| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
| Bush, French president united against Iran
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago
Iran rejected a six-nation offer of incentives to stop enriching uranium on Saturday, prompting President Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to jointly warn Tehran anew against proceeding toward a nuclear bomb.
"Our allies understand that a nuclear-armed Iran is incredibly destabilizing, and they understand that it would be a major blow to world peace," Bush said at a news conference with Sarkozy at Elysee Palace.
The quickly unfolding series of events began in Tehran, where European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana played the role of messenger for the offer from the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China.
Solana presented the plan — a refreshed version of a 2006 package that Iran ignored — to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. There were no plans for Solana to see Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Even before Solana's meetings, however, Iran gave its pre-emptive judgment of the deal that holds out the promise of economic, technological, educational and political rewards: dead on arrival, assuming the offer is conditioned on Iran halting its uranium enrichment, which it is.
"If suspension is included in the package, it won't be considered at all," the official IRNA news agency quoted Iran's government spokesman, Gholam Hossein Elham, as saying Saturday. "The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran is clear. Preconditions can't be raised for any halt or suspension."
Bush and Sarkozy were informed of this as as they went into morning meetings. Their session capped warm talks that began over an elegant palace dinner Friday night. When the U.S. and French leaders appeared together before reporters in a grand palace hall around lunchtime, they presented a single front — contrasting with the tension shown between Bush and Jacques Chirac, Sarkozy's predecessor.
"I'm disappointed that the leaders rejected this generous offer out of hand," Bush told reporters.
Said Sarkozy: "As far as military nuclear access is concerned, this is `no' on the part of the international community."
Bush said the issue has been dominating his discussions this week with leaders as he travels through Europe. With his time in office ticking down and it widely presumed that Iran could have enough fissile material for a weapon within a few years, Bush has been hoping to inject new urgency into the extremely slow-moving diplomatic process. Iran claims its enrichment is to generate nuclear energy, while the West believes it is designed as part of a now-dormant warhead program that could easily be restarted.
The package is hardly different from the 2006 offer, said a senior State Department official. It includes "more meat in terms of how Iran could prosper" from going along, including new help developing civilian nuclear power in the form of energy partnerships and other measures, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the offer.
The official said that Tehran's dismissive stance was expected and that allies will allow some time before acting, in the hope that officials there will decide to more seriously weigh the proposal.
Perhaps reflecting this, Bush did not repeat his strongest rhetoric on Tehran, which he has repeatedly threatened with new sanctions — or even the last-resort possibility of a military strike if it remains defiant.
The farthest the president went Saturday was to promise the implementation of existing sanctions — three rounds of mild penalties through the auspices of the United Nations. He said the United States was "working with our friends and allies" on unspecified tasks.
Both Bush and Sarkozy gave special emphasis to their position that Iran is entitled to civilian nuclear power, while it can't be trusted to enrich. And they spoke in unison on the point that the people there have a right to be better represented by a government that Bush said is "creating the depravation inside Iran."
"Our view is we want the Iranian people to flourish and to benefit," he said.
It was left to Sarkozy to augment this softer message with tough talk.
"If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, that is totally unacceptable," he said. "Our position will not change."
Like Bush, he declined to offer specifics about what allies will do next. But, he said, "The only solution ... is a faultless, seamless sanctions regime."
Europeans have appeared more inclined recently to get aggressive about current loosely enforced sanctions, to support new, tougher ones at the U.N., and to possibly even adopt unilateral measures to squeeze oil-rich Iran by curtailing dealings with its banks.
Bush and Sarkozy spoke with one voice on Syria as well, saying that it must stop backing terrorism that destabilizes the Mideast and calling it a dangerous partner with Iran in that effort.
In a warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad, Bush said: "Stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists."
In a statement issued by the French presidential palace, the United States and France sought to dispel signs that they have divergent thoughts on Syria. Sarkozy also sought to play down a growing controversy about an invitation extended to Assad — among other Arab leaders — to France's Bastille Day military parade next month, and plans to include Syria in a new Union for the Mediterranean that Sarkozy has championed.
"If, when we go around the Mediterranean, we start by only inviting the countries that meet our exact criteria, that runs the risk of holding a meeting where very few people attend," Sarkozy said.
He said that discussions of normalized relations with France would require Syria to guarantee Lebanon's independence and "peel off, as much as possible, from Iran in its desire to lay its hands on a nuclear weapon."
Bush also was confronted with questions about Iraq, and his administration's desire to negotiate with Baghdad a long-term deal to provide the legal authority and rules covering an ongoing U.S. military and diplomatic presence there.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Friday that initial talks with the U.S. were deadlocked, in part over American demands such as immunity for U.S. troops and the ability to detain terror suspects. Al-Maliki said talks would continue.
Bush was upbeat.
"If I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis," he said.
Bush said the U.S. side would "work hard" on answering Baghdad's concerns. But he did not promise that Washington would give up its most controversial proposals. A U.N. mandate for the U.S. military mission expires at the end of the year.
___
Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran and Jamey Keaten in Paris contributed to this story. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
| http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/15/georgebush.iraq
Bush warns Brown over plan to cut Iraq force
President tells UK to avoid rushing into troop withdrawals
Ned Temko
The Observer, Sunday June 15 2008
Article history
US president George Bush. Photograph:
Evan Vucci/AP
George Bush flies into London today with a warning for Gordon Brown not to announce a timetable for a British pull-out from Iraq, and expressing deep scepticism about the Prime Minister's high-profile strategy for bringing down world oil prices.
The stern message to the Prime Minister was delivered during an exclusive interview with The Observer, and contrasted with praise for Tony Blair whom Bush is scheduled to meet for breakfast tomorrow ahead of talks in Downing Street. Bush said Blair had never been his 'poodle', but a leader who shared his view that the world is in an 'ideological struggle' and that 'ultimately freedom has to defeat the ideology of hate'.
The President's comments on Brown's Iraq troop plans followed a report last week that a final British pull-out could be announced by the end of the year.
The President revealed that he had already had 'discussions' with Brown on the troops issue and was 'appreciative' that Brown was in frequent touch with the Americans about 'what he and his military are thinking'. But while he said both allies obviously wanted to bring their troops home, this could only be 'based upon success'.
On the reported possibility of a formal timetable for major reductions, Bush was unequivocal: 'Our answer is: there should be no definitive timetable.'
He pointedly noted that Brown had retreated last year on the scale of an earlier planned pullout - and that Britain still had 4,200 soldiers in Iraq rather than the projected 3,500. 'I am confident that he, like me, will listen to our commanders to make sure that the sacrifices that have gone forward won't be unravelled by draw-downs that may not be warranted at this point in time. I look forward to discussing it with him.'
The President made clear that, while he did not want to 'second-guess' how other leaders handled their 'internal business', he would not be following Brown's lead in calling a voter who opposed the war and apologising 'for what happened to the people of Iraq'.
Bush said he felt personal 'pain' over the casualties in Iraq - whether of allied troops or innocent civilians. But it was important to put the fact that 'some of the Iraqi people have suffered' in a broader context. He said American and British troops were not 'intentionally killing innocent people', that large numbers had been deliberately killed by Saddam in the years before the war, and that Iraqis were now living under an elected government in a 'free society'.
The President also reacted coolly to Brown's suggestion of a series of international conferences - beginning with a Saudi-hosted meeting of producer and consumer nations on Sunday - to tackle rising world oil prices.
Bush called it an 'interesting idea', but warned against expectations of any major short-term improvement and made it clear he had no plans to go. 'I'm going to go home and take a look at what it all means and I'll decide who's going to attend on our behalf,' Bush said.
He had already been urging King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to increase production. But he said: 'There's no magic wand. It took us a while to get to where we are. It's going to take us a while to get out of it. And the truth of the matter is that there's either got to be more supply or less demand. And demand doesn't decline overnight' - particularly with 'big consumers of hydrocarbons' such as China 'subsidising their populations'.
Bush's comments during the wide-ranging interview, at the US ambassador's residence in Rome, underlined a shift from the administration's primary 'special relationship' with Britain in favour of a wider range of European partnerships including Germany, Italy and France - all of which recently elected broadly pro-American leaders.
He delivered a major policy address during his final presidential trip to Europe not in Britain, but France - which he called America's 'first friend'. He cited a quartet of European leaders - 'Berlusconi and Brown and Merkel and Sarkozy' - in signalling a more 'powerful and purposeful Europe' in closer international alliance with the US.
During the 40-minute interview Bush said Iran's nuclear programme was the single greatest international threat. His goal was to win European backing for tougher economic sanctions and head off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
He welcomed 'discussions' on climate change, and said he would use next month's G8 summit to press other leaders to deliver on a pledge to match billions of dollars in US aid to fight HIV-Aids and malaria. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: |
| | President Bush is the greatest threat to world peace as he prepares to have US attack Iran next for Israel in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break' agenda (http://tinyurl.com/2mnptm) that JINSA/PNAC/AEI Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser co-wrote as even Colin Powell has conveyed that the 'JINSA crowd' is in control of the Pentagon (via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney of course!). Your guest couldn't have been more inaccurate when he mentioned that President Bush had the US invade Iraq for oil. He invaded Iraq to secure the realm for Israel in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' and is about to attack Iran (if Israel doesn't initiate it) for Israel as well. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
| Wednesday, Jun. 11, 2008
How Iran Has Bush Over a Barrel
By Robert Baer
If wasn't clear before it should be now: the Bush Administration can't afford to attack Iran. With gas already at $4 a gallon and rising almost every day, Iran figuratively and literally has the United States over a barrel. As much as the Administration is tempted, it is not about to test Iran's promise to "explode" the Middle East if it is attacked.
The Iranians haven't been shy about making clear what's at stake. If the U.S. or Israel so much as drops a bomb on one of its reactors or its military training camps, Iran will shut down Gulf oil exports by launching a barrage of Chinese Silkworm missiles on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and Arab oil facilities. In the worst case scenario, seventeen million barrels of oil would come off world markets.
One oil speculator told me that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes. But Iran's official news agency, Fars, puts it at $300 a barrel. I asked him if Iran is right, what does that mean?
"Four-dollar-a-gallon of gasoline only reflects $100 oil because the refiners' margins are squeezed," he said. "At $300, you have $12 a gallon of gasoline and riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Harlem, Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas."
In either case, whether at $200 or $300, Bush does not want to be the President who leaves the White House on a mule-drawn cart. But Iran's blackmail is not just about oil. The Iranians truly believe they have us hostage in Iraq — our supply lines, the acquiescence of the Shi'a in the occupation. It would all change in an instant, though, especially if we were to borrow Iraq to attack Iran. The way Fars put it: "In Iraq, fighters would rise up in solidarity with each other and begin ... making the Tet Offensive in 1968 Vietnam."
If this all sounds very alarming, Iran meant it to, and it seems to be working. On Tuesday Bush was talking about the prospect of new sanctions rather than attacking.
Which leaves Israel. Are the Israelis, who have a lot more on their minds than the price of gas in the United States, going to launch a pre-emptive attack? One hard and fast rule in the Middle East is never rule out Israel's readiness to turn the table over. But an Israeli hawk on Iran, with close ties to Israel's Ministry of Defense, told me to forget about it. "There's not a chance Israel will do anything. Maybe there's a window after the American elections and the new President but even that's doubtful. Washington does not have the stomach for another war."
Israel cannot attack or contain Iran on its own; it needs the full military might of the United States behind it. So in the meantime Israel can only huff and puff, hoping new sanctions on Iran will do the trick.
Find this article at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1813706,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the following URL which was initiated with Baer's early article as I still think that Israel could get the war started (and the AIPAC hacked US Congress would support our 'ally' from the expected Iranian retaliation drawing US into a war with Iran in the process):
War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN's 'This Week at War' with John Roberts:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/04/09/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative.php | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: |
| Iran says uranium enrichment is a "red line" Reuters
By Parisa Hafezi and Zahra Hosseinian
27 minutes ago
Iran said on Tuesday uranium enrichment was its "red line" and would continue, despite an enhanced offer of incentives from big powers to stop activity the West fears could yield nuclear bombs.
The EU's top diplomat, Javier Solana, presented Tehran on Saturday with an adjusted package of economic benefits designed to persuade it to curb its nuclear work, and said Iran should stop enrichment during negotiations to implement the offer.
"We have repeatedly said that enrichment is our red line and we should enjoy this technology. The work will be continued," deputy foreign minister Alireza Sheikhattar told reporters, according to the state news agency IRNA.
The incentive package agreed by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany last month and delivered by Solana is a revised version of one rejected by Iran in 2006.
Western powers have warned Iran it will face more sanctions if it spurns the offer. Iran has shown no sign it will change its position, and suggested it was in no hurry to respond to the incentives proposal, saying it is being reviewed.
"We will give our answer as soon as possible. But we do not know exactly when it will be," the Iranian official said.
The incentives package offers Iran the chance to develop a civilian nuclear program with light water reactors -- seen as harder to divert into bomb-making than the technology Tehran is now developing -- and legally binding fuel supply guarantees.
It also offers trade and other benefits, including the possibility of Iran buying civil aircraft from the West.
A prominent Washington think-tank, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said the package contained two important new additions.
ISIS noted a passage saying the powers would "support" continued research and development (R&D) in nuclear energy "as confidence is gradually restored" in Iran's intentions. This suggested R&D could go on even during an enrichment halt and set a longer-term timetable for resolving core issues, it said.
ISIS said the offer also alluded to possible security guarantees, a prime Iranian concern, by citing readiness to "reaffirm obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain ... from the use of force against (Iran's) territorial integrity."
NO STRAIGHT ANSWER
A senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters Iran's response would not be a straight yes-or-no answer. "It will be a discussable response. We might accept some elements of the proposal and reject some others," he said.
"But suspension of enrichment is not on the agenda."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Monday Europe would take further sanctions against Iran, speaking of immediate action to freeze the overseas assets of Iran's biggest bank, the Bank Melli.
But after a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Luxembourg on Monday, Solana said the EU had yet to decide on a new round of sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has imposed three rounds of limited sanctions on Iran since 2006.
Iran insists, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that it has the right to master the complete nuclear fuel cycle, including enriching uranium, for peaceful purposes. It says it wants nuclear power only for electricity generation.
The process provides fuel for power plants or, if concentrated to heighten the enrichment level, atomic bombs.
Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear row with the West that has helped push oil prices to record highs, but has not ruled out military action as a last option. Tehran says its response to attack would be "painful."
(Additional reporting by Mark Heinrich in Vienna; Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Andrew Roche) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
| Bush threatens Iran with military action
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/bush-threatens-iran-with-military-action-848488.html
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
George Bush has warned Iran that military action is still "on the table" if it fails to respond to tightening diplomatic pressure to abandon its nuclear weapons programme.
The EU is planning to announce the freezing of all overseas assets of the main bank in Iran. Sanctions are also to be tightened on gas and oil exports by Iran.
But the US President's remarks on the last leg of his "farewell tour" of Europe raised fears at Westminster that Mr Bush is determined to take action against Iran before he leaves office in January if the sanctions fail to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Standing alongside the President after more than an hour of talks in Downing Street, Gordon Brown surprised EU council officials by announcing that the EU intends to intensify its sanctions on Iran, including freezing the billions of euros in overseas assets of the Melli Bank of Iran.
But Mr Bush left no doubt that the US is holding military action in reserve. Thanking Mr Brown for keeping together the European alliance "so that we can solve this problem diplomatically", Mr Bush said: "That is my first choice. The Iranians must understand that all options are on the table, however."
The EU foreign policy chief Xavier Solana delivered a more generous offer to the Iranian regime at the weekend and is now awaiting its reply. It includes help in developing civil nuclear power and extending economic assistance if Iran stops enriching uranium to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Ali Larijani, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, promised to "carefully study the package".
EU council officials said tougher sanctions were not on the agenda when Mr Solana briefed his officials but Downing Street insisted sanctions were being prepared. It is likely they will be implemented next week.
Mr Brown said: "Our message to the Iranian people is you do not have to choose the path of confrontation. The latest round of talks with the Iranians took place over the weekend. We put our enhanced offer on the table including political and economic partnership including nuclear technology for civilian use.
"We await the Iranian response and will do everything to maintain the dialogue but we are also clear that if Iran continues to ignore UN resolutions and our offer of partnership, we have no choice but to intensify sanctions."
A spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition, which protested against Mr Bush's arrival at Downing Street on Sunday, said: "Bush has been travelling round Europe trying to secure support for sanctions and a possible future attack on Iran."
Mr Brown also announced that Britain is sending more troops to Afghanistan as the bodies of five soldiers killed in action last week were brought home. About 400 support staff are being withdrawn, but 630 more troops are being flown out.
Mr Brown is due to announce troop withdrawals from Basra before the summer recess of Parliament at the end of next month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06/16/2008 12:00 AM
'MISSION DOABLE'
Israeli Ministers Mull Plans for Military Strike against Iran
By Ralf Beste, Cordula Meyer and Christoph Schult
The Israeli government no longer believes that sanctions can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. A broad consensus in favor of a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities -- without the Americans, if necessary -- is beginning to take shape.
Dani Yatom, a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, was invited to attend a NATO conference in Brussels last year. While reviewing the agenda, Yatom, a retired major general, was surprised to see that the meeting was titled "The Iranian Challenge" and not "The Iranian Threat."
When a speaker with a French accent mentioned that a US military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would be the most dangerous scenario of all, Yatom said, politely but firmly: "Sir, you are wrong. The worst scenario would be if Iran acquired an atom bomb."
Yatom, 63, has spent most of his life in the military. He was a military adviser to former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and, in the mid-1990s, was named head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency. Nevertheless, Yatom, a member of the Labor Party, is not some reckless hawk. Unlike most Knesset members, he flatly rejects, for example, a major Israeli offensive against the Islamist Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
But Yatom's willingness to strike a compromise ends when he is asked what he considers to be the best response to the Iranian nuclear program. "We no longer believe in the effectiveness of sanctions," says Yatom. "A military operation is needed if the world wants to stop Iran."
When Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, a former defense minister, expressed similar sentiments 10 days ago, they were viewed, especially in Europe, as the isolated opinions of a card-carrying hardliner seeking to score points with the electorate in a bid to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In truth, however, there is now a consensus within the Israeli government that an air strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities has become unavoidable. "Most members of the Israeli cabinet no longer believe that sanctions will convince President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to change course," says Minister of Immigrant Absorption Yaakov Edri.
The one question over which Israel's various political groups disagree is the timing of an attack. The doves argue that diplomatic efforts by the United Nations should be allowed to continue until Iran is on the verge of completing the bomb. That way, Israel could at least argue convincingly that all non-military options had been exhausted.
The hawks, on the other hand, believe time is running out. They stress that there is now a "favorable window of opportunity" that will close with the US presidential election in November, and that Israel can only depend on American support for as long as current US President George W. Bush is still in charge in Washington. They are convinced that the country cannot truly depend on any of the candidates to succeed Bush in office. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate, has already said that he favors direct negotiations with Tehran. And even if Republican John McCain wins the race, politicians in Jerusalem do not expect him to be ordering an attack as his first official act -- despite his performance, at a campaign appearance last year, of the Beach Boys' song "Barbara Ann" with the lyrics: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
President Bush, however, has recently been sending out signals that are suspiciously reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war. Then, as today, he insisted that "all options are on the table." And then, as today, he sought to appease the Europeans by saying that all diplomatic channels would be exhausted first. But during his recent visit to Slovenia, Bush said: "There's a lot of urgencies when it comes to dealing with Iran, and the Israeli political folks ... if you go to Israel and listen carefully, you'll hear that urgency in their voice."
An Iranian nuclear bomb would overshadow all other threats that Israel has faced during the 60 years of its existence. As costly as its wars have been, and as horrific the suicide bombings of radical Islamists may be, they can never pose a serious threat to the existence of the Jewish state.
But a single nuclear strike would have devastating consequences for this small country, which is only about half the size of Switzerland. In fact, international strategists commonly refer to Israel as a "one-bomb country."
Jerusalem's military leaders claim that Tehran could curtail every Israeli military campaign -- in the Gaza Strip, for example -- with only the credible threat of a nuclear strike. Despite its military strength, they say, the country would be practically defenseless. Even worse, the mere existence of an Iranian nuclear bomb, the government in Jerusalem believes, would trigger an exodus of the educated elite that could spell disaster for the country, both economically and culturally. "Iran would be in a position to destroy the Zionist dream without even pressing a button," says Ephraim Sneh, a retired general and cabinet minister for many years.
All experts agree that the Iranian bomb doesn't yet exist. Nevertheless, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to threaten the Jewish state with destruction at every opportunity. "If the enemy thinks they can break the Iranian nation with pressure, they are wrong," he said last week.
Even the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, voiced in a recent SPIEGEL interview his concern that Iran is sending out the message that it could "build the bomb in a relatively short period of time."
And no one knows better than the Israeli leadership just how much power lies in the mere belief that a country has nuclear weapons. After all, Israel itself has used this belief as a deterrent for the past 40 years. It is believed that an estimated 100 to 200 nuclear warheads have been produced at the Dimona reactor in the Negev Desert. Israeli historian Benny Morris, who is not normally considered a hardliner, recently suggested using the weapons: "If the issue is whether Israel or Iran should perish, then Iran should perish."
Jerusalem has already demonstrated that it is not only prepared for, but also technically capable of, frustrating the nuclear ambitions of a hostile country. In 1981, the Israelis bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor. Flying in tight formation to avoid being detected by enemy radar, eight F-16 fighter-bombers traveled 900 kilometers (560 miles) from Israel to Iraq, where they dropped 16 thousand-kilo bombs, destroying the reactor. Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, revealed that the Israelis had paid a French technician working in the reactor to plant a transponder there.
The second time was on Sept. 6, 2007, when Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers entered northern Syrian airspace along the Turkish border and destroyed a suspected nuclear site in eastern Syria. Before the attack, a group of special forces soldiers were reportedly dropped off on the ground to mark the target for a laser beam. To this day, the government in Damascus claims that the site was not a nuclear facility. However, images the Mossad has obtained of the building's interior allegedly reveal similarities with the North Korean reactor in Yongbyon.
Iran could be next. In a recent letter to Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak wrote that Tehran is not far from the "point of no return" at which the Israelis believe it could no longer be prevented from developing a bomb. Israeli intelligence officials believe that Iranian weapons engineers could have enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear warhead by 2009.
In reaching this conclusion, the Israelis are expressly contradicting the assertion, put forward in a report by US intelligence issued last December, that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "The Iranians resumed the program at full speed in 2005," says Yossi Kuperwasser, the director for intelligence analysis with Israeli military intelligence at the time.
'We Will See a Middle East in Flames'
While the Europeans continue to pin their hopes on diplomacy and are convinced that a negotiated solution that would allow Tehran to save face is still possible, the Israelis already view the UN sanctions regime as a failure. Russia and China, they say, sabotaged the boycott from the very beginning, and even the Europeans have only half-heartedly supported sanctions.
According to the Israelis, companies from Austria and Switzerland have recently signed agreements for the delivery of natural gas with Tehran, and even the German government has only slightly limited trade with the mullah-run regime. "The Iranians don't even feel the sanctions," says Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. According to Hanegbi, the international community will have to unite if it hopes to achieve anything -- "and soon."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been reticent on the issue. During a visit to the ranch of US President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas last November, Merkel promised to "take another look at economic contacts between German companies and Iran" and push for additional restrictions.
But there was little left of that resolve when Bush met with Merkel last Wednesday at Schloss Meseberg, the German government guesthouse outside Berlin. Her only comment about another round of UN sanctions was that she would "not rule them out." As one of her fellow Christian Democrats admits pessimistically, "Merkel is no longer pursuing this issue with any great enthusiasm."
Politicians in Berlin have noted with concern signs of the next war brewing in the Middle East. Former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who travels regularly to Jerusalem and Washington for political talks, warns that Israel could see the Bush presidency as its last chance to gain American support for a military strike. "Politically speaking, the window for action is now, in the last months of George W. Bush's term in office," Fischer wrote recently. "The Middle East is headed for another major confrontation."
Others share this sense of unease. Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg, a foreign policy expert and member of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), says that he has "the unsettling feeling that the contemplation of a military option against Iran is gaining a new dynamic in Israel." He wants to see Berlin use its close relations with Jerusalem to deter it from launching a military strike.
This political offensive would not be without risk. "By issuing this warning, we are taking even more responsibility for (guaranteeing that) our favored approach will yield results," says Ruprecht Polenz, the chairman of the German Bundestag's Committee on Foreign Affairs. In other words, if Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program, the West will have to close ranks with Jerusalem. "Under no circumstances can the impression be created that Israel would be left alone with the possibility of an Iranian atom bomb," says Polenz.
Israel's main ally, the United States, is still at odds over what constitutes the right strategy on Iran. The Bush administration is divided. Vice President Dick Cheney "would still want an attack," says Flynt Leverett, a former official in the US State Department and now a Middle East expert with the New America Foundation. However he believes the secretary of state favors a different approach: "Condi Rice is buying time to get the president through his term."
Bruce Riedel, a Middle East expert who spent many years working for the CIA, says it would be "very difficult for this administration to start a war with Iran. There would be public uproar and congressional uproar." But the situation is different from Israel's perspective, says Riedel. "There is some risk that Israel thinks it has limited time to act and it has a green light from American politicians."
Besides, the Israeli Air Force is known for its "inventive solutions to military problems," says Riedel, who has strong contacts to Israel, referring to the feasibility of such an attack. "Israeli military planners tell me it is mission doable."
This is why Riedel sees an Israeli military strike, with the US government's consent, as the most likely attack scenario. But the consequences, according to Riedel, would not differ from those of an American attack. "An Israeli attack will be seen as a US attack. Iran will retaliate against both Israel and the US." The consequences, says Riedel, would be fatal. "We will see a Middle East in flames."
Nevertheless, in Israel it is no longer a matter of whether there will be a military strike, but when. It is clear that the attack would be exclusively an aerial strike. Jerusalem recently received approval from Washington for a purchase of F-22 stealth bombers. The centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the Natanz nuclear facility are apparently the main target. According to Israeli information, the centrifuges are kept above ground and are thus easier to destroy. The reactor in Bushehr is seen as another possible target.
And the Iranian air defenses? "We know that Iran's air defenses are not among the world's best," says former Mossad chief Yatom. "They can be overcome." Nevertheless, many Israelis still hope that the Americans will do the job for them. "It could still be the case," says Yatom, "that George W. Bush wants to guarantee himself a place in the history books with this last act."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,559925,00.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
| http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1141&Itemid=2
Is a New Congressional Resolution Declaring War with Iran?
Emily Blout
Jun 12, 2008
Rep. Mike PenceWashington, DC — A House resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.
H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also “demands” that the President impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”
Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 134 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.
In the Senate, a sister resolution S. RES 580 has gained cosponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 15 cosponsors.
Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to “stop Iran’s nuclear program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.
Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. “It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways,” said Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution.
Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. “The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island,” he writes.
These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.
Last week’s sharp rise in the cost of oil following Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran indicated the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.
In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have “exhausted themselves” and called a blockade a “good possibility.”
Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, disagrees. Iran has already gained the regional power that these resolutions seek to prevent, leaving diplomatic engagement the only way to proceed, he said in a June 7 interview with Real News Network.
“Demographically, military, every way you want to measure hegemony, Iran is the dominant power in the Persian gulf,” he said. “Therefore we’ve got to come to recognize that, we’ve got to deal with that and hope we can shape that to a responsible role in the gulf and the region, and ultimately in the world. The only way you do that is through diplomacy.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/13/9596/
Published on Friday, June 13, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
State of Emergency: The US in the Final Six Months of the George W. Bush Administration
by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
In short, we are living in an on-going state of emergency whose exact limits are unknown, on the basis of a controversial deep event — 9/11 — that is still largely a mystery.
- UC Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott
Unhindered by a neutered Congress and a compliant Court, President Bush has six months remaining to pursue his agenda of expanding the war in the Middle East and ensuring the continuation of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) beyond his tenure in office.
The current administration has taken unto itself unprecedented, nearly hegemonic powers since the events of 9/11. On that day, George W. Bush issued his “Declaration of Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks” under the authority of the National Emergencies Act. This declaration, which can be rescinded by joint resolution of Congress, has instead been extended six times. In 2007, the declaration was strengthened with the issuance of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) which gave the president the authority to do whatever he deems necessary in a vaguely defined “catastrophic emergency” including everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack.
Despite time constraints, there are clear signs that the president, the vice-president and their neocon collaborators are not finished. The constant saber-rattling toward Iran, with strong support from Israel, should send a chill down the spine of any peace-loving American. Military chiefs who oppose the president are “retired,” as observed most recently with the March dismissals of CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon and 6th Fleet commander Vice-Admiral John Stufflebeem. Public opinion counts for nothing. In a March 24 interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, vice president Dick Cheney responded to a question about the war weariness of Americans with a languid “So?”
According to J. Scott Carpenter, former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Cheney pushed hard for airstrikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases last summer. He was deterred by Pentagon officials who insisted that retaliation might be difficult to contain. Now, with Cheney ally General David Petraeus poised to take over Fallon’s command, a significant obstacle has been removed.
It seems clear that there is a deadly struggle going on within the US government, a struggle that could well determine not only the election of the next president, but the survival of the republic. On one side are the neocons, the fanatics who led us into Iraq and who believe they alone possess the strategic acumen to usher in a “new American century.” On the other is the Republican Party old guard ostensibly led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates was brought into the administration at the end of 2006 to replace the disgraced and despised Donald Rumsfeld, and generally to ride herd over the neocons.
The conflict between these factions has broken into the open over the past eight months. The first public signal came in October of last year, when the sixteen US intelligence agencies issued a consensus National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that cut the legs out from under the administration’s argument that Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. The NIE stated that the Iranians had stopped work on the project in 2003.
Just before Labor Day last year, a B-52 Stratofortress bomber carrying six cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads flew an unauthorized mission from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. Due to anonymous, high-level tips to the Military Times, the warheads were recovered. After several seemingly inconclusive investigations of the incident, Pentagon chief Gates fired Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne last week, without revealing the role either man played in the nuke heist. Given the volume of evidence that this unprecedented transfer of live nuclear weapons was not an accident, the question remains: what individual or individuals within the government have the authority to commandeer nuclear bombs?
Conservative pundit Patrick J. Buchanan recently suggested that the neocons might be tempted to go to war with Iran in order to improve John McCain’s chances of winning the presidency. As audacious as that seems, we want to go one step further. We believe that this administration is so zealous, so determined to hold onto power, that they may well stage a “false flag” attack, creating just the kind of “catastrophic emergency” to which NSPD-51 refers.
On April 29 of this year, CIA veteran Roland V. Carnaby was shot dead by police officers after a high speed chase through the streets of Houston. Carnaby, who had been the CIA’s Chief of Station for the Southeast Region headquartered in Houston, was involved in conducting security surveys of the Port of Houston and had discovered that the Department of Homeland Security was tolerating gaping holes in port security. Carnaby and Houston intelligence and law enforcement personnel were also investigating the presence of “Middle Easterners” who were conducting surveillance of the Port of Houston. The “Middle Eastern” designator is the term used by the FBI for Israelis (typically Mossad agents) in order to avoid “political” problems with superiors.
Former National Security Agency analyst and naval intelligence officer Wayne Madsen has been in Houston investigating the Carnaby case at great personal risk. Madsen believes Carnaby was involved both in heading off a potential war with Iran (by leaking Mossad plans to assassinate Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah just days before Carnaby himself was killed) and in trying to forestall a potential terrorist attack on the port.
According to Madsen, “federal agents in Houston fear that ‘another 9/11-type part false flag’ attack is imminent, perhaps as early as July 4.” Such an attack along the twenty-five-mile Houston Ship Channel, site of more explosive materials, toxic gases, and deadly petrochemicals than anywhere else in the country, could create an environmental and economic catastrophe that would dwarf 9/11.
How will the struggle within this administration be brought to an end? Will courageous military men like Adm. Fallon speak out before the next national tragedy befalls us? Will Congress act decisively to remove the president’s emergency powers, challenge NSPD-51, and defend the Constitution? Will Defense Secretary Gates hold the line?
With just a half year left in what many believe has been the worst presidency in American history the possibilities are many, and some of them are truly frightening. As citizens of this country, we must do everything in our power to ensure that there is no expansion of war in the Middle East, no “false flag” attack at the Port of Houston or anywhere else, and a peaceful and constitutional succession to a new administration.
Lewis Seiler is president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former US representative, is executive director.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Set Reasonable Expectations but Talk to Iran, Committee Witnesses Argue
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/13/9596/
Caroline Tarpey
Jun 10, 2008
Washington, DC — At a hearing on “Iran’s Strategic Aspirations and the Future of the Middle East” in the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, Members of Congress and committee witnesses agreed that the current US strategy toward Iran is not working. Where they differed was what direction a new US approach to Iran should take.
“We are in Iraq because we as a nation didn’t think. We cannot afford to make the same mistake twice,” warned Chairman Gary Ackerman (D-NY). Commenting on the prospects for Iran’s ascendance given the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Ackerman argued the need for the US to develop a much more constructive approach to the Iranian “pest.”
“Iran is not just a pest,” Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) responded, but a more serious threat to the US, citing the State Department’s designation of Iran as the leading state sponsor of terror. Calling UN economic sanctions “not effective” and the multilateral P5+1 offer “fanciful,” Pence pointed to H. CON. RES. 362, which would increase the economic isolation of Iran through tighter US-imposed economic sanctions, as a step in the right direction.
While the consensus among Members of Congress was for future US policies to increase economic pressure on Iran, the witnesses painted a very different picture, testifying that talking to Iran must be central to any US strategy.
Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, testified that Iran no longer seeks to export its revolution. As a result, a foreign policy that addresses practical considerations instead of ideological ones fuels Iran’s rise as a regional power, leading Iranian leaders to demand recognition as indispensable in the region.
Shifting to the nuclear issue, “The idea of zero enrichment is untenable,” Takeyh stated. Takeyh outlined a US strategy based on diplomatic engagement, which he argued would provide a framework for better management of US-Iranian issues. “If the goal is the evaporation of concerns, that is not happening,” he said, but he contended that a shift in US strategy toward diplomacy and multilateral cooperation can make significant progress.
Judith Yaphe, research fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, argued that Iran’s endgame is regional power, not international legitimacy. To that end, she elaborated, Iran would like to see a unitary, stable Iraq strong enough to maintain its territorial integrity but weak enough not to balance against Iranian power.
Regarding US policy, Yaphe said the US needs greater engagement with Iran: “You talk because you don’t get along, not always because you do,” Yaphe said. Yaphe pointed out that the current US policy of democracy promotion has had the unintended consequence of strengthening the Iranian government and that without diplomacy the US cannot understand Iran.
“Sanctions delay but they do not deny,” Yaphe said of sanctioning Iran for its nuclear pursuits. According to her testimony, the US cannot force Iran to suspend its nuclear program, but could get Iran to dial it back if the US deals with Iran directly.
Echoing the testimony of Takeyh and Yaphe, Jon Alterman, who directs the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, contended that Iran is becoming an influential regional force. At the same time, he said, the American standing in the Middle East is in decline.
“Our problem in the Middle East is what we’ve done, what we said we would do and have not done and what we have not committed to do,” Alterman said. US policy but must be more predictable and more reliable, he argued.
For US-Iran policy, this means re-assessing US goals. If the US expects to fix all problems with Iran, then the US should not talk to Iran. “With Iran we cannot win, we can only gain,” he argued. Instead, the US should see talks with Iran as a management tool. “You can be in the same room and not necessarily be making concessions,” Alterman said of US-Iran dialogue.
Members of Congress countered that this approach may not be viable in the current political climate. Without leverage against Iran, Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) said, dialogue is not an option. According to Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Iran may not be a rational actor, and therefore cannot be expected to behave logically in a diplomatic framework.
Alterman argued that Iran is hostile, but not irrational. Yaphe commented that labeling Iran irrational becomes a convenient and misinformed excuse for US refusal to engage Iran. Alterman further argued that diplomacy may be the way to gain leverage. American belligerence and war-mongering will cause the US standing in the Middle East to decline even further, weakening our regional alliances, and will drive China further away from cooperation with the US on this issue, he said.
Despite the skepticism of Members of Congress, committee witnesses pushed for diplomacy to be part of the future US strategy. “We have disagreements with France, with Russia, with Germany, with Japan and we don’t look for a diplomatic and commercial interaction with those countries as for them to alter the totality of their foreign policy priorities,” Takeyh said.
“What we should be looking for in diplomatic engagement is not for one side to win and surrender but a framework for better management of the tensions and conflicts between the two countries.” | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
| Baghdad bomb rises to 63, U.S. blames Iranians (pretext for coming attack on Iran?)
Baghdad bomb toll rises to 63, U.S. blames militia (Reuters)
1 hour, 57 minutes ago
The death toll from a devastating truck bombing in Baghdad rose to 63 on Wednesday and U.S. forces blamed a rogue Shi'ite militia for the attack.
Four children and five women were among those killed by Tuesday's blast near a crowded market in the predominantly Shi'ite neighborhood of al-Hurriya in northwestern Baghdad, Iraqi police said.
Another 75 people were hurt in the deadliest bombing in the Iraqi capital for three months.
The U.S. military blamed the attack on a "special groups" cell. This is jargon for Shi'ite militants the U.S. military says are backed by Iran.
The military said it believed the attack was ordered to incite Shi'ite violence against Sunni Arabs. Most major car bombs in Iraq are blamed on Sunni Islamist al Qaeda.
(Reporting by Adrian Croft; Editing by Dean Yates) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject: |
| Britain pushes EU over sanctions against Iran
By ANGELA CHARLTON, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago
Britain's drive for tighter EU sanctions against Iran slowed Thursday with European diplomats saying soaring food and fuel prices make a decision targeting the Iranian oil sector unlikely for months.
The European Union hesitancy comes despite growing sentiment among many of the bloc's individual nations that tougher steps are needed to keep Iran from turning its nuclear activities into weapons.
Still, the diplomatic assessment is a setback to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who assured President Bush this week that the EU would soon start a "new phase of sanctions on oil and gas."
The problem the Europeans face is what steps to take and when. Hitting Iran's oil and gas sector could further push up energy prices, which have prompted disruptive protests around Europe by fishermen, truckers and farmers in recent weeks.
"There are no good options with regard to sanctions on oil and gas in Iran," said Mark Thomas of the Royal United Services Institute in Qatar. "With oil prices as they are it's not even an option."
Diplomats at the two-day summit said the EU was considering energy sanctions if Iran rejects the latest international offer of economic incentives in return for an end to its uranium enrichment program. However, they said discussions were at a very early stage.
Iran, meanwhile, was sending mixed signals.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed victory Thursday over efforts by the United States and its allies to stifle its nuclear ambitions. "Bullying powers applied all their power, but they could not break the will of the Iranian nation," state radio quoted him as saying.
However, the Web site of the state broadcaster quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying that Iran was considering the package and would answer at a convenient time.
Iranian officials have yet to give a formal reply to the offer, presented last week by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana on behalf of Russia, China, the United States, France, Germany and Britain.
"We hope there will be an answer soon," Solana said Thursday.
EU diplomats did not formally discuss what to do about Iran at Thursday's meetings, said Solana's spokeswoman Cristina Gallach.
"We're now waiting for what the Iranians will say," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. "Solana has delivered them a letter and the Iranians, I think, will give it a serious consideration," he said, adding that there was "no rush."
The French — who have taken an increasingly stern line on Iran in recent months — also remained reticent about a new package.
"We are waiting" for the Iranian response, said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani. She would not discuss a possible timeline for a new EU decision.
The incentives package holds out the prospect of assistance for peaceful nuclear energy and other economic cooperation in return for halting enrichment, which the West says could be used to make atomic weapons.
The EU is expected to step up sanctions in another sector, perhaps as soon as next week, by freezing the assets of Iran's biggest bank. That did not happen Monday, as Brown had suggested, because at least several more days of technical work are needed to ensure a proposal to freeze assets of Iran's Bank Melli complies with U.N. and European rules, EU diplomats said.
Imposing sanctions on the energy sector would be more complicated.
"The impact would be immediate and it would be huge," warned Frank A. Verrastro, director and of the Energy and National Security Program Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. In a telephone interview he warned that Iran would likely retaliate to sanctions by cutting production — and pushing prices up yet higher.
"There is not enough spare capacity in the world to cover the loss of Iran," Verrastro said. "The markets are bad enough. If you lost a major producer, a big exporter, there is no replacement."
The EU is Iran's biggest trading partner, with two-way trade totaling $39 billion in 2006. Iran supplies nearly 4 percent of EU energy imports, according to latest figures from the bloc's trade department.
Washington has frequently complained that European governments should take a tougher line on Iran, and Brown's comments during Bush's visit to London on Monday raised US hopes that wider sanctions were imminent. They also upset some EU diplomats who said he'd jumped the gun, and drew ridicule from the Conservative opposition in London which accused him of committing a blunder.
Some fear that the alternative to sanctions would be U.S. military strikes against Iran's nuclear installations which Europeans fear would plunge the region into chaos.
Iran insists its enrichment activities are for peaceful purposes to develop nuclear power, not a bomb.
___
Associated Press writers Paul Ames and Constant Brand in Brussels contributed to this report. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
