there are innocent answers to these questions."
Later, she directly accused Iran of pursuing weapons on the sly. She said there is no point in engaging the regime until it changes its behavior.
"We would be willing to meet with them, but not while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talk," Rice said.
The Bush administration long claimed Iran was hiding a bomb program, a view shared by Israel and presumably the rationale for any military attack either country might launch against Iran.
Rice's words were striking because U.S. officials have backed off pointed accusations since the publication in December of a declassified intelligence report that concluded Iran once had an active warhead program but had shelved it in 2003.
The report said U.S. analysts could not say whether Iran still held weapons ambitions, and said the program might be restarted without U.S. knowledge.
Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton are to address the AIPAC convention on Wednesday, and presumed Republican nominee John McCain spoke Monday. McCain had a get-tough message on Iran, while Obama is expected to tell the group that he would talk to Iranian leaders without preconditions set by the Bush administration.
The "furious debate" about how to confront the Iranian threat "should not be about whether we talk to Iran," Rice said. "Diplomacy is not a synonym for talking," but must be combined with pressure tactics.
___
Associated Press writer Matti Friedman contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
| AS THINGS LOOK, ISRAEL MAY WELL ATTACK IRAN SOON
By Joschka Fischer
Daily Star (Beirut)
May 30, 2008
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=92572
As a result of misguided American policy, the threat of another military
confrontation hangs like a dark cloud over the Middle East. The United
States' enemies have been strengthened, and Iran -- despite being branded
as a member of the so-called "axis of evil" -- has been catapulted into
regional hegemony. Iran could never have achieved this on its own,
certainly not in such a short time.
A hitherto latent rivalry between Iran and Israel thus has been
transformed into an open struggle for dominance in the Middle East. The
result has been the emergence of some surprising, if not bizarre,
alliances: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the American-backed,
Shiite-dominated Iraq are facing Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most of the
other Sunni Arab states, all of which feel existentially threatened by
Iran's ascendance.
The danger of a major confrontation has been heightened further by a
series of factors: persistently high oil prices, which have created new
financial and political opportunities for Iran; the possible defeat of the
West and its regional allies in proxy wars in Gaza and Lebanon; and the
United Nations Security Council's failure to induce Iran to accept even a
temporary freeze of its nuclear program.
Iran's nuclear program is the decisive factor in this equation, for it
threatens irreversibly the region's strategic balance. That Iran -- a
country whose president never tires of calling for Israel's annihilation
and that threatens Israel's northern and southern borders through its
massive support of proxy wars waged by Hezbullah and Hamas -- might one
day have missiles with nuclear warheads is Israel's worst security
nightmare. Politics is not just about facts, but also about perceptions.
Whether or not a perception is accurate is beside the point, because it
nonetheless leads to decisions.
This applies in particular when the perception concerns what the parties
consider to be threats to their very existence. Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's threats of annihilation are taken seriously in Israel
because of the trauma of the Holocaust. And most Arab governments share
the fear of a nuclear Iran. Earlier this month, Israel celebrated its
60th birthday, and U.S. President George W. Bush went to Jerusalem to play
a leading part in the commemoration. But those who had expected that his
visit would mainly be about the stalled negotiations between Israel and
the Palestinians were bitterly disappointed. Bush's central topic,
including his speech to Israel's Knesset, was Iran. Bush had promised to
bring the Middle East conflict closer to a resolution before the end of
his term this year. But his final visit to Israel seemed to indicate that
his objective was different: he seemed to be planning, together with
Israel, to end the Iranian nuclear program -- and to do so by military,
rather than by diplomatic, means.
Anyone following the press in Israel during the anniversary celebrations
and listening closely to what was said in Jerusalem did not have to be a
prophet to understand that matters are coming to a head. Consider the
following:
First, "stop the appeasement!" is a demand raised across the political
spectrum in Israel -- and what is meant is the nuclear threat emanating
from Iran.
Second, while Israel celebrated, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as
saying that a life-and-death military confrontation was a distinct
possibility.
Third, the outgoing commander of the Israeli Air Force declared that the
air force was capable of any mission, no matter how difficult, to protect
the country's security. The destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility last
year, and the lack of any international reaction to it, were viewed as an
example for the coming action against Iran.
Fourth, the Israeli wish list for U.S. arms deliveries, discussed with the
American president, focused mainly on the improvement of the attack
capabilities and precision of the Israeli Air Force.
Fifth, diplomatic initiatives and U.N. sanctions when it comes to Iran are
seen as hopelessly ineffective.
And sixth, with the approaching end of the Bush presidency and uncertainty
about his successor's policy, the window of opportunity for Israeli action
is seen as potentially closing.
The last two factors carry special weight. While Israeli military
intelligence is on record as saying that Iran is expected to cross the red
line on the path to nuclear power between 2010 and 2015 at the earliest,
the feeling in Israel is that the political window of opportunity to
attack is now, during the last months of Bush's presidency.
Although it is acknowledged in Israel that an attack on Iran's nuclear
facilities would involve grave and hard-to-assess risks, the choice
between acceptance of an Iranian bomb and an attempt at its military
destruction, with all the attendant consequences, is clear. Israel won't
stand by and wait for matters to take their course.
The Middle East is drifting toward a new great confrontation in 2008.
Iran must understand that without a diplomatic solution in the coming
months, a dangerous military conflict is very likely to erupt. It is high
time for serious negotiations to begin.
The most recent offer by the six powers -- the U.N. Security Council's
five permanent members plus Germany -- is on the table, and it goes very
far in accommodating Iran's interests. The decisive question, however,
will be whether it will be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program
for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation
before these negotiations are completed. Should this newest attempt fail,
things will soon get serious. Deadly serious.
--Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from
1998 to 2005, led Germany's Green Party for nearly 20 years. The *Daily
Star* publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project
Syndicate-Institute for Human Sciences (c) (www.project-syndicate.org). | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
| Obama Capitulates
– to the Israel lobby
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit to the U.S. is part of a concerted effort, by the Israeli government and its American lobbyists, to convince U.S. lawmakers – and, most of all, President George W. Bush – that the time to attack Iran is now. The Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot reports that Olmert will tell Bush "time is running out" on diplomacy and that he'd better launch an attack.
In his speech to the AIPAC conference, Olmert's message was harsh and unrelenting: Iran, he said, "must be stopped by all possible means" from acquiring a nuclear capability. Yes, sanctions must be tightened, but these are only "initial steps": what's needed, he averred, are "more drastic and robust measures" – and that can only mean one thing.
Israel would rather not act alone, but Olmert signaled that he was willing to do so if pushed: ""Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neither should any other country in the free world," he declared, in what was clearly a threat of unilateral action. Citing Israel's record in regard to Iraq in the eighties and Syria last year, Tim Butcher warned in the Telegraph: "The speech shortens the odds significantly on military action against Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. would almost certainly be drawn into the conflict if Israel carried out its threat, and Olmert knows that. So does Bush, who, in any case, may not need much persuading. After all, in his speech to the Israeli parliament last month, the President declared:
"Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
For the sake of peace, we must make war: a familiar refrain that echoes down through the years, mocking the living and the dead.
The clock is ticking, and time is running out for the War Party: they must get in their licks before the most pro-Israel president, ever, leaves office. As Butcher writes: "Among Israeli supporters of military action against Iran there is concern something must be done before Mr. Bush's end of office next January as Mr. Bush is perceived as closer to Israel than any potential successor."
Don't look to Barack Obama for deliverance from this looming conflict. In his speech to AIPAC, he clearly signed on to the Lobby's latest project, departing from his prepared text to declare:
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."
"Everything" includes murdering tens of thousands of Iranians, mostly civilians – driving the price of oil up above $300 a barrel and destroying the US economy – and involving us in a war that will make the Iraq conflict look like a Sunday school picnic. And for what?
The irony, of course, is that Iran is nowhere near obtaining nuclear weapons, as the President's own intelligence agencies recently informed him: but no matter. That's a small obstacle to those who disdain "the reality-based community," and see themselves as Making History while the rest of us watch, helpless and aghast. As Ha'aretz recently reported
"Olmert will try to convince Bush to set aside the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program in favor of data presented by Israel, and determine the administration's policy on Iran accordingly."
The coming war with Iran has nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction" – no more than the invasion of Iraq ever did. It's all about preserving Israeli hegemony in the Middle East by wiping any and all recalcitrant Arab-Muslim states off the map. First Iraq, then Iran – and Syria will have its turn soon enough, along with poor prostrate Lebanon, once the jewel of the eastern Mediterranean and now an economic and political basket case.
It is almost certain we will be at war with Iran before a new President is inaugurated: now that Obama has capitulated to the Lobby, nothing but Divine Providence can stop it.
God help us all.
I have to say I was wrong – dead wrong – about Obama. In my eagerness to find a bright spot in a rapidly darkening world, I grasped on to his alluring rhetoric and his at-times trenchant critique of the Bush foreign policy, like a sinking man holding on to a life-jacket. But looking for hope in all the wrong places doesn't create opportunities for peace – it only prolongs our illusions. We must face the prospect of a much more terrible conflict than we have ever known, and look it squarely in the face, without flinching or looking for false messiahs. I know many of you are disappointed, and some of you are now exclaiming "I told you so!" All that we can do now is hope, and pray, that our country – and the Iranian people – will somehow survive the coming catastrophe. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: |
| Israel Attack on Iran 'Unavoidable': Olmert Deputy (Reuters)
Friday, June 6, 2008 8:17 AM
An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's deputies said on Friday.
"If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.
It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Olmert's government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should U.N. Security Council sanctions be deemed a dead end.
Iran, which denies seeking nuclear weapons, has defied Western pressure to abandon its uranium enrichment projects. The leadership in Tehran has also threatened to retaliate against Israel -- believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal -- and U.S. targets in the Gulf for any attack on Iranian turf.
Mofaz also said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
