“Obviously we cannot move upon a third party’s requests,” he said.

Although some banks in Europe and Japan have bowed to US pressure, a host of analysts and diplomats believe that the move has proved futile.

They opine that the Bush administration’s controversial policy of slapping sanctions on Iranian banks is facing a critical challenge, as financial institutions in Russia, China, and much of the Middle East have declined to cut ties with Iranian banks.

AO/JG/PA

In its bid to halt Iran’s nuclear program, the US has called on Turkey to be ‘vigilant’ over financial operations with Iranian banks.

The US Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart A. Levey called on Ankara to be ‘vigilant’ over financial operations with state-run Iranian banks, AP said.

Levey said Ankara should scrutinize activities of Turkish-based branches of Mellat Bank since Washington arbitrarily blacklisted Banks - Melli, Mellat and Saderat to coerce Iran to suspend its nuclear program, which Tehran asserts is for domestic purposes only.

“Iran uses its banks for its missile programs in particular,” he claimed.

“It is essential to share information, to discuss risks …, and vigilance that is required to ensure that Turkey’s financial institutions are not abused by Iranian financial institutions and state-owned banks,” the official continued.

The US imposed sanctions against Iranian banks in October to force countries world over to stop doing business with Tehran.

Although some banks in Europe and Japan bowed to US pressure, a host of analysts and diplomats believe that the move has proved futile.

They opine that the Bush administration’s controversial policy of slapping sanctions on Iranian banks is facing a critical challenge, as financial institutions in Russia, China, and much of the Middle East have declined to cut ties with Iranian banks.

MK/FH/RA

Israel has successfully launched a spy satellite which will be used to gather intelligence on Iran’s activities, a new report says.

The TECSAR satellite is particularly important for Israel since it can be used to ‘keep tabs on Iran’s nuclear program’, the report said citing unnamed Israeli officials.

The officials revealed that the TECSAR satellite operates with an enhanced footage technology, allowing it to transmit images regardless of daytime and weather conditions.

TESCAR is considered the Zionist regime’s most advanced satellite in orbit to date.

Israel has been backing the US efforts to isolate Iran and persuade the international community to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear standoff with the West.

Despite a report by US spy agencies last fall which conceded that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, Washington and Tel Aviv accuse Tehran of pursuing a nuclear arms program.

Iran says its nuclear activities are within the framework of the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

MD/HGH/RE

A senior advisor to Rudy Giuliani says the next US president must discharge President Bush’s ‘responsibility’ of waging war on Iran.

Writing for the February edition of Commentary, Norman Podhoretz said if the next US president doesn’t have the ‘courage’ to attack Iran, the outcome will be catastrophic for Washington.

“We had all better pray that there will be enough time for the next president to discharge the responsibility that Bush will have been forced to pass on,” Podhoretz added.

“If not - God help us all - the stage will have been set for the outbreak of a nuclear war that will become as inescapable then as it is avoidable now,” continued the 78-year-old politician.

Podhoretz, who is the foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, stated last year that President George W. Bush would attack Iran under the pretense of frustrating Tehran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’.

This is while the neocon Czar admitted the December 3 US National Intelligence Estimate, which conceded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, made it ‘politically impossible’ for the Bush administration to launch a military strike on Iran.

MD/AA

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran denounced on Monday as “words without value” President George W. Bush’s remarks that the Islamic state was threatening security around the world by backing militants.

Speaking in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, Bush said Iran was the world’s top sponsor of terrorism and accused it of undermining peace by supporting the Hezbollah guerrilla group in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and Shi’ite militants in Iraq.

“Bush should understand that the hatred towards his policies exists … it has real and logical roots,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini was quoted as saying by state radio.

“Bush’s remarks display his desperation and disappointment because of his failures in the region … He is trying to divert attention from his failed policies,” he said, adding Bush’s comments were “repeated words without value”.

Iran blames sectarian violence in Iraq on the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003 and has repeatedly called on the United States to withdraw its forces.

Tehran and Washington are at odds over Iran’s nuclear work, which the West fears is a cover to build nuclear weapons, and Washington is pushing for a third set of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment work, as demand by the United Nations.

Tehran says it wants nuclear technology for civilian purposes.

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by Dominic Evans)

US president seeks to persuade oil-rich ally into backing Washington against Iran.

The US administration is expected to formally tell Congress of a planned $20bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia, after George Bush, the US president, arrived in the Arab state as he nears the end of his Middle East tour.

The official announcement, expected on Monday, will start a 30-day review period during which Congress could try to block the deal.

The deal, which includes satellite-guided weaponry and high-tech munitions, has alarmed Israel and some US Congressmen since it was unveiled last July, especially as Saudi Arabia refuses to recognise the Jewish state.

During his visit to Saudi Arabia, his first visit to the oil-rich US ally, Bush hopes to rally support for his campaign to isolate Iran.

His administration, which has also announced a $30bn military aid pact with Israel, has argued the deal with the Saudis is needed to counter what it claims is a “major security threat” from Iran.

A senior US official said Bush will court Riyadh’s diplomatic influence and financial muscle which “could make an enormous difference in places like the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations”.

While Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia has voiced concern over the rise of Shia Iran, it is opposed to another war after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq that has strengthened the Islamic regime in Tehran.

Diplomatic tour

In the last few days of his Middle East tour, Bush has been courting Gulf Arab allies to help shore up a US-backed peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians and combat Iran’s growing influence in the region.

Saudi Arabia is considered a linchpin for any broader Israeli-Arab reconciliation as Bush presses Israelis and the Palestinians to secure a peace deal before he leaves office in January 2009.

Iran was also expected to be an important part of Bush’s talks with King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, and was also discussed in Bush’s earlier meetings with Gulf Arab leaders in the UAE.

While the Gulf leaders share US concerns about curbing their powerful Shia neighbour, they want to avoid another war in the region.

“All agreed it’s a difficult problem that needs to be addressed, and at this point pursue in a diplomatic fashion,” Hadley told reporters when asked how UAE leaders had reacted to Bush’s entreaties on Iran.

Engaging Iran

Analysts say there are growing signs that America’s Arab allies prefer to engage Iran.

Last year, Saudi Arabia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, to undertake the Hajj, making him the first Iranian president to receive an official invitation to the annual Muslim pilgrimage.

Also in the region on Monday, was Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who visited Qatar and was later to travel to the UAE.

At the start of his regional tour, Sarkozy also met kind Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, where he offered Saudi Arabia help in developing peaceful nuclear energy.

The French president expects to sign a a nuclear co-operation agreement in with the UAE on Tuesday.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54b_1200327598

Why would Bush go to the Mideast now? It is likely he went to nail down commitments from the Israelis and acquiescence from the Saudis prior to a planned attack on Iran. Bush, who neither reads nor writes well, has a low comfort level with diplomatic go-betweens, so this is a look’em in the eye trip to talk about what happens when he pulls the trigger.

If not, what is the alternative explanation for the trip? He is going to talk about peace talks likely to drift into the fall; change diplomatic tact, such as a demand Israel end the blockade of Gaza; schedule another Annapolis photo-op? Not likely. In addition, by White House standards this is a stealth trip with the US press attention focused elsewhere.

One possibly related diplomatic element: the White House is demanding North Korea “come clean” about its nuclear program, with the objective of getting some statement from them about working with the Iranians. Why an urgent deadline, especially one not in the agreement, unless it is linked to concomitant events? Any statements by North Korea affirming their assistance to Iran, no matter whether the nuclear assistance was weapons related or prior to the reported shut down of the Iranian program, would be presented as “new” intelligence and sold much like the “Sadam/9-11″ connection, trumping, or at least blunting, the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program.

Another indication of the White House’s intentions is promotion of an ordinary encounter in the Strait of Hormuz between US Navy Ships and Iranian Patrol Boats into an “incident,” including the imposition of addition sanctions on Iranian officials.

Assuming a decision to attack Iran, given weather and other logistical concerns, combined with attention to the domestic political schedule, the timing would likely be within two to three months or early fall.

Should this occur, the potential for destabilizing domestic and foreign consequences increase substantially, approaching near certainty. This nominally unattractive and reckless gamble would fit Bush’s character as well as the pattern of his governance. Also, this is his last shot, with a chance to create conditions in the Mideast that lock in future policy options, as he has in domestic policy with a massive deficit. Given the consequences, he would attack not only his foreign enemies, but at the same time strike at his domestic foes under the cover of the resulting emergency.

The later the attack on Iran comes, or a significant response from Iran, the more likely it would be combined with or be followed by a formal declaration of a national emergency, possibly affecting US national elections. The result would be a de facto coup d’état.

Finally, to further assess its likelihood, ask the question: who is to stop him? Not Congress; not the courts; not pubic opinion nor the press. The only chance, however slight, of stopping Bush would rest almost entirely with the British government, if Parliament became aware of the plan prior to the commencement of hostilities.

Related News - Naval Encounter:

Video from Iranian Patrol Boat by Iran Press TV 01/10/08

Video from US Naval Vessel by US Department of Defense 01/09/08

Degrees of Confidence on U.S.-Iran Naval Incident by The New York Times (Blog) 01/10/08

Related News - North Korean Declaration:

U.S. Nuclear Envoy Puts Gentle Pressure on North Korea by The New York Times 01/10/08

North Korea Says Earlier Disclosure Was Enough by The New York Times 01/05/08

U.S. Will Hold North Korea to Nuclear Commitments by The New York Times 01/02/08

Related News - Bush Visit:

ANALYSIS-Gulf Arabs chart delicate course between Iran, U.S. by Reuters 01/10/08

Saudi defends Iran links ahead of Bush visit by Reuters 01/09/08

Iran High on Bush Mideast Trip by Associated Press 01/07/08

Bush to press allies on Iran during Mideast trip by Reuters 01/05/08

US President George W. Bush claims Iran is a threat to global security, calling on Arab allies to join the US to confront the nation.

“Iran is today the world’s leading state sponsor of terror,” Bush alleged in his speech in the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi.

He said that Washington and Arab countries must join together to deal with the danger ‘before it’s too late’.

Bush alleged that Iran funded terrorist extremists, undermined peace in Lebanon, and provided arms for the Taliban.

Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere; it seeks ‘to intimidate its neighbors with missiles and bellicose rhetoric’, Bush continued.

US allies in the region have expressed concern that Bush’s war of words against Tehran may be aimed at drumming up support for military action against Iran.

The oil-rich Arab countries say any conflict could lead to insecurity in the whole region.

Senior Arab officials have repeatedly said that they will not allow the United States to use their countries as a launch pad for any strike against Iran.

“Mr. President, the region needs smart initiatives not smart bombs,” wrote Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai in a front-page editorial, following Bush’s trip to the country.

CS/DT/RE

The US Navy withdraws the allegation that Iranian patrol boats had threatened to blow up a three-ship US convoy in the Hormuz Strait.

“It could have been a threat aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things,” The Washington Post quoted US Navy spokesman Rear Admiral Frank Thorp IV as saying on Friday.

This is while senior US Navy sources have told the BBC that an alleged threat to blow up the US warships ‘may not have come’ from Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Pentagon alleged five Iranian boats belonging to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had harassed three US Navy warships by threatening to ‘blow them up’ on Sunday.

“No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats,” said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

However, President Bush characterized the incident as ‘provocative’ and ‘dangerous’, warning Iran of serious consequences if it happens again.

Iranian officials have dismissed the allegation saying the incident was a routine maritime identification check, which is common between vessels in the Persian Gulf.

MD/RE

US is launching a new propaganda campaign against Iran by showing the video of incident in Hormuz Strait, Iran’s Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar says, PressTV reported.Americans have always pursued a vicious plan to present Iran as a threat to the regional countries, Mohammad-Najjar said.

“This propaganda campaign is nothing new, especially during the US President Bush’s visit to the Middle East.”

The US’ anti-Iran efforts are doomed to failure since Tehran has always had cordial relations with its neighbors, the minister stressed.

Iranian boats call on the US warships to identify themselves was a routine responsibility taken by them on determining identity of any vessels entering into the waters of the Persian Gulf, he elaborated.

Earlier Wednesday, a member of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)Navy told Press TV the US video of Sunday’s incident was archive footage and the audio was fake.

The US Navy has released a footage purportedly showing Iranian boats menacing US Navy warships in Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

Source

By Matthew Hay Brown

While Washington debates whether it should talk to Iran, one Maryland congressman has already struck up a conversation.

For the past year, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest has been meeting with Iranian officials and business leaders to talk about ways to improve relations between the United States and the Islamic republic that President Bush put in his Axis of Evil.

With the recent release of a U.S. intelligence report concluding that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program four years ago, he now sees an opportunity.

“You get this kind of momentum, we will begin a dialogue with Iran,” the Eastern Shore Republican said. “If it’s not in this administration - although I think it’s possible - you will see a change in policy so that the next administration will have a better opportunity to openly discuss issues with the Iranians.”

That’s been Gilchrest’s goal since a private meeting last autumn with Iran’s envoy to the United Nations. The three-hour session with Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif was the start of a continuing effort by Gilchrest, a former Marine who had come to regret his 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, to develop relations with the country that some believed the White House planned to attack next.

He has followed up with other Iranians, exchanged letters with the speaker of the Iranian parliament and organized a group of Republicans and Democrats focused on improving relations.

Called the Dialogue Caucus, the group is looking to spark broader communication between U.S. and Iranian lawmakers. To the 61-year-old Gilchrest, wounded as a platoon leader in Vietnam, it’s a matter of “sending old men to talk before we send young men to die.”

“What I’ve seen in Congress,” he said, “is when you have two people talking, exchanging information, the potential for solutions is infinite. When they don’t talk, there’s no potential at all.”

Still, he says, he has no illusions about the difficulty of finding common ground.

“These guys are not sprouting halos,” he said. “We’re not talking about a poor, misunderstood country. But, you know, this is politics. I’d rather have them talking than shooting at us.”

Gilchrest says Iran has legitimate interests in the security of neighboring Iraq, where it has strong ties to the Shiite majority. He says that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not speak for the whole country, any more than Bush speaks for all Americans.

The largely behind-the-scenes effort is not without political risk. Bush says the recent release of the National Intelligence Estimate will not change the administration policy of mostly shunning Iran, which the United States accuses of arming Shiite insurgents in Iraq.

The moderate Gilchrest, who has split with his party over Iraq, is facing a strong primary challenge from the right from state Sen. Andrew P. Harris in the conservative 1st Congressional District, which voted twice for Bush. State Sen. E.J. Pipkin and three other Republicans are also vying for the nomination.

“He joined [Democratic House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi in wanting to try to run the war, and now I guess it seems that he wants to make an end run around the State Department in handling these foreign affairs as well,” Harris said. “Freelancing on the part of Foreign Service wannabes … is probably not the best thing for this country.”

Efforts by lawmakers to reach out to nations with whom the United States has troubled relations have a long and not very productive history.

But former Democratic Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, whose Iraq Study Group urged the administration to open talks with Iran, says that outreach of the sort that Gilchrest is attempting is “exactly what is needed.”

Gilchrest says he has told Bush of the effort and has kept the administration apprised of his contacts. A State Department spokeswoman said members of Congress are free to speak with whomever they choose - but added that “we would hope that if they did engage in discussions with members of the Iranian government, they would reiterate our policy and explain to them the clearly outlined steps that they need to take in order to come to the negotiating table with the United States.”

The United States and Iran recently agreed to a fourth round of talks between their ambassadors in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq. But U.S. officials say they will not hold higher-level meetings or broaden the discussion to other topics unless Iran stops processing the uranium that they say still could be used for nuclear weapons.

The focus on foreign affairs is something of a departure for Gilchrest. The former high school social studies teacher has been better known for his interest in the environment as a member of the House Natural Resources and Transportation committees.

Then came the Iraq war, on which he says he was “sold a bill of goods,” and what he sees as an increasingly and unnecessarily confrontational approach to the world by both the White House and Congress. He has visited Iraq three times since the 2003 invasion, and has also traveled to Syria, Israel, Jordan and other countries in the region.

“I just couldn’t sit on the side any longer and watch all this stuff unfold,” he said. “I hear my colleagues. I see resolution after resolution coming to the floor condemning this one and condemning that one. Isolating the Palestinians, not talking to the Iranians, calling people evil empires. They’re trying to put out fires by throwing on more dry logs.”

A former senior US intelligence official says Israel will ultimately attack Iran in order ‘to defend its nuclear monopoly’ in the region.

“I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran,” said Bruce Riedel, the former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents, including George W. Bush, on Thursday.

Riedel said his conversations with Israeli officials and Mossad proved to him that Tel Aviv is planning to strike Iran’s nuclear sites.

“And that was before the NIE [US National Intelligence Estimate]. This makes it even more likely,” Newsweek quoted Riedel as saying.

Political pundits believe the Israelis consider the recent US intelligence assessment as a signal of Washington’s reluctance to follow the Zionist regime’s hawkish policies towards Iran.

Riedel added that the Bush administration’s failure to discuss the NIE report with Israeli intelligence agencies before its release on Dec. 3 only complicated the problem for Israel.

The prevailing view among Israeli intelligence officials is that the NIE has isolated the Zionist regime in its attempts to portray Tehran’s nuclear program as a threat.

MD/HGH/RE

A former senior CIA analyst says the United States and Israel are planning war against Iran before the next presidential election.

Ray McGovern said Monday despite a recent National Intelligence Estimate conceding that Iran is not conducting a nuclear weapons program, a joint US and Israeli war on the Islamic Republic is likely to happen.

The former analyst expounded that the close American relationship with Israel, which alleges Iran is a threat to its existence and to the international community, is the driving force behind a potential strike.

McGovern called on those wishing to prevent a military conflict with Iran to voice their opposition to President Bush’s headstrong approach towards Tehran and its nuclear program.

Although the report by US intelligence services has meant another embarrassment for the White House over its accusation against Tehran, the US president seems to be indifferent to the assessment.

President Bush, who is scheduled to visit Jerusalem in January, bald-facedly continues his rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, claiming Tehran poses a threat to the international community.

MD/MG

US intelligence agencies would not have published the NIE with ‘high confidence’ unless they were quite sure, a US analyst has said.

Bush is now trying his best to twist and warp the published report so that it complements rather than contradicts his dire warnings about Iran, Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, says.

“Still, even by historical standards, President Bush has been unusually averse to admitting error. But Bush’s reaction to the considered view of his own intelligence agencies sets a new standard. He and his aides quite obviously wish the intelligence community had kept its views to itself,” he added in an article published by the San Francisco Chronicle.

“By some accounts, the administration was building a case to attack Iran. At the very least, it was trying to convince China and Russia to accept a more stringent United Nations Security Council resolution. Now, of course, the odds of passing that resolution are slim,” Brinkley said.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in his speech, with obvious displeasure, that the intelligence agencies decide on their own what to report and when to make it public, he added.

“That wasn’t always so. During the buildup to the Iraq invasion, the White House pressured the agencies to produce ‘intelligence’ to support his case for war. The agencies complied. Quite obviously Bush and his aides remain wistful for those days,” the article concluded.

BGA/RE