| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: |
| Israel prods Americans into war with Iran
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:45:03
By Dex A. Eastman, Press TV, Tehran
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62413&ionid=3510303
As the clash between the US and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other reaches a critical level, the powers that be have been desperately at work spinning a web of deception that may take the already war-exhausted Americans into the military conflict of the century, a confrontation that could eventually escalate into World War III.
"They will not close it... They will not be allowed to close it," declared Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff at a Monday press conference in Bahrain.
The closure by Iranians of the Strait of Hormuz constitutes an "act of war" and would "not be an action against the United States but against the international community", continued the commander of the US Navy 5th Fleet.
But little did the respected Vice Admiral know that the morally bankrupt echelons in Washington and the siege-mentality-enduring people of means had plans for him and his fleet.
PAX AMERICANA
The scheme gained momentum, perhaps, on May 21, when Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested in an over-lunch conversation with US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Israel that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran.
"The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves," an under-fire Olmert told the Democratic heavyweight Pelosi, who was joined by 12 bipartisan Members of Congress.
According to the Israeli newspaper, the desperate-to-be-redeemed prime minister proposed two possible courses of action during the meeting: first, the imposition of a naval blockade on Iran using a US fleet, and second to prohibit the entry of Iranian aircraft, businesspeople and top officials at all world airports.
"Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime," opined the corruption-scandal-implicated politician.
While Nancy Pelosi on May 22 denied having any such conversation in Israel, that same day the notorious Resolution 362 found its way into the US Congress.
Present at the luncheon in Israel, bill sponsor Democrat Gary Ackerman demonstrated his unwavering support for the principles of Zionism, as the bill indirectly puts into play the controversial requests of the Israeli premier.
The bill's key section "demands" that the president, among other things, make strenuous efforts, "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program".
Considering that Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare war" but does not specify how legislation text should be worded to be considered a "Declaration of War", Resolution 362 can, and probably will, be construed by an already power-abusive President George W. Bush and his team of lawyers as a congressional "demand" for imposing a naval blockade on Iran.
Resolution 362 is, thus, a supposedly innocent way on the part of America of provoking hostility by necessitating the imposition of a blockade on all ships "entering and departing Iran… [and] prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products".
While a naval blockade may be seen as acceptable to US politicians, it constitutes an act of war for Iran and will lawfully justify a response from Tehran.
The Western media will then plaster the headline America under attack! on the front page of all newspapers; Washington will portray Iran's defense as an act of aggression and will easily manage to convince Americans that a swift victory is achievable by waging all-out war on the country under the pretext of the War on Terror.
But how does Israel ensure that a piece of legislation of such caliber is approved?
Lobbying began! The most powerful Zionist lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), convened on June 2-4 and declared its full-throated support for the bill, the approval of which has become its chief legislative priority. Some 80 Congressmen co-sponsored Resolution 362 in the three-day period.
On June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was pressing for his cause in America, attempting to drum up further US support for "the need to vanquish the Iranian threat".
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after his 90-minute meeting with President Bush in the White House.
"I left with a lot less questions... 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 the matter before the end of his term in the White House," heralded he whose mission had been accomplished.
A member of Olmert's delegation said the same day that Tel Aviv and Washington had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, asserting that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian threat."
The annual AIPAC policy conference and Olmert's trip to the White House had, indeed, gone well. Congress once again capitulated to the humiliation of falling in line with the demands of the Israeli lobby.
As of July 1, House Resolution 362 (and the Senate version Resolution 580), known as the 'Iran War Resolution', enjoys 220 co-sponsors in the House and 32 in the Senate and will be put to vote in the coming days.
ISRAEL PAVES THE WAY FOR WAR
In early June, perhaps coinciding with Olmert's trip to the US, Israel conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in what Pentagon officials have suggested to be in preparation for a war with Iran.
Over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s partook in the exercise, which spanned some 900 miles, roughly the distance between their airfields and a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz.
An Israeli politician familiar with the Air Force initiative said that Iranians should "read the writing on the wall . . . This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their program for nuclear weapons."
On June 6, reportedly a day after the unpublicized exercise ended, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who hopes to succeed Olmert as the next prime minister, described a war with Iran as "unavoidable" and threatened to wage war on Iran if the country fails to halt its nuclear activities.
His tactless remarks, while tacitly justified by the media as an attempt to win approval for future elections, have sparked a war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv and have somewhat benefited Israel in its portrayal of Iran as a threat before the docile US Congress to secure the approval of Resolution 362.
Iran almost instantly urged UN Security Council action against Israel, saying the inaction of the United Nations over Israeli atrocities has emboldened Tel Aviv to such an extent that it now publicly threatens Iran in flagrant violation of the UN Charter.
"Iran's Armed Forces have reached a pinnacle of their military might and if anyone is to take such measures (attacks Iran), the response will be excruciating," responded Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar.
Israel later played down the threats but fired back by using a harsher rhetoric suggestive of a nuke attack on Iran. "We must tell them: If you so much as dream of attacking Israel, before you even finish dreaming there won't be an Iran anymore," Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told the Israeli public radio June 7 without elaborating on why he believed Tehran would ever attack Tel Aviv.
"Iran should know the price it will have to pay when it begins to think concretely about attacking Israel," he continued in a direct attempt to represent Tehran as the aggressor.
Israel later ramped up its anti-Iran "operational" activities. On June 10, Israeli sources revealed that Tel Aviv had set up an 'Iran Command' within its Air Force as part of preparations for a war on the Islamic Republic.
The Command was said to be directed at improving coordination among Israeli ballistic missiles and air and missile brigades that deploy the Arrow and Patriot missile systems. That very day, Congress threw more of its weight behind Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki commented on the issue. He argued that Israel "lacks legitimacy" and has already been defeated not by "a modernized army" but by "a resistance group" in its 33-day war against Lebanon, suggesting that Tel Aviv should not be taken seriously.
REPAIRING THE BUSH IMAGE
Exposed to fierce criticism because of his feckless attitude before 9/11 as well as his deplorable performance in handling the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, a frowned-upon George W. Bush admitted to The Times on June 11 that his gun-slinging rhetoric had made the world believe that he was a "guy really anxious for war".
While defending his decision to invade Iraq, the man infamous for his use of such phrases as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" said, "Look, I think that in retrospect, you know, I could have used a different tone."
His confession that people saw him as "you know, not a man of peace" signaled a shift in the Bush administration policy on Iran.
Comments were made less often about the option of launching a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites and, when mentioned, the word "diplomacy" was almost always integrated into the same sentence in one form or another.
"All options remain on the table if diplomacy fails to get Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to abandon Iran's uranium-enrichment program," said Bush in a June 15 interview with the Observer.
However, the president's rhetoric grew more intense as he became more inclined to associate Iran to the War on Terror.
"My message would be: Stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists," said Bush on June 14.
"I would like to say one thing about the Iranian demand for civilian nuclear power, it is a justifiable demand… Iranians must understand all options are on the table however," said Bush on June 16 in London in clarification of the price of "civilian nuclear power".
Israel and the White House have even lent a helping hand in improving the Bush image. A June 13 report published by DEBKAfile, a website believed to have links with the Israeli military and intelligence agency, stated that Bush is clearly bidding farewell to the option of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
"They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with us all. No third option, of a punishing military strike, was mentioned," the website reported.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also touched on the issue.
"President Bush believes that we can solve this issue (Iran's nuclear program) diplomatically, and that everyone's preference is to solve it diplomatically, not just here in the United States but with our allies and certainly with Israel," she claimed June 25.
But why would an outgoing neocon president with nothing to lose suddenly shift policy and claim to push for diplomacy with Iran? Is there any other way to make an Iranian retaliation against the peace-loving American forces blockading the Persian Gulf look more innocent? Could it be that an apparently unknowing Bush will one day justify a possible provocation by saying we tried diplomacy but to no avail?
ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE
"We will not allow Iran to close it," threatens Vice-Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff of the 5th Fleet. "The US Navy has been in the region for 60 years and will be here for decades to come."
He was responding to remarks made by commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari, who was asked whether Tehran would consider closing the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz waterway if it were attacked.
"When a country comes under attack, it naturally uses all its capacities to confront the enemy," said the Iranian commander.
It does seem silly, however, and somewhat insane that despite the cavernous archives of Washington acts of aggression against sovereign nations, their countless years of meddling in Iran, their coup d'état against Mossadeq, their support for the oppressive Shah, their unapologetic downing of passenger flight 655, their long-time support for and funding of terrorist groups such as the Mojaheddin Khalq Organization (MKO) and Jundullah in hopes of destabilizing the country and their cruel efforts to arm late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction to use against Iranian and Iraqi civilians, an American Vice Admiral even has the gall to say that an Iranian attempt to protect their sovereignty against a gang of aggressor countries attacking them in violation of the UN Charter would be considered by the world as an act of holding 40 percent of world oil "hostage" by "a single country".
Yes, indeed, America does have a 60-year history of brazen imperialism in the Middle East and "will be here for decades to come". That must be why Bush says the Iranian threat must be dealt with.
A military strike on Iran will not be the easy hit-and-run job Americans expect it to be, though. According to US Vice-Admiral Cosgriff, it will be "pretty disastrous," with "echoes and aftershocks" reverberating throughout the region.
As waves of US and Israeli fighter jets scream over the country, Iranian missile defense systems will load the skies, downing an overwhelming number of high-tech aircraft. According to Western media outlets, while the violators will be able to accomplish parts of their mission, there is the prospect of retaliatory attacks on US military bases and American forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If correct, scores of US soldiers may be vanquished in a relatively short time.
Sharp-shooting pilots will dice with death to repel US warships and kamikaze missions may commence against US naval forces in the Persian Gulf. The military will respond to Israeli airstrikes with missile attacks never seen before in Israel.
Harking back to the eight-year war imposed upon Iran by a US-backed Saddam (1980-88), the spirit of the sovereign nation that has never accepted foreign domination will be revitalized. The American strategists will be thoroughly bewildered by the courageous missions carried out by those who love Iran despite its hardships.
As with the US-led siege on Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrators will take to the streets all around the world; Washington will be the scene of violence as the White House justifies the move under the guise of the War on Terror.
Opposition to the war will be evident in Arab countries throughout the already volatile Middle East and some nations may intervene, wreaking further havoc. The ensuing battles could easily close the 21-mile Strait of Hormuz chokepoint, cutting crude exports from the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
As the war of attrition continues, it has been suggested by international analysts that Latin American countries that have long suffered because of US interference may halt oil exports to the US in condemnation of the aggression, thus triggering massive oil spikes.
According to predictions by Rice University economists, oil prices may surge to $200 a barrel in the next year which would mean Americans will have to pay $6.64 per gallon for gasoline. Pundits, however, say a war on Iran will double or triple crude prices.
The already weak US economy could, if the war persists, assume the burden of $10-a-gallon gasoline and could plunge into an unprecedented depression. The fuel shortage will prompt an increase in biofuel farming. Hundreds of millions worldwide could have nothing to eat; high fuel prices would lead to a surge in farming costs and may further deepen the food crisis. Riots could ensue. The world will never be the same.
If you would like to contact the writer please write to eastman@presstv.ir
---------------------------------------------------------------
AIPAC pushing US to war with Iran for Israel:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Stop the AIPAC sponsored 'Iran war' legislation calling for a blockade of Iran (to get the war with Iran going for Israel):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/06/22/stop-the-iran-war-resolution.php
Here is the URL for the Bromwich piece about AIPAC pushing for war with Iran for Israel:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/congress-to-bush-and-chen_b_109868.html
Check out the question for Scott McClellan about how the JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) crowd pushed US to attack Iraq for Israel and are now doing similar to get US to attack Iran (how many more Americans have to die/get horribly maimed for this perpetual war for Israel agenda?):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/scott-mcclellan-questioned-about-neocon.html
McCain is a serving Israel first traitor to America:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/03/make-people-aware-subscribe.html
Israeli threat spikes our oil prices and crashes our stock market:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/israeli-threat-spikes-our-oil-prices-we.html
The big miscalculation on Iran
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=111427&d=2&m=7&y=2008
Subject: 'Attacking Iran will have consequences'
Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 3:26 PM
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62573&ionid=351020203
'Attacking Iran will have consequences'
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:09:47
Top Lebanese cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah says an attack on Iran would bring forth an all-out war with the entire Muslim world.
Fadlallah warned that a military intervention in the Islamic Republic would spark Muslim fury in a Friday prayer sermon in Haret Hreik's Imamayn Hassanayn Mosque.
The senior cleric condemned Washington's 'Iran war' rhetoric and stressed that such psychological warfare will not be tolerated in the Muslim World.
"We warn that any European or Arab country advocating aggression against Iran will pay the price. An Iran war will not only wreck havoc on the region but will have worldwide consequences," he said.
"Washington's support for MKO terrorists is a blatant example of US attempts to undermine Iran's security and stability," the prominent cleric added.
He reiterated that an attack on Iran would be interpreted as a declaration of war on the entire Muslim world and resistance groups.
SBB/HGH
Iran: Attacking our N-sites means war
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62507§ionid=351020104
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:38:05
The top Islamic Revolution Guards Corps commander warns that any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would lead to the outbreak of war.
"Any action against Iran will be interpreted as the start of a war," Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari told reporters Thursday.
He made the remarks when asked about increasing rumors of a potential US or Israeli attack on Iran, IRNA reported.
The IRGC commander warned that Iran's response to any act of aggression would make the invaders 'regret' their decision.
Washington has never ruled out the possibility of resorting to the use of force against Iran over its nuclear program and reports suggest that the Israeli regime is preparing for a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear sites.
This is while Washington and Tel Aviv, which accuse Tehran of seeking a military nuclear program, claim they favor a diplomatic solution to the standoff.
Refusing to give up its nuclear drive, Iran insists as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) the country is entitled to a civilian nuclear program.
In its most recent report, the UN nuclear watchdog conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization in Iran's nuclear facilities.
MD/HGH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Prodding US to Attack Iran:
http://www.soldiervoices.net/svfor/showthread.php?t=1183
Saudi Paper: Prepare for Nuclear Fall-Out:
http://soldiervoices.net/svfor/showthread.php?t=1147
Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/hersh_congress_agreed_to_bush_request
Chris Hedges: Insane to attack Iran:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/hedges-its-insane-to-attack-iran.html
Bob Barr: Attacking Iran Highly Irresponsible & Detrimental
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-attacking-iran-highly.html
A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html
Would it be possible (if it isn't too late to already) to conduct a House hearing with Flynt Leverett after what he mentioned at New America about the Bush regime perpetuating fraud over Iran (a youtube of Flynt conveying such is daisy-chained after the initial youtube about the disgraceful interview that '60 Minutes' did with Ahmadinejad via the following link)?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E&feature=PlayList&p=181923B27C885CDF&index=0&playnext=1
The following article appeared in the 'Daily Star' in Lebanon:
Bush could do himself a favor by heeding Iran's warnings:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=93662&categ_id=17 | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
| HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/08/10204/
by Alan Nasser
The current tension among political observers as to whether the U.S. and/or Israel will undertake military action against Iran before president Bush leaves office has been greatly intensified by the prospect that Congress will pass a frightening resolution, HR 362, as early as this week.
The Demands of HR 362
HR 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, calls for the president to enact more draconian economic sanctions against Iran. These include an embargo against any imports of refined petroleum. (While Iran is of course a major exporter of oil, it imports at least 40% of its refined petroleum.) The wording of the Resolution is chilling in the extreme: “Congress… demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by… prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.” The resolution is moving quickly through the House and could pass as early as this week.
The “stringent inspection requirements” listed would require a naval blockade, thereby constituting an act of war. And this is how the resolution would be perceived by virtually all Iranians. The result would surely marginalize moderates in Iran who would shun retaliatory measures against the Bush administration’s aggressive rhetoric, which has been escalating since fall of 2007. Iranians would unify behind their most belligerent leaders and the country would have been handed, by the president and Congress, powerful reasons to develop nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence.
The final clause of the Resolution contains a classic example of political doubletalk: “… nothing in this Resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” But an embargo-with-inspections scheme can be put in effect only by means of a blockade, which logically entails the use of force.
Congressional Democrats, the IAEA and Factual Falsehoods in HR 362
There is more support now than there was a year ago in Congress, especially among the Democrats, for military action against Iran. Thus HR 362’s co-sponsors include 96 House Democrats and 111 House Republicans. These are the same Democrats whom Americans voted into Congress, in November 2006, as majorities in both houses, based on what voters believed to be the Democrats’ opposition to war in the Middle East.
To add insult to injury, HR 362 justifies its content with demonstrably false accusations about Iran’s nuclear program. The Resolution charges that Iran’s importing and manufacturing of centrifuges are “covert” and “illicit.” But under both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and Iran’s agreements with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these activities are entirely permitted. The IAEA has publicly stated its support of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which it states is in full accord with all treaty requirements to which Iran is subject.
Late last October IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei remarked to CNN: “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. … I very much have concern building confrontation, because that would lead to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiations and inspections. My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we would end up on a precipice, we would end up in an abyss.” ElBaradei’s most recent statements repeatedly echo these October remarks.
The Role of AIPAC
That HR 362 has been so warmly received on Capitol Hill is a sad testimony to Congress’s willing dependence on external interests which cannot be assumed to be identical to those of most Americans. The Resolution is known to have been initially drafted by the American-Israeli lobby AIPAC. In early June AIPAC sent more than a thousand lobbyists to Congress to whip up support for this Resolution.
Congress’s well known subordination to AIPAC’s agenda should not be construed as a democratic response to the wishes of the American Jewish community. Polls show that more than 80% of Jewish-Americans oppose an attack on Iran. Congress’s compliance to AIPAC’s interests amounts to obeisance to a foreign State, not to any domestic constituency.
HR 362 and the Pre-Invasion Rhetoric Re Iraq: Preludes to War
Reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s decision to impose severe extensive sanctions against Iraq, the White House last October unilaterally imposed harsh economic sanctions against a number of important Iranian institutions. In addition to targeting more than 20 Iranian companies and the country’s 3 major banks, the sanctions were announced as aimed mainly at Iran’s uniformed security force, the Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC), which the Bush administration characterized, with no evidence, as “proliferators of weapons of mass destruction” and RGC’s Quds Force, which has been branded as a “supporter of terrorism.” These two accusations were the main pretexts for the invasion of Iraq.
Since Quds is part of RGC, and the latter is a state institution, the branding of Quds as a terrorist organization was ipso facto to brand Iran as a terrorist state.
Just as Washington had earlier cooperated with Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (by providing him with, among other things, chemical weapons), so too had Washington benefited from Quds’s provision of arms to the U.S.-backed Muslim government in Bosnia, its aiding the forces fighting the Soviet military in Afghanistan, and its support for those fighting the Taliban. Quds even assisted, with U.S. approval, Kurdish guerrillas’ assault on the Baathist regime of Saddam.
The demonization of former allies has been common to Washington’s war preparations against both Iraq and Iran. In both cases perhaps the principal objectives have been to shut down the possibilities for a negotiated settlement, and to provide a “legal” framework for war by specifying the pretexts of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
The Democrats’ overwhelming support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq is well known. Their legislation prior to the October 2007 sanctions is perhaps less well remembered. Shortly before Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the October sanctions, the Democratic-led house passed legislation that would impose sanctions on non-U.S. energy companies doing business in Iran. The legislation passed by an overwhelming 397 - 16 vote.
Democratic leaders justified this legislation as cutting off funding for Iran’s (entirely legal) nuclear program. But the legislation was surely motivated in large part by the intention to eliminate any competitive advantage that might be enjoyed by competitors of U.S. oil companies, which no longer have access to Iran-based profits.
HR 362 is a major extension of the October sanctions. The latter were intended to deal a damaging blow to Iran’s economy. The RGC is not merely a military institution. It performs a broad range of economic activities. Its engineering unit includes among its major projects a $2 billion dollar contract to develop Iran’s main gas field, a $1.3 billion contract for a new pipeline to Pakistan, the construction of a Tehran metro extension, a high-speed rail link connecting the capital and Isfahan, the expansion of shipping ports and the construction of a major dam.
The October sanctions are known to have already had a significant impact on Iran’s economy. HR 362 is intended to intensify that damage, to take negotiations off the table, to provoke Iranian hard-liners. Its passage would constitute another giant step toward what Mohamed ElBaradei called “an abyss.”
Alan Nasser is professor emeritus of Political Economy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa. His articles have appeared in The Nation, Monthly Review, Commonweal, and a number of professional journals. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
| New War Brewing: US, Israel Take Dangerous Steps
by Eric Margolis
GENEVA - The U.S., Israel and Iran are playing a very dangerous game of chicken that soon could result in a new Mideast war.
U.S. intelligence has concluded that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration and Israel, recently joined by France, are issuing increasingly loud threats of military action to frighten Iran into halting its nuclear enrichment program.
Iran insists its nuclear program is entirely for civilian use. Tehran is alternating between conciliatory statements and threats to retaliate against any attack by inflicting economic chaos on the global economy. Europe fears the economic damage a war against Iran would bring far more than Iran¢s nuclear program.
Senior Israeli officials are openly threatening to attack Iran¢s nuclear installations before President George W. Bush¢s term expires. Early, this month Israel staged a large, U.S.-approved exercise using F-15s and F-16s to rehearse an attack over 900 miles - precisely the distance to Iran¢s nuclear facilities.
The highly regarded American journalist Seymour Hersh just confirmed that the U.S. Congress authorized a $400-million plan to overthrow Iran¢s government and incite ethnic unrest. This column reported a year ago that U.S. and British special forces were operating in Iran, preparing for a massive air campaign. Israel¢s destruction of an alleged Syrian reactor last fall was a warning to Iran.
This week a Pentagon official claimed an Israeli attack on Iran was coming before year end.
Other Pentagon and CIA sources say a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent, with or without Israel. The Bush administration is even considering using small tactical nuclear weapons against deeply buried Iranian targets.
Senior American officers Admiral William Fallon and Air Force Chief Michael Mosley recently were fired for opposing war against Iran. According to Israel¢s media, President Bush even told Israel¢s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he could not trust America¢s intelligence community and preferred to rely on Israeli intelligence.
AIR BLITZ
Intensifying activity is evident at U.S. bases in Europe and the Gulf, aimed at preparing a massive air blitz that may include repeated attacks on 3,100 targets in Iran. Other sources say Iranian Revolutionary Guard installations will be barraged by cruise missiles.
In Washington, Congress, under intense pressure from the Israel lobby, is about to adopt a resolution calling for a naval blockade of Iran, an overt act of war.
Pro-Israel groups have been airing TV commercials claiming Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq and threatens the U.S.
The Bush administration¢s last desperate act, its Gotterdammerung, could be war with Iran. UN weapons inspectors concur with U.S. intelligence that there is no proof Iran is working on nuclear arms, but the neocon war party in Washington is determined to loosen a final Parthian shaft by striking Iran.
Israel asserts the right to maintain its Mideast nuclear monopoly by destroying all fissile-producing reactors in the region. Iran vows to retaliate against Israel with its inaccurate Shahab missiles, shut the Strait of Hormuz and mine the Gulf, producing worldwide financial panic, severe fuel shortages, and $400-$500 per barrel oil. Iran likely will attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait, and strike Saudi and Kuwaiti oil facilities. Canadians in Afghanistan could also become targets.
GRAVE DAMAGE
The embattled Bush administration¢s bunker mentality is leading to war that will gravely damage long-term U.S. Mideast interests. A single Iranian missile hit on Israel¢s reactor would do more damage to the Jewish state than all its previous wars. Besides, Israel cannot destroy Iran¢s nuclear infrastructure. A U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran will guarantee Tehran decides to build nuclear weapons. Israel and Iran have turned their regional rivalry into a confrontation that threatens all.
Iran¢s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, not its bombastic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls that nation¢s military and insists Iran will not produce nuclear weapons. Israel claims it faces a second holocaust. Iran says Israel¢s nuclear forces threaten its existence.
The dogs of war are being unleashed.
Eric Margolis is a columnist for The Toronto Sun.
Published on Sunday, July 6, 2008 by The Toronto Sun
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/06/10160/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
| Former Republican Congressman (and America first patriot) Paul Findley set up the Council for the National Interest in an attempt to counter AIPAC's influence in D.C. (Congressman Findley wrote the excellent 'They Dare to Speak Out' book about the power/influence of AIPAC and similar on the US political system and media):
From: Council for the National Interest
Subject: Save America From War With Iran
Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 11:42 AM
Dear CNIF Supporter:
We have recently met with a number of lawmakers who noted the outpouring of letters regarding three pieces of legislation that we're currently working on. We are asking for your help to redouble our efforts to OPPOSE House Concurrent Resolution 362 (naval blockade of Iran and other sanctions). If passed, this bill could be the "trigger event" for another war in the Middle East.
The mail generated by your effort is having an impact, and now we need to close the deal. With more grass-roots pressure, this ill-advised measure can give way to more productive engagement.
Everything you need to be an effective advocate is set out below in the easy-to-use links. Your participation is a critical element in overcoming the influence that the Israel Lobby has on our government regarding US interests in the Middle East.
Although e-mail is the easiest way to contact your representative and senators, sending a letter via fax or calling their offices about the matter adds significant emphasis. Regular mail no longer works for Capitol Hill because of long delays in screening.
To read the text of the bill, CNI's analysis, and a suggested letter to your representative, and for instructions on how to e-mail, fax, and phone your concerns to Congress, CLICK HERE.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS REQUEST TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ASK THEM TO CONTACT CONGRESS AS WELL.
CNI is a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization, so donations are not tax-deductible.Council for the National Interest
1250 4th Street SW, Suite WG-1 · Washington, DC 20024
800.296.6958 · 202.863.2951 · Fax: 202.863.2952
http://cnionline.org/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: |
| Iran Shows Its Cards
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080714_iran_shows_its_cards/
Posted on Jul 14, 2008
By Scott Ritter
There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S. and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors, pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a pre-emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing its nuclear-related infrastructure, as well as retarding Iran’s ability to train and equip “terrorist” forces on Iranian soil before dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me, have warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has demonstrated why an attack would be insane.
I’ve always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and rockets, in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran was attacked.
The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran is. But the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For some time now, the admirals commanding the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf have maintained that they have the ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. But the fact is, the only way the United States could guarantee that the strait remained open would be to launch a massive pre-emptive military strike that swept the Iranian coast clear of the deadly Chinese-made surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would use to sink cargo ships in the strategic lane. This strike would involve hundreds of tactical aircraft backed up by limited ground action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations forces which would involve “boots on the ground” for several days, if not weeks. Such a strike is not envisioned in any “limited” military action being planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a “limited” military attack on Iran.
The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait, large—fixed and well known— would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying deadly cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of millions, if not into billions, of dollars, and hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. military personnel would be killed and wounded.
To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States would have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special Operations forces, to a counter-missile fight which would need to span the considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles might reach potential targets. While there has been some improvement in the U.S. military’s counter-missile capability, one must never forget that in 1991 not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully interdicted by any aspect of American military action (airstrike, ground action or antiballistic missile), and in 2003 the U.S. military had mixed results against the far less capable Al-Samoud missiles. Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah from firing large salvos of rockets into northern Israel during the summer 2006 conflict. There is no reason for optimism that the U.S. and Israel have suddenly found the solution to the Iranian missile threat.
There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent Iran from interfering with shipping through the strait. There is every chance the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ships lost and personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait. There would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to guarantee safe passage for all shipping, civilian and military alike. The longer ground forces could operate on Iranian soil, the better the chances Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict shipping. Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the greater likelihood there would be of decisive ground engagement. With U.S. air power expected to be fully committed to the missile interdiction mission, any large-scale ground engagement would create a situation in which air power would have to be redirected into tactical support, and away from missile interdiction, creating a window of vulnerability which the Iranians would very likely exploit.
Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli involvement is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful fashion Israel would need to fly in Iraqi air space, a violation of sovereignty the Iraqi government will never tolerate. The anti-American backlash that would be generated in Iraq would be immediate and severe. In short, virtually every operation involving the training of Iraqi forces would be terminated as the U.S. military trainers would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the fortified U.S. bases to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian contractors would likewise need to be either withdrawn completely from Iraq or restricted to the fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been made in the “surge” would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi countryside would become a seething mass of anti-American activity, which would require a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be. Iraq as we now know it would be lost, and what would emerge in its stead would not only be unsympathetic to the United States but actually a breeding ground for anti-American action that could very well expand beyond the boundaries of Iraq and the Middle East.
The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran which would in turn bring long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.
Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent that most are predicting, there is a good chance oil would top $500 or even more within days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost certainly strike every market-based economy, and the markets themselves would collapse under the strain.
The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear facilities or bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard Command, some planners might have thought that the U.S. could actually pull off a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that Iran has made it crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would bring about a massive Iranian response, all military planners now understand that any U.S. military attack will have to be massive. Simply put, the United States does not now have the military capacity in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected, either by Iran, which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world. Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such horrific detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the international community remaining mute as American military might is assembled.
Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent on the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it would become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore the consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and politically. The same can be said of both major presidential candidates. The decision by Iran to show its hand on how it would respond to any American aggression has cleared the air, so to speak, about what is actually being discussed when one speaks of military action against Iran. In many ways, the Iranian missile tests have made it less likely that there will be a war with Iran, simply because the stakes of any such action are so plainly obvious to all parties involved.
Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to pursue a nuclear program which is exclusively intended for peaceful energy purposes. Any concerns which may exist about the dual-use potential of Iran’s uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated through viable nuclear inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA inspections should be improved upon by getting Iran to go along with an additional inspection protocol, rather than pursuing military action which will destroy the inspection process and remove the very verification processes which provide the international community with the confidence that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The reality is that Iran’s nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has every right under international law to pursue this program, and regional and global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the price of oil) if American policies, and in related fashion U.N. Security Council mandates, were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoia—derived not so much from any genuine Iranian threat but rather an affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East—must in turn be subdued. This can be done through a mixture of international pressure designed to punish Israel diplomatically and economically for any failure to adhere to international norms when it comes to peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, and international assurances that Israel’s sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will forever be respected and defended.
Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought to bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the crux of the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate national security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the pro-Israel lobby will have considerable control over American national security policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s continued push for congressional action concerning the implementation of what is tantamount to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act of war) by pushing House Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580 is mind-boggling given the reality of the situation. Congress must stop talking blockade, and start discussing stability and confidence-building measures.
There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to conduct serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings must not replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate and House in the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a facilitating vehicle for war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the body of witnesses beyond administration officials and those who would mirror their policy positions, and include experts and specialists who could articulate a counter point of view, exposing Congress to information and analysis that might prompt a fuller debate. This is the last thing AIPAC and the Bush administration want to see. But it is the one thing the American people should be demanding.
Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and current policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush administration can be considered rational when it comes to the issue of Iran. It is up to the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, to inject a modicum of sanity into a situation that continues to be in danger of spinning out of control. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:30 am Post subject: |
| AIPAC's Iran blockade resolution apparently shelved
Iraq and Region Update for July 25, 2008 Iraq and Region Update for July 25, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008 1:12 PM
A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest
Welcome to FCNL's Biweekly Iraq and Region Update for July 25, 2008
In this update . . .
Iran Blockade Resolution Stalls in House
Ceasefire Eases Gaza Conditions; West Bank under More Pressure
...and a selection of important articles, documents, and reports.
I. In Congress
Peace Group Actions Stall House Iran Blockade Resolution
FCNL and other peace groups have taken vigorous action over the last three weeks to stop a dangerous resolution that calls in effect for a blockade of Iran. H. Con. Res. 362 had been expected to sail through the House without opposition. Now the resolution could be quietly shelved or amended to remove the blockade language, or even to call for direct U.S. talks with Iran.
To date, three of the resolution's cosponsors, Reps. Tim Cohen (TN), Tom Allen (ME), and William Lacy Clay (MO), have taken the rare step of withdrawing their signatures. Another cosponsor, Barney Frank (MA), has told constituents he regrets he didn't read the resolution carefully enough before cosponsoring and has pledged to work to remove the blockade language.
Still another cosponsor, Robert Wexler (FL), has said that, because the resolution fails to call for direct U.S. negotiations with Iran and includes language that could lead to a blockade, he will head efforts to amend the resolution and vote against it if he is unsuccessful.
The campaign to stop the Iran blockade resolution gained new support this week when the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" J Street lobby joined the opposition to H. Con. Res. 362. J Street says the resolution should be opposed unless representatives remove the language calling for a blockade and add a call for direct U.S. involvement in the negotiations with Iran.
II. Annapolis Peace Process Watch
Ceasefire Eases Situation in Gaza Strip, but Some West Bank Conditions Worsen
The number of trucks entering the Gaza Strip has increased by more than 50 percent since the Israel-Hamas ceasefire went into effect four weeks ago, UN Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe told the Security Council on July 22. He noted, however, that the increased deliveries amount to only 30 percent of Gaza's imports before the Hamas takeover in June 2007. A continuing Israeli export ban, a lack of raw materials, and an insufficient fuel supply are holding back economic recovery, although the Israeli announcement July 17 that it will soon increase the amount of fuel allowed into Gaza could help.
"We are concerned…about the lack of improvement in the situation on the ground in the West Bank," Pascoe told Security Council members. He said that Israeli military operations have intensified in the West Bank since the June 19 Gaza ceasefire, and that Israel has closed West Bank schools, medical centers, and media outlets that it says are affiliated with Hamas.
Marine General's Report Said to Criticize Israeli Policies
Gen. James Jones, the retired U.S. Marine general charged with promoting measures to achieve Israeli and Palestinian security now and under a future peace agreement, is preparing a report that Israel's daily Ha'aretz says will be "extremely critical" of Israel's policies in the occupied territories and its attitude toward the Palestinian security services.
A draft summary of the report circulated within the Bush administration has reportedly led to a debate over whether the full report should be made public. According to Ha'aretz, Jones disagrees with Israel's assessment of its continuing security needs in the West Bank after a peace agreement and its attitude toward Palestinian security forces. Israelis who have met with Jones recently have said that their impression is that the report will be "very harsh, and make Israel look very bad."
III. Keep on Lobbying
Have an "August Recess Dialogue on Iran" with Your Representative
Your members of Congress will be back home beginning August 4. Please contact your representative's district office now to schedule a meeting during the recess about the Iran blockade resolution, H. Con. Res. 362 .
If your representative is one of the 245 House cosponsors of H. Con. Res. 362, tell her or him that three representatives have already withdrawn from the resolution and he or she should, too. (See FCNL's "August Recess Dialogue on Iran" for talking points.) Let your representative know that you, the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" J Street lobby, the Iranian-American lobby, and many others oppose a blockade and support direct talks with Iran without preconditions.
If your representative is not a cosponsor or has withdrawn from the bill, schedule a meeting to extend your thanks and urge support for direct talks with Iran without preconditions.
See FCNL's grassroots toolkit for tips on scheduling a lobby visit and meeting with members of Congress or their staff. You can find the locations of your representative's district offices in FCNL's online congressional directory.
IV. Articles, Documents, and Reports
Antiwar Movement Successfully Pushes Back against Military Confrontation with Iran
An article in the progressive online newsmagazine AlterNet credits antiwar groups, including FCNL, with so far preventing approval of the Iran blockade bill, H. Con. Res. 362. In late June, the article says, House leaders expected the resolution to pass like a "hot knife through butter." They were surprised when antiwar groups generated tens of thousands of emails, letters, phone calls, and other contacts with members of Congress and their staffs, and for the moment at least this dangerous legislation has been "stopped in its tracks by an anti-war movement. And some Members of Congress are going to be a bit more careful about doing things that could move the country down the road to another war."
Palestinian Authority Can Do Little More by Itself, ICG Says
Palestinian Authority (PA) efforts have improved public safety in the West Bank and brought some economic relief, the International Crisis Group says in a new report, but the PA may have reached a "natural ceiling" in what it can do alone. The PA's credibility and capacity, the report says, are limited by the lack of progress in peace talks, continued Israeli military incursions and settlement expansion, and Hamas's success in achieving a ceasefire with Israel through rocket fire while the PA has failed to win one through negotiations. The report offers recommendations to all parties to improve the situation. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
