| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: Israel Planning a September/October Surprise? |
| http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20300.htm
Israel Planning a September/October Surprise?
By Ray McGovern
17/07/08 "ICH" -- -You say you expected more rhetoric than reality from Senators Obama and McCain yesterday in their speeches on Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, that’s certainly what you got.
What I find nonetheless amazing is how they, and the pundits, have taken such little notice of the dramatic change in the political landscape occasioned by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bombshell on July 7 — his insistence on a “timetable” for withdrawal of US troops before any accord is reached on their staying past the turn of the year.
Responding to a question at his press conference yesterday, President George W. Bush showed that he was vaguely aware that the timetable is, as Robert Dreyfuss says (in Truthout, July 7), a “big deal.” Bush even alluded haltingly to the possibility of extending the UN mandate still further.
But it is far from clear that Maliki, who is under great domestic pressure, would be able to sell that to the various factions upon which he depends for support, much less to those which he must keep at bay. As Dreyfuss points out, Maliki and his Shiite allies are also under considerable pressure from Iran, which remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites. Most important, Maliki is by no means in control of what happens next.
Israel
Here’s where it gets sticky. No one who knows about third rails in US politics would expect the candidates or the fawning corporate media (FCM) to address how those now running Israel are likely to be looking at the implications of a large US troop withdrawal from Iraq next year.
I am remembering how I was pilloried on June 16, 2005, immediately after Congressman John Conyers’ rump-Judiciary Committee hearing in the bowels of the Capitol, for a candid answer to a question from one of his colleagues; i. e., if the invasion of Iraq was not about WMD, and not about non-existent ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, then why did we attack?
In answer, I used the acronym OIL. O for oil; I for Israel; and L for Logistics, meaning the military bases deemed by neoconservatives as necessary to protect both. Neither the House members present nor the media people seemed to have any problem with oil and military bases as factors-in itself an interesting commentary.
However, the suggestion that one main motive was an attempt to make that part of the Middle East safer for Israel (yes, folks, the neocons really thought that attacking Iraq would do that) — well, that was anathema.
As it is anathema today to suggest that this is still one of the main reasons, besides oil, that Elliott Abrams, other neocons — not to mention Vice President Dick Cheney and his team — insist we must stay, Maliki and his associates be damned. (See the cartoon in the Washington Times today showing Maliki and words telling him “We are NOT leaving.”)
Here in Washington we can sit back and quibble over the implications of such remarks by Maliki and other Iraqi leaders. The Israelis have to take such statements seriously. No agreement on US forces staying into 2009 without a timetable for withdrawal? For Tel Aviv, this is getting very serious.
My guess is the Israeli leaders are apoplectic. The fiasco in Iraq clearly has made the region much more dangerous for Israel. There are actually real “terrorists” and “extremists” now in Iraq, and the prospect of US troops leaving has got to be a cause of acute concern in Tel Aviv.
Keeping the US Entangled: Iran
This dramatic change — or even just the specter of it — greatly increases Israel’s incentive to ensure the kind of US involvement in the area that would have to endure for several years. The Israelis need to create “facts on the ground” — something to guarantee that Washington will stand by what U.S. candidates, including Sen. Obama, call “our ally.” (Never mind that there is no mutual US-Israel defense treaty.) Israel is all too painfully aware that it has only six more months of Bush and Cheney.
The legislation drafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) being so zealously promoted in Congress calls for the equivalent of a blockade of Iran. That would be one way to entangle; there are many others.
The point is that the growing danger that the Israelis perceive will probably prompt them to find a way to get the US involved in hostilities with Iran. Cheney and Bush have pretty much given them that license, with the president regularly pledging to defend “our ally” if Israel is attacked.
All Israel has to do is to arrange to be attacked. Not a problem.
There are endless possibilities among which Israel can choose to catalyze such a confrontation — with or without a wink and a nod from Cheney and Abrams. The so-called “amber light” said to have been given to the Israelis is, I believe, already seen as quite sufficient; they are not likely to feel a need to wait until it turns green.
So far, the resistance of U.S. senior military has been the only real obstacle to the madness of hostilities with Iran. (And one need only read Scott Ritter’s article on Truthdig this week to get a sense for why they would be chary.)
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, has been described as warning the Israelis that a “Third Front” in the Middle East would be a disaster. I think, rather, he was trying to warn anyone who might listen in Washington, including until now tone-deaf lawmakers.
Even if the pundits are correct in suggesting that Mullen is joined by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in trying to resist the neocons and Cheney, Mullen’s tone at his press conference two weeks ago suggested he is fighting a rear guard action-against the “crazies” in the White House, as well as those in Tel Aviv. And when is the last time the crazies lost a political battle with such implications for Israel?
Mullen had just returned from Tel Aviv. He appreciates better than most the fecklessness of endless speculation over whether Israel or the U.S. might strike Iran first. Even if the Israeli leaders have no explicit assurances from the White House, they almost certainly calculate that, once a casus belli is established, their friends in Washington — and the troops they command — are likely to be committed to the fray big time.
Seatbelts Please…
Viewed from Tel Aviv it appears an increasingly threatening situation, with more urgent need to “embed” (so to speak) the United States even more deeply in the region — in a confrontation involving both countries with Iran.
A perfect storm is brewing:
– Petraeus ex Machina, with a record of doing Vice President Dick Cheney’s bidding, takes command of CENTCOM in September;
– Sen. McCain’s numbers are likely to be in the toilet at that point (because of the economy as much as anything else);
– McCain will be seen by the White House as the only candidate with something to gain by a wider war (just as by another “terrorist incident”);
– The Bush/Cheney months will be down to three;
– And Maliki will not be able to cave in to Washington on the timeline requirement he has publicly set.
In sum, Israel is likely to be preparing a September/October surprise designed to keep the US bogged down in Iraq and in the wider region by provoking hostilities with Iran. And don’t be surprised if it starts as early as August. Israel’s leaders may well plead for understanding on the part of those U.S. officials not tipped off in advance, claiming that they could not distinguish amber from green with their night-vision goggles on.
Would they hesitate? Please tell me who…just who is likely to turn on the siren, pull them over, and even think of giving them a summons-once the patrol car computer confirms their privileged licenses?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. A former Army intelligence officer and CIA analyst, he is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A shorter version of this article appeared first on www.Consortiumnews.com .
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://neoconzionistthreat.com | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
| Iran says 'no' to suspending enrichment (Associated Press) - July 19th, 2008
An Iranian official says his country will refuse requests to freeze
its uranium enrichment program in exchange for a pledge of no new
U.N. Security Council sanctions.
Keyvan Imani's comments cast doubt on the success of talks between
senior envoys from Iran and the six countries trying to persuade it
to compromise on its nuclear program.
The six nations hope Iran will agree to stop expanding its uranium
enrichment program. In exchange, they offer to hold off pushing for
new U.N. Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
But Imani, speaking to reporters shortly after the talks began
Saturday, said there was no chance Iran would suspend.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran rules out suspending enrichment program
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 32 minutes ago
Iran on Saturday ruled out freezing its uranium enrichment program, casting doubt over the value of its talks with six world powers less then an hour after they started.
The talks — with the U.S. in attendance for the first time — had raised expectations of possible compromise on a formula under which Iran would agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities. In exchange, the six powers — including the five permanent U.N. Security Council members — would hold off on passing new U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
But the comments from Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that his government was not prepared to budge on enrichment — at least going into the talks.
"Suspension — there is no chance for that," he told reporters gathered in the courtyard of Geneva's ornate City Hall, the venue of the negotiations.
There also appeared to be little progress inside the talks.
A Western diplomat in Geneva familiar with their substance said the Iranians were focusing on "the second or third step" of substantial negotiations without addressing what the six powers say is a prerequisite for such talks to happen — a freeze of their enrichment program.
The presence of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns at the talks — the first instance of the Americans attending such meetings — had led to hopes of compromise.
The enrichment issue is key because the activity can produce either fuel for nuclear power stations or the material used in the fissile core of warheads. Iran has defied three sets of U.N. sanctions demanding it cease its program, saying it has a right to its peaceful uses under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But there is growing concern the Islamic Republic might want to build nuclear weapons instead.
Recent Iranian statements suggest Tehran is looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the Bush administration to open an interests section — an informal diplomatic presence — in Tehran after closing its embassy decades ago.
Although the U.S. says the Geneva talks focus only on the nuclear issue, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Friday they could also result in agreements to open a U.S. interest-protection bureau and have direct flights between the two nations.
U.S. interests in Iran are now represented by the Swiss Embassy in Tehran.
Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare.
Imani said Tehran had not yet received a proposal from the U.S. on opening a representation but would "study it positively" if it did.
But he downplayed the presence of Burns — although the Americans had previously said they would not talk with the Iranians on nuclear issues unless Tehran was ready to stop all enrichment activity.
"He is (just) a member of the delegation" of the six countries engaging Iran on the nuclear issue, he said.
He also denied that the "freeze-for-freeze" formula — a stop to Iranian enrichment growth in exchange for no new U.N. sanctions — was formally on the agenda of the Geneva talks.
Chief EU envoy Javier Solana and Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili left together as the talks broke for lunch, speaking earnestly with each other. Burns followed some time later, accompanied only by an aide. All three declined to answer questions.
The Western diplomat — who demanded anonymity because his information was confidential — said Solana would try to coax Jalili into agreeing to discuss the "freeze-for-freeze" concept and focusing on substantial negotiations.
The United States and its five partners — Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — remain committed to getting a full halt to Iranian enrichment. Still, Burns' decision to attend the Geneva talks shows that Washington may accept "freeze-for-freeze" — something less than full suspension — at least as a first step.
"Freeze-for-freeze" envisions a six-week commitment from both sides. Preliminary talks meant to lead to formal nuclear negotiations would start, Iran could continue enrichment but only at its present level, and the U.S. and its allies would stop pushing for new U.N. sanctions.
If this results in the start of formal talks, the Iranians would stop all enrichment temporarily. Those talks, in turn, are meant to secure Tehran's commitment for an indefinite ban on enrichment.
___
Associated Press Writer Bradley S. Klapper contributed to this report from Geneva.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran nuclear talks stall — even with US at table
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago
A U.S. decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment.
In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions.
Officials and diplomats refused to characterize the timeframe as an ultimatum, but it appeared clear that Iran now has a de-facto deadline to show flexibility.
EU envoy Javier Solana said that Iran still has to answer a request made on behalf of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany to "refrain from any new nuclear activity."
"We have not gotten all the answers to the questions," Solana told reporters. He said the two-week timeframe was meant to give Iran the space to come up with "the answers that will allow us to continue."
He said the contact might be on the phone, or through aides, reflecting the lack of success of Saturday's highest-level discussions.
A Western diplomat familiar with the substance of the talks was blunter.
Unless Iran shows some flexibility on suspension, he said, the six powers will "look to strengthen measures in the U.N. and the European Union" — shorthand for economic and political sanctions. He demanded anonymity because his information on the outcome of the closed meeting was confidential, along with the planned response if Iran remains defiant.
Chief Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili evaded the issue of suspension, demanded as part of the six-power proposal that carries a commitment of no new U.N. sanctions in exchange for an Iranian pledge to stop expanding its enrichment program.
Instead he spoke in generalities about the need for cooperation that reflected Iran's reluctance to focus on the six-power offer.
"Iran is calling on the Western powers to resume the dialogue," he said.
Iran already is under three sets of U.N. sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment, which can generate both nuclear fuel and the fissile material at the core of nuclear warheads. While Tehran says it has a right to enrich for peaceful purposes, the sanctions reflect international concern that it might use its program to make weapons.
The offer delivered to Iranian officials last month by Solana envisions a six-week commitment from Iran to stop expanding enrichment and from their interlocutors to agree to a moratorium on new sanctions for up to six weeks.
That is meant to create the framework for formal negotiations which the six nations hope would secure Iran's commitment to an indefinite ban on enrichment.
Iran's apparent stonewalling was an indirect affront to the U.S., which had sent Undersecretary of State William Burns to the talks in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage concessions.
Recent Iranian statements had suggested the country is looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the Bush administration to open an interests section — an informal diplomatic presence — in Tehran after closing its embassy decades ago.
Burns' decision to attend the Geneva talks showed that Washington was willing to accept something less than fully dismantling the program as it had always demanded — at least as a first step.
U.S officials had insisted Burns was at the table to listen only, describing his presence as a one-time occasion. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said otherwise.
Burns delivered "a clear simple message" when it was his turn to speak, McCormack told reporters in Washington.
He cited Burns as telling the his Tehran counterpart: "Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States."
Iran needed now to "make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation," McCormack said.
Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare.
Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, said Tehran had not yet received a proposal from the U.S. on a representation but would "study it positively" if it did.
He downplayed the presence of Burns — even though the Americans had previously said they would not talk with the Iranians on nuclear issues unless Tehran was ready to stop all enrichment activity. "He is (just) a member of the delegation" of the six countries engaging Iran on the nuclear issue, Imani said.
He also cast doubt over the value of talks less then an hour after they started. "Suspension — there is no chance for that," he told reporters gathered in the courtyard of Geneva's ornate City Hall, the venue of the negotiations.
___
Associated Press Writer Bradley S. Klapper contributed to this report from Geneva.
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:16 pm; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64129§ionid=351020104
Ex-Mossad chief: Iran not bluffing
Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:58:09
Former head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad has warned Tel Aviv against waging an air strike on Iran over its nuclear program.
Efraim Halevy, former Mossad chief, says any Israeli attack on Iran would be met with an Iranian counterattack.
"I don't think they're bluffing," Efraim Halevy said of Iranian threats to return fire.
Iranian counterattacks "might not be a last word in the game," said Halevy.
"We would be entering an entirely new area of estimate and counter-estimate," Seattle Post-Intelligencer quoted former spy chief as saying on Friday.
Israeli transportation minister Shaul Mofaz has declared that Israel will attack Iran unless it suspends its enrichment program.
Iran has declared that it would respond strongly to any act of military advanture.
Recently Iran test-fired advanced missiles in a military exercise dubbed The Great Prophet III.
Observers say the military exercise was an indicative of Iran's breakthrough in the field of defense technology.
MGH/PA
Count of views : 2096 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64331§ionid=351020104
Rice threatens Iran with more sanctions
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:26:52
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program within 2 weeks or face punitive measures.
Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili and the EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, accompanied by representatives of the Group 5+1, held a new round of talks in Geneva Saturday aimed at resolving Tehran's nuclear standoff.
For the first time in the standoff between Iran and the West over the issue, the United States sent a high-ranking official, Undersecretary of State William Burns, to the talks.
"The meeting sent a very strong message to the Iranians that they can't go and stall ... and that they have to make a decision," Rice told reporters en route to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Monday where she would discuss developments in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.
"It clarifies Iran's choices and we will see what Iran does in two weeks. But I think the diplomatic process now has a kind of new energy in it," Rice added.
Iran has maintained all along that its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity and that all its activities are in line with its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US and its allies, however, accuse Tehran of pursuing nuclear weaponry, insisting that the world must pressure the country into halting its nuclear work and threatening military action.
The five veto-holders of the UN Security Council - China, Russia, France, Britain and the US - plus Germany (Group 5+1) have offered a so-called 'freeze-for-freeze' approach to Iran, which calls on Tehran to add no more uranium-enriching centrifuges in return for no more tougher sanctions against the country.
Rice said that in case Iran refused to suspend its nuclear work, the Security Council would go back to the track of imposing sanctions.
She added that Burns would hold no talks with the Iranians in another round of negotiations to be held between the two sides in two weeks time.
"We've done enough to demonstrate that the United States is serious and to assure our partners that we're serious and to assure the Iranians that we're serious," she said.
SF/GM/BGH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice says Iran not serious at weekend nuke talks
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 30 minutes ago
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran on Monday of not being serious at weekend talks about its disputed nuclear program despite the presence of a senior U.S. diplomat, and warned it may soon face new sanctions.
In her first public comments since Saturday's meeting in Switzerland, Rice said Iran had given the run-around to envoys from the U.S. and five other world powers. She said all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline Iran now has to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or be hit with new penalties.
At the meeting, Iran had been expected to respond to a package of incentives offered in exchange for halting enrichment of uranium, which can be used to fuel atomic weapons. The Bush administration broke with long-standing policy to send a top diplomat to support the offer.
However, Rice said that instead of a coherent answer, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili delivered a "meandering" monologue full of irrelevant "small talk about culture" that appeared to annoy many of the others present at the table in Geneva.
"We expected to hear an answer from the Iranians but, as has been the case so many times with the Iranians, what came through was not serious," Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates. "It's time for the Iranians to give a serious answer."
"They can't go and stall and make small talk about culture, they have to make a decision," she said. "People are tired of the Iranians and their stalling tactics."
Rice's remarks about the Iranian presentation were much harsher than those of the host of the meeting, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who lamented only that Iran had not provided "all the answers to the questions."
On Sunday, Iranian state radio reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad called the talks a "step ahead" and said country's formal assessment would be issued soon.
On Saturday, one member of the Iranian delegation said there was "no chance" Iran would suspend uranium enrichment, again denying assertions that Iran's nuclear program was for anything other than power production. Jalili avoided the suspension issue entirely.
Unless Iran responds positively in the next two weeks, it can expect more sanctions to be imposed by the United States and the European Union as early as late August or September and may then be hit with a fourth sanctions resolution at the U.N. Security Council, Rice said.
"We will see what Iran does in two weeks, but I think the diplomatic process now has a new kind of energy to it," she said. "If they do not decide to suspend then we will be in a situation where we have to return to the Security Council."
Rice was briefed on the meeting by the State Department's No. 3 diplomat, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, who attended the session in a shift from Washington's previous insistence that it would not meet with the Iranians unless the enrichment had stopped.
High-level contact between the United States and Iran is extremely rare and Burns' presence at the talks may have confused the Iranians, Rice said, acknowledging a tactical change to demonstrate U.S. unity with the other five powers: Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.
"From time to time, it is important to invigorate the diplomacy," she said. "I think that the fact that we went may have been a bit surprising to the Iranians, and they didn't react in a way that gave anyone any confidence."
The offer envisions a six-week commitment from Iran to stop expanding enrichment, during which time no additional sanctions would be imposed. That is intended to create the framework for formal negotiations that, it is hoped, will lead to a permanent halt of enrichment.
Rice was dismissive when asked if Burns or another U.S. diplomat would be present to hear Iran's response in two weeks.
"I think we've done enough to demonstrate that the United States is serious and to assure our partners that we're serious," she said. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1036715/Brown-evoke-memory-Holocaust-warn-Iran-threats-Israel.html
Brown will evoke memory of Holocaust to warn Iran against threats to Israel
By Benedict Brogan
Last updated at 1:42 AM on 21st July 2008
Gordon Brown will today pledge to support Israel in the face of Iran's 'totally abhorrent' threat to wipe the Jewish state off the map.
He will deliver a blunt message to Tehran by insisting that the radical regime must abandon its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
And in a landmark speech to the Israeli parliament - the first by a British Prime Minister - Mr Brown will offer unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist.
Gordon Brown and Israeli President Shimon Peres hold talks in Jerusalem
His words will be seen as a clear commitment that Britain would use its military strength to protect Israel in the event of an Iranian attack.
'Britain is your true friend,' Mr Brown will tell the Knesset.
'A friend in difficult times as well as in good times, a friend who will stand beside you whenever your peace, your stability and your existence are under threat.'
The speech comes after Mr Brown spent yesterday at Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to the Holocaust, or Shoah.
He will tell the Knesset that he shares its fears about the bloodthirsty rhetoric used by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
However, the Prime Minister will stop short of making an explicit connection between the Iranian president and the Nazis - a comparison which is frequently used by Israeli politicians.
Mr Brown lays a wreath next to the Eternal Flame during a tour of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem
At Yad Vashem Mr Brown was reminded of Adolf Hitler's January 1939 speech to the Reichstag in which he predicted the 'annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe'.
Mr Ahmedinejad has repeatedly predicted that 'Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear', and has also dismissed the Holocaust as a 'myth'.
He caused uproar by declaring: 'The occupying regime must be wiped off the map.'
Given Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons, there are growing fears that Mr Ahmedinejad is intent on launching a strike on Israel.
Mr Brown will tell Israeli MPs: 'To those who question Israel's very right to exist, and threaten the lives of its citizens through terror, we say: the people of Israel have a right to live here, to live freely and live in security.
Mr Brown and President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem: The Prime Minister promised to help the Palestinian people
'And to those who believe that threatening statements fall upon indifferent ears we say in one voice: that it is totally abhorrent for the President of Iran to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world.'
The West's latest attempt at talks with Iran collapsed on Saturday after Tehran repeated its refusal of a deal offered by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.
The offer would have seen Iran given help with a civil nuclear programme - as well as economic and political aid - in exchange for dropping its campaign to develop a uranium enrichment programme.
Downing Street insiders yesterday said that Mr Brown would now consider a new range of European Union sanctions, potentially including a ban on spare parts for Iran's oil and gas industry.
Palestinian security guards in the West Bank town of Bethlehem: Mr Brown said Palestinians need a 'viable state'
The Premier also pledged a further £30million in British economic support for the Palestinians - on top of the £250million already promised between now and 2010.
His visit to Bethlehem took him through Israel's new 30ft concrete security wall which has cut off vast sections of the West Bank.
Speaking at a press conference with Palestinian premier Mahmoud Abbas, Mr Brown said: 'As a child I learned about Bethlehem from the Bible as a symbol of peace and a symbol of hope.
'But today the wall here is graphic evidence of the urgent need for justice for the Palestinian people, the end to the occupation and the need for a viable Palestinian state.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown issues Iran nuclear warning
PM warns Iran to halt nuclear programme
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7516580.stm
Published: 2008/07/21 10:45:53 GMT
Britain is determined to prevent Iran developing nuclear arms, Gordon Brown has warned in an address to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.
He said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel "to be wiped off the map" was abhorrent.
Tehran must abandon its nuclear programme or face "growing isolation".
He said the UK stood ready to lead in taking firmer sanctions and was also set to vow to stand beside Israel in its "fight for liberty".
'Lifelong affection'
Mr Brown's speech, the first speech to the Knesset by a British prime minister, marks the end of his three-day tour of the Middle East.
In a message likely to go down well with his hosts, he insisted that the UK, the European Union and the United States were determined to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon - Israel's key strategic fear.
Our country will continue to lead, with the US and our European partners in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons programme
Gordon Brown
UK Prime Minister
His expression of support for Israel comes a day after he and the country's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, voiced differing views over settlements in Palestinian territories.
But Mr Brown, referring to his father's "lifelong affection" for Israel, said: "For the whole of my life, I have counted myself as a friend of Israel."
He said the nation's achievements over the last 2,000 years, in the face of war, terror, violence, intimidation and insecurity were "indeed truly monumental" and Israel's partnership was "strong and getting stronger".
"To those who question Israel's very right to exist, and threaten the lives of its citizens through terror, we say: the people of Israel have a right to live here, to live freely and to live in security," he said.
Sanctions threat
"To those who are enemies of progress we say: we condemn anti-Semitism and persecution in all its forms.
"To those who believe that threatening statements fall upon indifferent ears we say in one voice - it is totally abhorrent for the president of Iran to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world.
"Our country will continue to lead, with the US and our European partners in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
"We stand ready to lead in taking firmer sanctions and will ask the whole international community to join us."
Mr Brown stressed: "Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear weapons programme and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response, not just of one nation, but of all nations round the world."
Attack warning
In 2004, the Iranian president made a statement in which he called for an end to the Israeli state, envisaging its replacement with a Palestinian and Islamic state. He has also described the Holocaust as a myth.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said Mr Brown was "absolutely right" to condemn the Iranian president's "vile threats to Israel", but he warned: "He must come clean about his position on military action against Iran.
"He must make it clear that Britain will not give its approval to a unilateral strike by Israel.
"This would have devastating consequences for the region, and for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mr Brown's spokesman said that in the event of further sanctions, the focus was likely to be on Iran's energy resources.
In particular, Tehran could be blocked from accessing equipment for its oil refineries.
Suicide bombings
Before his Knesset speech, Mr Brown met the Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
On Sunday he criticised Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which he said caused "suffering" among Palestinians and blocked the path to peace.
But he also insisted that suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israel must end.
As well as Mr Olmert, Mr Brown met Israeli President Shimon Peres, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on his first visit to Jerusalem as premier.
He also visited Jerusalem's Holocaust memorial and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
Story from BBC NEWS:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown hails Israel, raps Iran
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:34:48
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64346§ionid=351020202
British Premier Gordon Brown has vowed support for Israel and taken to task 'threats' by Iran in his current visit to the Middle East.
In a speech delivered to Knesset on Monday morning, Gordon Brown pledged his support for Israel and lashed out at what he called the 'abhorrent' threats by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against Israel.
"To those who question Israel's very right to exist, and threaten the lives of its citizens through terror, we say: the people of Israel have a right to live here, to live freely and to live in security," Brown said in his speech.
Iranian officials have repeatedly said that unless it commits the folly of initiating military action against Iran, Tehran has no intention of attacking Israel.
During his address to the Knesset, Brown took a similar position toward Iran's nuclear issue to that of the US, threatening the Islamic Republic with isolation if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program.
"I promise you that just as we have led the work on three mandatory sanctions resolutions of the UN, the UK will continue to lead -- with the United States and our European Union partners, in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program," Brown added.
The British prime minister also praised what he called Israel's 'monumental' achievements during the past 60 years, and emphasized his country's support for Israel's policies in Middle East.
"Let me tell the people of Israel today: Britain is your true friend -- A friend in difficult times as well as in good times, a friend who will stand beside you whenever your peace, your stability and your existence are under threat," said Brown, referring to Israel which is believed to be the Middle East's sole nuclear power with over 200 ready-to-use atomic warheads.
The stated objective of Brown's visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories is giving momentum to the so-called Middle East peace process.
However, the remarks he made at the Knesset will make it quite difficult for him to gain the trust of the Palestinians, over four million of whom have become refugees in the 60 years since Israel's creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the youtubes linked in the following post by Representative Press:
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2008/07/please-make-correction-regarding-iran.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
| UK demands Iran halt activities for Israel
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:22:38
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64386§ionid=351020104
Britain promises Israel that a 'collective response' awaits Iran should it fail to accept an offer requiring it to abandon enrichment.
In the first speech by a British prime minister to the Israeli Knesset, Gordon Brown said Monday that he would not stand by and allow Iran to acquire 'nuclear weapons'.
This comes as the most recent UN nuclear watchdog report concluded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries.
The UN Security Council, however, has intervened in the nuclear case and under US pressure has imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran.
The five permanent members of the council plus Germany (G5+1) have recently presented Iran with a package of incentives to persuade Tehran to renounce its rights to uranium enrichment in exchange for political and economic benefits.
"Iran now has a clear choice to make, suspend its nuclear program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations," Brown declared in reference to the package.
His remarks follow the commencement of talks in Geneva between Iran and the G5+1 over the package. A series of proposals put forward by the Islamic Republic were also discussed.
During the talks, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili reassured world powers that Tehran only seeks diplomacy to resolve the dispute surrounding its uranium enrichment program.
Brown also accused Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of making 'abhorrent' threats against Israel, claiming that the Iranian official has called for 'Israel to be wiped from the map of the world'.
President Ahmadinejad, however, has affirmed that Iran has no plan to launch an act of aggression against Tel Aviv, saying Israel is 'disintegrating on its own'.
Ahmadinejad made the remarks in a press conference on July 8 in response to a question as to whether Iran ever intended, 'as reported in Western media', to destroy Israel and to wipe out the Jewish people.
While claiming to be committed to a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff between Iran and the West, Israel and the US have repeatedly threatened to launch a military strike against Iran if the country continues uranium enrichment.
Iran has cited diplomacy as the only means acceptable in clarifying the nature of its nuclear activities but has warned that it would target Israel and 32 US bases in the region should it come under attack by the two staunch allies over its nuclear program.
MD/AA | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: US lawyer seeks to sue US over Iran threats |
| US lawyer seeks to sue US over Iran threats
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64435§ionid=3510302
Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:41:23
By Chris Gelken, Press TV, Tehran
An American lawyer has offered to represent Iran in an international lawsuit against Israel and his own government in an effort to stop Washington and Tel Aviv from initiating further sanctions against Tehran.
Francis A. Boyle says following Washington's latest ultimatum to Tehran to freeze uranium enrichment within two weeks or face further isolation, Iran needs to act quickly.
At weekend talks in Geneva, the United States delivered what it describes as a “clear and simple message” that Iran must choose between cooperation or confrontation.
In an email interview with Press TV, Boyle urged Iran to begin drafting lawsuits for presentation to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague before the two-week ultimatum expires.
Q. Precisely what would the charges against the US and Israel be? What are you hoping to achieve?
A. About two years ago Iran contacted me about a proposal I had made to sue the United States, Israel and the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) at the International Court of Justice in The Hague for their repeated and public threats to launch a military attack upon Iran over its undoubted right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to engage in nuclear reprocessing.
My proposal was that Iran should sue these states immediately, convene an Emergency Hearing by the World Court, and ask the Court to indicate provisional measures of protection on behalf of Iran against the United States, Israel and the EU-3 -- basically a temporary restraining order.
I felt that these lawsuits would be able to prevent a military attack against Iran and also prevent the imposition of sanctions against Iran by the United Nations Security Council. In addition, by Iran submitting this entire matter to the World Court, it would make it clear to the entire world who the real culprits are here.
The threat and use of military force clearly violates Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The Charter also mandates the peaceful resolution of international disputes. By filing these lawsuits Iran would prove to the entire world that it intends to resolve this matter peacefully and in accordance with international law.
I notice that just this week Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei publicly stated that he would sue the United States if it attacked Iran. I am proposing that we sue the United States immediately in order to prevent any attack upon or blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war.
Q. Why are you seeing to bring this action in an international court, rather than a domestic US court?
A. This would be a total waste of time. Based upon my prior experience, there is no way a United States court would rule against the United States government on a matter like this.
Q. You are proposing to represent Iran in a court action against the US and Israel - what are you seeking from Tehran - what mandate would they need to give you. Basically, how would this work?
A. Of course if Iran wants me to represent Iran in these lawsuits I would be happy to do so. But given the fact that I am a US national, Iran might prefer to have its own lawyers file these lawsuits. Iran already has a detailed Memorandum of Law from me on these lawsuits. The Iranian lawyers can simply use my Memorandum as they see fit. I would be happy to assist them in whatever way they desire.
Q. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been in the news recently regarding a prosecution against Sudan's leader, Omar al-Bashir. Explain the difference between the ICJ and the ICC.
A. The International Court of Justice deals with disputes between states, which the nuclear reprocessing dispute is all about. The International Criminal Court deals with the personal criminal responsibility of individuals. It has no authority to rule upon or settle disputes between states, which the ICJ can do.
Q. The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC - what is its relationship with the ICJ?
A. The ICJ would have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits by Iran against the United States, Israel and the EU-3 irrespective of the ICC.
Q. Israel regularly disregards international court verdicts and UN resolutions (the Separation Wall, settlement expansion etc.) What makes you believe there is value in another court action?
A. Israel has never been sued at the International Court of Justice -- the Wall was only an Advisory Opinion. By suing the United States and Israel together, Iran would make it very clear to the entire world what is really going on here by putting them in cahoots together. As of now the EU-3 are no longer threatening Iran with military force, so I would hold off from suing them at this time. But if they threaten Iran with military force, or support the United States and Israel with their threats, then of course they should be sued too.
Q. Assuming a mandate or commission is given by Tehran for you to represent them, what sort of timeline are we looking at before this goes before a judge, and then a verdict?
A. Based upon my prior experience at the World Court, it would take a few days to put the papers together and file them. We could get an Emergency Hearing by the Court within 2 weeks and an Order of Provisional Measures of Protection on behalf of Iran -- a temporary restraining order against the US and Israel -- within a week thereafter.
I filed the World Court lawsuit for Bosnia against Serbia over genocide on March 19, 1993, had the emergency hearing by the Court on April 1-2, and won the Order for Bosnia on 8 April 1993.
Given the inconclusive results at weekend talks in Geneva and the decision that Iran will be given another two weeks for its final answer, I respectfully submit that Iran should start moving on this process now. The Wall Street Journal has already reported moves for more unilateral, multilateral, and Security Council sanctions against Iran, including a blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war.
At a minimum, Iran should draft the Court documents now, then see what happens after Iran presents its "final offer" in two weeks.
Q. If you achieve positive verdict, how would you expect the verdict to be worded? Are there any sanctions against a state that does not abide by the ruling?
A. I would ask for Iran to be protected from a military attack by the United States and Israel in the most comprehensive language possible, including a blockade of Iran by the United States, a termination of all threats and use of military force, and of all measures of political, diplomatic and economic coercion against Iran.
The Order would go to the Security Council for enforcement.
If the US should exercise its veto, then we could try to take it to the United Nations General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution, where we would only need a two-thirds vote. In any event, this World Court Order would make it clear to the entire world who is right and who is wrong in this dispute.
Q. You have commented on the levels of rhetoric, what influence could this have on any court action?
A. I fully stand for a peaceful resolution of this dispute by means of diplomacy. But if the United States will not engage in good faith negotiations with Iran, then their and Israel's escalating threat and use of military force against Iran will only make it easier for me to win an Order from the World Court protecting Iran from the United States and Israel and, if necessary, the EU-3
Q. Another timeline question. Assuming this court action is aimed at preventing armed conflict, how urgent is it to commence the proceedings?
A. Apparently, according to CNN today, Iran has two weeks to prepare its final answer. That would be enough time to prepare all these documents. If the talks break down after Iran submits its "final offer," then we could immediately file the lawsuits, ask for an Emergency Hearing by the World Court, and request the Orders protecting Iran.
Back in early 1992, President Bush Snr. had the Sixth Fleet on military maneuvers off the coast of Libya planning for an attack and had US jet fighters penetrating Libyan airspace to provoke an attack over the Lockerbie matter.
We filed similar papers with the World Court on behalf of Libya against the United States and the United Kingdom, asking for an Emergency Hearing by the Court. President Bush Snr. then ordered the Sixth Fleet to stand down. There was no military attack against Libya then or later. Those World Court lawsuits eventually led to a peaceful resolution of the Lockerbie dispute between Libya, the United States and the United Kingdom, which now have normal diplomatic relations. Hopefully the same can be done here by means of these World Court lawsuits.
Q. During an appearance on Press TV's Middle East Today program in April this year you requested backing from Tehran for a court action against Israel on charges of genocide against Israel. Has there been any movement, any response? What is the current status?
A. This proposal is currently pending in the Office of President Ahmadinejad. The suffering of the Palestinians constitutes genocide. I am still willing to file that lawsuit if the President so desires. But given the urgency of the situation, and the threat of a terrible war, it might be best to get these nuclear-related lawsuits against the United States and Israel underway at this time, then act to protect the Palestinians from Israel later. Of course all this is for President Ahmadinejad to decide, not me.
Q. You successfully sued Serbia - but in the political atmosphere at the time, Serbia was widely perceived as the "bad guy" and frankly, the pro-Serbia lobby in the United States is insignificant. These cases are rather different, given popular support for Israel in the US. You will be representing what is widely regarded in the US as an unpopular or even hostile government against your own country and Washington's main ally in the Middle East.
How concerned are you regarding your professional reputation at home? Potentially, how damaging could this be for you - even with a successful outcome?
A. Back in 2004, the FBI/CIA put me on all the US government's so-called "terrorist watch lists" because I refused to become an informant for them on my Arab and Muslim clients, which would have violated their rights under the US Constitution and my ethical obligations as an attorney.
So I am sure there will be further repercussions. But under no circumstance do I want to see a war between Iran and the United States, which could readily degenerate into World War III.
With all due respect to Iran's leaders, they must not underestimate the ruthlessness and cruelty of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and their Straussian Neo-Conservative advisors when it comes to their willingness to use military force against Iran.
We must do everything in our power to prevent a war and obtain a peaceful resolution of this dispute over nuclear reprocessing that in my opinion can be resolved satisfactorily. These World Court lawsuits will contribute towards a peaceful resolution of this dispute between Iran and the United States, which will then order Israel to stand down.
BGH
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: Ex-Advisers Warn Against Threatening to Attack Iran |
| Ex-Advisers Warn Against Threatening to Attack Iran
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202698.html
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; A11
The Bush administration should stop talking about a military attack as an option if negotiations do not immediately halt Iran's uranium reprocessing program, two former national security advisers said yesterday.
"Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or later?' " said Brent Scowcroft, adviser to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.
Scowcroft added that by mentioning that threat, "we legitimize the use of force . . . and may tempt the Israelis" to carry out such a mission. He said he thinks that negotiations must continue and that sanctions have had an effect on Tehran, noting that even with elevated oil prices, Iran, alone among oil producers, is having a difficult time economically.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Jimmy Carter, described the Bush administration's policy of maintaining the option of military action as "counterproductive."
"I don't want the public to believe a preemptive attack can be justified," he said. Repeating the possibility "convinces Iran it is being threatened . . . and maybe it ought to have a [nuclear] weapon."
He added that a U.S. attack on Iran would be a "disaster," suggesting it could result in the U.S. fighting "for at least two decades" on four fronts -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Brzezinski said he fears that if negotiations break down between now and the end of the year, some in the Bush administration might believe "it justifies doing something."
Both former advisers said they think both Washington and Tehran are internally divided on how to proceed, making progress difficult before the next U.S. president takes office. But they said that President Bush's sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns to the most recent negotiations with Iran was a positive step.
"It brings the U.S. solidly in with the Europeans and the Russians," Scowcroft said.
Both also said there are parallels between negotiations with Iran and previous talks with North Korea on its nuclear programs. One difference is the role of China: Scowcroft pointed out that the Chinese, once engaged in the North Korea discussions, were "decisive" because Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Pyongyang.
China does not have similar influence over Iran. Scowcroft said that in partnership with the Germans, the two "could affect the Iran negotiations."
Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------------------------------
West to flex military muscles against Iran (for Israel!)
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 2:13 PM
West to flex military muscles against Iran
Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:31:30
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64422§ionid=351020101
The United States is set to lead a joint military exercise in the Atlantic Ocean to show off its combat capabilities as a warning to Iran.
The Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 'Operation Brimstone' will take place on July 21-31 in North Carolina and off the eastern US coast from Virginia to Florida, involving France, Britain and Brazil.
More than a dozen ships, including the US carrier strike group Theodore Roosevelt and expeditionary strike group Iwo Jima, the French submarine Amethyste, and the British HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, as well as a Brazilian frigate will take part in the 10-day exercise.
Six vessels from the US Norfolk Naval State will play enemy at the exercise.
The drill is aimed at training for operation in shallow coastal waters such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the Debkafile, both the Roosevelt and Iwo Jima are scheduled to be deployed in the Middle East in the coming months.
While Israel and the US claim to be committed to a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear standoff with the West, they have repeatedly threatened to launch a military strike against Iran should it continue to enrich uranium.
Following nuclear talks in Geneva on a package of incentives recently presented to Iran requiring the country to suspend uranium enrichment, Washington warned Tehran to choose between 'confrontation' and meeting Western demands over its enrichment program.
In response to growing threats from Israel and the US, Iran test-fired nine long and medium-range missiles to demonstrate the country's defensive military capabilities.
Tehran insists that its nuclear program is directed at generating electricity for a growing population and is in line with its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
CS/BGH
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: Israeli sources say Russia to supply new Iran air defenses |
| Last update - 19:32 23/07/2008
Report: Israeli sources say Russia to supply new Iran air defenses
By Reuters
Iran is set to receive an advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft system by the year's end that could help fend off any preemptive strikes against its nuclear facilities, senior Israeli defense sources told Reuters on Wednesday.
The first delivery of the S-300 missile batteries was expected as soon as early September, one source said, though it could take six to 12 months for them to be deployed and operable - a possible reprieve for Israeli and American military planners.
Washington has led a diplomatic drive to deny Iran access to nuclear technologies with bomb-making potential, while hinting that force could be a last resort. Israel, whose warplanes have been training for long-range missions, has made similar threats.
Advertisement
But the allies appear to differ on when ran, which denies seeking atomic arms, might get the S-300. The most sophisticated version of the system can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes 120 km (75 miles) away.
Iran, which already has TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia, announced last December that an unspecified number of S-300s were on order. But Moscow denied there was any such deal.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has denied knowledge of the Russian delivery.
"Based on what I know, it's highly unlikely that those air defense missiles would be in Iranian hands any time soon," said Gates, responding in a July 9 briefing to a question about the S-300 - also known in the West as the SA-20.
An Israeli defense official said Iran's contract with Russia required that the S-300s be delivered by the end of 2008. A second source said first units would arrive in early September.
The official agreed with the assessments of independent experts that the S-300 would compound the challenges that Iran - whose nuclear sites are numerous, distant, and fortified - would already pose for any future air strike campaign by Israel.
Israel does not have strategic "stealth" bombers like the United States, though the Israeli air force is believed to have developed its own radar-evading and jamming technologies.
"There's no doubt that the S-300s would make an air attack more difficult," said the official, who declined to be named.
"But there's an answer for every counter-measure, and as far as we're concerned, the sooner the Iranians get the new system, the more time we will have to inspect the deployments and tactical doctrines. There's a learning curve."
Israel, which is assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, reportedly carried out a large-scale air force drill over the Mediterranean last month which was widely seen as a "dress rehearsal" for a possible raid on Iran. Some analysts also described it as a bid to pressure the West to step up sanctions.
The exercise involved overflying parts of Greece, which is among a handful of countries to have bought and deployed S-300s. But Greek media quoted Athens officials as saying that the system's radars were "turned off" during the Israeli presence.
According to the Israeli official, it would take a year for Iran to deploy the
S-300s and man them with trained operators.
Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, said: "The minimum work-up time to be comfortable with the system is six months, but more time is preferable."
Hewson said the Iranian S-300 deal was being conducted via Belarus to afford discretion for Russia, which is already under Western scrutiny for helping Iran build a major atomic reactor.
"Belarus is the proxy route whenever Russia wants to deny it is doing the sale. But nothing happens along that route without Moscow saying so," he said. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
| Israel steps up anti-Iran lobby in US
Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:10:29
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64916§ionid=3510203
Senior Israeli officials are slated to hold strategic talks with the United States on tactics likely to resolve Iran's nuclear standoff.
According to the Israeli public radio, during his three-day visit, Defense Minister Ehud Barak is expected to hold talks with US officials on Iran's nuclear program and enhancing the capabilities of Israeli armed forces.
Barak is to meet with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, senior military officials, members of Congress, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz, believed to be campaigning to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is also scheduled to visit the US on Wednesday.
His spokesperson told AFP that Mofaz would hold meetings with Cheney and Rice, adding that, "The main subject under discussion will be the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program to the entire region."
While Israel and the US claim to be committed to a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear standoff with the West, they have repeatedly threatened to launch a military strike against Iran should the country continue uranium enrichment.
Earlier in July, in response to growing threats from Israel and the US, Iran test-fired nine long and medium-range ballistic missiles to demonstrate the country's defensive military capabilities.
Tehran insists that its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity for a growing population and is in line with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC Roberts: "Are You (finally) Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?"
Friday, July 25, 2008 11:14 PM
Robert Stiver wrote:
Principled criticism of the Zionist ideology and its zealots who rule Israel and which has, via its U.S. Lobby AIPAC, unbridled access to and control over American public opinion, government, and pursestrings is increasing but still largely suppressed and below the horizon. Zionism must be ended as a colonialistic, hegemonistic, genocide-bent abomination...an abomination in the eyes of the Abrahamic-faiths God/Allah and in the eyes of any thinking, caring, observant human child of God or of other belief systems.
I must say, however, that it is unfortunate that the lead-in quotation by Dr. Roberts from Gilbert is not pursued in the commentary. The Palestinian Arab "citizens" of Israel, who suffered under brutal martial law from the noted 1948 to 1966 and have continued to be devalued and persecuted in uncountable ways ever since, are the unacknowledged internal victims of Israeli "democracy." I have just completed Dr. Hatim Kanaaneh's "A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel" (c. 2008). It is published by Pluto Press, and I noted the other day that, while amazon.com has not yet seen fit to market it, it can be obtained via Barnes&Noble. "A Doctor in Galilee" is a must read.
It seems to me that the real tragedy lies in a time and human context. Dr. Roberts begins by writing of the year 1990, 43 years after the United Nations perfidy of 1947. Now, 28 years after 1990, it makes one's soul cower to contemplate the intervening millions of Palestinians who have been twisted through the Zionist meat grinder of physical and emotional trauma, wholesale incarceration and other collective punishment, Pavlovian regimentation of "life," assassinations and other murders, and the especial desperation of the few pitiable men and women who resort to taking their own lives in the only resistance left to them. And the world continues to watch, always subservient to the "Holocaust industry," indifferent to real-time injustice and untold suffering....
...Bob
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07252008.html
July 25, 2008
The Epiphany of Rev. Thomas Are
Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
“On October 21 (1948) the Government of Israel took a decision that was to have a lasting and divisive effect on the rights and status of those Arabs who lived within its borders: the official establishment of military government in the areas where most of the inhabitants were Arabs.”
Martin Gilbert, Israel: a History
I had given up on finding an American with a moral conscience and the courage to go with it and was on the verge of retiring my keyboard when I met the Rev. Thomas L. Are.
Rev. Are is a Presbyterian pastor who used to tell his Atlanta, Georgia, congregation: “I am a Zionist.” Like most Americans, Rev. Are had been seduced by Israeli propaganda and helped to spread the propaganda among his congregation.
Around 1990 Rev. Are had an awakening for which he credits the Christian Canon of St. George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem and author Marc Ellis, co-editor of the book, Beyond Occupation.
Realizing that his ignorance of the situation on the ground had made him complicit in great crimes, Rev. Are wrote a book hoping to save others from his mistake and perhaps in part to make amends, Israeli Peace Palestinian Justice, published in Canada in 1994.
Rev. Are researched his subject and wrote a brave book. Keep in mind that 1994 was long prior to Walt and Mearsheimer’s recent book, which exposed the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to control the explanation Americans receive about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Rev. Are begins with an account of Israel’s opening attack on the Palestinians, an event which took place before most Americans alive today were born. He quotes the distinguished British historian, Arnold J. Toynbee: “The treatment of the Palestinian Arabs in 1947 (and 1948) was as morally indefensible as the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis. Though nor comparable in quantity to the crimes of the Nazis, it was comparable in quality.”
Golda Meir, considered by Israelis as a great leader and by others as one of history’s great killers, disputed the facts: “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.”
Golda Meir’s apology for Israel’s great crimes is so counter-factual that it blows the mind. Palestinian refugee camps still exist outside Palestine filled with Palestinians and their descendants whose towns, villages, homes and lands were seized by the Israelis in 1948 [ed.--refugees exist within Palestine also!...rhs]. Rev. Are provides the reader with Na’im Ateek’s description of what happened to him, an 11-year old, when the Jews came to take Beisan on May 12, 1948. Entire Palestinian communities simply disappeared.
In 1949 the United Nations counted 711,000 Palestinian refugees. [United Nations General Assembly Appendix 4, No. 15 ]
In 2005 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimated 4.25 million Palestinians and their descendants were refugees from their homeland.
The Israeli policy of evicting non-Jews has continued for six decades. On June 19, 2008, the Laity Committee in the Holy Land reported in Window Into Palestine that the Israeli Ministry of Interior is taking away the residency rights of Jerusalem Christians who have been reclassified as “visitors in their own city.”
On December 10, 2007, MK Ephraim Sneh boasted in the Jerusalem Post that Israel had achieved “a true Zionist victory” over the UN partition plan “which sought to establish two nations in the land of Israel.” The partition plan had assigned Israel 56 percent of Palestine, leaving the inhabitants with only 44 percent. But Israel had altered this over time. Sneh proudly declared: “When we complete the permanent agreement, we will hold 78 percent of the land while the Palestinians will control 22 percent.”
Sneh could have added that the 22 percent is essentially a collection of unconnected ghettos cut off from one another and from roads, water, medical care, and jobs.
Rev. Are documents that the abuse of Palestinians’ human rights is official Israeli policy. Killings, torture, and beatings are routine. On May 17, 1990, the Washington Post reported that Save the Children “documented indiscriminate beating, tear-gassing and shooting of children at home or just outside the house playing in the street, who were sitting in the classroom or going to the store for groceries.”
On January 19, 1988, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, later Prime Minister, announced the policy of “punitive beating” of Palestinians. The Israelis described the purpose of punitive beating: “Our task is to recreate a barrier and once again put the fear of death into the Arabs of the area.”
According to Save the Children, beatings of children and women are common. Rev. Are, citing the report in the Washington Post, writes: “Save the Children concluded that one-third of beaten children were under ten years old, and one-fifth under the age of five. Nearly a third of the children beaten suffered broken bones.”
On February 8, 1988, Newsweek magazine quoted an Israeli soldier: “ We got orders to knock on every door, enter and take out all the males. The younger ones we lined up with their faces against the wall, and soldiers beat them with billy clubs. This was no private initiative, these were orders from our company commander. . . . After one soldier finished beating a detainee, another soldier called him ‘you Nazi,’ and the first man shot back: ‘You bleeding heart.’ When one soldier tried to stop another from beating an Arab for no reason, a fist fight broke out.”
These were the old days before conscience was eliminated from the ranks of the Israeli military.
In the London Sunday Times, June 19, 1977, Ralph Schoenman, executive director of the Bertrand Russell Foundation, wrote: “Israeli interrogators routinely ill-treat and torture Arab prisoners. Prisoners are hooded or blindfolded and are hung by their wrists for long periods. Most are struck in the genitals or in other ways sexually abused. Most are sexually assaulted. Others are administered electric shock.”
Amnesty International concluded that “there is no country in the world in which the use of official and sustained torture is as well established and documented as in the case of Israel.”
Even the pro-Israeli Washington Post reported: “Upon arrest, a detainee undergoes a period of starvation, deprivation of sleep by organized methods and prolonged periods during which the prisoner is made to stand with his hands cuffed and raised, a filthy sack covering the head. Prisoners are dragged on the ground, beaten with objects, kicked, stripped and placed under ice-cold showers.”
Sounds like Abu Ghraib. There are news reports that Israeli torture experts participated in the torture of the detainees assembled by the American military as part of the Bush Regime’s propaganda onslaught to convince Americans that Iraq was overflowing with al Qaeda terrorists. On July 23, 2008, Antiwar.com posted an Iraqi news report that the Iraqi government had released a total of 109,087 Iraqis that the Americans had “detained.” Obviously, these “terrorist detainees” had been used for the needs of Bush Regime propaganda. No one will ever know how many of them were abused by Israeli torturers imported by the CIA.
Rev. Are’s book makes sensible suggestions for resolving the conflict that Israel began. However, the problem is that Israeli governments believe only in force. The policy of the Israeli government has always been to beat, kill, and brutalize Palestinians into submission and flight. Anyone who doubts this can read the book of Israel’s finest historian Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006).
Americans are a gullible and naive people. They have been complicit for 60 years in crimes that in Arnold Toynbee’s words “are comparable in quality” to the crimes of Nazi Germany. As Toynbee was writing decades ago, the accumulated Israeli crimes might now be comparable also in quantity.
The US routinely vetoes United Nations condemnations of Israel for its brutal crimes against the Palestinians. Insouciant American taxpayers have been bled for a half century to provide the Israelis with superior military weapons with which Israelis assault their neighbors, all the while convincing America--essentially a captive nation--that Israel is the victim.
John F. Mahoney wrote: “Thomas Are reminds me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: an active pastor who comes to the unsettling realization that he and his people have been fed a terrible lie that is killing and torturing thousands of innocent men, women and children. Not without ample research and prayer does such a pastor, in turn, risk unsettling his congregation. The Reverend Are has done his homework and, I suspect, has prayed often and long during the writing of this courageous book.”
Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian and pastor who was executed for his active participation in the German Resistance against Nazism.
Professor Benjamin M. Weir, San Francisco Theological Seminary, wrote: “ This book will make the reader squirm. It asks you to lend your voice in behalf of the voiceless.”
Americans who can no longer think for themselves and who are terrified of disapproval by their peer group are incapable of lending their voices to anyone except those who control the world of propaganda in which they live.
The ignorance and unconcern of Americans is a great frustration to my friends in the Israeli peace movement. Without outside support those Israelis, who believe in good will and do not share their government’s belief in Lenin’s doctrine that violence is the only effective force in history, are deprived, by America’s support for their government’s policy of violence, of any peaceful resolution of a conflict began in 1947 by Israeli aggression against unsuspecting Palestinian villages.
Rev. Are wrote his book with the hope that the pen is mightier than the sword and that facts can crowd out propaganda and create a framework for a just resolution of the Palestinian issue. In his concluding chapter, “What Christians Can Do,” Rev. Are writes: “We cannot allow others to dictate our thinking on any subject, especially on anything as important as Christian faithfulness, which is tested by an attitude towards seeking justice for the oppressed. It’s a Christian’s duty to know.”
Duty, of course, has costs. Rev. Are writes: “Speak up for the Palestinians and you will make enemies. Yet, as Christians, we must be willing to raise issues that until now we have chosen to dodge.”
More than a decade later, President Jimmy Carter, a true friend of Israel, tried again to awaken Americans’ moral conscience with his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Carter was instantly demonized by the Israel Lobby.
Sixty years of efforts by good and humane people to hold Israel accountable have so far failed, but they are more important today than ever before. Israel has its captive American nation on the verge of attacking Iran, the consequences of which could be catastrophic for all concerned. The alleged purpose of the attack is to eliminate nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons. The real reason is to eliminate all support for Hamas and Hezbollah so that Israel can seize the entire West Bank and southern Lebanon. The Bush regime is eager to do Israel’s bidding, and the media and evangelical “christian” churches have been preparing the American people for the event.
It is paradoxical that Israel is demonstrating that veracity lies not in the Christian belief in good will but in Lenin’s doctrine that violence is the effective force in history and that the evangelical Christian Zionist churches agree.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Pull the Plug on the War State
Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 1:27 AM
July 26, 2008
Pull the Plug on the War State
by Charley Reese
Hopefully, the next president, whoever he is, will have sense enough to realize that an anti-missile site in Eastern Europe is not worth rekindling the Cold War with Russia.
Though the press pays little attention to it, the Bush administration has already practically wrecked relations with Russia by insisting on adding the Eastern European countries to NATO and siting his anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and in Poland. The Russians are right that it represents a threat to their security.
President Bush's lame excuse that the system is designed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles is no doubt another deliberate lie. I can't think of any reason whatsoever for Iran to attack Europe, and I'm sure the Iranians can't, either. Iran hasn't attacked anybody for more than 100 years. They would have absolutely nothing to gain by firing a few missiles at Europe. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Nor does it make any sense to add the small countries of Eastern Europe to NATO. This was a war-fighting alliance set up at the end of World War II specifically to deter and, if necessary, go to war with the Red Army. The Soviet Union set up its own alliance, the Warsaw Pact.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia withdrew its army from Eastern Europe and dissolved the Warsaw Pact. The United States should have dissolved NATO. Its sole purpose vanished with the Soviet Union. It has no enemy, unless fools in the U.S. create one. The American politicians have used it in the Yugoslavian Civil War, and now has it involved in the Afghanistan insurgency. Why the Europeans put up with this nonsense is beyond me.
As for including little countries, that's a strategic blunder. Do you think that if the Russians one day launched nuclear missiles at the United States that Poland and Lithuania would go to war against their large neighbor? Will France become a nation of teetotalers?
In fact, including small countries in military alliances is worthless posturing. All you do is allow the little country to get you into trouble by its bad behavior. The little country is confident that its big ally will rescue it if it goes too far in antagonizing its larger neighbors. It's like a spoiled brat with a bodyguard. Sixty years after its founding, Israel is still at war with most of its neighbors precisely because it has no incentive to make a sensible peace. Why should it? It has its American attack dog. The only peace treaties it has signed are with Egypt and Jordan, both of which the U.S. bribed to make peace. Bribe or not, in both cases it's a cold peace.
Believe it or not, we are not at war with any nation at the present. We made war on Iraq, but that has long since become nothing but an occupation. We are occupying or trying to occupy Afghanistan, but other than that, we are not at war. Why then do we need military alliances? Why do we need troops in Korea, Japan and Germany? Or, I hasten to add, Iraq and the Persian Gulf?
President Bush's war on terror is a false metaphor, and a dangerous one at that. There is no terrorist army or air force. There are some gangs of criminals. What the president did when he adopted this specious metaphor about a war on terror was to commit the United States to perpetual war. Ask your local warmonger how he defines victory in the war on terror. Ask why when Iraq was very violent we couldn't leave, and now that it's less violent, we can't leave. Ask him how he defines victory in Iraq or in Afghanistan.
We really have neither a republic nor a democracy. We have a war state and an empire. We should pull the plug on both.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=13200
Subject: Re: Brzezinski: McCain would start WWIV
Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 5:09 PM
Click on the pic at the following URL to access the youtube video which conveys all one needs to know about John 'Israel first and foremost' McCain:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/03/make-people-aware-subscribe.html
Here is a tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/358b8c
Here is a direct link to the youtube:
McCain, NeoCons, the Israel Lobby Ron Paul Weekly Standard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfLeZXrluZw
Subject: Brzezinski: McCain would start WWIV
Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 4:03 PM
Brzezinski: McCain would start WWIV
Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:26:50
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=64855§ionid=3510203
Former White House national security adviser says if John McCain becomes the next US president the world will move toward World War IV.
Former US President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski criticized US officials in Senator McCain's camp for pushing the presumptive Republican nominee toward a radical foreign policy on issues such as Iran.
Brzezinski described McCain's presidency as an 'appalling concept' as it would lead to the World War IV, arguing that from the viewpoint of figures surrounding the Arizona senator the Cold War counted as World War III.
"Well, if McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is [Rudolph] Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV that they have been both favoring and predicting," Brzezinski cautioned.
Earlier in October 2007, President George W. Bush, who has endorsed John McCain, warned of the eruption of World War III should Iran continue uranium enrichment.
------------------------------------------
http://neoconzionistthreat.com
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
