| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: |
| Iran presses on with nuclear enrichment (Associated Press)
By Zahra Hosseinian and Hashem Kalantari
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Iran is pressing on with uranium enrichment "non-stop," its envoy to the U.N. nuclear agency was quoted as saying on Saturday, despite a world powers' offer of economic incentives to coax Tehran into halting such activities.
The Islamic Republic also appeared to dismiss any suggestion of freezing nuclear work it says is for generating electricity but which the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.
The United States says it is focusing on diplomatic pressure to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions but has not ruled out military action as a last resort.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief, Mohamad ElBaradei, on Friday warned a military strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into "a fireball."
Diplomats said on Friday six major powers had offered Iran preliminary talks on its nuclear program, on condition it limit enrichment to current levels for six weeks in exchange for a freeze on moves towards harsher sanctions.
They said European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana conveyed the proposal during talks in Tehran on June 14 in which he presented a revised batch of incentives for Iran to stop pursuing technology that could yield atomic weapons.
Asked whether such a "freeze-for-freeze" proposal would be acceptable to Iran, government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham told reporters:
"About suspension, it has been said that suspension of activities and suspension of enrichment is not a logical issue that would be acceptable and in any case the continuation of negotiations will not be based on enrichment suspension."
Iran has repeatedly rejected the sextet's precondition of a full suspension of enrichment-related activity before negotiations to implement the incentives, which include support in developing a civilian nuclear program.
"PRE-NEGOTIATIONS"
Iran says it will review the offer by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany but that it will not stop enriching uranium.
Its refusal to do so has drawn three rounds of limited United Nations sanctions since 2006.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran continues with enrichment non-stop," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Tehran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told Iran's state broadcaster in an interview.
Soltanieh said Iran's enrichment activities were under constant surveillance by IAEA cameras and that inspections by the Vienna-based agency took place continuously.
Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, has steadily expanded enrichment capacity to 3,600 centrifuge machines compared with 300 two years ago.
Under the "freeze-for-freeze" proposal, Iran would not expand enrichment capacity by adding centrifuge machines for a six-week period, during which the powers would stop moves to sharpen the mild sanctions already in force, the diplomats said.
The interim period would enable "pre-negotiations" to agree parameters for formal negotiations to put the incentives into effect, once Iran has fully suspended enrichment, they said.
Iran's foreign minister said on Thursday Tehran had informed the six powers that it was ready to negotiate.
As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran insists it has the right to master the complete nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, for peaceful purposes.
(Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Richard Balmforth) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Us? |
| June 20, 2008
Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Us?
by Ray McGovern
Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe and pox – in the form of air and missile attacks – begin.
This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details.
Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."
Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and bluster?
A member of Olmert's delegation noted that same day that the two countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian threat." So bring 'em on!
A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the U.S. or Israel?
You say you missed Olmert's account of what Bush has undertaken to do? So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges for including the quote in his article of June 8, "The Iran Trap."
We can perhaps be excused for missing Olmert's confident words about "Israel's best friend" that week. Your attention – like mine – may have been riveted on the June 5 release of the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding administration misrepresentations of pre-Iraq-war intelligence – the so-called "Phase II" investigation (also known, irreverently, as the "Waiting-for-Godot Study").
Better late than never, I suppose.
Oversight?
Yet I found myself thinking: It took them five years, and that is what passes for oversight? Yes, the president and vice president and their courtiers lied us into war. And now a bipartisan report could assert that fact formally; and committee chair Jay Rockefeller could sum it up succinctly:
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
But as I listened to Senator Rockefeller, I had this sinking feeling that in five or six years time, those of us still around will be listening to a very similar post mortem looking back on an even more disastrous attack on Iran.
My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) issued repeated warnings, before the invasion of Iraq, about the warping of intelligence. And our memoranda met considerable resonance in foreign media.
We could get no ink or airtime, however, in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) in the U.S. Nor can we now.
In a same-day critique of Colin Powell's unfortunate speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003, we warned the president to widen his circle of advisers "beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
It was a no-brainer for anyone who knew anything about intelligence, the Middle East, and the brown noses leading intelligence analysis at the CIA.
Former U.N. senior weapons inspector and former Marine major, Scott Ritter, and many others were saying the same thing. But none of us could get past the president's praetorian guard to drop a memo into his in-box, so to speak. Nor can we now.
The 'Iranian Threat'
However much the same warnings are called for now with respect to Iran, there is even less prospect that any contrarians could puncture and break through what former White House spokesman Scott McClellan calls the president's "bubble."
By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his huge staff continue to control the flow of information to the president.
But, you say, the president cannot be unaware of the far-reaching disaster an attack on Iran would bring?
Well, this is a president who admits he does not read newspapers, but rather depends on his staff to keep him informed. And the memos Cheney does brief to Bush pooh-pooh the dangers.
This time no one is saying we will be welcomed as liberators, since the planning does not include – officially, at least – any U.S. boots on the ground.
Besides, even on important issues like the price of gasoline, the performance of the president's staff has been spotty.
Think back on the White House press conference of Feb. 28, when Bush was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline.
"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?...That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."
A poll in January showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans were expecting $4-a-gallon gas. That forecast was widely reported in late February, and discussed by the White House press secretary at the media briefing the day before the president's press conference.
Here's the alarming thing: Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are ill-prepared.
The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball game between St. Helena's High School and Mount St. Ursula.
Cheney's Brainchild
Attacking Iran is Vice President Dick Cheney's brainchild, if that is the correct word.
Cheney proposed launching air strikes last summer on Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who insisted that would be unwise, according to J. Scott Carpenter, a senior State Department official at the time.
Chastened by the unending debacle in Iraq, this time around Pentagon officials reportedly are insisting on a "policy decision" regarding "what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks," according to Carpenter.
Serious concerns include the vulnerability of the critical U.S. supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad, our inability to reinforce and the eventual possibility that the U.S. might be forced into a choice between ignominious retreat and using, or threatening to use, "mini-nukes."
Pentagon opposition was confirmed in a July 2007 commentary by former Bush adviser Michael Gerson, who noted the "fear of the military leadership" that Iran would have "escalation dominance" in any conflict with the U.S.
Writing in the Washington Post last July, Gerson indicated that "escalation dominance" means, "in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs."
The Joint Chiefs also have opposed the option of attacking Iran's nuclear sites, according to former Iran specialist at the National Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has close ties with senior Pentagon officials.
Mann confirmed that Adm. William Fallon joined the Joint Chiefs in strongly opposing such an attack, adding that he made his opposition known to the White House, as well.
The outspoken Fallon was forced to resign in March, and will be replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus – apparently in September. Petraeus has already demonstrated his penchant to circumvent the chain of command in order to do Cheney's bidding (by making false claims about Iranian weaponry in Iraq, for example).
In sum, a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall.
Controlled Media
The experience of those of us whose job it was to analyze the controlled media of the Soviet Union and China for insights into Russian and Chinese intentions have been able to put that experience to good use in monitoring our own controlled media as they parrot the party line.
Suffice it to say that the FCM is already well embarked, a la Iraq, on its accustomed mission to provide stenographic services for the White House to indoctrinate Americans on the "threat" from Iran and prepare them for the planned air and missile attacks.
At least this time we are spared the "mushroom cloud" bugaboo. Neither Bush nor Cheney wish to call attention, even indirectly, to the fact that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last November that Iran had stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 and had not resumed it as of last year.
In a pre-FCM age, it would have been looked on as inopportune, at the least, to manufacture intelligence to justify another war hard on the heels of a congressional report that on Iraq the administration made significant claims not supported by the intelligence.
But (surprise, surprise!) the very damning Senate Intelligence Committee report got meager exposure in the media.
So far it has been a handful of senior military officers that have kept us from war with Iran. It hardly suffices to give them vocal encouragement, or to warn them that the post WW-II Nuremberg Tribunal ruled explicitly that "just-following-orders" is no defense when war crimes are involved.
And still less when the "supreme international crime" – a war of aggression is involved.
Senior officers trying to slow the juggernaut lumbering along toward an attack on Iran have been scandalized watching what can only be described as unconscionable dereliction of duty in the House of Representatives, which the Constitution charges with the duty of impeaching a president, vice president or other senior official charged with high crimes and misdemeanors.
Where Are You, Conyers?
In 2005, before John Conyers became chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, he introduced a bill to explore impeaching the president and was asked by Lewis Lapham of Harpers why he was for impeachment then. He replied:
"To take away the excuse that we didn't know. So that two, or four, or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, 'Where were you, Conyers, and where was the U.S. Congress?' when the Bush administration declared the Constitution inoperative...none of the company here present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity [or] say that 'somehow it escaped our notice.'"
In the three years since then, the train of abuses and usurpations has gotten longer and Conyers has become chair of the committee. Yet he has dawdled and dawdled, and has shown no appetite for impeachment.
On July 23, 2007, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, and me that he would need 218 votes in the House and they were not there.
A week ago, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers' committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment proposed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who sat on Judiciary with Conyers when it voted out three articles of impeachment on President Richard Nixon, spoke out immediately: "The House should commence an impeachment inquiry forthwith."
Much of the work has been done. As Holtzman noted, Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment, together with the Senate report that on Iraq we were led to war based on false pretenses – arguably the most serious charge – go a long way toward jump-starting any additional investigative work Congress needs to do.
And seldom mentioned is the voluminous book published by Conyers himself, "Constitution in Crisis," containing a wealth of relevant detail on the crimes of the current executive.
Conyers' complaint that there is not enough time is a dog that won't hunt, as Lyndon Johnson would say.
How can Conyers say this one day, and on the next say that if Bush attacks Iran, well then, the House may move toward impeachment.
Afraid of the media?
During the meeting last July with Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Yearwood and me, and during an interview in December on "Democracy Now," Conyers was surprisingly candid in expressing his fear of Fox News and how it could paint Democrats as divisive if they pursued impeachment.
Ironically, this time it is Fox and the rest of the FCM that is afraid – witness their virtual silence on Kucinich's very damning 35 Articles of Impeachment.
The only way to encourage constructive media attention would be for Conyers to act. The FCM could be expected to fulminate against that, but they could not afford to ignore impeachment, as they are able to ignore other unpleasant things – like preparations for another "war of choice."
I would argue that perhaps the most effective way to prevent air and missile attacks on Iran and a wider Middle East war is to proceed as Elizabeth Holtzman urges – with impeachment "forthwith."
Does Conyers not owe at least that much encouragement to those courageous officers who have stood up to Cheney in trying to prevent wider war and catastrophe in the Middle East?
Scott McClellan has been quite clear in reminding us that once the president decided to invade Iraq, he was not going to let anything stop him. There is ample evidence that Bush has taken a similar decision with respect to Iran – with Olmert as his chief counsel, no less.
It is getting late, but this is due largely to Conyers' own dithering. Now, to his credit, Dennis Kucinich has forced the issue with 35 well-drafted Articles of Impeachment.
What the country needs is the young John Conyers back. Not the one now surrounded by fancy lawyers and henpecked by the lady of the House.
In October 1974, after he and the even younger Elizabeth Holtzman faced up to their duty on House Judiciary and voted out three Articles of Impeachment on President Richard Nixon, Conyers wrote this:
"This inquiry was forced on us by an accumulation of disclosures which, finally and after unnecessary delays, could no longer be ignored...Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to do what must be done is the price of remaining free."
Someone needs to ask John Conyers if he still believes that; and, if he does, he must summon the courage to "do what must be done."
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=13020 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-israel-really-preparin_b_108314.html
Is Israel really preparing to attack Iran? The New York Times today describes a June Israeli military exercise U.S. officials say "appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities." A "senior Pentagon official" said a goal of the exercise "was to send a clear message to the United States" and Europe that Israel was prepared to act militarily if U.S. pressure to stop Iran from enriching uranium continued to fail.
If so, retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner didn't get the message. "The signal I received is that Israel does NOT have the capability to effectively attack Iran's nuclear facilities," Col. Gardiner says.
Gardiner says a 2006 MIT paper by Whitney Raas and Austin Long, "Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities," is a good representation of how Israeli military planners think about targeting.
According to Raas and Long, in a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities Israel would be interested in three targets - the enrichment facility at Natanz, the conversion facility at Esfahan and the heavy water plant at Arak. They say Israel would want to attack these three facilities with a combined total of 36 aircraft.
"Getting 36 bombing aircraft into the targets connects well with the New York Times description of the early June exercise of 100 aircraft," Gardiner says. "Three strike packages of F-15I and F-16I aircraft, escorted by F-15A/C's with other supporting aircraft would be around 100 aircraft."
"An Israeli strike would not be much of a strike," Gardiner says. Israel would hit approximately 100 aim points, single weapons on a single part of the target. "I would call the Israeli strike 'disruptive' rather than 'destructive,'" he says. It has taken three to five years to build the three facilities. "You would have to destroy most of the facilities to come close to setting back the program three to five years."
The US probably thinks in terms of about 10 times more aim points for a similar strike, Gardiner notes.
"President Bush likes beehive analogies," Gardiner points out. " An Israel-only strike would stir up the bees and leave the hives with only limited damage."
If Gardiner's analysis is correct, then Michael Gordon's New York Times article is deceptive, perhaps deliberately so. It's part of a campaign of pressure on Congress and European governments - likely orchestrated with the Cheney faction of the Bush Administration - to forego real negotiations with Iran, and to push towards U.S. military escalation. If we don't act, the Israelis will, the argument will be - neglecting the fact that no Israeli action is possible without a green light from Washington.
Next week, Congress may consider on its suspension calendar a resolution promoted by AIPAC that effectively endorses a naval blockade against Iran - an act of war. If you don't think such a resolution should be rushed through Congress, you can say so here.
Do it..and do it now..
http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951
Additional at the following URLs:
Is Israel Poised To Attack Iran?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199459.shtml
Additional at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/06/20/israel-appears-to-rehearse-iran-attack-report.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: Israel is the wild card for US on Iran |
| http://nytimes.com
June 21, 2008
News Analysis
Bush May End Term With Iran Issue Unsettled
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON — For more than five years now, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have made clear that they did not want to leave office with Iran any closer to possessing nuclear weapons than when they took office.
“The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” Mr. Bush said in February 2006. The United States is prepared to use its naval power “to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region,” Mr. Cheney said in 2007 from a Navy carrier in the Persian Gulf.
But with seven months left in this administration, Iran appears ascendant, its political and economic influence growing, its historic foes in Iraq and Afghanistan weakened, and its nuclear program continuing to move forward. So the question now is: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney resigned to leaving Iran more powerful than they found it when they came to office?
The evidence is mixed. For all the talk to the contrary, Bush administration officials appear to have concluded that diplomatic efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions will not yield any breakthroughs this year.
Despite a recent flurry of efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran, top officials on both sides of the Atlantic, in recent interviews, had no expectations that Iran’s rulers would make any concessions, particularly on the critical issue of suspending the enrichment of uranium, while Mr. Bush remained in office.
On the military front, the picture is fuzzier. Two senior administration officials said that barring a move by Israel, which one characterized as “the wild card” on the Iranian issue, this administration would not be likely to pursue military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.
Mr. Bush himself seemed to signal as much at the start of his European tour last week in Slovenia, when he said of Iran that he expected to “leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue,” a statement that seemed to suggest that military action against Iran may no longer be on the table.
But there remains the possibility that Israel could force the hand of the Bush administration, foreign policy analysts and diplomats said. Israel carried out a three-day military exercise this month that American intelligence officials say appeared to have been a rehearsal for a potential strike on nuclear targets in Iran.
Israeli officials have tried to put pressure in recent months on the Bush administration to consider such a strike if Iran did not abandon its nuclear program, and the exercise may have been intended as a new signal that Israel might be willing to act alone if the United States did not.
“Israel prefers this threat be dealt with peacefully, by dramatically increasing sanctions and maintaining a credible resolve to keep all options on the table,” said Sallai Meridor, the Israeli ambassador to the United States. “But time is running out.”
Iran, he said, “should understand that under no circumstances will the world allow it to obtain a nuclear capability.”
Mohamad ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Al Arabiya television that he would quit his job in the event of a military strike on Iran.
“It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said in an interview broadcast Friday, according to Reuters.
Israeli officials have expressed fear to the Bush administration that a new administration would take months, if not years, to decide on its approach to Iran. The consensus in the United States and Europe is that Iran is still at least two years away from a nuclear weapon. Israeli officials say they believe the threshold is closer to a year.
An Israeli military strike on Iran would almost certainly require American help. For one thing, Pentagon officials say, it would take hundreds of sorties to take out a big swath of Iranian air defense. For another, the United States controls much of the airspace around Iran. Beyond that, Iran would hold the United States accountable for an Israeli strike, and could retaliate against American troops in Iraq.
In Moscow on Friday, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov urged dialogue rather than confrontation with Iran and said that the United States and Israel had not offered any proof that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. “So far we have not seen any,” Mr. Lavrov said, according to Interfax news agency.
A trip to Tehran last weekend by European diplomats with a new package of incentives was largely for Iranian public consumption, and to appease Russia and China by appearing to be still trying to woo Iran, European and American diplomats said.
But European diplomats have been loath to acknowledge publicly that diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear development is in a holding pattern for the next eight months because they fear that Iran will only use that time to make progress on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes.
“One should not talk about keeping the status quo because that would be dangerous,” one European diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules. “We can’t say the clock has stopped and we will begin work again after Jan. 1; that is not a good recipe for success.”
Administration efforts to convey a sense of urgency about stopping Iran’s nuclear program were dealt a blow late last year with the release of a National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In recent months, Bush administration officials have tried to walk back from that report, repeating often that Iran’s nuclear program remains a threat.
Many foreign policy experts are now looking to the next administration for a possible new approach to the standoff with Iran. “The Europeans all understand that the carrots-and-sticks approach is not working, and the entire Iran diplomatic policy has to be rethought,” said Vali R. Nasr, an Iran expert at Tufts University. Until a new administration takes over, he said, “we’re stuck in a process where the ball is kicked to the bureaucrats.”
Sophia Kishkovsky contributed reporting from Moscow. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
| 'Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief
2 hours, 18 minutes ago
afp.com
The UN atomic watchdog chief on Saturday warned that an attack on Iran over its controversial nuclear programme would turn the region into a fireball, as Tehran rejected an Israeli strike as "impossible."
Mohamed ElBaradei also warned that he would not be able to continue in his role as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general should the Islamic republic be attacked.
"A military strike (against Iran) would in my opinion be worse than anything else... It would transform the Middle East region into a ball of fire," ElBaradei said in an interview with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television.
A report by the New York Times on Friday cited US officials as saying that a major military exercise carried out by Israel earlier this month seemed to be a practice for any potential strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
In Athens, an official with the Greek air force's central command confirmed the substance of the US media report, stating that it had taken part in "joint training exercises" with Israel off the Mediterranean island of Crete.
The manoeuvres, code-named "Glorious Spartan 08," took place on May 28 and June 12, and consisted of aerial exercises and knowledge exchange, said the Greek source, who requested anonymity.
The goal was for more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter jets to prepare for long-range strikes and demonstrate Israel's serious concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Times reported.
But ElBaradei said on Saturday that any attack would simply harden Iran's position in its row with the West over its nuclear programme.
"A military strike would spark the launch of an emergency programme to make atomic weapons, with the support of all Iranians, including those living abroad," he said.
He did not believe that there was an "imminent risk" of proliferation given the current status of Iran's nuclear programme and made it clear he would "not have a place" as IAEA head in the event of a military strike against Iran.
The West fears the Islamic republic could use uranium enrichment to make an atomic bomb although Tehran insists it only wants nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes.
ElBaradei's comments come as Iran stressed on Saturday it will not negotiate with world powers over its nuclear programme if it is required to suspend its enrichment activities.
"Suspending uranium enrichment has no logic behind it and it is not acceptable and the continuation of negotiation will not be based on suspension," Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
He responded to talk of a military strike by saying, "Such impudence and audacity to have an aggression against our national interest and integrity is an impossible action."
In Jerusalem, the Israeli parliament foreign affairs and defence commission chairman Tsahi Hanegbi said Saturday that Western diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear programme had "failed".
"Next year and the year after that will be crucial. The world must must decide if it gives more time to diplomatic efforts, which currently do not seem very promising," he told Israeli public radio.
"Western measures against Iran's nuclear programme have failed."
On June 6 an Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Shaul Mofaz, warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.
A week ago, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented a new offer to Mottaki on ending the six-year standoff over Iran's nuclear drive, offering economic and trade incentives. Iran is still considering the plan.
It was made on behalf of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.
Additional at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/06/20/israel-appears-to-rehearse-iran-attack-report.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: |
| Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Obama’s Going To Win in Nov.’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-iran/
Jun 22nd, 2008
Article and VIDEO
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.
However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.
“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:
WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.
Kristol also suggested that Obama’s election would tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to think, “maybe we can use nuclear weapons.” Watch it:
Kristol’s belief that Bush might attack Iran before leaving office is not new. In April, he told Bill Bennett that it wasn’t “out of the question” that Bush would consider such a strike because “people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.”
The claim that Obama’s potential election could force Bush’s hand also isn’t new. Earlier this month, far-right pseudo scholar Daniel Pipes told National Review Online that “President Bush will do something” if the Democratic nominee won. “Should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt,” said Pipes.
Both Kristol and Pipes apparently agree with President Bush’s claim in March that McCain’s “not going to change” his foreign policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/03/make-people-aware-subscribe.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
