I was just browsing through some foreign news sources when I came across an artilce in the Asia Times Online. I'd like to share an excerpt with you:
NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.
An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration's declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that "all options remain on the table".
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders' minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as "Bomb Iran". Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised "total obliteration" for Iran if it attacked Israel.
For entire article go to: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html
This is interesting in that it confirms a previous article in the Sunday Times of London which also said that an a attack was in the making involving not nuclear facilities but the Iranian military. What was previously expected, if an attack was launched, was that the Iranian underground nuclear facilities would be taken out with mini-nukes or bunker busters. Such an action would no doubt draw the condemnation of the international community...well, the third world nations, Russia and China...the EU doesn't care they just tag along.
The report from the London Times entails a more conventional approach to war...taking out the military. Shock and Awe! Now where have I heard that before:
"The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Pentagon has plans for three days of massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran. Last week, Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, told a meeting of The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, that the military did not intend to carry out "pinprick strikes" against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said, "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military."
Bush has already set the wheels in motion. With Rovian timing, Alberto Gonzales' resignation was sandwiched between two Bush screeds - one aimed at ensuring Congress scares up $50 billion more for the occupation of Iraq, the other designed to scare us into supporting war on Iran.
...Bush's WMD-hyping against Iran is déja vu in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Disaster, where he played loose and fast with the truth about Iraq's alleged WMDs. His statement that a nuclear Iran could put the region "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust" conjures up his images of a "mushroom cloud" in the hype-up to Iraq."
More at: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/02/3565/
In another article...this one by Seymour M. Hersh from 2006, entitled, "Iran Plans" in the New Yorker:
"A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?' "
More at: http://www.truthout.org/article/seymour-m-hersh-the-iran-plans
In a more recent article in The New Yorker, late 2007, also authored by Hersh this:
"The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on "surgical" strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.
During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British "were on board." At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, "Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives." The former intelligence official added, "There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, 'You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we're only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.' But Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President."
More at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh
Lastly, in Raw Story, 2007...
"The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" - written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament:
Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.
The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran's WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran's actions.
- Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.
- US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.
- US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
- Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
- Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.
- Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran's WMD programmes.
- The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.
- The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran's actions.
When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
I am afraid, the new President of USA has to do a lot of hard work to improve the image of his country before the world!
Clawson & Eisenstadt Preparing Public For An Attack On Iran?
by Helena Cobban
May 22, 2008 10:35 AM
Here comes another propaganda campaign designed to lull western publics into thinking that a military attack on a Middle East nation will likely be a whole lot more successful than most experts currently think.
"Cakewalk", anyone?
The cakewalk is now being promised us is in Iran... and by that highly ideological, anti-Islamic Republic figure Patrick Clawson, deputy director of AIPAC's longtime research offshoot, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
In the article linked to there, Clawson discusses with Israeli commentator Yossi Melman the reasons he and fellow WINEP-er Michael Eisenstadt give in a forthcoming publication for why a military attack on Iran could be much more successful than most people currently fear.
Clawson seems to realize that he is trying to make a very tough argument, since he starts off with the old canard of obfuscation that "matters are a whole lot more complex than you think, since there are "many variables" involved.
Melman asks: "Do you share the sweeping assessment of most experts that Iran's reaction if attacked will be harsh and painful?" Clawson: "No. Iran's record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed... " And he gives some examples from the 1980s and the early 1990s.
He makes no mention at all of the fact that the strategic picture in the Gulf region has changed considerably since then-- including, crucially, that the US military now has 160,000 sitting ducks sitting in Iraq, just a stone's throw away from Iran, with most of them in areas where the population is much, much more sympathetic to Iran's interests than they are to the US's.
This is, indeed, a key aspect of the currently re-emerging talk about "an attack" on Iran before Pres. Bush leaves office. Many participants in this talk gloss over the issue of whether it would be Israel or the US that launches the attack. In Melman's questioning of Clawson, the assumption on both sides seems to be-- as spelled out in one of Melman's questions-- that it would be Israel launching the attack.
So we here in the U.S. should be clear that Clawson, like a number of other strongly pro-Israeli figures, is openly arguing for an Israeli attack on Iran that will put thousands of US troops-- and the very lengthy and vulnerable supply lines on which they depend-- directly at risk of Iran's retaliation.
Given the extremely close degree of military and political cooperation between the Israeli government and the Bush administration, if Israel launches a military attack against Iran then no-one inside Iran (or anywhere else) would find credible any protestation from the US government that it "was not involved at all" in the attack.
Indeed, it is impossible to see how the Israelis could deliver warheads against targets inside Iran without the passage of those warheads (on missiles or planes) through US-controlled security environments-- in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or the Gulf-- having been cleared in advance by the US at the highest levels.
If any US government official colludes in any way with a plan whereby either Israeli or American weapons and plans are used to launch an attack against Iran that is not directly allowed by the UN Security Council, then that official is surely guilty of the highest levels of treason against our citizenry's deepest interests. Like the majority of other US citizens, I have had quite enough of Israeli and pro-Israeli figures using cockamamie arguments to try to cajole my government into launching (or colluding in Israel's launching of) a quite unjustified military attack against a Middle Eastern nation, thereby putting the lives of my fellow-citizens who are in the US military, and bound to follow the orders of their superiors, directly at risk.
All this re-emerging talk of an attack against Iran in the coming months-- whether the attack has an Israeli "face" or a directly US one-- needs to be decisively quashed."
http://justworldnews.org/archives/002920.html
Also, see: http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=147
I can't believe that this is really being considered, but then again, what do Bush and Cheney have to lose?
Insanity
By Charley Reese
25/05/08 "King Features Syndicate" -- - President George Bush and his tag-along buddy John McCain are repeating almost word for word about Iran the pattern of lies and threats they used to justify the war against Iraq.
Our intelligence agencies have said that Iran gave up the pursuit of a nuclear weapon three years ago. President Bush makes speeches as if he's never heard of any intelligence agencies. That's what worries me about President Bush. His words very often defy and contradict reality.
Recently, he almost repeated word for word a theme he often used in the buildup to the Iraq aggression. It was, he said, unthinkable to allow "the most dangerous regime to acquire the most dangerous weapons." This guy might actually launch an attack on Iran before his term expires. If he does, you can kiss the world economy goodbye. You don't like $4-a-gallon gas? How about $10 a gallon?
In the first place, Iran is far from the most dangerous regime in the world. I would say it is not dangerous at all, so far as the United States is concerned. Except for idiots, sane people assess threats based on capability, not on political rhetoric, intentions or imagination.
So what are the capabilities of Iran? It has no nuclear weapons. We have about 3,000 or more. One American submarine could destroy the entire country of Iran and its population. Iran has no missiles that could reach us. It has no aircraft that could reach us. Its army couldn't even defeat Iraq.
So what I want to know is how in the blankety-blank Hades Bush and McCain define the word "dangerous"? When their statements about Iran are placed side by side with the known facts, Bush and McCain sound insane.
Nothing alarms me more than the thought of an irrational person in the White House. I'm OK with stupid. I can live with venal. I can tolerate a womanizer, even a drunk, but a crazy person in command of our nuclear forces gives me the heebie-jeebies. Somebody who can't tell the difference between a nuclear-free Iran with no ICBMs and Russia with thousands of nuclear warheads sitting atop advanced intercontinental missiles has no business being allowed in the White House, even as a tourist.
There are two countries that have the capability of being a threat to us – Russia and China. That's foreign policy and geopolitical strategy at the kindergarten level. They have the capability. No other country in the world does. Only a moron would worry more about an ex-college professor with a long name whose office doesn't even control the armed forces than he would about Vladimir Putin. This present American administration, in one of the dumbest moves in the history of diplomacy, neglected our relations with Russia while it got us bogged down in two small desert countries that don't amount to a hill of coffee beans.
Also bear in mind that it doesn't matter diddly squat if some small country manages to make a few nuclear weapons. A few is no threat to many. Nobody with a few would be tempted to attack any country with many nuclear weapons.
Deterrence worked when the Soviet Union had 30,000 nuclear warheads, but these moronic, unscrupulous, intellectually dishonest, dishonorable neocons would convince you that deterrence wouldn't work against Iran.
I know most secular folks equate religion with insanity, but they are not the same. Iran is a religious nation, but its leaders are not crazy. They are smart and well-educated. They fought a long, grueling war with Iraq, and I think what they want more than anything else is a little peace and prosperity. But I think they are worried about Bush, McCain and Israel, and I don't blame them.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19988.htm
NOTE: Doesn't matter, really, whether it's McCain, Obama or Hillary...they are all crazy, because they all march to the drum beat (death march) of the Zionist' regime in Israel and here at home (AIPAC, WINEP, and Hagee-like Christian-Zionist). They are all unconditionally committed to Israel. Note the ludicrousness of precidential candidates campaigning in a foreign country...they do this all the time in Israel.
Do candidates to political office campaign in France or Canada or the United Kingdom? Of course not...it's ludicrous. Yet, they campaign before the Knesset. Something is terribly wrong here, folks.
Unless, it's a candidate like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who doesn't follow Israels orders we will not be able to leave the Middle East until...UNTIL all of Israel's real or imagined enemies are eliminated...Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The Bush Administration was en route to a gradual draw down in Iraq back in 2006...that's until Israel got wind of those plans. "Whoa, there pilgrim where you think yer' goin?"
Israel invaded Lebanon...that quickly put a halt to any withdrawal plans.
Obama and Hillary have time tables on bringing this war on Iraq to an end. How naive! We don't decide when we leave...we will remain until our' soldiers have done their' work in securing the realm (the entire Middle East) for the Zionist regime...and not a day sooner. Unless, there is a President who has America's interest as his or her top priority and not the interest of the Likudniks.
This is it in a nut shell.
There are presidential' primaries in Puerto Rico where 56 delegates are at stake. The Clintons have been actively campaigning there the last month and half, by turns...Bill went over first, than Chelsea and lately, Hillary...now all three are there for the primary next Sunday. Chelsea has spent the most time there and has really developed a rapport and relationship with the public.
Originally there was a buzz over Obama...last month...and it looked like Obama would come up big in the primary. Bill flew over and tried to campaign, but, he is not favorably viewed by the people because he affected jobs negatively on the island during his' term in office. Plan B...Chelsea. The younger Clinton really connected with the people...they love her. No big speeches...just her accessibility and natural warmth...she's all over the place: hospitals, festivals, housing projects, soup kitchens, parks, work shops, day cares, etc. No speeches...talks to people personally.
Obama, on the other hand has been ONLY ADS...and when he has visited it has been to closed rooms with select people. He has been there maybe two days and made absolutely no effort to engage the populace. He has spent more time 'reassuring' pro-Israel groups back in the States on just how tough he will be on Iran. He has treated the primaries in Puerto Rico with utter contempt, hubris and that elitist air that distinguishes him. This primary was basically his' to lose...mainly because of Bill Clinton's negative impact on the island, but, now Bill is back and with his' usual ingratiating ways has swayed the people back to a more favorable outlook on Hillary as President.
I think Hillary will win and it's all mainly due to Chelsea. Hillary has been well recieved and she to has been all over the place...making speeches and delivering her' message. The extent of Obama's disconnect is evident in the fact that the Party on the island that is supporting his' candidacy is the Commonwealth Party. The Party backing Hillary is the Pro-Statehood Party.
Here's the disconnect...he said, in probably the only speech his made on the island, that if elected he would look to end Puerto Rico's 'colony' status...or commonwealth status...HELLO...the Party backing you IS the 'colony' (Commonwealth) Party. Doesn't this guy do his' homework? The Commonwealth (colony) Party IS for the status quo!
That's like talking before a Republican group about ending the war in Iraq, taxing corporations and abolitioning the Second Amendment. Can you imagine the look on the faces of the audience?
Oh, hell no! I just know he didn't go THERE!!!
This just shows how little he cares about these island' vine swingers.
"Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq"
We invade and occupy Iraq...for no good, except, but for the fact that we can...than tell Iran not to interfere. Not interfere! Iraq is Iran's neighbor and is under seige by an enemy that is also threatening to do the same in Iran. I would think it morally remiss on Iran's part NOT to try and aid Iraq's efforts to rid itself of enemy occupation forces.
Designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization is like calling the U.S. military a terrorist organization. Only a mind as unremittingly stupid as Dubya's could concoct such an absurdity or was this a brain child of Darth Cheney. Moreover, given the fact that the 'Shock and Awe' assault on Iraq was and has continued to be terror inducing to the Iraqi' populace...an argument could be made that the label 'terrorist' is being misplaced.
The White House needs to connect the war on Iraq with terrorism...with 9/11...with Al-Queda. There's the mantra created by the White House and the Pentagon being disseminated via the complicit corporate media of the boogey man...Al-Queda-In-Iraq...which apparently has gone the franchise route...Al-Queda-In-Somalia. It's nonsense, the so-called Al-Queda-In-Iraq is a phantom, just like al-Zaqawi was. Remember him...the phantom menace...perpetrator of every bad thing that went on in Iraq. Two or three genie's-out-of-the-bottle like al-Zaqawi and you don't need an army. There are more Al-Queda-In-Hoboken than there are in the entire Fertile Crescent, but, you must project that myth into the popular perception to than link Iran to it...the necessary casus belli.
They're aiding and abetting the terrorist that are killing our' soldiers. Really! And what the hell are YOUR' soldiers doing in Iraq...ANYWAY?
The image of our' country is that we are fighting proxy wars for the Israelis...plain and simple...and last I heard McCain, Obama and Hillary are feverishly 'reassuring' the Israeli lobby. The image of our'country is that of a global bully. The image of our' country is that we don't consider the lives of third world people of equal worth as that of the Western Powers. Finally, the image is one of belligrence and terror gone out of control and liable to strike anywhere and at anytime... eeny meeny miny mo...Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan...let's play pinata...
Yes, Sandy, God is our great consolation in suffering.
This Dubyesque 'war on terror' or shall I say on people of Islam is bound to produce more 'terrorist' or people on missions of revenge...in my forebears Sicily they call it...VENDETTA!
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."
Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice"—Act III, scene I
"Did you know that Richard M. Nixon was elected to the US presidency in 1968 on a platform that claimed he would end the war on Vietnam? It's true. And what did Nixon do once he was safely elected? He broke his promise, escalated the war on Vietnam and then went on to bomb Cambodia! "Why did you bomb Cambodia?" the press asked Mr. Nixon.
"I bombed Cambodia in order to end the war in Vietnam," Nixon replied. And did bombing Cambodia end the war on Vietnam? Absolutely! The total outrage engendered throughout Southeast Asia by Nixon's merciless killing of approximately 150,000 Cambodians drove the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge to fight even harder and the local civilian population to support them and to eventually hand America its greatest military defeat ever. Yep, Nixon's Cambodia bombing campaign DID end the Vietnam war.
According to Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan of the Yale Genocide Project, "The Cambodian bombing campaign had two unintended side effects that ultimately combined to produce the very domino effect that the Vietnam War was supposed to prevent. First, the bombing forced the Vietnamese Communists deeper and deeper into Cambodia, bringing them into greater contact with Khmer Rouge insurgents. Second, the bombs drove ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, a group that seemed initially to have slim prospects of revolutionary success."
Did you know that George W. Bush is now planning to do the exact same thing to Iran that Nixon did to Cambodia? Apparently Bush is now vowing to attack Iran in order to expand the war on Iraq in order to end it. "Because Iran is aiding and abetting our enemies in Iraq, we are justified in attacking Iran as a matter of self-defense."
Also, according to Fox News, former UN Ambassador and Bush administration insider John Bolton recently stated that, "the situation that our forces face in Iraq now is that they are being attacked, they are in danger from Iranian-lead, financed, trained and equipped terrorists." When asked if Bush would invade Iran before the end of his term, Bolton responded, "I think so, definitely."
We've definitely got some de-ja Voo happening here.
And will the results of Bush's plans to bomb Iran be the same as the results of Nixon's plans to bomb Cambodia? Do we really want to risk finding out?"
http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com/
Admiral Fallon prevented an attack on Iran by the neocon' guided Bush/Cheney Administration (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37738) (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=96130)...not once, but, twice. The man was a hindrance to war and blood-letting...he had to me removed...had to be.
"Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska lamented Fallon's departure, saying in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was ``very concerned to see him go.''
Speaking of Chuck Hagel whom was my choice for President above anyone else and this Admiral Fallon issue tie in...both men were among a very scant line of defense against further madnesses in the Middle East. The Admiral resigned yesterday and the Senator from Nebraska will be leaving Capitol Hill once his' term is over. Who else is left? Russ Feingold? The Democrats don't listen to him. Ron Paul? The Republicans don't listen to him. Dennis Kucinich? No Party on this planet listens to him.
As for McCain, Hillary and Obama...they're in the Lobby's pocket. Lieberman deep!
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977270647&nav=MyGather
Interestingly, to me, Fallon finally decided to step down the same week that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer stepped down after getting caught up in a prostitution dragnet. Hmm. Just a thought.
Here's another UPDATE excerpt:
" The most aggressive posturing and accusations against Iran, yet issued by Washington, signal the rapid closure of the window of opportunity for peace which opened up following the release of the US' National Intelligence Estimate in December 07 concluding that there was no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme in Iran. This revelation which was concordant with the IAEA's own repeated assessment over 5 years of intrusive inspections, and which had been held from publication by the Vice President Cheney for over a year with the aim of altering its key findings, put a spanner in the frightfully accelerating wheel to another war and a potential inferno in the Middle East and beyond.
However, it seems that the war camp led by Cheney have regained the lost ground and are furtively peddling for war before Bush leaves office next January. Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset, 15th May, evoking, once again, the spectre of the world war, likening Iran to 1938 pre-war Nazi Germany, and rebuking Obama's willingness for dialogue with Iran on par with "appeasement of Hitler", followed by the reporting of the Israeli army radio of behind the doors expressions of intent by the US to attack Iran before the end of his term, has sounded the alarm bells across a wide spectrum of political observers and analysts.
According to Col. Sam Gardiner, a specialist on military strategies, the raising of "message volume" of anti-Iran rhetoric points to the administration's policy direction of ratcheting up towards war on Iran. This view accords with the New York Times' revelation in April of Pentagon's illegally shaping of political climate through the use of contracted or bribed military analysts, who "under the guise of objectivity", act as a "Trojan Horse" for Bush administration's agenda via media outlet.
The volume and breadth of accusations against Iran which have risen steadily since the resignation in March of Admiral Fallon, the Ex-Head of the US Central Command, and a major bulwark against attacking Iran, sharply intensified in the 2 weeks prior to Bush's visit to Israel and provided the background and the pitch to his warring address to the Knesset. "Iran is a regional threat" (Rice, 30th April) killing American servicemen and women inside Iraq (Gate 29th April), as the policy … approved to highest level of that government (Hayden, CIA chief, 30th April), hell bent on developing nuclear weapons (Gate 29th April) whose pursuit of nuclear weapons and pursuit of terrorism is the perfect nightmare that is a threat to Israel and the rest of the region".
In relation to the massive military build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, described this as a "reminder" to Iran that Pentagon was preparing for "potential military Course of action" whilst simultaneously (1st May) acknowledging, in response to questions, that in relation to the allegations of the Iranian government role in the instability in Iraq, there was "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership is involved". However, threats of bombing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases near the populated capital, Tehran, have intensified. The legislative groundwork for such attacks were laid in Kyle-Lieberman' Amendment to the Defence Authorisation Bill last September.
Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt from the Washington Institute of Near East Studies, an APAC's offshoot, are persuading the western public that an attack on Iran could be "a whole lot more successful than most experts currently think". "
More at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19981.htm
"A new report on Iran's nuclear program has been forwarded to the UN Security Council, and the US corporate media is busy spinning its web.
After an online leak by The Institute for Science and Internation Security, US corporate media has played its part in perpetuating tensions. The leaked report, due to be released in early June, cites "no concrete evidence" of Iran's development of a nuclear bomb. Yet AP's May 26th headline stated, "Iran may be withholding info needed in nuke probe."
The IAEA, according to its own report, "has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies" on explosives.
Pepe Escobar talks about how the media has been "virtually unanimously saying that Iran has not come clean" on "high explosives testing". All the while, Iranian Press TV stressed that the IAEA has not detected the use of nuclear material linked to Iran's "alleged studies of weaponization". "
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0528-03.htm
"Sen. Barack Obama said Friday (March 3, 2007) the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."
Speaking before a pro-Israel crowd at a downtown hotel, Obama also repeated his call for a phased pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq and strongly backed a strong U.S. relationship with Israel.
... Obama was in friendly territory in Chicago as he appeared at a forum attended by 800 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobby. He received a standing ovation from the crowd and a hug from one of the group's leaders.
Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible...
The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said
...Obama's appearance was seen as a move to court Jewish donors, although the event wasn't a fund-raiser. He did pose for photos with AIPAC members at a private reception before the speech. Although the event was billed as a "forum," he took no questions from the audience or media and left immediately after his half-hour speech."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article
Yep, that's the M.O. pronouncements...no questions, please.
Typical U.S. politicians hubris and overlordship complex. We are the decider of who can or cannot have nuclear capabilities. The world is our' oyster. Maybe, Obama and Stephen Hadley can take their' war pimping show on the road.
"US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley says the world cannot let down future generations by allowing Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, saying such a development would be a disaster for the Middle East and the rest of the planet.
...The national security advisor singled out Iran, saying it must not be allowed to build a nuclear bomb.
"We will not betray future generations by allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon," said Hadley. "Iran is a particular worry since it is both a potential proliferator and an active state sponsor of terror and thus a potential route of weapons of mass destruction for terrorist groups."
Hadley says the United States and its international partners will continue to pressure Iran over its uranium-enrichment program with diplomatic isolation and U.N. sanctions.
He says the world cannot allow Iran to use negotiations to stall for time, hedge its bets and keep open an indigenous route to a nuclear weapon.
"If there is one thing I hope we can all agree on, it is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be disastrous for the peace of the Middle East and the world," said Hadley."
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/364577/cs/1/
Don't know, but, last time I looked the country that was making 'peace in the Middle East' disastrous was the one these two gibronies are out war pimping for.
"As Barack Obama's anti-war rhetoric is blasted around the US in his attempt to seal the Democratic nomination, his real position on US militarism is being revealed discreetly to his political, military, and corporate colleagues.
Two recent events have proved beyond any doubt that Obama is in total conformity with the US ruling class on the issue of maintaining— or even expanding— the role of the military in the Middle East. This of course is the complete opposite of what he tells those who fill stadiums to hear him speak.
Cont'd at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19995.htm
The Real AIPAC Spy Ring Story--it Was All About Iran
By Doug Ireland
August 07, 2005
Here's what the stories in today's Washington Post and New York Times on the new indictments of the two AIPAC spies aren't telling you: their espionage was principally about helping to prepare an attack by Israel on Iran. And one of the Israeli embassy officials who knows all about AIPAC's role in helping plan the attack on Iran has been whisked out of the country and out of the reach of U.S. prosecutors, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reports this morning.
The neo-cons in the Pentagon had long been arguing for an attack on Iran to take out its nuclear facilities that had the potential to be converted for development of nuclear weapons. Wolfie's man Doug Feith had been particularly assiduous in pressing the case for a "forward strategy" against Iran. Feith's views are madly extremist, and Jim Zogby collected them in an April profile of Feith that should scare the pants off of anyone rational. (Feith's been a major activist for years with the viciously anti-Arab crazies of the ZOA, the Zionist Organization of America).
When, for purely electoral reasons with the Iraq occupation going so disastrously, the White House decided against a direct attack by the U.S. on Iran, the neo-cons went to Plan B -- an attack on Iran by proxy, from Israel. The principal classified documents leaked to Israel through AIPAC -- the leaks that that began the investigation of the AIPAC spy ring, which has been going on now for over a year -- concerned Iran. They were leaked by Feith's deputy, Larry Franklin, also now under a five-count indictment for spying.
The plan for an Israeli attack on Iran has been long envisioned -- both in Washington and by Sharon's government -- but this attack is now in a highy advanced state of planning and could come as quickly as Sharon snaps his fingers to order it. Back on March 13, the London Times -- in a report that was largely ignored in the U.S. -- reported that: "The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave 'initial authorisation' for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert,"
The London Times went on to describe how "
Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel's elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel's way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed...." And, the Times added, "US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations."
Just a few weeks before that revelation of the concretization of Israeli plans for the Iran attack, Bush let the cat out of the bag in an off-the-cuff remark captured by London's Daily Telegraph, in a February 18 article headlined, "AMERICA WOULD BACK ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN." The Telegraph reported that Bush said: "Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened." )
Noting that Bush had gone off the reservations and failed to follow his handlers' brefing to stick to the agreed-on script, the Telegraph dryly noted: "His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration's line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts. The remarks may have reflected Mr Bush's personal thinking on an issue causing deep concern in Washington...." Bush's slip-of-the-tongue that revealed his real intentions was front-page news in Le Monde and other European dailies -- but got no attention in the Stateside major media.
At the time Feith's deputy Franklin (and, today's indictments say, two other as yet unidentified Pentagon officials) were passing the classified documents on Iran to AIPAC for transmission to Israel, the White House had not yet given the green light to Sharon -- indeed, the Iran attack was in a holding pattern pending the outcome of negotiations over Teheran's nuke capacity being led by the European powers which, unlike the U.S., have diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Even so, U.S. fingerprints were all over the Israelis' Iran attack, which had long been envisioned by U.S. policy-makers. The respected Israeli daily Ha'aretz spelled it out last September 13, reporting: "The Clinton administration laid the foundation for that option [of attacking Iran] by giving the Rabin government the okay to purchase, with coupons, the F-15I (dubbed "Thunder" in Israel). The Bush administration will complete the task by agreeing to give Israel air-to-surface munitions that will breach the mysteries of the nuclear network in the depths of Isfahan and other sites, far more concealed than the reactor that is on worldwide display at Bushehr.
What the Americans are unable to do, because of European, United Nations and Congressional pressure, Israel will do."
The indictment of the two senior AIPAC staffers follows the indictment in may of Feith's footpad Larry Franklin. Franklin worked in the Office of Special Plans, run by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who reported to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The OSP functioned as a "shadow" intelligence service on Iraq, and provided much of the information to the White House that was used to justify the American invasion of Iraq. Some wags have called it "Feith-based intelligence", since much of that intelligence and information has now been proven to be utterly false. At the beginning of May, Franklin was arrested by the FBI for the passing of classified documents to two AIPAC staffers, who were then to pass them to Israel. The documents in question concerned Iran.
One of the two newly-indicted AIPACers isn't just anybody. Steve Rosen, 63, is the man who built AIPAC into the $40 million dollar Capitol Hill powerhouse it is today. Buried in a Washington Post profile of AIPAC from May 19 is the skinny on Rosen as the power behind the scenes at AIPAC. Said the Post:
"For more than two decades, Rosen has been a mainstay of AIPAC and the architect of the group's ever-increasing clout. Though Rosen was listed below Executive Director Howard Kohr on AIPAC's organizational chart, people familiar with AIPAC's history say that Kohr is a protege of Rosen's and got that job with his help. Kohr declined to be interviewed about Rosen. 'He [Rosen] is a quiet guy,' said M.J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, another pro-Israel group, and a former AIPAC employee. 'But everyone knows he's the brains behind the outfit.'"
Now, just what is AIPAC, you may well ask? AIPAC is the enforcer of the knee-jerk support for the Israeli government which characterizes the political and governing classes in this country, -- Israel is the real third rail of American politics: touch it with criticism, no matter how carefully couched, and you die. Both the Democratic and Republican parties fall all over themselves to kiss AIPAC's boots -- because AIPAC and its well-filled war-chest helps make sure they toe the line on Israel, and has been responsible for the defeat of a significant number of politicians over the years who dared to criticize Israeli policies. Earlier this year, AIPAC played a major role in destroying the candidacy of Tim Roemer for chairman of the DNC. There's an in-depth, critical profile of AIPAC by RightWeb's Michael Flynn that gives an in-depth look at AIPAC's arm-and-leg-breaking political style. And the newly indicted Rosen is The Man Behind the Curtain. Even though he formally resigned from AIPAC, the organization is paying his legal bills, and Rosen is still pulling the strings.
The reason for putting some daylight between Rosen and AIPAC is that the puissant political arm-twister is deathly afraid it will be forced to register as a foreign lobby, as the Jewish weeily The Forward reported earlier this year. Americans don't like the sight of their elected officials pocketing campaign cash from foreign governments, and AIPAC fears being forced to register formally as a lobbyist for Israel would thus diminish their clout on Capitol Hill. Bush won't make AIPAC register, and the spinless Democratic Congressional leadership won't lead the charge to make them do so either. But today's indictments of string-puller Rosen and his AIPAC colleague for spying on the U.S. gives progressives who want to see a peaceful, two-state, land-for-peace solution between Israel and Palestine a strategic opening to press loudly for AIPAC's formal shil registration as a shil for the government that built the Israeli Wall of Shame. It's a measure long past due.
One of the Israeli diplomats the feds want to question about the activities of the AIPAC spy ring has been quietly spirited out of the country, Ha'aretz reports this morning. "The Israeli diplomat in Washington who met several times with Franklin has been identified as Naor Gilon head of the political department at the Israeli Embassy in Washington and a specialist on proliferation issues. Gilon returned to Israel a few days ago as part of a long-scheduled rotation according to an Israeli official in Washington. U.S. investigators want to question Gilon and other Israeli diplomats about their contacts with Franklin officials said.," according to the Israeli daily.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5669
"Tel Aviv /Washington - Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert will ask President George W Bush Wednesday to step up US and international action against Iran and prepare for a possible military strike against its nuclear facilities, the Yediot Ahronot daily reported.
Citing 'officials close to Olmert,' the daily said Wednesday the Israeli leader would tell the president that the measures taken so far to stop Iran's nuclear programme had run their course and had not yielded results.
Israel views Iran as its main existential threat, given Tehran's nuclear drive and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejd's often-repeated statements that the Jewish state needs to be erased from the map.
Olmert, speaking Tuesday night to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), called Iran 'the most serious and imminent threat to global security and stability' and said that 'the Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means."
more at: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_
1409183.php/Olmert_to_ask_Bush_to_step_up_action_against_Iran
"...the most important evidence of the split within the powerful elites came with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (NIE) on December 3, 2007.3 The NIE, reflecting the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, made clear that Iran did not have a nuclear weapon, did not have a program to build a nuclear weapon, and was less determined to develop nuclear weapons than U.S. intelligence agencies had earlier claimed.
How could anyone now claim there was any legal or moral pretext for threatening Iran? But somehow the release of the NIE did not stop Washington's talk of war. The day after the NIE was released the Washington Post headline read, "U.S. Renews Efforts to Keep Coalition Against Tehran." The White House, the President, and especially the Vice-President, all continued ratcheting up the rhetoric. In fact, the president had been told of the NIE's overall conclusions months earlier, back in the summer of 2007.
When Bush arrived in the Middle East in January 2008 for his first trip to the region as president, Iran remained top of the agenda. One of his primary goals was to reassure Israel that the NIE had changed nothing in U.S. policy trajectories towards Iran and that despite the intelligence agencies' consensus that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, "all options" remained on the table. According to Newsweek, "in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the President all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. 'He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views.'"
Newsweek went on to recognize that:
"Bush's behind-the-scenes assurances may help to quiet a rising chorus of voices inside Israel's defense community that are calling for unilateral military action against Iran. Olmert, asked by Newsweek after Bush's departure whether he felt reassured, replied: 'I am very happy.' … Bush told Olmert he was uncomfortable with the findings and seemed almost apologetic …. But the president may be trying to tell his allies something more: that he thinks the document [the NIE] is a dead letter."
Just a couple of days before Bush's January 2008 trip to Israel, the Pentagon reported an "incident" in the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian speed boats had allegedly swarmed between and among three large U.S. warships heading into the Persian Gulf, broadcasting threatening messages that the U.S. ships were about to explode and dropping small box-like objects onto the seas. Just as the sailors were aiming their guns at the provocateurs, the Iranian boats reversed course and sped away.
Reuters described how the boats "aggressively approached" the U.S. ships. The Pentagon called it "careless, reckless and potentially hostile," the White House "reckless and provocative." Numerous Persian speakers pointed out that the voice making the threats did not sound like a Persian accent. The U.S. Navy itself acknowledged that they had no idea where the voice making the threats had actually come from. Quickly the words "Tonkin Gulf incident" were on many lips. Many remembered August 4, 1964, the "attack on a U.S. Naval ship" off the coast of Vietnam Lyndon Johnson used as a pretext for sending troops to Vietnam. Years later the world learned that the alleged attack had never occurred at all; it was cooked up. Would the "swarming boat incident" in the Strait of Hormuz serve as George Bush's Tonkin Gulf?
Despite the NIE, the possibility of a U.S. military strike on Iran remains a very real threat. Neither operative intelligence estimates nor actual facts on the ground would have much sway over the ideologues in the Bush White House."
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5025
Remember Admiral Fallon...well there's another General...his name is Michael Moseley...he is directly involved in the plans to attack Iran:
"The US Air Force sets up a secret strategic planning group, nicknamed "Project Checkmate," tasked with "fighting the next war" against Iran. Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War's air campaign, reports directly to the Air Force's commander, General Michael Moseley, and consists of twenty to thirty senior USAF officials as well as defense and cyberspace experts with strong access to the White House, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies. While planning for war with Iran began two years ago in Washington, the strategic planning group represents a serious escalation of planning and perhaps intent by the Bush administration and the US military."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=michael_moseley
"PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the Times of London, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident."
What B-52/nuclear weapons incident?
"Wayne Madsen Report has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.
Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons."
http://saif2020.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!B0A81497E7CF5A72!489.entry
Remember how Admiral Fallon was opposed to an attack on Iran...and his' subsequent resignation? Well, this just in...
"WASHINGTON - The military and civilian chiefs of the Air Force are resigning, U.S. officials said Thursday. Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step down. A public announcement was expected later in the day.
There was no immediate word on who would be nominated to replace Moseley and Wynne.
Press secretary Dana Perino said President Bush knew about the resignations but that the White House "has not played any role" in the shake-up."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/air_force_shake_up
Yes, I'm sure the White House had nothing to do with it...and the moon is made out of cheese.
Who is Michael Wynne? Let's see:
On October 19, the findings of an official Air Force investigation of the unprecedented flight of a nuclear armed B-52 bomber across the U.S. on August 30 was announced at a Pentagon press conference.
The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Wynne, opened the press conference by remarking that the Air Force would depart from its normal policy of silence on the movements of nuclear weapons; and, given the seriousness of the B-52 incident, would make public the movements of the Advanced Cruise missiles involved.
He said:
"We would not be this upset with ourselves, nor be striving to restore confidence, if this did not involve nuclear weapons."
The seriousness of the incident was so great that it was given "Bent Spear" status which meant it was a nuclear mishap that had to be reported directly to the Secretary of Defense and the White House.
...What emerges from the official Air Force investigation is that internal efforts to identify and make accountable those ultimately responsible for the B-52 Bent Spear incident have failed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, Commander of Central Command, have indicated their opposition to a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran. It is highly likely that they were genuinely surprised by the B-52 incident, and lost an internal power struggle to reveal what was really occurring. They were likely opposed by the remaining neo-conservatives that are led by Vice President Cheney.
By attributing the B-52 incident to multiple human errors, both sides in the internal military and government struggle over the merits of a preemptive attack against Iran, have given themselves time to step back from the brink and consider their next move. It is unlikely that the neoconservative faction will give up on its efforts to move forward with a preemptive attack against Iran. At the same time, a determined group of military officials are opposed to such an attack, and are exposing covert plans for this to occur without the support of most of the American military and general public."
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_iran01.htm
Like Admiral Fallon these men seem to not have been too thrilled about attacking Iran...all three officers have been shown the door. Why now?
Obama Capitulates
– To The Israel Lobby
by Justin Raimondo
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit to the U.S. is part of a concerted effort, by the Israeli government and its American lobbyists, to convince U.S. lawmakers – and, most of all, President George W. Bush – that the time to attack Iran is now. The Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot reports that Olmert will tell Bush "time is running out" on diplomacy and that he'd better launch an attack.
In his speech to the AIPAC conference, Olmert's message was harsh and unrelenting: Iran, he said, "must be stopped by all possible means" from acquiring a nuclear capability. Yes, sanctions must be tightened, but these are only "initial steps": what's needed, he averred, are "more drastic and robust measures" – and that can only mean one thing.
Israel would rather not act alone, but Olmert signaled that he was willing to do so if pushed: ""Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neither should any other country in the free world," he declared, in what was clearly a threat of unilateral action. Citing Israel's record in regard to Iraq in the eighties and Syria last year, Tim Butcher warned in the Telegraph: "The speech shortens the odds significantly on military action against Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. would almost certainly be drawn into the conflict if Israel carried out its threat, and Olmert knows that. So does Bush, who, in any case, may not need much persuading. After all, in his speech to the Israeli parliament last month, the President declared:
"Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
For the sake of peace, we must make war: a familiar refrain that echoes down through the years, mocking the living and the dead.
The clock is ticking, and time is running out for the War Party: they must get in their licks before the most pro-Israel president, ever, leaves office. As Butcher writes: "Among Israeli supporters of military action against Iran there is concern something must be done before Mr. Bush's end of office next January as Mr. Bush is perceived as closer to Israel than any potential successor."
Don't look to Barack Obama for deliverance from this looming conflict. In his speech to AIPAC, he clearly signed on to the Lobby's latest project, departing from his prepared text to declare:
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."
"Everything" includes murdering tens of thousands of Iranians, mostly civilians – driving the price of oil up above $300 a barrel and destroying the US economy – and involving us in a war that will make the Iraq conflict look like a Sunday school picnic. And for what?
The irony, of course, is that Iran is nowhere near obtaining nuclear weapons, as the President's own intelligence agencies recently informed him: but no matter. That's a small obstacle to those who disdain "the reality-based community," and see themselves as Making History while the rest of us watch, helpless and aghast. As Ha'aretz recently reported
"Olmert will try to convince Bush to set aside the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program in favor of data presented by Israel, and determine the administration's policy on Iran accordingly."
The coming war with Iran has nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction" – no more than the invasion of Iraq ever did. It's all about preserving Israeli hegemony in the Middle East by wiping any and all recalcitrant Arab-Muslim states off the map. First Iraq, then Iran – and Syria will have its turn soon enough, along with poor prostrate Lebanon, once the jewel of the eastern Mediterranean and now an economic and political basket case.
It is almost certain we will be at war with Iran before a new President is inaugurated: now that Obama has capitulated to the Lobby, nothing but Divine Providence can stop it.
God help us all.
I have to say I was wrong – dead wrong – about Obama. In my eagerness to find a bright spot in a rapidly darkening world, I grasped on to his alluring rhetoric and his at-times trenchant critique of the Bush foreign policy, like a sinking man holding on to a life-jacket. But looking for hope in all the wrong places doesn't create opportunities for peace – it only prolongs our illusions. We must face the prospect of a much more terrible conflict than we have ever known, and look it squarely in the face, without flinching or looking for false messiahs. I know many of you are disappointed, and some of you are now exclaiming "I told you so!" All that we can do now is hope, and pray, that our country – and the Iranian people – will somehow survive the coming catastrophe.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944
In addition, think back just a few days ago to the Williams tape you saw regarding the oil situation in Alaska and the very pointed threat made that Iran would soon deliberately create a monstrous attack on the American economy by dumping oil on the market at absurdly low prices. Think of this, is it possible that our government knows of something that you and I don't? As you know, I share your skepticism about the motives of political interests, but we shouldn't let that cause us to become ostriches by sticking our heads in the sand and following other political interests (particularly this close to a political campaign.). That can be a truly fatal mistake.
Jerry, folks seem to think that attacking Iran is just another day at the office.
Donald, the only similarities that I see with the Third Reich is that of another similar super-power going the world domination route. Iraq was sacrificed ala Czechoslovakia to appease this bringer of war and destruction, but, Iran will be it's Poland and the beginning of the end of such mad aspirations. I'd like to see our' country continue to grow and prosper and perhaps apport some positive things to the world besides war and destruction. I am not being naive or blindly nationalistic...if we attack Iran we're going too very quickly wish we hadn't.
John, the plans Israel/United States have afoot are indeed...'Sickening . . . nightmarish . . . EVIL . . .'
I always wondered how the Third Reich was allowed to go on and on (Lebensraum)...despite, a country that produced the very best like Kant, Brahms, Goethe, Liebniz, etc. Now I begin to understand why.
"Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece 'within days', the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. "
This was the addition:
"In a statement received by Asia Times Online from Feinstein's office, the senator said she "has not received any briefing, classified or unclassified, from the administration involving any plans to strike Iran."
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1685/event_detail.asp
Anti-Semitism and the War on Terror [conference]
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
"In the ongoing discussion of the war against the terror masters, anti-Semitism remains a central theme. As this prejudice continues to gain strength all over the world, its relationship to the preeminent threat against the West deserves special consideration.
German scholar Matthias Küntzel is the author of the widely discussed book Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press, 2007). Küntzel's central thesis is that a great deal of contemporary Islamist anti-Semitism comes directly from the Third Reich, that it was institutionalized in the Middle East during the Second World War, and that is has grown ever since, thanks to organizations and individuals who--in many cases-- received direct ideological, political, and financial support from the Nazis and who are still very active.
Please join us as Matthias Küntzel and AEI's Michael A. Ledeen and Michael Novak discuss this argument and its implications for the struggle against violent fundamentalists and anti-Semitism in the world today."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2004/09/michael_ledeen/
MICHAEL LEDEEN, ISRAEL & IRAN -- 17 YEARS AGO Steve Clemons
Tuesday, Sep 07 2004,
"MICHAEL LEDEEN WROTE A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF HIS ROLE in the Iran arms-for-hostages scandal in the Washington Post 17 years ago. I have posted the article here:
http://www.steveclemons.com/A-Ledeen.htm
: January 25, 1987
The Iran Affair: An Insider's Account
By Michael A. Ledeen
."In a back-to-the-future passage, Ledeen writes:
The May (1985) discussions in Israel were with people ranging from high-level governmental officials to recent immigrants from Iran. The topic was improving our mutual understanding of Iran; the subject of American hostages in Lebanon was not discussed.
I didn't know you would be shilling for the Neocons and Zionist zealot Michael Ledeen:
"Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but if the United
States ends up in an extended shooting war throughout the Middle East,
it will be largely due to his inspiration.
A fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Ledeen
holds
a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin. He
is a former employee of the Pentagon, the State Department and the
National Security Council. As a consultant working with NSC head
Robert
McFarlane, he was involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the
Iran-Contra affair -- an adventure that he documented in the book
"Perilous Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra Affair."
His most influential book is last year's "The War Against the Terror
Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We'll Win."
Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the
stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed
before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that
violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's
manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical
legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.
Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an
address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern
Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, "the time for
diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and
free
Lebanon."
With a group of other conservatives, Ledeen recently set up the Center
for Democracy in Iran (CDI), an action group focusing on producing
regime change in Iran.
Quotes from Ledeen's works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about
American attitudes toward violence. "Change -- above all violent
change
-- is the essence of human history," he proclaims in his book,
"Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as
Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago." In an influential
essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again
to
export the democratic revolution."
Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the
neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned. His
1996 book, "Freedom Betrayed; How the United States Led a Global
Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away," reveals the
basic neoconservative obsession: the United States never "won" the
Cold
War; the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight without a shot being
fired. Had the United States truly won, democratic institutions would
be sprouting everywhere the threat of Communism had been rife.
Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this
should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should
be
achieved is a violent one, termed "total war," a concept pioneered by
the 19th century Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz in his classic
book "On War."
Ledeen's take on this idea is wedded to ideology. In summarizing his
book "The War Against the Terror Masters" on the American Enterprise
Institute Web site, he writes: "We wage total war because we fight in
the name of an idea, and ideas either triumph or fail ... totally." In
his reckoning, force is the only reliable strategy to enforce our
ideology on our enemies. In the same summary he claims, drawing
inspiration from Machiavelli: "We can lead by the force of high moral
example ... [but] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once
we
show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our
enemies, our power will be far greater."
Consequently, Ledeen has excoriated both the State Department and the
United Nations for their preference for diplomatic solutions to
conflict; and the CIA for equivocating on evidence that would condemn
"America's enemies" and justify militant action.
"No one I know wants to wage war on Iran and Syria, but I believe there
is now a clear recognition that we must defend ourselves against
them,"
Ledeen wrote on May 6 in the Toronto Globe and Mail.
Though he appears on conservative outlets like the Fox television
network, Ledeen has not been singled out for much media attention by
the Bush administration, despite his extensive influence in
Washington.
His views may be perceived as too extreme for most Americans, who
prefer to think of the United States as pursuing violence only when
attacked and manifesting primarily altruistic goals toward other
nations.
Clearly a final decision has not been made on whether the United States
will continue military action in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. But Ledeen
has a notable track record. He was calling for attacks against Iraq
throughout the 1990s, and the U.S. invasion on March 19 was a total
fulfillment of his proposals. His attacks against the CIA and the
State
Department have contributed to the exclusion of these intelligence
bodies from any effective decision making on Iraq. His attacks on
Iran,
even when Iran was assisting the United States, helped keep the Bush
administration from seeking any rapprochement with Tehran. Were it in
Ledeen's hands, we would invade Iran today.
Given both his fervor and his influence over the men with the guns,
Americans should not be surprised if Ledeen's pronouncements come
true.
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=20132
'The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran'
There is no doubt about that.
Excuse me , but you got the gist of my post on Ledeen ass-backwards.
Iran is going to develop nuclear capabilities whether Olmert and the White House like it or not. They are within their' rights to do so. Iran even if it did get a nuclear weapon would only have it as a deterent. They get one weapon or two...Israel has 120...we have 3,000 more than all the countries of the world combined.
You're the one that has his' head in the sand. The real danger here are the U.S. and Israel...not any theoretical future Iran with nukes. Pakistan has nukes and so does North Korea...they got them as deterents not like we did to incinerate civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let's stop being provincial the real danger to peace and sanity is U.S./Israel not Iran.
We're the ones that are being control by a Lobby of another country known for it's savage governance and belligernce and by the Christian Zionist and Neocons. Bomb or no bomb Iran is absolutely no threat to us...nor is it to Israel, though, that is no concern of mine. Last time I looked the flag still had only 50 stars and the Star of David was not one of them.
My concern is for my country and for the young men and women in the military who shouldn't be going to war for other countries. We had no moral right to attack Iraq we have no right to duplicate the supreme international war crime, aggressive war, again.
You may think we are the gods of the universe, believe me, we're not. I don't wnat us to learn this lesson the hard way as the Wehrmacht and Napoleons Army did.
Everyone to their' respective corners and let cooler, more rational minds prevail. The negotiations with Iran will get nowhere as long as getting them to stop developing nuclear capabilities is on the table. Iran would be willing to stop it'd development if...and only if Israel disables it's nuclear arsenal...otherwise forget it. Israel is a clear and present danger to Iran a host of other neighboring nations. Let's start by dealing with that.
I'll tell you what let's all disarm our nuclear stockpiles. That would cerrtainly make the world a safer place.
JERUSALEM — Six months ago, after American intelligence agencies declared that Iran had shelved its nuclear-weapons program, the chances of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on the Islamic Republic before President Bush left office seemed remote.
Now, thanks to persistent pressure from Israeli hawks and newly stated concerns by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the idea of a targeted strike meant to cripple Iran's nuclear program is getting a new hearing.
As Bush travels across Europe to gain support for possible new sanctions against Iran, Israeli leaders have been working to lay the psychological foundation for a possible military strike if diplomacy falters.
In public threats and private briefings with American decision-makers, Israeli officials have been making the case that a military strike may be the only way to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"Temperatures are rising," said Emily Landau, an Iran specialist at the Institute for National Security Studies, an independent Israeli research center.
Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have met twice in recent weeks for extended talks on Iran. America's intelligence chief, Mike McConnell, has traveled to Israel for private briefings, and Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz publicly declared that a military strike on Iran may be "unavoidable."
In Germany on Wednesday, Bush said that "all options are on the table" if Iran doesn't abandon its uranium enrichment programs."
http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9561128?source=rss
NOTE: This whole negotiations and sanctions thing is a ploy. The terms the overlords set are intended not to be met...ala 1930's Poland. The repetition of ' if Iran doesn't abandon its uranium enrichment programs' is put out precisely because it's a condition that won't be even considered. Take this argument off the table.
The premise being that the world belongs to the U.S./Israel so they have a right to determine who can or cannot develop nuclear capabilities. The premise is faulty to a fault.
"It makes you wonder if perhaps there is a virus going around that is gradually making people stupid. If we or Israel attack Iran, we will have a new war on our hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack and say, "You naughty boys, you."
Consider how much trouble Iraq has given us. Some 4,000 dead and 29,000 wounded, a half a trillion dollars in cost and still climbing, and five years later, we cannot say that the country is pacified.
Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).
More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in our arsenal.
Iran's conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.
It's been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran's forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia that I've heard is pretty snazzy.
So, if you think we or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I'd have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think we could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I'd have to promote you to idiot.
Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Now we have troops tied down in both countries.
For some years now, I've worried that we seem to be more and more like Colonial England – arrogant, racist, overestimating our own capacity and underestimating that of our enemies. As the fate of the British Empire demonstrates, that is a fatal flaw.
The British never dreamed that the "little yellow people" could come ashore by land and take Singapore from the rear or that they would sink the pride of the British fleet, but they did both.
I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?"
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=13061
(On comment above: 'Remember Admiral Fallon...well there's another General...his name is Michael Moseley...he is directly involved in the plans to attack Iran')
"This week a Pentagon official claimed an Israeli attack on Iran was coming before year end.
Other Pentagon and CIA sources say a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent, with or without Israel. The Bush administration is even considering using small tactical nuclear weapons against deeply buried Iranian targets.
Senior American officers Admiral William Fallon and Air Force Chief Michael Mosley recently were fired for opposing war against Iran. According to Israel's media, President Bush even told Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he could not trust America's intelligence community and preferred to rely on Israeli intelligence.
AIR BLITZ
Intensifying activity is evident at U.S. bases in Europe and the Gulf, aimed at preparing a massive air blitz that may include repeated attacks on 3,100 targets in Iran. Other sources say Iranian Revolutionary Guard installations will be barraged by cruise missiles.
In Washington, Congress, under intense pressure from the Israel lobby, is about to adopt a resolution calling for a naval blockade of Iran, an overt act of war.
Pro-Israel groups have been airing TV commercials claiming Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq and threatens the U.S.
The Bush administration's last desperate act, its Gotterdammerung, could be war with Iran. UN weapons inspectors concur with U.S. intelligence that there is no proof Iran is working on nuclear arms, but the neocon war party in Washington is determined to loosen a final Parthian shaft by striking Iran.
Israel asserts the right to maintain its Mideast nuclear monopoly by destroying all fissile-producing reactors in the region. Iran vows to retaliate against Israel with its inaccurate Shahab missiles, shut the Strait of Hormuz and mine the Gulf, producing worldwide financial panic, severe fuel shortages, and $400-$500 per barrel oil. Iran likely will attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait, and strike Saudi and Kuwaiti oil facilities. Canadians in Afghanistan could also become targets.
GRAVE DAMAGE
The embattled Bush administration's bunker mentality is leading to war that will gravely damage long-term U.S. Mideast interests. A single Iranian missile hit on Israel's reactor would do more damage to the Jewish state than all its previous wars. Besides, Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. A U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran will guarantee Tehran decides to build nuclear weapons."
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/07/05/6077376-sun.php