BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

41 Journalists Jailed in Iran

Monday, July 13th, 2009

The press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders says it is concerned by what it calls the growing repression of journalists and cyber-dissidents in Iran.

In a report issued Sunday, the RSF (Reporters Sans Frontieres) announced the detention of five more journalists. RSF says 41 journalists are currently imprisoned in Iran a month after the country’s contested election.

RSF says Iran is currently the world’s biggest prison for journalists, and is becoming the world’s most dangerous place for them to operate.

RSF says the recently-detained journalists include photographers Majid Saidi and Tohid Bighi, blogger Henghameh Shahidi, and journalists Somaieh Nosrati and Said Matinpour.

According to RSF, four of the five are being held in secret locations with no information about their condition being released to their families or legal representatives.

VOA News

Have Your Say: 41 Journalists Jailed in Iran
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Protest in London over ‘rigged’ Iranian election

Saturday, July 11th, 2009

Green flags and banners fly as a crowd of 2,000 or so demonstrators chant anti-Iranian regime slogans. Many pump their fists into the air, screaming in Persian: “Guns and tanks are of no use to you any more because the people have now spoken.” It’s a chant followed by: “Ahmadinejad, you’re a murderer.”

From the rooftop of the Iranian Embassy in London an unmanned video camera records the faces of the angry crowd gathered in Knightsbridge, emboldened by their fury over what they believe was a rigged election.

A Metropolitan police officer who has been patrolling the demonstrations since they began three days after the close of polls in mid June, told The Times: “They’re filming quite a lot. Any intelligent person would assume they’re sending the footage back to Iran.” The tactic seems all the more disturbing as Nazenin Ansari, the diplomatic editor of Kayhan, a Persian weekly newspaper in London, says she has been investigating claims that a number of British Iranians have “disappeared” since the election.

“I have heard of some cases of people travelling from London into Tehran who have simply disappeared from the airport,” she said. “And I know of many cases of people who were planning to go and have decided not to any more. Because they have been in the demonstrations, there’s a real fear of photos being taken and being used against them.”

The swelling opposition towards the Ahmadinejad administration has politicised a once predominantly apolitical British Iranian community that feared expressing its dissent publicly.

Many activists accuse the regime of spying by gathering footage to punish and intimidate people should they choose to visit their homeland. Potkin Azarmehr, an Iranian activist and blogger, said that he was bouyed by the rapidly growing involvement of the Iranian population in Britain, which stands between 53,000 and 73,000, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.

“One of the tangible things from all these demos is people have gotten to know each other and gotten closer to each other,” he said. “We’re united by a common goal, a common dream to change the misperception the world has of Iranians, because not all Iranians want to be represented by Ahmadinejad and his regime.”

Vahid Sadeghi Shirazi, a former political prisoner in Iran and one of the main demonstration organisers in London, said: “We are the voice of the Iranian people who are not allowed to speak up at the moment.” But a fear of the Iranian regime remains, as evidenced at Thursday’s rally — which marked the tenth anniversary of the student uprising against the Islamic revolution — in which many demonstrators disguised their faces with sunglasses, hats, wigs and paint.

Local activists are developing fresh ways of dodging the regime’s dissent radar by developing secret communication methods with their counterparts back home. Their greatest weapon has been cyberspace, despite the Iranian Government’s attempt to monitor websites and personal e-mails.

The movement was brought to life by the backing given to Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s main rival in the June 12 election. A movement that has met with violence, which, the regime’s opposition claims, has left more than 250 people dead. The regime is accused of playing down this figure by saying that only 20 deaths have been recorded.

The movement has also left hundreds of activists and bystanders who found themselves in wrong place at the wrong time behind bars.

Marayam, 32, a student from East London, spent four days in a police cell in Tehran during a holiday to visit her family. Her whereabouts became unknown the moment she was taken into custody. “They [police] told my parents they had never heard my name and categorically denied that I was in their custody,” Maryam, who was released without charge, said. The maths student returned to London recently.

Have Your Say: Protest in London over ‘rigged’ Iranian election
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iran Police Crack Down As Thousands Protest

Saturday, June 20th, 2009

His backers were demonstrating over the re-election of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who won by a landslide despite opposition claims the result was rigged.

The protesters defied a call from the country’s supreme leader for the demonstrations to end.

Eyewitnesses said around 3,000 people chanted “Death to the dictator!” and “Death to dictatorship!” near Revolution Square in the city centre.

Police beat protesters and fired tear gas and water cannon at them. At least one person is thought to have been injured by gunfire.

Witnesses said Mr Mousavi’s supporters lit a fire at the headquarters of the president’s backers in the capital.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a strong warning on Friday to the leaders of the street protests that they would be responsible for any bloodshed.

Mr Khamenei claimed the June 12 vote was won fairly by Mr Ahmadinejad.

But in a letter to the country’s top legislative body, Mr Mousavi claimed poll rigging had been planned months ago and insisted the election must be annulled.

The runner-up in the election said if he was arrested, he urged people to go on strike.

Meanwhile, a suicide bomber has blown himself up in Tehran at the shrine of Iran’s revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, injuring one person, reports say.

Foreign media are banned from reporting on non-official events but reports are still reaching the outside world of violence being used by the authorities.

The election result sparked fury among supporters of the losing candidates, who accused the government of rigging the poll and took to the streets in their hundreds of thousands in the biggest public protests since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Iran’s electoral watchdog, the Guardian Council, says it is ready to “randomly” recount up to 10% of the ballot boxes from the election, state TV said.

In his speech, Mr Khamenei also denounced Britain as the “most treacherous” of Iran’s enemies.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said violence on the streets of Tehran must not be turned into a battle between Iran and the UK.

Writing in The Sun, he hit back at the Ayatollah’s claims. “Dignity has been shown by the protesters on the streets of Tehran,” Mr Miliband said.

“Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tried to blame the unrest on the West.

“But we will not allow anyone to turn scenes on the streets of Tehran into a battle between Britain and Iran. My message to the Iranian people is simple: the future of your country is for you to decide.

“But we need to know whether Iran is prepared to work with us to restore confidence in its nuclear intentions.”

The Ayatollah offered no concession to opposition supporters who are demanding the elections be cancelled and held again, sternly warning against further protests.

He blamed Great Britain and Iran’s external enemies for the unrest, vigorously defending the ruling system.

“The enemies (of Iran) are targeting the Islamic establishment’s legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after (the vote),” the Ayatollah continued.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, talking to Sky’s political editor Adam Boulton, said: “What we want is to have a good relationship with Iran in the future.

“But that depends on Iran being able to show to the world that its elections have been conducted fairly and that there is no unfair suppression of rights and individuals in that country.”

Supporters of runner-up Mr Mousavi have so far ignored the Ayatollah, holding huge unauthorised rallies.

Tens of thousands of Iranians had gathered in and around Tehran University to hear Khamenei’s Friday prayer sermon.

Some in the crowd were draped in Iranian flags. Others held placards with anti-Western slogans.

As passions soared, the crowd reportedly chanted: “Death to the UK, Israel and the US.”

American President Barack Obama said he was very concerned by the “tenor and tone” of Khamenei’s comments.

In a US TV interview, Mr Obama said that Iran’s government should “recognise that the world is watching.”

He said “how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard” will signal “what Iran is and is not”.

Mr Khamenei’s speech followed six days of protests by Mousavi supporters.

On Thursday, tens of thousands of black-clad marchers bore candles to mourn those killed in earlier rallies.

Iranian state media has reported seven or eight people killed in protests since the election results were published on June 13.

Scores of reformists have been arrested and authorities have cracked down on both foreign and domestic media.

Have Your Say: Iran Police Crack Down As Thousands Protest
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iran Protesters Start Hacking

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

RINF NEWS

As protesters take to the streets, both sides of the debate have taken to the the Internet.

Twitter and other blogs are being used to direct users to a number of sites and tools that encourage people to target government web sites.

“Democracy needs you, Twitter!” wrote a user named temp09. “Twitter, do not condemn the people of Iran to silence,” another named tinyi added. “Upgrades can wait. The people dying in Iran cannot,” pleaded a twitterer going by the name hoopiest_frood, when a Twitter network upgrade was announced in the midst of the action.

The attacks are mainly aimed at damaging infrastructure to prevent comminucations. News sites are also on the hit list.

One activist Tweets: “NOTE to HACKERS - attack www.farhang.gov.ir - pls try to hack all iran gov wesites [sic]. very difficult for us.”

However the Iranian government are involved with the web site hacking, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic Magazine,  is said to be the target of denial-of-service attacks.

One programmer, Robert Synott, warns that Iran ”will simply pull the plug to protect the rest of their network”, if too much DDOS traffic hits the county’s servers.

In 2007, all Internet access was cut in Burma by the government to prevent people sharing reports, photos and videos of protests.

Have Your Say: Iran Protesters Start Hacking
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Craig Murry on Iran

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

For me, any sensible discussion of Iran must accept a number of facts. I will set these out as Set A and Set B. Both sets are true. But ideologues of the right routinely discount Set A, while ideologues of the left routinely discount Set B. That is why most debate on Iran is inane.

Set A

Iranian Islamic fundamentalism allied to fierce anti-Americanism was born from CIA intervention to topple democracy and keep in power a ruthless murdering despot for decades, in the interests of US oil and gas companies

Iranian anti-Americanism was fuelled further by US support for US friend and ally Saddam Hussein who was armed to wage a murderous war against Iran, again in the hope of US access to Iran’s oil and gas

The US committed a terrible atrocity against civilians by shooting down an Iranian passenger jet

Iran is surrounded by US military forces and has been repeatedly threatened to the extent that the desire to develop a nuclear weapon is a reflex

There is monumental hypocrisy in condemning Iran’s nuclear programme while overlooking Israel’s nuclear weapons

Set B

Iran is governed by an appalling set of vicious theocratic nutters

Iran is not any kind of democracy. It fails the first hurdle of candidates being allowed to put forward meaningful alternatives

Hanging of gays, stoning of adulterers, floggings, censorship and pervasive control are not fine because of cultural relativism. Iran’s whole legislative basis is inimical to universal ideals of human rights.

Iran really is trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme, though with some years still to go.

There are two very good articles on the current situation in Iran. One from the ever excellent Juan Cole. I would accept his judgement on the elections being rigged.
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/class-v-culture-wars-in-iranian.html#comments

The other from Yasamine Mather, which puts it in another perspective.
http://www.hopoi.org/articles/elections%20June%202009.html

I am not optimistic about the outcome of the popular protest.

Have Your Say: Craig Murry on Iran
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iran Restricts Foreign Media

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Cell Phone Network Shut Down, Websites Blocked in Effort to Control Information Coming Out of Tehran

As Friday’s election gave way to a weekend of riots in the capital city of Tehran and accusations that the Interior Ministry rigged the outcome in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, multiple foreign media outlets are reporting efforts by the Iranian government to control the media reports coming out of the nation.

Al-Arabiya television has reportedly been forbidden from working in the capital for a week, while Nederland 2 has had its journalist and cameraman ordered to leave the country. The BBC is also claiming that the government is responsible for jamming which has caused intermittant service disruptions of its Farsi-language service.

The primary cell phone network in Tehran has also been cut off since Saturday evening, while the government is apparently blocking several popular websites, including Facebook and YouTube, likely also part of an effort to prevent unapproved reports from coming out of the nation.

Former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi is seeking to have the election results overturned, amid reports that he has been placed under house arrest for calling his supporters to publicly contest the outcome. Ahmadinejad has rejected allegations of election fraud, and likened the furore to the aftermath of a soccer match.

Jason Ditz

Have Your Say: Iran Restricts Foreign Media
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iran lacks nuclear bomb fuel: US officials

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran has yet to decide whether to build a nuclear bomb and currently lacks the weapons-grade highly enriched uranium needed to do so, top US intelligence officials told lawmakers on Tuesday.

But Tehran is enriching uranium in defiance of global sanctions and is “mastering” the know-how to build long-range missiles that can carry nuclear bombs to their targets oceans away, said director of intelligence Dennis Blair.

And most spy agencies believe Tehran will probably be able to produce highly enriched uranium somewhere in the 2010-2015 timeframe, with the US State Department’s apparatus setting the early date at 2013, he said.

“Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them,” said Blair told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And he acknowledged that the US view was at odds with that of staunch ally Israel: “The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view.”

To build a nuclear arsenal, Iran would need a stockpile of highly enriched uranium, would need to be able to build a warhead — a process it froze in mid-2003 and likely has not resumed — and would need long-range missiles.

US intelligence agencies have concluded that “Iran has not decided to press forward on all three tracks,” Blair said.

“We are in agreement on this,” Lieutenant Michael Maples, the director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) told the same committee.

And “Iran will see government revenues decline in 2009 as oil prices remain at low levels. Defense spending will have to be balanced with social programs,” said Maples.

Maples and Blair noted that Iran was building and acquiring advanced defenses against air strikes — which experts see as a likely path for a military effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

But doing so is “a separate decision” from whether to build a nuclear weapon, said Blair.

Blair also warned it will be “difficult” to convince Iran through diplomatic means to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Tehran might bow to a blend of “credible” incentives and “threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures” but “it is difficult to specify what such a combination might be,” he said.

His comments came as US President Barack Obama wrestled with how to convince the Islamic republic to halt what the West views as a covert nuclear weapons drive.

Iran denies the allegations, saying it needs atomic power to generate electricity for civilian use.

“We assess convincing the Iranian leadership to forego the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult, given the linkage many within the leadership see between nuclear weapons and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons,” Blair warned.

US intelligence agencies estimate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in late 2003 and that Tehran had not resumed them as of mid-2007, he told lawmakers.

Have Your Say: Iran lacks nuclear bomb fuel: US officials
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat

Sunday, February 15th, 2009

The Age 

A SENIOR Israeli diplomat has warned that Israel is ready to launch a military offensive against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

In an interview with The Age, Dan Gillerman, who was Israel’s permanent representative at the United Nations from 2003 until last September, said time for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear capability might have already expired.

“The world cannot afford to live with a nuclear Iran,” Mr Gillerman said. “I hope diplomacy will work, but I’m not sure we have the time for diplomacy to work.

“Israel has made it very clear that it will not live with a nuclear Iran and I believe that Israel has the ability and the capacity to make sure it will not happen.”

Mr Gillerman, who will visit Australia later this month, said two clocks were running with respect to Iran: “There is the technological clock of Iran and there is the diplomatic clock, and I think the Iranian clock is running much faster.”

Detailed military plans to bomb Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant have long been on the table of Israeli military commanders. Outgoing Defence Minister Ehud Barak is believed to have requested US support for a military strike last May, but the plans were aborted after then-president George Bush declined to endorse them.

Last June, Israel carried out military exercises over the Mediterranean involving more than 100 F-16 and F-15 fighters in what was interpreted as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran’s nuclear plants. At the time, The New York Times reported that as well as sending a warning to Tehran, the exercise was intended as a message to the US that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium faltered.

On Tuesday, the man likely to lead Israel’s next government, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, made a reference to Iran in his victory speech. He said: “Israel is facing an Iranian threat, from afar and from near. The nuclear threat and the terror threat … it will be up to us to deal with this, and we will be able to deal with these two challenges successfully.”

Israel has carried out two strikes on suspected nuclear sites over the past 30 years. In 1981, its jets bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, and in September 2007, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that was alleged to have housed a nuclear reactor.

Any new attack against Iran would be much more complicated, with the country’s uranium enrichment plants spread across many sites. Iran’s comparatively sophisticated military and its distance from Israel would present further complications for military planners and risk setting off a full-scale war.

Mr Gillerman said the world could not afford to underestimate the seriousness of the Iranian threat. “We have a very extreme, radical fundamentalist regime there with a president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) who denies the Holocaust while preparing the next one, and has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map. My advice to the rest of the world is to listen to him very carefully and take him at face value.”

Have Your Say: Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iran moves to hold war crimes tribunal

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

The Iranian cabinet introduces a bill to take action on individuals accused of war crimes amid a seeming ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

The cabinet of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid out details of the bill on Sunday, discussing methods to track down and prosecute individuals accused of committing or issuing the order for war crimes.

Under the newly-introduced bill, launching a military offensive, killing civilians, employment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), laying a siege to civilians and military personnel and imposing food shortages on them are regarded as war crimes.

Individuals charged with committing or ordering such crimes, depending on the extent of their involvement, would be sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison by an Iranian court or would face execution.

Should the bill receive Iran’s Majlis (parliament) vote of approval, the country’s legislative assembly would then task penal institutions with prosecution of the accused.

Under international law, war crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war” including murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps, the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the killing of hostages, the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity.

The International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being in 2002 to take legal action against war crimes committed on or after that date.

However, countries like the United States and Israel have so far refused to sign the treaty which created the court and therefore do not permit The Hague to have jurisdiction over their citizens.

While Israel cannot be tried in the International Court of Justice, any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention can try to prosecute individuals who took part in the Gaza operation as culpable of war crimes.

The move by Iran’s cabinet comes as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed Sunday to protect any Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes in the Gaza Strip from prosecution overseas.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting, Olmert said, “The commanders and soldiers that were sent on the task in Gaza should know that they are safe from any tribunal and that the State of Israel will assist them in this issue and protect them as they protected us with their bodies during the military operation in Gaza.”

The use of controversial chemical white phosphorous shells as well as indiscriminate firing during the offensive in the densely-populated coastal sliver are among accusations the Israeli military is facing.

According to Health officials in the embattled Gaza Strip, 23 days of intense Israeli military operation left more than 1,330 Palestinians dead and some 5,450 others wounded.

Following the shelling of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters with phosphorus munitions in Gaza, UN officials called for independent probes into whether war crimes were committed during the Israeli offensive.

PressTV

Have Your Say: Iran moves to hold war crimes tribunal
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

FIVE FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE SUPPORT DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

National Security Network - Five former American secretaries of state all reaffirmed their support for direct talks with Iran. Henry Kissinger went as far as to say that there must be high-level talks with the Iranians “without conditions.” Barack Obama has called for tough direct diplomacy with Iran, but John McCain who continues to call this approach “naïve.”

At the event sponsored by the Center for New American Security, George Washington University, Rice University and City College, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell James Baker, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher all agreed. Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright advised that “You need to engage with countries you have problems with,” and said “I believe we need to engage with Iran.” Colin Powell, Secretary of State under George W. Bush echoed the need for negotiations stating: “Let’s get together and talk about nuclear weapons.”

Henry Kissinger, an advisor to John McCain, supports negotiating with Iran “without preconditions.” Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, not only indicated that he “was in favor of negotiating with Iran,” but said that such negotiations should occur “without conditions,” and should begin at a high level.”

Have Your Say: FIVE FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE SUPPORT DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

US a Step Closer to Iran Blockade

Saturday, September 13th, 2008

Asia Times | The United States government has imposed new sanctions on Iran, this time targeting its shipping industry, by blacklisting the main shipping line and 18 subsidiaries, accusing the maritime carrier of being engaged in contraband nuclear material, a charge vehemently denied by Iran.

While the economic impact of the measures against Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) will be minimal in light of the near absence of any connection between the shipping company and US businesses, this latest US initiative against Iran sends a strong signal about the US’s intention to escalate pressure on Iran, even unilaterally if need be. And, perhaps, it is a prelude for more serious and dangerous actions in the near future, above all a naval blockade of Iran to choke off its access to, among other things, imported fuel.

The outgoing George W Bush administration is slowly but surely taking strident actions that will effectively tie the hands of the next US president, particularly if that happens to be Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama, who in the past has expressed an interest in direct dialogue with Tehran.

Should the new sanctions prove as catalysts for more aggressive US actions against Iran in international waters or the Persian Gulf, as called for by some members of US Congress seeking the interdiction of Iranian cargo ships, then by the time Bush’s successor takes over at the Oval Office next January, the climate in US-Iran hostility may have degenerated to such depths that it would take a monumental effort to undo what appears to be Bush’s last hurrah.

On the other hand, on the eve of US presidential elections in November, more tensions between the US and Iran are tantamount to greater prioritization of national security issues by the average American voter, something that benefits Obama’s Republican rival, “bomb, bomb Iran” John McCain.

Indeed, the coupling of crisis in Georgia and the Iran crisis represents a major bonus for McCain and his “get tough” approach toward the US’s external foes.

According to American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who has done several reports on US covert actions against Iran, Bush has on more than one occasion vowed not to leave the White House with Iran’s nuclear program still intact.

With the new tensions with Russia over Georgia lessening the prospects for fresh “multilateral” Iran diplomacy at the United Nations this autumn, the White House has now begun a new chapter in coercive, unilateral action against Iran that may well be part of a comprehensive “package approach”. This could include the interdiction of Iranian ships on the high seas and even incremental steps toward imposing a regime of “smart blockade” aimed at denying Iran access to badly needed imported fuel.

The purpose of the latter would be to in effect target the Iranian population by applying tangible pain that could dissipate the popular support for the government’s nuclear policy, that is, its insistence that it has the right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium. Doubtless, this is playing with fire and things could get nasty and rather quickly, spiralling out of control in the event of a stern Iranian reaction.

As far as Washington and Tel Aviv are concerned, their efforts to create a wedge between Iran and Syria is paying off, thanks in part to the tireless efforts of France, and Israeli politicians have made no secret of their hope that their negotiations with Damascus will create a timely dividend in the form of breathing cold air into the hitherto hot furnace of the Iran-Syria alliance.

In Iran murmurings of “weak and reactive diplomacy” can already be heard, thus putting the President Mahmud Ahmadinejad administration on the defensive.

Consequently, Washington hawks increasingly smell a late opportunity to defang Iran. They will surely have made their own threat analysis and estimates of risks. Should their calculations prove incorrect, it could prove disastrous with incalculable, monstrous new headaches for the US government for years to come.

For Iran’s part, a spokesperson for IRISL has denounced the US’s measure as “illegal” and based on “false accusations”, promising to complain to international tribunals. IRISL is, in fact, a stock-owned private company and not government owned, and the US’s action may be in violation of the terms and ambit of UN sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Iran over its nuclear program. For instance, these sanctions exempt the Bushehr power plant in Iran, thus allowing the shipment of nuclear material for the Russian-made plant nearing completion.

This means that the US might seek to seize Russian nuclear goods bound for Iran, thus raising the ire of Moscow and using this as a payback for Russia’s offensive in pro-West Georgia. Alternatively, the US could use the threat of such action as leverage with regard to both Tehran and Moscow. Russia, from Washington’s point of view, needs to be brought into line on Iran.

Again, any such action by the US is bound to have both intended and unintended consequences, and it would be foolhardy for Washington hawks to pretend to know the full scope of the ramifications, which could be dramatic in terms of heating up a new cold war and outright militarizing the Iran nuclear crisis.

Tehran does not appear to welcome any new escalation with the US. A deputy foreign minister, Mehdi Safari, announced Iran’s preparedness to engage in good-faith negotiations with the “Iran Six” nations (the UN Security Council’s permanent five - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - plus Germany).

Ahmadinejad is due in New York in less than two weeks to attend the annual UN General Assembly gathering, and by all indications the US and Israel are deliberately picking up serious momentum in their anti-Ahmadinejad campaign, thus warranting a letter by Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, complaining of blatant threats against Iran’s president by Israeli politicians - they even said they would kidnap him.

In conclusion, as tough new decisions on Iran are being plotted in Washington and Tel Aviv, the fate of peace and stability in the volatile oil region of the Persian Gulf seems once again on the verge of being compromised in the drive towards open confrontation with Iran.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran’s Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of “Negotiating Iran’s Nuclear Populism”, Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote “Keeping Iran’s nuclear potential latent”, Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran’s Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction. For his Wikipedia entry, click here.

Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd.

Have Your Say: US a Step Closer to Iran Blockade
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Obama: Nuclear Iran ‘unacceptable’

Saturday, September 6th, 2008

YNet News | WASHINGTON - Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said Thursday.

Obama: Nuclear Iran ‘unacceptable’

‘Iran a major threat; I would never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect homeland, US interests, Democratic presidential candidate tells FOX’s ‘The O’Reilly Factor’
Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON - Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said Thursday.

During his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”, the Democratic presidential candidate said, “It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon; it would be a game changer.”
 
Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but added that diplomacy and sanctions cannot be overlooked.
 
“It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests,” he said.
 
Obama accused the Bush Administration of bringing radical Islamic groups together, and said Iran “fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations, but we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”
 
Obama also told FOX News he “absolutely” believes the US is fighting a war on terror against “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.”
 
‘Five years of mismanagement’

He repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the war on terror.
 
During the interview Obama, who was against the US troop surge in Iraq, admitted that it has “succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated” but refused to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,” he said.
 
However, Obama added that the US has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.
 
“We have gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous, and the president wanted to double down and continue an open-ended policy (that did not put pressure on the Iraqi government),” he said.

 
Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.
 
According to a new CBS News poll conducted this week, the presidential race between Obama and John McCain is now even at 42 percent. Twelve percent are undecided according to the poll, and one percent said they wouldn’t vote.
 
This is in contrast to a poll conducted last weekend, where the Obama-Biden ticket led McCain-Palin by eight points, 48 percent to 40 percent.

Have Your Say: Obama: Nuclear Iran ‘unacceptable’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

War with Iran - On, Off or Undecided?

Thursday, August 7th, 2008

By Stephen Lendman - RINF |

There’s good news and bad, mostly the latter but don’t
discount the good. On May 22, (non-binding) HR 362 was
introduced in the House - with charges and proposals
so outlandish that if passed and implemented will be a
blockade and act of war. It accused Iran of:

– pursuing “nuclear weapons and regional hegemony”
that threatens international peace and America’s
national security interests;

– overtly sponsoring “several terrorist groups,
including Hamas and Hezbollah;”

– having close ties to Syria;

– possibly sharing “its nuclear materials and
technology with others;”

– developing “ballistic technology” and ICBMs
exclusively to deliver nuclear weapons;

– calling for the “destruction of Israel;”

– refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program
despite its legality;

– using its banking system to support proliferation
and terrorist groups;

– supporting Hezbollah to dominate Lebanon and wage
war on its government (of which Hezbollah is part);

– helping Hamas “illegally seize control of Gaza”
(and) continuously bombard Israeli civilians with
rockets and mortars;”

– financing Iraqi “Shia militant groups (and) Afghan
warlords (to) attack American and allied forces;”

– destabilizing the Middle East “by underwriting a
massive rearmament campaign by Syria;” and

– seeking regional hegemony to undermine “vital
American national security interests.”

While stopping short of overtly declaring war, it
proposes Congress:

– prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
“through all appropriate economic, political and
diplomatic means;”

– urges the President to impose sanctions on:

(1) Iran’s Central Bank and all others supporting
proliferation and terrorist groups;

(2) international banks that do business with
proscribed Iranian banks;

(3) energy companies with $20 million or more
investments in Iran’s oil or natural gas sectors since
the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act; and

(4) all companies doing business with Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard.

It further:

– demands that the President prohibit export of all
refined oil products to Iran; impose “stringent
inspection requirements” on everything entering and
departing the country, including international
movement of its officials;

– aims to deny foreign investors greater access to
Iran’s economy and give US companies preferential
treatment if and when sanctions are lifted; and

– enlists regional support against Iran and makes
clear that America will protect its “vital national
security interests in the Middle East,” implying by
war if necessary.

Sanctions As A Form of War

Under the UN Charter’s Article 41, the Security
Council (SC) may impose economic sanctions to deter
(as Article 39 states) “any threat to the peace,
breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” Specific
measures “may include complete or partial interruption
of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal,
telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication,
and the severance of diplomatic relations.” Prior to
imposition, however, the SC should determine if
they’re warranted, “call upon the parties concerned to
comply with such provisional measures,” make
appropriate recommendations, and decide which specific
ones, if any, to use short of armed force.

Under appropriate circumstances, and if imposed
responsibly, sanctions may be warranted and have
greater impact than diplomatic protests or posturing.
They’re also hugely less problematic and costly than
conflict. However, when irresponsibly used, for
imperial gain, or as acts of vengeance or political
punishment, they become siege warfare and should be
judged accordingly. Most often, US pressure is for
these purposes in violation of the UN Charter’s intent
and spirit. As a result, grievous harm is caused -
nowhere more horrifically than in Iraq from 1990 -
2003 when around 1.5 million Iraqis died and millions
more suffered tragically and needlessly.

In far less extreme form, a similar strategy is being
used against Iran - with no justification whatever.
Last March, after a year of deliberations, the
Security Council approved SC 1803 - a third set of
Iranian sanctions for refusing to suspend its legal
right to enrich uranium as the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty allows. It followed two
earlier rounds in July 2006 (SC 1696) demanding that
Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it
refused, SC 1737 passed in December imposing limited
sanctions. SC 1747 then tightened them in March 2007.
It imposed a ban on arms sales and expanded a freeze
on Iranian assets.

New sanctions extend the earlier ones but not as
harshly as Washington wanted. Still they restrict
dual-use technologies and authorize cargo inspections
to and from the country suspected of carrying
prohibited equipment and materials. They also tighten
the monitoring of Iranian financial institutions and
extend travel bans and asset freezes against persons
and companies involved in Iran’s nuclear program.

On August 5, AP reported that Germany and the SC’s
five permanent members (the so-called P5 + 1) “agreed
yesterday to ’seek’ new sanctions against Iran over
its nuclear program after the country failed to meet a
weekend deadline to respond to an offer” discussed
below. Its source is US State Department spokesman
Gonzalo Gallegos saying “we have no choice but to
pursue further measures against Iran.”

Now the good news. By mid to late June, HR 362 had 169
co-sponsors. More were being added, and by August 1,
252 were on board. For a time it looked sure to pass
quickly. Then anti-war groups reacted - with a tsunami
of emails, phone calls, letters and visits to
congressional members and their staffs. In spite of
heavy AIPAC pressure for the resolution it wrote, they
suspended action until the bill’s language is
softened, so for now it’s stalled in committee (but
not halted), and Congress is on recess until September
7 after both parties hold their conventions.

Talking Peace, Planning War

On July 16, the New York Times called Under Secretary
of State for Political Affairs William Burns’ presence
at the July 19 Geneva talks “the most significant
diplomatic contact with Iran since” the 1979
revolution. It followed a June meeting (attended by no
US representative) at which Germany and the Security
Council’s five permanent members presented a package
of “economic and diplomatic incentives” that failed to
impress the Iranians. Predictably, neither did the
July 19 meeting that ended in “deadlock” because
America doesn’t “negotiate.” It demands.

In this case, the proposal offered a so-called
“freeze-for-freeze” formula, with imprecise terms,
under which Iran would stop enriching uranium in
return for no additional sanctions for six weeks. At
that point, formal negotiations would begin with no
promises of concessions or compromise. Iran was given
two weeks to reply. The US delegation said that Burns’
appearance was a one-time event, and by so doing
revealed its deceit. For its part, Iran rejects
deadlines, and its IAEA representative, Ali Asghar
Soltanieh, expressed “grave concern” over America’s
double standards on nuclear policy.

For the Bush administration, Iran’s nuclear program
isn’t the issue. It’s mere subterfuge for what’s
really at stake, but first a little background. Under
Reza Shah Pahlevi, Iran undertook a nuclear program in
1957 and got a US research reactor in 1967. After the
1974 oil shock, and in spite of the country’s vast oil
reserves, he established the Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran to use nuclear power generation
for a modern energy infrastructure that would
transform the entire Middle East’s power needs. He
also wanted to reduce Iran’s dependence on oil, lessen
its pressure to recycle petrodollars, and ally more
closely with European companies through investments.

In the 1970s, W. Germany began Iran’s Bushehr civilian
reactor complex. In 1978, Iran had the world’s fourth
largest nuclear program, the largest in the developing
world, and planned to build 20 new reactors by 1995.
That year, it contracted with Russia to complete the
Bushehr project, supply it with nuclear fuel, and
transfer potentially dangerous technology, including a
centrifuge plant for fissile material. Washington
became alarmed. It got the Yeltsin government to back
out, but Iran’s efforts continued with Russia
supplying nuclear fuel, and it still does.

Earlier in 2002, the National Council of Resistance of
Iran (NCRI - the opposition parliament in exile)
claimed the country was pursuing a secret nuclear
weapons program - including a Natanz uranium
enrichment facility and an Arak heavy water one. US -
Iranian confrontation followed using Iran’s nuclear
program as pretext. Here’s what’s really at issue:

– Iranian sovereignty;

– its independence from US control;

– its immense proved oil reserves - third or fourth
largest in the world by most estimates; also its vast
proved natural gas reserves - ranked second largest in
the world after Russia;

– America’s resolve to control and have veto power
over them;

– Big Oil’s desire to profit from them;

– Iran’s size and location in the strategically
important Middle East; its chokehold over the Strait
of Hormuz through which millions of barrels of oil
flow daily - about 20% of world production of around
88 million barrels;

– its strategic ties to Russia and China on energy,
other commercial, and weapons deals; both countries
are Iran’s largest foreign investors; Iran has vital
security ties with them as well;

– these relationships’ spillover for control of
Eurasia and the Caspian region’s vast oil and gas
reserves through two organizations - the Asian
Security Grid and more important Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) as a counterweight to an
encroaching US-dominated NATO;

– its power and influence in a region the US and
Israel want to dominate; and

– the immense power of the Israeli Lobby to influence
US policy, including a possible war on Iran or
minimally the harshest measures just short of one.

Congress On Board with the Israeli Lobby

At AIPAC’s June 2008 annual conference, most
congressional members (over 300 attended), the
leadership, and both parties’ presidential candidates
expressed uncompromising support for Israel. They also
backed harsh sanctions against Iran and even war if
they prove ineffective.

For its part, AIPAC’s action agenda urged:

– stopping Iran’s nuclear program; getting Congress
to pass HR 362 and the Senate’s equivalent SR 580;
“calling on the administration to focus on the urgency
of the Iranian threat and to impose tougher sanctions
on Tehran;”

– urging the Senate to pass the Iran
Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (S.970) - “to
enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect
to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions
against Iran, and for other purposes;” on September
25, 2007, it passed the House overwhelmingly; the
Senate Finance and Banking Committees passed key
provisions of the Senate version in two Iran sanctions
bills;

– supporting the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007
(HR 2347) that “authorize(s) State and local
governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent
investment in, companies with investments of
$20,000,000 or more in Iran’s energy sector;” and

– urging additional aid for Israel as the president
requested, “support(ing) Israel’s quest for peace,
(and) press(ing) the Arab states to do more to support
Israeli-Palestinian talks.”

An earlier August 14, 2007 AIPAC “Issue Brief” is
titled “Iran’s Support for Terrorism.” It claims that:

– “the radical regime in Iran has sponsored terrorism
against the United States, Israel and the West for
decades;”

– the State Department designates Iran “the world’s
leading state sponsor of terror, noting its support
for groups such as Hamas, ‘Hizballah’ and Islamic
Jihad;”

– Tehran also sponsors the “insurgency in Iraq,
supplied arms to the Taliban and hosted al-Qaeda
terrorists;”

– it also “relentlessly pursu(es) nuclear weapons
(and thus is) a particularly implacable and lethal
regime;” and

– “only a sustained, unified international effort to
isolate and sanction Iran is likely to convince it to
give up these dangerous activities.”

The Bush administration agrees. So do most members of
Congress, the leadership, and both parties’
presumptive presidential candidates in speeches at the
June AIPAC conference. Obama oozed obeisance -
“speaking from the heart as a true friend of
Israel….when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends.
Good friends….who share my strong commitment (that)
the bond between the United States and Israel is
unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.” Though far
less eloquent, McCain was equally supportive.

Obama assured attendees that he stands “by Israel in
the face of all threats..speak(s) up when Israel’s
security is at risk (and voices concern that)
America’s recent foreign policy (hasn’t) made Israel
more secure. Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has
tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing
its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq,
Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel
than Iraq - is emboldened and poses the greatest
strategic challenge to the US and Israel in the Middle
East in a generation….We must isolate Hamas….Syria
continues its support for terror and meddling in
Lebanon (and) pursu(es) weapons of mass
destruction….There is no greater threat to Israel -
or to the peace and stability of the region - than
Iran. (It) supports violent extremists….pursues a
nuclear capability….and threatens to wipe Israel off
the map….my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

AIPAC attendees loved it and his receptivity to
attacking Iran. McCain’s comments no less plus his bad
humor earlier in singing “bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune
of a popular song on a May campaign stop. At AIPAC, he
was just as supportive as Obama, wants increased
military aid for Israel in FY 2009, and “foremost in
(his mind) is the threat posed by the regime in
Tehran….The Iranian President calls Israel a
stinking corpse….it uses violence to undermine
Israel in the Middle East peace process….(it
supports) extremists in Iraq (killing) American
soldiers….remains the world’s chief sponsor of
terrorism….(and its) pursuit of nuclear weapons
poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow”
with clear implications of what he means and what he
may do as president.

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) on the “Iranian
Threat”

Along with the Israeli Lobby, Bush neocons, and most
Washington officials, Christian extremists from
organizations like CUFI cite the “Iranian threat” as a
recurrent theme, the country’s hostility to Israel and
desire to “eliminate” the Jewish state, the danger it
may do so if it acquires nuclear weapons, and the need
to confront Iran preemptively - through sanctions,
isolation and war if other measures fail.

Controversial Pastor and John McCain supporter John
Hagee is its founder and national chairman, and his
influence is considerable. He has 18,000 supporters in
his San Antonio Cornerstone Church and far more
through CUFI and his global television ministry. His
ideology is chilling, and as the most powerful and
influential American Christian Zionist, he’s a man to
be reckoned with. He calls Muslims “Islamic fascists,”
claims they’re at war with western civilization, and
believes preemptive countermeasures, including
belligerent ones against Iran, are a proper defense.

As keynote speaker at AIPAC’s 2007 conference, he
called Iran “the most dangerous regime in the Middle
East (characterized by its) cruel despotism (and)
fanatic militancy. If this regime (acquires) nuclear
weapons this would presage catastrophic consequences
not only for my country, not only for the Middle East,
but for all of mankind….The fact that Iran is
building nuclear weapons is beyond question….and
they may be the world’s first ‘un-deterable’ nuclear
power….So the danger is clear and the question is
what do we do about it…My message to you
is….divest Iran,” impose sanctions, isolate the
country, and if these measures fail choose a “second
course,” the other two being “nothing” or
“non-military action.” From his rhetoric at AIPAC and
fundamentalist preaching to his followers, it’s clear
which one Hagee prefers and may get if enough others
in high places share his views.

Israeli Defense Minister and former Labor Prime
Minister Ehud Barak may one of them. On July 30, he
told top US officials that Israel won’t rule out a
military strike against Iraq, but there’s still time
to pursue diplomacy. Like other Israeli officials
(past and present), he stressed Iran’s global threat
so that for Israel “no option would be removed from
the table.”

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister (and possible next
Prime Minister) Shaul Mofaz stated similar views. In
an August 1 speech to the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy (a pro-Israeli think tank), he called
Iran an existential threat, recommended diplomacy
first, then added “all options are on the table” to
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - “as
soon as 2010″ as some in Israel claim.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (and Mofaz rival
for Prime Minister) may be one of them. On CNN August
3, she called for a fourth round of sanctions against
Iran and urged the world community to support them.
“Iran doesn’t pay attention to talks,” she said, and
“time is of the essence.” On the same day, US
spokesperson for the US’s UN mission, Richard Grenell,
(in a Reuters report) voiced the same view in saying
“Iran has not complied with the international
community’s demand to stop enriching uranium (so) the
Security Council (has) no choice but to increase the
sanctions….”

High Level US Opposition to War on Iran

Key Obama foreign policy advisor and former Carter
administration National Security Advisor, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, is one of them. In a Washington Post March
2008 op-ed, he called the Iraq war a “national
tragedy, (demagogically justified), an economic
catastrophe, a regional disaster, and a global
boomerang for the United States.” Earlier in February
2007, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, he said it was “a historic, strategic, and
moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it
is undermining America’s global
legitimacy….tarnishing (our) moral credentials (and)
intensifying regional instability.”

He then laid out a “plausible scenario for a military
collision with Iran (based on) Iraqi failure to meet
the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian
responsibility for the failure, then by some
provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US
blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US
military action” in response. This would plunge “a
lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire
eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and
Pakistan.” Brzezinski’s remarks were an unmistakable
warning that the Bush administration may try to
stampede the country into a calamitous conflict it
must avoid, and it’s up to Congress to stop it. He
also practically called Bush neocons a cabal and
warned Congress to be alert.

Later last September, Brzezinski repeated the same
warning on CNN - that the Bush administration (Bush
and Cheney mainly) is “hyp(ing) the atmosphere (and)
“stampeding” the country to war with Iran. “When the
president flatly asserts (Iran is) seeking nuclear
weapons, he’s overstating the facts….we have very
scant (supportive) evidence (and after the Iraq
calamity he) should be very careful about the veracity
of his public assertions.” Based on his own experience
in Afghanistan in the 1980s, he’s also very leery
about “running the (same) risk of unintentionally”
falling into Russia’s trap - overreaching, paying
“little regard for civilian casualties,” turning
Afghans against us, and being defeated and forced out
of the country.

Brzezinski supports a less confrontational occupation
and had this to say about a McCain administration: “if
his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his
Secretary of Defense is (Rudy) Giuliani, we will be
moving towards the WW IV (counting the Cold War as WW
III) that they have been both favoring and
predicting….an appalling concept” he says must be
avoided.

It will be if global intelligence company Stratfor
founder and head George Friedman is right. In an
August 4 Barrons interview (reported on Iran’s Press
TV), he called Israeli war games and tough US talk
geopolitical head-fake leading to an “amicable endgame
in Iran.” Why? Because given today’s global economy,
the alternative risks far outweigh potential benefits.
Besides, Iran poses at most a “negligible nuclear
threat” and nowhere near reason enough to go to war
over.

Further, Iran has helped reduce sectarian violence in
Iraq by reigning in Shia militias, and that’s a key
reason for lower US casualties. Barrons noted that
Stratfor has a record of making accurate assessments
and gained a large client base as a result. Friedman
believes the US and Israel are using psychological
warfare to intimidate Iran to make it more
accommodative to their policies. He also says a major
attack would have grave repercussions for the global
economy at a time when it’s most vulnerable. Iran’s
potential retaliatory strength might cripple a sizable
amount of world oil trade, cause prices to skyrocket,
and exacerbate an already shaky situation at the worst
time.

He says the Pentagon has war-gamed an attack, and
believes it can make short work of Iran’s shore-based
missile batteries and attack ships. De-mining
operations would take much longer. In the meantime,
oil prices could hit $300 a barrel, shipping insurance
and tanker lease rates would soar, and economic
stability would collapse. In the near-term, it would
be “cataclysmic to the global economy and stock
market.”

Up to now, two years of talks on Iran’s nuclear
program have been more “Kabuki theater” than a real
effort at serious negotiation. In addition, Friedman
says Iran is “decades away” from developing a credible
nuclear weapons capacity even if it intends to pursue
one. At best, in his judgment, it may be able to come
up with a crude device like the North Koreans managed
and apparently tested in 2006. No reason to go to war
over if he’s right and one among many more vital
issues that influential American figures cite to
oppose one.

Pentagon Crosscurrents on Iran

In late June, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Michael
Mullen, visited Israel - his second trip there since
his October 1 appointment, but this time with a clear
(official US) message according to defense analyst and
former Pentagon official Anthony Cordesman of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
It was that “the US did not give the green light for
an Israeli attack on Iran….George Bush made it clear
to all parties that the first option is diplomacy,”
and no attack should be undertaken without White House
approval. Mullen further suggested that US policy
likely will remain unchanged under George Bush, and
that future plans will be up to the next incumbent - a
strong hint that cooler high-level Washington figures
know the folly of a wider Middle East war and want no
part of one.

Nonetheless, there’s no assurance they’ll win out, and
analyst Michael Oren of the Shalem Centre told CBS
News that Bush administration officials assured
Israelis that Iran wouldn’t be allowed to develop a
nuclear weapons capacity with strong hints of an
attack if one continues. Then on March 11, CENTCOM
commander William Fallon was sacked following reports
that he sharply disagreed with Bush administration
Middle East policy. On April 24 Iraq commander, and
noted super-hawk, David Petraeus was named to replace
him, and following an easy Senate confirmation will
take over in September.

In June 2007, another change of command occurred when
George Bush replaced Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace
because of his public disagreement over policy. On
February 17, 2006 at a National Press Club luncheon,
he responded to a question: “It is the absolute
responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an
order that is either illegal or immoral.” He later
added that commanders should “not obey illegal and
immoral orders to use weapons of mass
destruction….They cannot commit crimes against
humanity.” Nor should they go along with wrong-headed
illegal schemes of remaking the Middle East and other
regions militarily, but until Admiral Mullen’s
comments to Israelis it looked like a compliant
Pentagon team was in place to pursue it.

Whatever’s ahead, it appears high-level opposition
figures have surfaced with practical (past and
present) trilateralists among them. Figures like
Brzezinski, Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Tenet,
Paul Volker, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, David
Rockefeller, many other top business executives, and
even GHW Bush. Their concern over present policy is
having an effect, but there’s no certainty about which
side will prevail. However, with Congress out until
September, things are on hold, and time is fast
running out on a lamer-than-lame duck administration,
according to some.

Even The New York Times is sending mixed messages it
will have to clarify in coming weeks. In a June 10
editorial, it said: “If sanctions and incentives
cannot be made to work, the voices for military action
will only get louder. No matter what aides may be
telling Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert - or what they may be
telling each other - an attack on Iran would be a
disaster,” implying it’s wrong, won’t work and will
devastate the economy. Then on July 18, it then gave
Israeli historian and apologist Benny Morris op-ed
space for a vicious and Orwellian headlined diatribe:
“Using Bombs to Stave Off War.”

In it, he states “Israel will almost surely attack
Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months
(conventionally).” Should that “assault fail to
significantly harm or stall the Iranian program….a
nuclear (attack) will most likely follow.” The world
has “only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march
toward nuclear weaponry: the military” one by “either
the United States or Israel.” But America is bogged
down in two wars, and “the American public has little
enthusiasm” for more.

“Which leaves only Israel - the country threatened
almost daily with destruction by Iran’s
leaders….Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink
their gamble and suspend their nuclear program.”
Otherwise, an Israeli attack “will destroy their
nuclear facilities (even though) this would mean
thousands of Iranian casualties and international
humiliation.”

It’s high time The New York Times (and other major
media voices) took a stand. Is it opposed to further
regional conflict, or in James Petras’ words: is it
for “the nuclear incineration of 70 million Iranians
and the contamination of the better part of a billion
people in the Middle East, Asia and Europe” plus an
unimaginable amount of retaliatory fallout with the
entire Muslim world against the West and Israel.

Yet a June 2008 Presidential Task Force on the Future
of US-Israeli Relations statement calls for
“Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge” and to
consider “coercive options” against it, including
embargoing Iranian oil and “preventive military
action.” It was at the time Haaretz reported that
Israel conducted large-scale exercises (focusing on
long-range strikes) “that appeared to be a rehearsal
for a potential bombing attack” on Iran. Statfor’s
George Friedman downplayed them, called them
“psychological warfare” saber-rattling, not
preparations for war, and why would Israel telegraph
plans if that’s what it has in mind. In 1981, it gave
no hint it intended to bomb Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and
when it came it was a surprise.

Other Crosscurrents

For brief moments earlier, positive developments
surfaced, only to be swept aside by a torrent of
anti-Iranian hostility. The Baker Commission December
2006 report recommended engaging Iran and Syria
“constructively” and called for a “New Diplomatic
Offensive without preconditions,” all for naught. Then
last December the National Intelligence Assessment
(representing the consensus of all 16 US spy agencies)
concluded that Iran “halted” its nuclear weapons
program in 2003, and it remains frozen, again without
effect.

At the same time, battle plans are in place under code
name TIRRANT for Theater Iran Near Term. And under a
top secret “Interim Global Strike Alert Order” and
CONPLAN (contingency/concept plan) 8022, Washington
may preemptively strike targets anywhere in the world
using so-called low-yield extremely powerful nuclear
bunker buster weapons. Iran is the apparent first
target of choice, and US Naval carrier strike groups
are strategically positioned in the Persian Gulf and
Mediterranean to proceed on command.

A recent May World Tribune report cited a second
carrier group in the Gulf and secret (approved but not
implemented) US naval and air plans for an Iran
“counterstrike” in response to “escalating tensions
that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency
strike against US” forces - that might easily be
another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident. So the question
remains, are we heading for war or is it just
“head-fake” as George Friedman believes?

Sy Hersh On “Preparing the Battlefield”

On June 29 in the New Yorker magazine, Hersh reported
more crosscurrents and added to what’s covered above.
On the one hand, Congress will fund “a major
escalation of covert operations against Iran,”
according to his high-level sources. As much as $400
million will go to minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi
dissident groups, to “destabilize the country’s
religious leadership,” aim for regime change, and gain
intelligence on Iran’s “suspected nuclear-weapons
program.”

The plan apparently involves stepped up covert CIA and
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operations
authorized by a highly classified Presidential Finding
about which some congressional leaders have little
knowledge and have voiced concern. By law, party
leaders and ranking intelligence committee members
must be briefed, but apparently it’s been done
selectively.

On the other hand, Hersh says Pentagon military and
civilian leaders are concerned about “Iran’s nuclear
ambitions,” but disagree “whether a military strike is
the right solution.” Some oppose one, want diplomacy
instead, and apparently Robert Gates is one of them -
a former Iraq Study Group member until he became
Secretary of Defense in December 2006. In late 2007,
he apparently warned the Democrat Senate caucus of
grave consequences if the Bush administration
preemptively attacked Iran - saying it would create
“generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will
be battling (them) in America.”

Admiral Mullen also is “pushing back very hard”
against an attack along with “at least ten senior flag
and general officers, including combatant commanders”
in charge of military operations around the world. One
of them is Admiral Fallon who lost his CENTCOM job for
opposing an attack even though he agrees on Iran’s
possible threat.

Looking Ahead

More good news for what it’s worth. On August 2, tens
of thousands across the US and Canada protested
against a possible attack on Iran. On the bad side,
unprecedented numbers, in vain, did as well ahead of
the Iraq war, but this time influential Washington
figures support them.

With Congress on recess, it’s too soon to know what’s
ahead, but one thing’s for sure. Neocons still run
things. Dick Cheney leads them, and he claims Iran
intends to destroy Israel, is developing nuclear
weapons, and is a “darkening cloud….right at the top
of the list” of world trouble spots and needs to be
addressed (along with Syria) as the next phase of “the
road map to war.” With five months to go and heavy
firepower to call on, he and George Bush have plenty
of time left (as this writer said earlier) to
incinerate Iran and end the republic if that’s what
they have in mind. Better hope they don’t or that
cooler heads win out for a different way.

Have Your Say: War with Iran - On, Off or Undecided?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Bush must be stopped before starting war with Iran

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

By JOE PARKO | The Bush administration, in rhetoric that is eerily similar to that used to build the case for a war against Iraq, asserts that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-U.S. groups in Iraq and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets.

It dismisses the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program.

The White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. I suspect it never will. And when Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth an attack on Iran is “unavoidable” if Tehran does not halt its alleged nuclear weapons program, what he is really telling us is we should prepare for war.

An attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel and the ensuing regional war will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, we barrel mindlessly toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation. No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.

The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. This price increase will devastate the U.S. economy. The ensuing retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on U.S. military installations in Iraq, will leave hundreds, maybe thousands, dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, will see an attack on Iran as a war against Shiism. They will turn with rage and violence on us and our allies. Hezbollah will renew attacks on northern Israel, while Hamas increases its attacks in southern Israel. And the localized war in Iraq will become a long, messy and protracted regional war that, by the time it is done, will most likely end the American empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins.

The Israeli leadership, like the Bush White House, is increasingly bellicose and threatening. The Israeli prime minister, after a recent 90-minute meeting with Bush in the White House, said the two leaders were of one mind. “We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat,” Ehud Olmert said. “I left with a lot less questions marks (than) I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House.”

This time around, unlike the war with Iraq, the Washington bureaucracy, loathed by the Bush White House, did not remain silent and complicit. The NIE on Iran’s nuclear program released Dec. 3 distinguished Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had halted in 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Adm. Fallon, who put his country and his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it, and lost his job as the head of Central Command. He has been replaced with Gen. David Petraeus, whose devotion to his career admits no such moral impediments.

The American people must act to stop this madness. We must raise our voices in protest. We must demand that Congress exercise its constitutional authority and block a war on Iran. We cannot allow the Bush neocons to act out their final bloody fantasy and destroy all hopes for peace in the Middle East.

Joe Parko is a retired college professor. He lives in Crossville, where he serves on the steering committee of Cumberland Countians for Peace and Justice.

Have Your Say: Bush must be stopped before starting war with Iran
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Strike on Iran still possible, U.S. tells Israel

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

LA Times |  WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials reassured Israel’s defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.

In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution.

At the same time, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is a rare divergence in the U.S. and Israeli approaches, with Israelis emphasizing the possibility of a military response out of concern that Tehran may soon have the know-how for building a nuclear bomb.

“Is there a difference of emphasis? It certainly looks as though there is,” said a senior American Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the sensitive talks.

U.S. and Israeli officials believe Iran is enriching uranium with the aim of building nuclear weapons.

Tehran says that it is engaged in a peaceful enrichment program for civilian energy purposes.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said in an interview that U.S. officials have often made it clear to Israeli officials that Washington prefers to try to mitigate the threat from Tehran by applying economic pressure.

“The military option, although always available, is not our preferred route,” Morrell said.

“We have made that point clear to them and the world in our public statements and private meetings.”

Barak left Israel for Washington amid reports in the Israeli press that he would try to talk the Bush administration out of what many Israelis perceive as a more conciliatory policy toward Iran.

On Tuesday, the Israeli Defense Ministry released a statement saying that Barak had told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that “a policy that consists of keeping all options on the table must be maintained.”

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Barak said that there remains time for “accelerated sanctions” to try to persuade Iran to abandon the nuclear program.

Israeli officials were concerned in December when a key U.S. intelligence report concluded that Iran had abandoned an effort to build a nuclear bomb. They also have noted with concern comments this month by Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that an Israeli airstrike on Iran would further destabilize the Middle East and compound the strain on overworked U.S. forces.

Also this month, in a rare move toward engagement with Tehran, a senior U.S. diplomat took part in international talks in Geneva about the nuclear program.

And U.S. officials have floated a proposal for opening a low-level diplomatic office in Tehran.

These gestures have taken place at a time of intensifying discussion in Israel about the wisdom of an Israeli military attack on Iran before the Bush administration leaves office.

A senior State Department official said Tuesday that Israel “is a sovereign state and we understand that they view this as an existential threat. And we take the threat that’s posed by Iran seriously as well.”

But the official, who asked to remain unidentified in keeping with diplomatic rules, said the administration is “pursuing the strategy we believe is the right one.”

Gates, in an hourlong meeting with Barak, told the minister that the United States intends to consider providing radar to Israel that can detect ballistic missiles launched from Iran and supplying weapons to counter rocket attacks from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, according to a senior Defense official.

Have Your Say: Strike on Iran still possible, U.S. tells Israel
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

• Journalists warned to get out of Afghanistan
• How Could 9/11 Hijackers Obtain Secret Service Codes?
• Bush maintains illusion of Iran threat
• Rice: US still puts conditions on talks with Iran
• Censorship ‘changes face of net’

This entry was posted on Monday, July 13th, 2009 at 12:44 am and is filed under Media News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.