| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
| The following is from General James David who is mentioned on the cover of former Republican Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) on the US political system and media:
From: BGJDAVID
Subject: Israel's influence on the U.S.
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 11:05 AM
This is just one example of Israel's influence on the United States. Just like Israel, we now bomb anyone we don't like, and use the excuse of self-defense to justify our crimes.
US Faces International Condemnation in Wake of Syria Strike
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/27/us-faces-international-condemnation-in-wake-of-syria-strike/
US Faces International Condemnation in Wake of Syria Strike
Posted October 27, 2008
While the White House has declined comment and other US officials defended the strike on a Syrian border town yesterday which killed eight, international condemnation rained down on the strike from a number of sources.
The Syrian government, which already summoned the US Charges d’Affaires to complain about a strike which they labeled as “serious aggression,” had further condemnations and a warning today. Foreign Minister Wallid al-Muallem condemned the strike as an act of “criminal and terrorist aggression” and warned that his government “would defend our territories” in the event of a future attack.
The Lebanese government, which has been on shaky terms with Syria, also harshly condemned the move. Prime Minister Fouad Seniora released a statement condemning the attack as “dangerous” and “unacceptable” and “constitutes a violation of Syrian sovereignty.” Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh likewise condemned the raid as a violation of international law.
The Arab League took a similar position, with Secretary General Amr Mussa defending Syria’s “right to defend its land and people” and calling for an investigation into the strike. He also condemned the attack as “a violation of Syrian sovereignty.”
Russia, which had recently negotiated an arms deal with Syria, cautioned against attacks “on the territory of sovereign states under the slogan of the fight against terrorism” and that the attack would have a “sharply negative effect” on the region.
Unnamed US officials said the attack had targeted and killed a “smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq” and said they didn’t kill any of the women and children found at the attacked site. US officials say the attack is justified under an “expansive definition of self-defense” similar to the argument made by Israel when it attacked a site in Syria last year. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: Intel says Iran plans secret nuclear experiments |
| More war for Israel coming soon?!
Intel says Iran plans secret nuclear experiments
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer George Jahn, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 1 min ago
VIENNA, Austria – Iran has recently tested ways of recovering highly enriched uranium from waste reactor fuel in a covert bid to expand its nuclear program, according to an intelligence assessment made available to The Associated Press.
The intelligence, provided by a member of the 145-nation International Atomic Energy Agency, also says a report will soon be submitted to the Iranian leadership for a decision on whether to go ahead with the project.
The alleged tests loosely replicate Saddam Hussein's attempts to build the bomb nearly two decades ago. But experts question the conclusion by those providing the intelligence that Tehran, too, is trying to reprocess the fuel to make a nuclear weapon.
They note that the spent fuel at issue as the source of the enriched uranium is not enough to yield the approximately 30 kilograms (65 pounds) of weapons-grade material needed for a bomb.
Still, they say that the alleged experiment appears plausible — if not as a fast track to weapons capability then as a step that could move it further along that path.
With Iran's nuclear program already under international scrutiny, any new efforts by Tehran to increase its nuclear expertise and its store of enriched uranium would set off alarm bells — particularly if that stock was highly enriched. The higher the enrichment the easier it is to reach the 90 percent level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
The 3-page intelligence report, drawn from Iranian sources within the country, says the source material would be highly enriched — some at above 90 percent, the rest at 20 percent.
In contrast, Iran's enrichment program under constant IAEA monitoring has churned out material that is less than 5 percent enriched, in line with the fuel needs of modern reactors.
"Procedures were evaluated for recycling fuel by dissolving fuel rods" for irradiated waste and then reprocessing the material into uranium metal, says the intelligence assessment. Uranium metal is used for nuclear warheads.
"Sufficient data was collected for planning production lines for recovering the fuel," says the assessment, which gave Tehran's Jaber ibn Hayan Laboratories, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as the location for the experiment.
Top officials of AEOI are "in the final stages" of writing a report for the Iranian leadership for assessment on whether to go forward with reprocessing, according to the intelligence.
The laboratories and the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the site of the reactor, have figured in suspect experiments, including clandestine plutonium separation attempts uncovered by the IAEA.
If the information is accurate then Iran is "trying to get their nose in the tent" of reprocessing material potentially suitable for a warhead, said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspect secret proliferators.
"On the surface it may have nothing to do with making a bomb, but in the end that's what it could be about."
IAEA spokespeople were unavailable Thursday but an official of the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog said the agency would not comment. He asked not to be named because he was not authorized to be quoted by name.
Both Albright and a senior Vienna-based diplomat agreed that the alleged experiment roughly jibed with Saddam's efforts to chemically process research reactor fuel to recover enriched uranium — in the case of Baghdad, enough and at a sufficiently high level of enrichment to make a bomb.
Close to success, the Iraqis saw their plans fail with the destruction of the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center during the first Gulf War of 1990-1991.
"This is the 'Iraqi scenario,'" said the diplomat, referring to the alleged Iranian experiment. He — like the source of the intelligence — demanded anonymity because their information was restricted.
But both he and Albright noted that the purported source for the fuel — Tehran's TNRC research reactor — was unlikely to have enough material for reprocessing into the core of a warhead.
The five-megawatt reactor initially ran on weapons-grade uranium fuel enriched to 93 percent that was provided by the U.S. in the late 1960s to the then pro-Washington regime. But measured in terms of potential proliferation, the amount was small — only 7 kilograms (15 pounds).
Then, in the late 1980s, Argentina helped reconfigure the reactor core and provided about 115 kilograms (250 pounds)of uranium. In contrast to modern reactors that run on low-enriched fuel, that material was highly enriched to about 20 percent.
Albright said that even optimal reprocessing would probably yield less than about half of the 30 kilograms (65 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium needed for a bomb. That restriction makes it unlikely that Iran was looking to the TNRC reactor for that immediate purpose.
Instead, an Iranian reprocessing plans could be part of Tehran's attempts to push the nuclear envelope.
U.S.-led efforts for tough U.N. sanctions for Iran's refusal to suspend enrichment have been consistently blocked by Russia and China. Tehran also has support of developing countries traditionally suspicious of Washington.
Defying weak sanctions, the Islamic Republic has moved further through enrichment toward developing weapons capability — now anywhere from six months to several years away, depending on the source.
Iran may be banking on further international inaction if it announces it will reprocess, perhaps arguing that it will need it as a source for new fuel for the research reactor. If allowed to do so, it will have moved another step ahead on the path to being able to develop warhead material.
"It's the idea that Iran wants to slowly develop nuclear weapons capability under the tent and it does it slowly so that people will accept it," said Albright. "It's (a matter of) keeping your head down, moving slowly and deliberately and winning at each step."
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
| Some Israelis feel an urgency to attack Iran
Officials say other nations quietly want Israel to act unilaterally against Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But an effective strike would be difficult and could stir up a wider conflict.
10:43 AM PDT,
November 1, 2008
Reporting from Washington and Jerusalem — With international efforts to increase sanctions against Iran at a standstill, many Israelis believe their nation alone stands in the way of Tehran eventually building nuclear weapons.But officials and analysts in Jerusalem also acknowledge that a unilateral attack is fraught with danger and might fail to cripple Iran's bomb-making abilities. Much of the international community quietly wants Israel to launch a strike, the officials say, but only if it succeeds."They will be very happy if we do their dirty work for them," said Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. "The world is moving into 'What can we do about it?' mode. There is a strong instinct here to do it on our own."To many in Israel, the situation is reminiscent of 1981, when the Jewish state acted on its own in bombing the Osirak reactor in Iraq, and last year, when it launched a unilateral strike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria.A wild card in the equation is Israel's own political situation. With parliamentary elections on the horizon, no leader in Jerusalem is a dove concerning Iran.Last month, the U.N. Security Council voted to extend sanctions on Iran, but failed to add new strictures. Immediately after, Israeli Cabinet minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer charged that "the world has resigned itself to the fact that Iran is going to be a nuclear power. . . . This means only one thing: that we have to look out for ourselves."Patrick Clawson, a longtime Iran analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, believes an Israeli strike on Iran would be received with gratitude in some capitals, provided it worked. "Success would have a thousand fathers," he said. "A lot of Arab countries would be pleased."Several Sunni Arab governments, especially the Persian Gulf states, openly worry that a nuclear Iran, a predominantly Shiite Muslim nation, would extend its growing regional influence.In Israel, the issue of whether to strike first against Iranian nuclear facilities remains a steady topic of debate."I don't know which direction this is going to go in Israel," said Emily Landau, director of arms control and regional security programs at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank.Although the "pressure is rising" domestically toward undertaking a unilateral attack, public sentiment is still in flux, Landau said. It could "move in the direction of more and more people in Israel concluding that a nuclear Iran is not something we can stop."Tehran has consistently said that its nuclear program is for peaceful power generation. And former U.S. and U.N. weapons inspector David Kay recently said in a speech that he thought it would be two to five years before Iran could produce enough fissile material for a bomb. A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last year said it would be possible but "highly unlikely" for Tehran to reach that goal by the end of 2009.But some in Israel see a narrow window in which to act."Time is running very, very short right now," said Ephraim Asculai, a former top official at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission who is now a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies.U.S. officials fear that an attack would trigger violent repercussions, most notably a wider regional conflict that would inevitably force the entry of American troops. Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said he does not intend to get involved in another war when he has his hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan.The global economic crisis only strengthens opposition. The ambassador of one Arab country predicted this week that the major powers would be unwilling to take any step that might drive the price of Iranian oil back up again.An August report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank that studies nuclear proliferation, said the dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear facilities and the still-sketchy Western intelligence made it impossible for a single airstrike to succeed. "It would need multiple strikes against many sites," the report concluded. "After such strikes, the attacker might still have little confidence that it had denied Iran the ability to produce weapon-grade uranium."Within Israel, there are rising voices against a unilateral attack."We can't afford to lose wars here," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli analyst and director of Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Co.Israel's military establishment knows that an effective strike would be difficult, Javedanfar said, and could prompt a large and multi-pronged Iranian retaliation against Israel and against U.S. troops in Iraq."They'll only support [an attack] if it would set Iran's nuclear program back at least five if not 10 years and they could restrain the Iranian retaliation. Then it's a viable option," Javedanfar said.The U.N.'s failure to impose tougher penalties probably signaled the end of a final U.S. push against Iran before President Bush leaves office.Although Russia and China approved an extension of the ban on arms sales to Iran and a partial freeze of its assets overseas, they opposed additional measures.In September, the Bush administration stepped up economic pressure outside the U.N. framework, blacklisting Iran's national shipping line, eighteen of its affiliates and about 120 individual ships for allegedly cooperating with Tehran's nuclear and missile development.And last month, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions against the Export Development Bank of Iran, charging that the government bank was an instrument supporting the country's nuclear research program.But in other ways, the level of activity and rhetoric from Washington has fallen noticeably in recent months.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in September that the U.S. continued to work with its allies to develop new ways to pressure Iran. But she did not promise that the group would complete the work before January."We'll see," she said.Khalil and Richter are Times staff writers.ashraf.khalil@latimes.compaul.richter@latimes.comTimes staff writers Richard Boudreaux in New York and Borzou Daragahi in Beirut contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
| Israel fears Obama may make peace with Iran
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 10:10 AM
Don't hold your breath with the AIPAC operative (Rahm Emanuel) as Obama's chief of staff!
What happens if President Bush and/or Israel initiates the attack on Iran before he leaves office on January 20th, 2009 (it might even take place before the Bushehr nuclear reactor bcomes operational as it is supposed to by the end of this year):
Israel fears Obama may make peace with Iran
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=74421§ionid=3510203
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran |
| Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2008/11/06/obama-to-make-aipac-operative-chief-of-staff-page-4.php
You can see Dennis Ross being challenged about his association with AIPAC in the 'What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?' youtube video linked on the lower right of http://www.neoconzionistthreat.com ):
Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran
By Peter Symonds
6 November 2008
On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.
The article entitled “New Beltway Debate: What to do about Iran” noted with a degree of alarm: “It is a frightening notion, but it not just the trigger-happy Bush administration discussing—if only theoretically—the possibility of military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program… [R]easonable people from both parties are examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.”
Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.
A key member of the Center’s task force was Obama’s top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, who is well known for his hawkish views. He backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—and signed up as a foreign policy analyst for Fox News.
The Bipartisan Policy Center report insisted that time was short, declaring: “Tehran’s progress means that the next administration might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It rejected out-of-hand both Tehran’s claims that its nuclear programs were for peaceful purposes, and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by US intelligence agencies which found that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The report was critical of the Bush administration’s failure to stop Iran’s nuclear programs, but its strategy is essentially the same—limited inducements backed by harsher economic sanctions and the threat of war. Its plan for consolidating international support is likewise premised on preemptive military action against Iran. Russia, China and the European powers are all to be warned that their failure to accede to tough sanctions, including a provocative blockade on Iranian oil exports, will only increase the likelihood of war.
To underscore these warnings, the report proposed that the US would need to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf. “This should commence the first day the new president enters office, especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, [and] emplacing other war materiel in the region,” it stated.
In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”
Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.
Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.
Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.
As the New York Times noted on Monday, Obama defense adviser Richard Danzig, former navy secretary under Clinton, attended a conference on the Middle East convened in September by the same pro-Israel think tank. He told the audience that his candidate believed that a military attack on Iran was a “terrible” choice, but “it may be that in some terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice”. Richard Clarke, who was also present, declared that Obama was of the view that “Tehran’s growing influence must be curbed and that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” While “his first inclination is not to pull the trigger,” Clarke stated, “if circumstances required the use of military force, Obama would not hesitate.”
While the New York Times article was muted and did not examine the reports too deeply, writer Carol Giacomo was clearly concerned at the parallels with the US invasion of Iraq. After pointing out that “the American public is largely unaware of this discussion,” she declared: “What makes me nervous is that’s what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.”
Giacomo continued: “Bush administration officials drove the discussion, but the cognoscenti were complicit. The question was asked and answered in policy circles before most Americans know what was happening… As a diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in those days, I feel some responsibility for not doing more to ensure that the calamitous decision to invade Iraq was more skeptically vetted.”
The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles again underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and McCain were purely tactical. While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia—including the use of military force against Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? (posted on lower right side of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1
Obama supported missile strikes on Iran (for AIPAC) while running for the US Senate:
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6780
Democrats? Obama Ready to Bomb Iran
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Smith1012.htm
Additional at the following URL:
Obama to make AIPAC operative chief of staff:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2008/11/06/obama-to-make-aipac-operative-chief-of-staff-page-4.php
Iran warns U.S. not to violate Iranian airspace
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4A43PQ20081105
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:33 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
