| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:40 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 | | Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: Iran, Mideast peace on Bush-Olmert agenda |
| Iran, Mideast peace on Bush-Olmert agenda
By MATTI FRIEDMAN, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 24 minutes ago
Israel's fears that Iran could obtain nuclear weapons and the Israeli government's attempts to negotiate peace with the Palestinians and Syria are top agenda items when Israel's beleaguered prime minister, Ehud Olmert, meets President Bush.
The most pressing issue for Wednesday's talks, however, might not even be openly discussed: Olmert's deteriorating political situation back home, where his popularity has nosedived because of a new corruption scandal and where the end of his term is largely seen as just a matter of time.
Those developments are jeopardizing Bush's already ambitious timetable for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by year's end and are making it unlikely that Bush or Olmert will be able to shepherd the process to completion.
For Olmert, a friendly meeting with a stalwart ally like Bush is a marked change from what he left behind in Israel, where his political allies are conspicuously refusing to come to his defense and jostling for his job.
Topping the list of discussion points at the Bush-Olmert meeting is Iran, a prime concern for both countries, though each has a different intelligence assessment on the state of Iran's nuclear program. Israel believes that Iran has not suspended its nuclear weapons program, despite a report to the contrary by U.S. intelligence.
"I think they both made their points very clear, and Israel has made it clear that they think ... that intelligence is wrong, and that Iran is still pursuing a nuclear weapon," White House press secretary Dana Perino said ahead of the meeting.
Israeli newspapers also have reported that Olmert hopes to acquire a sophisticated U.S. missile defense system, advanced radar and new warplanes.
In an indication of what Olmert is likely to tell Bush, the Israeli prime minister told thousands of Israel supporters at the annual convention of the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Tuesday that the Iranian threat "must be stopped by all possible means."
Olmert said international sanctions aimed at stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons must be ratcheted up urgently, and he suggested measures like banning Iranian businessmen and financial transactions and imposing sanctions on Iran's crucial import of gasoline.
Olmert said the world should see that "the long-term cost of a nuclear Iran greatly outweighs the short-term benefits of doing business with Iran."
But sanctions are "only an initial step," and Iran's flouting of the international measures so far "leave no doubt as to the urgent need for more drastic and robust measures," Olmert said.
He is also expected discuss with Bush Israel's peace negotiations with the Palestinians and with Syria, according to Olmert spokesman Mark Regev.
Israel renewed peace talks with Syria last month without the involvement of the U.S., which has tried to isolate the Syrian regime. Syria's president said in interviews published Tuesday in the United Arab Emirates that the U.S. would have to become involved if the process is to succeed.
But while it is not a party to the Syria talks, the Bush administration has become deeply involved in Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations. Bush set the target for a peace agreement at the end of the year, saying Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are the right people to lead a historic compromise.
But the Bush administration now seems aware that Olmert could be on his way out. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process "is bigger than any one person, and that we're going to continue to work on it, despite what may or may not be happening in Israeli political circles," Perino said.
Speaking to the AIPAC lobby's annual conference, Olmert made only one oblique reference to his domestic woes, mentioning that he briefly considered calling off his visit to the U.S. because of "the recent political developments in Israel of which you are aware."
Olmert was addressing the group of powerful American Israel supporters just as his relationship with one such supporter threatens to ignominiously end his term in office. The testimony of New York businessman Morris Talansky, who claims to have given Olmert envelopes stuffed with cash over a decade and a half, in part to fund a lavish lifestyle, has thrown Israel's political system into turmoil.
Olmert's key coalition partner, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, now says he'll topple the government if Olmert doesn't step aside. And Olmert's rivals in his Kadima Party, including his popular deputy, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, are jostling for position and gearing up for party primaries. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: |
| From: Ray Close
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:28 AM
Subject: Bush and company on a crash course with Iran
Are we headed for a trainwreck? The similarities today to the summer of 2002 are ominous.
The differences, however, are more significant: (1) The American people are so wrapped up in the 2008 presidential race that they are not even paying as much attention to the war clouds building up over Iran today as they were in 2002 to the approaching war with Iraq; (2) Our international friends and allies are doing and saying even less today to discourage us from attacking Iran than they were in 2002 with regard to Bush's plans to attack Iraq; (3) Iran is potentially a MUCH bigger threat than Iraq ever was; (4) the Bush administration has deluded itself (apparently with Israeli encouragement) into believing that we can intimidate Ahmedinajad and the Mullah leadership to such a degree that if it seems advisable to whack Iran in a limited punitive strike (to show them who's boss in the Middle East), the conflict and the spillover can be kept to a safe minimum. They are wrong.
Ray
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/washington/04diplo.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
June 4, 2008
Rice Calls Dialogue With Iran Pointless
By HELENE COOPER and ISABEL KERSHNER
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice escalated the Bush administration’s anti-Iran rhetoric on Tuesday, accusing its government of pursuing nuclear weapons and calling any dialogue with its leaders pointless until they suspend the country’s enrichment of uranium.
While Ms. Rice’s message was familiar, the tone of her speech, before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was unusually sharp, taking oblique aim at Senator Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders who have called for the United States to engage Iran diplomatically.
“We would be willing to meet with them but not while they continue to inch toward nuclear weapons under the cover of talks,” she told the group, a pro-Israel lobby known by its acronym, Aipac. “The real question isn’t why won’t the Bush administration talk to Iran. The real question is why won’t Iran talk to us.”
Ms. Rice stopped short of calling for consideration of military strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear targets, as some national security conservatives in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office have advised. But, in a pointed nod to her pro-Israel audience, Ms. Rice called on America’s allies in Europe to look for ways to further press the Iranian government.
“For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” she said.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, on the other hand, put all options on the table. “The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means,” he said Tuesday evening, speaking to the same group. “The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating.”
Mr. Olmert also called for international sanctions against Iran to be toughened. He did not specifically mention military strikes, but did say that “Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neither should any country in the free world.”
Mr. Olmert is scheduled to meet with President Bush at the White House on Wednesday.
The issue of opening high-level diplomatic talks with Iran has come under the spotlight this political season, and that has played out at Aipac’s 2008 policy conference here.
On Monday, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, allied himself firmly with the Bush administration and charged that Mr. Obama’s calls for diplomacy with Iran were misguided and insufficient. And on Tuesday, Howard Friedman, Aipac’s president, used his introduction of Ms. Rice to implore her “to use your remaining time in office to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.”
Mr. Obama, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, will have the opportunity to defend his position on Wednesday when he, along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent, is scheduled to address the group.
Ms. Rice’s speech was also notable for what it did not contain; she did not say that the Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that the Bush administration has been pursuing could be achieved by the end of the year.
“We still believe that we have a chance to reach an agreement on the basic contours of a peaceful Palestinian state,” Ms. Rice said. “But if we can pursue this goal by the end of the year, it will be an historic breakthrough.”
The difference seems small, but in the past President Bush and Ms. Rice have both spoken of sealing a deal by the end of the year, rather than simply pursuing one.
While Mr. Olmert was in Washington, in Israel, two senior members of his Kadima Party, both contenders to replace him as party leader in the event of his downfall over corruption charges, spoke out on national security issues.
Shaul Mofaz, the minister of transportation and a deputy prime minister, toured the Golan Heights on Tuesday and, in apparent contradiction with Mr. Olmert’s policy, declared his opposition to returning that territory to Syria, which lost it to Israel in the 1967 war.
Mr. Mofaz said that it was possible to achieve peace with Syria without giving up the heights, and that “the significance of handing the Golan to the Syrians is Iranians in the Golan.” Mr. Mofaz, born in Tehran, was referring to the alliance between Syria and Iran.
Although Mr. Olmert is widely believed to support Mr. Mofaz as a possible successor, Mr. Mofaz’s message was a surprise. Israel and Syria recently resumed talks through Turkish mediation, and while Mr. Olmert denies having made any prior commitment to the Syrians regarding a withdrawal from the Golan, he says he is fully aware of Syria’s expectations, as Syria is of Israel’s.
Syria demands full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan while Israel expects Damascus to move out of the Iranian sphere and cease its support for militant anti-Israel organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Israel’s foreign minister and vice prime minister, Tzipi Livni, another Kadima Party leader who may one day replace Mr. Olmert, told Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday that it was important to keep the threat of a military option on the table for stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Iran says that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, which its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reiterated in a speech on Tuesday.
The Iranian issue was to figure prominently in Mr. Olmert’s talks with American officials, according to the Israeli news media. Administration and Israeli officials said that President Bush could soon announce a security package for Israel that could include cruise missiles and a permanent hookup to a worldwide warning system against incoming ballistic missiles.
Ms. Rice alluded to such a package in her Aipac speech. “We will continue to improve the security capability of our friends, including their missile defense,” she said.
Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: New agreement allows U.S. to strike any country from within Iraq
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 5:49 PM
War on Terror
See other War on Terror Articles
Title: New agreement lets US strike any country from inside Iraq Source: gulfnews.com/URL Source: http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10218150.html
Published: Jun 4, 2008
Author: Basil Adas
Post Date: 2008-06-04 09:58:36 by leveller
Published: June 03, 2008, 13:42
Baghdad: A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.
Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.
Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.
The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.
The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."
The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.
He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.
The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.
Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.
Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:30 am Post subject: US-Israel and the Media Charade on Iran! |
| US-Israel and the Media Charade on Iran!
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13847
IAEA Chief, has said repeatedly that there is no evidence of Iran using nuclear material for military use.
By Debbie Menon
Another, ex-US Administration 'disgruntled' staff, in another book, 'Tell-all'? Scott McClellan, none other but the White House Press Secretary for two years nine months in The Bush Administration, pleads innocent to participation in any skullduggery, and claims victim hood as an innocent dupe? To what avail? The US actions on the ground in the past six years speak louder than words, but, the World Media has been busily debating and discussing the smoke and mirrors which US-Israel throws out in its charade. Peace Laureates Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu et al have been lamenting and wringing their hands about the truth, in recent weeks, but, everyone, will continue swallowing the stories and distractions thrown out by US-Israel charade, as if they were the real thing, which they are not.
US-Israel have been effectively and efficiently destroying Palestine now for sixty years, and the debate and discussions in the Media still goes on today, just as serious and hopeful as ever, as if it were real; and now they talk about the same threat from Iran that they spoke of Iraq, as if it were real! C'mon!
The Mainstream Media will ignore a lot of facts and history which say that the Iran objective is not a question of policy change, nuclear armament or disarmament, or even simple regime change in Iran, but is, instead the same as it has always been, to wit: Israel wants Iran destroyed as a state and Balkanized in the manner in which they have done Palestine, and which US has done in Iraq and will settle for nothing less! All else is wind. A charade!
The name of the game is “Destroy Iran”. Not because it is a threat to Israel, because it isn't, not because they are a nuclear threat, for they aren't; but simply because it stands in the way of Israeli domination of the entire Middle East, and all that oil under their soil belongs to America, anyway, so let's go get it like they did Iraq!
To rationalize, discuss, describe and debate the non-issues of policy, regime change, nuclear weaponry, peaceful nuclear power development and all this US-Israeli cover-story which US Mainstream Media peddles is to play into the hands of the US-Israel propaganda campaign, as if it were real, and ignore their actual motives and objectives....
Destroy Iran! Utterly!
Most, mainstream journalists have always been fence straddlers, go along-get along types, and has, and have simply failed to come to grips with the bottom line in this US-Israel plot either because they are too ignorant, too timid, or like their jobs too much. So, while everyone else bickers and dickers over the non-issues which these journalists and their brothers write about, the US-Israeli, Zionist-American panzer is on the road and rolling, target, Tehran, and other points East. Keep your eye on the left hand, and you will never see what the right hand is doing... it is picking your pocket, and stealing the rabbit out of your hat.
"The Zionist Plan" is incredible; the ramblings of anti-Semites, madmen, a phony anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about ‘The elders Of Zion’ who do not even exist, and all of that…so, the Plan is not real. But, what is happening on the ground, and has been happening for sixty and more years, is real and, when you compare notes, it sounds as if someone is playing the score perfectly and not missing a single note!
It looks like the same thing, and is having the same affect whether "planned" or not! One by one, create dissention and division among each and all of Israel's neighbors, until they are so embroiled in their own turmoil that they are not only no longer a threat to Israel, but a pushover like Palestine for eventual occupation. Well, Palestine has not become the "pushover" they thought it was going to be, but Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, et al have become.
There are parallels, between the media rhetoric about Iraq’s nuclear threat prior to the US invasion and the rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program today. In repeatedly misinterpreting the statements of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the US-Israel media paints him as the “Hitler of the Middle East.” There was no reality check before Iraq and there is no reality check now. The Iranian military is a fifth rate force, equivalent to a National Guard army with no defensive capabilities or ability to take troops across water. Iran has no air force because US sanctions prevent Iran from buying spare parts for its aircraft. And, Iran has little navy after the US sunk the Iranian fleet in an unpublicized four-hour attack during the first Gulf War in 1991. The endless sanctions imposed on Iran are really about the US-Israel wanting to cripple Iran’s economy.
Concerning Iran’s nuclear threat, even Mohamed El Baradei, the IAEA Chief, has said repeatedly that there is no evidence of Iran using nuclear material for military use. But – as in the case of Iraq in 2003 – the US Administration argues that Iran has dangerous intentions concerning nuclear ambitions. The administration seems to think that this is enough to justify a US intervention. The “threat” that the US would have the world believe is not consistent with reality.
The excuses, arguments, issues, et al, are all a charade and have nothing to do with the why and what, of what America and Israel are doing to all these states in the Middle East, and what they are going to do to Iran.
Iran has been around a hell ova lot longer than America and most of Europe. They have had, and remember better days. Why should they dance to some petty carnival fiddler's tunes when they have a history of having had some of the finest orchestras that the world has ever known?
The much talked about Mafioso offer made recently to Iran by the Six Power nations "that just cannot be refused," works only in places like America, and American movies. When offered to men of principle, who have centuries of moral conviction and history behind them, it is a laughingstock proposition....the suggestion of a fool!
With the failure of American "leadership" in the Middle East, or more correctly, their diminishing ability to "twist arms," and make offers which no one can refuse, there seems to be a power vacuum. In such a situation, there is, in all likelihood, the possibility that the Middle Eastern Countries themselves may work out their problems, as they did in Lebanon last week. An even-handed settlement is what Qatar put together. It succeeded.
It is possible. Whether it is probable, we will never know until they have been given the opportunity to try. They have never had, or been allowed the opportunity, so what is there to lose except, of course, Western hegemony which, it has become apparent, has been the obstacle to Middle Eastern peace and prosperity for a few centuries now, since the days of Richard Coeur de Leon?
The patient has been sick for a long, long time. He will be a long time recovering!
-Debbie Menon is an independent writer, based in Dubai. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact her at: debbie.menon@yahoo.com. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: Iran and EFPs |
| Date: 5 jun. 2008 00:03
Subject: CP 4.6.08 Iran and EFPs ,By GARY LEUPP
http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp06042008.html
June 4, 2008
Chronology of a Lie
Iran and EFPs
By GARY LEUPP
In his Antiwar.com columns investigative journalist and historian Gareth Porter has been doing a masterful job of exposing Dick Cheney's relentless campaign to vilify Iran, build a case for an attack, bomb the country and produce regime change before the administration's term ends. The campaign as many have noted parallels in several ways the propaganda blitz that preceded the War in Iraq. Cheney and his neocons cabal seek to skew the reports of mainstream intelligence agencies to confirm their allegations (in this case, the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program as an immanent threat to Israel and the U.S., Iranian Quds Force training of Iraqi "insurgents" in Iranian camps, Iranian provision of explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) to these "insurgents," Iranian contacts with al-Qaeda, etc.). If they fail to do this, they circumvent the intelligence community and find ways of disseminating disinformation through their own announcements, editorials by their supporters, and stories planted in the corporate press. Since Cheney got Bush to sign an Executive Order giving his office the same powers to classify as the president has, his operations are shrouded in secrecy.
In his latest piece Porter follows the campaign to blame Iran for supplying EFPs to those attacking U.S. occupation forces in Iraq. In January 2007 some military officials asserted that EFPs that could penetrate U.S. armored vehicles were being manufactured in Iran and supplied to Iraqi Shiite militias by the Iranian government. They prepared a draft for a proposed military briefing to announce this claim, which then circulated in Washington and was leaked to the press. However, the document "met with unanimous objection from the State Department, Defense Department, and the National Security Council (NSC) staff, as administration officials themselves stated publicly." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley all wanted to build upon the negotiations with Iranian officials which had occurred in Iraq to that point. These had been based on the desire of both sides to support the Maliki government, which has warm ties with Tehran. The Cheney camp had opposed those talks.
In a press briefing on Jan. 24, 2007, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman Sean McCormack was asked if the government has any evidence for Iranian supply of EFPs to Iraqi forces. He answered indirectly: "You don't necessarily have to construct something in Iran in order for it to be a threat to the U.S. or British troops from the Iranian regime." He implied that outsiders might be instructing Iraqis on how to produce EFPs.
On February 2, Hadley distanced the National Security Council from the draft report. "The truth is," he told reporters at a news briefing, "quite frankly, we thought the briefing was overstated. We sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts." Meanwhile the intelligence community was preparing a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that did not support the claim about EFPs but merely accused Iranians of training fighters of Mahdi Army led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery nationalist who is not Iran's favorite Iraqi politician although he may be the most popular man in the country. Rice and Gates both stated their expectation that the planned briefing on Iranian involvement in Iraq would reflect the views contained in the NIE.
Then Cheney made his move. On Feb. 9 presidential spokesperson Dana Perino was asked when the briefing would be held. "Decisions on that," she replied, "are being made out in Baghdad." Gen. David Petraeus (whom former CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon, a known opponent of an Iran attack, has described as an "ass-kissing little chicken-shit") had just arrived to assume command of U.S. forces in Iraq. On February 11 three military officers in Iraq gave a briefing to the press in which they stated that the EFPs could only have been manufactured in Iran and were being supplied to Iraqi militiamen by the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards with the knowledge of the Iranian government.
"Cheney," Porter writes, "had used the compliant Petraeus to do an end-run around the national security bureaucracy. Petraeus had already reached an agreement with the White House to take Cheney's line on the EFPs issue and to present the briefing immediately without consulting State or Defense." This circumventing of normal channels is of course Cheney's modus operandi, as scathingly documented in the four-part series about Cheney in the Washington Post last July by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, stated that he could not "from his own knowledge" confirm that the Quds Force was providing bomb-making kits to Iraqis, and one of the officers at the briefing backed off the claim of Iranian complicity. Still, the story was "out there," in the press, and as Porter writes, "Cheney now had a potential casus belli against Iran." Or one might say, another one to try to foist upon an impressionable public. This, from the only top official who's never backed off his claim that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11.
In September 2007, Congress passed the neocon and AIPAC-backed Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In October the Treasury Department designated the Quds Force "terrorist"---"for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations." Very creative thinking there. Iran's religious leadership hates the Taliban and almost went to war with Afghanistan when it was led by the group in 1998. It supports U.S.-backed Afghan puppet president Hamid Karzai, who told the Washington Post in January 2008: "We have had a particularly good relationship with Iran in the past six years. It's a relationship that I hope will continue. We have opened our doors to them. They have been helping us in Afghanistan. The United States very wisely understood that it is our neighbor and encouraged that relationship."
On May 8 Los Angeles Times correspondent Tina Susman reported from Baghdad: "A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was cancelled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran." Don't you just love the matter-of- fact tone of that? They planned to lie, but somebody opposed to the lie and its consequences was apparently able to abort the effort. Isn't it obvious that Cheney and the neocons in general believe it perfectly permissible to lie to the people in order to justify wars? And they just hate it when somebody gets in their way.
Remember how a member of Bush's inner circle (Karl Rove?) told the New York Times' Ron Suskind in summer 2002 the "the reality-based community" had it all wrong, that the world doesn't "really work anymore" on the basis of "judicious study of discernible reality." "We're an empire now," he boasted, "and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Combine that Nazi-like faith in the Big Lie; the liars' smug confidence that the system will continue to protect them even as they're exposed by the "reality-based" folks whom they find laughable; and the obvious fact that the Congress and media lack the will to call them on their lies. These evidences of system-wide bankruptcy are grounds for profound pessimism in the short term.
NBC's Keith Olbermann last week talked with former Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan about the prospect for a U.S. attack on Iran. "So knowing what you know," he asked, "if Dana Perino gets up there and starts making noises that sound very similar to what you heard from the administration, from Ari Fleischer in 2002, from other actual members of the administration and the cabinet, you would be suspicious?" "I would be," replied McClellan. "I would be. I think that you would need to take those comments very seriously and be skeptical."
We Americans are being hit by EFP (Extremely False Propaganda) designed to do much worse than penetrate the thin armor of our media-numbed and infotainment- conditioned brains. It's designed to hurl us and our children into a Long War against the Islamic world. And those of us who are skeptical---or more than skeptical: aware, disgusted and alarmed---will I fear wake to the fait accompli of an attack before Cheney and Bush hand over power to successors who will patriotically go along with the program.
What we need is not mere skepticism, but the toppling of the liars. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:54 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: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:15 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 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.theage.com.au/world/olmert-makes-it-clear-strike-on-iran-remains-on-table-20080608-2nk3.html
Olmert makes it clear strike on Iran 'remains on table'
Jason Koutsoukis Jerusalem
June 9, 2008
PRIME Minister Ehud Olmert last night refused to discount the possibility of a military strike against Iran.
Comments on Friday by his Transport Minister, Shaul Mofaz, that Israel would attack Iran if it continued its nuclear program sparked international uproar at the weekend, pushing oil prices to a record $US140 ($A146) a barrel for fear of interruption to the supply of 4 million barrels a day to world markets from Iran.
Just back from talks in Washington with President George Bush, Mr Olmert said a strike against Iran remained an option. His spokesman, Mark Regev, told The Age that Israel believed the world had to take tangible steps to halt the Iranian nuclear program.
"The sanctions decided upon now are important, but they are not nearly sufficient," he said. "It remains very important for other nations to increase the pressure on the regime in Tehran, and we've been talking about a number of ideas with the international players."
Mr Regev said these included an embargo on Iran's refined petroleum exports, sanctions on Iranian businessmen travelling abroad, and beefing up financial sanctions against Iranian banks.
"All options, including the military option, must remain on the table," he said. "We are among all those who want to see a peaceful solution to the Iranian problem. But we should be serious about diplomacy only if serious diplomacy will itself have a chance to succeed."
Earlier, other Israeli officials had added to the international criticism of Mr Mofaz, condemning his remarks as being more about getting voters' attention before early elections expected within months. Mr Mofaz is one of handful of politicians jockeying for the leadership if a corruption scandal forces Mr Olmert to resign. Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai accused Mr Mofaz of "cynically exploiting" Israel's strategic interests, and turning them into a political tool to improve his standing in the ruling Kadima party.
"This is an inadmissible and very harmful statement," he said. "Mofaz should stay silent and leave those responsible for defence to deal with it."
Israeli media yesterday reported one high-ranking security official as saying Mr Mofaz was only "speaking for himself".
A deputy leader of Kadima, Mr Mofaz is responsible for the dialogue between Israel and the US. His comments were seen as a hint that a plan to attack Iran had been agreed between the Israel and the US.
"If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," Mr Mofaz told Israel's Yediot Aharonot newspaper. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
