The War on Terror? [Archive]

Neverwinter

1stApril2006, 01:20

Iraq: A War For Israel

By Mark Weber

The United States invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of the country since then, has cost more than three thou*sand American lives and many tens of billions of dollars, and has brought death to tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it launched?

In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.

On Sept. 28, 2002, for example, he said:

“The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nu*clear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared:

“Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this coun*try, to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hus*sein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.”

These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dan*gerous “weapons of mass destruction,” and posed no threat to the US . Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation.

So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack Iraq ?

Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel . With sup*port from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish “neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush -- who was already fervently com*mitted to Israel -- resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.

This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel ,” and “everybody” knows it. He also identi*fied three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author. / 1

Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that “nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Due to "the pres*sures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncriti*cally support Israel and its policies.

Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview: “Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel ." / 2

Six months before the attack, President Bush met in the White House with eleven members of the US House of Representatives. While the “war against terrorism is going okay,” he told the lawmakers, the United States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.” / 3

Bush also spoke candidly about why the US was going to war during a White House meeting on Feb. 27, 2003, just three weeks before the invasion. In a talk with Elie Wiesel, the well-known Jewish writer, Bush said: “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a weapon of mass destruction on Israel and they will do what they think they have to do, and we have to avoid that.” / 4

Fervently Pro-Israel

President Bush’s fervent support for Israel and its hardline government is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East . In the view of “leading Israeli commentators,” the London Times reported, the address was “so pro-Israel that it might have been written by Ariel Sharon.” / 5

This outlook was echoed by Condoleeza Rice, who served as President Bush’s National Security Advisor, and later, as Secretary of State. In a May 2003 interview she said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.” / 6

In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.” He also told the gathering: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and secu*rity of Israel , you’re also serving the cause of America .” / 7

Long Range Plans

Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years.

In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minis*ter Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East . Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an “effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq , an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right...” / 8

The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of De*fense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated with two major pro-Zionist “neoconservative” research centers has come under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly. / 9

The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Is*rael American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations

JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful gov*ernment posts, where... they’ve managed to weave a number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Tur*key and American unilateralism in general — into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core... On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war -- not just with Iraq , but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington , put it... For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq , Iran , Syria , Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent im*perative.”

Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, also looked into the “neo-conservative” role in fomenting war. / 10

“My own answer,” he wrote, “is that the lie [that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US ] was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001...”

In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine-Eleven terror attacks, ardently pro-Zionist “neo-conservatives” in the Bush administration -- who for years had sought a Middle East war to bolster Israel ’s security in the region -- exploited the tragedy to press their agenda. In this they were backed by the Israeli government, which also pres*sured the White House to strike Iraq .

“The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq ,” reported a leading Israeli daily paper, Haaretz, in February 2002. / 11

The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: “ Israel signalled its decision yes*terday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq , even though it believes Saddam Hus*sein may well retaliate by striking Israel .” / 12

Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US as*sistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war.” / 13

Israel ’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq ’s abil*ity to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence of*ficial has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a sig*nificant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British be*lief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” / 14

The role of the pro-Israel lobby in pressing for war is examined in an 81-page research paper by two prominent American scholars, John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago , and Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University . / 15

In the paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” they write:

“Pressure from Israel and the [pro-Israel] Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure… Within the United States , the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel ’s Likud Party. In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war.”

Important members of the pro-Israel lobby carried out what professors Mearshiemer and Walt call “an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for invading Iraq . A key part of this campaign was the manipulation of intelligence information, so as to make Saddam look like an imminent threat.”

For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East . Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel , has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote:

“The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [ Iraq , Iran , North Korea ]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya , as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt ’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.”

Patrick J. Buchanan, the well-known writer and commentator, and former White House Communications director, has been blunt in iden*tifying those who pushed for war: / 16

“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America ’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with de*liberately damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity...

“Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations be*tween the West and Islam?

“Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel , Sharon , Likud.”

Uri Avnery -- an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel ’s parliament -- sees the Iraq war as an expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote: / 17

"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formu*lating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential news*papers... The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fun*damentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. ... Seemingly, all this is good for Israel . America controls the world, we control America . Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.”

In Britain , a veteran member of Britain ’s House of Commons bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America ’s for*eign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. “A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians,” said Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House mem*ber. “There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States ,” he added. / 18

Summary

For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This entrenched policy is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America ’s political and cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel -- shared by President Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US Congress -- that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue one of Israel ’s greatest regional enemies.

While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq may have helped Israel , just as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a calamity for America and the world. It has cost tens of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US . In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States , and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American terrorists.

Americans have already paid a high price for their nation’s com*mitment to Israel . We will pay an ever higher price -- not just in dollars or international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state -- until the Jew*ish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.

[CENTER][url]http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml[/url][/CENTER]

IMPERIUM

1stApril2006, 09:09

Them! Always Them!
Behind every calamity.
Them! Those Mischief-Makers.

"Untill the Israel festering wound is healed:
we will never be assured of oil:
or peace with the Arab world."

Israel: that bandit state:
"where every rodent retires to, rests and recuperates:
after each destructive mission is accomplished in the host country."

Imperium
0603

Sepp44

1stApril2006, 13:39

“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America ’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with de*liberately damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity...

“Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations be*tween the West and Islam?

“Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel , Sharon , Likud.”
An excellent post neverwinter.Something that should be read by those that still doubt the goals of the jews.Those that think zionists are imaginery beings.Figments of paranoid imaginations.Many members have argued the case of zionism versus islam and the use of christian europe as recipient of the muslim backlash created by the zionists.
I urge Cristoforo to read the article and to give an opinion.

KuRt

1stApril2006, 14:04

All i say is... poor american soldiers, they think they helping the iraqi's, maybe in some way they are, but in reality every1 knws why bush attacked iraq... bush is wasting their lives...

KuRt

Sepp44

1stApril2006, 14:17

All is say is... poor american soldiers, they think they helping the iraqi's, maybe in some way they are, but in reality every1 knws why bush attacked iraq... bush is wasting their lives...

KuRt

Desertion is rife, re-enlistment is zero ,moral is non existent.The US military recruit ethnic minorities from city ghettoes in the US.They are given promises of university level education.A bright future in multicultural America.All they have to do is die for israel.

Sepp44

1stApril2006, 16:12

I thought this might be appropriate here.

The emotional clash of civilisations

Dominique Moisi
Throughout the so-called "war on terror", the notion of a "clash of civilisation" between Islam and the West has usually been dismissed as politically incorrect and intellectually wrongheaded. Instead, the most common interpretation has been that the world has entered a new era characterised by conflict "within" a particular civilisation, namely Islam, with fundamentalist Muslims as much at war against moderates as against the West.
The strategic conclusion derived from such an analysis was clear, ambitious and easily summarised: democratisation. If the absence of democracy in the Islamic world was the problem, bringing democracy to the "Greater Middle-East would be the solution, and it was the historical duty of the United States, as the most powerful and moral nation, to bring about that necessary change. The status quo was untenable. Implementing democracy, with or without regime change, was the only alternative to chaos and the rise of fundamentalism.
Today, Iraq may be on the verge of civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. Iran, under a new and more radical President, is moving irresistibly towards possessing a nuclear capacity. A free electoral process brought Hamas to power in Palestine and the unfortunate episode of the Danish newspaper cartoons illustrated the almost combustible nature of relations between Islam and the West.
All of these developments are paving the way to new interpretations. Rather than a "clash of civilisations", we might instead be faced by multiple layers of conflict, which interact with each other in ways that increase global instability.
Indeed, it appears that the world is witnessing a triple conflict. There is a clash within Islam, which, if the violence in Iraq spreads to neighbouring countries, risks causing regional destabilisation. There is also a clash that is best described not as being between Islam and the West, but between the secularised world and a growing religious one.
At an even deeper and atavistic level, there is an emotional clash between a culture of fear and a culture of humiliation.
It would be a gross oversimplification to speak, as some are doing, of a clash between civilisation and barbarism. In reality, we are confronted with a widening divide over the role of religion, which runs between the West (with the US being a complicated exception) and much of the rest of the world (the most notable exception being China), but particularly the Islamic world.
The divide reflects how religion defines an individual's identity within a society. At a time when religion is becoming increasingly important elsewhere, we Europeans have largely forgotten our (violent and intolerant) religious past and we have difficulty understanding the role that religion can play in other peoples' daily lives.
In some ways, "they" are our own buried past and, with a combination of ignorance, prejudice, and, above all, fear, "we" are afraid that "they" could define our future. We live in a secular world, where free speech can easily turn into insensitive and irresponsible mockery, while others see religion as their supreme goal, if not their last hope. They have tried everything, from nationalism to regionalism, from communism to capitalism. Since everything has failed, why not give God a chance?
Globalisation may not have created these layers of conflicts but it has accelerated them by making the differences more visible and palpable. In our globalised age, we have lost the privilege - and, paradoxically, the virtue - of ignorance. We all see how others feel and react but without the minimal historical and cultural tools necessary to decipher those reactions. Globalisation has paved the way to a world dominated by the dictatorship of emotions - and of ignorance.
This clash of emotions is exacerbated in the case of Islam. In the Arab world, in particular, Islam is dominated by a culture of humiliation felt by the people and nations that consider themselves the main losers, the worst victims, of a new and unjust international system. From that standpoint, the Israel-Palestine conflict is exemplary. It has become an obsession.
It is not so much that Arabs and Muslims really care about the Palestinians. On the contrary, the Islamic world left the Palestinians without real support for decades. In reality, for them the conflict has come to symbolise the anachronistic perpetuation of an unfair colonial order, to represent their political malaise, and to embody the perceived impossibility of their being masters of their destiny.
In the eyes of the Arabs (and some other Muslims), Israel's strength and resilience is a direct consequence of their own weakness, divisions and corruption. The majority of Arabs may not support al-Qaeda but they do not oppose it with all their heart. Instead, there is the temptation to regard Osama bin Laden as a type of violent Robin Hood, whose actions, while impossible to condone officially, have helped them to recover a sense of Arab pride and dignity.
Here, perhaps, is the real clash of civilisations: the emotional conflict between the European culture of fear and the Muslim, particularly Arab, culture of humiliation. It would be dangerous to underestimate the depth of so wide an emotional divide, and to recognise its existence is the first step to overcoming it. But that will be difficult, for transcending the emotional clash of civilisations presupposes an opening to the "other" that neither side may yet be ready to undertake. Prof. Moisi, a founder and Senior Adviser at Ifri (French Institute for International Relations), is currently a professor at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw.

[/quote] source.www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=219674 (http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=219674)

And then we have this one!

DANCING ON THE VOLCANO
Dancing on the volcano
By Dominique Moïsi
International Herald Tribune
January 27, 2005
www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/26/news/edmoisie.html (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/26/news/edmoisie.html)
My father was not liberated on Jan. 27, 1945, in Auschwitz, but on May 8, in a small camp in Bavaria, where he landed after having survived the ordeal of the death march the Nazis ordered as Russian soldiers advanced toward the camp. He was 42.
As a very young child I learned to decipher numbers by reading the Auschwitz tattoo - 159721 - indelibly etched on his left forearm. This number, I now realize, profoundly modified my relationship to life, providing me with values and an identity as the son of a deportee that have only grown stronger with the passage of time.
There are many ways of living as the child of a "survivor." In my case, being born with historical tragedy as an inheritance has brought a mixture of vulnerability and strength. It has meant keeping a distance from institutions, but above all engaging in a deep and never-ending commitment to Europe.
Being the son of a deportee means having come to life before one's biological birth. I was born after the war, but was I not really born amid the evil and horror of history on that April day in 1943 in Nice when my father, denounced as a Jew by a Frenchman, was seized by the Gestapo and escorted by French gendarmes to Drancy, before the "great journey" to Auschwitz?
Nearly 60 years have gone by, and I still carry that betrayal within me like a wound. Stained by that original sin, my love for France has only been stronger and more complex, more intense and more tortured, like that of a suitor who always expects to be rejected and has somehow to prepare himself for such a moment. "Do you love me, do you really love me?" Mozart continually asked his entourage. Am I not always tempted to put this question to my own country?
France however, did not only wound me through the body and the spirit of my father. The same day he was arrested, my mother was immediately warned and led into hiding, and hence saved, by members of a French Catholic resistance network. So my parents' story stands as a perfect summary, an emblematic condensation of the complexity of a tragic period in our history. The sin and the redemption took place simultaneously. A Frenchman betrayed my father, others saved my mother.
For the son of a deportee, peace of mind, like health, can only be regarded as a transitory phase, prefiguring nothing positive. Being the son of a deportee means carrying deep within a permanent feeling of dancing on a volcano. But it also means inheriting an inner strength and a great capacity for resistance. It means confronting daily challenges unburned, as though coated with Teflon, at times even to one's own amazement. A father's relentless struggle to survive is always an incentive to put in perspective and thus transcend any trial you may face. It also protects you from the temptation of comparing the legitimate worries of the present with the tragedies of the past.
The mix of vulnerability and strength that I inherited has led me to keep an ever greater distance from institutions, particularly from the most central of all, the State. My respectful but mistrustful remove from the State is, of course, a reaction against those gendarmes who became accomplices by carrying out the monstrous orders of the Nazi occupier.
My natural distancing from the classic games of power, social rank, honors and decorations arises from a fundamental skepticism about a political institution that could have failed so radically to accomplish its most essential tasks: the protection of its own citizens and their equal treatment, whatever their religious or social origins.
This is why I spontaneously contrast the judgment of the State with that of God and Men. Born with the inheritance of injustice, am I not better armed than any authority to define what seems "just" or not? Authority itself seems suspect to me, authority that can act unjustly, in the name of reasons of State that too often serve as a comfortable excuse for every kind of moral laziness and laxness. This feeling of historical fragility and this distance from the authority of the State are accompanied by a spontaneous mixture of empathy and activism in response to the sufferings and injustices in the world. This compassion is based on that fact that even though I have not personally known war, violence, humiliation, discrimination fear or hunger, I can visualize and internalize the sufferings of others through the experiences of my father, whether they be Bosnian Muslims, Kosovars or Palestinians.
Being the son of a deportee can lead to historical pessimism or even nihilism. But in my case the opposite was true. Encouraged by my father's humanism and my mother's religious faith, I was driven by my origins to work for the cause of reconciliation, most of all between France and Germany.
My indirect inheritance of Auschwitz did not lead me to fall out of love with France, but to fall in love with Europe. And this European choice received my father's moral support. Had he forgiven the Germans? Nothing is less certain. But like Simone Veil, he saw in the construction of Europe the best way of surpassing the tragedy of the past.
In 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, I asked for my father's blessing before writing that the event represented for me the reconciliation of my three identities, French, European and Jewish. He gave it without hesitation. After all, had he not put an end, after Charles de Gaulle's speech at Ludwigsburg in 1962, to the ban on German products that had ruled our family life?
On Thursday, I will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz with a complex mix of emotions: immense tenderness for my father; the absence of illusions about human nature; the hope that this commemoration serves as a reminder and a warning for present and future generations. And with a commitment to Europe that is firmer than ever before. This ceremony expresses Europe's permanent struggle against its demons. Today, in spite of everything, the victory is fragile, certainly reversible, but nonetheless real.
(Dominique Moïsi is a special adviser to the French Institute of International Relations. This article was translated from the French by the IHT.)

Why are zionists being allowed to write in the opinion columns of the Times of Malta.Further 'googling' of Dominique Moisi is very revealing.This is not the first time zionists' have given the Maltese 'their opinions'.Remember George Soros?

PS .Moisi is buddies with one Deborah Lipstadt.Do I hear alarm bells ringing?Well they should be !

Neverwinter

1stApril2006, 17:20

Why are zionists being allowed to write in the opinion columns of the Times of Malta.Further 'googling' of Dominique Moisi is very revealing.This is not the first time zionists' have given the Maltese 'their opinions'.Remember George Soros?

PS .Moisi is buddies with one Deborah Lipstadt.Do I hear alarm bells ringing?Well they should be !It surely isn't coincidence!

Gladiator

1stApril2006, 17:33

He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.” / 3

besides the USA who else would hurry to defend Israel? hehehehheheh
Dreamer, he's only just a dreamer.....la lala:p

Neverwinter

6thApril2006, 04:50

April 3, 2006
Israel and Moral Blackmail
The Israel lobby is bringing out the big guns
by Justin Raimondo

The reaction to a pathbreaking – or, rather, taboo-busting – study of how and why Israel's interests came to be substituted for America's national interests in Washington policymaking circles, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," [.pdf] by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, has confirmed, in part, its thesis.

"The Lobby," as the authors call it, effectively works to control the debate over our Israel-centric policy in the Middle East by ensuring that there is no debate. Congress has been captured through their exemplary use of pressure tactics, and the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers and magazines are also dominated by the Israel-Firsters, where the same imbalance prevails. In a hint of what these two distinguished scholars had to go through to get their study published, they aver: "It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one."

It turns out that, before turning to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government – where Walt is academic dean (albeit not for long) – they attempted to get a version of their study published in an American magazine:

"John Mearsheimer says that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in a American-based scientific publication. 'I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States,' Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America's leading magazines, 'but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States.' Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that 'the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue,' he said. 'Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems.'"

Mary-Kay Wilmers, editor of the London Review of Books – which published a shortened version – tells the Guardian that the piece "was originally written for, but rejected by, the Atlantic Monthly and picked up by the LRB, when Wilmers 'became aware of its existence.'"

In an important sense, then, it appears that, like Palestine, the American literary and political scene is Israeli-occupied territory. As Mearsheimer and Walt point out, academia, too, suffers from the pro-Israel version of the Inquisition, suffering extensive efforts to "police" campuses for evidence of "anti-Israel" sentiments. As if to verify this charge, the authors have run smack up against the campus Thought Police, with Harvard University taking the unusual step of pulling its logo from their piece, altering and making a boilerplate disclaimer more prominent, and finally announcing that Walt would be resigning shortly from his post as academic dean.

This question of Walt's resignation has aroused some interest – especially since it was made shortly after major Harvard contributor Robert Belfer (who gave $7.5 million to the Kennedy School in 1997) expressed his displeasure. This concatenation of events has occasioned a denial by Walt, who says that his stepping down had nothing to do with the controversy surrounding his work. This echoes the official statement put out by Harvard, as well as an e-mail to me by Melodie Jackson, the Kennedy School's director of communications and public affairs:

"There is no connection between the conclusion of Professor Walt's term as academic dean and the discussion around his recent paper. As agreed a year ago, professor Walt's term as academic dean will expire at the end of this academic year and has absolutely no connection to the current conversation around his paper."

Well, then, that's that – right? Move along, nothing to see here. But not quite. As the Harvard Crimsonreports:

"[Kennedy School Dean David T.] Ellwood said that he sent an e-mail to Kennedy School faculty members on Feb. 21 – before the uproar over the article – informing them that Walt would end his term as academic dean in June. Ellwood said he also asked professors for recommendations regarding the search for the next academic dean.

"When asked to provide the Feb. 21 e-mail to The Crimson, Kennedy School spokeswoman Melodie Jackson declined to do so. …

"Walt's term as academic dean will be one year shorter than that of his predecessor, Frederick Schauer, who held the post from 1997 to 2002. Though Ellwood's statement made reference to a 'normal three-year cycle' of academic deans, three-year terms have not been the norm for administrators who have held that post in recent years.

"Ellwood himself held the post for a year before joining the Clinton administration in 1993, and he returned to the school in 1995 to serve a two-year term as academic dean. Alan A. Altshuler held the post for two years during Ellwood's absence. And before that, Albert Carnesale was the school's academic dean for a decade."

It seems clear that Walt, loyal to Harvard, and understandably not wanting to widen the breach between himself and the university administration, is stretching the truth, to put it charitably. He says the decision to alter the disclaimer and remove the Harvard logo from his work was made to correct a misimpression that the study was the work of "two Harvard researchers," and that their work constituted an "official report." However, I can't find a single news story about this brouhaha that falsely reports Professor Mearsheimer as resident at Harvard: all correctly describe him as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

Furthermore, it is difficult to define what would constitute an "official report." Universities publish all sorts of research on a wide variety of topics, written from any number of perspectives: the decision to publish implies that the university has held the work to a high academic standard and found it at least acceptable, if not exemplary. It never constitutes "official" agreement with the views expressed therein.

It is undeniable that the Mearsheimer-Walt study was singled out for special treatment: out of all the "working papers" published by Harvard, only this one now lacks the university's logo. Only this one has special language appended to it putting the reader on notice that neither Harvard nor the University of Chicago "take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty." Ouch! If that isn't a slap in the face – impugning their scholarship – then I don't know what is. (Go here to see the difference between the treatment afforded the Mearsheimer-Walt "working paper" and others recently published.)

The controversy has certainly been as instructive as it's been ugly. Not only has the Lobby revealed itself by such a visible and vocal baring of its very pointed teeth, but we have also seen some remarkable alliances forged in its defense. Who would have thought that Christopher Hitchens would be on the same side of the barricades as Noam Chomsky? Not since the days of the Hitler-Stalin pact have we seen such a mind-blowing convergence.

Like that previous rapprochement, however, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense: after all, these two do have something in common – a monomaniacal focus on the military and political supremacy of the U.S. Chomsky sees it as a bad thing, while Hitchens sees it as a positive development, yet they come together in averring that the omnipotent warlords of Washington could not possibly have been captured by a foreign lobby. The former sees the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis as a diversion away from his anti-capitalist message and the "war for oil" spiel we are so used to hearing, while the latter derides as "smelly" the very idea that Israel had anything to do with us going to war against Iraq. Both go all the way back to the days of Dwight Eisenhower to chronicle incidents of U.S.-Israel disharmony. The problem with this argument is that the study says the consolidation of the Lobby's power was achieved much later, after the 1973 war. But ideologues have a habit of ignoring bothersome details.

While complimenting Mearsheimer and Walt for taking what he admits is a "courageous stand," Chomsky says he doesn't find their argument "very convincing." He attributes the causes of our Middle East policy of "regime change" and perpetual war to "strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage," rather than the machinations of the Lobby. The proof? Haven't the oil companies made "profits beyond the dreams of avarice?" What more do we need to know?

Oh, and don't forget how Israel performed a great "service" for the evil American capitalists by "smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs." Leaving aside the oddity of a professed "anarchist" like Chomsky pining for the "independent nationalism" of the "secular" Arab leaders, killers like Nasser and the Mesopotamian Ba'athists, the big problem for Chomsky and his co-thinkers on the Left is that their reasoning is dizzyingly circular. They ascribe everything to the machinations of a "corporate" cabal, but their case is stated in terms of the broadest generalities, leaving the details to the imagination.

It is the lack of details, however, that is most telling. Because wars are started not by abstract "forces" nor by ideological constructs floating in mid-air, but by individuals – not corporate entities, but specific government officials, their advisers and employees. One could say that, in the abstract, the "stovepiping" of false information about Iraq's alleged WMD was the result of late capitalism's moral corruption and the "class interests" of Scooter Libby, but most people would find such a formulation baffling – and it is certainly inadequate.

The question of how and why we were lied into war is a matter of fact, not ideology. Abstract "forces" had nothing to do with it: specific individuals carried out specific acts. The misinformation that was deliberately planted was produced not by decaying capitalism, but by the decayed moral sense of certain government officials. And I'd be very surprised if the Niger uranium forgeries were fabricated by capitalists in top hats.

The confluence of views on this matter between Chomsky and the War Party – not only Hitchens, but Martin Peretz, whose magazine, The New Republic, has long been the house organ of the Lobby – is, as the Marxists used to say, no accident. Peretz, too, wants to know why Mearsheimer and Walt give a free pass to Big Oil, not to mention the supposedly powerful Saudi lobby. What I want to know is where was the Saudi lobby when the U.S. decided to invade and occupy Iraq? Apparently they went missing in action. As for attributing the genesis of the war to oil companies, is the editor of The New Republic confessing, in public, that in all those long years of agitation for war with Iraq, his magazine was merely the instrument of "strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage," as the Chomskyite jargon would phrase it?

Of all the commentary on this subject – and there has been a lot – the most rational, aside from Daniel Levy's, is to be found in a Financial Timeseditorial:

"Reflexes that ordinarily spring automatically to the defence of open debate and free enquiry shut down – at least among much of America's political elite – once the subject turns to Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby's role in shaping US foreign policy.

"Even though policy toward the Middle East is arguably the single biggest determinant of America's reputation in the world, any attempt to rethink this from first principles is politically risky.

"Examining the specific role of organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly considered to be the most effective lobby group in the US apart from the National Rifle Association, is something to be undertaken with caution."

The Lobby has nothing to worry about from the Noam Chomskys of this world. No amount of evidence can prove the Chomskyite case that abstract economic forces somehow unleashed the U.S. military on the people of Iraq, and are now threatening Iran with more of the same. In this way, the real culprits are let off the hook, while popular ire is directed at a conjuration of shadows.

Any attempt to cut through this smokescreen is met with an organized campaign of calumny, exemplified by the smears aimed at Mearsheimer and Walt. Alan Dershowitz screeches that the Harvard paper is the equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and virtually every news story about the matter mentions neo-Nazi David Duke in the same breath as the academic dean of the Kennedy School and his co-author, the foremost advocate of foreign policy "realism." The Financial Times rightly diagnoses the problem:

"Only a UK publication, the London Review of Books, was prepared to carry their critique, in the same way that it was Prospect, a British monthly journal, that four years ago published a path-breaking study of the Israel lobby by the American analyst, Michael Lind.

"Moral blackmail – the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism – is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views. It is also leading to the silencing of policy debate on American university campuses, partly as the result of targeted campaigns against the dissenters."

I emphasize the phrase "moral blackmail" because it aptly characterizes what the foreign policy community and the people of the United States are being subjected to. As we awaken from the fever-dream induced by war propaganda and recover our senses, we look around at the disaster unfolding in the Middle East and ask: How did we get here? The Lobby is right to feel endangered by this question: several administration figures, including Douglas Feith, a former top Pentagon official, are being investigated for having unusually "close" relations with the government of Israel. The Larry Franklin spy case is not being prosecuted – against a veritable tsunami of criticism, including from the judge – for nothing.

As we learn more about the activities of Scooter Libby, and more indictments come down, the key role of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration as the sparkplugs who ignited this war will become as plain as the wart on Ahmed Chalabi's nose. To Hitchens and the rest of the neocon fellow travelers, this is merely "code" for "the Jews." This is the sort of moral blackmail that has always ended all discussion of this vitally important topic – but not anymore.

It is ridiculous to identify the neocons as somehow representative of Jewish opinion on matters of foreign policy: not only is this demonstrably false, but it is also indicative of real anti-Semitism. David Duke inveighs against "the Jewish neocons," and the Lobby echoes his rhetoric, albeit from the opposite perspective. Both argue that we ought to dispense with the "code words" and call a spade a spade. But this is nonsense: as Mearsheimer and Walt point out, the distortion of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East by the Lobby is no more in Israel's interest than it is in America's. Aside from that, the majority of American Jews are against this war, no doubt in greater proportion than the rest of the population.

The problem isn't "the Jews" – it's the Lobby. Until it is reined in by public awareness, and the appropriate legislation – which might start, for example, by requiring AIPAC to register as a foreign agent, like all the other lobbyists for foreign governments – the danger of a prolonged and widened war in the Middle East will continue unabated. Aside from that, however, what is needed is further investigation by Congress into the "faulty" intelligence that lured us into the Iraqi quagmire: I'd bet the ranch that a lot of it came directly from Tel Aviv to Washington.

I might add this dollop from the Financial Times editorial:

"Judgment of the precise value of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper has been swept aside by a wave of condemnation. Their scholarship has been derided and their motives impugned, while Harvard has energetically disassociated itself from their views. Mr Walt's position as academic dean of the Kennedy School is in doubt."

No one is buying Harvard's denials, least of all the Lobby. They glory in their power: note how the New York Sun, a house organ of the Israel-Firsters, was gloating all last week over the troubles inflicted on the authors of the Harvard study. The Lobby means business: like the Mafia, which likes to make an example of recalcitrants who fail to pay protection money, they want people to take notice of their ruthlessness. Fear prevents debate – and a real debate is what the Lobby can least afford.

[CENTER]Find this article at:
[url]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8796[/url][/CENTER]

Marco Polo

29thAugust2006, 07:25

another interesting read.

August 28, 2006
Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?

Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth

By VIRGINIA TILLEY
Johannesburg, South Africa
In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.
The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."
But what about his other "threats" against Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his supposed comment later in the same speech, "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world." "Stigma" was interpreted as "Israel" and "wave of assaults" was ominous. But what he actually said was, "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." "Wave of morality" is not "wave of assaults." The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".
For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006. Radio Free Europe reported that he said "that the 'main cure' for crisis in the Middle East is the elimination of Israel." "Elimination of Israel" implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing, terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair denounced the translated statement as ""quite shocking". But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this. According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said was "The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first."
Nefarious agendas are evident in consistently translating "eliminating the occupation regime" as "destruction of Israel". "Regime" refers to governance, not populations or cities. "Zionist regime" is the government of Israel and its system of laws, which have annexed Palestinian land and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation. Many mainstream human rights activists believe that Israel's "regime" must indeed be transformed, although they disagree how. Some hope that Israel can be redeemed by a change of philosophy and government (regime) that would allow a two-state solution. Others believe that Jewish statehood itself is inherently unjust, as it embeds racist principles into state governance, and call for its transformation into a secular democracy (change of regime). None of these ideas about regime change signifies the expulsion of Jews into the sea or the ravaging of their towns and cities. All signify profound political change, necessary to creating a just peace.
Mr. Ahmadinejad made other statements at the Organization of Islamic Countries that clearly indicated his understanding that Israel must be treated within the framework of international law. For instance, he recognized the reality of present borders when he said that "any aggressor should go back to the Lebanese international border". He recognized the authority of Israel and the role of diplomacy in observing, "The circumstances should be prepared for the return of the refugees and displaced people, and prisoners should be exchanged." He also called for a boycott: "We also propose that the Islamic nations immediately cut all their overt and covert political and economic relations with the Zionist regime." A double bushel of major Jewish peace groups, US church groups, and hordes of human rights organizations have said the same things.
A final word is due about Mr. Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust denial". Holocaust denial is a very sensitive issue in the West, where it notoriously serves anti-Semitism. Elsewhere in the world, however, fogginess about the Holocaust traces more to a sheer lack of information. One might think there is plenty of information about the Holocaust worldwide, but this is a mistake. (Lest we be snooty, Americans show the same startling insularity from general knowledge when, for example, they live to late adulthood still not grasping that US forces killed at least two million Vietnamese and believing that anyone who says so is anti-American. Most French people have not yet accepted that their army slaughtered a million Arabs in Algeria.)
Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has started to take hold in the Middle East not because people hate Jews but because that narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to "defend itself" by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East publics are so used to western canards legitimizing colonial or imperial takeovers that some wonder if the six-million-dead argument is just another myth or exaggerated tale. It is dismal that Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to belong to this ill-educated sector, but he has never been known for his higher education.
Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." He actually said, "In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets." This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.
Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized? Need we ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements has been bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme.
The current fuss about Iran's nuclear enrichment program is playing out so identically to US canards about Iraq's WMD that we must wonder why it is not meeting only roaring international derision. With multiple agendas regarding Iran -- oil, US hegemony, Israel, neocon fantasies of a "new Middle East" -- the Bush administration has raised a great international scare about Iran's nuclear enrichment program. (See Ray Close, Why Bush Will Choose War Against Iran.) But, plowing through Iran's facilities and records, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program. The US intelligence community hasn't found anything, either.
All experts concur that, even if Iran has such a program, it is five to ten years away from having the enriched uranium necessary for an actual weapon, so pre-emptive military action now is hardly necessary. Even the recent report by the Republican-dominated Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, which pointed out that the US government lacks the intelligence on Iran's weapons program necessary to thwart it, effectively confirms that the supposed "intelligence" is patchy and inadequate.
The Bush administration's casual neglect of North Korea's nuclear program indicates that nuclear weapons are not, in fact, the issue here. The neocons are intent on changing the regime in Iran and so have deployed their propagandists to promote the "nuclear weapons" scare just they promoted the Iraqi WMD scare. Republican rhetoric and right-wing news commentators have fallen into line, obediently repeating baseless assertions that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program," is threatening the world and especially Israel with its "nuclear weapons program," and must not be allowed to complete its "nuclear weapons program." Those who nervously point out that hard evidence is actually lacking about any Iranian "nuclear weapons program" are derided as naïve and spineless patsies.
Worse, the Bush administration has brought this snow-job to the UN, wrangling the Security Council into passing a resolution (SC 1696) demanding that Iran cease nuclear enrichment by August 31 and warning of sanctions if it doesn't. Combined with its abysmal performance regarding Israel's assault on Lebanon, the Security Council has crumbled into humiliating obsequious incompetence on this one.
Like all phantasms, the nuclear-weapons charge is hard to defeat because it cannot be entirely disproved. Maybe some Iranian scientists, in some remote underground facility, are working on nuclear weapons technology. Maybe feelers to North Korea have explored the possibilities of getting extra components. Maybe an alien spaceship once crashed in the Nevada desert. Normally, just because something can't be disproved does not make it true. But in the neocon world, possibilities are realities, and a craven press is there to click its heels and trumpet the scaremongering headlines. It doesn't take much, through endless repetition of the term "possible nuclear weapons program," for the word "possible" to drop quietly away.
Evidence is, in any case, a mere detail to the Bush administration, for which the desire for nuclear weapons is sufficient cause for a pre-emptive attack. In US debates prior to invading Iraq, people sometimes insisted that any real evidence of WMD was sorely lacking. The White House would then insist that, because Saddam Hussein "wanted" such weapons, he was likely to have them sometime in the future. Hence thought crimes, even imaginary thought crimes, are now punishable by military invasion.
Will the US really attack Iran? US generals are rightly alarmed that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would unleash unprecedented attacks on US occupation forces in Iraq, as well as US bases in the Gulf. Iran could even block the Straits of Hormuz, which carries 40 percent of the world's oil. Spin-off terrorist militancy would skyrocket. The potential damage to international security and the world economy would be unfathomably dangerous. The Bush administration's necons seems capable of any insanity, so none of this may matter to them. But even the neocons must be taking pause since Israel failed to knock out Hizbullah using the same onslaught from the air planned for Iran.
But Israel can attack Iran, and this may be the plan. Teaming up, the two countries could compensate for each other's strategic limitations. The US has been contributing its superpower clout in the Security Council, setting the stage for sanctions, knowing Iran will not yield on its enrichment program. Having cultivated a (mistaken) international belief that Iran is threatening a direct attack on Israel, the Israeli government could then claim the right of self-defense in taking unilateral pre-emptive action to destroy the nuclear capacity of a state declared in breach of UN directives. Direct retaliation by Iran against Israel is impossible because Israel is a nuclear power (and Iran is not) and because the US security umbrella would protect Israel. Regional reaction against US targets might be curtailed by the (scant) confusion about indirect US complicity.
In that case, what we are seeing now is the US creating the international security context for Israel's unilateral strike and preparing to cover Israel's back in the aftermath.
Is this really the plan? Some evidence suggests that it is on the table. In recent years, Israel has purchased new "bunker-busting" missiles, a fleet of F-16 jets, and three latest-technology German Dolphin submarines (and ordered two more)- i.e., the appropriate weaponry for striking Iran's nuclear installations. In March 2005, the Times of London reported that Israel had constructed a mock-up of Iran's Natanz facility in the desert and was conducting practice bombing runs. In recent months, Israeli officials have openly stated that if the UN fails to take action, Israel will bomb Iran.
But Hizbullah, Iran's ally, still threatens Israel's flank. Hence attacking Hizbullah was more than a "demo" for attacking Iran, as Seymour Hersh reported; it was necessary to attacking Iran. Israel failed to crush Hizbullah, but the outcome may be better for Israel now that Security Council Resolution 1701 has made the entire international community responsible for disarming Hizbullah. If the US-sponsored 1701 effort succeeds, the attack on Iran is a go.
As Israel and the US try to make that deeply flawed plan work, we will doubtless continue to read in every forum that Iran's president - a hostile, irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" -- is demonstrably irrational enough to commit national suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear weapon against Israel's mighty nuclear arsenal. The message is being hammered home: against this media-created myth, Israel must truly "defend itself."
Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science, a US citizen working in South Africa, and author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0472115138/counterpunchmaga) (University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005). She can be reached at tilley@hws.edu.

etoile noir

29thAugust2006, 08:47

As Israel and the US try to make that deeply flawed plan work, we will doubtless continue to read in every forum that Iran's president - a hostile, irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" -- is demonstrably irrational enough to commit national suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear weapon against Israel's mighty nuclear arsenal. The message is being hammered home: against this media-created myth, Israel must truly "defend itself."

great stuff sepp. where did you find this?
i like this virginia tilley person. she makes sense.

Angelfish

29thAugust2006, 17:09

August 28, 2006

Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?

Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth

By VIRGINIA TILLEY
Johannesburg, South Africa
In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.
The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."
But what about his other "threats" against Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his supposed comment later in the same speech, "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world." "Stigma" was interpreted as "Israel" and "wave of assaults" was ominous. But what he actually said was, "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." "Wave of morality" is not "wave of assaults." The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".
For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006. Radio Free Europe reported that he said "that the 'main cure' for crisis in the Middle East is the elimination of Israel." "Elimination of Israel" implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing, terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair denounced the translated statement as ""quite shocking". But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this. According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said was "The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first."
Nefarious agendas are evident in consistently translating "eliminating the occupation regime" as "destruction of Israel". "Regime" refers to governance, not populations or cities. "Zionist regime" is the government of Israel and its system of laws, which have annexed Palestinian land and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation. Many mainstream human rights activists believe that Israel's "regime" must indeed be transformed, although they disagree how. Some hope that Israel can be redeemed by a change of philosophy and government (regime) that would allow a two-state solution. Others believe that Jewish statehood itself is inherently unjust, as it embeds racist principles into state governance, and call for its transformation into a secular democracy (change of regime). None of these ideas about regime change signifies the expulsion of Jews into the sea or the ravaging of their towns and cities. All signify profound political change, necessary to creating a just peace.
Mr. Ahmadinejad made other statements at the Organization of Islamic Countries that clearly indicated his understanding that Israel must be treated within the framework of international law. For instance, he recognized the reality of present borders when he said that "any aggressor should go back to the Lebanese international border". He recognized the authority of Israel and the role of diplomacy in observing, "The circumstances should be prepared for the return of the refugees and displaced people, and prisoners should be exchanged." He also called for a boycott: "We also propose that the Islamic nations immediately cut all their overt and covert political and economic relations with the Zionist regime." A double bushel of major Jewish peace groups, US church groups, and hordes of human rights organizations have said the same things.
A final word is due about Mr. Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust denial". Holocaust denial is a very sensitive issue in the West, where it notoriously serves anti-Semitism. Elsewhere in the world, however, fogginess about the Holocaust traces more to a sheer lack of information. One might think there is plenty of information about the Holocaust worldwide, but this is a mistake. (Lest we be snooty, Americans show the same startling insularity from general knowledge when, for example, they live to late adulthood still not grasping that US forces killed at least two million Vietnamese and believing that anyone who says so is anti-American. Most French people have not yet accepted that their army slaughtered a million Arabs in Algeria.)
Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has started to take hold in the Middle East not because people hate Jews but because that narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to "defend itself" by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East publics are so used to western canards legitimizing colonial or imperial takeovers that some wonder if the six-million-dead argument is just another myth or exaggerated tale. It is dismal that Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to belong to this ill-educated sector, but he has never been known for his higher education.
Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." He actually said, "In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets." This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.
Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized? Need we ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements has been bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme.
The current fuss about Iran's nuclear enrichment program is playing out so identically to US canards about Iraq's WMD that we must wonder why it is not meeting only roaring international derision. With multiple agendas regarding Iran -- oil, US hegemony, Israel, neocon fantasies of a "new Middle East" -- the Bush administration has raised a great international scare about Iran's nuclear enrichment program. (See Ray Close, Why Bush Will Choose War Against Iran.) But, plowing through Iran's facilities and records, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program. The US intelligence community hasn't found anything, either.
All experts concur that, even if Iran has such a program, it is five to ten years away from having the enriched uranium necessary for an actual weapon, so pre-emptive military action now is hardly necessary. Even the recent report by the Republican-dominated Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, which pointed out that the US government lacks the intelligence on Iran's weapons program necessary to thwart it, effectively confirms that the supposed "intelligence" is patchy and inadequate.
The Bush administration's casual neglect of North Korea's nuclear program indicates that nuclear weapons are not, in fact, the issue here. The neocons are intent on changing the regime in Iran and so have deployed their propagandists to promote the "nuclear weapons" scare just they promoted the Iraqi WMD scare. Republican rhetoric and right-wing news commentators have fallen into line, obediently repeating baseless assertions that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program," is threatening the world and especially Israel with its "nuclear weapons program," and must not be allowed to complete its "nuclear weapons program." Those who nervously point out that hard evidence is actually lacking about any Iranian "nuclear weapons program" are derided as naïve and spineless patsies.
Worse, the Bush administration has brought this snow-job to the UN, wrangling the Security Council into passing a resolution (SC 1696) demanding that Iran cease nuclear enrichment by August 31 and warning of sanctions if it doesn't. Combined with its abysmal performance regarding Israel's assault on Lebanon, the Security Council has crumbled into humiliating obsequious incompetence on this one.
Like all phantasms, the nuclear-weapons charge is hard to defeat because it cannot be entirely disproved. Maybe some Iranian scientists, in some remote underground facility, are working on nuclear weapons technology. Maybe feelers to North Korea have explored the possibilities of getting extra components. Maybe an alien spaceship once crashed in the Nevada desert. Normally, just because something can't be disproved does not make it true. But in the neocon world, possibilities are realities, and a craven press is there to click its heels and trumpet the scaremongering headlines. It doesn't take much, through endless repetition of the term "possible nuclear weapons program," for the word "possible" to drop quietly away.
Evidence is, in any case, a mere detail to the Bush administration, for which the desire for nuclear weapons is sufficient cause for a pre-emptive attack. In US debates prior to invading Iraq, people sometimes insisted that any real evidence of WMD was sorely lacking. The White House would then insist that, because Saddam Hussein "wanted" such weapons, he was likely to have them sometime in the future. Hence thought crimes, even imaginary thought crimes, are now punishable by military invasion.
Will the US really attack Iran? US generals are rightly alarmed that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would unleash unprecedented attacks on US occupation forces in Iraq, as well as US bases in the Gulf. Iran could even block the Straits of Hormuz, which carries 40 percent of the world's oil. Spin-off terrorist militancy would skyrocket. The potential damage to international security and the world economy would be unfathomably dangerous. The Bush administration's necons seems capable of any insanity, so none of this may matter to them. But even the neocons must be taking pause since Israel failed to knock out Hizbullah using the same onslaught from the air planned for Iran.
But Israel can attack Iran, and this may be the plan. Teaming up, the two countries could compensate for each other's strategic limitations. The US has been contributing its superpower clout in the Security Council, setting the stage for sanctions, knowing Iran will not yield on its enrichment program. Having cultivated a (mistaken) international belief that Iran is threatening a direct attack on Israel, the Israeli government could then claim the right of self-defense in taking unilateral pre-emptive action to destroy the nuclear capacity of a state declared in breach of UN directives. Direct retaliation by Iran against Israel is impossible because Israel is a nuclear power (and Iran is not) and because the US security umbrella would protect Israel. Regional reaction against US targets might be curtailed by the (scant) confusion about indirect US complicity.
In that case, what we are seeing now is the US creating the international security context for Israel's unilateral strike and preparing to cover Israel's back in the aftermath.
Is this really the plan? Some evidence suggests that it is on the table. In recent years, Israel has purchased new "bunker-busting" missiles, a fleet of F-16 jets, and three latest-technology German Dolphin submarines (and ordered two more)- i.e., the appropriate weaponry for striking Iran's nuclear installations. In March 2005, the Times of London reported that Israel had constructed a mock-up of Iran's Natanz facility in the desert and was conducting practice bombing runs. In recent months, Israeli officials have openly stated that if the UN fails to take action, Israel will bomb Iran.
But Hizbullah, Iran's ally, still threatens Israel's flank. Hence attacking Hizbullah was more than a "demo" for attacking Iran, as Seymour Hersh reported; it was necessary to attacking Iran. Israel failed to crush Hizbullah, but the outcome may be better for Israel now that Security Council Resolution 1701 has made the entire international community responsible for disarming Hizbullah. If the US-sponsored 1701 effort succeeds, the attack on Iran is a go.
As Israel and the US try to make that deeply flawed plan work, we will doubtless continue to read in every forum that Iran's president - a hostile, irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" -- is demonstrably irrational enough to commit national suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear weapon against Israel's mighty nuclear arsenal. The message is being hammered home: against this media-created myth, Israel must truly "defend itself."
Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science, a US citizen working in South Africa, and author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0472115138/counterpunchmaga) (University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005). She can be reached at tilley@hws.edu.

If anyone is really interested as to what exactly that old paedophile Khomeni said in 1981, the birthday of the prophet Mohammed try here;
There is a traslation from Arabic to English just in case anyone wants to check. This transalation has been online at least for four years , so no one can say that it is being bandied around now to defame poor Mr Ahmedinejad.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm

all very nice madame faith freedom - but NOT IN RED FONT.
EN - moderator, vm.org

shadow cup

29thAugust2006, 20:48

If anyone is really interested as to what exactly that old paedophile Khomeni said in 1981, the birthday of the prophet Mohammed try here;
There is a traslation from Arabic to English just in case anyone wants to check. This transalation has been online at least for four years , so no one can say that it is being bandied around now to defame poor Mr Ahmedinejad.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm
The content seems to fit the purpose... but a closer look at the site in question makes me realize that it appears to be very anti-muslim in nature (judging by the FAQs). That compounded by my inability to read arabic discounts me from passing a valid comment in favour or against this claim. ~_~;;;

The same could be said of the interpretations of the scholars earlier, although those have seen bursts of activity as regards to publicity (again not necessarily a for or against thing).

'looks around' Any arabic-speaking members? ^_^;

In the case of clear prejudices held by the media one has to tread carefully for fear of jumping to the wrong conclusions.

Gladiator

29thAugust2006, 22:43

Angelfish

30thAugust2006, 00:21

The content seems to fit the purpose... but a closer look at the site in question makes me realize that it appears to be very anti-muslim in nature (judging by the FAQs). That compounded by my inability to read arabic discounts me from passing a valid comment in favour or against this claim. ~_~;;;

The same could be said of the interpretations of the scholars earlier, although those have seen bursts of activity as regards to publicity (again not necessarily a for or against thing).

'looks around' Any arabic-speaking members? ^_^;

In the case of clear prejudices held by the media one has to tread carefully for fear of jumping to the wrong conclusions.

That site is hosted by moderate muslims and ex muslims. Maybe if that link appeared in the national vanguard you would have found it more credible? Further more, after all these years no one has yet written to them to complain that the speech is a forgery. Not only that ,but that particular speech also made the news at the time it was made. Not locally of course, in the times of Dardir Malta , but abroad on , for example the BBC and ITV that was followed by anyone living in the UK including yours truly. Maybe you can ask the local Iman to interpret it for you,I am sure that you would find his translation more truthful. That Khomeini speech , by the way, tallies perfectly with what is written in the Koran re the treatement to be meted out to all infidels in the name of Allah. Too horrible to comtemplate, but true.
:(

Angelfish

30thAugust2006, 00:26

Got the point now as well. Put European troops in UNIFIL on the boarder of Lebanon. Let Hezbollha attack them (Israel instigates it all) so that when USA attacks Iran, France and the other spineless creeps will either follow suite and help USA change the regime in Iran or 'put up or shut up,' kinda thing?

I thought that Israel is more preoccupied with Hamas on the southernboarder of Gaza?
Whichever way one looks at it the Europeans finally got sucked in and took the USA/Israel bait.:eek:
Watchout for the body bags to start coming home.:mad:
And if no peacekeeping forces are sent, you would be saying that it was a plot by the manipulators to stop Europe from sending troops so that the perfidious rodents will carry on massacring innocent Hizbollah and taking over Lebanon. But don't you know that the majority of the peacekeeping force will be made up of Muslim soldliers coming from Muslim lands anyway?
It seems to me more like amassing a huge muslim army right in front of Israel's doorsteps to attack Israel at the first Allah-given opportunity!

etoile noir

30thAugust2006, 00:35

And if no peacekeeping forces are sent, you would be saying that it was a plot by the manipulators to stop Europe from sending troops so that the perfidious rodents will carry on massacring innocent Hizbollah and taking over Lebanon. But don't you know that the majority of the peacekeeping force will be made up of Muslim soldliers coming from Muslim lands anyway?
It seems to me more like amassing a huge muslim army right in front of Israel's doorsteps to attack Israel at the first Allah-given opportunity!
what you dont seem to realise is the cause and the effect. here's some "effect" for you all:

Islamic Revival in Syria Is Led by Women By Katherine Zoepf, Damascus [source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/world/middleeast/29syria.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print)]

Enas al-Kaldi stops in the hallway of her Islamic school for girls and coaxes her 6-year-old schoolmate through a short recitation from the Koran.
“It’s true that they don’t understand what they are memorizing at this age, but we believe that the understanding comes when the Koran becomes part of you,” Ms. Kaldi, 16, said proudly.

In other corners of Damascus, women who identify one another by the distinctive way they tie their head scarves gather for meetings of an exclusive and secret Islamic women’s society known as the Qubaisiate.
At those meetings, participants say, they are tutored further in the faith and are even taught how to influence some of their well-connected fathers and husbands to accept a greater presence of Islam in public life.
These are the two faces of an Islamic revival for women in Syria, one that could add up to a potent challenge to this determinedly secular state.

Though government officials vociferously deny it, Syria is becoming increasingly religious and its national identity is weakening. If Islam replaces that identity, it may undermine the unity of a society that is ruled by a Muslim religious minority, the Alawites, and includes many religious groups.

Syrian officials, who had front-row seats as [COLOR=#0000ff]Hezbollah[/COLOR] (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/hezbollah/index.html?inline=nyt-org) dragged Lebanon into war, are painfully aware of the myriad ways that state authority can be undermined by increasingly powerful, and appealing, religious groups. Though Syria’s government supports Hezbollah, it has been taking steps to ensure that the phenomenon it helped to build in Lebanon does not come to haunt it at home.

In the past, said Muhammad al-Habash, a Syrian lawmaker who is also a Muslim cleric, “we were told that we had to leave Islam behind to find our futures.”
“But these days,” he said, “if you ask most people in Syria about their history, they will tell you, ‘My history is Islamic history.’ The younger generation are all reading the Koran.”

Women are in the vanguard. Though men across the Islamic world usually interpret Scripture and lead prayers, Syria, virtually alone in the Arab world, is seeing the resurrection of a centuries-old tradition of sheikhas, or women who are religious scholars. The growth of girls’ madrasas has outpaced those for boys, religious teachers here say.

There are no official statistics about precisely how many of the country’s 700 madrasas are for girls. But according to a survey of Islamic education in Syria published by the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, there are about 80 such madrasas in Damascus alone, serving more than 75,000 women and girls, and about half are affiliated with the Qubaisiate (pronounced koo-BAY-see-AHT).

For many years any kind of religious piety was viewed here with skepticism. But while men suspected of Islamist activity are frequently interrogated and jailed, subjecting women to such treatment would cause a public outcry that the government cannot risk. Women have taken advantage of their relatively greater freedom to form Islamic groups, becoming a deeply rooted and potentially subversive force to spread stricter and more conservative Islamic practices in their families and communities.

Since intelligence agents still monitor private gatherings that involve discussion of Islam, groups like the Qubaisiate often meet clandestinely, sometimes with women guarding the door to deter interlopers.
The group is named for its founder, a charismatic Syrian sheikha, Munira al-Qubaisi.

A wealthy woman in her 50’s living in Damascus, who has attended Qubaisiate meetings and who asked that her name not be used because she feared punishment, provided a rough description of the activities.
A girl thought to be serious about her faith may be invited by a relative or a school friend to go to a meeting, the woman said. There, a sheikha sits on a raised platform, addresses the assembled women on religious subjects and takes questions.

Qubaisiate members, the woman said, tie their head scarves so there is a puff of fabric under the chin, like a wattle. As girls and women progress in their study of Islam and gain stature within the group, the color of their scarves changes. New members wear white ones, usually with long khaki colored coats, she said. Later they graduate to wearing navy blue scarves with a navy coat. At the final stage the sheikha may grant them permission to cover themselves completely in black.

Hadeel, a Syrian woman in her early 20’s who asked to be identified only by her first name, described how her best childhood friend had become one of the Qubaisi “sisterhood” and encouraged her to follow suit.
“Rasha would call and say, ‘Today we’re going shopping,’ and that would be a secret code meaning that there was a lesson at 7:30,” Hadeel said. “I went three times, and it was amazing. They had all this expensive food, just for teenage girls, before the lesson. And they had fancy Mercedes cars to take you back home afterward.”

Hadeel said she had at first been astonished by the way the Qubaisiate, ostensibly a women’s prayer group, seemed to single out the daughters of wealthy and influential families and girls who were seen as potential leaders.

“They care about getting girls with big names, the powerful families,” Hadeel said. “In my case, they wanted me because I was a good student.”
Women speaking about the group asked that their names not be used because the group is technically illegal, though it seems the authorities are increasingly turning a blind eye.
“To be asked to join the Qubaisiate is very prestigious,” said Maan Abdul Salam, a women’s rights campaigner.

Mr. Abdul Salam explained that such secret Islamic prayer groups recruited women differently, depending on their social position. “They teach poor women how to humble themselves in front of their husbands and how to pray, but they’re teaching upper-class women how to influence politics,” he said.

The Islamic school where Ms. Kaldi, the 16-year-old tutor, studies has no overt political agenda. But it is a place where devotion to Islam, and an exploration of women’s place in it, flourishes.

The school, at the Zahra mosque in a western suburb of Damascus, is a cheerful, cozy place, with soft Oriental carpets layered underfoot and scores of little girls running around in their socks. Ms. Kaldi spends summers, vacations and some afternoons there, studying and helping younger children to memorize the Koran. Her work tutoring has made her an important figure in this world; many of the younger girls greet her shyly as they pass.

The school accepts girls as young as 5, who begin memorizing the Koran from the back, where the shortest verses are found. The youngest girls are being taught with the aid of hand gestures, games and treats.
The atmosphere is relaxed. The children share candy and snacks as they study, and the room hums with the sound of high-pitched voices reciting in unison. Several girls, preparing for the tests that will allow them to progress to higher-level classes, swing one-handed around the smooth columns that support the roof of the mosque, dreamily murmuring verses aloud to themselves.

After girls in the Zahra school have committed the Koran to memory, they are taught to recite the holy book with the prescribed rhythm and cadences, a process called tajweed, which usually takes at least several years of devoted study. Along the way they are taught the principles of Koranic reasoning.

It is this art of Koranic reasoning, Ms. Kaldi and her friends say, that most sets them apart from previous generations of Syrian Muslim women.
Fatima Ghayeh, 16, an aspiring graphic designer and Ms. Kaldi’s best friend, said she believed that “the older generation,” by which she meant women now in their late 20’s and their 30’s, too often allowed their fathers and husbands to dictate their faith to them.

They came of age before the Islamic revivalist movement that has swept Syria, she explained, and as a result many of them do not feel an intellectual ownership of Islamic teaching in the way that their younger sisters do.

“The older girls were told, ‘This is Islam, and so you should do this,’ ” Ms. Ghayeh said. “They feel that they can’t really ask questions.
“It’s because 10 years ago Syria was really closed, and there weren’t so many Islamic schools. But society has really changed. Today girls are saying, ‘We want to do something with Islam, and for Islam.’ We’re more active, and we ask questions.”

Ms. Ghayeh and Ms. Kaldi each remember with emotion the day, early in President [COLOR=#0000ff]Bashar al-Assad[/COLOR] (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/bashar_al_assad/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s tenure, when he changed the law to allow the wearing of Islamic head scarves in public schools, a practice that was forbidden under his father, [COLOR=#0000ff]Hafez al-Assad[/COLOR] (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/hafez_al_assad/index.html?inline=nyt-per). The current president, who took office in 2000, also reduced the hours that students must spend each week in classes where the ruling Baath Party’s ideology is taught, and began allowing soldiers to pray in mosques.

Those changes have been popular among Sunnis, who make up 70 percent of the country’s population, but they carry political risks for a government that has long been allergic to public displays of religious fervor.
The government has been eager to demonstrate in recent years, through changes like these and increasing references to Syria’s Islamic heritage in official speeches, that it does not fear Islam as such.

During the weeks of war between Israel and Hezbollah, the government frequently used references to the Islamic cause and to the “Lebanese resistance,” as Hezbollah is called in the Syrian state-controlled news media, to play to the feelings of Syrians and consolidate its support. But it is still deeply anxious about Islamic groups acting outside the apparatus of the state, and the threat that they may lose to state control.
The girls at the madrasa say that by plunging more deeply into their faith, they learn to understand their rights within Islam.

In upper-level courses at the Zahra school, the girls debate questions like whether a woman has the right to vote differently from her husband. The question is moot in Syria, one classmate joked, because President Assad inevitably wins elections by a miraculous 99 percent, just as his father did before him.

When the occasion arises, they say, they are able to reason from the Koran on an equal footing with men.
“People mistake tradition for religion,” Ms. Kaldi said. “Men are always saying, ‘Women can’t do that because of religion,’ when in fact it is only tradition. It’s important for us to study so that we will know the difference.”

shadow cup

30thAugust2006, 05:59

That site is hosted by moderate muslims and ex muslims. Maybe if that link appeared in the national vanguard you would have found it more credible?

Er... actually I visited site about double the number of times I visited this above link... not much at all - and spent about half the time within the site. ^_~

But actually yes, if the source is pro-Islam in nature (or at least not clearly towing an agenda against sections of one's own religion) then I would be less hesitant to take foreign-to-local translations at face value.

My reason for hesitance is that I compare taking foreign texts at interpreted value as not being too dissimilar to catholic clerics exercising control over the illiterate masses (a long long time ago) by tweaking a few lines in the bible to suit their needs (I know that this is not your intention - you probably cannot read arabic either I'd guess).

Further more, after all these years no one has yet written to them to complain that the speech is a forgery. Not only that ,but that particular speech also made the news at the time it was made. Not locally of course, in the times of Dardir Malta , but abroad on , for example the BBC and ITV that was followed by anyone living in the UK including yours truly.

If that is the case then I admit that I am more ready to accept things at face value. Were muslims and arabic speakers common in the broadcasted zones 20 years ago?

Maybe you can ask the local Iman to interpret it for you,I am sure that you would find his translation more truthful.

In all truth I think that an arab-speaking member would be in the best-interest of the forums. As I have stated elsewhere communication is an essential element in the prevention of misunderstandings. I do not suggest that you are being untruthful in this - I merely made a few observations based upon the source and my inability to draw conclusions based on not being able to perceive the whole of the situation.

The translation is a shadow of the real text. If I were to see the shadow of a grizzly figure with protrusions coming out everywhere I might consider retreating. I would feel silly if a little old lady with the day's shopping were to come around the corner. ;cP An Imam, while not necessarily more truthful, would be more qualified to inform us of the accuracy of such texts.

That Khomeini speech , by the way, tallies perfectly with what is written in the Koran re the treatement to be meted out to all infidels in the name of Allah. Too horrible to comtemplate, but true.
:(
Lets say for a moment that the speech is 100% legitimate and that the Koran is also everything it is claimed to be. I would think that there would only be several options available:

1.) Extermination of every single muslim regardless of colour (hardly justifiable by any measure imho)

2.) Enforcing a hedging agreement - Seperation (more tennable)

3.) Allowing the mixture to continue (which would equate to racial (or religious) suicide if your above claim were to be true)

-----

I lean on the 60% scale between 1.) and 3.), i.e. a little off the 2.) heading towards 3.) but nowhere close.

Gladiator

30thAugust2006, 14:57

Gladiator

30thAugust2006, 16:27

Marco Polo

30thAugust2006, 16:54

I couldn't careless if Dad's army was sent to monitor the Lebanon and Israel boarder!

Don't kid yourself the UN is sending any Muslim Peacekeepsers to the boarder with Israel. Ehud Olmert has already stated that no Muslim country which does not have diplomatic ties with Israel need not send any men to UNIFIL.

that says volumes about israels intentions!

Marco Polo

22ndSeptember2006, 10:48

[source: economist (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7947545&fsrc=RSS)]

No more missions, please
Sep 21st 2006
From The Economist print edition

AFPhttp://www.economist.com/images/20060923/3806BR1.jpg

The army needs more resources to meet its current commitments
ON SEPTEMBER 19th Des Browne, the defence secretary, admitted what British soldiers leading a NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan have known for several months. His ministry grossly underestimated the strength of their Taliban adversaries, who have killed nearly two dozen Britons in recent weeks.
He might have added—for this too is well known—that over the same time the government has rejected pleas to reinforce the 5,000-strong British contingent with a mobile reserve of 1,000 men. That force would have provided insurance against the unpredicted, including Taliban attacks that proved fiercer than expected. It would have been in line with basic military planning too. The government says that it wants its NATO allies to share the burden, but it is also true that the army itself is too stretched to do more.
Over the past seven years, the government has given the armed forces less while asking them to do more. After a decade of stinging cuts, defence spending has stayed fairly steady since 2004 at around £32 billion ($60 billion), or 2.5% of GDP. Given the heavy burden of operations, and the fact that the Treasury never quite reimburses the armed services for the men and machinery they wear out, this amounts to dwindling resources.
According to the latest deep strategic think, which was carried out in 2003, British forces should be able to conduct two medium (or brigade-sized) operations, only one of which involves significant combat, as well as one smaller operation. Instead they are fighting wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where Britain has over 7,000 troops, including a divisional headquarters. They are also keeping peace in Kosovo, with 900 soldiers, and in Northern Ireland. And when short-term needs arise, such as the evacuation of British citizens from Lebanon last month, the armed services have to meet them. “Can we cope?” asked the new army chief, General Sir Richard Dannatt, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper this month. “I pause. I say ‘just’.”
Without emergency measures—which might include cancelling training, leave and retirements—the armed forces, and especially the army, could make no telling contribution to another mission—for the United Nations in Lebanon, for example, or in Darfur. Indeed, the army would struggle to fill the breach during a hearty firemen's strike. As for the badly-needed reserve for Afghanistan, even if sufficient British infantrymen could be found (maybe from Northern Ireland), helicopters, intelligence experts, engineers and logisticians would still be lacking.
British soldiers are supposed to train for 24 months between six-month deployments. The average interval is currently 21 months. But this figure masks intervals of less than a year for prized infantry units and specialists such as intelligence experts, petroleum operators and medics.
Budgets, too, are strained. The army's land command must make savings of £40m this year, but there is scarcely any fat to be trimmed. OPTAG, for example—a stage-set city where soldiers receive operational training that at the moment includes mock fights against Talibs and suicide bombers—has only four armoured Land Rovers for each training battalion.
As tempers fray, the government's critics are once again decrying recent infantry reforms. In amalgamating the last single-battalion regiments, four infantry battalions were cut (though one survived as a new special-forces support unit).
The criticisms are not wholly just, for the reforms were, by and large, sensible. They ended an old practice of moving and retraining regiments that made them unusable for at least six of every 24 months. Out of 40 infantry battalions, including six that were permanently committed to Northern Ireland, only about 26 were considered deployable in the old days. Now, with regiments reformed and Northern Ireland calmed, the surviving 36 battalions are in theory ready at any time. Moreover, since the army was 2,000 men under strength when that was supposedly around 104,000, in mid-2005, it is only a little lighter now that the authorised complement is just under 102,000. Yet the fact is that the government cut the infantry when it had barely enough to go around.
Plainly, either defence spending must increase or the armed forces will have to do less. The third option—saving money by cutting flab and procurement—has been more or less exhausted for now. In 2004 the Royal Air Force lost 7,900 jobs, some training planes, an air base and a squadron of Tornados. The navy's fleet of destroyers and frigates was cut to 25, about the minimum that is currently imaginable.
Meanwhile, the ministry is wedged into several Cold War procurement programmes, including the acquisition of 144 mostly-unwanted Eurofighter Typhoons at £50m a pop. In next year's comprehensive-spending review, the defence budget will probably rise. And in the next strategic defence review, which could come next year, Britain's capability will be reassessed.
For the army, meanwhile, this is a confusing time. Soldiers are usually glad to be busy in a cause that their family and friends support. But enthusiasm for the current conflicts is shaky at best: a charity appeal by the three services for veterans of the 1981 Falklands campaign raised £11.5m; the equivalent for those who fought in Iraq has raised £350,000. Nor has the government, caught between downplaying the violence in Afghanistan and applauding the troops, been overly generous. Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and evacuated to a Birmingham hospital had, until recently, to pay to watch television.

IMPERIUM

22ndSeptember2006, 11:18

"Every thinking Brit I talked to realizes that the war in Iraq is now lost. It cannot be won. It is irretrievably lost – whatever the lying Jews and their media say. Afghanistan will be lost as well, in a year or so. Brits die every single day in Afghanistan and Iraq – they die senselessly, just as they did during WWII. And just as they did in 1940-45, Brits die on behalf of the Jews and Israel.

Most Brits realize that war on Iran would be another folly, costlier, far more costly than either Afghanistan or Iraq. A major strategic blunder, again in the service of the hidden enemy. That enemy that relentlessly pushes for war, for a first strike against Iran, peripherical Europids, who are proud of their heritage and distinguish themselves from Arabs."

The Muslim world is not our enemy.
We were set up against them by the Hidden Moloch.
We can reach a grand, political accord with the Muslim world.

Europids must stop bleeding themselves White:
on behalf of the Jews and Israel.
We must let that viper's den: "sink or swim on its own".

We are approaching a Coming, Cataclysmic Crises:
brought about by those scheming Rodents.
They will yet again provoke a World War.

Imperium
0609

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1382

Neverwinter

28thSeptember2006, 03:02

September 23, 2006
As Crazy as It Sounds
by Charley Reese

As crazy as it sounds, President George Bush might be planning to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

There are two currents of speculation flowing through Washington these days. One current says that the Bush administration is planning the bombing campaign, but only as a bluff to force the Iranians to negotiate. The other current says that the Bush administration actually plans to launch the attack.

Unfortunately, I think the latter is the accurate one. So far, the Bush administration has eerily followed the exact same pattern it used to justify the attack against Iraq. Bush keeps insisting, without a shred of evidence, that Iran, despite its denials, is seeking nuclear weapons. Remember how he kept insisting that Iraq had huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

Secondly, he has set up the diplomatic efforts to fail. By demanding that Iran suspend its uranium-enrichment program as a precondition for talks, he guarantees, of course, that Iran will reject that offer. It's like a wife telling her husband, "Sign over the house, the car and half your income, and then we'll talk about a divorce settlement."

Thirdly, Bush knows Russia and China will veto any U.N. effort to impose sanctions. Therefore, one night he will go on national television and say we tried diplomacy and that failed, we tried the U.N. and that failed, so I'm ordering American forces to take out Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities.

The scariest part of this scenario is that Bush and his war hawks seem to believe that the Iranian people will blame their own government for the American attack, overthrow it and install a new government that will be eager to jump into bed with the U.S and Israel. That's really nuts.

It's the old "They will greet us with flowers and sweets and dancing in the streets" routine. You would think that 2,600 dead and 20,000 wounded Americans in Iraq would have convinced even the most ideologically blinded that you can't win hearts and minds by bombing bodies to bits. The Iranian people will do what human beings always do – rally around their government and prepare to fight the foreign invader. It will end all hope of a democratic reform movement.

There is no question that we have the air power to substantially damage Iran's nuclear facilities, even though they are dispersed and some are underground. Iran doesn't have much of an air force, and I doubt its air defense system would last more than a day. We will kill a lot of civilians in the process.

What would be the consequences? I don't know exactly, but I believe they would be very bad for us. According to polls, most of the world already thinks we're a greater threat to world peace than either Iran or North Korea. I think it would reduce our influence in Europe and in other parts of the world to zero.

The price of oil would certainly hit $100 or more a barrel, and that would have a devastating impact on the world economy.

Iran would retaliate as best it can. It would launch its missiles at U.S. forces in the region, and probably at Tel Aviv and Haifa in Israel. How effective they would be remains to be seen. Ernie Hemingway once quipped that the outcome of war is always uncertain unless, of course, you've decided to go to war against Romania. Iran might attack the oil facilities in the Arab countries or try to sink a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz. Shi'ites in Iraq might attack U.S. forces.

Pakistan might break relations with us or see its government overthrown. I imagine the Muslim world would see an attack on Iran as "the last straw." Syria might figure it was next and launch against Israel. Ditto North Korea. If you were on Bush's "axis of evil" list and you'd seen two countries also on the list pre-emptively attacked, what would you think?

The irony of it all is that despite the smear talk of Hitlers in the Middle East, the leader whose thinking process most resembles Hitler's is our own president. Like Hitler, Bush's ideological beliefs have blinded him to reality, and like Hitler, he seems impervious to advice that conflicts with his beliefs. There the resemblance ends, of course, but it is bad enough. Hitler learned that he couldn't win a two-front war, and Bush will learn that he can't democratize the Middle East with bombs and bullets.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9736

Neverwinter

30thSeptember2006, 17:13

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

War Signals?

by DAVE LINDORFF

[posted online on September 21, 2006]

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.

"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)

Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.

So what is the White House planning?

On Monday President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly at its opening session, and while studiously avoiding even physically meeting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was also addressing the body, he offered a two-pronged message. Bush told the "people of Iran" that "we're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis" and that he looked forward "to the day when you can live in freedom." But he also warned that Iran's leaders were using the nation's resources "to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons." Given the President's assertion that the nation is fighting a "global war on terror" and that he is Commander in Chief of that "war," his prominent linking of the Iran regime with terror has to be seen as a deliberate effort to claim his right to carry the fight there. Bush has repeatedly insisted that the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan was also an authorization for an unending "war on terror."

Even as Bush was making not-so-veiled threats at the UN, his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a sharp critic of any unilateral US attack on Iran, was in Norfolk, not far from the Eisenhower, advocating further diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran's nuclear program--itself tantalizing evidence of the policy struggle over whether to go to war, and that those favoring an attack may be winning that struggle.

"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against US law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf." Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran's religious rulers.

Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm antiship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian antiship weapons, against which the Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush MO to date.

Commentators and analysts across the political spectrum are focusing on Bush's talk about dialogue, with many claiming that he is climbing down from confrontation. On the right, David Frum, writing on September 20 in his National Review blog, argues that the lack of any attempt to win a UN resolution supporting military action, and rumors of "hushed back doors" being opened in Washington, lead him to expect a diplomatic deal, not a unilateral attack. Writing in the center, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler saw in Bush's UN speech evidence that "war is no longer a viable option" in Iran. Even on the left, where confidence in the Bush Administration's judgment is abysmally low, commentators like Noam Chomsky and Nation contributor Robert Dreyfuss are skeptical that an attack is being planned. Chomsky has long argued that Washington's leaders aren't crazy, and would not take such a step--though more recently, he has seemed less sanguine about Administration sanity and has suggested that leaks about war plans may be an effort by military leaders--who are almost universally opposed to widening the Mideast war--to arouse opposition to such a move by Bush and war advocates like Cheney. Dreyfuss, meanwhile, in an article for the online journal TomPaine.com, focuses on the talk of diplomacy in Bush's Monday UN speech, not on his threats, and concludes that it means "the realists have won" and that there will be no Iran attack.

But all these war skeptics may be whistling past the graveyard. After all, it must be recalled that Bush also talked about seeking diplomatic solutions the whole time he was dead-set on invading Iraq, and the current situation is increasingly looking like a cheap Hollywood sequel. The United States, according to Gardiner and others, already reportedly has special forces operating in Iran, and now major ship movements are looking ominous.

Representative Maurice Hinchey, a leading Democratic critic of the Iraq War, informed about the Navy PTDOs and about the orders for the full Eisenhower Strike Group to head out to sea, said, "For some time there has been speculation that there could be an attack on Iran prior to November 7, in order to exacerbate the culture of fear that the Administration has cultivated now for over five or six years. But if they attack Iran it will be a very bad mistake, for the Middle East and for the US. It would only make worse the antagonism and fear people feel towards our country. I hope this Administration is not so foolish and irresponsible." He adds, "Military people are deeply concerned about the overtaxing of the military already."

Calls for comment from the White House on Iran war plans and on the order for the Eisenhower Strike Group to deploy were referred to the National Security Council press office, which declined to return this reporter's phone calls.

McGovern, who had first told a group of anti-Iraq War activists Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during an ongoing action called "Camp Democracy," about his being alerted to the strike group deployment, warned, "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening."

One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.

Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration and currently a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, expressed some caution about reports of the carrier deployment, saying, "Remember, carrier groups regularly rotate in and out of that region." But he added, "I do not believe that there should be any elective military action taken against Iran without a separate authorization vote by the Congress. In my view, the 2002 authorization which was used for the invasion of Iraq should not extend to Iran."

Marco Polo

30thSeptember2006, 20:08

how many more americans are gonna die for that shitty little country?

Neverwinter

9thOctober2006, 15:05

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
Troops in Southeast Iraq Test U.S. Claim of Aid for Militias

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; Page A21

Article located @: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Marco Polo

9thOctober2006, 20:15

why am i not suprised?

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
Troops in Southeast Iraq Test U.S. Claim of Aid for Militias

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; Page A21

Article located @: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Neverwinter

17thOctober2006, 16:37

Israel's Plan For A Military Strike On Iran

By Jonathan Cook

13 October, 2006
Countercurrents.org

The Middle East, and possibly the world, stands on the brink of a terrible conflagration as Israel and the United States prepare to deal with Iran's alleged ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel, it becomes clearer by the day, wants to use its air force to deliver a knock-out blow against Tehran. It is not known whether it will use conventional weapons or a nuclear warhead in such a strike.

At this potentially cataclysmic moment in global politics, it is good to see that one of the world's leading broadcasters, the BBC, decided this week that it should air a documentary entitled "Will Israel bomb Iran?". It is the question on everyone's lips and doubtless, with the imprimatur of the BBC, the programme will sell around the world.

The good news ends there, however. Because the programme addresses none of the important issues raised by Israel's increasingly belligerent posture towards Tehran.

It does not explain that, without a United Nations resolution, a military strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear research programme would be a gross violation of international law.

It does not clarify that Israel's own large nuclear arsenal was secretly developed and is entirely unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that it is perceived as a threat by its neighbours and may be fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Nor does the programme detail the consequences of an Israeli strike on instability and violence across the Middle East, including in Iraq, where British and American troops are stationed as an occupying force.

And there is no consideration of how in the longer term unilateral action by Israel, with implicit sanction by the international community, is certain to provoke a steep rise in global jihad against the West.

Instead the programme dedicates 40 minutes to footage of Top Gun heroics by the Israeli air force, and the recollections of pilots who carried out a similar, "daring" attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor in the early 1980s; menacing long shots of Iran's nuclear research facilities; and interviews with three former Israeli prime ministers, a former Israeli military chief of staff, various officials in Israeli military intelligence and a professor who designs Israel's military arsenal.

All of them speak with one voice: Israel, they claim, is about to be "wiped out" by Iranian nuclear weapons and must defend itself "whatever the consequences".

They are given plenty of airtime to repeat unchallenged well-worn propaganda Israel has been peddling through its own media, and which has been credulously amplified by the international media: that Iran is led by a fanatical anti-Semite who, like Adolf Hitler, believes he can commit genocide against the Jewish people, this time through a nuclear holocaust.

Other Israeli misinformation, none of it believed by serious analysts, is also uncritically spread by the film-makers: that Hizbullah in Lebanon is a puppet of Iran, waiting to aid its master in Israel's destruction; that Iran is only months away from creating nuclear weapons, a "point of no return", as the programme warns; and that a "fragile" Israel is under constant threat of annihilation from all its Arab neighbours.

But the programme's unequivocal main theme -- echoing precisely Israel's own agenda -- is that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is hellbent on destroying Israel. The film-makers treat seriously, bordering on reverentially, preposterous comments from Israel's leaders about this threat.

Shimon Peres, the Israeli government's veteran roving ambassador, claims, for example, that Iran has made "a call for genocide" against Israel, compares an Iranian nuclear bomb to a "flying concentration camp", and warns that "no one would like to see a comeback to the times of the Nazis".

Cabinet minister Avi Dichter, a former head of the Shin Bet domestic security service, believes Israel faces "an existential threat" from Iran. And Zvi Stauber, a former senior figure in military intelligence, compares Israel's situation to a man whose neighbour "has a gun and he declares every day he is going to kill you".

But pride of place goes to Binyamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister and the current leader of the opposition. He claims repeatedly that the only possible reason Iran and its president could want a nuclear arsenal is for Israel's "extermination". "If he can get away with it, he'll do it." "Ayatollahs with atombic bombs are a powerful threat to all of us." A nuclear Iran "is a threat unlike anything we have seen before. It's beyond politics" -- apparently worse than the nuclear states of North Korea and Pakistan, the latter a military dictatorship and friend of the US barely containing within its borders some of the most fanatical jihadist movements in the world.

Apart from a brief appearance by an Iranian diplomat, no countervailing opinions are entertained in the BBC programme; only Israel's military and political leadership is allowed to speak.

The documentary gives added credence to the views of Israel's security establishment by making great play of a speech by Ahmadinejad -- one with which the Israeli authorities and their allies in Washington have made endless mischief -- in which the Iranian president repeats a statement by Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, that went unnoticed when first uttered.

In the BBC programme, Ahmadenijad is quoted as saying: "The regime occupying Jerusalem should be eliminated from the page of history". This is at least an improvement on the original translation, much repeated in the programme by Netanyahu and others, that "Israel must be wiped off the map".

But for some strange reason, the programme makers infer from their more accurate translation the same diabolical intent on Ahmadinejad's part as suggested by Netanyahu's fabricated version. Iran's nuclear weapons, we are told by the programme as if they are already in existence, have "presented Israel's leaders with a new order of threat". In making his speech, the BBC film argues, Ahmadinejad "issued a death sentence against Israel".

But, as has now been pointed out on numerous occasions (though clearly not often enough for the BBC to have noticed), Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the need for regime change, the ending of the regime occupying the Palestinians in violation of international law. They were not talking, as Netanyahu and co claim, about the destruction of the state of Israel or the Jewish people. The implication of the speech is that the current Israeli regime will end because occupying powers are illegitimate and unsustainable, not because Iran plans to fire nuclear missiles at the Jewish state or commit genocide.

Overlooked by the programme makers is the fact that "fragile" Israel is currently the only country in the Middle East armed with nuclear warheads, several hundred of them, as well as one of the most powerful armies in the world, which presumably make most of its neighbours feel "fragile" too, with far more reason.

And, as we are being persuaded how "fragile" Israel really is, another former prime minister, Ehud Barak, is interviewed. "Ultimately we are standing alone," he says, in apparent justification for an illegal, unilateral strike. Iran's nuclear reasearch facilities, Barak warns, are hidden deep underground, so deep that "no conventional weapon can penetrate", leaving us to infer that in such circumstances Israel will have no choice but use a tactical nuclear strike in its "self-defence". And, getting into his stride, Barak adds that some facilities are in crowded urban areas "where any attack could end up in civilian collateral damage".

But despite the terrifying scenario laid out by Israel's leaders, the BBC website cheerleads for Israel in the same manner as the programme-makers, suggesting that Israel has the right to engineer a clash of civilisations: "With America unlikely to take military action, the pressure is growing on Israel's leaders to launch a raid."

As should be clear by now, the Israeli government's fingerprints are all over this BBC "documentary". And that is hardly surprising because the man behind this "independent" production is Israel's leading film-maker: Noam Shalev.

Shalev, a graduate of a New York film school, has been making a spate of documentaries through his production company Highlight Films, based in Herzliya, near Tel Aviv, that have been lapped up by the BBC and other foreign broadcasters. With the BBC's stamp of approval, it is easy for Shalev to sell his films around the world.

Shalev, who claims that he doesn't "espouse a political view", started his career by making documentaries on less controversial subjects. He has produced films on Ethiopian immigrants arriving in Israel, and on the Zaka organisation, Jewish religious fundamentalists who arrive at the scene of suicide attacks quite literally to pick up the pieces, of human remains.

In the past his films managed to bypass the reticence of broadcasters like the BBC to broach the combustible subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside their news programmes by touching on the topic obliquely. Importantly, however, Shalev's films always humanise his Israeli subjects, showing them as complex, emotional and caring beings, while largely ignoring the millions of Palestinians the Israeli government and army are oppressing.

According to a profile of Shalev published in the Israeli media in 2004, his success derives from the fact that he has developed a "soft-sell approach", showing Israel in a good light without "the straightforward 'hasbara' [propaganda] efforts which explain Israel's case that Israel's Foreign Ministry is required to disseminate to European and American news outlets."

In the words of an Israeli public relations executive, Shalev has a skill in telling Israel's story in ways that international broadcasters appreciate: "[Shalev] also shows the Israeli side, he is not one of those traitors who sell their ideology for money. He has the skill to market it in such a way that overseas they want to see it, and this is very important."

But recently Shalev has grown more confident to try the hard sell for Israel, apparently sure that the BBC and other foreign broadcasters will still buy his films. And that is because Shalev offers them something that other film-makers cannot: intimate access to Israel's security forces, an area off-limits to his rivals.

Before the disengagement from Gaza last year, for example, Shalev made a sympathetic documentary, shown by the BBC, about a day in the life of one Israeli soldier serving there. The film largely concealed the context that might have alerted viewers to the fact that the soldier was enforcing a four-decade illegal occupation of Gaza, or that the Strip is an open-air prison in which thousands of Palestinian have been killed by the Israeli army and in which a majority of Gazans live in abject poverty.

Interviewed about the documentary, Shalev observed: "The army really is very, very careful. There is no indiscriminate firing. I saw, and this was not a show put on just for us, that before any shot is fired there is confirmation that there is nobody behind or in front of the objective. The army is very sensitive to non-deliberate fire."

In other words, Shalev's film for the BBC shed no light on why Israel's "deliberate" fire has killed hundreds of Palestinian children during the second intifada or why a large number of civilians have died from Israeli gunfire and missile strikes inside the Gaza Strip.

Earlier this year Shalev made another film for the BBC, "The Hunt for Black October", to coincide with the release of Stephen Spielberg's movie Munich. "The BBC gains exclusive access to the undercover Mossad agents assigned to track down the Palestinian group responsible for the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics," the BBC was able to glow in its promotional material.

Shalev's latest film, "Will Israel bomb Iran?", follows this well-trodden path. Arabs and Muslims are again deprived of a voice, as are non-Israeli experts.

So why did the BBC buy this blatant piece of propaganda?

Here are a few clues. Shalev's film includes:

* footage taken from inside Hizbullah bunkers under the supervision of the Israeli army as it occupied south Lebanon.

* a "rare view" of the inside of the Israeli army's satellite control room, which spies on Israel's Arab neighbours and Iran and which, according to programme, is "incredibly guarded about its security arrangements".

* an exclusive appearance by Israel's former military chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, who we are told is "rarely interviewed".

* a glimpse inside a Rafael weapons factory, which the programme tells us is "rarely filmed".

In other words, the BBC, and the other broadcasters who will air this "documentary" in the coming weeks and months, has been dazzled by Shalev's ability to show us the secret world of the Israeli army. So dazzled, it seems, that it has forgotten to check -- or worse, simply doesn't care -- what message Shalev is inserting between his exclusive footage.

It might have occurred to someone at the BBC to wonder why Shalev gets these chances to show things no one else is allowed to. Could it be that the "hasbara" division of the Israeli Foreign Ministry has got far more sophisticated than it once was?

Is the Israeli government using Shalev, wittingly or not, and is he in turn using the BBC, to spread Israeli propaganda? Propaganda that may soon propel us towards the "clash of civilisations" so longed for by Israel's leadership.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His website is www.jkcook.net

http://www.countercurrents.org/cook131006.htm

Marco Polo

17thOctober2006, 19:29

Neverwinter,I had read somewhere that Israel dosn't posses aircraft that can cover that distance safely.That is,Israel to Iran and back.There is nothing though to stop them taking off from Bagram US military airbase on the Afghan,Iranian border.Even a US aircraft carrier will do the job too.

what about inflight fuelling?....................

Marco Polo

17thOctober2006, 20:25

I wanna even going to mention in flight fueling over hostile territory as the sooper dooper US built jets will have to slow down to the speed of the tanker.

Then they might get shot down by kaccaturi:rolleyes:

iraq? or is iran still too far?

could the israeli jets detour around iran and approach from the north or south instead of the west? maybe even the east!!

Neverwinter

3rdNovember2006, 02:55

Are Israelis gearing up to bomb Iran?
NOVEMBER 1, 2006

The appointment of Israel’s new deputy PM raises fears of a new catastrophe, says robert fox.

The Middle East is abuzz with ugly rumours. One of them is so dire - and comes from sources in so many capital cities - that it has to be taken seriously.

The suggestion is that the Israeli government has served notice on the White House that it must take pre-emptive action against Iran's sites of nuclear weapons development - or Israel will go it alone and do the job itself. Israel has apparently given Bush a deadline of six months.

The pressure on the Americans - if it is true - comes with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman, one of the hardest of all hard-liners, as Israel's new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, under the new coalition with his party, Yisrael Beytenu.

One reason why the rumour is being taken seriously is that it coincides with another strong rumour - that the Iranian regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad has ordered Iran's nuclear programme to be accelerated. According to sources, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade material is galloping ahead, and Iran could have its own deployable nuclear warheads within four years.

Given Ahmadinejad's wild rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map (though the translation of these remarks is now acknowledged to be somewhat fuzzy), Israel's hawks argue there is no time to lose. Former Prime Minister, and Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, for whom Lieberman once worked as chief of staff, has argued strenuously for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Lieberman, more hawkish than many hawks, was born in Moldova in 1958 and now leads a powerful group of Israeli immigrants from Russia and the former Soviet Union. He criticised Ariel Sharon when, during negotiations with the Palestinians, he ordered some settlements to close. He outraged moderate Jewish Israeli opinion this summer when he suggested that Arab Israelis elected to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, should be executed if they had held talks with Hamas members of the Palestinian authority.

Even the New York Times, known for its strong support for Israel, warned in an editorial a week ago that Lieberman was "the wrong partner" in an Israeli coalition. His inclusion, the paper argued, made any arrangement with the Palestinians difficult, if not impossible. "Creating new obstacles to peace with the Palestinians is the last thing Israel needs after the Lebanon fiasco."

Strategic analysts have noticed anti-Iran noises coming from the beleaguered White House, too. "It's the same sort of language we heard in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq," one Washington insider told me. A London correspondent favoured by the Bush-Blair circle said, "It's clear that Bush will not dream of leaving office under the suspicion that he allowed Iran to get nuclear weapons on his watch. He will act, and will feel uninhibited after the mid-term elections."

The practicalities of bombing Iran's nuclear

installations are quite another thing, according to serious analysts. Israel lacks the capability to hit in one blow all the places where weaponry is being developed; planes would need mid-air refuelling that only the Americans could provide; and some centres of nuclear energy production - Bushir, Natanz and Tehran itself - are heavily populated. Civilian casualties would be high.

There is an even more compelling reason why realists like General John Abizaid, US commander for the region, and former Secretary of State James Baker are counselling the hawks in Israel as well as Washington to cool it.

Not only would a pre-emptive strike on Iran miss more than it hit - it would invite immediate and devastating retaliation. The Revolutionary Guards could launch a global terrorist campaign and the Iranian Air Force could bomb the offshore gas installations stretching along the Gulf from Qatar. That would knock out 15 per cent of the world's natural gas supply at a stroke.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1061

Neverwinter

14thNovember2006, 05:32

Israel Official: Strike on Iran Possible
By Amy Teibel
The Associated Press

Friday 10 November 2006

The deputy defense minister suggested Friday that Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear program - the clearest statement yet of such a possibility from a high-ranking official.

"I am not advocating an Israeli pre-emptive military action against Iran and I am aware of its possible repercussions," Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, a former general, said in comments published Friday in The Jerusalem Post. "I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort."

Sneh's comments did not necessarily reflect the view of Israel's government or of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said government spokeswoman Miri Eisin.

Olmert, who was arriving in Washington on Sunday, said he was confident in the U.S. handling of the international standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The Bush administration and other nations say is a cover for developing atomic weapons, but Tehran says the program is peaceful.

"I have enormous respect for President Bush. He is absolutely committed," Olmert said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "I know that America will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons because this is a danger to the whole Western world."

The United States and its European allies have proposed a raft of sanctions to try to curb the country's nuclear development.

Israel sees Iran as the greatest threat to its survival. Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction, and Israelis do not believe his claims that Iran's nuclear program is meant to develop energy, not arms.

Israel crippled Iraq's atomic program 25 years ago with an airstrike on its unfinished nuclear reactor. Experts say Iran has learned from Iraq's mistakes, scattering its nuclear facilities and building some underground.

Sneh's tough talk is the boldest to date by a high-ranking Israeli official. Olmert and other Israeli leaders frequently discuss the Iranian threat in grave terms, but stop short of threatening military action.

Years of diplomacy have failed to persuade Iran to modify its nuclear program so it can't develop weapons.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111006E.shtml

Neverwinter

16thNovember2006, 00:15

Have a look at this... - Neverwinter -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No cakewalk in the park?

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20061112-105859-3756r.htm

IMPERIUM

16thNovember2006, 10:10

The article confirms the mischief those Rodents are capable of.
They will push for war against Iran - just as they did against Serbia, Afganistan, Iraq ...
We can never have peace with the Muslim world until that festering wound, that viper's nest is extirpated.

Olmert, in front of the world press in Washington:
congratulated Boobus Bush for his intervention in Iraq:
because "it stabilised the whole Middle East"! - Even the Jewish press laughed at Boobus!

Them! The cause of all our troubles.
They will yet plunge us into a 3rd World War.
They will provoke the Coming Cataclysmic Crises.

Imperium
0611

ogenoct

16thNovember2006, 17:13

As Israel and the US try to make that deeply flawed plan work, we will doubtless continue to read in every forum that Iran's president - a hostile, irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" -- is demonstrably irrational enough to commit national suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear weapon against Israel's mighty nuclear arsenal.

But Ahmadinejad IS an "irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist." So why should it be surprising if we read this fact "in every forum"? Ahmadinejad is no friend of Israel, that is for sure. But he is no friend of Europe either.

Constantin

Marco Polo

16thNovember2006, 18:30

etoile noir

16thNovember2006, 19:51

But Ahmadinejad IS an "irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist." So why should it be surprising if we read this fact "in every forum"? Ahmadinejad is no friend of Israel, that is for sure. But he is no friend of Europe either.

Constantin
fine. granted he is. what do you expect? he's moslem and is the leader of iran.
would you deny him the right to have nuclear weapons? would you deny same rights to the DPRK? on what grounds?
israel has them ..... so many other countries including the islamic rep of pakistan. why single out ahmedinejad as islamofascist and not musharraf? coz mushy helped bush out during the "war on terror" in afghanistan? or was it shock and awe? or whatever else he calls his hobby is at that given moment.

if you are all for kim jong il having nuclear capabilites it would be hypocritical of you to deny same rights to ahmedinejad.

umberto

16thNovember2006, 20:09

etoile noir

16thNovember2006, 20:15

Neither iran nor dprk has right to nuclear weapons. most of the countries you mentioned use them either as a deterrent or for balance.

iran is not threatened. and does not need them.
great thinking einstein.
so who - in your books - has the divine right to own weapons of mass destruction?

dont forget that your uncle sam, that same big man you're so keen to defend, managed to get the death penalty for a man who was supposed to own WMD's but said WMD's were never found.

in the meantime, the dead-man-walking's country is in ruins and the war started by good old uncle sam aided and abetted by his poodle in not-so-great britain has cost the US over 3 trillion dollars to say nothing of loss of life for both military personnel and civilians.

umberto

16thNovember2006, 20:42

etoile noir

16thNovember2006, 21:51

saddam's death penalty has nothing to do with WMD.
a nuke iran is a threat to the mediterrenean basin, and that should be enough. we all know what the eternal target will be.

i love my country more than i hate others'.
so are you saying that the nukes in israel are not a threat to the mediterranean basin but the ones in iran are? :confused:

umberto

16thNovember2006, 22:24

they are too, and its better if they didnt have them. the danger escalates if more countries have them, especially countries hostile to each other.

Marco Polo

16thNovember2006, 23:02

Neither iran nor dprk has right to nuclear weapons. most of the countries mentioned use them either as a deterrent or for balance, and are democracies.

iran and dprk are not threatened. and does not need them.

of course they are threatened thats why NK (may) have them and iran may be wanting them. with nukes the us cant attack. if anyone thinks these nations will attack the west with them they are living in clouds as they would be annihalated.

its all a load of nonsense. nukes keep peace as they stop war-they make it far too risky to start one!

Marco Polo

16thNovember2006, 23:03

saddam's death penalty has nothing to do with WMD.
a nuke iran is a threat to the mediterrenean basin, and that should be enough. we all know what the eternal target will be.

i love my country more than i hate others'.

and why the hell would iran nuke the med? give me a reason?

KAMIKAZE

16thNovember2006, 23:03

I strongly believe that NO ONE should own weapons of mass destruction. My favourite country (besides Malta) has learned the lesson: No more Hiroshimas!!

Marco Polo

16thNovember2006, 23:05

they are too, and its better if they didnt have them. the danger escalates if more countries have them, especially countries hostile to each other.

in my view the more nukes the better as it prevents war.a nuke war would be madness. no one is that nuts.

umberto

16thNovember2006, 23:09

ija mhux hekk tghid.

umberto

16thNovember2006, 23:13

and why the hell would iran nuke the med? give me a reason?

israel is in the mediterrenean, not very far off malta.

his words has been a declaration of war against this country.

there is no way other countries are going to join the nuclear club. it will create another precedence and unbalance.

N. Korea's intentions are reunion, and thats its whole nuclear program's aim.

Marco Polo

16thNovember2006, 23:54

why would iran nuke israel? to get another nuke back? it makes no sense.

as for DPRK, how does one reunify a nation with nukes????

ogenoct

17thNovember2006, 09:35

fine. granted he is. what do you expect? he's moslem and is the leader of iran.

Exactly. So, you agree with me that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim? Great!

would you deny him the right to have nuclear weapons? would you deny same rights to the DPRK? on what grounds?

I do not deny Iran the right to have nuclear weapons.

israel has them ..... so many other countries including the islamic rep of pakistan. why single out ahmedinejad as islamofascist and not musharraf?

I am not an admirer of Musharaf either but he was not the topic of the discussion.

if you are all for kim jong il having nuclear capabilites it would be hypocritical of you to deny same rights to ahmedinejad.

I am not denying Ahmadinejad to "have nuclear capabilities." But then Iran should not be surprised if Israel will bomb it. And neither should you. How does it help our case if Iran goes nuclear? Please elaborate. Is it because Iran is anti-Israel? How does a fundamentalist Muslim nation's anti-Israel stance help Europe? Especially if this nation is also anti-European.

Constantin

etoile noir

17thNovember2006, 10:58

Exactly. So, you agree with me that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim? Great!
of course there is not! and if there happens to be one, he would be labelled an apostate.
moderate moslem is an oxymoron

I do not deny Iran the right to have nuclear weapons.
nor i but it really does not depend on you or me does it.

I am not an admirer of Musharaf either but he was not the topic of the discussion.
he's as moslem as ahmedinejad. that's the only reason i brought him into this. of course you're right, this is the "iranian front" thread.

I am not denying Ahmadinejad to "have nuclear capabilities." But then Iran should not be surprised if Israel will bomb it. And neither should you. How does it help our case if Iran goes nuclear? Please elaborate. Is it because Iran is anti-Israel? How does a fundamentalist Muslim nation's anti-Israel stance help Europe? Especially if this nation is also anti-European.
Constantin

can isreal go ahead and attack iran with the backing of the US? this is not really an israel vs iran issue, nor even a jew vs moslem issue. this would be just another of bush's attempts at showing the world that the US is still king of the hill. why he bothers i honestly don't know for we all know that his resources are stretched to their limits.

personally i am not in favour of either iran or israel or any other country being in possession of nuclear weapons. i don't know what gave you the idea that i would rub my hands in glee at the thought of yet another mad mullah being in possession of WMD's.

the only reason i replied is because iran, like korea is flexing its muscles and that in itself is scary. this is not just a territorial issue, this is global. its our world. yours, mine and all of humanity.

ogenoct

17thNovember2006, 11:21

he's as moslem as ahmedinejad. that's the only reason i brought him into this. of course you're right, this is the "iranian front" thread.

can isreal go ahead and attack iran with the backing of the US?

the only reason i replied is because iran, like korea is flexing its muscles and that in itself is scary. this is not just a territorial issue, this is global. its our world. yours, mine and all of humanity.

I merely stated that I am not in support of Musharaf either because I thought that you insinuated that I did. Islam as a whole is an enemy of Europe. You cannot compare Iran to the DPRK since the latter is a peaceful nation and never threatened any one, and the former is an aggressive Islamo-Fascist state who constantly threatens Israel. The DPRK needed a nuclear deterrent to defend its right to sovereignty against an increasingly aggressive AmeriKa. Iran does not need nuclear weapons. It wants them, though, so it can continue its aggressive policy towards Israel undeterred. It is in the interest of Europe to defend Israel but not AmeriKa. Therefore, I defend the DPRK's right to have nuclear weapons but not Iran's. Israel is well capable of striking Iran without the aid of AmeriKa.

Constantin

Marco Polo

17thNovember2006, 13:17

I merely stated that I am not in support of Musharaf either because I thought that you insinuated that I did. Islam as a whole is an enemy of Europe. You cannot compare Iran to the DPRK since the latter is a peaceful nation and never threatened any one, and the former is an aggressive Islamo-Fascist state who constantly threatens Israel. The DPRK needed a nuclear deterrent to defend its right to sovereignty against an increasingly aggressive AmeriKa. Iran does not need nuclear weapons. It wants them, though, so it can continue its aggressive policy towards Israel undeterred. It is in the interest of Europe to defend Israel but not AmeriKa. Therefore, I defend the DPRK's right to have nuclear weapons but not Iran's. Israel is well capable of striking Iran without the aid of AmeriKa.

Constantin

i agree to a point on DPRK in its weapons being a detterent. that nation wants to reunite korea under its system and the US will not allow it.

what would iran gain by nuking israel? a massive wasteland and probably nuclear fallout in all the islamic states in the region including its friend syria. with nukes iran cannot be attacked and thus is like DPRK. Hasnt the west always had its thumb on iran (oil and geopolitics)?

umberto

17thNovember2006, 13:35

i agree to a point on DPRK in its weapons being a detterent. that nation wants to reunite korea under its system and the US will not allow it.

and it does well. but the aggressive side, from your argument seems DPRK.

'Wants to....'

S. Koreans have other ideas.

Marco Polo

17thNovember2006, 13:44

and it does well. but the aggressive side, from your argument seems DPRK.

'Wants to....'

S. Koreans have other ideas.

dprks only ambitions extend to sk. clinton was reaching an agreement with dprk that would see them scrap their nuke prog in exchange for food but bush scrapped that. there shouldnt even be sanctions on dprk so long as there is an adequate force to defend SK.

does that not make sense? why attack dprk unless its because its the only non-globalist country? dprks system is one that promotes total independence which goes against the kissinger (not a zulu ;) ) doctrine of global interdependence.

umberto

17thNovember2006, 13:52

what would iran gain by nuking israel? a massive wasteland and probably nuclear fallout in all the islamic states in the region including its friend syria. with nukes iran cannot be attacked and thus is like DPRK. Hasnt the west always had its thumb on iran (oil and geopolitics)?

Here I think you are ignoring something important Marco, which of course will not escape those who live the reality, analysts, strategists on both sides. Arabs and muslims have a suicidal sacrifical tendency (we know this), and if they know that a strike may eliminate israel once and for all, by localised nukes, they will be prepared to sacrifice, some probably unwilling, For the Future.

Israel is just 20 million. The arabic world is much much more, like, there are plenty where they came from. Facts also known to both.

Last time there was a BBC World feature on this issue. All Israeli ex-PMs, netanayahu etc. all stated that Ahmadeenejad's inital worlds on israel being wiped off is a declaration of war which gives them pre-emption rights.

If he wanted to have nukes, he must at least stayed secretive.

Also, contrary to what was said in another post, it is not israel which may do a favour to US if it attacks iran. It would be the other way round. US are only interested in invasions, resource grabbing, and not one-off attacks.

Interviewees, senior israeli official, went on saying that the US is unwilling to help it in this, or is only lip service, and they regret that they inevitably will have to do the 'dirty work'. 'For their existence sake'.

but they also say it is somewhat difficult, cause iranians learnt from the iraqi 80s attack, and they dispersed facilities.

umberto

17thNovember2006, 14:00

dprks only ambitions extend to sk. clinton was reaching an agreement with dprk that would see them scrap their nuke prog in exchange for food but bush scrapped that. there shouldnt even be sanctions on dprk so long as there is an adequate force to defend SK.

does that not make sense? why attack dprk unless its because its the only non-globalist country? dprks system is one that promotes total independence which goes against the kissinger (not a zulu ;) ) doctrine of global interdependence.

Japan, here, a key US ally in the region, is playing an Israel. And it feels more vulnerable, cause apart from two other almost hostile neighbour countries China and Russia with atomic and nukes, it does not need another one. And Japan is worse, cause it does not have them.

I think those having the nukes and atomic, officially and otherwise, are known and recognised, and there seems to be no way the international community will allow further proliferation. It will threaten a very thin balance.

Eurodip

17thNovember2006, 15:07

These Israeli wet dreams about one-off air attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities are just fantasies. They succeeded once, against Iraq, and Iraq learnt the lesson and buried everything underground. The Isrealis have this dangerous tendency of thinking that everyone (except themselves) is oh so stupid. We can all see the result in Lebanon.

umberto

17thNovember2006, 22:14

Marco Polo

18thNovember2006, 00:26

Here I think you are ignoring something important Marco, which of course will not escape those who live the reality, analysts, strategists on both sides. Arabs and muslims have a suicidal sacrifical tendency (we know this), and if they know that a strike may eliminate israel once and for all, by localised nukes, they will be prepared to sacrifice, some probably unwilling, For the Future.

Israel is just 20 million. The arabic world is much much more, like, there are plenty where they came from. Facts also known to both.

Last time there was a BBC World feature on this issue. All Israeli ex-PMs, netanayahu etc. all stated that Ahmadeenejad's inital worlds on israel being wiped off is a declaration of war which gives them pre-emption rights.

If he wanted to have nukes, he must at least stayed secretive.

Also, contrary to what was said in another post, it is not israel which may do a favour to US if it attacks iran. It would be the other way round. US are only interested in invasions, resource grabbing, and not one-off attacks.

Interviewees, senior israeli official, went on saying that the US is unwilling to help it in this, or is only lip service, and they regret that they inevitably will have to do the 'dirty work'. 'For their existence sake'.

but they also say it is somewhat difficult, cause iranians learnt from the iraqi 80s attack, and they dispersed facilities.
if reality is your goldfish bowl world then i would rather remain where i am.

israelis have said many times they want the palestineans wiped out so that give them the right to pre-emptively wipe out israel too no?

look at from a logical as opposed to myopic point of view and the notion that a nation as weak as iran would attack a nation like israel and thus seal its doom is insane. iran has nukes as a trump card and for sod all else just like any nation does. nukes are not for conventional use. battlefield nukes may be the exception here though.

israel fears a nuclear iran as it loses its trump card. then again this could all be total horse shit and iran has no hope in hell of gaining nuclear tech and its leader is bluffing.

and there are only 18 million jews in the world.

umberto

18thNovember2006, 01:23

If reality means seeing jews everywhere, and not a single jew was gassed in nazi germany, than i will better stick to mine.

besides, i only reflected what was said in a program, to which i agree to a degree. And the undeniable fact that some arabs may do the ultimate sacrifice of tolerating some collateral damage as long as israel is wiped out.

Trump cards or not, forget that they are jews, no leader of a country will take such a threat lightly. Iran is not weak, and as long as it has the capability of delivering it, it remains a threat. It does not have to be strong. Hitler destroyed Germany by his megalomania. The iranian leader should not have uttered those words.

btw, find me an official present israeli govt. words or policy that they want palestinians wiped out. on the other hand, i always said here and elsewhere that the palestinian fight against jewish colonisation in the occupied lands is their right, by all means even civilian, and a legitimate one.

Marco Polo

18thNovember2006, 09:40

umberto

18thNovember2006, 10:39

Marco Polo

18thNovember2006, 13:23

can you quote with reference?

i read more than you think, and watch tv less than you think.

if someone is being screwed, part of the problem is the screwed part.

the iranian president has the right to say what he likes, and suffer consequences therein.

find it! start by finding out what he said, where he comes from and anything controversial he has said.

tip: you wont find it by searching CNN!

Marco Polo

19thNovember2006, 21:44

No cakewalk in the park? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061112-105859-3756r.htm)

By Arnaud de Borchgrave
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 13, 2006
Advertisement
"Ripley's Believe It Or Not" began in 1918 as a comic strip featuring unusual, hard-to-believe facts from around the world. Today it is a Web site for a global community that combs cyberspace for events so strange and unusual it is often hard to believe they are taking place. These days, you don't have to go further afield than Washington, D.C.
The neo-conservatives (neocons) who gave us the "cakewalk" prediction for Iraq before the war are now plugging "a walk in the park" in Iran -- i.e., a U.S. bombing campaign to consign the mullahs' nuclear ambitions to oblivion, or at least to retard the advent of an Iranian bomb for a few years, hoping that in the interim good democrats would rise up and send the clerics and their Revolutionary Guards packing.
Two Washington-based representatives of a global Fortune 100 company told their visiting senior executive this week a bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear facilities "is inevitable while Mr. Bush is in the White House." The incredulous CEO thought his Washington eyes and ears were overstating the case. They assured him they were deadly serious.
Leading neocon Richard Perle, who led the intellectual charge for the ill-fated invasion of Iraq, believes two B-2 bombers, each with 16 independently targeted weapons systems, could punch out Iran's nuclear lights. No Air Force expert we could find agreed. But the Pentagon's Air Force generals believe it can be done -- and successfully -- with a much larger operation, including five nights of bombing, some 400 aim points, 75 requiring deep penetration ordnance. Time magazine estimates 1,500 such aim points, or "viable targets," related to Iran's widely scattered nuclear development complex. The Navy, with its carrier task forces and ship-launched cruise missiles, does not share the same degree of certainty.
No one has worked more assiduously for military action than Michael Ledeen, a neocon field marshal, who writes frequently about the "horrors" of Iran's mullahocracy. His National Review Online commentary Nov. 1 was headlined "Delay." Mr. Ledeen has grown impatient over Mr. Bush's dangerous postponement of what he considers inevitable. "If the president knows Iran is waging war on us," wrote Mr. Ledeen, "he is obliged to respond; the only appropriate question is about the method, not the substance. If he does not know, then he should remove those officials who were obliged to tell him, and get some people who will tell the truth."
The truth has become an increasingly rare commodity in Washington. Mr. Ledeen concludes the president knows the truth, but thinks he may lack the political capital to directly challenge the mullahs. More likely, Mr. Bush's thinking has changed when confronted by the intelligence community's assessment of Iran's retaliatory capabilities. They are described as "formidable." These include mining the Strait of Hormuz, the channel for two-fifths of the world's oil traffic, which would send oil prices skyrocketing to $200 per barrel almost overnight.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., headed his country's intelligence service for 25 years. He warns that an attack against Iran would turn "the whole Persian Gulf into an inferno of exploding fuel tanks and shot-up facilities." Earlier this month, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired dozens of missiles, including the long-range Shahab-3 (1,242 miles), Shahab-2 (cluster warhead of 1,400 bomblets), solid-fuel Zalzals, Zolfaghar73, Z-3, and SCUD-Bs, all timed to follow by two days the completion of U.S.-led allied naval maneuvers in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist." Warships from Australia, Britain, France, Italy, Bahrain and the U.S. participated.
Dubbed "Great Prophet," Iran's 10-day war games were designed "to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message," said Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi.
Iran also has control over Hezbollah whose terrorist arm has already reached all the way to Argentina (in the mid-1990s) and whose sleeper cells, from Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields where Shi'ites are the majority, to North America, are still feigning sleep.
Russia and China have made clear they will not be part of any tough sanction regime against Iran. They both have strong commercial ties to Iran. Tehran is paying Russia $700 million for 29 air defense missile systems. China signed a 10-year, $100 billion oil deal with Iran.
What the neocons dismiss as the "nervous nellies" of the intelligence community may have slipped in to President Bush's morning brief a subversive quote or two from conservative historian Paul Johnson, e.g., "Statesmen should never plunge into the future ... without first examining what guidance the past could supply?"
Mr. Ledeen, who acts as spokesman for Iran's suppressed democratic forces, says, "The first step is to embrace the unpleasant fact that we are at war with Iran, and it is long past time to respond." The Iraqi debacle, along with the fading image of the U.S. as the world's sole superpower, as well as of Israel as the regional superpower, evidently persuaded President Bush to further disappoint the neocons. The Iraq Study Group's (ISG) James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton wanted neocon idol Donald Rumsfeld replaced as defense secretary before going public with their findings.
The new defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert M. Gates, a close friend of Mr. Baker, and also a member of ISG, has long favored direct talks with "Axis of Evil" charter member Iran. Mr. Baker, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gates are now on the same wavelength. They believe bombing Iran would be an unmitigated disaster for U.S. interests the world over. The alternative is to explore a geopolitical deal with a country that has legitimate security interests.
The neocons' ideas for a walk in the Iranian park are still very much alive in Israel, whose very existence has been threatened by the mullahocracy. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will make clear to Mr. Bush today during a White House visit that Israel is not prepared to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

Neverwinter

22ndNovember2006, 01:56

'No proof' of Iran nuclear arms
Monday, 20 November 2006, 21:55 GMT

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.

The article says the White House was dismissive about the CIA report.

The US and Europe say Iran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme - a charge Iran has strongly denied.

'Hostile' response

The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.

It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli agents.

The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an "error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush administration".

"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says if the New Yorker article is correct, it would suggest that the CIA is being more cautious than the Bush administration in evaluating whether or not Iran is on its way to building a bomb.

And he says, as with Iraq, it suggests political battles to come over how intelligence is used as a basis for American foreign policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm

Neverwinter

22ndNovember2006, 02:00

THE NEXT ACT
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?
Issue of 2006-11-27
Posted 2006-11-20

A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting “shorteners” on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. “They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official told me.

In late 1982, Edward P. Boland, a Democratic representative, introduced the first in a series of “Boland amendments,” which limited the Reagan Administration’s ability to support the Contras, who were working to overthrow Nicaragua’s left-wing Sandinista government. The Boland restrictions led White House officials to orchestrate illegal fund-raising activities for the Contras, including the sale of American weapons, via Israel, to Iran. The result was the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-eighties. Cheney’s story, according to the source, was his way of saying that, whatever a Democratic Congress might do next year to limit the President’s authority, the Administration would find a way to work around it. (In response to a request for comment, the Vice-President’s office said that it had no record of the discussion.)

In interviews, current and former Administration officials returned to one question: whether Cheney would be as influential in the last two years of George W. Bush’s Presidency as he was in its first six. Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, “I know what the President thinks,” about Iraq. “I know what I think. And we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.” He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. “The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. “And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

On November 8th, the day after the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate, Bush announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the nomination of his successor, Robert Gates, a former director of Central Intelligence. The move was widely seen as an acknowledgment that the Administration was paying a political price for the debacle in Iraq. Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group—headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman—which has been charged with examining new approaches to Iraq, and he has publicly urged for more than a year that the U.S. begin direct talks with Iran. President Bush’s decision to turn to Gates was a sign of the White House’s “desperation,” a former high-level C.I.A. official, who worked with the White House after September 11th, told me. Cheney’s relationship with Rumsfeld was among the closest inside the Administration, and Gates’s nomination was seen by some Republicans as a clear signal that the Vice-President’s influence in the White House could be challenged. The only reason Gates would take the job, after turning down an earlier offer to serve as the new Director of National Intelligence, the former high-level C.I.A. official said, was that “the President’s father, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker”—former aides of the first President Bush—“piled on, and the President finally had to accept adult supervision.”

Critical decisions will be made in the next few months, the former C.I.A. official said. “Bush has followed Cheney’s advice for six years, and the story line will be: ‘Will he continue to choose Cheney over his father?’ We’ll know soon.” (The White House and the Pentagon declined to respond to detailed requests for comment about this article, other than to say that there were unspecified inaccuracies.)

A retired four-star general who worked closely with the first Bush Administration told me that the Gates nomination means that Scowcroft, Baker, the elder Bush, and his son “are saying that winning the election in 2008 is more important than the individual. The issue for them is how to preserve the Republican agenda. The Old Guard wants to isolate Cheney and give their girl, Condoleezza Rice”—the Secretary of State—“a chance to perform.” The combination of Scowcroft, Baker, and the senior Bush working together is, the general added, “tough enough to take on Cheney. One guy can’t do it.”

Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term, told me that he believed the Democratic election victory, followed by Rumsfeld’s dismissal, meant that the Administration “has backed off,” in terms of the pace of its planning for a military campaign against Iran. Gates and other decision-makers would now have more time to push for a diplomatic solution in Iran and deal with other, arguably more immediate issues. “Iraq is as bad as it looks, and Afghanistan is worse than it looks,” Armitage said. “A year ago, the Taliban were fighting us in units of eight to twelve, and now they’re sometimes in company-size, and even larger.” Bombing Iran and expecting the Iranian public “to rise up” and overthrow the government, as some in the White House believe, Armitage added, “is a fool’s errand.”

“Iraq is the disaster we have to get rid of, and Iran is the disaster we have to avoid,” Joseph Cirincione, the vice-president for national security at the liberal Center for American Progress, said. “Gates will be in favor of talking to Iran and listening to the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the neoconservatives are still there”—in the White House—“and still believe that chaos would be a small price for getting rid of the threat. The danger is that Gates could be the new Colin Powell—the one who opposes the policy but ends up briefing the Congress and publicly supporting it.”

Other sources close to the Bush family said that the machinations behind Rumsfeld’s resignation and the Gates nomination were complex, and the seeming triumph of the Old Guard may be illusory. The former senior intelligence official, who once worked closely with Gates and with the President’s father, said that Bush and his immediate advisers in the White House understood by mid-October that Rumsfeld would have to resign if the result of the midterm election was a resounding defeat. Rumsfeld was involved in conversations about the timing of his departure with Cheney, Gates, and the President before the election, the former senior intelligence official said. Critics who asked why Rumsfeld wasn’t fired earlier, a move that might have given the Republicans a boost, were missing the point. “A week before the election, the Republicans were saying that a Democratic victory was the seed of American retreat, and now Bush and Cheney are going to change their national-security policies?” the former senior intelligence official said. “Cheney knew this was coming. Dropping Rummy after the election looked like a conciliatory move—‘You’re right, Democrats. We got a new guy and we’re looking at all the options. Nothing is ruled out.’ ” But the conciliatory gesture would not be accompanied by a significant change in policy; instead, the White House saw Gates as someone who would have the credibility to help it stay the course on Iran and Iraq. Gates would also be an asset before Congress. If the Administration needed to make the case that Iran’s weapons program posed an imminent threat, Gates would be a better advocate than someone who had been associated with the flawed intelligence about Iraq. The former official said, “He’s not the guy who told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he’ll be taken seriously by Congress.”

Once Gates is installed at the Pentagon, he will have to contend with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Rumsfeld legacy—and Dick Cheney. A former senior Bush Administration official, who has also worked with Gates, told me that Gates was well aware of the difficulties of his new job. He added that Gates would not simply endorse the Administration’s policies and say, “with a flag waving, ‘Go, go’ ”—especially at the cost of his own reputation. “He does not want to see thirty-five years of government service go out the window,” the former official said. However, on the question of whether Gates would actively stand up to Cheney, the former official said, after a pause, “I don’t know.”

Another critical issue for Gates will be the Pentagon’s expanding effort to conduct clandestine and covert intelligence missions overseas. Such activity has traditionally been the C.I.A.’s responsibility, but, as the result of a systematic push by Rumsfeld, military covert actions have been substantially increased. In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as “part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran.” (The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime’s authority in northern and southeastern Iran.) The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group “equipment and training.” The group has also been given “a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.” (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)

Such activities, if they are considered military rather than intelligence operations, do not require congressional briefings. For a similar C.I.A. operation, the President would, by law, have to issue a formal finding that the mission was necessary, and the Administration would have to brief the senior leadership of the House and the Senate. The lack of such consultation annoyed some Democrats in Congress. This fall, I was told, Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that finances classified military activity, pointedly asked, during a closed meeting of House and Senate members, whether “anyone has been briefing on the Administration’s plan for military activity in Iran.” The answer was no. (A spokesman for Obey confirmed this account.)

The Democratic victories this month led to a surge of calls for the Administration to begin direct talks with Iran, in part to get its help in settling the conflict in Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair broke ranks with President Bush after the election and declared that Iran should be offered “a clear strategic choice” that could include a “new partnership” with the West. But many in the White House and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. “It’s a classic case of ‘failure forward,’” a Pentagon consultant said. “They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq—like doubling your bet. It would be an attempt to revive the concept of spreading democracy in the Middle East by creating one new model state.”

The view that there is a nexus between Iran and Iraq has been endorsed by Condoleezza Rice, who said last month that Iran “does need to understand that it is not going to improve its own situation by stirring instability in Iraq,” and by the President, who said, in August, that “Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold” in Iraq. The government consultant told me, “More and more people see the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq.”

The consultant added that, for some advocates of military action, “the goal in Iran is not regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America still can accomplish its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran’s nuclear network, there are many who think that thirty-six hours of bombing is the only way to remind the Iranians of the very high cost of going forward with the bomb—and of supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and his pro-Iran element in Iraq.” (Sadr, who commands a Shiite militia, has religious ties to Iran.)

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. “Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,” he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.”

The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President’s staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser “believes that, so far, there’s been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq,” the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney’s office “want to end the regime,” the consultant said. “They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran.”

The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)

The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House’s dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re not looking for a smoking gun,” the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. “They’re looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission.” The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.’s analysis. “The D.I.A. is fighting the agency’s conclusions, and disputing its approach,” the former senior intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, “but they can’t stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community.” The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney’s office, had made just such an assumption—that “the lack of evidence means they must have it,” the former official said.

Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, under which it is entitled to conduct nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Despite the offer of trade agreements and the prospect of military action, it defied a demand by the I.A.E.A. and the Security Council, earlier this year, that it stop enriching uranium—a process that can produce material for nuclear power plants as well as for weapons—and it has been unable, or unwilling, to account for traces of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that have been detected during I.A.E.A. inspections. The I.A.E.A. has complained about a lack of “transparency,” although, like the C.I.A., it has not found unambiguous evidence of a secret weapons program.

Last week, Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that Iran had made further progress in its enrichment research program, and said, “We know that some countries may not be pleased.” He insisted that Iran was abiding by international agreements, but said, “Time is now completely on the side of the Iranian people.” A diplomat in Vienna, where the I.A.E.A. has its headquarters, told me that the agency was skeptical of the claim, for technical reasons. But Ahmadinejad’s defiant tone did nothing to diminish suspicions about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There is no evidence of a large-scale covert enrichment program inside Iran,” one involved European diplomat said. “But the Iranians would not have launched themselves into a very dangerous confrontation with the West on the basis of a weapons program that they no longer pursue. Their enrichment program makes sense only in terms of wanting nuclear weapons. It would be inconceivable if they weren’t cheating to some degree. You don’t need a covert program to be concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We have enough information to be concerned without one. It’s not a slam dunk, but it’s close to it.”

There are, however, other possible reasons for Iran’s obstinacy. The nuclear program—peaceful or not—is a source of great national pride, and President Ahmadinejad’s support for it has helped to propel him to enormous popularity. (Saddam Hussein created confusion for years, inside and outside his country, about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, in part to project an image of strength.) According to the former senior intelligence official, the C.I.A.’s assessment suggested that Iran might even see some benefits in a limited military strike—especially one that did not succeed in fully destroying its nuclear program—in that an attack might enhance its position in the Islamic world. “They learned that in the Iraqi experience, and relearned it in southern Lebanon,” the former senior official said. In both cases, a more powerful military force had trouble achieving its military or political goals; in Lebanon, Israel’s war against Hezbollah did not destroy the group’s entire arsenal of rockets, and increased the popularity of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised the possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying point to unite Sunni and Shiite populations. “An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we’ll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us—and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It’s an analyst’s worst nightmare—for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East.” (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over six hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)

According to the Pentagon consultant, “The C.I.A.’s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran’s nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran’s hands—bolstering support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage.”

The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But he added that the Bush Administration’s options for dealing with that threat are diminished, because of a lack of good intelligence and also because “we’ve cried wolf” before.

As the C.I.A.’s assessment was making its way through the government, late this summer, current and former military officers and consultants told me, a new element suddenly emerged: intelligence from Israeli spies operating inside Iran claimed that Iran has developed and tested a trigger device for a nuclear bomb. The provenance and significance of the human intelligence, or HUMINT, are controversial. “The problem is that no one can verify it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “We don’t know who the Israeli source is. The briefing says the Iranians are testing trigger mechanisms”—simulating a zero-yield nuclear explosion without any weapons-grade materials—“but there are no diagrams, no significant facts. Where is the test site? How often have they done it? How big is the warhead—a breadbox or a refrigerator? They don’t have that.” And yet, he said, the report was being used by White House hawks within the Administration to “prove the White House’s theory that the Iranians are on track. And tests leave no radioactive track, which is why we can’t find it.” Still, he said, “The agency is standing its ground.”

The Pentagon consultant, however, told me that he and other intelligence professionals believe that the Israeli intelligence should be taken more seriously. “We live in an era when national technical intelligence”—data from satellites and on-the-ground sensors—“will not get us what we need. HUMINT may not be hard evidence by that standard, but very often it’s the best intelligence we can get.” He added, with obvious exasperation, that within the intelligence community “we’re going to be fighting over the quality of the information for the next year.” One reason for the dispute, he said, was that the White House had asked to see the “raw”—the original, unanalyzed and unvetted—Israeli intelligence. Such “stovepiping” of intelligence had led to faulty conclusions about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction during the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war. “Many Presidents in the past have done the same thing,” the consultant said, “but intelligence professionals are always aghast when Presidents ask for stuff in the raw. They see it as asking a second grader to read ‘Ulysses.’ ”

HUMINT can be difficult to assess. Some of the most politically significant—and most inaccurate—intelligence about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction came from an operative, known as Curveball, who was initially supplied to the C.I.A. by German intelligence. But the Pentagon consultant insisted that, in this case, “the Israeli intelligence is apparently very strong.” He said that the information about the trigger device had been buttressed by another form of highly classified data, known as MASINT, for “measuring and signature” intelligence. The Defense Intelligence Agency is the central processing and dissemination point for such intelligence, which includes radar, radio, nuclear, and electro-optical data. The consultant said that the MASINT indicated activities that “are not consistent with the programs” Iran has declared to the I.A.E.A. “The intelligence suggests far greater sophistication and more advanced development,” the consultant said. “The indications don’t make sense, unless they’re farther along in some aspects of their nuclear-weapons program than we know.”

In early 2004, John Bolton, who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control (he is now the United Nations Ambassador), privately conveyed to the I.A.E.A. suspicions that Iran was conducting research into the intricately timed detonation of conventional explosives needed to trigger a nuclear warhead at Parchin, a sensitive facility twenty miles southeast of Tehran that serves as the center of Iran’s Defense Industries Organization. A wide array of chemical munitions and fuels, as well as advanced antitank and ground-to-air missiles, are manufactured there, and satellite imagery appeared to show a bunker suitable for testing very large explosions.

A senior diplomat in Vienna told me that, in response to the allegations, I.A.E.A. inspectors went to Parchin in November of 2005, after months of negotiation. An inspection team was allowed to single out a specific site at the base, and then was granted access to a few buildings there. “We found no evidence of nuclear materials,” the diplomat said. The inspectors looked hard at an underground explosive-testing pit that, he said, “resembled what South Africa had when it developed its nuclear weapons,” three decades ago. The pit could have been used for the kind of kinetic research needed to test a nuclear trigger. But, like so many military facilities with dual-use potential, “it also could be used for other things,” such as testing fuel for rockets, which routinely takes place at Parchin. “The Iranians have demonstrated that they can enrich uranium,” the diplomat added, “and trigger tests without nuclear yield can be done. But it’s a very sophisticated process—it’s also known as hydrodynamic testing—and only countries with suitably advanced nuclear testing facilities as well as the necessary scientific expertise can do it. I’d be very skeptical that Iran could do it.”

Earlier this month, the allegations about Parchin reëmerged when Yediot Ahronot, Israel’s largest newspaper, reported that recent satellite imagery showed new “massive construction” at Parchin, suggesting an expansion of underground tunnels and chambers. The newspaper sharply criticized the I.A.E.A.’s inspection process and its director, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, for his insistence on “using very neutral wording for his findings and his conclusions.”

Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank, told me that the “biggest moment” of tension has yet to arrive: “How does the United States keep an Israeli decision point—one that may come sooner than we want—from being reached?” Clawson noted that there is evidence that Iran has been slowed by technical problems in the construction and operation of two small centrifuge cascades, which are essential for the pilot production of enriched uranium. Both are now under I.A.E.A. supervision. “Why were they so slow in getting the second cascade up and running?” Clawson asked. “And why haven’t they run the first one as much as they said they would? Do we have more time?

“Why talk about war?” he said. “We’re not talking about going to war with North Korea or Venezuela. It’s not necessarily the case that Iran has started a weapons program, and it’s conceivable—just conceivable—that Iran does not have a nuclear-weapons program yet. We can slow them down—force them to reinvent the wheel—without bombing, especially if the international conditions get better.”

Clawson added that Secretary of State Rice has “staked her reputation on diplomacy, and she will not risk her career without evidence. Her team is saying, ‘What’s the rush?’ The President wants to solve the Iranian issue before leaving office, but he may have to say, ‘Darn, I wish I could have solved it.’ ”

Earlier this year, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert created a task force to coördinate all the available intelligence on Iran. The task force, which is led by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force, reports directly to the Prime Minister. In late October, Olmert appointed Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Party member of the Knesset, to serve as Deputy Defense Minister. Sneh, who served previously in that position under Ehud Barak, has for years insisted that action be taken to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. In an interview this month with the Jerusalem Post, Sneh expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of diplomacy or international sanctions in curbing Iran:

The danger isn’t as much Ahmadinejad’s deciding to launch an attack but Israel’s living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction. . . . Most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with families, and Israelis who can live abroad will . . . I am afraid Ahmadinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That’s why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.

A similar message was delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, in a speech in Los Angeles last week. “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,” he said, adding that there was “still time” to stop the Iranians.

The Pentagon consultant told me that, while there may be pressure from the Israelis, “they won’t do anything on their own without our green light.” That assurance, he said, “comes from the Cheney shop. It’s Cheney himself who is saying, ‘We’re not going to leave you high and dry, but don’t go without us.’ ” A senior European diplomat agreed: “For Israel, it is a question of life or death. The United States does not want to go into Iran, but, if Israel feels more and more cornered, there may be no other choice.”

A nuclear-armed Iran would not only threaten Israel. It could trigger a strategic-arms race throughout the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—all led by Sunni governments—would be compelled to take steps to defend themselves. The Bush Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned that Iran cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that—as Clinton said earlier this year—“we cannot take any option off the table.” Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has also endorsed this view. Last May, Olmert was given a rousing reception when he addressed a joint session of Congress and declared, “A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die—the mass destruction of innocent human life. This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail.”

Despite such rhetoric, Leslie Gelb, a former State Department official who is a president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said he believes that, “when push comes to shove, the Israelis will have a hard time selling the idea that an Iranian nuclear capability is imminent. The military and the State Department will be flat against a preëmptive bombing campaign.” Gelb said he hoped that Gates’s appointment would add weight to America’s most pressing issue—“to get some level of Iranian restraint inside Iraq. In the next year or two, we’re much more likely to be negotiating with Iran than bombing it.”

The Bush Administration remains publicly committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse, and has been working with China, Russia, France, Germany, and Britain to get negotiations under way. So far, that effort has foundered; the most recent round of talks broke up early in November, amid growing disagreements with Russia and China about the necessity of imposing harsh United Nations sanctions on the Iranian regime. President Bush is adamant that Iran must stop all of its enrichment programs before any direct talks involving the United States can begin.

The senior European diplomat told me that the French President, Jacques Chirac, and President Bush met in New York on September 19th, as the new U.N. session was beginning, and agreed on what the French called the “Big Bang” approach to breaking the deadlock with Iran. A scenario was presented to Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian negotiator on nuclear issues. The Western delegation would sit down at a negotiating table with Iran. The diplomat told me, “We would say, ‘We’re beginning the negotiations without preconditions,’ and the Iranians would respond, ‘We will suspend.’ Our side would register great satisfaction, and the Iranians would agree to accept I.A.E.A. inspection of their enrichment facilities. And then the West would announce, in return, that they would suspend any U.N. sanctions.” The United States would not be at the table when the talks began but would join later. Larijani took the offer to Tehran; the answer, as relayed by Larijani, was no, the diplomat said. “We were trying to compromise, for all sides, but Ahmadinejad did not want to save face,” the diplomat said. “The beautiful scenario has gone nowhere.”

Last week, there was a heightened expectation that the Iraq Study Group would produce a set of recommendations that could win bipartisan approval and guide America out of the quagmire in Iraq. Sources with direct knowledge of the panel’s proceedings have told me that the group, as of mid-November, had ruled out calling for an immediate and complete American withdrawal but would recommend focussing on the improved training of Iraqi forces and on redeploying American troops. In the most significant recommendation, Baker and Hamilton were expected to urge President Bush to do what he has thus far refused to do—bring Syria and Iran into a regional conference to help stabilize Iraq.

It is not clear whether the Administration will be receptive. In August, according to the former senior intelligence official, Rumsfeld asked the Joint Chiefs to quietly devise alternative plans for Iraq, to preëmpt new proposals, whether they come from the new Democratic majority or from the Iraq Study Group. “The option of last resort is to move American forces out of the cities and relocate them along the Syrian and Iranian border,” the former official said. “Civilians would be hired to train the Iraqi police, with the eventual goal of separating the local police from the Iraqi military. The White House believes that if American troops stay in Iraq long enough—with enough troops—the bad guys will end up killing each other, and Iraqi citizens, fed up with internal strife, will come up with a solution. It’ll take a long time to move the troops and train the police. It’s a time line to infinity.”

In a subsequent interview, the former senior Bush Administration official said that he had also been told that the Pentagon has been at work on a plan in Iraq that called for a military withdrawal from the major urban areas to a series of fortified bases near the borders. The working assumption was that, with the American troops gone from the most heavily populated places, the sectarian violence would “burn out.” “The White House is saying it’s going to stabilize,” the former senior Administration official said, “but it may stabilize the wrong way.”

One problem with the proposal that the Administration enlist Iran in reaching a settlement of the conflict in Iraq is that it’s not clear that Iran would be interested, especially if the goal is to help the Bush Administration extricate itself from a bad situation.

“Iran is emerging as a dominant power in the Middle East,” I was told by a Middle East expert and former senior Administration official. “With a nuclear program, and an ability to interfere throughout the region, it’s basically calling the shots. Why should they coöperate with us over Iraq?” He recounted a recent meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who challenged Bush’s right to tell Iran that it could not enrich uranium. “Why doesn’t America stop enriching uranium?” the Iranian President asked. He laughed, and added, “We’ll enrich it for you and sell it to you at a fifty-per-cent discount.”

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061127fa_fact

Neverwinter

2ndDecember2006, 18:53

US Could Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites In 2007: Analysts

By AFP

25 November, 2006
Agence France Presse

President George W. Bush could choose military action over diplomacy and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities next year, political analysts in Washington agree.

"I think he is going to do it," John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a military issues think tank, told AFP.

"They are going to bomb WMD facilities next summer," he added, referring to nuclear facilities Iran says are for peaceful uses and Washington insists are really intended to make nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

"It would be a limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities" added the analyst, believing a US military invasion of Iran is not on the table.

US journalist Seymour Hersh also said at the weekend that White House hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney were intent on attacking Iran with or without the approval of the US Congress, both houses of which switch from Republican to Democratic control in January after the November 7 legislative elections.

article in full@: http://www.countercurrents.org/us-afp251106.htm

umberto

2ndDecember2006, 20:03

well, it does not need a great analyst guru to predict that.

Marco Polo

2ndDecember2006, 20:07

just let israel and the arab world kill each other. sell both sides weapons and watch the fireworks.

this whole damn subject is boring now.

Neverwinter

21stDecember2006, 03:12

Iran, Arabs demand UN action over Israeli nuclear arms
Wed Dec 13, 8:57 AM ET

Iran and Arab states have seized on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's statement implying that Israel has nuclear weapons, calling it proof of a regional threat and demanding UN action.

On Monday Olmert appeared to admit -- in breach of the Jewish state's decades-long policy of ambiguity -- that Israel possessed such weapons.

Iran called his comments a confession and demanded action from the United Nations.

"This confession shows the real threat to security and stability in the Middle East, and it shows this regime's evil plans to carry out threats, a terror strategy and continued occupation," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said Wednesday.

"It is extremely necessary to adopt fast and efficient solutions on the UN Security Council and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and other regional organisations to combat these clear threats," he said.

Israel, which Iran does not recognise, is Tehran's arch-foe. It has repeatedly called for UN action over Iran's nuclear programme and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel comments.

The Arab League urged the international community and the Security Council to exert pressure on Israel "to open its nuclear facilities in a transparent manner."

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061213/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelnuclear_061213135737)

Neverwinter

27thDecember2006, 16:38

2006/12/21

In the Name of Almighty God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

Merry Christmas to everyone!

My sincere congratulations to everyone for the Glorious and Auspicious Birthday of Divine Prophet - confirmed and authenticated by Gabriel, the angel of Divine revelation - the Obedient of Almighty God,
Jesus Christ, the Messiah (peace be upon Him)

He was a messenger of peace, devotion and love based upon monotheism and justice. He was raised in His Mother’s hand – Virgin Mary (peace be upon her) – that Almighty God stood her as impeccable and exalted her above the women of the world. The Mother and the Son that in the Divine Sight are reputable and prestigious. And they are positioned by God – The All Wise- at a sublime level.

There’s no doubt, after God – the Peerless Creator, the Beneficent, the Merciful – created the human beings, did not forsake them on their own. By sending and assigning the emissaries – prophets and messengers - along with the righteous individuals, and on top of that, by providing and utilizing the mankind with the gifts of intellect and human nature, they are guided in the right path – in order to achieve the complete perfection. The human generations – one after another – were not created to live in anguish, intimidation, skirmish, aggression, oppression, and misery. And without enjoying an amity and fraternity atmosphere - replete of love and justice – depart this life and leave it for the next generations.

The philosophy of human creation is: reaching the pinnacle of bliss, construction of immaculate life, efflorescence of all potentialities and talents, implementation of justice and devotion across the world amongst all human beings. This is one of the definite Divine promises that when the world is filled with oppression and enmity by the tyrants and oppressors, it will become full of justice by the reappearance of the promised Savior. All the Divine Prophets have clearly anounced this fact.

Unfortunately during the history, some egoistic and tyrant individuals have existed that stood against the convocations and the sermons of the Divine Prophets. And these tyrants and oppressors were the causation of all the adversities and the originator of all wars and animosities.

Today’s status quo of the world is obvious of everyone. In occupied Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and South America and even in Europe and North America, due to the interests of despotic dominant rulers’ parties and clans and also for filling up their pockets, the dignity, benevolence, peace and tranquility of the human beings have been taken to abattoir and slaughtered. And then, lie and deception are positioned for honesty and truth.

Many peoples are exasperated from the present situation of the world. And they have come to the conclusion that the existed procedure, method and technique can not provide tranquilly and peace to the mankind.

Frankly, if Jesus Christ – the Messiah (peace be upon Him) was present today, how would He react? And whom would He stand with and against?

If Jesus Christ (peace be upon Him) was present today, he would order an encounter against those who would propagate corruption, obscenity and perversion, and try to nullify and exterminate the merits and the rights of women and diminish their position – a position that virgin Mary (peace be upon Her) – is their role model and sample.

If Jesus Christ (peace be upon Him) was present today, He would order a contention against those who try to discharge the world from morality, spirituality, intellectuality, justice, and peace. And accordingly, the true followers of the Divine Prophets would follow their steps in regard to strengthening the morality, intellectuality, spirituality, peace and justice in the world.

Although last year was accompanied with many injustices, aggressions, and many violation of rights, but the calls and outcries of begging and imploring from God and demanding justice were louder. Day by day, nations would realize the power of faith and godliness. They would go for peace and justice more than before and give a positive answer to the Divine prophets’ sermons and would tell to their Creator – Almighty God “Here am I!” Praise the Lord!

The same way that Jesus Christ (peace be upon Him) invited the people to goodness and perfection, and also avoid them from evil, atrocity and aggression, His true followers do the same. With the belief in God and the Hereafter, they are frontiers in righteousness.

Certainly, the implementation of the Divine Prophets’ commands and directions would reform and improve our lives in this world and would safeguard a satisfying afterlife conjunctionally.

We believe that the beloved Jesus Christ – the Messiah (peace be upon Him and His Mother) would also reappear for the fulfillment of the promises of all the Divine prophets. And together – accompanying the invited of the nations – would bring all the beauties and goodness for humanity of the world. And we are getting close to that date.

While commemorating the birthday of the Prophet of amity, love and devotion – Jesus Christ, the Messiah (peace be upon Him and His beloved Mother) and congratulating the new year, I beg God – the Merciful, the All-Wise – a year of bliss, and health and a year replete of blessing, abundance, success, and affection for everyone, specially the Christian of Iran and the world

Source (http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/en/merry-christmas-to-everyone/)

Marco Polo

27thDecember2006, 20:06

religion is false. reject all 3 abrahamic lunatic religions.

Neverwinter

4thJanuary2007, 05:03

Are Israelis gearing up to bomb Iran?

The appointment of Israel’s new deputy PM raises fears of a new catastrophe, says robert fox

The Middle East is abuzz with ugly rumours. One of them is so dire - and comes from sources in so many capital cities - that it has to be taken seriously.

The suggestion is that the Israeli government has served notice on the White House that it must take pre-emptive action against Iran's sites of nuclear weapons development - or Israel will go it alone and do the job itself. Israel has apparently given Bush a deadline of six months.

The pressure on the Americans - if it is true - comes with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman, one of the hardest of all hard-liners, as Israel's new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, under the new coalition with his party, Yisrael Beytenu.

One reason why the rumour is being taken seriously is that it coincides with another strong rumour - that the Iranian regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad has ordered Iran's nuclear programme to be accelerated. According to sources, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade material is galloping ahead, and Iran could have its own deployable nuclear warheads within four years.

Given Ahmadinejad's wild rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map (though the translation of these remarks is now acknowledged to be somewhat fuzzy), Israel's hawks argue there is no time to lose. Former Prime Minister, and Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, for whom Lieberman once worked as chief of staff, has argued strenuously for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Lieberman, more hawkish than many hawks, was born in Moldova in 1958 and now leads a powerful group of Israeli immigrants from Russia and the former Soviet Union. He criticised Ariel Sharon when, during negotiations with the Palestinians, he ordered some settlements to close. He outraged moderate Jewish Israeli opinion this summer when he suggested that Arab Israelis elected to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, should be executed if they had held talks with Hamas members of the Palestinian authority.

Even the New York Times, known for its strong support for Israel, warned in an editorial a week ago that Lieberman was "the wrong partner" in an Israeli coalition. His inclusion, the paper argued, made any arrangement with the Palestinians difficult, if not impossible. "Creating new obstacles to peace with the Palestinians is the last thing Israel needs after the Lebanon fiasco."

Strategic analysts have noticed anti-Iran noises coming from the beleaguered White House, too. "It's the same sort of language we heard in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq," one Washington insider told me. A London correspondent favoured by the Bush-Blair circle said, "It's clear that Bush will not dream of leaving office under the suspicion that he allowed Iran to get nuclear weapons on his watch. He will act, and will feel uninhibited after the mid-term elections."

The practicalities of bombing Iran's nuclear installations are quite another thing, according to serious analysts. Israel lacks the capability to hit in one blow all the places where weaponry is being developed; planes would need mid-air refuelling that only the Americans could provide; and some centres of nuclear energy production - Bushir, Natanz and Tehran itself - are heavily populated. Civilian casualties would be high.

There is an even more compelling reason why realists like General John Abizaid, US commander for the region, and former Secretary of State James Baker are counselling the hawks in Israel as well as Washington to cool it.

Not only would a pre-emptive strike on Iran miss more than it hit - it would invite immediate and devastating retaliation. The Revolutionary Guards could launch a global terrorist campaign and the Iranian Air Force could bomb the offshore gas installations stretching along the Gulf from Qatar. That would knock out 15 per cent of the world's natural gas supply at a stroke.
FIRST POSTED NOVEMBER 1, 2006

Source
(http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1061)

Neverwinter

4thJanuary2007, 17:11

Person of the Year: Ahmadinejad
by Pat Buchanan
December 19, 2006 12:14 AM EST

Since 1927, the year Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in his single-engine Spirit of St. Louis, Time has devoted its final cover of the year to the Man of the Year. The Lone Eagle was first.

In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR was the Man of the Year three times. Stalin, Truman and Churchill made it twice, though the selection of Churchill in 1949 seems dubious, as he had been out of power four years, while Mao was seizing China by the throat in the bloodiest revolution of the century.

Hitler was chosen in the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938. Gen. Marshall made it twice, as did Ike, in 1944 as victor of Normandy and, 15 years later, as president.

In the 1960s and 1970s, JFK made it once, LBJ and Nixon twice. Nixon's 1972 designation was shared with Henry Kissinger. In 1979, the dark and brooding face gracing Time's cover was that of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.

And Time got it right. For Time's Man of the Year, now Person of the Year, is the figure who, for good or evil, dominates the news. Yet this year Time could not bring itself to name the obvious choice. Instead, it chose you and me, all of us citizens of the digital democracy who create on the Worldwide Web. Why the copout?

Perhaps it was Ahmadinejad's hosting of a conference of Holocaust skeptics, including David Duke, that caused Time to recoil. Perhaps it was fear that the face of the Iranian president on the cover of Time would repel the American people and be death for sales.

Surely that was the reasoning behind Time's refusal to name Osama bin Laden in 2001, choosing Rudy Giuliani instead, though history is unlikely to conclude that Rudy, his crowded hour notwithstanding, was the central figure of that annus horribilis.

Richard Stengel, editor of Time, as much as concedes he could not bring himself to choose by the traditional standard, if that meant choosing Ahmadinejad: "It just felt to me a little off selecting him."

Understandably. But the refusal to select Ahmadinejad reveals an unwillingness to confront hard truths. For putting his face on Time's cover would have done a useful service, jolting America to a painful realization. Not only George Bush, but the United States, its Arab allies and Israel, had a dreadful year, as Iran emerged as first beneficiary of a war fought by this country at a cost of 25,000 dead and wounded.

What the choice of Ahmadinejad would have said is that Iran is in the ascendancy in the Middle East and it is not inconceivable that the United States is headed for defeat, not only in Iraq but Afghanistan.

The Taliban have come back. The Pakistanis have ceded them sanctuary. Some NATO nations are refusing to risk troops in combat. And it has been some time since guerrillas who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary in that part of the world failed to expel European soldiers perceived as imperial occupiers.

Islamists control Somalia. Anti-Americanism is rampant in Lebanon -- after Condi Rice blocked a U.N. ceasefire resolution to stop Israel's bombing last summer in what was supposed to be a campaign to clear Hezbollah from her northern border. The Beirut government could fall at any moment or be forced into a coalition with Hezbollah.

Even Bush's defense secretary concedes we are not winning in Iraq. It may take a "surge" of 20,000 to 40,000 troops to stave off defeat before the end of Bush's term. On the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas and Fatah appear on the brink of civil war. The elections Bush demanded produced dramatic gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

Eighteen months ago, Ahmadinejad was the unknown mayor of Tehran. Today, he is the visible face of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, both a cause of and the personification of our failures. He has defied Bush's demand that he give up the enrichment of uranium, split the Security Council, mocked the Holocaust, called for the end of the Zionist state and the expulsion of America from the Mideast, terrified the Sunni monarchs, and united the Arab and Islamic masses behind his defiance.

His trip to the United Nations, where he ran circles around U.S. journalists, was a diplomatic triumph. And he has done it all not with military power -- Iran would not last a week in an all-out war with the United States and has no defense against Israel's nuclear weapons -- but with theatrics and rhetoric.

He inspires all who hate Israel and Bush's America. And, according to the Zogby polling today, that is a majority which, in some once-friendly nations, is approaching near unanimity.

Ahmadinejad, a man of words without real power, is the big winner of 2006, because Bush, America and Israel were the big losers.

Why do a billion Muslims prefer Ahmadinejad to America? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

Source (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/21262.html)

Neverwinter

4thJanuary2007, 17:17

The President's Challenge
By Sara Daniel
Le Nouvel Observateur

Week of Thursday 21 December 2006

More than 20,000 Jews still live in Iran. In spite of Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic provocations, his aggressive rhetoric has not yet convinced Iranian Jews to leave the country.

Is Ahmadinejad a new Hitler? The soapbox he has just offered all the planet's revisionists during his "Holocaust Conference" makes the task of those researchers and intellectuals who care about exactitude and about calming things down, who create a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, ever more difficult. Only Bruno Tertrais, of the Fondation pour la Recherche stratégique [Foundation for Strategic Research] still gives it a shot, when he deems this conference "a rather clever strategy to delegitimize Israel's existence - one that claims to be radically anti-Zionist, but does not want to be stamped as viscerally anti-Semitic."

What is Ahmadinejad looking for in his repeated anti-Semitic provocations? Does Iran's Supreme Guide, Ali Khamenei, subscribe to this escalation that scandalizes the international community? As always in Iran, given the extreme opacity of the system, the question elicits various different hypotheses, each of which contain a share of the truth.

According to Bruno Tertrais, the Iranian president's first objective is to distract the Iranian population's attention away from domestic issues; to maintain it in a state of conflict, to court its nationalism so that it buttresses an increasingly unpopular regime. He also does it to make the population forget the economic doldrums and unemployment that obtain in Iran, now that supposedly populist measures, such as the payments given to young married couples, no longer appease Iranians' resentment. Ahmadinejad is also trying to increase his own prestige and popularity in Sunni countries, now that these are on the decline domestically, as the results of the municipal elections have just demonstrated.

Finally, in a country where power is atomized among several institutions, also at issue is the need to eclipse his rivals, such as the ex-president of the republic Ayatollah Rafsanjani - the great victor in the recent municipal elections - whom Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei sometimes appears to prefer to President Ahmadinejad. At the Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry, they are proud of this aggressive rhetoric with respect to Israel: First of all, because they can hardly believe in any military sanction from the Americans, bogged down as they are in the Iraqi quagmire; then, because senior ministry officials consider the media uproar provoked by the conference as an additional demonstration of Iran's power in the world.

Another explanation advanced for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attitude: his totalitarian mysticism could be linked to his obsession for the Mahdi, the hidden imam - central to Shi'ite piety - who will return to save the world at the end of days. Farhad Khosrokhavar, a researcher at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences sociales [School for Advanced Social Sciences Studies] recalls that when Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran in 2004, he prodded the City Council to build a great avenue as preparation for the Mahdi's advent. One year later, as president, he devoted $17 million to the erection of a blue mosaic mosque in Jamkaran. The Mahdi is supposed to appear in the well of this mosque on his return. "This type of mentality makes you very strong," explains Amir Mohebian, a political journalist from the daily paper Resalat. "If I believe the Mahdi is going to arrive three or four years from now, why would I be cautious? On the contrary, it's the time to show oneself as strong, pure, and hard."

Yet, paradoxically, Iran is perhaps the least anti-Semitic country in the Middle East. In any case, it's the country that, after Israel, shelters the largest Jewish community: 20,000 to 24,000 people. Close to 10,000 Jews live in Tehran, where the Talmudic schools accommodate 2,000 students, while the Jewish Association manages hospitals and owns several buildings. To hear them tell it, Tehran's Jews are no worse off than other Iranians, and certainly not worse-off than members of other minorities - notably the Kurds, who are the regime's bête noire. On the evenings of religious holidays, the great synagogue of Yossefabad, guarded by a single policeman, is full to bursting.

Certain professions are forbidden to Jews, who are at the mercy of accusations of espionage like the one that targeted thirteen inhabitants of Shiraz in April 2000. But the Jewish deputy to the Iranian Parliament, Maurice Motamed, has met Ahmadinejad on several occasions. The president promised him he would allocate the subsidy intended for minorities to his community! In Tehran's bazaar, many Jews attend to their businesses, visibly well-integrated, while their Muslim partners speak out against the "Arabs," who, in Iran, are often considered responsible for all evils.

Of course, like all uncommon groups, the Jews are at the mercy of the mullahs, who may, according to the issue, offer the Jews' status as an example to foreigners or strike out at them toughly. In spite of this risk, many Iranian Jews - patriotic and attached to their country - are reluctant to leave for Israel, where the situation seems just as uncertain to them as that in Iran.

Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.

Source (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122606G.shtml)

IMPERIUM

4thJanuary2007, 17:34

A US subservient foreign policy dictated by Israel's needs:
has given us (Whites) another Vietnam, another defeat.
The whole Muslim world now hates us - and all because of those Rodents.

Bush seems to have discarded Baker's advice.
He is sending 40,000 more cannon fodder into Iraq.
The stupidest president in USA history - and a vile murderer.

The world is heading for a Coming Cataclysmic Crises.
Events will precipitate and Men, real Leaders, will step forward.
All the wailings and bleatings and hypocrisy will come to nought - the sword shall speak!

http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7222&highlight=coming+cataclysmic+crises

Imperium
0701

Marco Polo

4thJanuary2007, 17:47

Buchanan for President!

He may be a little too religious for my liking but he knows his game.

Person of the Year: Ahmadinejad
by Pat Buchanan
December 19, 2006 12:14 AM EST

Since 1927, the year Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in his single-engine Spirit of St. Louis, Time has devoted its final cover of the year to the Man of the Year. The Lone Eagle was first.

In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR was the Man of the Year three times. Stalin, Truman and Churchill made it twice, though the selection of Churchill in 1949 seems dubious, as he had been out of power four years, while Mao was seizing China by the throat in the bloodiest revolution of the century.

Hitler was chosen in the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938. Gen. Marshall made it twice, as did Ike, in 1944 as victor of Normandy and, 15 years later, as president.

In the 1960s and 1970s, JFK made it once, LBJ and Nixon twice. Nixon's 1972 designation was shared with Henry Kissinger. In 1979, the dark and brooding face gracing Time's cover was that of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.

And Time got it right. For Time's Man of the Year, now Person of the Year, is the figure who, for good or evil, dominates the news. Yet this year Time could not bring itself to name the obvious choice. Instead, it chose you and me, all of us citizens of the digital democracy who create on the Worldwide Web. Why the copout?

Perhaps it was Ahmadinejad's hosting of a conference of Holocaust skeptics, including David Duke, that caused Time to recoil. Perhaps it was fear that the face of the Iranian president on the cover of Time would repel the American people and be death for sales.

Surely that was the reasoning behind Time's refusal to name Osama bin Laden in 2001, choosing Rudy Giuliani instead, though history is unlikely to conclude that Rudy, his crowded hour notwithstanding, was the central figure of that annus horribilis.

Richard Stengel, editor of Time, as much as concedes he could not bring himself to choose by the traditional standard, if that meant choosing Ahmadinejad: "It just felt to me a little off selecting him."

Understandably. But the refusal to select Ahmadinejad reveals an unwillingness to confront hard truths. For putting his face on Time's cover would have done a useful service, jolting America to a painful realization. Not only George Bush, but the United States, its Arab allies and Israel, had a dreadful year, as Iran emerged as first beneficiary of a war fought by this country at a cost of 25,000 dead and wounded.

What the choice of Ahmadinejad would have said is that Iran is in the ascendancy in the Middle East and it is not inconceivable that the United States is headed for defeat, not only in Iraq but Afghanistan.

The Taliban have come back. The Pakistanis have ceded them sanctuary. Some NATO nations are refusing to risk troops in combat. And it has been some time since guerrillas who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary in that part of the world failed to expel European soldiers perceived as imperial occupiers.

Islamists control Somalia. Anti-Americanism is rampant in Lebanon -- after Condi Rice blocked a U.N. ceasefire resolution to stop Israel's bombing last summer in what was supposed to be a campaign to clear Hezbollah from her northern border. The Beirut government could fall at any moment or be forced into a coalition with Hezbollah.

Even Bush's defense secretary concedes we are not winning in Iraq. It may take a "surge" of 20,000 to 40,000 troops to stave off defeat before the end of Bush's term. On the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas and Fatah appear on the brink of civil war. The elections Bush demanded produced dramatic gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

Eighteen months ago, Ahmadinejad was the unknown mayor of Tehran. Today, he is the visible face of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, both a cause of and the personification of our failures. He has defied Bush's demand that he give up the enrichment of uranium, split the Security Council, mocked the Holocaust, called for the end of the Zionist state and the expulsion of America from the Mideast, terrified the Sunni monarchs, and united the Arab and Islamic masses behind his defiance.

His trip to the United Nations, where he ran circles around U.S. journalists, was a diplomatic triumph. And he has done it all not with military power -- Iran would not last a week in an all-out war with the United States and has no defense against Israel's nuclear weapons -- but with theatrics and rhetoric.

He inspires all who hate Israel and Bush's America. And, according to the Zogby polling today, that is a majority which, in some once-friendly nations, is approaching near unanimity.

Ahmadinejad, a man of words without real power, is the big winner of 2006, because Bush, America and Israel were the big losers.

Why do a billion Muslims prefer Ahmadinejad to America? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

Source (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/21262.html)

Ulfur Engil

4thJanuary2007, 21:36

Bush's affinity for Israel is completely dominating his decision-making when it comes to Iran (and, all of the Middle East, for that matter).

He is a traitor on multiple levels.

Neverwinter

9thJanuary2007, 16:00

Scott Ritter says Israel is Pushing USA to War in Book
Nathan Guttman | Fri. Dec 29, 2006

A former United Nations weapons inspector and leading Iraq War opponent has written a new book alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage.”

n the new book, called “Target Iran,” Scott Ritter, who served as a senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and later became one of the war’s staunchest critics, argues that the United States is readying for military action against Iran, using its nuclear program as a pretext for pursuing regime change in Tehran.

“The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby, has succeeded,” Ritter writes, “in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran.”

Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”

Source (http://www.forward.com/articles/book-israel-lobby-pushing-iran-war/)

FVROR TEVTONICVS

11thJanuary2007, 03:26

This might be a little off topic, but since the subject is Iran, I would like to share a link to a new Iranian forum: Iranian Aryan National Front (http://ianf.hyperboards.com/index.php) Excellent forum. I encourage all of you to check it out.

Eurodip

11thJanuary2007, 03:47

Evening chaps, I don't know if any of you are watching Bush's speech live, but damn if he isn't he one confused Texan. At least the Democratic reaction was swift and firm, and I'm not too sure his proposals will get through Congress.

Marco Polo

11thJanuary2007, 08:19

at 4 am? sure, i love watching bush, stopped up especially :rolleyes:

Eurodip

11thJanuary2007, 16:58

at 4 am? sure, i love watching bush, stopped up especially :rolleyes:

I love a good comedy, even at 4 a.m. :)

Neverwinter

12thJanuary2007, 02:44

US Iraq raid draws Iranian anger
Thursday, 11 January 2007

One Iranian news agency with a correspondent in Irbil says five US helicopters were used to land troops on the roof of the Iranian consulate.

It reports that a number of vehicles cordoned off the streets around the building, while US soldiers warned the occupants in three different languages that they should surrender or be killed.

In December, US troops detained a number of Iranians in Iraq, including two with diplomatic immunity who were later released.

Thursday's raid came as US President George W Bush unveiled his new strategy in Iraq, which included increasing troop numbers and a commitment to stop Iranian support for "our enemies in Iraq".

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the raid could signal a ratcheting-up of pressure on the Iranians, in line with the rhetorical thrust of his speech.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm)

Neverwinter

12thJanuary2007, 02:50

Source (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21046772-601,00.html)
US raids Iran consulate after Bush warning
Correspondents in Washington
January 12, 2007

US troops raided Iran's consulate in northern Iraq yesterday, arresting five staff, hours after US President George W. Bush vowed to cut off Iranian and Syrian support to "terrorists" in Iraq.
Outlining his new strategy for Iraq, Mr Bush accused Iran and Syria of supporting elements intent on attacking US troops in the war-torn, country and left open the way for US attacks on the two countries.

His threat appeared to have been carried out with the raid on Iran's consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil.

"In this attack, five of the consulate staff have been arrested by the American troops. They have also taken some documents and properties," the Iranian newsagency Fars quoted an official as saying.

"In the US occupiers' attack on Iran's general consulate in Arbil, the raiders have broken the gate of the office."

The US military said its forces made six arrests in Arbil, but did not confirm if any were Iranians.

During his address, the President took the blame for strategic blunders. "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me," Mr Bush said. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

In a rare admission of failure, Mr Bush pointed to the past efforts to secure Baghdad, and said not enough US and Iraqi troops had been deployed.

He said the Iraqi Government had placed politically driven restrictions on who could be targeted and how. Under the new plan, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged to reinforce Baghdad security with up to 12,000 Iraqi troops and made clear that rogue armed groups in the city would be targeted.

"Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure it addressed these mistakes," Mr Bush said in a national address aimed at selling his new strategy for the war. "They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work."

But success in Iraq was linked with success in stabilising the broader region, he said, adding: "This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq.

"Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks onour forces. We will interrupt theflow of support from Iran andSyria.

"And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Mr Bush said he had ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group and Patriot anti-missile systems in the Middle East to beef up security in the region and "reassure our friends andallies".

The US has rapidly upgraded the capability of the Patriot systems, which provide air andmissile defence, following theirrelative lack of success in the first Gulf War.

Washington is now trying to sell the weapon to several Middle East nations increasingly worried about their security.

Citing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States, Mr Bush said they needed to understand that a US defeat in Iraq would "create a new sanctuary for extremists - and a strategic threat to their ownsurvival".

"These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbours, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity Government," Mr Bush said.

"From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children.

"And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists - or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?"

Mr Bush said the US would work with other countries to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region, and would help the Turkish and Iraqi governments to resolve their border problems.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will leave for the Middle East today to build support for the Iraq plan, and continue "the urgent diplomacy" required to help bring peace to the region, Mr Bush said. "The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict.

"It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time," he said.

Agencies

Neverwinter

12thJanuary2007, 02:56

U.S. forces raid Iranian consulate in Iraq - Tehran
11 Jan 2007 12:46:06 GMT
Source (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IBO138807.htm): Reuters
By Shamal Aqrawi

ARBIL, Iraq, Jan 11 (Reuters) - U.S. forces stormed an Iranian consular office in the northern Iraqi Kurdish city of Arbil early on Thursday and arrested five people, including diplomats and staff, Iranian officials said.

The U.S. military made no direct mention of Iranians but in answer to a query issued a statement saying six "individuals" were arrested during "routine" operations in the area.

As the overnight raid was in progress, President George W. Bush was vowing in a keynote address on American television to disrupt what he called the "flow of support" from Iran and Syria for insurgent attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini condemned the raid -- the second such operation in the past month as tensions between Washington and Tehran have mounted -- and said it was a violation of international law.

"The activity of all those people at our office in Arbil was legal and was in cooperation with and had the approval of the Iraqi side," Hosseini told Iran's state-owned Arabic language satellite channel Al-Alam.

"There is no justification for this behaviour of the Americans, particularly because Iraqi officials were not informed about this move."

In a statement, the U.S. military said it had detained six people around Arbil on suspicion of being "closely tied to activities targeting Iraqi and coalition forces".

"This operation was part of an ongoing effort by coalition forces targeting individuals involved in activities aimed at the killing of Iraqi citizens and Coalition forces," it said, adding the suspects surrendered without incident.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while not commenting on the operation in Arbil, told Fox News:

"The president made very clear last night that we know that Iran is engaged in activities that are endangering our troops, activities that are destabilising the young Iraqi government and that we're going to pursue those who may be involved in those activities."

TEHRAN DENIES MEDDLING

Witnesses in Arbil, the capital of the autonomous northern region of Kurdistan bordering Iran, said Kurdish security forces sealed off the area after the Americans left. The Kurdish regional government made no immediate comment.

The official Iranian IRNA news agency said documents and computers were seized after the 5 a.m. (0200 GMT) raid and Iranian state television said the arrested included "diplomats and staff".

U.S. officials have repeatedly accused non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran of interfering in Iraq, where the long-oppressed Shi'ite majority is now in power. Tehran denies U.S. charges of supplying Shi'ite militias with weapons.

In December, U.S. forces in Baghdad arrested a number of Iranians they said were suspected of planning attacks on Iraqi security forces, including diplomats who were later turned over to Iraqi authorities.

A British official told the BBC this month that the Iranians arrested in Baghdad were senior intelligence officers on a covert mission to influence the Iraqi government.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, whose boss Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki travelled last year to Tehran as part of a series of high-level contacts that have sealed a warming of relations between former enemies Iraq and Iran, said Baghdad had demanded an explanation from Iran and Washington on the matter. (Additional reporting by Edmund Blair)

Gladiator

12thJanuary2007, 02:57

Desparte deeds by drawning men!:(

Neverwinter

12thJanuary2007, 04:30

Source (http://www.davidduke.com/general/pointing-out-the-israeli-push-for-war-against-iran-its-not-just-david-duke-any-more_1665.html)
11 January 2007
Pointing out the Israeli Push for War against Iran, “It’s not just David Duke any more”

Those saying Israel is the one pushing America to war against Iran, ADL chief says “It’s Not Just David Duke Anymore”
Gen. Clark’s Controversy
Presidential contender’s comments about Israel lobby lead to fears that ‘conspiracy theories’ are going mainstream.

Here is an excerpt from an article on January 12, 2007 from the largest Jewish publication in America, The Jewish Week. It concerns Gen. Wesley Clark’s comments about Jewish money pushing the politicians into a war against Iran, a war that would be catastrophically damaging to the true interests of America. Once again, it shows how Dr. David Duke has been in the lead on this critical issue facing America

…On Tuesday Clark, responding to an angry call from Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman, issued a statement expressing his opposition to “conspiracy theories” about the war in Iraq.

Still, the controversy was already providing fresh ammunition for Jewish Republicans —and worrying Jewish leaders who fear that the war in Iraq and the confrontation with Iran are resulting in the spread of conspiracy theories about Jewish influence beyond a radical fringe.

In her online column last week, blogger Arianna Huffington reported on an encounter with Clark at a brunch preceding the swearing in of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as House speaker.

Clark, she reported, was “really angry” about a column suggesting that former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “leading the charge” in lobbying for U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007.

Clark, who advocates negotiations with Iran, expressed concern about what he believes is an administration plan to take military action against that country’s nuclear facilities.

When asked how he knew the administration was planning an attack, he said this: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

That set off alarms in Jewish groups across the country.

Foxman, after a conversation with Clark this week, said the retired general “didn’t deny that he said it, but said it wasn’t what he meant.”

The ADL leader told Clark that he had “bought into conspiratorial bigotry” that increasingly sees Israel, Jews and American Jewish organizations as the driving force behind U.S. involvement in Iraq and Iran.

Foxman said Clark’s comments are particularly worrisome because of the context, coming in the wake of charges by former President Jimmy Carter that Jewish groups are stifling debate over U.S. Mideast policy and a book by former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who accused Israel of pushing for war with Iran.

And they come as the critique of the pro-Israel lobby by two respected foreign policy scholars, who claim that the lobby pressed for war with Iraq, gains traction in academic circles.

“While we know [Clark] is a good friend of Israel and is not an anti-Semite, he still engaged in inappropriate language by talking about how Israel and Jewish money will move this country to war on Iran,” Foxman said. “At a time when Jews are being accused of bringing about the war in Iraq, that’s very disturbing. We know this is not the real Clark — but he said it. We’re worried because these ideas seem to be moving into the mainstream. It’s not just David Duke anymore…”

Also there is this quote from Har’ retz Newspaper in Israel:

Zev Chafets, my last week’s dialog partner, wrote about Clark for the L.A. Times that his words represent “a variation on the increasingly brazen charge that disloyal neocon Jews tricked the U.S. into Iraq on orders from Jerusalem - a theory propounded not only by Arab propagandists and academic Zionist-lobby-spotters such as professor Stephen Walt of Harvard, professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and David Duke of the Ukrainian Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, but by many “progressive” Democrats and Buchananite Republicans.”

Marco Polo

12thJanuary2007, 11:29

look at the piggies scream when they are exposed.

Eurodip

12thJanuary2007, 22:38

Har! Har! Two of the three Eyeracky brigades being sent to Baghdad are Kurdish. Now isn't that a stroke of tactical genius. Why would the Kurds want to destroy the last remnants of Sunni power so that the Shias can wipe them out and take over the oilfields of Karbala? God damn it, this war will go down in history as the Compleat Manual of Military Blunders.

Eurodip

12thJanuary2007, 23:01

Fortunately,the Maltese prime minister was spared as he was holidaying in Tel Aviv with Ehud Gol and his chutzpah.

.........where am I going with this?:confused::D
Did you know that Joe Mifsud spent his honeymoon in the West Bank and Gaza strip? Seriously.

P.S. There you go:

Sami al-Askari, an adviser to Maliki, said two brigades from northern Iraq, comprising mostly Kurdish soldiers, and one from the mainly Shi'ite south, would be sent to Baghdad to help implement the plan. Iraqi brigades number around 1,200 soldiers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070107/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Neverwinter

14thJanuary2007, 21:46

Source (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2145136.ece)
Bush's tough tactics are a 'declaration of war' on Iran
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 12 January 2007

American forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq, hours after President George Bush issued a warning to Tehran that was described as a "declaration of war".

The soldiers detained six people, including diplomats, according to the Iranians, and seized documents and computers in the pre-dawn raid which was condemned by Iran. A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the incident was an "extreme provocation". Dr Ansari said that Mr Bush's speech on future Iraq strategy amounted to "a declaration of war" on Iran.

"The risk is a wider war. Because of the underlying tensions, we are transferring from a 'cold war' into a 'hot war'," he said.

In his speech, the President accused Iran and Syria of providing material support for attacks on US troops, and vowed to stop the "flow of support" from across the border. "We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he said.

Dr Ansari argued that the Bush administration had decided to confront Iran at a time when public opinion has been focused on the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. "There's been a shift of emphasis without anyone noticing," he said.

"Moderate" Sunni Arab states who feel threatened by the rise of Shia Iran, thanks to its influence in Iraq and its refusal to curb its nuclear programme, could be expected to back the Bush approach, he said. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is due to visit Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia this week.

Until now, the Bush administration had been content to deal with the perceived Iranian threat diplomatically. The United Nations adopted sanctions against Tehran on 23 December. However, the economic measures adopted by the UN have failed to convince Iran to halt its uranium-enrichment programme which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The US is calling on allied states to adopt tougher unilateral sanctions.

President Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon to replace General John Abizaid as head of Central Command for Iraq and Afghanistan last week in a sign that change could be afoot. This week, Mr Bush ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, along with its support ships, which could be used to contain Iran.

The US Treasury named Iran's Bank Sepah as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction on Tuesday, banned US companies or citizens from doing business with it and blocked any of its assets that come under American jurisdiction.

But if the US is preparing to confront Iran militarily - which some top military officials in Israel are reportedly recommending - the Bush administration will find itself involved in conflicts on four fronts.

In Somalia, US special forces have been pounding suspected al-Qa'ida suspects since early on Monday, in a continuing operation that risks pulling the Americans back into a conflict in a failed state. US forces are also active in southern Afghanistan in the hunt for the al-Qa'ida leader, Osama bin Laden, and his top associates. Al-Qa'ida has reactivated its Taliban allies who have become bolder in their attacks on coalition forces.

In Iraq, US troops are losing soldiers on an almost daily basis to the bombs of Sunni and Shia insurgents. The Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was warned by Ms Rice yesterday that his days were numbered unless he was able to take on Shia militias who are his allies in government.

Ms Rice followed up President Bush's tough words on Iran by saying: "The President made very clear last night that we know Iran is engaged in activities endangering our troops... and that we're going to pursue those who may be involved in those activities."

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, protested against the raid by US forces in Arbil, saying on Iranian state-run radio that it targeted a "diplomatic mission" since the "presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil was legal".

Ironically, Iran had been contained by Saddam Hussein, until his overthrow by the Americans in 2003. Obsessed by a threat from "Persian hordes", Saddam maintained ambiguity about his weapons of mass destruction so Iran would believe that it had reason to fear its western neighbour. So have the Americans made a strategic mistake by refusing to engage with Iran? "There's no doubt that nothing good will come of this," said Dr Ansari.

Marco Polo

17thJanuary2007, 00:57

why are british going there?

more votes for BNP!

when are americans going to get their act together party wise?

etoile noir

17thJanuary2007, 09:56

i dont believe any of this. i dont believe america can afford this bullshit and besides, israel has the capabilities to strike iran on its own - without american assistance.

will it? probably. but iran also has the capabilities to strike back. they also have their nuclear capabilities well protected and out of reach. at 200 feet below ground no one can touch them really. so their weapons are safe. the only thing that can touch iran's weapons is an earthshake, or a man made one .....

Marco Polo

17thJanuary2007, 10:12

Eurodip

17thJanuary2007, 11:00

re. my earlier post about 3 Iraqi brigades being sent to Baghdad, two of them being Kurdish, there are some updates, and boy, this just keeps getting better and better. It appears that the Iraqis have only been able to scrape three battalions, not three brigades. Have a look at this:
----------------
Only the 1st Battalion of the brigade was heading to Baghdad because two others are needed to protect oil facilities near the northern oil-rich city of Kirkuk, Golani said. He added that they have started setting up a 4th Battalion after a request from the defense ministry.
Golani said many of his soldiers were formerly part of Kurdish militias known as peshmergas that fought Saddam Hussein's regime for decades, making them experienced fighters. He said they had been integrated into the Iraqi army.
"We did benefit a lot from our previous experience," Golani said. "We have experience in how to repulse attacks."
Most of the troops are Kurds and don't speak Arabic, but they were able to overcome that problem in Balad and Duluiyah by enlisting Arab members and drivers to help with translation.
One of the soldiers, Heman Ahmed, said his mother asked him to leave the army rather than go to Baghdad but he refused, noting that many of his friends were going and he couldn't desert them.
"I myself would prefer to serve in Kurdistan because I have experience here and know the region," he said, wearing a beige military uniform, sunglasses and a Kurdish turban. "I am worried about going to Baghdad, but in the end we are soldiers and we have to abide by orders."
Golani acknowledged that some soldiers had expressed reservations about going to an unfamiliar area, but he said the mission was an important one.
"Our aim is to stop the bloodshed between the Sunnis and Shiites in addition to protecting civilians who are suffering as a result of that," he said.

---------------

Kurds in Baghdad....whose bright idea was it?

Marco Polo

17thJanuary2007, 12:22

i think our idea of victory and the war teams idea are 2 different things. i think they desire a broken iraq. no one is this stupid.

Marco Polo

17thJanuary2007, 12:23

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1990498,00.html

Comment
Next target Tehran

All the signs are that Bush is planning for a neocon-inspired military assault on Iran

Dan Plesch
Monday January 15, 2007
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

The evidence is building up that President Bush plans to add war on Iran to his triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan - and there is every sign, to judge by his extraordinary warmongering speech in Plymouth on Friday, that Tony Blair would be keen to join him if he were still in a position to commit British forces to the field."There's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue - in the country and the world - in a very acute way," said NBC TV's Tim Russert after meeting the president. This is borne out by the fact that Bush has sent forces to the Gulf that are irrelevant to fighting the Iraqi insurgents. These include Patriot anti-missile missiles, an aircraft carrier, and cruise-missile-firing ships.

Many military analysts see these deployments as signals of impending war with Iran. The Patriot missiles are intended to shoot down Iranian missiles. The naval forces, including British ships, train to pre-empt Iranian interference with oil shipments through the straits of Hormuz.
Having been given so much advice on what to do in Iraq - most notably by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group - the president went with the recommendations of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). So much for the idea that the Iraq debacle marginalised the neocons.
The political context as seen from inside the White House and Downing Street is that we are in a war as serious as the second world war. John Bolton exemplified this outlook when he compared US problems in Iraq with the fighting with Japan after Pearl Harbour.
Donald Rumsfeld and the AEI have developed a strategy for regime change in Iran that does not involve a ground invasion. Weapons of mass destruction will provide the rationale for military action, though it won't be limited to attacks on a few weapons factories. It will include limiting Iranian retaliatory capability, using bombers to destroy up to 10,000 targets in the first day of any war, and special forces flying in to destroy anything that's left.
In the aftermath, the US will support regime change, hoping to replace the ayatollahs with an Iran of the regions. The US and British governments now support a coalition of groups seeking a federal Iran. This may be another neocon delusion, but that may not be the point. Making Tehran concentrate on internal problems leaves it unable to act elsewhere.
Bush has said he will destroy the Syrian and Iranian networks in Iraq. These may include Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, but are also likely to target the Iranian-created Badr brigades, now wearing Iraqi police uniforms. In the south, the withdrawal of British troops to Basra airport looks more like a preparation to avoid a Shia backlash than a handover to the government of Iraq.
The US director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, explained that the threat to launch Hizbullah against Israel was the main deterrent to a US attack on Iran. Although politically Hizbullah scored a major victory in holding off the Israeli army last summer, in fact it was badly damaged.
The Iranian regime seems prepared for confrontation, perhaps confident Washington is bluffing. Next month Iran celebrates its completion of the nuclear-fuel cycle, in defiance of UN sanctions. Expect Bush and Blair to ask what the world will do to prevent a new Holocaust against the Jews. In his Plymouth speech, Blair told us that we could not pick and choose our wars. He may have been telling us more than we realised.

· Dan Plesch is a research associate at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, School of Oriental and African Studies

Neverwinter

18thJanuary2007, 16:14

Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd56.html)
Get Your War On: Bush Plays Casus Belli Card Against Iran
by Chris Floyd
January 15, 2007

That there will be war with Iran is now virtually guaranteed. The Bush Administration set out a clear casus belli over the weekend in two stories – masterworks of warmongering propaganda – appearing in two major bastions of the "liberal media." The argument for this new war – buttressed with "facts" that as usual went unchallenged by the corporate scribes – is actually stronger and cleaner than the collection of conflicting mendacities that led to the invasion of Iraq. It is vain to hope that the Democrats, who have themselves demonized Iran with such ferocity, will stand against the call for the new war when it comes, in the terms now being established by the Administration.

The war drum sounded on Saturday morning in the New York Times – in the person of that ever-reliable conduit of dubious intel, reporter Michael Gordon, who played a key role in disseminating White House falsehoods in the run-up to assault on Iraq, but who, unlike his colleague in collusion, Judith Miller, has paid no professional price for uncritically conveying the lies of war-machinators to the American public. In the course of a report telling us how George W. Bush personally ordered American forces to put the squeeze on "Iranian networks" in Iraq, Gordon and co-writer David Sanger passed along the word from Condi Rice that Iran is directly involved in the "increasing lethality" of insurgent attacks on U.S. soldiers.

This report in the NYT – the agenda-setter for the national corporate media – provides the highest- level "confirmation" of a Friday report by CBS that relayed – again, uncritically – specific numbers of American dead and wounded from what "U.S. military figures" said were Iranian-supplied weapons:

"According to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes and along the Tigris River."

You can't get any plainer than that. According to the Pentagon and the U.S. Secretary of State, Iran has already killed 198 American and British soldiers and wounded more than 600. What president would be denied approval – either beforehand or after the fact – for military action against a country that was actively slaughtering American troops in combat? This goes far beyond the potential "threat" from Saddam Hussein that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq. If even the possibility of an attack by an unfriendly country is regarded by the Bush Faction as legitimate grounds for a military assault, how much moreso is the actual killing of Americans by a foreign power?

Make no mistake: this is the marker that has now been put down; this is the card that's been laid on the table. The Bush Administration has openly accused Iran of killing American soldiers in Iraq. Again, this is a charge far more resonant, far more effective as a pretext for war than anything offered during the successful stampede to invade Iraq. Even a president as weakened and isolated as Bush is at the moment would be able to get support for an attack on a state that was "killing our soldiers in the field."

And once again the Bush Faction's masterful use of the corporate media – which many thought had utterly deserted them after the November electoral debacle – is shown in how the two most prominent members of what is laughingly known as "the liberal media" are being used to establish the casus belli against Iran: the New York Times and CBS. Despite their reputations of speaking truth to power – reputations not always (but mostly) undeserved – both media mavens obligingly delivered the Regime's propaganda payload in reports that offer nary a demur or a nano-second of skepticism about the claims being offered.

Yet as Kurt Nimmo reminds us, the "sophisticated improvised explosive devices" that are causing the "increasingly lethality" in Iraq mentioned by Rice are in fact based on Anglo-American technology deployed by the UK security services during its dirty war with the IRA. In the mass infiltration of terrorist cells by the UK "security organs" – so reminiscent of Don Rumsfeld's plan, now implemented, of "fomenting terrorism" by infiltrating American agents into violent groups and goading them into action – the IED technology fell into the IRA's hands, which then provided it to groups around the world. What's more, as Nimmo notes, all of this was reported in October 2005 by the UK's Independent on Sunday, which wrote:

"…soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they traveled through [Iraq], died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched 'sting' operation more than a decade ago…. This contradicts the British government’s claims that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.

"The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles in the early 1990s. According to security sources, the technology for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents."

Nimmo goes on to note that:

"In fact, the devices were made in America. 'In late 1993 and early 1994, I went to America with officers from MI5, the FRU and RUC special branch. They had already sourced the transmitters and receivers in New York following liaison with their counterparts in the FBI,' Kevin Fulton, who infiltrated the IRA in the Newry area while being handled by the Force Research Unit, told [Ireland's] Sunday Tribune in June, 2002. Fulton’s trip was confirmed by the FBI, according to Matthew Teague, writing for the Atlantic. The Independent on Sunday 'has also spoken to a republican who was a senior IRA member in the early 1990s. He confirmed that Mr. Fulton had introduced the IRA to the new technology and that the IRA shared this with 'like-minded organizations abroad.'"

Now, it may well be that Iran has made a pact with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq to supply them with high-powered IEDs – at the same time that Iranian-backed Shiite parties and militias (a.k.a. the Bush-installed Iraqi government) are carrying out mass ethnic cleansing operations against Sunni strongholds. Maybe the Sunni insurgents promised not to use any of the Iranian weapons against the Shiites who are destroying them. And hey, maybe the Iranian-connected, Shiite-led Iraqi government is fully on board with this deal by its Tehran mentors to supply deadly weapons to the Shiites' deadliest foes in order to kill the Shiites' main protectors, the Americans. This at any rate is the scenario you have to swallow in order to find the Bush Regime's assertions credible. (And in a remarkable and telling instance of projection, the usual unnamed Bush officials also told the credulous clerk Gordon that "Iran is engaged in a policy of 'managed chaos' in Iraq" – a phrase that pretty much sums up the entire four years of the Bush rapine in Iraq.)

In any case, the sophisticated asymmetrical weaponry being used against Americans in Iraq need not have come from Iran; it has been around for a long time, and originated in the heart of the "Coalition" itself: yet another piece of deadly blowback from the dirty wars of the security organs that have done so much to shape the hell that afflicts us all today. But the media amnesia that has already sunk the Independent's revelations full fathom five – and the unquestioning, uncritical retailing of unconfirmed assertions by an Administration of proven liars clearly bent on more war – means we are being plunged blindly once again into monstrous, blood-soaked folly.

Neverwinter

18thJanuary2007, 16:16

Source (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3910)
Iran: Thinking the Unthinkable

Conn Hallinan | January 15, 2007

Editor: John Feffer, IRC

Is Israel, supported by the Bush Administration, preparing to launch an atomic war against Iran? On January 7, the London Sunday Times claimed that the Israeli government is planning to attack Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. While the Israeli government denies the story, recent statements by top Israeli officials and military figures -- along with recent White House threats against Iran and Syria and a shuffling of American commanders in the Middle East -- suggest that the possibility is real.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls Iran an “existential threat,” and Deputy Minister of Defense Ephraim Sneh recently said, “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.” An Israeli Defense Force (IDF) official told the Jerusalem Post that “only a military strike by the U.S. and it allies will stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Brigadier General Oded Tira, former commander of the IDF’s artillery units, not only urges an attack on Iran, but because “President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran,” Israel and its supporters “must lobby the Democratic Party and U.S. newspaper editors” to lay the groundwork for such an attack. Tira says that if the Americans don’t act, “we’ll do it ourselves.”

According to the Times, the attack will use a combination of conventional laser-guided bombs and one kiloton tactical nuclear “bunker busters.” The targets would be the centrifuges at Natanz, a uranium conversion plant near Isfahan, and the heavy water reactor at Arak.

One source told the Times, “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished.”
Bluster or Bunker Buster?

Bombast to scare the Iranians? Maybe, but a number of pieces have fallen into place over the past month that suggest that the Bush administration is also seeking to widen the Middle East conflict, and that time may be running out for Iran.

In his January 10 speech announcing an escalation in Iraq, the president singled out Iran and Syria as aiding “terrorists,” and warned, “We will seek out and destroy the networks” that are training and arming “our enemies in Iraq.” According to The New York Times, the president ordered several raids against diplomats and advisors in Iraq, accusing them of supplying advanced improvised explosive devices to Iraqi insurgents.

While the last election was a repudiation of the neo-conservative’s policies of aggressive militarism, many of those neo-conservatives are steering the current escalation in Iraq. President’s Bush’s “new way forward” is lifted directly from a policy paper by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the neoconservative think tank that pushed so hard for the initial invasion of Iraq. Kagan -- along with William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard -- designed the plan that will send more than 20,000 troops to Iraq.

But is the escalation just about Iraq? According to Robert Parry, author of Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, and former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter, “one source familiar with high-level thinking in Washington and Tel Aviv said an unstated reason for the Bush troop ‘surge’ is to bolster the defenses of Baghdad’s Green Zone if a possible Israeli attack on Iran prompts an uprising among Iraqi Shiites.”

The neoconservatives may well have engineered the ouster of John Negroponte, National Security Director, because he said that Iran could not produce a nuclear weapon until sometime in the next decade. The statement outraged neoconservatives and directly contradicted alarmist Israeli intelligence assessments that Tehran could have a warhead in less than two years.

If the United States does intend to hit Iran, or to support such an attack by Israel, then it just appointed the right man for the job. The new head of Central Command (CENTCOM) that oversees the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, is the former head of U.S. Pacific Command and an expert on air war. Fallon commanded an A-6 tactical bomber wing in Vietnam, a carrier wing, and an aircraft carrier. As retired U.S. navy commander Jeff Huber writes in Pen and Sword, “If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it’s ‘Fox’ Fallon.”

Fallon is also close with the neoconservatives and attended the 2001 awards ceremony of the Jewish Institute for National Security (JINSA), a think tank that strongly pushed for the war in Iraq and currently lobbies for attacking Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney and ex-UN Ambassador John Bolton are both former members of JINSA. The organization sponsored a 2003 conference entitled: “Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism.”

The White House has also secretly formed a policy unit called the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) to influence U.S. media, funnel covert aid to Iranian dissidents, and collect information and intelligence. One former U.S. official told the Boston Globe that group’s goal in Iran was “regime change.” ISOG is headed up by two neoconservative hawks, James F. Jeffrey and Elliott Abrams.

Abrams formally worked for rightwing Israeli ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and helped write the policy paper, “A Clean Break,” which advocated attacking Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah and unilaterally imposing a “settlement” on the Palestinians. According the Inter-Press Service, during last summer’s war in Lebanon, Abrams carried a message from the Bush Administration encouraging the Olmert government to attack Syria.
Israel’s Role

Parry suggests that one explanation for recent meetings between Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Olmert is joint planning on how to widen the war in the Middle East to embrace Iran, and possibly Syria. Olmert’s government is deeply unpopular, Blair is leaving office this spring, and Bush can’t get much lower in the polls without hitting negative numbers. In a sense, Parry suggests, there is nothing to lose if all three “double-down” their gamble on the Iraq War.

If the Israelis do decide to go through with the attack, initially there would be little Iran could do about it. Given Israel’s hundreds of nuclear warheads, any direct retaliation by Tehran would be suicidal.

A similar attack on two U.S. carrier groups currently deployed in the Gulf of Iran would be equally self-destructive, as would any serious attempt to close off the Straits of Hormuz through which about 20% of the world’s oil moves. The White House just added a third carrier battle group.

But the long-term impact of a nuclear strike on Iran is likely to be catastrophic and not only because it would enrage Shiites in Iraq. Parry suggests that local U.S.-backed dictators might find themselves facing unrest as well. If Hezbollah rocketed Israel, Tel Aviv might decide to invade Syria, igniting a full-scale regional war. It is even possible that Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf might fall, says Parry, “conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.” In that event, India would almost certainly intervene, which could spark a nuclear war in South Asia. India and Pakistan came perilously close to such an exchange in 1999.

“For some U.S. foreign policy experts,” writes Parry, “this potential disaster for a U.S.-backed Israeli air strike on Iran is so terrifying that they ultimately don’t believe Bush and Olmert would dare implement such a plan.”

They may be right, but many Democrats are willing to join the Republicans in attacking Iran. New House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the Jerusalem Post that a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable, and when asked if he would support a military strike, replied, “I have not ruled that out.” Add heavy lobbying by the AEI, JINSA, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, coupled with “cooked” intelligence that claims the Iranians are on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon, and they might indeed dare.

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) columnist.

Neverwinter

18thJanuary2007, 16:27

Source (http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=718)
Iran’s IEDs: Made in America
January 13th 2007

Now that Bush has delivered Kristol’s speech, we can expect a full-court press in the corporate media to demonize Iran in preparation for an attack against that country.

“U.S. officials tell CBS News that American forces have begun an aggressive and mostly secret ground campaign against networks of Iranians that had been operating with virtual impunity inside Iraq,” CBS News reports, or rather reads from the neocon script.

“According to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes and along the Tigris River. Attempts to disrupt these networks, combined with the decision to send a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran, significantly raises the stakes, according to former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk.”

Indyk is a prominent Israel Firster. He “served” as U.S. ambassador to Israel, directs the rabidly pro-Israel Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and is a member of the Middle East Strategy Group klatsch at the neolib Aspen Institute, where he rubs elbows with Henry Kissinger and Dianne Feinstein. Aspen is a pet project of the Rockefeller brothers and the Ford Foundation.

As it turns out, these “advanced explosive devices” are from Britain, not Iran. Back in October of 2005, the Independent reported “soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they traveled through [Iraq], died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched ’sting’ operation more than a decade ago…. This contradicts the British government’s claims that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.”

The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles in the early 1990s.

According to security sources, the technology for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents.

In fact, the devices were made in America. “In late 1993 and early 1994, I went to America with officers from MI5, the FRU and RUC special branch. They had already sourced the transmitters and receivers in New York following liaison with their counterparts in the FBI,” Kevin Fulton, who infiltrated the IRA in the Newry area while being handled by the Force Research Unit, told the Sunday Tribune in June, 2002. Fulton’s trip was confirmed by the FBI, according to Matthew Teague, writing for the Atlantic. The Independent on Sunday “has also spoken to a republican who was a senior IRA member in the early 1990s. He confirmed that Mr. Fulton had introduced the IRA to the new technology and that the IRA shared this with ‘like-minded organizations abroad.’”

“Since its founding in 1997, the Real IRA has been fully infiltrated by British intelligence—MI5,” writes Paul Joseph Watson in his book, Order Out of Chaos. The “Real IRA,” or “True IRA,” consisted of “disaffected IRA members,” in other words, it was created by British intelligence as a way to discredit and demonize the Provisional IRA. “In June 2003 raids, Irish national police interdicted two large-scale vehicle-born improvised explosive devices, each weighing more than 1,000 lbs,” according to FAS.

Of course, all of this has since found its way to the memory hole, as did the fact Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, provided by the United States prior to Bush Senior’s invasion, were systematically destroyed by the United Nations Special Commission in the 1990s. Depending on amnesia and selective omission, the corporate media, guided by the perfidious neocons, are in the process of creating likewise fairy tales to lay the foundation for an attack against Iran.

Iran’s alleged possession and use of IEDs made in America will, according to Israel Firster Martin Indyk, have “some rather serious consequences,” in other words, plenty of Iranians will die as a result.

In preparation of the coming attack, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the neocons will “make certain that we disrupt activities that are endangering and killing our troops, and that are destabilizing Iraq,” while refusing to state specifically if the United States will “take action” against Iran.

Instead, the United States needs to “solidify the consensus” and focus on the “regional aggression of Iran” as it supposedly engages “in activities that endanger our troops.” In fact, it is the Iraqi resistance that endangers “our troops,” not the Iranians.

During an interview with the Bush Ministry of Disinformation, otherwise known as Fox News, Condi the Destroyer said the United States “is not going to simply stand idly by and let these activities continue.” IEDs made in the United States, with the help of Britain, a loyal and able co-conspirator, will naturally facilitate the process.

Recall Bush and his eager cohort, Tony Blair, discussing “three possible ways” to provoke confrontation with the Saddam Hussein. Bush’s “first suggestion was to fly U-2 spy aircraft over Iraq painted in United Nations colors,” writes Ehsan Ahrari for the Asia Times.

David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote a memo detailing the discussion of such dirty tricks. “The memo reports Bush as saying, ‘If Saddam fired on them he would be in breach.’ His second suggestion was to bring out Iraqi defectors, who would give public testimony about Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. His third proposal was to assassinate the Iraqi dictator.”

As we now know, the second “suggestion” was milked for all it was worth, that is to say it was transparently worthless, as many of us insisted at the time.

For the warmongering neocons, all the pieces are falling into place. As noted by neocon enablers at the New York Times, Bush and Rice are following the script, making sure to mention “evidence” of the supposed “increasing lethality in what [the Iranians] were producing.”

Rice, according to the Times, “was referring to what American military officials say is evidence that many of the most sophisticated improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.’s, being used against American troops were made in Iran…. Ms. Rice’s willingness to discuss the issue seemed to reflect a new hostility to Iran that was first evident in Mr. Bush’s speech to the nation on Wednesday night, in which he accused Tehran of providing material support for attacks on American troops and vowed to respond.”

In fact, this “new hostility” is hardly new, as it reflects years of neocon duplicity and scheming.

It appears the universal fascist and Mussolini admirer, Michael Ledeen, will finally get his way.

Last November, Ledeen wrote that Bush “knows we are at war with Iran, but has chosen—wrongly, in my opinion (but then I wasn’t elected either)—to delay our response.” Actually, Ledeen, or more specifically chosen members of the neocon cabal, were “elected,” or rather appointed, and Bush, their ventriloquist dummy, now agrees “the real war is a regional war, and most likely a world war…. The first step is to embrace the unpleasant fact that we are at war with Iran, and it is long past time to respond.”

Thus the neocons fine tune their casus belli while the American people slumber their way into World War Four, as the neocons would have it. Under CONPLAN 8022, now operational, nuclear preemptive strikes are the order of the day and you can bet the farm the demented neocons, who have managed so far to kill more than a half million Iraqis, will embrace this “doctrine,” actually an egregious war crime of historical proportion.

Addendum

“Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said ‘there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue—in the country and the world—in a very acute way,’” writes Robert Parry. “Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the neocons have talked about taking out Arab and Muslim nations one by one for years now. But then, of course, Russert and Williams work for General Electric News, that is to say NBC (as a death merchant, GE manufactures jet engines for Boeing and Lockheed Martin), and GE stands to make a bundle on the mass murder adventures of the neocons.

“While avoiding any overt criticism of Bush’s comments about an imaginary Iraqi-Iranian arms race, Russert suggested that the news executives found the remarks perplexing,” Parry notes. Naturally, Russert would dare not bite the hand that feeds, or would he walk a gang plank and bring his career to an end, never mind it might make a difference of life and death for thousands of Iranians.

“That’s the way he sees the world,” Russert explained. “His rationale, he believes, for going into Iraq still was one that was sound.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews then interjected, “And it could be the rationale for going into Iran at some point.”

Russert paused for a few seconds before responding, “It’s going to be very interesting to watch that issue and we have to cover it very, very carefully and very exhaustively.”

Indeed, it will be “very interesting,” as the hotel rooftop coverage of the bombing of Baghdad was “interesting,” never mind the wanton slaughter of children and grandmothers.

Of course, GE News and the rest of the corporate media will cover the invasion of Iran “very, very carefully and very exhaustively,” that is they will make it a 24-7 spectacle devoid of any objective fact telling or commentary, as usual.

“While some observers believe Israel or the Bush administration may be leaking details of the plans as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its nuclear program, other sources indicate that the preparations for a wider Middle Eastern war are very serious and moving very quickly,” concludes Parry.

No doubt such “observers” live on another planet or are trapped in another dimension. Even a cursory examination of the neocon ideology and their public statements reveal they are determined to instigate World War Four, basically a hyper effort to kill hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of Muslims, as dictated by the “clash of civilizations” criminal philosophy.

Naturally, we can ignore Russert and Williams. Unfortunately, plenty of blindsided and hoodwinked Americans are unable to see through the fakery and pretend surprise of such talking heads, essentially mouthpieces for the neocons.

Neverwinter

18thJanuary2007, 16:31

Source (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst011507.htm)
Rep. Ron Paul Concerned a “Contrived Gulf of Tonkin Type Incident May Occur”
Escalation in the Middle East

By Rep. Ron Paul
January 15th, 2007

While the president’s announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president’s sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East.

The president stated last week that, “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity- and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.” He also announced the deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and the deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East. Meanwhile, US troops stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraq and detained several Iranian diplomats. Taken together, the message was clear: the administration intends to move the US closer to a dangerous and ill-advised conflict with Iran.

As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran– possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can!

This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president’s announcement, but then praised the president’s confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for “redeployment.” Redeployment to where? Iran?

We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.

The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:

“… the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.”

In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation that urges the administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism.

IMPERIUM

18thJanuary2007, 19:05

The situation gets graver by the day.
A widened war in the Middle East - a nuclear war, even.
And all because of Them! Those Mischief Makers. The World Enemy.

http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7222&highlight=coming+cataclysmic+crises

Imperium
0701

There is no Left or Right -
there is only the Jewish Establishment and US!
All else is folly, deception, lies.

Neverwinter

22ndJanuary2007, 20:36

Source (http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1321)
Falkland anniversary snubbed by Labour
22nd January 2007
News article filed by BNP news team

The Blair regime is happy to commit British troops to illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but when it comes to honouring those who have given service to defend British citizens from foreign occupation there isn’t a Labour minister in sight.

2007 marks the 25th anniversary of the invasion of the Falklands Islands by Argentinean forces and the subsequent battle by British troops to reclaim this British dependency in the South Atlantic, however in a move which has infuriated forces veterans the Ministry of Defence and Buckingham Palace have confirmed they are not sending a minister or senior representative to the Falkland Islands to commemorate the anniversary of the war against Argentina.

Forces veterans view the move as a failure to acknowledge a campaign in which 255 British troops died, almost a third more than the casualties sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

In a statement which demonstrates the calibre of the effete, lazy and utterly out-of-touch goons who are running this country the Veterans' Minister Derek Twigg would not be going to the Falklands because of the archipelago's 'unpleasant' and 'chilly' weather during their winter. He will stay 8,000 miles away in summertime London.

The absence of the royal family at anniversary events planned for the islands' capital, Port Stanley, has particularly distressed some veterans, given that the Duke of York saw active service as a Sea King helicopter pilot during the conflict.

Forgotten campaign

Veterans said the news offered affirmation that the Falklands war, one of Margaret Thatcher's crowning moments, had become a forgotten campaign. Les Heyhoe, fundraising and events manager for the Falklands Veterans' Foundation, which has 29,000 members, said: 'People will be very, very disappointed without a doubt. In context, it seems such a small sacrifice to make.

'Wider events in the world today may have played their part. It seems to be a forgotten war, and that is why we are trying so hard to remember those who made such a sacrifice'.

The centrepiece of the conflict's commemorative events will take place on 17 June in London, where veterans and Falkland islanders will talk about their experiences following a military march.

A series of events all around the country will be taking place throughout 2007 to mark the heroism and dedication of those who the Labour regime are quick to forget.

Neverwinter

25thJanuary2007, 01:51

Hey Florian, this is a good thread for articles on the coming conflict with Iran. We already have one titled 'Iranian Front'. Hmmm...which to use? Decisions.... Perhaps a nice moderator would be so kind as to merge the two.
:p

etoile noir

25thJanuary2007, 12:23

threads merged. users are kindly asked to post all items related to Iran on this thread and to not open any more "iran threads"

thanks
EN - moderator, vm.org

Neverwinter

29thJanuary2007, 02:41

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1998992,00.html)
Israel tries to cut off Tehran from world markets
David Hearst in Herzliya
Friday January 26, 2007
The Guardian

Israel is launching a campaign to isolate Iran economically and to soften up world opinion for the option of a military strike aimed at crippling or delaying Tehran's uranium enrichment programme.

Pressure will be applied to major US pension funds to stop investment in about 70 companies that trade directly with Iran, and to international banks that trade with its oil sector, cutting off the country's access to hard currency. The aim is to isolate Tehran from the world markets in a campaign similar to that against South Africa at the height of apartheid.

Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be pursued in international courts for calling the Holocaust a myth, and saying Israel should be wiped off the map. The case will be launched under the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which outlaws "direct and public incitement to genocide".

Before flying to London to spearhead the mission to sell the sanctions, the Likud party leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, said: "A campaign to divest commercial investment from Iran, beginning with the large pension funds in the west ... either stops Iran's nuclear programme or it will pave the way for tougher actions. So it's no-lose for us."

In December the UN ordered a ban on the supply of materials that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programme, and an asset freeze on Iranian companies and individuals. But it stopped short of a full travel ban.

Israeli defence sources claim that Iran is close to the point of no return in its uranium enrichment programme using gas centrifuges.

A senior official said: "They currently have problems but if the programme is allowed to continue without interruptions we estimate they will have mastered the technology this year. We expect a declaration from them in the next month, possibly on February 21, the day of the Islamic Revolution, that they have reached significant achievements.

"It will be a bluff, but it will have the potential of marketing Iran as a regional superpower. If they do it, a nuclear Iran will cast a long shadow over the whole of the Middle East; we will have Hizbullastan in Lebanon, Hamastan here, and Shiastan in Iraq."

Military analysts speaking at an annual conference in Herzliya, near Tel Aviv, claimed that Israel was facing an "existential threat" from the Iranian uranium enrichment programme, which Tehran has consistently claimed was for a civilian nuclear fuel cycle. The only division of opinion was over the imminence of this threat.

Marco Polo

29thJanuary2007, 23:18

he may be a leftist twat but George Galloway is damn right. bring home the troops, send the bush and blair families.

a must see

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MWR0tavb-zo

Gladiator

30thJanuary2007, 01:34

he may be a leftist twat but George Galloway is damn right. bring home the troops, send the bush and blair families.

a must see

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MWR0tavb-zo

God blood speech. No matter who says it who will judge Bush and Blair at the end of all this madness?

Neverwinter

30thJanuary2007, 03:18

he may be a leftist twat but George Galloway is damn right. bring home the troops, send the bush and blair families.

a must see

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MWR0tavb-zoGreat address!

Neverwinter

1stFebruary2007, 02:49

Source (http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10411)
Bush Is About to Attack Iran
Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts

The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.

This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.

Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.

What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?

In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.

Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.

There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:

"Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.... The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the US president."

The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.

Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker."

Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media.

General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.

Why cannot Americans understand?

Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?

Neverwinter

1stFebruary2007, 02:52

Source (http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.1152839.0.america_poised_to_strike_at_irans_nuclear_sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php)
America ‘poised to strike at Iran’s nuclear sites’ from bases in Bulgaria and Romania
Report suggest that ‘US defensive ring’ may be new front in war on terror. By Gabriel Ronay
1 Feb 2007

PRESIDENT BUSH is preparing to attackIran'snuclearfacilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.

"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.

TheAmericanbuild-upalongthe BlackSea,coupledwiththerecent positioningoftwoUSaircraftcarrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.
continued...

Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunctionwiththebeefingupofAmerica'sItalian bases and the acquisition of anti-missiledefencebasesintheCzech RepublicandPoland,theBalkan developments seem toindicateanewphase in Bush's global war on terror.

Sofia'snewsofadvancedwar preparationsalongtheBlackSeais backed up by some chilling details. One isthesettingupofnewrefuellingplaces for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, includingBulgaria,fallswithinthe perspective of such an attack." NovinitenamedcolonelSam Gardiner, "a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of this revelation.

Curiously,thereportnotedthat although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.

BeforetheendofMarch,3000US militarypersonnelarescheduledto arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April,2006,anairbaseatBezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased toAmerica.Significantly,lastyear'sbases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".

Romania, the other Black Sea host to theUSmilitary,isenjoyingadollarbonanzaasitsMihailKogalniceanu base at Constanta is being transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is alsovitaltotheIranscenario.

Lastweek,theBucharestdaily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraftattheKogalniceanubase.AdmiralGheorgheMarin,Romania's chief of staff, confirmed "up to 2000 Americanmilitarypersonnelwillbe temporarily stationed in Romania".

InCentralEurope,theCzech Republic and Poland have also found themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-missile missilebase and interceptoraircraft stationedinthecountry.

Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an open threat to Russia".

SergeyIvanov,Russia'sdefence minister,spokemorecircumspectly while emphasising Moscow's concern. Hesaid:"Russiaisnotworried.Itsstrategicnuclearforcescanassureinanycircumstanceitssafety.Since neither Tehran,norPyongyangpossess intercontinentalmissilescapableof threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."

Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax Americana".

Marco Polo

6thFebruary2007, 21:16

imagine............a europe without interfering zionists.

IMPERIUM

7thFebruary2007, 00:33

As I stated on www.majorityrights.com (http://www.majorityradio.com) :

There will never be a schism between Israeli Jews and the diaspora.
It never happened and it never will.
In the end, in the final analysis, they will stick together:
A Jew, is a Jew, is a Jew.

Imperium
0702

There is no Left or Right.
There is only the Jewish establishment and US!
All else is folly, deception, lies.

Marco Polo

7thFebruary2007, 00:35

enjoy!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3755128708859806836

IMPERIUM

7thFebruary2007, 00:42

A Jewish ridden, Jewish infested, Jewish dominated America.
No wonder it is facing imminent decline and collapse.
The Rodents will simply pack their bags and move on to Canada: ToRunTo!

Imperium
0702

There is no Left or Right.
There is only the Jewish establishment and US!
All else is folly, deception, lies.

Artist

7thFebruary2007, 09:26

World NewsTop secret US army blunder tape leakedMatty Hull killed by mistake by American forces in Iraq; Newspaper leakes tape of the incidenthttp://www.maltastar.com/images/system/1px.gif06 February 2007http://www.maltastar.com/images/system/1px.gifBritish newspaper The Sun has leaked a controversial and top-secret US army tape in which US forces release fire by mistake and hit "friendly forces", killing British soldier Lance Cpl. Matty Hull in 2003.
http://www.maltastar.com/UserFiles/03(15).jpgThe newspaper posted on its website a 15 minute video in which the incident is seen. Earlier, a coroner investigating the soldier's death had demanded the video be released and presented as evidence in an inquest, but U.S. authorities refused.
The incident took place in the early stages of the Iraqi war, when US forces thought they were seeing orange missiles in their cockpit when in fact it was a convoy of four British vehicles
The pilots' coordinators confirmed that there were no coalition forces in the area at the time.

The pilots opened fire, but the mistake soon became obvious, and the pilots were informed that friendly units were in the area.
When the pilots realise the incredible error, they can be heard saying: "God dammit" and "We're in jail, dude."
Audio from the tape:
"Be advised that ... you have friendly armor in the area," a targeting coordinator said.
"Ahh s--- ... f---, f---, f---." said one of the A-10 pilots, code named Popov35. "I'm going to be sick."
The conversation resumed when a report was issued saying that a British soldier was killed and another one was wounded.
"Did you hear?" asked Popov35.
"Yeah, this sucks," said the second pilot, Popov36.
"We're in jail dude," said Popov35.
"Damn it. F......ing damn it," Popov36 continued a short time later.
In a statement, Britain's Ministry of Defense (MOD) said the video was classified and should not have been released.
http://www.maltastar.com/UserFiles/04(9).jpgHull's funeral in 2003
The full conversation:
Popov36: Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?
Manila hotel: I understand that was north 800 metres.
Manila hotel: Popov, understand that was north 800 metres?
Popov35: Confirm, north 800 metres.Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.
Manila hotel: That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies.
Popov35: Copy. I see multiple riveted vehicles. Some look like flatbed trucks and others are green vehicles. Can't quite make out the type. Look like may be Zil157s (Russian made trucks used by Iraqi army).
.....
Popov 36: OK. Right underneath you. Right now, there's a canal that runs north/south. There's a small village, and there are vehicles that are spaced evenly there.
Popov 36: They look like they have orange panels on though.
Popov35: He told me, he told me there's nobody north of here, no friendlies.
.....
Popov36: They've got something orange on top of them
Popov35: Popov for Manila 3, is Manila 34 in this area?
Manila Hotel: Say again?
Popov35: Manila hotel, is Manila 34 in this area?
Manila hotel: Negative. Understand they are well clear of that now.
Popov35: OK, copy. Like I said, multiple riveted vehicles. They look like flatbed trucks. Are those your targets?
Manila hotel: That's affirm
Popov35: OK
.....
Popov36: I want to get that first one before he gets into town then.
Popov35: Get him - get him.
.....
[Sound of gunfire]...
Lightning 34: Roger, Popov. Be advised that in the 3122 and 3222 group box you have friendly armour in the area. Yellow, small armoured tanks. Just be advised.
Popov35: Ahh s***.
Popv35: Got a - got a smoke.
Lightning 34: Hey, Popov34, abort your mission. You got a, looks we might have a blue on blue situation.
Popov35: F***. God, bless it.
.....
Manila 34: We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over.
Popov 35: Copy. RTB (return to base)
I'm going to be sick.
.....

Popov35: Did you hear?
Popov36: Yeah, this sucks.
Popov35: We're in jail dude
.....
Popov35: They did say there were no friendlies.
Popov36:Yeah, I know that thing with the orange panels is going to screw us. They look like orange rockets on top.

Marco Polo

7thFebruary2007, 10:48

Eurodip

7thFebruary2007, 16:31

quite clear it wasnt the soldiers fault but their commanders.

as usual, more british soldiers killed by americans who's commanders don't seem to know what they are doing. when is some decent system of communication going to be put in place?

"my son was killed in iraq, americans shot him." the idiocy of it all!

There's no need for any system of communication. The orange marker panels are a recognised standard NATO symbol for friendly forces. And how could they confuse a Warrior armoured vehicle with an Iraqi truck carrying "orange rockets"? These are A-10 pilots, whose one and only mission is CAS and ground attack. Vehicle recognition should be second nature to them. Typical "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude.

Re. Chirac's comment, everyone knows he's right, but they haven't got the balls to admit it.

Marco Polo

7thFebruary2007, 18:14

There's no need for any system of communication. The orange marker panels are a recognised standard NATO symbol for friendly forces. And how could they confuse a Warrior armoured vehicle with an Iraqi truck carrying "orange rockets"? These are A-10 pilots, whose one and only mission is CAS and ground attack. Vehicle recognition should be second nature to them. Typical "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude.

Re. Chirac's comment, everyone knows he's right, but they haven't got the balls to admit it.

you are right on both counts i suppose. i was just being diplomatic.

can't iraqis paint orange marker panels on their own vehicles?

etoile noir

7thFebruary2007, 21:20

can't iraqis paint orange marker panels on their own vehicles?
this whole story is quite horrific. i watched the video on sky news yesterday and couldnt help thinking - sod knows what the man's widow must be feeling :(

then again it cant be too clever to use orange margers for friendly vehicles if everyone knows that orange = ok is it? and no, this is in no way meant to be construed as some excuse for the ameriKans. i'd never do that. its a legitimate question.

Marco Polo

7thFebruary2007, 21:53

Marco Polo

7thFebruary2007, 22:04

This is the crux of the matter.The 'guy on the radio' is most probably sitting in some air conditioned office i the green zone or in a bunker in Da Nang.The pilot saw the friendly marker colours and told the resident gahan at base HQ.The final call imo was the pilots.Typical yankee style imo.If in doubt 'shoot it'.

see above in regards to training.

Eurodip

7thFebruary2007, 22:59

this whole story is quite horrific. i watched the video on sky news yesterday and couldnt help thinking - sod knows what the man's widow must be feeling :(

then again it cant be too clever to use orange margers for friendly vehicles if everyone knows that orange = ok is it? and no, this is in no way meant to be construed as some excuse for the ameriKans. i'd never do that. its a legitimate question.

Again, it's standard NATO procedure. Orange panels = friendly forces. Of course, enemy forces can drape their vehicles in orange panels, but the chaps at HQ usually have a pretty good idea of the position of friendly and enemy forces. That's why there are reconnaissance and intelligence assets at every level and of every type.

This wasn't a case of close air support, ie. friendly forces on the ground were not asking for fire support from the A-10. Radio contact was not established with the British vehicles. And those vehicles had orange marker panels clearly displayed. In this case, the procedure is NOT to fire. In other words, if in doubt, don't shoot. Especially when the aircraft are not under attack from these unidentified ground units.

And once again, if A-10 pilots can't tell "orange rockets" from an orange panel on a British AFV, then they shouldn't be in that cockpit.

Neverwinter

9thFebruary2007, 02:03

From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?
by Craig Unger
March 2007
Link to story (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703)

Neverwinter

9thFebruary2007, 02:06

Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis67.html)
February 6, 2007
Countdown To War With Iran?
by Eric Margolis

In spite of being hopelessly bogged down in $700 billion wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush/Cheney administration appears set on a collision course with Tehran. In recent weeks, the White House’s war of words against Iran has sharply intensified, and grown increasingly bellicose.

What is the White House up to? Either trying to bluff Tehran into abandoning its entirely legal but worrisome civilian nuclear power program, which would allow the administration to claim a major victory after so many reverses.

Or, the lame duck Bush/Cheney Administration is attempting to divert attention from the worsening debacle in Iraq and intends to provoke an air and naval war against Iran as a last desperate, ideologically driven assault against its foes in the Muslim world. One is reminded of the suicidal banzai charges of cornered Japanese troops during World War II.

Time is running out for the pro-war neocons: Bush has less than two years left in office and is facing a revolt in Congress. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to leave office by the end of April – or earlier if he is engulfed by a raging scandal over selling titles. The arrest of Lord Levy, Blair’s principal fund raiser and pro-war mentor on the Mideast, has seriously undermined the faltering Blair government.

Evidence continues to accumulate that the Bush/Cheney Administration is planning an air and naval war against Iran in spite of a rising chorus of protests by serving and retired senior US military officers and diplomats.

The heaviest concentration of US naval strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is concentrating off Iran. In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and US Air Force recon aircraft, along with US and British Special Forces are overflying Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations.

CIA and Britain’s MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran’s Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.

In a clear provocation, President George Bush ordered US forces in Iraq to “kill” Iranians officials or diplomats who appear “threatening.” US troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison office and arrested its military staff. Bush warned Iran not to “meddle” in neighboring Iraq.

Pentagon sources accused Iran of smuggling weapons and explosive to “Iraqi insurgents” – though the “insurgents” are in fact Shia militiamen allied to the US-installed Baghdad regime. Accusations that Iran is behind attacks on US forces are clearly designed to lay the groundwork for a “casus belli” – justifying war.

Half the 21,000 additional US troops headed to Iraq may be positioned to block an Iranian threat to the vulnerable main US Kuwait-Baghdad supply line in the event of war with Iran. US anti-aircraft and anti-missile batteries are being airlifted to Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman.

New contingents of US Air Force personnel and warplanes are arriving at key forward air bases in Bulgaria and Romania that link the US to the Mideast and Central Asia. US bases in Britain, Germany, Diego Garcia, the Gulf, Central Asia, and Pakistan are reported on heightened alert. Turkey is being pressed to allow US and Israeli strike aircraft to use its air space to attack northern Iran.

The Pentagon’s latest strike plan against Iran includes over 2,300 “high value” targets such as its dispersed nuclear infrastructure and, worryingly, operating reactors, air and naval bases, ports, telecommunications, air defenses, military factories, energy networks, and government buildings. Iran’s water and sewage systems, bridges, food storage, and bomb shelters could also be targeted, as were Iraq’s in 2001.

A swift “surgical strike” is not likely. Given the large number of potential targets in Iran, and its efforts to defend and disperse some of the high value ones; it is very probable the US would have to launch multiple air and missile strikes against many of them to assure destruction. Iranian ground forces moving toward Iraq and Kuwait would also come under repeated attack, along with their long-ranged artillery and mobile tactical missiles.

The US Treasury has mounted a highly effective campaign to strangle Iran financially, seriously hurting its foreign banking connections, retarding industrial growth and energy production, and scaring off foreign investment.

The Bush Administration and close ally Israel have sharply intensified their war of words against Iran, claiming, implausibly, it poses a nuclear threat to the entire world, though Tehran has no nuclear weapons or long-range delivery systems. Nor do Washington’s fear-mongering neoconservatives explain why on earth Iran would want to threaten the rest of the world – even if it could.

The real neocon objective, of course, is not to rid the world of a potential threat, but to get America into attacking and seriously damaging the nation now regarded as Israel’s primary foe, Iran. With Egypt sidelined and under tight US control, Iraq demolished and occupied, Syria isolated and petrified, only Iran remains a threat to Israel and seriously challenges its continued occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Politicians in Israel are in dangerous emotional overdrive and make open threats to attack Iran – even with nuclear weapons. Israeli rightists and their American supporters absurdly claim Iran is a new Nazi Germany and Israel faces a second Holocaust.

The fact that Israel possesses a powerful triad of air, land, and sea-based nuclear forces that can survive any surprise attack is never mentioned. At any given time, Israel has at least one Dolphin-class submarine on station in the northern Arabian Sea that can hit Iran with nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

Though UN inspectors find no evidence Iran is producing nuclear weapons, Tehran, like Saddam’s Iraq, is being told to prove an impossible negative – that it has no nuclear weapons or secret programs hidden away. Ironically, there are persistent reports that Iran’s nuclear program is moving at a snail’s pace and has encountered serious technical problems.

With disturbing déjà vu, the US Congress and American media are swallowing the administration’s torrent of unproven accusations against Iran precisely the way they lapped up grotesque White House lies about Iraq.

Amid growing war fever in North America, last week France’s President Jacques Chirac sensibly observed, in an off the record interview, that even if Iran had a few nuclear weapons, they would be only for self-defense, and “not very dangerous.”

Iran would be obliterated by US and Israeli nuclear counter-strikes if it ever used its nukes against Israel, noted Chirac with Cartesian logic, and are unlikely to commit national suicide.

After his candid comments became public, Chirac retracted them after a storm of protests from Washington, Israel, and even members of his own government who toe the US party line that Iran is a grave threat to world security. Chirac, who is a lame duck, was simply telling a truth that few cared to hear.

Neverwinter

9thFebruary2007, 02:10

Iran warns U.S. it will retaliate if hit
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 8, 3:56 PM ET

Iran stepped up its warnings to the United States Thursday, with the nation's supreme leader saying Tehran will strike U.S. interests around the world if his country is attacked.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_10)

Iran says it will target U.S. interests if attacked
By Parisa Hafezi
Thu Feb 8, 3:15 PM ET

Iran's top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Thursday the Islamic Republic would target U.S. interests around the world if it came under attack over its disputed nuclear program.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070208/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc_5)

Neverwinter

9thFebruary2007, 23:15

Source (http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=10477)
February 7, 2007
12 Consequences of Attacking Iran
by Jon Basil Utley

The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences.

Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him "right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also explain Bush's aversion to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil.

Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran could easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush (although not for America).

An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the Gulf.

U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S. loses when we expect enemies to play by American rules.

Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an American attack:

1. Iran wouldblockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also itself manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place, able to be activated from shore.

U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed along Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers (see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil rather than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for America and the whole world.

2. War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-aircraft and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying Iran's oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more millions of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney hadn't shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a plan of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere. Jim Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war would quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities. Iran has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast gas compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack. Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work. After all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic Shias) would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made secret the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program. This could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have designed ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.

3. The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow again quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World buying power.

4. American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under threat of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply our terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks in America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting wars. The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow finite. But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of reprisals inside the U.S.

5. The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the whole Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."

6. War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the latter would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already a majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance.
In Latin America, new, higher oil prices would further strengthen President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, giving him more money to subsidize further damage against American interests all over the continent.

7. We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons that have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very effective.

8. We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow Gulf. He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all Americans behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and full of wishful thinking.

9. American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war supplies from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that used by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans.

10. War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby). Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion for war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for police state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow.

11. The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power of the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of writers at the major Jewish newspaper The Forward. The writers note concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the attack on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily Jewish, but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark.

12. Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking the car, then there may be reason to change."

Marco Polo

10thFebruary2007, 02:05

i just have to post my signature here:

Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.

Richard Dawkins

Neverwinter

11thFebruary2007, 05:05

Israel's power after 1947 was based on its military supremacy over its weaker neighbors. It is in the process of losing it-if it has not already. Lesser problems, mainly demographic, will only be aggravated if tension persists. It simply cannot survive allied with the United States, because the Americans will either leave the region or embark on a war that risks Israel's very existence. It is time for it to become "normal" and make peace with its neighbors, and that will require it to make major concessions. It can do that if it embarks upon an independent foreign policy, and it can start immediately to do so with Syria.
I have a sick feeling in my stomach caused by the thought that Europe is going to be drawn into becoming the Jew protector.

Marco Polo

11thFebruary2007, 11:32

I have a sick feeling in my stomach caused by the thought that Europe is going to be drawn into becoming the Jew protector.

it is a little harder to do in europe. our news on israel and palestine is a little more balanced.

IMPERIUM

12thFebruary2007, 10:24

http://media2.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall//ColPics/columnistsBuchanan.gif (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan) Hysteria at Herzliya
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Send an email to Patrick J. Buchanan (javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$cphMain$ctrlColumnDetail$lbContact',''))

http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall/icons/icon_email.gif Email It (http://www.townhall.com/SendToFriend/g/5a744d0a-39ff-4bc6-9861-e245946ddcda)
http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall/icons/icon_print.gif Print It (javascript:PrintThis('ctl00_cphMain_ctrlColumnDetail_hidBody'); return false;)
http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall/icons/icon_takeaction.gif Take Action (http://www.townhall.com/Actioncenter)

http://www.townhall.com/images/icons/icon_article_comments.gifRead Article & Comments (169) (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/01/30/hysteria_at_herzliya) http://www.townhall.com/images/icons/icon_trackback_white.gifTrackbacks(1) (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/01/30/hysteria_at_herzliya?trackbacks=true#commentAnchor) http://www.townhall.com/images/icons/icon_quote_white.gif Post Your Comments (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/01/30/hysteria_at_herzliya?page=full)
When Congress finally decides on just the right language for its "non-binding resolution" deploring Bush's leadership in this war, it might consider a resolution to keep us out of the next one.
For America is on a collision course with an Iran of 70 million, and the folks who stampeded us into Iraq are firing pistols in the air again.
http://media2.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall/enlarge_tab.gif
http://media2.salemwebnetwork.com/Townhall/Reu/b/2007/10/2007-01-10T185325Z_01_WAS309_RTRIDSP_0_SENATE.jpg (javascript:launchSlideShowWindow('/Photos/SlideShow.aspx?issue=12&ContentGuid=0b5dc0f6-099e-4996-97b5-88aa197e5d7e'))
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander U.S. General Wesley Clark calls for new direction in Iraq while at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington January 10, 2007. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)

At the annual Herzliya Conference, U.S. presidential aspirants, neoconservatives and Israeli hawks were all invoking the Holocaust and warning of the annihilation of the Jews.
Israel's "Bibi" Netanyahu, who compares Iran's Ahmadinejad to Hitler, said: "The world that didn't stop the Holocaust last time can stop it this time. ... Who will lead the effort against genocide if not us? The world will not stand up on behalf of the Jews if the Jews do not stand up on behalf of the world."
Said former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz: "Iran is the heart of the problem in the Middle East. It is the most urgent threat facing the world, and needs to be dealt with before it's too late." After meeting with the Department of State's Nicholas Burns, Mofaz called 2007 "a year of decision."
Richard Perle assured the conference that Bush will attack Iran rather than see it acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. Newt Gingrich also brought his soothing touch to the proceedings: "(C)itizens who do not wake up every morning and think about possible catastrophic civilian casualties are deluding themselves.
"Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... I'll repeat it. Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get.
"If we knew that tomorrow morning we would lose Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, what would we do to stop it? If we knew that we would tomorrow lose Boston, San Francisco or Atlanta, what would we do?"
Mitt Romney agreed. Ahmadinejad's Iran is more dangerous than Khrushchev's Soviet Union, which put missiles in Cuba. For the Soviets "were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime (Iran) that celebrates martyrdom."
Ehud Olmert, mired in scandal, his popularity in the tank after the Lebanon fiasco, was as hawkish as Bibi: "The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to let itself face the threat of annihilation once again. ... We will stand up against nuclear threats and even prevent them."
Came then U.S. peace candidate John Edwards. Keeping Iran from nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation. ... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. ... Let me reiterate -- all options."
Wrote the Financial Times' Philip Stephens of Herzliya, "I gave up counting the times I heard the words 'existential threat' to describe Iran's nuclear program capability."
A few weeks back, according to UPI's Arnaud De Borchgrave, Netanyahu declared that Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the United States -- the goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."
Israel's war is to be sold as America's war.
The project is underway. According to Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor of the Guardian, Israeli media are reporting that the assignment to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran has been given to Meir Dagan, head of Mossad.
Listening to the war talk, Gen. Wesley Clark exploded to Arianna Huffington: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office-seekers."
The former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was ordered out of ranks and dressed down by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. But Matt Yglesias of American Prospect, himself Jewish, says Clark spoke truth: "(I)t's true that major Jewish organizations are pushing this country into war with Iran."
Yet is the hysteria at Herzliya justified? Consider:
Not once since its 1979 revolution has Iran started a war. In any war with America, or Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons, Iran would not be annihilating anyone. Iran would be risking annihilation.
Not only has Iran no nukes, the Guardian reported yesterday, "Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium ... are in chaos." That centrifuge facility at Natanz is "archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production."
There is no need for war. Yet, Israelis, neocons and their agents of influence are trying to whip us into one. Senators who are seeking absolution for having voted to take us into Iraq ought to be confronted and asked just what they are doing to keep us out of a war in Iran.
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312360037/ref=nosim/townhallcom).

Always Them! Those Rodents! Those Eternal Mischief Makers!
Now pushing Boobus Americanus into a new war against Iran.
The Jew! Pushing, pushing, pushing... - They can never be satisfied.

Imperium
0702

There is no Left or Right.
There is only the Jewish establishment and US!
All else is folly, deception, lies.

ogenoct

13thFebruary2007, 08:53

it is a little harder to do in europe. our news on israel and palestine is a little more balanced.

You mean pro-Palestinian parasites?

Constantin

Marco Polo

13thFebruary2007, 09:40

You mean pro-Palestinian parasites?

Constantin

whats parasitic about them that isnt far more so about israel?

Neverwinter

15thFebruary2007, 14:02

Source (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12433)
The Blame Game
Bush's campaign to pin the Iraq quagmire on Iranian meddling won't wash.

By Gareth Porter
Web Exclusive: 02.02.07

After promising that the Bush administration would publish a document this week detailing the evidence for its charge that Iranians in Iraq are providing arms and advice to Shiite militias to kill American troops, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack suggested Wednesday that no such document would be forthcoming any time soon. Paul Richter of The Los Angeles Times reported that some officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had resisted the release of the dossier, because they believed the assertions contained in it would have so little credibility that it would backfire politically. As Richter wrote, "They want to avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that information the administration cited to justify the war was incorrect…"

Indeed, the new campaign hyping Iranian meddling, like the 2002-2003 propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion of Iraq, emphasizes a single, highly emotional theme. Instead of the “mushroom cloud” invoked by Condoleezza Rice in September 2002, the administration now conjures up the image of Iranian agents lurking in Iraq for the purpose of killing Americans. And although the White House has decided against the release of any documentation of these allegations for now, the campaign proceeds apace.

As it did in 2002 and 2003 regarding the Iraqi threat, the Bush administration claims to have “intelligence” to support its central theme of Iranian agents fomenting Shiite violence. But a careful investigation of some specific statements that have been made on the alleged Iranian role in sending weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias reveals a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

---

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, made the most spectacular claim of Iranian culpability in arming the militias so far when he declared in an interview with USA Today on Wednesday, “We have weapons that we know through serial numbers…that trace back to Iran.” He referred specifically to RPG-29s -- armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades -- and truck-mounted Katyusha rockets captured in Iraq.

That statement represents a serious leap in logic, because the place in which a weapon was manufactured does not tell us who actually supplied them to Iraqi Shiites. (The United States, for example, has been supplying Iraqi forces with Russian-made RPG-7s.) But in making the claim, Odierno made a major stumble: Iran has never been known to manufacture the RPG-29, so the military could not have captured one with an Iranian serial number. The RPG-29 has always been a Russian-made weapon. The Iranian arms industry has focused on its own version of the Russian-made RPG-7 -- an older and much simpler anti-armor weapon than the RPG-29 -- and it has sought overseas markets for it. But there has never been any evidence of Iran designing and manufacturing any version of the RPG-29 -- probably because it would be too difficult of Iranian arms factories to match the quality of the Russian export.

The Russians sold large quantities of the RPG-29 to Syria in 1999-2000, and last summer Hezbollah used that weapon with surprising effectiveness against Israeli tanks. Israelis captured Iranian-made copies of other Russian anti-tank missile systems in the hands of the Hezbollah. But both the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the Beirut-based Arabic defense monthly Defense 21 confirmed that the RPG-29s used by Hezbollah were Russian-made weapons obtained via Syria.

Odierno’s statement didn’t mark the first time that the U.S. military has tried to peddle the story of the Iranian origins of the RPG-29s in Iraq. Last September, General John Abizaid admitted that only a single RPG-29 had actually been found in the country, and he said it was “unclear” how it got into the country, according to Agence France-Presse. Abizaid didn’t claim any Iranian serial number, but instead suggested that the mere fact that the weapons had been used by Hezbollah “indicates … an Iranian connection.” In the Bush administration’s world, Hezbollah is a “proxy” of Iran and therefore cannot have any policies independent of Iran. In the real world, however, Hezbollah has long been understood by specialists to have its own priorities and policies that may or may not jibe with those of Tehran.

The question of Katyusha rockets in Iraq is more complicated. Both Russian-made Katyushas and Iranian versions of it, with other names, have been used by Palestinian militants and by Hezbollah since the 1980s. Hezbollah has had as many as 13,000 rockets, most of which could be called “Katyushas,” since 2004.

The fact that at least a few hundred Shiite militants loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr have gone to Lebanon at Hezbollah’s invitation indicates a strong organizational link between Hezbollah and anti-occupation Shiite militias. This provides the most likely explanation for the Katyushas found in Iraq, regardless of where they are made.

Significantly Odierno did not claim that the anti-armor roadside bombs known as explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), which represent the most lethal armor-piercing technology now being used in Iraq, were manufactured in Iran. Instead, he asserted that the technology itself and “some of the elements to make them are coming out of Iran."

That has been the refrain of the Bush administration and the U.S. command for nearly a year. The Deputy Chief of Staff for intelligence of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, Major General Richard Zahner, gave a press conference last September in which he argued that Iran’s culpability in the appearance of EFP technology is proven by the fact that the C-4 explosive used in EFPs in Iraq has the same Iranian batch number as the C-4 found on the Hezbollah ship carrying arms to Palestinian militants that was intercepted by the Israelis in 2003.

Zahner’s assertion is contradicted, however, by the most in-depth study of the subject so far -- an article by Michael Knights published in Jane’s Intelligence Review late last month. Knights, vice-president and head of analysis for the Olive Group, a private security company based in London, has been following the evolution of EFPs in Iraq for nearly three years.

In the article and in an interview with me, Knights suggested that the evidence does not point to Iran as the primary force behind the use of EFPs in Iraq. “There is no need to see an Iranian policy driving it,” he told me. Knights said it is far more likely that Hezbollah policy drove the phenomenon. He points out that it was Hezbollah, not Iran, that transferred EFP devices and components to Palestinian militants after the second Intifada began in 2000.

The remarkable coincidence of the same batch number of C-4 appearing in the intercepted Hezbollah ship and in southern Iraq indicates that the Shiite militias have been getting supplies not from the Iranians, but from Hezbollah. (If Iran had deliberately shipped the explosive to southern Iraq last year, the batch number would have been different from a batch that was given to Hezbollah years earlier.)

In the article, Knights suggests that the number of Hezbollah specialists helping Iraqi Shiites learn to use the technology “need not have exceeded one or two bomb-makers,” since the numbers of EFPs produced has rarely exceeded 100 per month. That number, he concludes, could have been made in a single modest workshop with one or two technicians.

Knights acknowledges that there is no direct evidence of even such a minimal Hezbollah presence. He infers such a presence from the fact that the technology did not appear in crude experimental form in Shiite areas of southern Iraq during the Sadrist uprising in 2004, but rather as a complex, fully developed technology.

U.S. intelligence has made much of the fact that a Hezbollah manual for making EFPs has been captured in Iraq. Knights notes, however, that the manual was actually found in the hands of Sunni insurgents. Knights says the Sunnis “might also have access to EFP expertise through Palestinian groups.” The Sunnis used EFPs on a number of occasions, but most often have relied on the less powerful “shaped charges” that they appear to make themselves.

Regardless of how the technology was initially picked up by Shiite militants, Knights points out that the trend since early 2005 has been toward the emergence of networks of Shiites who make the EFPs themselves, supply them to Shiite militias, and serve as middlemen in importing both devices and components. The network of middlemen, according to Knights, is not aligned with any particular Shiite group and is typified by the one discovered by British forces in Basra in December 2006. It consisted of members of the Basra Police Intelligence Unit, the Internal Affairs Directorate of the police, and the Major Crimes Unit and was drawn from policemen representing every major Shiite faction in Basra.

Knights’ research on EFPs illustrates that the Bush administration campaign to blame Iran for the Shiite use of modern weapons is based not on intelligence but rather, once again, on its own faith-based worldview. The syllogism underlying the anti-Iran campaign is: Hezbollah has been helping Shiites. Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. Therefore, Iran is arming the Shiites. As Knights cautiously put it in the interview, “It may be that they are taking a data point and blowing it out of proportion.”

Eurodip

17thFebruary2007, 17:27

CONPLANs exist for every conceivable contingency. The more likely ones are updated more frequently, that's all. You can be sure that somewhere, in some filing cabinet in the US, there's a CONPLAN for an invasion of Malta, for instance. This is non-news.

Eurodip

20thFebruary2007, 17:14

If you want to watch the unfolding comedy, look out for "Baloch" and "Balochistan" in news items. Jeez, the Yanks never learn.

Eurodip

20thFebruary2007, 20:43

yoo mean baloochistan as in Pakistan where lies the oil and certain hob nobs of opposing factions that have been bumped off recently by you know who?:eek:

There are Balochs in Iran too. Someone's trying the same game that they tried with our buddies the Kurds. 'Tis a mess.

Neverwinter

27thFebruary2007, 05:20

Source (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm)
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

February 14, 2007

Statement on the Iraq War Resolution

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.

We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.
We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?

Neverwinter

27thFebruary2007, 05:23

Source (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022107R.shtml)
Former Bush Officials Accuse White House of Trying to Provoke Iran
By Deniz Yeter
t r u t h o u t | Report
Wednesday 21 February 2007

Warn public that Bush is looking for a pretext to justify a broader, regional conflict.

Hillary Mann Leverett, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004, until she left the administration, has issued a sober warning to the public concerning Bush's intentions with Iran.

In an interview on CNN, on February 12, she accused the Bush administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict" from Iran as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" against the country's crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to "an all-out invasion like what happened with Iraq." (1)

Her warning comes a day after sources revealed to Newsweek that "a second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf" and "that a third carrier will likely follow" to replace one of the strike carriers already in the Gulf. In retaliation, "Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week in a highly publicized test." (2)

When asked what the Bush administration should do in its confrontation with Iran, Leverett suggested that "we should do what Nixon and Kissinger did with China in the early 1970s. We should respond positively, [and] constructively to Iranian overtures, to enter into comprehensive talks with Iran and to strike a grand bargain.

Leverett continued, "A grand bargain would mean we would have to make some concessions, and it would mean the Iranians would have to make some important concessions. But at the end of the day I think there is a path. The Iranians have put this on the table before."

Confronted with the question of why the Bush administration is seeking to lure Iran into attacking, Leverett responded vaguely that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about a "democratization ... peace and stability", to the region.

< Leverett is joined by a growing consensus of current and former US government, intelligence and military Officials who accuse the administration of trying to spark another unnecessary and unfounded war in the Middle East for their own self-interests.

In April 2006, Seymour Hersh, a writer for The New Yorker, detailed the Bush administration's covert actions inside Iran stating: "The Bush administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups." (3)

Retired US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner also appeared in April 2006, on CNN in defense of Seymour Hersh's claims, saying he thinks that "the decision has been made and military operations are under way." He also stated, "The Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, [and] have been saying it for almost a year."

"I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. "And I said, "Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.' He said, quite frankly, ‘Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans.'" (4)

Jim Webb, the freshman Senator from Virginia, whose Election Day victory in 2006 tipped the power in the Senate to the Democrats favor, appeared on "Hardball With Chris Matthews" on February 7, echoing the same warning given by Leverett. He said, "If you look at the framers of the Constitution, they wanted to give the president, as commander in chief, the authority to repel sudden attacks. That is totally different than conducting a preemptive war."

"And you know one thing," Webb continued, "if you look at where we are in the Persian Gulf right now, when I was secretary of the Navy and until very recently, we never operated aircraft carriers inside the Persian Gulf because, number one, the turning radius is pretty close, and number two, the chance of accidentally bumping into something that would start a diplomatic situation was pretty high. "We now have been doing that, and with the tensions as high as they are, I'm very worried that we might accidentally set something off in there. And we need, as a Congress, to get ahead of the ball game here."(5)

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who masterminded the failed Nojeh Coup in 1980 to topple the current Iranian government, came out on February 1 to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blasting the Bush administration's handling of the war. He called the "War on Terror" a "mythical historical narrative" used to justify a "protracted and potentially expanding war," and accused them [the Bush administration] of trying to spread the conflict in Iraq to other parts of the Middle East by "deepening [a] quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, Brzezinski explained, "followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran. ... To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Brzezinski also made note of the Bush administration's cronyism, saying, "I am perplexed by the fact that major strategic decisions seem to be made within a very narrow circle of individuals - just a few, probably a handful, perhaps not more than the fingers on my hand. "And these are the individuals, all of whom but one, who made the original decision to go to war, and used the original justifications to go to war," he noted. (6)

Texas House Republican Ron Paul also had harsh words for the Bush administration and Congress, giving an alarming speech before the US House of Representatives on January 11. He accused them both of using "the talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq" to "distract Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran."

Congressman Paul said, "Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling.... Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

"Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the US," Paul added, "and possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep 'everything on the table' when dealing with Iran."

Paul continued, "We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.... Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible. Mr. Speaker, let's hope I'm wrong about this one," Congressman Paul said. (7)

Marco Polo

27thFebruary2007, 10:22

imo what is going to happen is that the us will add its troops in iraq. when they are settled, it (or israel) will cause some event and launch an attack on iran. it will just be an attack to break the military and nuclear facilities though. of course there will be some convenient collateral damage.

Neverwinter

28thFebruary2007, 14:14

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece)
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.

Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.

A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”

But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.

Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.

The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.

According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.

However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.

Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.

One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.

Neverwinter

2ndMarch2007, 03:03

Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml)
Israel seeks all clear for Iran air strike

By Con Coughlin in Tel Aviv
25/02/2007

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.

"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these are crucially important," said the official, who asked not to be named.

"The only way to do this is to fly through US-controlled air space. If we don't sort these issues out now we could have a situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."

As Iran continues to defy UN demands to stop producing material which could be used to build a nuclear bomb, Israel's military establishment is moving on to a war footing, with preparations now well under way for the Jewish state to launch air strikes against Teheran if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the crisis.

The pace of military planning in Israel has accelerated markedly since the start of this year after Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, provided a stark intelligence assessment that Iran, given the current rate of progress being made on its uranium enrichment programme, could have enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead by 2009.

Last week Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, announced that he had persuaded Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad for the past six years and one of Israel's leading experts on Iran's nuclear programme, to defer his retirement until at least the end of next year.

Mr Olmert has also given overall control of the military aspects of the Iran issue to Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force and a former F-16 fighter pilot.

The international community will increase the pressure on Iran when senior officials from the five permanent of the United Nations Security Council and Germany meet at an emergency summit to be held in London on Monday.

Iran ignored a UN deadline of last Wednesday to halt uranium enrichment. Officials will discuss arms controls and whether to cut back on the $25 billion-worth of export credits which are used by European companies to trade with Iran.

A high-ranking British source said: "There is a debate within the six countries on sanctions and economic measures."

British officials insist that this "incremental" approach of tightening the pressure on Iran is starting to turn opinion within Iran. One source said: "We are on the right track. There is time for diplomacy to take effect."

Neverwinter

2ndMarch2007, 03:04

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070225/pl_nm/usa_iran_dc)
U.S. developing contingency plan to bomb Iran: report
Feb 24 2007

Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue.

The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.

The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives, according to the article.

In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous.

"The United States has been very clear with respect to its concerns regarding specific Iranian government activities. The president has repeatedly stated publicly that this country is going to work with allies in the region to address those concerns through diplomatic efforts," Whitman said.

Pentagon officials say they maintain contingency plans for literally dozens of potential conflicts around the world and that all plans are subject to regular and ongoing review.

The article, citing unnamed current and former U.S. officials, also said the Bush administration received intelligence from Israel that Iran had developed an intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads that could reach Europe. It added the validity of that intelligence was still being debated.

The article also included an interview conducted in December with Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who said that while he had no interest in initiating another war with Israel, he was anticipating and preparing for another Israeli attack sometime this year.

Israel launched a cross-border offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon last July.

Nasrallah also said he was open to talks with Washington if such discussions "can be useful and influential in determining American policy in the region," but they would be waste of time if the purpose was to impose policy.

Neverwinter

9thMarch2007, 02:46

Source (http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp02242007.html)
February 24 / 25, 2007
AIPAC Demands "Action" on Iran
By GARY LEUPP

Former CIA counterterrorism specialist Philip Giraldi, comparing the propaganda campaign against Iran to that which preceded the war on Iraq, has recently declared, "It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps-demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux." He's only one of many in his field (including Vincent Cannistraro, Ray McGovern, and Larry C. Johnson) doing their best to expose the Bush-Cheney neocon disinformation campaign according to which Iran is planning to produce nukes in order to commit genocide, while abetting terrorists in Iraq who are killing American troops.

Their efforts, and those of many others, are producing results. The mainstream corporate press is far more skeptical about administration claims pertaining to Iran than they ever were towards the equally specious claims made about Iraq on the eve of the 2003 invasion. The American people are now inclined to distrust claims made by nameless officials about Quds Force-provisioned IEDs and EFPs, etc., supposedly smuggled by "meddling" Iranians into Iraq. Unfortunately the Congress dominated by Democrats elected in a popular expression of antiwar sentiment has not taken a firm stance against an attack on Iran based on lies. Maybe given the nature of the power structure it simply can't.

Giraldi matter-of-factly sums up the unfortunate politics of situation.

"The recent formation of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus should. . . .be noted as well as AIPAC's highlighting of the threat from Iran at its 2006 convention in Washington, an event that featured Vice President Dick Cheney as keynote speaker. More recently, Senator Hillary Clinton addressed an AIPAC gathering in New York City. Neither was shy about threatening Iran. AIPAC's formulation that the option of force 'must remain on the table' when dealing with Iran has been repeated like a mantra by numerous politicians and government officials, not too surprisingly as AIPAC writes the briefings and position papers that many Congressmen unfortunately rely on."

In other words, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee is the main political force urging---indeed, demanding---U.S. action. That's the AIPAC already under scrutiny for receiving classified information about Iran from Lawrence Franklin, former Defense Department subordinate of Douglas Feith. (That's the neocon Feith who supervised the Office of Special Plans---headed by Abram Shulsky, the neocon specialist on Leo Strauss who currently heads up the Iran Directorate at the Pentagon---that shamelessly cherry-picked intelligence to support the Iraq attack. That's the Franklin who worked in the OSP, and was sentenced last month to 13 years in prison. Feith has not been indicted on any charge and continues to insist in defiance of reason and even a Pentagon internal investigation finding it "inappropriate" that his office's disinformation project was "good government." Small wonder Gen. Tommy Franks, formerly head of the U.S. Central Command, famously called Feith "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth." Congressional investigations are just now getting underway into Feith's role in facilitating the invasion of Iraq.)

That's the AIPAC embarrassed by the indictment of its policy director Steven Rosen and senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman for illegally conspiring to pass on classified national security information to Israel. Despite the already intimate ties between Israeli and U.S. intelligence (documented by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski among others) it seems the Israelis felt obliged to spy on the Pentagon to learn just how inclined the Americans were to oblige them by attacking Iran.

Now, as Israeli calls for a U.S. attack on Iran become more shrill by the day, AIPAC recognizes that the American people profoundly distrust Vice President Cheney and the nest of neocon liars he has sheltered. The Bush-Cheney war machine has been pretty well exposed, and that must worry the warmongers within the group. Israeli Defense Force chief artillery officer Gen. Oded Tira has griped that "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," adding that since "an American strike in Iran is essential for [Israel's] existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iran issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure." Tira urges the Lobby to turn to "potential presidential candidates. . . so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran," while Uri Lubrani, senior advisor to Defense Minister Amir Peretz, tells the Jewish Agency's Board of Governors that the US "does not understand the threat and has not done enough," and therefore "must be shaken awake."

Many Americans would find such statements deeply offensive in their arrogance and condescension. President Bush has indeed been weakened by the "Iraq failure" Tira acknowledges, arising from a war that the Lobby once endorsed with enormous enthusiasm. (As Gen. Wesley Clark put it way back in August 2002, "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." Recall that that weapon was imaginary.) So now, the Israeli war advocates aver, the U.S. president needs to be helped to do the right thing and attack Iran by lobbyists who will use their power to force the fools in the Democratic Party, especially presidential candidates. Because Americans don't understand and have to be shaken out of their current skeptical mode.

By who? By AIPAC, of course! The confidence expressed by these gentlemen (in the second most powerful political action committee in the country) is quite extraordinary. But alas, maybe it's warranted. Giraldi dispassionately concludes:

"Knowing that to cross the Lobby is perilous, Congressmen from both parties squirm and become uneasy when pressured by AIPAC to 'protect Israel,' even if it means yet another unwinnable war for the United States. The neocons know full well that if a war with Iran were to be started either inadvertently or by design, few within America's political system would be brave enough to stand up in opposition."

One should ask these spineless politicians how they suppose the people will remember their votes and positions within weeks of the "immediate action" Tira and his allies in the Bush administration (most notably Condi Rice's deputy Elliott Abrams, the most powerful neocon remaining in the team) are demanding. Will they not be blamed for the total collapse of cooperation between the U.S. occupation and Iraq's Shiite majority, the fall of the current client regime dominated by Iranian allies, the intensification of Shiite militia attacks on U.S. forces, the broadening of the current two-front war to enflame all of Southwest Asia?

One should ask those squirming manipulators blissfully ignorant of the Islamic world---clueless about the difference between Arabs and Persians or Sunnis and Shiites, coached almost entirely by State Department Zionists who don't bother to conceal their Islamophobia---to recognize that American Jewry is not generally pro-neocon nor united in support of an Iran attack. Indeed many American Jews are alarmed at Israeli/AIPAC efforts to push the U.S. into another crusader war on a Muslim nation. (A lot of them are in New York. Hillary might consult with them rather than suppose that her ticket to the presidency is the support of the Cheney-friendly Lobby. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that.)

One should ask the Lobbyists as well as the government of Israel that they think they serve (as well as the people of Israel, honestly divided in their opinions) how the security of the Jewish State will be abetted by a generalized war between Israel's great patron and the entire Muslim world.

When one plays this Islamophobic game of exploiting ignorance, fear, hatred and bigotry; when one conflates al-Qaeda with Iraq with Hamas with Hizbollah with Iran knowing that most Americans know little about the details and will be inclined to side (for now) with Israel against Muslims in general; when one lies (as the neocons do with such arrogance, supposing they will escape any consequences of the lies down the road)---then one invites a backlash. We live in a racist culture that easily slides into religious bigotry. Why use that culture (not so dissimilar to the German culture of the 1930s) so shamelessly---against Arabs and other Muslim peoples of the Middle East? One's disinformation with its murderous results in the Muslim world might just produce the ignorant conclusion that could sweep Middle America down the road: "The Jews made us do it." That's what the red-necks including a whole lot of today's brain-dead Christian Zionist fundamentalists will say as soon as everything goes wrong in the Middle East, Jesus doesn't come back and is nowhere in sight, and the three U.S. troops killed per day becomes six or ten for no good goddamned reason.

"They have the money, they control the media and the politicians. They made us attack Iran and now look what's happening." That's what the ignorant who can one day cry "Nuke 'em all!" referring to Muslims, and the next day swear "Fucking Christ-killers" will say. Is the Lobby's paranoia about Iran's uranium enrichment so severe as to risk that kind of assessment, that kind of blowback bigotry?

We are perhaps arriving at a critical point in the history of the powerful Lobby, including its capacity to intimidate honest, critically reasoning people who do not embrace its fears, prejudices and preoccupations. It's under unprecedented scrutiny following the carefully argued paper by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" and Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid both published last year, to which it's reacted with its wonted technique of character assassination. The political power of the Lobby would appear to be reaching its zenith; and while it used its hand subtly in the build-up for war on Iraq, it now uses it in crude, bullying fashion. Israeli officials weren't publicly calling for the simple-minded Christian-Zionist Bush to "smite" Iraq to defend Israel in 2003, but now they're nervously demanding that Bush destroy Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent a "genocide" worse that that accomplished by Hitler! Their boldness betrays a confidence that they can indeed continue to shape American political discourse about the Middle East (to the exclusion of any audible Arab or Muslim voice) and that to challenge them is indeed "perilous."

"Attack Iran! NOW! Or support GENOCIDE! and side with the new HITLER! Destroy Iran's nuclear facilities! NOW! Or reveal your thinly-disguised ANTI-SEMITISM!"

That's the hyper-message calculated to stimulate an assault, to which the calm counterterrorism analyst Giraldi draws our attention. One could respond to the message with a polite, firm, principled refusal:

No thanks this time, AIPAC. You're just not credible. Can't do it for you. My constituents aren't into more war, and they think this whole Iran thing's a lot of hype. I can't support nuking Iran, and frankly, I don't see how you can either. I don't think you speak for all or even most American Jews, and you can't scare me this time by accusations of anti-Semitism. I can't have an attack on Iran my conscience, sorry. I'd rather be defeated in the next election. Keep your money; I just can't do what you ask.

Will the Congress targeted by the Lobby be able to say that? If it doesn't, all the belated, posturing moves to limit Bush's power, withdraw troops and end the imperialist war in Iraq will mean nothing. An attack on Iran will unleash the gates of hell. The attackers will argue that a new situation makes all prewar debate irrelevant (or even if encouraging doubt about the "existential" cause, downright treasonous). The fascistic proclivities of the administration will blossom immediately. The legal basis has been laid for the repression of the dissent an Iran attack will naturally inspire. Prison camps, suspension of habeas corpus. The proponents of the war are comfortable with these things, and the waters have already been tested.

O nation miserable,
With an untitled tyrant bloody-scepter'd,
When shalt thou see thy wholesome days again?

Can the American people allow this unelected unpopular administration, headed by a manifestly stupid sadistic fool, to continue to provoke international contempt and fear, while planning more carnage?

Neverwinter

13thMarch2007, 14:16

Source (http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_26/buchanan.html)
Who Will Stop The Next War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

If Americans sickened by the carnage of Iraq wish to stop an even more disastrous war on Iran, they had best get cracking.

For the “On-to-Baghdad!” boys are back, warning us that the only way to prevent an atom bomb from being detonated in an American city is to attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear sites. And the forces needed to execute an attack are moving into place. Army Gen. John Abizaid has been replaced as CENTCOM commander by Adm. “Fox” Fallon, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, who knows little about counterinsurgency but a lot about co-ordinating air strikes.

The carrier group Stennis is headed for the Gulf to join the Eisenhower. Minesweepers are headed for the Strait of Hormuz. American fighter-bombers have returned to Incirlik. Iranian officials have been seized in Iraq. Patriot missiles are being moved into Kuwait and Qatar. Why all this firepower—to secure Anbar province and Sadr City?

Bush’s anti-Iran rhetoric has been ratcheted up. Announcing his surge, Bush interjected that Tehran “is providing material support for attacks on American troops. … [W]e will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” This threat was followed by shoot-to-kill orders to U.S. troops encountering Iranians aiding the insurgency.

And Democrats are not going to let Bush get to their right. At the Herzliya Conference, John Edwards said that keeping Iran from nuclear weapons “is the greatest challenge of our generation.” “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate—all options.”

At AIPAC, Hillary echoed Edwards: “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table. … We need to use every tool about our disposal including … the threat and use of military force.”

To Mitt Romney, this was wimpish. For Hillary had said she favors “engagement” with Iran. Roared Romney to Hill Republicans, “[W]e don’t need a listening tour about Iran. … Someone who wants to engage Iran displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat of a nuclear Iran.”
Anybody think that Giuliani and McCain will let Edwards, Hillary, or Mitt be more menacing toward Tehran than they?

Consider the correlation of forces behind a new war.

If Bush goes home with Iran’s nuclear program not shut down, his legacy will be Iraq and a failed presidency. The Bush Doctrine—no nukes in rogue states—will have been defied by Pyongyang and Tehran.

Israel wants Iran attacked yesterday. The neocons need a new war to make America forget the disaster that they wrought in Iraq. Democratic candidates must be seen as hawkish as Giuliani and McCain. And the deadline for Iran to comply with UN Security Council directives to halt its enrichment of uranium is Feb. 23. What then is holding us back from war?

It is the realization, even on the part of the noisiest hawks, that war on Iran could precipitate a disaster worse than defeat in Iraq. A Shia uprising against U.S. troops could turn the Green Zone into Dien Bien Phu. Attacks on tankers and pipelines could send oil to $200 a barrel. America would have no international support and would receive virtually universal condemnation.

And like the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, bombing Iran could unite Iranians behind their rulers. Shia insurgencies could be ignited against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Hezbollah could bring down the Lebanese government and attack Americans in the Middle East and perhaps here in the United States.

And what would an attack accomplish besides setting back an Iranian nuclear-enrichment program that by most reports is a bust?

What is the threat? Iran has no missiles that can reach us, no atom bombs. Though the Mullahs have been in power 27 years, they have yet to launch their first war. The war they fought was in self-defense. They can no more want a Sunni-Shia regional war than we, for they would be in the isolated minority. They want the Taliban kept out of Kabul and Iraq to remain united under a Shia majority, as do we.

It is said that we cannot negotiate with men responsible for the Khobar Towers. But Bush negotiated with Muammar al-Gaddafi, who was responsible for Pan Am 103, and Gaddafi agreed to forego nuclear weapons. Sanctions were lifted and relations restored.

If FDR can talk to Stalin, and Nixon to Mao, and Bush to the North Vietnamese (who tortured John McCain), why can’t we talk to Mullahs who held 52 Americans hostage for a year?

Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) has introduced a resolution declaring that in the absence of an imminent threat or an attack upon us from Iran, President Bush has no authority to attack Iran.

Eurodip

13thMarch2007, 17:02

Better still, if they can talk to the North Koreans, who have killed American troops in the DMZ, and are off the scale in the human rights abuse department, and who have carried out a nuclear test in breach of every treaty, why can't they talk to the Eye-raynians?

Far be it from me, coming from the bastion of Newtrrrrrrralita', to suggest that the Americans are chickenshit, but I'm sorely tempted.

Neverwinter

21stMarch2007, 04:30

Source (http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100523.html)
AIPAC: States should disinvest from Iran

AIPAC is launching a 10-state effort to get public employee pension funds to divest from companies that deal with Iran. "If the largest state pension funds in the country were to divest from companies with ties to Iran, it would have a devastating effect on Iran's economy," Howard Kohr, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee executive director, said Monday at the group's annual policy forum.

"In this next year, AIPAC will be working with our partners in Jewish and other organizations to support divestment efforts in 10 states around the country," Kohr said. He asked the 6,000 delegates "to work with your state's decision-makers to educate them and ask them to ensure that their state's pension funds divest from a regime that threatens the safety of our world."

Lawmakers in several states, including Ohio and California, already have launched disinvestment drives. A central plank of this year's policy forum is the isolation of Iran as long as it resists nuclear transparency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good ol' economic warfare...

Neverwinter

21stMarch2007, 04:38

March 05, 2007
Could 650,000 Iraqis really have died because of the invasion?
Anjana Ahuja

The statistics made headlines all over the world when they were published in The Lancet in October last year. More than 650,000 Iraqis – one in 40 of the population – had died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003. The vast majority of these “excess” deaths (deaths over and above what would have been expected in the absence of the occupation) were violent. The victims, both civilians and combatants, had fallen prey to airstrikes, car bombs and gunfire.

Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark – hospitals, record offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war – but this was ten times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations Development Agency.

The implication of the Lancet study, which involved Iraqi doctors knocking on doors and asking residents about recent deaths in the household, was that Iraqis were being killed on an horrific scale. The controversy has deepened rather than evaporated. Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts.

Article continued @ Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece)

Marco Polo

21stMarch2007, 11:10

Neverwinter

25thMarch2007, 06:04

The Redirection
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
A STRATEGIC SHIFT
by Seymour M. Hersh
March 5, 2007

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Article continued @ Source (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh)

Neverwinter

30thMarch2007, 04:51

Source (http://www.whitecivilrights.com/suspicious-naval-incident-to-incite-war-on-iran_759.html)
March 24, 2007
Suspicious Naval Incident to Incite War on Iran
by James Buchanan

Iran is now being accused of kidnapping British sailors. The US was drawn into the Vietnam War thanks to a phony naval incident in the Gulf of Tonkin –an event the neocons may be attempting to duplicate in the Persian Gulf. A recent news article reports “Diplomats struggled Friday to resolve a standoff prompted by Iran’s seizure of 15 British sailors and marines in the volatile, oil-rich Persian Gulf as a vote neared on U.N. sanctions that would punish the Islamic Republic for its nuclear enrichment program. The Royal Navy personnel, traveling in high-speed inflatable rafts through the crowded waters off the Iranian and Iraqi coasts, had just inspected an Iranian-flagged dhow for contraband Friday morning when they were surrounded by Islamic Revolutionary Guard gunboats, detained and taken to a nearby Iranian military base. Iran said the Britons were being held for violating its territorial waters. British and American military officials insisted that the Iranian gunships had crossed into Iraqi waters.”

Given the nearly infinite tendency to lie by both the Bush and Blair regimes, it’s a safe bet that the Iranians are telling the truth. The president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a planned trip to speak in front of the UN in regards to Iran’s nuclear energy program. The timing of this incident was clearly intended to make Iran look bad just as Ahmadinejad was scheduled to appear before the UN. Iran has the right to arrest anyone who trespasses into their territorial waters. The neocons are fully capable of “sacrificing” a few sailors to create a case for war. Ahmadinejad was going to give a speech at the UN to counter months of neocon lies, this latest incident seems tailor-made to fan the flames of war and to drown out the truth.

In recent years, Iran has begun to mine and process uranium. The first attempt to produce nuclear power in Iran was in the 1970s under the Shah of Iran, who was a puppet of the CIA. The Shah was overthrown before Iran’s nuclear reactors were finished. Iran has only recently made attempts to continue its earlier nuclear program, and the neocons are using every excuse in the book to criticize Iran and claim that any nuclear power program is really a secret nuclear weapons program.

Behind this endless series of verbal attacks against Iran are Zionists and Israelis. To them, it’s unacceptable that Iran should have a nuclear energy program because of the remote possibility that Iran may carry out a stealth nuclear program just as Israel did in the 1960s and ’70s.

There are dozens of nations in the world, who have a peaceful nuclear energy program, but Americans have been brainwashed to think that it’s impossible to have a peaceful program without a nuclear bomb program too. It costs billions of dollars and takes years of research to develop atomic weapons. Even if Iran made the effort to make one atomic bomb, Israel reportedly has hundreds of hydrogen bombs. A few nuclear bombs in the hands of the Iranians would be nothing more than a deterrent so that Israel could not wipe Iran off the map without any consequences. If a war is waged by the West against Iran, it is to preserve Israel’s ability to utterly destroy their Muslim neighbors without fear of retaliation and nothing else.

Among the nations with nuclear reactors and no nuclear bombs are Germany, Japan and Italy. If the Axis powers from World War Two can be trusted with nuclear reactors, then why is it impossible to trust Iran? Why do the Zionists get to dictate nuclear policy to the world?

The neocons tell us that Iran can’t be trusted. But let’s compare Iran to Israel in recent decades. The only war Iran has fought since the fall of the Shah was the war against Iraq. The US had encouraged the Iraqis to go to war with their neighbor as punishment for overthrowing the CIA puppet government. Meanwhile, Israel has bombed most of their neighbors at least once in recent decades. Israel has invaded Lebanon twice since 1980. In the most recent invasion, Israel systematically destroyed civilian housing giving -at best- a phone call to imminent victims of Israeli aggression. Israel reportedly committed a mass murder in Jenin just a few years ago. The Israelis refused to let UN inspectors examine the ruins of the Jenin refugee camp to investigate the charges of mass murder.

The truth is that Israel is responsible for most of the warfare in the Middle East. Israel has repeatedly launched sneak attacks on their neighbors (and even their friends –for example the USS Liberty). If any nation in the Mid East should NOT have nuclear weapons, that nation is Israel. The fact that the Israeli Lobby and neocons in the Bush regime are threatening war over a nuclear energy program in Iran exposes how paranoid and undeserving of power these lunatics are.

Americans need to start voting out of power any politician who takes orders from the Israeli Lobby. Any politician who voted for the war on Iraq should be in jail, not in office. George Washington warned Americans to avoid foreign entanglements. That includes allowing our government to be infested with pro-Zionists and completely intimidated by the Israeli Lobby.

Eurodip

4thApril2007, 02:56

Any links for me ED?

There you go. Very slow though. I've been saying this for months.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

Neverwinter

7thApril2007, 06:57

Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0328/p04s01-wome.html)
US hawks see strikes on Iran as less likely now
Influential thinkers who backed a US-led invasion of Iraq now say containment, not confrontation, is best for Iran.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON

Earlier this month when House leader Nancy Pelosi struck a provision from a $100-billion spending bill that would have specifically required President Bush to seek congressional approval before any military strike on Iran, it was seen as a victory for the hawks in Washington.

After all, the Democrats took control of Congress last year in large part because of voter anger over the Iraq war. If they were saying that Bush doesn't need their permission to take action against Iran, then his "all options are on the table" rhetoric looks stronger, and raises the possibility of expanded conflict in the Middle East.

But war with Iran, or even targeted air strikes at presumed nuclear facilities, is looking less and less likely. Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran's move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the US-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.

"I think the discussion has really shifted," says M. J. Rosenberg, the director of analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, a pressure group in Washington that favors diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East's problems and worries that the Iraq war has made Israel and America less safe. "The conventional wisdom in Washington has changed," says Mr. Rosenberg. There were influential people who thought that thought military action could be possible this year, he says. "Now, hardly anyone does."

Mr. Rosenberg says continued tough talk – and the Democrat climbdown over the spending bill – largely serve two functions: to hopefully soften up Iran in ongoing diplomatic negotiations over inspections of its nuclear facilities; and as a sop to hard-line groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which advocates continued political and economic sanctions on Iran until it gives up its nuclear program, and whose lobbying was largely seen as leading Ms. Pelosi to take her action. [ Editor's Note: The original version mischaracterized AIPAC 's position.]

Polls show attacking Iran is unpopular

But it's not just doves like Rosenberg. The more hawkish forces in Washington – from neoconservatives who believe the Middle East should be remade by force to pro-Israel lobby groups that say military strikes would prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear ambitions – have taken a step back.

The logistics of a strike, with an expanded US military role in Iraq and the fact that the two US carrier groups in the Gulf can't stay there indefinitely, are growing ever more difficult. And polls show a large majority of Americans prefer diplomacy, at least for now.

"If Bush attacked Iran tomorrow, the great majority of Americans would think he was nuts,'' Patrick Clawson, deputy director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said last week at a conference in Washington on America's options with Iran.

Mr. Clawson, a vigorous proponent of invading Iraq, sees the Islamic Republic of Iran as an intractable enemy of the US, and has repeatedly urged that the US focus on regime change there by supporting exiled dissidents and democratic opponents inside the country.

But he has recently written that military action against Iran "is clearly undesirable" and thinks war is out of the question, unless it is triggered by a "much more aggressive" stance from Iran, for instance a withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the testing of a nuclear weapon.

At the same conference, which was sponsored by the RAND Corporation, a think tank with close ties to the American military establishment, Ken Pollack, another supporter of the Iraq invasion, said he favors keeping the pressure on Iran with sanctions, which he thinks could work in containing their nuclear program if Iran sees that the social and economic costs are high enough.

He sees military action as an absolute last resort, and worries that Iran could easily tie up US forces in Iraq – where the US alleges many of the Shiite militias closely cooperate with Tehran. "We need to think about Iraq before we go off on some half-cocked military action against Iran,'' Mr. Pollack says.

To be sure, there are still real risks of an eventual escalation. The UN Security Council on Saturday backed a package of sanctions against Iran that includes a ban on Iranian arms exports and a freezing of the assets abroad of 28 individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear program.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned about the planned sanctions last week, saying that if big powers via the Security Council took "illegal actions" and ignored the Islamic Republic's rights, "we can also carry out illegal actions and we will do that." He insisted Iran would continue with efforts to enrich uranium – a fuel needed for both nuclear reactors, but that could also be used to make a weapon.

David Ochmanek, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for strategy and now a defense analyst at RAND, argues that the logic of seeking nuclear weapons from the Iranian perspective is compelling – and America's desire to stop that just as urgent.

He says Iran's conventional military, particularly its Air Force and anti-aircraft batteries "are really a museum" and that its recent history – a ruinous war with Iraq in the 1980s in which Sunni Arab regimes, and at times the US, supported Iraq – has convinced it to rely on itself rather than international forums when it comes to its defense.

In that context, nuclear weapons have a "unique deterrent value" and he argues that strikes on Iranian facilities today would probably lead Iran to "redouble its efforts" to acquire a bomb.

Of course, Iran insists that its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful energy purposes. Speaking by video link because the US won't allow him to leave New York, Iranian Ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif disputed the belief of strategists like Mr. Ochmanek that a nuclear weapon would be attractive for Iran.

"Nuclear weapons won't help Iran," he said. They would "increase our vulnerabilities and decrease our influence ... nuclear deterrence for Iran is just a myth."

Nevertheless, Mr. Zarif maintained the insistent Iranian line that it needs to be able to produce nuclear fuel on its soil. He said that "everyone knows... sanctions will not reach the intended result" and turned a favorite saying of former President Ronald Reagan's by describing the attitude of the two countries towards one another as "mistrust and verify."

Diplomacy now seen as best path

Zarif said suggestions by some UN diplomats that a compromise could be reached – in which an international consortium would promise to supply Iran with nuclear fuel produced abroad – are unacceptable, though he implied that an agreement to produce fuel in Iran with international oversight might be acceptable, though this is an outcome the US says it won't accept.

For now, diplomacy is taking its course. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Tuesday he aimed to continue talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator early next week.

"There's no guarantee that diplomatic options will succeed," says Mr. Pollack. "But [they're] likeliest to succeed.

Mosaic_art

12thApril2007, 14:28

Iran is challenging all elements. Iran wants Muslim Fundamentalism on front. Its just pathetic that a President of a country wants to abolish a state.

Neverwinter

19thApril2007, 03:06

Source (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4113)
Left-Right Alliance Against War?
Jon Basil Utley | March 29, 2007

Americans opposed to war are a distinct minority. If the Iraq War were going well, most Americans would support it. Yet the Iraq venture has been such a disaster for America that peace groups have a chance to expose the pro-war interests in the nation and advance an alternative foreign policy based on law and international cooperation. Incredible war costs, a growing police state at home, loss of allies, and tremendous anti-Americanism abroad have given most Americans pause about our foreign policies.

Even so, Washington is on the verge of extending the war with an attack on Iran. To change American policy, we need to understand the differences between the antiwar movements on the Left and the Right before identifying how they might cooperate.
The War Party

The leadership of both parties supports war and empire. The Republican establishment’s war promoters include the big conservative foundations, congressional leadership, old-line media such as National Review and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, and the Religious Right’s Armageddonites. The recent Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) meeting suppressed any antiwar debate, while speaker after speaker denounced foreigners, immigrants, and Arabs. Cheers resonated for PATRIOT Act author John Yoo, and John Bolton was a banquet speaker. The current Republican presidential front-runners all favor continuing the wars in the Middle East.

Against the above some lonely libertarians and a very few constitutional conservatives opposed attacking Iraq, both in 2003 and before the first Gulf War in 1990. Although many Republicans opposed the Kosovo war, they did so mainly because a Democrat, Bill Clinton, started it. The rationale for that U.S. intervention, like with Iraq, was also based on falsifications.

Most Democratic congressional leaders also voted for the Iraq war. Outsider Howard Dean, a vocal opponent of the war, was blown away by the Democratic establishment in 2004. In a recent Washington Post analysis, political scientist Tony Smith explains why the Democrats can’t put together a successful vote against the Iraq war. Many of the Democrats, according to Smith, are influenced by an ideology of using American military power for Wilsonian ends. They take their cues from “special interests…that want an aggressive policy-- globalizing corporations, the military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel lobbies, those who covet Middle Eastern oil.” The policies of these powerful “neo-liberals,” Smith writes, coincide with those of the “neo-conservatives.”

War is Washington’s big business. The military industrial complex has never been more profitable. Last year, 15,300 earmarks for defense spending went to projects carefully designed to gain adherents in every state. The F-22 fighter plane, for instance, has 1,000 subcontractors in 43 states. Electronic chips and secret superweapons are so complicated that profits can be hidden all along the production line well beyond the scrutiny of outsiders. Even newly planned missiles for Poland to “defend Europe” from Iran may be less about a grand strategic design than simply about selling more arms. Russia’s resultant concerns and European dismay are considered inconsequential.

Over and over, Washington’s War Party trumps the views of most business interests as well as the foreign policy and academic establishment. The consequences of Washington having made enemies of nearly a quarter of the human race, the Muslims, are only now unfolding. Yet the War Party continues to look for new conflicts, next with China, to justify the vast budget for weaponry mostly irrelevant to the War on Terror. The recent CPAC meeting and much of the conservative media are, for instance, full of dire warnings of a great Chinese military threat to America.
Beyond Left and Right

To change Washington from its cowboy, shoot-first approach to a more cooperative stance with other nations is not just a matter of defeating George Bush. Opposing new wars, whether in Iran or elsewhere, requires cooperation of the Left together with libertarians and constitutional conservatives. There is now a convergence of interests. The Left today is a minority and can’t expect to win power alone. The Republicans, because of the war, are splitting apart. Concern for deficits and constitutional freedoms have driven out libertarians, while immigration issues split business interests from the cultural conservatives.

To work together, the Left and Right must first confront their differences. There are past animosities and fundamental divergences in worldviews. Arguments that move one side have little effect on the other. In general the Left is more focused on America’s shortcomings and emotional issues, while the Right fears the outside world and looks to simplistic military solutions for most problems.

More specifically, the Left tends to make moral arguments about foreign policy. For instance, the Left’s concern over the death of innocent civilians in war -- collateral damage -- has little resonance with the Right. But the Right, at least some of it, has a pragmatic concern that such killing makes America even more hated and perhaps less safe. Most on the Right, however, argue that America is hated anyway, so more killing makes little difference. After all, our president has told us that we are hated because we are so good.

Many on the Left also think that it is immoral to make foreign policies based solely on U.S. national interest, a term that for them means business interests. Most conservatives know little and care little about the outside world. Leftists are generally more knowledgeable, but they know and care little about business or economic growth if such conditions cause economic injustice. Then there are the disagreements over how to use resources. Arguing that warfare is intrinsic to capitalism, much of the Left wants to use the war disaster to profoundly change America. The anti-war Right attributes the war to a takeover of foreign policy by former leftists, the neoconservatives, and to an unleashed military industrial complex.

But the categories also are losing their meaning. The Left no longer means confiscatory taxes and welfare state socialism. The Right no longer means balanced budgets, small government, and constitutional freedoms. Today other political divisions are more meaningful, such as between empire and republic, free traders and protectionists, pro- and anti-immigration interests, constitutionalists vs. Big Government. These all transcend Left and Right.

Also, there are common issues that can unite the moderate anti-war movements on both sides of the political spectrum. The common threat of trillions of dollars for unending wars already threatens both tax cuts and social welfare.

The growing police state at home and consequent erosion of civil liberties can also unify the two camps. Police State Republicans now run the party. There is little complaint at the dominant conservative think tanks and foundations, for example, over PATRIOT Act excesses and expanding police powers. But many old-line conservatives have objected, including the American Conservative Union (which sponsors CPAC), the new American Conservative magazine, tax fighter Grover Norquist, Paul Weyrich, former congressman Bob Barr, and a few others. The libertarian institutes have sponsored many speakers and publications, and the Cato Institute has already cooperated with the American Civil Liberties Union on these issues. But the conservative war establishment has overwhelmed these voices. Equally, most of the Religious Right shows little concern for police state measures. After all, millions of them believe the world will end soon, so what does the constitution matter? Notably also, almost all their top leaders (except Chuck Colson and Pat Nolan of Prison Fellowship and author Rick Warren) supported the torture of prisoners of war. Only now, with new leadership, has the National Association of Evangelicals dared to condemn torture.

The Left, being on the outs, now has much more concern for the constitutional rule of law and international law. However the Left also has a long history, when it was in power, of caring little for constitutional niceties, especially on economic matters. Even today, the Left would go to war for Darfur regardless of consequences, as it once decimated Haiti’s economy with an economic blockade under Clinton. In attacking Serbia, the Left did not demand any UN resolutions but used NATO for legitimacy, which severely undermined the pro-Western democratic forces in Russia.
Anti-Imperial Coalition

In many ways America has become like Rome, moving inexorably toward empire and a police state. A majority of Americans will always trade away their freedoms for supposed security. A few more terrorist attacks will weaken our constitutional protections even further. Democracies cannot run empires. So, empire will mean losing our democracy. Empire will also mean the constant risk of “mistakes” that can trigger nuclear or biological warfare.

Those of us with similar concerns on both Right and Left need more communication with each other. We need to study how we can work together. Brink Lindsay of the Cato Institute gives us one example with his manifesto on how to bring together libertarians with liberals.

We must also be mindful of the challenges. Christian reconstructionist Gary North argues that Left-Right alliances have rarely worked: witness how the Left, except for figures like Randolph Bourne and Eugene Debs, abandoned its internationalism and went nationalistic in support of U.S. entry into World War I. He argues that “each side should do its best to convince its own followers. We know our own side’s accents and hot buttons.”

Here, however, are some ways of transcending Left-Right concerns and forging an anti-imperial coalition.

1. Explain to Americans how other nations also seek security, that negotiation is not “un-American,” that Reagan too negotiated.
2. Work against a U.S. attack on Iran and the spread of war, which could end up wrecking world trade. Work to bring in Japan and South Korea, which depend upon Arabian Gulf oil, to publicly pressure Bush not to attack.
3. Bring in the business community. Much of it fears blowback from growing anti-Americanism abroad. The hi-tech industries in particular want peace to protect their intellectual property rights. Remember: Andrew Carnegie was a founding member of the Anti-Imperialist League.
4. The improvements to our civil defense are woefully inadequate and incompetently behind schedule. We all know the prime targets: our big coastal cities, tunnels, reservoirs, and industrial ports such as the Houston Ship Canal. We need biological defense, hospital resources, and fallout shelters much more than we need new submarines. More consciousness about these risks might make more Americans aware of the connection between our bombing of foreigners and their acts of terrorism against us.
5. Conservatives should join Leftist anti-war demonstrations, but with their own placards and banners. I have seen such at anti-war marches in Washington, and they are effective and draw attention. I wrote about this during the Kosovo war, because only Leftists make big anti-war events.
6. Each side needs to publicize the other’s anti-war resources. On the Right the conservative establishment has been very successful in suppressing anti-war views.
7. Attend each other’s meetings (though this can be counterproductive if the meetings are dominated by the extremist yahoos on the Right or America-haters on the Left).
8. Promote travel, international conferences, and foreign views, especially for the young.
9. Secure divided government so that each branch will investigate the other and help restrain its abuses of power.
10. Work for term limits, still the best way to limit Leviathan, and bring in younger, less compromised congressmen and women.
11. Remind Republicans that when they provide the president with ever more nearly dictatorial powers, it may well be a Hillary Clinton who enforces them.

There remains much that divides Left and Right. But, particularly as these designations lose their meaning, there is much that unites us as well. Opposition to American empire can serve as the banner that welcomes us into the one big tent of people opposed to war, an Anti-Imperialist League for the 21st century.