|
Detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans - Iran
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Critics of the George W. Bush administration expressed alarm about explosive new reports that the president is mulling military options to knock out Iran's nuclear program.
Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, told US television Sunday that he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans, but he suggested a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would be extremely risky. "Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said Zinni. "The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism," he said. Zinni made his remarks after the publication of a pair of reports this weekend saying that the administration is seriously considering military action against Iran, amid a stalemate in diplomatic efforts. The New Yorker magazine reported in its April 17 issue that the administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facility. The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential "Adolf Hitler." "That's the name they're using," Hersh quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying. Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition" show that a "messianic" president feels driven to try to contain Iran and that the White House is determined to keep open a nuclear option against strong objections from some top Pentagon officials. "It's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) in an uproar," he said. "He (Bush) thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it," said Hersh, the reporter who also broke the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. Hersh reports in his article that the administration already has advance forces on the ground in Iran. "I think it's fraught with danger. But they're there," he told CNN. Frederick Jones, spokesman for the National Security Council, which advises the president, told AFP: "The US government has been very clear about its approach in dealing with Iran." "As the president has said repeatedly, we, the US, along with the international community, are seeking a diplomatic solution." Democratic Senator John Kerry, one of the administration's most outspoken critics, assailed the White House for what he said is its over-reliance on military might. "That is another example of the shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration," the former Democratic presidential contender said. "For us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be destructive to any non-proliferation efforts and the military assessment is, it would not work," he told NBC television's "Meet the Press" program. Meanwhile, according to a report Sunday in the Washington Post, Bush is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear program. Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the newspaper said no attack appears likely in the short term, but officials are using the threat to convince Iranians of the seriousness of its intentions. The paper said Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends. The White House, in its new National Security Strategy, labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country. Zinni said he shared Washington's concerns about Tehran's motives, but said diplomatic efforts should first be exhausted. "I believe that if the international community would stand fast, the Russians and the Chinese would stay with us, I think that kind of pressure, the fear of being isolated and condemned as a rogue state could have the effect that we need to halt the program. "I'm not saying that there isn't a military action that will become necessary at some point," Zinni continued. "But I believe ... when you take that military action, you have to ask the question, 'and then what?' Because you're going to have a series of those 'and then whats' down the road," he said. Hersh told CNN however, that the White House has spurned Tehran's overtures for dialogue. "This president is not talking to the Iranians. They are trying very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many different forms," he said. "He's not talking. And there's no public pressure on the White House to start bilateral talks. And that's what amazes everybody," he said. Plz Pray, Sardarzada |
Britain took part in mock Iran invasion
Britain took part in mock Iran invasion
Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill Saturday April 15, 2006 Guardian British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable. The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004. A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said. The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who sparked outrage in the US, Europe and Israel last year by calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, created more alarm yesterday. He told a conference in Tehran in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm." The senior British officers took part in the Iranian war game just over a year after the invasion of Iraq. It was focused on the Caspian Sea, with an invasion date of 2015. Although the planners said the game was based on a fictitious Middle East country called Korona, the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian. A British medium-weight brigade operated as part of a US-led force. The MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which helped run the war game, described it on its website as the "year's main analytical event of the UK-US Future Land Operations Interoperability Study" aimed at ensuring that both armies work well together. The study "was extremely well received on both sides of the Atlantic". According to an MoD source, war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters. He cited senior military staff carrying out a mock invasion of southern England last week and one of Scotland in January. However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations. William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking." A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, as unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued." After the failure of a mission to Tehran on Thursday by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia announced a diplomatic initiative yesterday. It is to host a new round of talks in Moscow on Tuesday with the US, the EU and China. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 _________________ All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. Plz Pray, Sardarzada |
Britain took part in mock Iran invasion
Britain took part in mock Iran invasion
Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill Saturday April 15, 2006 Guardian British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable. The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004. A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said. The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who sparked outrage in the US, Europe and Israel last year by calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, created more alarm yesterday. He told a conference in Tehran in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm." The senior British officers took part in the Iranian war game just over a year after the invasion of Iraq. It was focused on the Caspian Sea, with an invasion date of 2015. Although the planners said the game was based on a fictitious Middle East country called Korona, the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian. A British medium-weight brigade operated as part of a US-led force. The MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which helped run the war game, described it on its website as the "year's main analytical event of the UK-US Future Land Operations Interoperability Study" aimed at ensuring that both armies work well together. The study "was extremely well received on both sides of the Atlantic". According to an MoD source, war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters. He cited senior military staff carrying out a mock invasion of southern England last week and one of Scotland in January. However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations. William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking." A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, as unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued." After the failure of a mission to Tehran on Thursday by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia announced a diplomatic initiative yesterday. It is to host a new round of talks in Moscow on Tuesday with the US, the EU and China. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 _________________ All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. Plz Pray, Sardarzada |
Abbas Edalat Scottish Tour
18th April 2006 18:47
Abbas Edalat Scottish Tour Contributor: colonsay Speaking tour by Prof. Abbas Edalat. Stop the drive to nuclear war on Iran! Glasgow. 7 -9 pm, Wednesday, 26th April, Al-Furqan Mosque, Carrington Street (St.George’s Cross underground). Includes film showing, tea and biscuits and chance to meet speakers. The other speaker will be Rory Winter of Iran Solidarity Glasgow University. 1-2 pm, Thursday, 27th April. Boyd Orr building, Room 412 (LTB). In collaboration with Glasgow University Socialist Society. Edinburgh. 7.30-9.30 pm, Thursday, 27th April, St.John’s Church, Princes Street. The other speaker will be Michael MacGregor (Fight Racism!Fight Imperialism!) All welcome. Admission free. As coalition forces continue to be bogged down in Iraq, the consequences of that catastrophic war begin to make themselves felt. The Asian Development Bank has issued a warning about the collapse of the once mighty dollar, as the greenbacks roll off the printing presses to cover the one or two trillion dollar cost of the war. If the dollar goes, can the pound be far behind? Meanwhile, at home, Blair works to extinguish what remains of our democracy. In a startling illustration of chaos theory, the discovery of a dead swan, of suspect origin, triggers the displacement of the trusty old, British cabinet by the shadowy, appropriately named, COBRA. Parliamentary democracy is already being effectively abolished by Blair’s Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Evidently, despite the mess they have brought about, or, rather, because of it, the War Party strives to hold power at any cost. They have a trump card,.....war; and a new target,... Iran. Seymour Hersch’s recent article in The New Yorker confirms developments already familiar to our readership. The bad news is that the Bush regime plans to use nuclear weapons: the good news is that the military are vehemently opposing this. We need to create a citizen’s movement to tilt the balance against the escalation of the war. To this end Iran Solidarity has organised a speaking tour by the prominent Iranian academic and antiwar activist Professor Abbas Edalat, founder of The Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.He recently returned form a speaking tour in the USA where he spoke outside the UN headquarters on the 18th March anti-war demonstration He is uniquely qualified to explain the background and unfolding developments of this crisis. plz pray, sardarzada |
Blair and Straw at Odds over US Action in Iran
Breaking News - Blair and Straw at Odds over US Action in Iran
20th April 2006 17:59 Blair and Straw at Odds over US Action in Iran Published on Thursday, April 20, 2006 by the Independent / UK Blair and Straw at Odds over US Action in Iran by Colin Brown and Andy McSmith Jack Straw has warned Cabinet colleagues that it would be illegal for Britain to support the United States in military action against Iran. But Tony Blair has backed President George Bush by warning that ruling out military action would send out a "message of weakness" to Iran. Differences opened up yesterday between Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary over growing alarm in the US at the refusal of Mr Bush to rule out military action. Mr Straw said on BBC Radio 4 that it was "inconceivable" that Britain would support a military strike against Tehran. Four hours later, Mr Blair refused to go that far when challenged to do so at Prime Minister's questions by the former minister, Michael Meacher. Mr Blair accused Iran of fostering international terrorism, and said young people were signing up to be suicide bombers directed at US and UK targets. " I do not think this is the time to send a message of weakness," he said. Mr Straw has told ministerial colleagues he does not believe that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, would approve the legality of British action, because Iran does not pose a direct threat to Britain. Mr Straw also said it would be "nuts" to consider a nuclear strike. The possibility of action against Iran threatens to resurrect the row over the basis on which Britain went to war in Iraq. The Attorney General became embroiled in the legal advice he gave to the Prime Minister over the war. Clare Short, the former cabinet minister, said the Cabinet had never been shown the full legal advice and there were claims that Lord Goldsmith may have changed his view under pressure from Mr Blair. Some Labour MPs say Mr Straw was wrong to rule out military action, and accuse him of bowing to pressure from the strong Muslim population in his Blackburn constituency. But most Labour MPs support Mr Straw's strategy and would revolt if Mr Blair showed any sign of lending support to a US strike against Iran. Mr Straw was given tacit support at a meeting of European foreign ministers in Luxembourg last week. France understands Mr Blair's argument that keeping the military option on the table would keep up the pressure on Iran. But it is to urge London to press the Bush administration to soften its approach so it no longer treats Iran as a "rogue state" but engages in a wider dialogue with Tehran on terrorism, the Middle East peace process and oil. Yesterday there was a rare, informal meeting of US and Iranian embassy diplomats at the Commons organised by the Foreign Policy Centre think-tank to launch its pamphlet Understanding Iran. Diplomatic contacts between Iran and the US have been infrequent since students occupied the US embassy in Tehran 26 years ago. Pam Telford, who handles proliferation issues for the US embassy, denied Washington had aggravated the problem by having no clear policy towards Iran, or by having double standards about which Asian states are allowed to have nuclear weapons. The Iranian charge d'affaires, Hamid Reza Arefi, denied Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited Plz Pray, Sardarzada |
Breaking News - When all else fails and you're becoming Nixon 2.0, why not just nuke someone, and smirk?
20th April 2006 5:43 When all else fails and you're becoming Nixon 2.0, why not just nuke someone, and smirk? Iran, You Ran, Let's Bomb Iran When all else fails and you're becoming Nixon 2.0, why not just nuke someone, and smirk? It's just like playing blackjack in Vegas. Invariably, sitting right next to you is some guy, eyes shifty and body twitchy and making weird sounds with his mouth and smelling vaguely of sawdust and horse manure and dead dreams, with a huge pile of chips he is quickly turning into a very small pile of chips. He is suffering. He is playing terribly, grumbling, sneering at the dealer, talking to the cards like they were his personal slutty harem ("C'mon you dumb bitches, do me right," etc.), complaining to his very angry God who is apparently no longer coming through for him. He is getting desperate. His pile is diminishing. He is sweating, glancing around, wondering where all his drunk fraternity friends scurried off to. Soon he is down to his last chips. He makes one final stab, but his final bet tanks. He is out, the pile is gone. He then does what every miserable, lunkheaded gambler does at this point: In a fit of alcoholic rage and demonic encouragement, he says, "Screw it" -- and digs into his pocket, pulls out his last remaining crumpled $1,000 bill and slaps it down on the table in one big final gesture meant to turn his fortunes around all at once, goddamn the wife at home and screw a decent meal and forget every ironclad rule of gambling because dammit the gods owe him and he's long overdue for a change in fortune. Yes. Right. Sure he is. The smart players look at him like he's a wart on their elbow. The gods look at him like he's a brown fungal mold they forgot to let evolve. Everyone looks sidelong at him and sighs, waits for the inevitable. Sure enough, the lug loses his big Hail Mary bet. He is broke. He cannot believe it. He curses the table, curses the whore cards, swears at the dealer for not treating him better, slams the rest of his drink and his face contorts and his hands shake and he stumbles off into the night, railing against his lousy luck, the gods, all of humanity. Same ol' situation, happening all over Vegas. And, of course, Washington, D.C. Now, here he is, sitting right next to all the other countries at the Big Table, representing America, it's little Dubya Bush, stewing in his own juices, his poll numbers hovering right near Nixon levels during his darkest days, mumbling to himself, smelling vaguely of sawdust and horse manure and dead Social Security overhaul plans. He is pockmarked by scandal, buffeted by storms of disapproval and infighting and nascent impeachment. He intentionally authorized the leak of security information merely to smear an Iraq war critic, he lied about WMD and lied about Saddam and lied about making the United States safer and lied about, well, just about everything, on top of launching the worst and most violent and most expensive, unwinnable war since Vietnam. His formerly enormous pile of betting capital is down to a tiny lump, nothing like back when he had the table rigged and all the pit bosses worked for him and the pile was as big as a roomful of Texas cow pies. But now, fortune is frowning. In fact, fortune is white-hot furious at being so viciously molested, spit upon, raped lo these many years. The truth is coming out: Bush has now lost far, far more bets than he ever won. What's to be done? Why, do what any grumbling, furious, confused, underqualified alcoholic gambler does: reach down deep and say, "Screw the nation and screw the odds and to hell with the rest of the planet," and pull out one more desperate, crumpled war from deep in your pants, slap it on the table and hear the world moan. But this time, try to make it serious. Do not rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Do not rule out another a massive air strike, ground troops, special forces, a strategy so intense it makes Iraq look like a jog in the park. Think of yourself as creating a masterful legacy, going down in history not as the guy who restored peace in the Middle East but as the guy who made it all far worse -- but who "saved" the world from Iran's nukes while protecting American oil interests. Yes? Can you smell the oily sanctimony in the air? Is God speaking to you again, telling you to damn the torpedoes and kill more Muslims? You are the chosen one, after all. Sound far fetched? Don't think even Bush could be capable of using nukes to slap Iran? Perish the thought. All reports from underworld White House sources -- most notably by way of Sy Hersh's horrifying report in a recent New Yorker -- indicate that Dubya and his remaining team of war-happy flying monkeys have been secretly laying out plans to attack Iran for months, possibly even using tactical nuclear weapons to get at those deep Iranian bunkers, all because Iran just celebrated its entrance into the world's "nuclear club" by finally enriching some uranium (a critical component of nuclear weapons) for the first time. Cookies all around! No matter that most analysts say that Iran is far from being a true threat, that a nuclear Iran is at least a good decade away, if not longer. No matter that 10 years is a good long time to work on ways to force Iran out of the game -- via negotiation, diplomacy, sanctions -- without unleashing another river of never-ending violence. With Bush in power, there is no waiting. There is no thought of avoiding another hideous war at all costs. To the Bush hawks, diplomacy is a failed joke. Negotiation is for intellectuals and tofu pacifists. In the Dubya world view, the planet is a roiling cauldron of nasty threats, crammed with terrorists and hateful Muslims and foreign demons suddenly growling on our doorstep when, curiously, they really weren't there before he stumbled into power. Amazing how that works. It is now seven months before what could be a radically influential congressional election, a vote that could very well give power back to the Democrats, who will (with any luck) waste no time launching a number of long-overdue investigations into Bush's failed war and the various scandals and lies and fiscal abuses that led us all here. For Dubya, now is the time. One last, desperate gamble. Slam that last drink, scrunch up your face, screw the rules and let the bombs fly. What, you don't think he could do it? Don't think a nuclear attack on Iran is possible? You haven't looked into the tiny, ink-black eyes of Dick Cheney lately. You haven't seen Rumsfeld's arrogant sneer, seen Bush looking confused and lost, wondering where all his "capital" went, desperately hunting for a legacy and finding only irresponsibility and self-righteousness and death. But hell, as we already know, that's good enough for him. plz pray, sardarzada |
Armed Forces Bill, 2006
19th April 2006 21:54
Armed Forces Bill, 2006 The Armed Forces Bill is being discussed in the UK Parliament. Section 8 introduces a new tougher definition of desertion: soldiers who intend to avoid serving in a "military occupation of a foreign country or territory" can be imprisoned for life. NO life sentence for soldiers who refuse to be occupiers! The Armed Forces Bill – now going through the UK Parliament – would impose harsh penalties on soldiers who refuse to take part in military occupations. Section 8 –which has hardly been mentioned in the media -- introduces a new tougher definition of desertion: soldiers who intend to avoid serving in a “military occupation of a foreign country or territory” can be imprisoned for life. plz pray, sardarzada This major redrafting of military law has been introduced at a time when the number of soldiers absconding from the British Army has trebled since the invasion of Iraq – a clear attack on the growing movement of men and women in the military who refuse to be part of wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. . . . It contravenes the Nuremberg Charter which enshrined in international law the responsibility that each of us has to refuse to obey illegal and immoral orders from any government. At the same time the UK Defence Secretary is urging that the Geneva Convention be rewritten to legalise pre-emptive military action. Poll after poll has demonstrated overwhelming public rejection of the war and occupation of Iraq. This has been reflected in the actions and views of troops who have refused to go, or go back, to Iraq. Military families, mostly mothers, have campaigned against the killing and maiming of their own loved ones and of the civilian population in Iraq and elsewhere, and demanded that troops be brought back home from a war nobody wants. We are outraged that Section 8 of this Bill with its blatant violation of the human rights of soldiers and in particular of their right to conscientious objection -- is proceeding quickly through Parliament without any public debate. Please act now to stop this terrible miscarriage of justice from becoming law. NOTES • See Independent on Sunday, of 19 March 2006 [url]http://www.refusingtokill.net/UKGulfwar2/Soldiersgoingawolhavetrebled.htm[/url] • Nuremberg Charter, Article 8: “The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility . . .”. Payday is a network of men working with the Global Women’s Strike Invest in Caring not Killing. See our website [url]www.refusingtokill.net[/url] Information: 0207 209 4751 [email]payday@paydaynet.org">payday@paydaynet.org[/email] WHAT YOU CAN DO • If you live in the UK, write to your MP demanding that they vote against Section 8. Find your MP and email her/him using [url]www.writeToThem.com[/url] or write to the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA (see model letter below or write your own). • If you live outside the UK, write to the British Embassy or High Commission to let them know your opposition to Section 8 of the Bill (see model letter below or write your own) and cc [email]payday@paydaynet.org">payday@paydaynet.org[/email]. Details can be found at [url]http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029395231[/url] • Sign the petition at Petition on Line [url]http://www.petitiononline.com/UKArmedF/petition.html[/url] • Write to the press, newsletters, websites asking them to publicise this attack on human rights. • Tell all your contacts and networks – anti-war, religious, community, trade union –- about it. Ask them to contact your MLP, the British Embassy/High Commission, the press and to sign the petition. MODEL LETTER Dear I understand that the Armed Forces Bill 2006 is being discussed in the British Parliament. Section 8 of the Bill introduces a new definition of desertion, according to which soldiers who intend to avoid serving in a “military occupation of a foreign country or territory” can be imprisoned for life (see Sub-sections 3c, 4a and 5a). This is introduced at a time when the number of soldiers absconding from the British Army has trebled since the invasion of Iraq. I consider Section 8 to be an attack on the human rights, including the crucial right to conscientious objection, of individuals in the military who refuse to be part of present or future wars, and who have a responsibiity, enshrined in the Nuremburg charter, to refuse to obey illegal and immoral orders. I am outraged that this militaristic Section is going through Parliament without public awareness, let alone discussion. Poll after poll has shown public rejection of the war and the occupation of Iraq in Britain and everywhere. This has been reflected in the actions and views of troops who have refused to go to Iraq and military families who have demanded that the troops be brought back home. I urge you to request the withdrawal of Section 8 of the Armed Forces Bill. Yours sincerely, Payday |
Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush, Call Nuclear Weapons Against
19th April 2006 21:03
Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush, Call Nuclear Weapons Against Iran 'Gravely Irresponsible' By Kim McDonald Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.” The physicists include five Nobel laureates, a recipient of the National Medal of Science and three past presidents of the American Physical Society, the nation’s preeminent professional society for physicists. Their letter was prompted by recent articles in the Washington Post, New Yorker and other publications that one of the options being considered by Pentagon planners and the White House in a military confrontation with Iran includes the use of nuclear bunker busters against underground facilities. These reports were neither confirmed nor denied by White House and Pentagon officials. The letter was initiated by Jorge Hirsch, a professor of physics at the University of California , San Diego , who last fall put together a petition signed by more than 1,800 physicists that repudiated new U.S. nuclear weapons policies that include preemptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries ([url]http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/)[/url]. Hirsch has also published 15 articles in recent months ([url]http://antiwar.com/hirsch/[/url]) documenting the dangers associated with a potential U.S. nuclear strike on Iran . “We are members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, and we feel strongly that it is our professional duty to contribute our efforts to prevent their misuse,” says Hirsch. "Physicists know best about the devastating effects of the weapons they created, and these eminent physicists speak for thousands of our colleagues.” “The fact that the existence of this plan has not been denied by the Administration should be a cause of great alarm, even if it is only one of several plans being considered,” he adds. “The public should join these eminent scientists in demanding that the Administration publicly renounces such a misbegotten option against a non-nuclear country like Iran .” The letter, which is available at [url]http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/physicistsletter.html[/url], points out that “nuclear weapons are unique among weapons of mass destruction,” and that nuclear weapons in today's arsenals have a total power of more than 200,000 times the explosive energy of the bomb that leveled Hiroshima, which caused the deaths of more than 100,000 people. It notes that there are no sharp lines between small and large nuclear weapons, nor between nuclear weapons targeting facilities and those targeting armies or cities, and that the use by the United States of nuclear weapons after 60 years of non-use will make the use of nuclear weapons by others more likely. “Once the U.S. uses a nuclear weapon again, it will heighten the probability that others will too,” the physicists write. “In a world with many more nuclear nations and no longer a ‘taboo’ against the use of nuclear weapons, there will be a greatly enhanced risk that regional conflicts could expand into global nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our civilization.” The letter echoes the main objection of last fall’s physicists’ petition, stressing that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be irreversibly damaged by the use or even the threat of use of nuclear weapons by a nuclear nation against a non-nuclear one, with disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world. “It is gravely irresponsible for the U.S. as the greatest superpower to consider courses of action that could eventually lead to the widespread destruction of life on the planet. We urge the administration to announce publicly that it is taking the nuclear option off the table in the case of all non-nuclear adversaries, present or future, and we urge the American people to make their voices heard on this matter.” The 13 physicists who coauthored the letter are: Philip Anderson, professor of physics at Princeton University and Nobel Laureate in Physics; Michael Fisher, professor of physics at the Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland and Wolf Laureate in Physics; David Gross, professor of theoretical physics and director of the Kavli Institute of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Nobel Laureate in Physics; Jorge Hirsch, professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego; Leo Kadanoff, professor of physics and mathematics at the University of Chicago and recipient of the National Medal of Science; Joel Lebowitz, professor of mathematics and physics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and Boltzmann Medalist; Anthony Leggett, professor of physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Nobel Laureate, Physics; Eugen Merzbacher, professor of physics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and former president, American Physical Society; Douglas Osheroff, professor of physics and applied physics, Stanford University and Nobel Laureate, Physics; Andrew Sessler, former director of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and former president, American Physical Society; George Trilling, professor of physics, University of California, Berkeley, and former president, American Physical Society; Frank Wilczek, professor of physics, MIT and Nobel Laureate, Physics; Edward Witten, professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Study and Fields Medalist. The physicists are sending copies of their letter to their elected representatives, requesting that the issue be urgently addressed in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. plz pray sardarzada |
Duma members: Russia should support Iran against US threats
19th April 2006 18:08
Duma members: Russia should support Iran against US threats Iran-Nuclear-Russia A number of the Russian state Duma members here Wednesday said that Russia should support Iran politically against the threats and pressures of the US and West on the pretext of the progress in the country's nuclear sector. Speaking at Duma open session, Deputy Alexei Mitrofanov called for Moscow's definite support for Iran against the US and the pressures exerted by it on account of Iran's nuclear activities. Turning to Iran's political, economic and regional cooperation with his country, he called on the Russian government to take decisive measures in order to solve the issue and prevent a new crisis near Russia's borders. Meanwhile, he called on the government to use Russia's veto right in case the nuclear dossier is to be examined by the UN Security Council and military option as well as sanction against Iran are decided. For her part, another Duma member, Tamara Plotnikova, in an exclusive interview with IRNA, expressed her concern about the negative trend of the nuclear dossier currently underway and said that the US needs the support of international bodies to avoid any scandal in Iraq. Turning to the US warmongering approach towards the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, Plotnikova said that if the other UNSC permanent members cooperate with the US in aggressive plots, this will be treachery to the goals of the United Nations. Speaking in favor of Russia's support for Iran's opposition to solving the nuclear issue by resorting to force, she said that Duma deputies will support the government's measures aiming to protect Russia's national interests and international security. She expressed doubt about the correct approach of her country and said, "I am surprised that every country determined to cooperate with Russia faces the US opposition." The deputy called US administrators `hypocrites and profiteers' and said that the Russian people do not trust in what is declared by the US. plz pray, sardarzada |
US demands end to Russia-Iran nuclear cooperation
19th April 2006 18:04
US demands end to Russia-Iran nuclear cooperation MOSCOW (AFP) - The United States demanded an end to Russia's cooperation with Iran in building the Islamic republic's first civilian nuclear power station. We also think it is important for countries to stop cooperation with Iran on nuclear issues, even on civilian nuclear issues like the Bushehr facility," US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns told journalists in Moscow. Burns made clear that he was talking about various countries' work with Iran's nuclear industry. However, Russia is Iran's biggest nuclear partner and is building the country's first atomic power station at Bushehr. "A number of countries are continuing to permit the export of dual-use materials that could be used, and we think in some cases are being used, to help the growth of Iran's nuclear industry," Burns said. "It is the view of my government that it would be appropriate now for those individual governments to stop that practice and no longer permit it." plz pray, sardarzada:confused: |
Iran to join Shanghai Cooperation Organization
18th April 2006 20:27
Iran to join Shanghai Cooperation Organization China, Russia welcome Iran into the fold By M K Bhadrakumar The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which maintained it had no plans for expansion, is now changing course. Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan, which previously had observer status, will become full members. SCO's decision to welcome Iran into its fold constitutes a political statement. Conceivably, SCO would now proceed to adopt a common position on the Iran nuclear issue at its summit meeting June 15. Speaking in Beijing as recently as January 17, the organization's secretary general Zhang Deguang had been quoted by Xinhua news agency as saying: "Absorbing new member states needs a legal basis, yet the SCO has no rules concerning the issue. Therefore, there is no need for some Western countries to worry whether India, Iran or other countries would become new members." The SCO, an Intergovernmental organization whose working languages are Chinese and Russian, was founded in Shanghai on June 15, 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The SCO's change of heart appears set to involve the organization in Iran's nuclear battle and other ongoing regional issues with the United States. Visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi told Itar-TASS in Moscow that the membership expansion "could make the world more fair". And he spoke of building an Iran-Russia "gas-and-oil arc" by coordinating their activities as energy producing countries. Mohammadi also touched on Iran's intention to raise the issue of his country's nuclear program and its expectations of securing SCO support. The timing of the SCO decision appears to be significant. By the end of April the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to report to the United Nations Security Council in New York regarding Iran's compliance with the IAEA resolutions and the Security Council's presidential statement, which stresses the importance of Iran "reestablishing full, sustained suspension of uranium-enrichment activities". The SCO membership is therefore a lifeline for Iran in political and economic terms. The SCO is not a military bloc but is nonetheless a security organization committed to countering terrorism, religious extremism and separatism. SCO membership would debunk the US propaganda about Iran being part of an "axis of evil". The SCO secretary general's statement on expansion coincided with several Chinese and Russian commentaries last week voicing disquiet about the US attempts to impose UN sanctions against Iran. Comparison has been drawn with the Iraq War when the US seized on sanctions as a pretext for invading Iraq. A People's Daily commentary on April 13 read: "The real intention behind the US fueling the Iran issue is to prompt the UN to impose sanctions against Iran, and to pave the way for a regime change in that country. The US's global strategy and its Iran policy emanate out of its decision to use various means, including military means, to change the Iranian regime. This is the US's set target and is at the root of the Iran nuclear issue." The commentary suggested Washington seeks a regime change in Iran with a view to establishing American hegemony in the Middle East. Gennady Yefstafiyev, a former general in Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, wrote: "The US's long term goals in Iran are obvious: to engineer the downfall of the current regime; to establish control over Iran's oil and gas; and to use its territory as the shortest route for the transportation of hydrocarbons under US control from the regions of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea bypassing Russia and China. This is not to mention Iran's intrinsic military and strategic significance." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said: "I would not be in a hurry to draw conclusions, because passions are too often being whipped up around Iran's nuclear program ... I would also advise not to whip up passions." Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's nuclear power agency and a former prime minister, said Iran was simply not capable of enriching uranium on an industrial scale. "It has long since been known that Iran has a 'cascade' of only 164 centrifuges, and obtaining low-grade uranium from this 'cascade' was only a matter of time. This did not come as a surprise to us." Yevgeniy Velikhov, president of Kurchatov Institute, Russia's nuclear research center, told Tier-TASS, "Launching experimental equipment of this type is something any university can do." By virtue of SCO membership, Iran can partake of the various SCO projects, which in turn means access to technology, increased investment and trade, infrastructure development such as banking, communication, etc. It would also have implications for global energy security. The SCO was expected to set up a working group of experts ahead of the summit in June with a view to evolving a common "energy strategy" and jointly undertaking pipeline projects, oil exploration and related activities. A third aspect of the SCO decision to expand its membership involves regional integration processes. Sensing that the SCO was gaining traction, Washington had sought observer status at its summit meeting last June, but was turned down. This rebuff - along with SCO's timeline for a reduced American military presence in Central Asia, the specter of deepening Russia-China cooperation and the setbacks to US diplomacy in Central Asia as a whole - prompted a policy review in Washington. Following a Central Asian tour in October by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Washington's new regional policy began surfacing. The re-organization of the US State Department's South Asia Bureau (created in August 1992) to include the Central Asian states, projection of US diplomacy in terms of "Greater Central Asia" and the push for observer status with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) should be seen in perspective. US diplomacy is working toward getting Central Asian states to orientate toward South Asia - weaning them away from Russia and China. (Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul has also failed to respond to SCO's overtures but has instead sought full membership in SAARC.) But US diplomacy is not making appreciable progress in Central Asia. Washington pins hopes on Astana (Kazakhstan) being its pivotal partner in Central Asia. The US seeks an expansion of its physical control over Kazakhstan's oil reserves and formalization of Kazakh oil transportation via Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, apart from carving out a US role in Caspian Sea security. But Kazakhstan is playing hard to get. President Nurusultan Nazarbayev's visit to Moscow on April 3 reaffirmed his continued dependence on Russian oil pipelines. Meanwhile, Washington's relations with Tashkent (Uzbekistan) remain in a state of deep chill. The US attempt to "isolate" President Islam Karimov is not working. (Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is visiting Tashkent on April 25.) Again, Tajikistan relies heavily on Russia's support. In Kyrgyzstan, despite covert US attempts to create dissensions within the regime, President Burmanbek Bakiyev's alliance with Prime Minister Felix Kulov (which enjoys Russia's backing) is holding. The Central Asians have also displayed a lack of interest in the idea of "Greater Central Asia". This became apparent during the conference sponsored by Washington recently in Kabul focusing on the theme. The SCO's enlargement move, in this regional context, would frustrate the entire US strategy. Ironically, the SCO would be expanding into South Asia and the Gulf region, while "bypassing" Afghanistan. This at a time when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is stepping up its presence in Afghanistan. (General James L Jones, supreme allied commander Europe, said recently that NATO would assume control of Afghanistan by August.) So far NATO has ignored SCO. But NATO contingents in Afghanistan would shortly be "surrounded" by SCO member countries. NATO would face a dilemma. If it recognizes that SCO has a habitation and a name (in Central Asia, South Asia and the Gulf), then, what about NATO's claim as the sole viable global security arbiter in the 21st century? NATO would then be hard-pressed to explain the raison d'etre of its expansion into the territories of the former Soviet Union. M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001). plz pray, Sardarzada |
19th April 2006 8:39
Iran 'ready for war', but seeks peace; Russia, China huddle on eve of talks MOSCOW (AFX) - Iran's top envoy to Russia said Monday his country is prepared for war if attacked over its nuclear program but is making a "maximum effort" to end the impasse over that program through peaceful negotiation, news agencies reported. "One way to avert war is to be prepared for any war," Iranian Ambassador Gholamreza Ansari was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying. "Iran continues to make a maximum effort so that no war will happen in this region," Ansari said. But he added that "Iran has been, is and will be prepared" for armed conflict if it comes to that. "We hope that the Iranian issue will be resolved by way of negotiation," the agencies quoted him as saying. The remarks came as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with Cui Tiankai, china's assistant foreign minister, on the eve of multilateral talks here on the nuclear standoff with Iran. Yesterday Iranian television reported that the Chinese diplomat had held talks with Iran's Supreme National Security Council chief Ali Larijani and nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi. The Lavrov-Cui meeting came as officials from the five UN Security Council permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the US -- and from Germany prepared to meet Tuesday to discuss how to proceed on the Iran standoff. Russia and China, both of which have extensive commercial interests in Iran, have resisted US-led calls for tough action against Iran to compel the Islamic republic to suspend key parts of its nuclear program and have sought to coordinate their diplomacy in the issue. The US has accused Iran of trying secretly to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. Tehran has denied the charge, saying its nuclear program is for strictly civilian purposes, and Larijani said today that the clerical regime would press on with uranium enrichment work despite mounting international pressure to freeze its nuclear activities. plz pray, sardarzada |
Could this be the latest Bogeyman?
19th April 2006 19:21
Could this be the latest Bogeyman? Iran group seeks UK Muslims for attacks in Israel - By AFP London, April 19: A hardline Iranian group is seeking Muslims in Britain to launch suicide attacks against Israel because their British passports will enable them to enter the country with relative ease, a spokesman told the Guardian newspaper in comments published on Wednesday. Mohammad Samadi of the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, said the group’s first target was Israel. "For us that is the battlefield," he told the British newspaper barely one day after the latest suicide bombing in Tel Aviv killed nine civilians. "All the Jews are targets, whether military or civilian. It’s our land and they are in the wrong place. It’s their duty to pay attention to safety (sic) of their own families," Mr Samadi said. The Iranian group claims to be independent, but the Guardian said it had backing from Iran’s regime. The committee says it has already recruited 52,000 people, 30 per cent of whom are women. Asked how Iranian and other Muslim volunteers would gain entry to Israel, Mr Samadi noted the case of two British Muslims, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Sharif, who attacked a bar in Tel Aviv in 2003. plz pray, sardarzada |
Bush won't rule out nuclear strike on Iran
18th April 2006 20:06
Bush won't rule out nuclear strike on Iran Bush won't rule out nuclear strike on Iran By Edmund Blair, Tue Apr 18, 11:36 AM ET President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions. Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely peaceful, told world powers it would pursue atomic technology, whatever they decide at a meeting in Moscow later in the day. Bush said in Washington he would discuss Iran's nuclear activities with China's President Hu Jintao this week and avoided ruling out nuclear retaliation if diplomatic efforts fail. Asked if options included planning for a nuclear strike, Bush replied: "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so." Speculation about a U.S. attack has mounted since a report in New Yorker magazine said this month that Washington was mulling the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's subterranean nuclear sites. The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking atom bombs, was expected to push for targeted sanctions against Tehran when it meets the U.N. Security Council's other permanent members -- Britain, France, China and Russia -- plus Germany in Moscow. Russia and China oppose sanctions and the use of force. Deputy foreign ministers from the six nations are meeting ahead of an end-April deadline for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report on whether Iran is complying with U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment. "I recommend that they do not make hasty decisions, be prudent and study their path in the past. Any time they have pressured Iran they have got adverse results," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Whatever the result of this meeting might be, Iran will not abandon its rights (to nuclear technology)," he added later. Iran defied U.N. demands by declaring last week it had enriched uranium to a level used in power stations and was aiming for industrial-scale production, ratcheting up tensions and sending oil prices to record highs above $72 a barrel. The United States, which already enforces its own sweeping sanctions on Iran, wants the Security Council to be ready to take strong diplomatic action, including so-called targeted measures such as a freeze on assets and visa curbs. Washington says it does not want to embargo Iran's oil and gas industries to avoid creating hardship for the Iranian people. Iran is the world's fourth-biggest oil exporter. CHINA, RUSSIA OPPOSE SANCTIONS China, which sent an envoy to Iran on Friday to try to defuse the standoff, repeated a call for a negotiated solution. "We hope all sides will maintain restraint and flexibility," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in Beijing. Russia restated its opposition to punitive action. "We are convinced that neither the sanctions route nor the use of force route will lead to a solution of this problem," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said, Itar-Tass news agency reported. U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Israel's Jerusalem Post the United States probably could not destroy Iran's nuclear program but could attempt to set it back by strikes as a last resort. "I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it," he said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking at an annual military parade, said the army was ready to defend the nation. "It will cut off the hands of any aggressors and will make any aggressor regret it," Ahmadinejad declared. In Kuwait, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said he doubted the Americans would use force. "It is unlikely that they would enter into such a perilous situation from which they cannot come out." Iran says it will not drop its right to enrich uranium for peaceful use but that it will work with the IAEA. The U.N. nuclear watchdog says it has been unable to verify that Iran's nuclear program is purely civilian, but has found no hard proof of efforts to build atomic weapons. IAEA inspectors are due in Iran on Friday to visit nuclear sites, including one at Natanz where Iran says it has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent, the level used in nuclear power plants. IRNA news agency said Olli Heinonen, ElBaradei's deputy for safeguards issues, would lead the team. One diplomat said his presence suggested Iran might provide some missing information. Experts say it would take Iran years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb from its current 164 centrifuges. But Iran says it will to install 3,000 centrifuges, which could make enough material for a warhead in one year. (Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Alireza Ronaghi in Tehran, Guy Faulconbridge in Moscow, Mark Heinrich in Vienna) plz pray, Sardarzada |
Russia rejects US call to quit Iran power plant
:pp 20th April 2006 20:15
Russia rejects US call to quit Iran power plant 20 April 2006 MOSCOW - Russia on Thursday rejected a request from the United States for its engineers to halt work on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power station. Russia’s state atomic energy agency is contracted to help Iran build the $1 billion reactor. A senior US official said on Wednesday that a Russian withdrawal would help persuade Iran to abandon a separate uranium enrichment programme. “Every country has the right to decide for itself with whom and in what way it cooperates with other states,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a comment posted on the official web site [url]www.mid.ru[/url]. Only the United Nations Security Council has the power to require a state to halt cooperation and the UN body has never made any such ruling on Bushehr, Kamynin said. The Bushehr power station is being built in compliance with all international rules and under the supervision of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, he said. Washington and other major powers believe the uranium Iran is enriching, mainly at a research site in Natanz, could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Speaking in Moscow on Wednesday, US Undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns said: “We believe that it would be appropriate for some countries to stop cooperation with Iran on civilian nuclear issues, including Bushehr.” Burns also repeated Washington’s view that Moscow should cancel the planned sale of Tor tactical surface-to-air missiles to the Iranian military. Moscow and Teheran say they are for defensive purposes only. The Russian foreign ministry statement did not mention the missile sales. plz pray, Sardarzada |
U.S. backup plan: invade iran by land, air, water strikes
16th April 2006 18:29
U.S. backup plan: invade iran by land, air, water strikes - By Maxim Kniazkov Washington, April 16: The United States began planning a full-scale military campaign against Iran that involves missile strikes, a land invasion and a naval operation to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz even before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a former US intelligence analyst disclosed on Sunday. William Arkin, who served as the US Army’s top intelligence mind on West Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military operations against Iraq, said the plan is known in military circles as Tirannt, an acronym for "Theatre Iran Near Term." It includes a scenario for a land invasion led by the US Marine Corps, a detailed analysis of the Iranian missile force and a global strike plan against any Iranian weapons of mass destruction, Mr Arkin wrote in the Washington Post. US and British planners have already conducted a Caspian Sea war game as part of these preparations, the scholar said. "According to military sources close to the planning process, this task was given to Army General John Abizaid, now commander of Centcom, in 2002," Arkin wrote, referring to the Florida-based US central command. But preparations under Tirannt began in earnest in May 2003 and never stopped, he said. The plan has since been updated using information collected in Iraq. Air Force planners have modelled attacks against Iranian air defences, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal targets and drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz. A follow-on Tirannt analysis, which began in October 2003, calculated the results of different scenarios to provide options to commanders, Mr Arkin wrote. The Marines, meanwhile, have come up with their own document called Concept of Operations that explores the possibility of moving forces from ship to shore without establishing a beachhead first. "Though the marine corps enemy is described only as a deeply religious revolutionary country named Karona, it is — with its Revolutionary Guards, WMD and oil wealth — unmistakably meant to be Iran," Mr Arkin said. Various scenarios involving Iran’s missile force have also been examined in another study, initiated in 2004 and known as BMD-I, which is short for "Ballistic Missile Defence — Iran", Mr Arkin said. In June 2004, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld alerted the US Strategic Command in Omaha to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran. "The new task force mostly worries that if it were called upon to deliver ‘prompt’ global strikes against certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances, the President might have to be told that the only option is a nuclear one," Mr Arkin said. The US military has been involved in contingency planning against Iran since at least the presidency of Jimmy Carter, who undertook a failed commando operation to rescue US hostages in Tehran in 1980. Following the 1996 bombing of an apartment building used by the US Air Force in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, which was reportedly traced to Iranian agents, the administration of then-President Bill Clinton considered a bombing campaign, according to Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, who held at the time high-level counterterrorism positions at the national security council. "But after long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the US," the two experts wrote in Sunday’s New York Times. (AFP) plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iranian official in Washington for ... who knows?
18th April 2006 16:41
Iranian official in Washington for ... who knows? WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US State Department confirmed a senior official from arch-US nemesis Iran was in Washington but would not say how he got into the country or what he was doing here. Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Mohammad Nahavandian was in town but added, "He's not here for meetings with US government officials to my knowledge; certainly not with members of the State Department." McCormack said Nahavandian had not been issued a visa but was in the United States legally. He did not elaborate but said only, "There are a variety of other ways for an individual to arrive in the country." The Washington foray by Nahavandian, described as an economic aide to Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, was first reported 10 days ago by Britain's Financial Times newspaper. The rare sighting of a senior Iranian official in Washington comes at a moment when Iran's showdown with the West over its suspected nuclear weapons activities was nearing a climax. Iran has announced plans to speed its research into uranium enrichment while the United States and its allies are pushing for UN sanctions against the Islamic republic. The Financial Times quoted an Iranian adviser as saying Nahavandian had come here to discuss the possibility of wide-ranging direct talks between the two countries, which have not had diplomatic relations for a quarter-century. The United States has authorized its ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, to hold direct discussions with the Iranians about Iraq but nothing else. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Behind the Military Revolt
17th April 2006 15:21
Behind the Military Revolt Behind the Military Revolt By Richard Holbrooke Sunday, April 16, 2006; B07 The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951. In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct -- MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman's authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different. First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak." These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing. Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.) This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals' revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as "two or three retired generals out of thousands." But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations -- perhaps soon -- from generals who heed Newbold's stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm's way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era. Facing this dilemma, Bush's first reaction was exactly what anyone who knows him would have expected: He issued strong affirmations of "full support" for Rumsfeld, even going out of his way to refer to the secretary of defense as "Don" several times in his statements. (This was in marked contrast to his tepid comments on the future of his other embattled Cabinet officer, Treasury Secretary John Snow. Washington got the point.) In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. I do not reach this conclusion simply because of past mistakes, simply because "someone must be held accountable." Many people besides Rumsfeld were deeply involved in the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of them remain in power, and some are in uniform. The major reason the nation needs a new defense secretary is far more urgent. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Rumsfeld's famous "long screwdriver," with which he sometimes micromanages policy, now thwarts the top-to-bottom reexamination of strategy that is absolutely essential in both war zones. Lyndon Johnson understood this in 1968 when he eased another micromanaging secretary of defense, McNamara, out of the Pentagon and replaced him with Clark M. Clifford. Within weeks, Clifford had revisited every aspect of policy and begun the long, painful process of unwinding the commitment. Today, those decisions are still the subject of intense dispute, and there are many differences between the two situations. But one thing was clear then and is clear today: Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change. That first White House reaction will not be the end of the story. If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan? Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, writes a monthly column for The Post. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Congressman Dennis Kucinich Demands Answers From Administration About US Troops In Ir
15th April 2006 19:23
Congressman Dennis Kucinich Demands Answers From Administration About US Troops In Iran WASHINGTON - April 14 - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, sent the following letter to President George W. Bush today about the presence of US troops in Iran: Dear President Bush: Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress. The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration. It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran. Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich Member of Congress plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran issues stark military warning to United States
15th April 2006 17:13
Iran issues stark military warning to United States Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States. "You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures. "The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran. The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin. "We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack." Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28. The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire. At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions. And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance." "She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action. "We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile. On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations." "There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear." Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China. Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis. In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel. "The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers. "Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust. "If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II. "I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said. Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control. "The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said. There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel. "As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement. "Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added. plz pray, Sardarzada |
The Human Costs of Bombing Iran
12th April 2006 23:37
The Human Costs of Bombing Iran The Human Costs of Bombing Iran By Matthew Rothschild April 11, 2006 George Bush didn’t exactly deny Seymour Hersh’s report in The New Yorker that the Administration is considering using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Neither did Scott McClellan. Bush called it “wild speculation,” and McClellan said the United States would go ahead with "normal military contingency planning." Those are hardly categorical denials. So let’s look at what the human costs of dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran might entail. They are astronomical. “The number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million,” according to a backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists from May 2005. The National Academy of Sciences studied these earth-penetrating nuclear weapons last year. They could “kill up to a million people or more if used in heavily populated areas,” concluded the report, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists. While Congress last year denied funding for a new nuclear bunker-buster weapon, the Pentagon already has a stockpile of one such weapon in the arsenal: the B61-Mod11, according to Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Federation of the American Scientists. That the Administration is considering using such a weapon against Iran is “horrifying and ludicrous,” says Young. But it is now Bush Administration doctrine to be able to use such weapons. The new “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” which Bush unveiled in March, discusses the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive way. “Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes,” it states. “Both offenses and defenses are necessary. . . . Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role.” Even more explicit is the Pentagon’s draft of a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons, which was revealed by Walter Pincus of The Washington Post last September. It envisions using nuclear weapons for “attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.” It says that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons “if necessary to prevent” another country from using WMDs. This is a mere amplification of the Nuclear Posture Review of December 31, 2001, which stated: “Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).” If the United States used nuclear weapons against Iran, it would be violating the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, which prohibits nations that possess nuclear weapons from dropping them on nations that don’t. But in the Bush Administration, planning to do this is just “normal” behavior. And a million casualties or more? For Bush, that is evidently not a disqualification. plz pray Sardarzada |
Iran Strike 'any Time'
IRAN STRIKE 'ANY TIME'
AN attack on Iran could be launched at any time by the US, a former British ambassador warned yesterday. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UN envoy before the Iraq invasion, said: “Military action is an option from now on.” But he urged the US to use diplomacy before resorting to force. He said: “The use of force in most circumstances is a sign of failure by diplomacy. “It not only has to be seen as a last resort but as an extremely reluctant last resort.” Sir Jeremy also urged America to get UN backing. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
12th April 2006 20:15
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today. ``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month. The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported. ``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement. Weapons-Grade Uranium Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium. Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said. ``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said. While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program. Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year. China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said. [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?[/url] plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran nuclear planning 'similar to Iraq'
Iran nuclear planning 'similar to Iraq'
11/04/2006 - 09:53:09 US administration officials say they remain committed to a diplomatic solution to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons, but they will not rule out military action as an option, even as they try to calm down talk about military planning. “I know here in Washington prevention means force,” President George Bush said yesterday. “It doesn’t mean force necessarily, in this case, it means diplomacy,” the president added, calling recent newspaper and magazine reports about US military planning on Iran “just wild speculation”. Current and former government officials involved in war-planning discussions over the past five years say the US has drafted a menu of options. One official said the attention on Iran has increased markedly in recent months. All of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. The planning is similar to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has been captured in books including Bob Woodward’s Plan Of Attack. Similar blueprints also have been done, but never used, on any number of adversaries, including North Korea. The plans are aimed particularly at facilities scattered across Iran known to be or suspected of being tied to the nuclear programme. Within those sites, there could be hundreds of individual targets. The options include: :: Special operations aimed at sabotaging various sites or clearing a safe pathway into the country for an air attack. One of the officials said such missions, often to populated areas, would be dangerous in such a closed country as Iran and probably could not be accomplished without leaving fingerprints. :: Air and sea-based strikes that would use a variety of munitions including earth-penetrating bombs that would target underground bunkers. In some cases, several bombs would need to be fired at the same target to reach the most fortified facilities, a security strategy the Iranians adopted based on lessons learned during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. :: Some combination of the above. The Iranian regime insists it wants only to produce uranium for peaceful civilian purposes, such as electricity generation. Yet Iran operated a covert nuclear programme for two decades, and the US and a number of its allies believe the regime’s aim is a nuclear weapon. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told US Congress in February that Iran is as much as a decade away from producing a nuclear weapon. But some estimates put that as low as three years. Even the best-laid plans to go after the nuclear programme may be flawed in execution. Two officials with extensive military experience said airstrikes would be a key option. But they said the US Air Force often overstates the accuracy of precision strikes, which would be needed in Iran. War planners have to figure out how to handle Iran’s expected retaliation. The country could order terrorist attacks through Hezbollah. Iran could also try to cripple the world economy by putting a stranglehold on the oil that moves through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, strategically important waterway running to Iran’s south. Perhaps the best-known site linked to the nuclear programme is the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility, located about 160 miles south of Tehran. David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, describes the site as a complex in a 75-foot-deep hole, covered by layers of materials. It is unclear whether that includes concrete. The site is designed to hold a cascade of 50,000 centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, but Albright said the Iranians have shown signs that they are having problems with the technology. One outstanding question for the International Atomic Energy Agency is whether there is a hidden, undeclared nuclear programme. Albright said inspectors have found a number of inconsistencies in Iranian documents and a laptop associated with the programme. He believes there has to be a parallel programme. As tensions increase, the talk of war planning could make the diplomatic dialogue with Iran even more difficult. “It makes negotiations much harder because Iran is left with the view that, no matter what we negotiate, the US is going to attack,” Albright said. Meanwhile, Iran could easily create back-up nuclear sites. A gas centrifuge facility, for instance, could be moved to a warehouse in an industrial area, making it very difficult to find. There are disputes now about the quality of the intelligence on Iran. Some officials say it has improved, thanks to soil samples, overhead reconnaissance, old-fashioned spying, information from the IAEA and other intelligence. But not everyone is sold. Embarrassed by the flawed oversight in the run-up to Iraq, members of US Congress are pressing the Bush administration for details on Iran. A spokesman for Negroponte declined to comment on specific issues regarding Tehran. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Warning on dollar!
12th April 2006 11:32
Warning on dollar! :ohmy: :ohmy: Asian Development Bank sounds alarm on dollar Reuters TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006 TOKYO Asian countries need to prepare for a possible sharp fall in the dollar and should allow their currencies to appreciate collectively if that happens, a senior Asian Development Bank official said Tuesday. "Any shock hitting the U.S. economy or the global market may change investors' perceptions, given the existing global current account imbalance," Masahiro Kawai, the bank's head of regional economic integration, said at a news conference. "Our suggestion to Asian countries is, don't take this continuous financing of the U.S. current account deficit as given. If something happens, then East Asian economies have to be prepared." Kawai said the chances of a rapid fall in the dollar were still small, but it could cause a significant turmoil in Asia if it happened. "If the U.S. dollar goes down in the future, it would be best for East Asian countries to allow appreciation collectively," so that the costs of adjustment could be divided among them, he said. "I don't think the possibility is high," Kawai said of a dollar plunge, "but it is like avian flu: the possibility of avian flu spreading all over Asia or the world is limited, but once it spreads, it would have tremendous impact." Kawai said that by East Asia, he meant emerging East Asian markets, excluding Japan. Kawai said the Manila-based development bank's planned establishment of an Asian currency unit, made up of a basket of Asian currencies, would help monitor the collective path of regional currencies in relation to the dollar. The benchmark has been delayed by disputes over inclusion of the Taiwan dollar. But Kawai played down suggestions that an Asian currency unit, or ACU, could foreshadow a single Asian currency in the manner of the European currency unit, which existed for two decades before the creation of the euro in 1999. "The ECU had an official status, but the ACU has no such official status," he said. "We are not in the position to decide whether this should become a real currency or not." $@ He added that a sharp decline in the dollar, which could result from any shock to the U.S. economy and disorderly adjustments of global imbalances, would harm trade in Asia and reduce the value of dollar-denominated assets in the foreign reserves of Asian countries. The ADB has said allowing greater exchange flexibility in emerging East Asia would lessen the need for foreign exchange reserve accumulation by central banks and thus help contribute to an orderly resolution of global balance of payments imbalance. TOKYO Asian countries need to prepare for a possible sharp fall in the dollar and should allow their currencies to appreciate collectively if that happens, a senior Asian Development Bank official said Tuesday. "Any shock hitting the U.S. economy or the global market may change investors' perceptions, given the existing global current account imbalance," Masahiro Kawai, the bank's head of regional economic integration, said at a news conference. "Our suggestion to Asian countries is, don't take this continuous financing of the U.S. current account deficit as given. If something happens, then East Asian economies have to be prepared." Kawai said the chances of a rapid fall in the dollar were still small, but it could cause a significant turmoil in Asia if it happened. "If the U.S. dollar goes down in the future, it would be best for East Asian countries to allow appreciation collectively," so that the costs of adjustment could be divided among them, he said. "I don't think the possibility is high," Kawai said of a dollar plunge, "but it is like avian flu: the possibility of avian flu spreading all over Asia or the world is limited, but once it spreads, it would have tremendous impact." Kawai said that by East Asia, he meant emerging East Asian markets, excluding Japan. Kawai said the Manila-based development bank's planned establishment of an Asian currency unit, made up of a basket of Asian currencies, would help monitor the collective path of regional currencies in relation to the dollar. The benchmark has been delayed by disputes over inclusion of the Taiwan dollar. But Kawai played down suggestions that an Asian currency unit, or ACU, could foreshadow a single Asian currency in the manner of the European currency unit, which existed for two decades before the creation of the euro in 1999. "The ECU had an official status, but the ACU has no such official status," he said. "We are not in the position to decide whether this should become a real currency or not." $@ He added that a sharp decline in the dollar, which could result from any shock to the U.S. economy and disorderly adjustments of global imbalances, would harm trade in Asia and reduce the value of dollar-denominated assets in the foreign reserves of Asian countries. The ADB has said allowing greater exchange flexibility in emerging East Asia would lessen the need for foreign exchange reserve accumulation by central banks and thus help contribute to an orderly resolution of global balance of payments imbalance.:pp :pp :pp [url]http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/28/business/adb.php[/url] plz pray, Sardarzada |
US intelligence on Iran N-threat ‘inadequate’
WASHINGTON: The United States doesn’t have enough good intelligence to know whether or not Iran will be capable of producing nuclear weapons in the near future, top congressional intelligence committee members said on Sunday.
Iran said earlier on Sunday it would not abandon its work on nuclear enrichment, which the United Nations has demanded it halt, and was prepared to face sanctions from abroad. Asked on Fox News Sunday when Iran might be capable of producing nuclear weapons, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, said: “I’d say we really don’t know. “We’re getting lots of mixed messages,” Hoekstra said. “We’ve got a long way to go in rebuilding our intelligence community. We don’t have all of the information we would like to have. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, concurred. “Our intelligence is thin,” she told Fox News. Reuters plz pray, Sardarzada |
US will go for other states after Iran and Iraq, says Margolis
* Well-known journalist calls Bush’s statements on Iran’s N-programme ‘ridiculous and nonsense’
LAHORE: Renowned American journalist Eric Margolis has said that the US will “go for” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia after Iraq and Iran. “We have leaks from reliable sources that after Iraq and Iran, the US plans to go for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,” Margolis said in an interview with IWT NEWS on Saturday. Margolis supported Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, saying that it poses no threat to the world community. US President George W Bush’s statements on Iran’s nuclear programme were “ridiculous and nonsense”, he said. “Iran has no nuclear bombs and no capability to bomb a country with these weapons,” Margolis said. He said that Iran’s longest-range missile, Shahab-III, had a maximum range of 1,200-1,500 kilometres, which meant that Iran could not attack North America or Western Europe. “No substantial evidence has yet been found that Iran has nuclear weapons, and anyone saying that Iran is a threat to the world is lying and deceiving the world,” Margolis said. He said that Bush’s statement about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction had “proved baseless”. The US and Israel were planning to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and major military installations, he said. Margolis said that Iran had been trying to acquire nuclear weapons since 1970, when it signed an agreement with Israel to provide it with nuclear warheads and medium range missiles. He said that Pakistani intelligence sources had told him that decades ago, Iran had offered to pay for Pakistan’s entire defence budget for 10 years in exchange for nuclear technology. “Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons? It is surrounded by nuclear powers like Pakistan, Russia, Israel and India,” Margolis said. He said that the US was providing India with nuclear secrets and the latest nuclear technology in spite of the fact that the latter had not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He said that India is developing submarine-launched missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles with a range of 7,000 miles. “With these weapons, India can strike even the US, but the Bush administration is still providing India with modern nuclear technology,” he said. He said that the US had supplied Israel with bomber airplanes, which could travel to Iran and even Pakistan. It had also given Israel around 500 “penetrating bombs, which are very lethal”. He said that a US or Israeli attack on Iran could be “very dangerous”, as Iran had the ability to “punish American forces in Iraq”. He said that the present Iraqi government was a Shia government which is very close to Iran. “So an attack on Iran can outrage the Shia community of Iraq,” he said. Margolis said that Iran had the ability to launch “commando attacks” on US forces in the gulf. “Iran can attack US bases in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. Iran can hamper oil exports from the area, which will create a major panic in the world and in the US,” he said. “Iranians are prepared to take huge casualties (to defend themselves) because they are a dedicated and nationalistic nation, whereas the US lacks this advantage,” Margolis said, adding that Iran can even send troops to Iraq. plz pray, Sardarzada |
USA Plans to Drop A-bombs on Iran's Nuclear Projects
The USA plans to strike Iran. This seems to be a hackneyed statement. Media outlets have used thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of such headlines over the recent several years. On the other hand, there is still no solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that would suit everyone and take account of the USA's intention to use military methods of pressure. One may thus infer that such headlines will cThis time the 'secret' plans to attack Iran appeared on the pages of the Washington Post newspaper and New Yorker magazine. According to their publications, the Pentagon and the CIA are considering an opportunity to strike nuclear centers in Natanz and Isfahan. The US administration, the newspapers wrote, plans to use tactical nukes (B61-11 bombs) to target underground facilities (the power of the B61-11 bombs may reach 300 kilotons).
New Yorker wrote that President George W. Bush was considering an opportunity of striking a nuclear blow on Iran. Bush's intention has to face serious opposition both in the political and in the military establishment of the USA. Many senior officers said they would send in their resignations if Bush's plans to attack Iran were meant to come true. Senator Bill Frist, visiting Moscow, commented on the publications in the American media. The senator said during a press conference that the media was exaggerating the information about the use of military power in Iran. However, the official added that Iran had violated the non-proliferation treaty and conducted secret nuclear research for 20 years. Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has released more emotional remarks in response to the imminent attack of Iran. The official said that the above-mentioned articles in Washington Post and New Yorker could be only described as delirious publications. Straw said that no one was going to bomb Iran and use nuclear weapons for it. Nevertheless, the Financial Times wrote that such remarks were very typical of Mr. Straw. Prime Minister Tony Blair has never released such a statement to reject any possibility of the bombing of Iran. The Financial Times concluded that that there could be a conflict between the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of Great Britain as regards to the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has not had any distinctive reaction to the above-mentioned statements yet. The Vice President of Iran said that the country had achieved bigger progress in the field of atomic energy and promised to expose the information on the matter in the next couple of days. The vice president emphasized that Iran was still determined to cooperate with the IAEA, Teheran-based news agency IRNA reports. The Iranian administration is apparently used to dealing with a variety of plans to strike Iran on a monthly basis. Iran perceives such news as an element of pressure on the part of the US administration. It is worthy of note that Iran takes quite an active part in the ideological standoff. Last week, for example, Iran held a sensational military exercise to demonstrate its missiles, superfast torpedoes and invisible vessels. One may not say that the military power of Iran has had quite an impression on the USA. However, the articles in Washington Post and New Yorker appeared timely afterwards, just two days after the maneuvers in Iran ended. [url]http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/10-04-2006/78988-iran-strike-0ontinue[/url] to appear in newspapers all over the world. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Rice Calls for 'Strong Steps' Against Iran
By BARRY SCHWEID
WASHINGTON Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course. Rice also telephoned Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ask him to reinforce demands that Iran comply with its nonproliferation requirements when he holds talks in Tehran on Friday. While Rice took a strong line, she did not call for an emergency meeting of the Council, saying it should consider action after receiving an IAEA report by April 28. She did not elaborate on what measures the United States would support, but economic and political sanctions are under consideration. The European Union is considering travel restrictions on Iranian officials, but White House and State Department spokesmen said what the Security Council might be asked to do was under discussion. "It's time for action and that is what the secretary was expressing," Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said. "The president wanted to make sure that she made that very clear to all that were listening." On March 29, the Security Council adopted a statement that gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicion that it wants to become a nuclear power. The statement demanded Iran comply with IAEA demands that it suspend enrichment and allow unannounced IAEA inspections. If Iran goes ahead with its enrichment program the United States and European allies are certain to press for a Council resolution. "You can be sure that it needs to be more than a presidential statement at this point," McClellan said. Asked if the United States would be running a risk of a disagreement with other members of the Council by pushing for strong measures, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "There is now a consensus Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapons program." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announcing on Tuesday that his country had crossed the line into enrichment, said Iran's objectives were peaceful. Iran is said by many analysts to lack the equipment, including a nuclear reactor, to make nuclear weapons. But Rice brushed aside suggestions Iran was far from the goal the United States and its allies suspect _ nuclear weaponry. She said the world believes Iran has the capacity and the technology that lead to nuclear weapons. "The Security Counil will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community." "This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power," she while greeting President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Moasogo of Equatorial Guinea. "This is a question of, ... the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon." At the private Arms Control Association, executive director Daryl Kimball said the administration should consider direct talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. And, he said in an interview, "the administration should be extending non-aggression pledges rather than implied threats in order to weaken Iran's rationale for a nuclear weapons program." "Otherwise," Kimball said, "the Bush administration is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure and military confrontation." At the private Center for Strategic and International Studies, analyst Anthony Cordesman said, "What we need to understand when we call for strong action by the Security Council, we may not expect it today or on this particular round." But, Cordesman added in an interview, "this issue is not going away. The more Iran pushes the tolerance of the international community to its limits, the more support the United States can count on in the future." "This is a very complex and uncertain process," he said. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran threatens to end UN contacts
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said his country will suspend contacts with the UN's nuclear watchdog if sanctions are imposed.
He also said Iran would "hide" its nuclear programme if it was attacked. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's threats further isolated it from the international community. The Security Council has set a deadline of 28 April for a freeze in uranium enrichment, the focus of concerns that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons. Iranians can threaten but they are deepening their own isolation Condoleezza Rice The US is trying to rally support from the Security Council for tougher action against Iran, including sanctions - a move currently being resisted by Russia and China. Speaking after a meeting with the Greek foreign minister during an official one-day visit, Ms Rice said Iran's threats were "emblematic of the kind of Iranian behaviour seen over the past couple of years". Ms Rice said the international community was not prepared to allow Iran "under cover of a civil nuclear programme to acquire the technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon". Ms Rice said the Security Council must now issue something more concrete than last month's "presidential statement", which gave Iran 30 days to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) directives. 'Force not solution' "Military action against Iran will not lead to the closure of the programme. If you take harsh measures, we will hide this programme. Then you cannot solve the nuclear issue," Mr Larijani warned. "They [the Western countries on the IAEA board] have to understand they cannot resolve this issue through force," Mr Larijani told a conference on Iran's controversial nuclear energy programme in Tehran. At the same conference, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani said Tehran had no intention of diverting nuclear material for a military programme at the moment. The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says the implication of his comments is that this might be possible in the future. Our correspondent adds that Mr Rafsanjani is still a key power broker in the Iranian administration. Both men said they were keen on negotiations to reassure the West that Iran's programme is peaceful, but not negotiations to stop Iran having a nuclear programme altogether. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only. The US and several other nations say they do not believe this. The IAEA says there is so far no proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons - but it talks of an "absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful", and of a "policy of concealment" pursued by Tehran. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran 'could share nuclear skills'
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said his country is ready to share its nuclear technology with other nations.
Ayatollah Khamenei made the offer during a meeting with visiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the comments. Earlier, Iran's top nuclear negotiator threatened to suspend co-operation with the UN's nuclear watchdog if Teheran faced sanctions over its nuclear work. The UN Security Council has set a deadline of 28 April for Iran to freeze its programme of uranium enrichment, which has been the focus of concerns that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons. The US is trying to rally support from the Security Council for tougher action against Iran, including sanctions - a move currently being resisted by Russia and China. Sudanese ambitions In his meeting with Mr Bashir, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iranian scientists' nuclear capability was "one example of the numerous scientific movements in the country". "They [Western countries] have to understand they cannot resolve this issue through force Ali Larijani Iranian nuclear negotiator "The Islamic Republic is ready to transfer this experience and the technology and knowledge of its scientists," the leader was quoted as saying. In return, the Sudanese president praised Iran's enrichment of uranium as a great victory for the Islamic world. Mr Bashir said last month his country was considering creating a civilian nuclear programme. Ms Rice said she feared an "escape... of knowledge and expertise on these dangerous technologies". Last year, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke of sharing nuclear technology with other countries. But the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says that this time the offer comes from the very top, and seems to imply the technology could be shared with Sudan. 'Emblematic behaviour' As well as threatening to end Iranian co-operation with the UN, negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran would "hide" its nuclear programme if it was attacked. "They [Western countries] have to understand they cannot resolve this issue through force," Mr Larijani told a conference on Iran's controversial nuclear energy programme in Tehran. Responding while on an official visit to Greece, Ms Rice said Iran's threats were "emblematic of the kind of Iranian behaviour seen over the past couple of years". Ms Rice said the Security Council must now issue something more concrete than last month's "presidential statement", which gave Iran 30 days to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) directives. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only. The US and several other nations say they do not believe this. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Talks fail to halt Iran programme
UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei has failed to convince Iran to freeze its nuclear programme during a brief visit to Tehran.
But he said both sides had agreed to continue an intensive dialogue over the next few weeks on the issue. Iran announced two days ago it had succeeded in enriching uranium and has vowed not to back down. The US said that when the UN Security Council reconvened there would have to be "consequence... for that defiance". 'Reasonable and logical' Mr ElBaradei said his inspectors had taken samples to check to what degree Iran has successfully enriched uranium. The results of the samples will be reported back to the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). After meeting Iran's nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, Mr ElBaradei stressed that there was still time to negotiate a settlement by which "Iran's needs for nuclear power is assured and the concern of the international community is also...put to rest." The IAEA head said they had a good discussion about "confidence-building measures", including a call by the UN Security Council for Iran to suspend all its nuclear activities. Western nations suspect Iran of wanting to develop a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists its plans are for a peaceful, civilian energy programme only. Mr ElBaradei is to report back to the UN Security Council at the end of this month on whether Tehran is complying with its demand to stop all enrichment activity by 28 April, or risk isolation. So far, Iran has adamantly refused to roll back its nuclear programme, the BBC's Francis Harrison in Tehran says. Iran's position is that it is happy to co-operate with international inspections of its nuclear sites but will not stop its drive to produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale, our correspondent adds. Debate in Iran Mr Larijani indicated, after his meeting with Mr ElBaradei, that the UN's demand for a return to a freeze of its nuclear programme was not the way to solve the problem. "Every action must be reasonable and logical. We are cooperating in a constructive manner" with the IAEA, "so such a proposal is not very important to solve the problem," he said. Speaking as Mr ElBaradei arrived in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "Our answer to those who are angry about Iran obtaining the full nuclear cycle is one phrase, we say: Be angry and die of this anger." "We will not hold talks with anyone about the Iranian nation's right [to enrichment] and no one has the right to step back, even one iota," he said. The US and Europe are pressing for sanctions against Iran, a step UN Security Council members Russia and China have opposed. On Thursday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the council would have to look at measures to ensure Iran complied with its international obligations. "When the Security Council reconvenes there will have to be some consequence for that action and that defiance. We will look at a whole range of options available to the Security Council," Ms Rice said. A senior Chinese arms control official, Assistant Foreign Minister, Cui Tiankai, is due in Tehran for talks on Friday. The BBC's Daniel Griffiths in Beijing says China has so far kept a low profile but it is increasingly keen to be seen as a responsible, international player, and Iran is a perfect opportunity to strengthen those credentials. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake Yellowcake is chemically processed and converted into a gas by heating it to above 64C (147F) Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran nuclear work 'irreversible'
Iran has called its uranium enrichment work "irreversible", days before a UN deadline for the programme to stop.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also said demands for Iran to suspend its nuclear research work were "not on the agenda". The UN Security Council called on Iran to suspend enrichment by 28 April, amid fears it wants to make nuclear weapons. Iran - which insists its programme is peaceful - announced this month it had enriched uranium for the first time. The UN Security Council, in a statement issued on 29 March, asked nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report back within 30 days on whether Iran has complied with the UN call. But Mr Asefi told a weekly news conference: "Iran's uranium enrichment and nuclear research and development activities are irreversible". He said that so long as the IAEA report contained "expert assessment", there would be "nothing left to worry about". Diplomatic flurry "However, if the report comes out and somehow puts pressure on Iran or speaks with a language of threats, naturally Iran will not abandon its rights and it is prepared for all possible situations and has planned for it." The BBC's Tehran correspondent, Frances Harrison, says there has been a flurry of diplomatic activity by Iran in the run-up to the deadline, and some calls internally for a less confrontational approach towards the West on the nuclear issue Mr Asefi said Iran was still discussing with Russia a plan for Iran to enrich uranium on Russian soil. Iran first gave details of the plan in February, and on Saturday, state radio said an outline agreement had been reached, but details were still to be worked out. Our correspondent says that the problem with the plan, which has been seen as a possible solution to the stand-off with the West, is that Iranian officials continue to adamantly rule out halting enrichment research on their own soil. Enrichment work Iran's announcement that it had enriched uranium for the first time has thrown attention on to its enrichment technology. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said earlier this month that Iran was testing a more advanced centrifuge, known as a P-2. The P-2 centrifuge can enrich uranium more quickly, raising fears in some Western capitals that Iran could develop nuclear weapons more quickly than originally thought. Mr Asefi said Iran had not yet used P-2 centrifuges in its enrichment work. "So far, we have never used P-2 centrifuges, and what we have used is P-1 machines. We have informed the agency (IAEA) about that. "No-one can deny Iran from using these devices. However, they have not yet been used," said Mr Asefi. Mr Asefi also said there were no plans for Iran to meet the US to discuss the situation in war-torn Iraq. "Nothing has been scheduled and set. Preparations have not even been made for these talks," Mr Asefi told reporters. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had authorised the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, to reach out to the Iranians for direct talks on Iraq, raising hopes that the two sides might also been drawn into discussions on the nuclear stand-off. "We are not in hurry because we have been pessimistic about US intentions as we still are. It is nothing important," said Mr Asefi. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Attack Iran, destroy the US constitution
By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
During the 2004 election, President George W Bush famously proclaimed that he didn't have to ask anyone's permission to defend the United States of America. Does that mean he can attack Iran without having to ask Congress? A new resolution being drafted by Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio may be a vehicle to remind Bush that he can't. Bush has called news reports of plans to attack Iran "wild speculation" and declared that the United States is on a "diplomatic" track. But asked this week if his options included planning for a nuclear strike, he repeated that "all options are on the table". The president is acting as if the decisions that may get Americans into another war are his to make and his alone. So the Iran crisis poses not only questions of military feasibility and political wisdom but of constitutional usurpation. Bush's top officials openly assert that he can do anything he wants - including attacking another country - on his authority as commander-in-chief. Last October, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether the president would circumvent congressional authorization if the White House chose military action against Iran or Syria. She answered, "I will not say anything that constrains his authority as commander-in-chief." When pressed by Senator Paul Sarbanes about whether the administration can exercise a military option without an authorization from Congress, Rice replied, "The president never takes any option off the table, and he shouldn't." The founding fathers of the United States were deeply concerned that the president's power to make war might become a vehicle for tyranny. So they crafted a constitution that included checks and balances on presidential power, among them an independent congress and judiciary, an executive power subject to laws written by Congress and interpreted by the courts, and an executive power to repel attacks but not to declare or finance war. But the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, as laid out in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States and reiterated this year, claims for the president the power to attack other countries simply because he asserts they pose a threat. It thereby removes the decision of war and peace from Congress and gives it to the president. It is, as Senator Robert Byrd put it, "unconstitutional on its face". Congressional response DeFazio is now preparing and seeking support from other House members for a resolution asserting that the president cannot initiate military action against Iran without congressional authorization. "The imperial powers claimed by this administration are breathtaking in their scope. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues were willing to cede our constitutional authorities to the president prior to the war in Iraq. We've seen how that turned out," DeFazio told the New York-based Nation newsmagazine. "Congress can't make the same mistake with respect to Iran. Yet the constant drumbeat we're hearing out of the administration, in the press and from think-tanks on Iran eerily echoes what we heard about Iraq. "It likely won't be long until we hear from the president that he can take preemptive military action against Iran without congressional authorization, which is what he originally argued about Iraq. Or that Congress has already approved action against Iran via some prior vote, which he also argued about Iraq," DeFazio said. "That is why it is so important to put the administration, my colleagues and the American people on notice now that such arguments about unilateral presidential war powers have no merit. Our nation's founders were clear on this issue. There is no ambiguity." There is considerable evidence that military action against Iran has already begun. Retired air force Colonel Sam Gardiner told the Cable News Network that "the decision has been made and military operations are under way". He said the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency recently told him that the Iranians have captured dissident units "and they've confessed to working with the Americans". Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker that "American combat troops are now operating in Iran". He quoted a government consultant who told him that the units were not only identifying targets but "studying the terrain, giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds". Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has written to Bush, noting, "The presence of US troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country," and urged him to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving US forces in Iran. Bipartisan concern Concern about presidential usurpation of the war power is not just a partisan matter. Former vice president Al Gore this year joined with former Republican congressman Bob Barr to express "our shared concern that America's constitution is in grave danger". As Gore explained, "In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power." One of the stunning revelations of a recent spate of news stories is that top military brass are strongly opposed to the move toward military strikes. The Washington Post quotes a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Middle East specialist that "the Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it". According to Hersh's reporting in The New Yorker, the Joint Chiefs of Staff "had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran". The Bush administration is putting military officials in a position where they will have to decide whether their highest loyalty is to the president or to the country and the constitution. Retired Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold, who recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has criticized the US military brass for its quiescence while the Bush administration pursued "a fundamentally flawed plan" for "an invented war". Now he is calling on serving military officers to speak out. The "generals' revolt" has not publicly targeted the plans to attack Iran. But its central critique concerns Rumsfeld's disregard for the US military's evaluation of the costs of the Iraq war and the scale of commitment it would require. Even if the generals don't speak about Iran specifically, their arguments about the costs of the Iraq war logically fit a future Iran war too. The American people are by now deeply skeptical of Bush's reliability in matters of war and peace. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, 54% of respondents said they did not trust Bush to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran", compared with 42% who did. Forty percent said the war in Iraq had made them less supportive of military action against Iran. But Americans are being systematically deprived of any alternative view of the Iranian threat, the consequences of US policy choices, or the real intentions of the Bush administration. Congress and the US military allowed the Bush administration to bamboozle the country with false information and scare talk prior to the Iraq war - and they share responsibility for the resulting catastrophe. Now we're hearing again talk about mushroom clouds. It's up to Congress and the military to make it clear that the president does not assume monarchical power over questions of war and peace. Congress and the American people - who should make the decision about war and peace - haven't even heard the forceful arguments of military officials against military strikes. Calling those Pentagon officials to testify - and protecting them against administration reprisals - would be a good place to start. Gardiner, who specializes in war games and conducted one for The Atlantic Monthly magazine that simulated a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, concluded, "It's a path that leads to disaster in many directions." Unless preceded by a United Nations endorsement or an imminent Iranian attack, it's also aggression, a war crime under international law and the UN Charter. If Bush or his subordinates have already ordered military operations in Iran, it should be considered a criminal act, Gardiner said. The DeFazio resolution could provide a rallying point for a coalition to act preemptively to put checks and balances on the Bush administration's usurpation of constitutional powers. Indeed, the growing evidence that the United States is already conducting military operations in Iran demonstrates the urgency of placing limits on executive power. Anyone in the United States who wants to avoid national catastrophe should get busy defending it. Otherwise, Bush's legacy may be: "He bombed Iran, and the collateral damage wiped out the constitution." Legal analyst Brendan Smith and historian Jeremy Brecher are the editors, with Jill Cutler, of In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan/Holt, 2005) ([url]www.americanempireproject.com)[/url], and the founders of [url]www.warcrimeswatch.org[/url] plz pray, Sardarzada |
A War on Iran is a War on America
by Jonathan David Morris
Should I consider it weird how none of my friends have ever joined the army? In and of itself, I suppose this feat is nothing exceptional. I know lots of people who’ve never done lots of things. Like racecar driving or becoming an astronaut. After September 11th, however, lots of my friends talked about enlisting like they were all but a shaved head and a new pair of boots away from doing it. Yet, to date, none of them ever did. There are a number of reasons why this might have happened. For example, my friends could all be liars. But I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. The way I figure, it’s only natural for young men to consider enlisting after such a massive attack on their homeland. So when my friends all swore they were going to enlist after 9/11, I think they meant it. They were ready to sign up and defend their country. The problem was, it soon became clear the war on terror would take place in other countries. This changed everything. Suddenly it was a lot more appealing to root for the troops from the comfort of your couch. I think this example proves an important point. And it’s not that I hang out with a bunch of loud-mouthed cowards. It’s that, generally speaking, people don’t like to be invaded. This probably sounds like a simple statement, but with the possible exception of the French—who have strange fetishes—I’ve got to believe it’s a universal truth. When Americans went to bed on September 11th, a lot of us thought a full-scale invasion of our country had started. At that point, no debate about going to war was needed, because we believed the enemy was marching down our streets. Americans would’ve fought back against an invading army. I don’t have any doubts about that. My friends’ idle talk about joining the military only summed up the national sentiment back then. If there was going to be an invasion, it was going to be over our dead red, white, and blue bodies. To some extent or another, this is probably the only foreign policy any country really needs. There’s a reason why wars on foreign soil—particularly preemptive wars on foreign soil—rarely enjoy this sort of clarity. It’s because, without the enemy knocking down your door, it’s hard to know if a war on foreign soil is even necessary to begin with. For that reason, for every military action abroad, there is usually an equal and opposite reaction back home. When Washington believes it must invade or attack a foreign country, it becomes necessary to convince the American people the mission is urgent or just. The upshot to this is that we live in a country where the government cares enough about our opinions to at least pretend like it cares about our opinions. The downside, however, is that wars are government programs. And like all government programs, they’re usually based on hasty decisions, false logic, and outright lies. The Iraq War is a perfect example, though it’s far from the only one in American history. Three and a half years ago, many Americans genuinely believed U.S. cities were threatened by Iraqi WMDs. Now, though, we realize the Bush administration didn’t even necessarily believe that itself. The Downing Street Memos, amongst other documents, confirm the intelligence was “fixed around the policy.” We don’t need to waste our time re-arguing the motives of the Iraq War. But even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that the war happened for entirely noble purposes, the point that our leaders kind of, sort of misled us into it remains the same. You can choose to deny this if you wish (if you’re that incredibly stubborn and/or afraid of admitting you were wrong). But considering how wars—even just wars—have massive consequences, it would be a lot more helpful to look at the lessons of Iraq and… well, learn them. In the coming months, it seems likely that our country will debate using some kind of force against Iran. According to the New Yorker, the U.S. is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Iranian nuclear facilities. Whether Washington decides to use tactical nukes—which is to say, decides to use nukes—remains to be seen at this point. But just the fact that we’re having this discussion says volumes for the likelihood of it happening. After all, if my friends’ reactions to 9/11 prove anything, it’s that the truly urgent, necessary wars don’t usually need to be debated. They’re obvious, because they place enemy soldiers on your front lawn. All other wars are essentially optional. Last weekend, I was talking to someone about rising gas prices when they happened to tell me, “Yeah, it’s just a shame we have to go to war with Iran.” I thought this was interesting. Since when do we “have to” do anything? The U.S. once staved off nuclear war with the Soviet Union. You mean to tell me we can’t do that again? “This is different,” I was told. “These people”—the Iranians—“can’t be reasoned with.” If that’s our attitude, then I’m not so sure we can be reasoned with, either. Don’t buy the hype. A war with Iran is most certainly not inevitable. Nor is it a good idea. Beyond the costs in lives and treasure (and the generally disconcerting precedent that using tactical nukes would set), a war in Iran would assuredly feature domestic components. So far in the war on terror, we’ve seen widespread domestic spying programs, the inclusion of anti-war groups on Pentagon watch lists, so-called “free speech zones,” and an ever widening gap between politicians and the American people—physically, as well as in terms of accountability. We’ve seen the selective use of intelligence to create threats that didn’t exist. We’ve seen leaking to smear war opponents, and we’ve seen investigations into leakers who managed to smear the war. What kind of fun stuff will the next major theater bring? Washington’s tactics in the war on terror serve to silence dissent and create artificial support at least as much, if not more so, than they serve to actually fight the war in the first place. This has been so in the war on terror in general, and it’s been so in the unnecessary Iraq War. It will be so yet again if we attack Iran in any capacity. So don’t buy into it. Don’t be swindled. And don’t believe a war in Iran is anything less than a war on the American people. Sadly, in a real way, that’s exactly what it is. Jonathan David Morris is a political writer -- and sometimes satirist -- based in Pennsylvania. A strong believer in small government, JDM often takes aim at oppressive taxes, entitlements, and laws, writing about incompetence at the highest levels of culture and government. Catch his weekly ramblings at readjdm.com. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran, is the new U.S. target in the Mid-East
Iran, is the new U.S. target in the Mid-East and all signs point to an eventual attack on Iran by the U.S. or Israel military. A U.S.-Iran war or, more likely a limited U.S. attack on Iran will likely occur after the Iraq insurgency ends although a U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities may occur in 2006.
A full scale Israel - Iran war is not likely but an Israel attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is possible. The possibility of a U.S. or Israel attack on Iran and whether such an attack would be successful is discussed in this web page. My reasons for believing a U.S. or Israel war with Iran is not advisable are also discussed. Iran: Pros & Cons for U.S. or Israel attack on Iran and What the Targets in Iran Would Be. There is rightful concern in the U.S., Israel, and other countries about Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability. An attack on Iran to remove the nuclear threat might be justified in some people's opinions. The problem is: What and where to attack in Iran? When Israel took out the Iraq nuclear facilities a few decades ago, there were far fewer facilities and Israel knew precisely where they were. From what I read, this is not the case with Iran and its nuclear facilities. Iran Nuclear Facilities Much Larger than Iraq's. Iran apparently has a much larger nuclear program going than Iraq ever did and the facilities are scattered in a larger country. It would take many air strikes to wipe out all of Iran's nuclear equipment. Despite all their veiled threats in the matter, Israel does not have the capability to locate, attack, and destroy the Iranian facilities. Destroying the Iran facilities with air strikes would be a big job for even the much larger U.S. air force to carry out. So you say, the U.S. should simply invade Iran, take over the country, locate the nuclear facilities, destroy them, and then get the hell out of Iran before an insurgency develops. The above scenario sounds easy on paper but there are some negatives: • A full-scale U.S.-Iran war will require a major military effort on the part of the U.S. But our finest soldiers are still tied down in Iraq. Better wait until we declare victory there. • U.S. casualties would be high in a full-scale war with Iran. How long would the American people stand for that? • Iran has the missile capability to stop all oil shipments from leaving the Persian Gulf. That action would quickly set off a world economic panic. • After the Iraq debacle, a U.S. war with Iran would be treated around the world with protest - even though Iran's nuclear facilities are much more of a danger to the world than Iraq's facilities ever were. • Other Moslem nations, e.g., Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., might be pulled inadvertently into a U.S.- Iran war. Also, Turkey might use the diversion of a U.S. - Iran war to move into northern Iraq and take action against the Kurds whom they have problems with (not to mention the nice oil fields in northern Iraq). There are a few positives to a U.S. attack on Iran. 1. A successful attack would end Iran's theoretical nuclear threat. 2. An attack on Iran this summer or early fall might benefit the Bush administration's deteriorated political situation just in time for the midterm elections. The American people would no-doubt rally around the flag if a war breaks out. (O.K., my cynicism about the Bush administration is showing through.) 3. If a decision were made to occupy Iran, a vast treasure trove of oil, natural gas, copper, and other raw materials could fall into U.S. hands if we decide to stay there. Of course, I'm sure our leaders thought similarly about Iraq before attacking them (remember "we will be greeted with flowers and candy"). It didn't work out in Iraq and it might not work out in Iran, either. How Iran Will Respond to a U.S. or Israel Attack If the U.S. launches an invasion of Iran, a full-scale U.S.-Iran war will break out. Casualties on both sides will be heavy. The same scenario holds if Israel attacks Iran even if the attack is limited. In Israel's case, Iran will bombard Israel with missiles. In the event of a full-scale U.S. attack or even a limited Israel attack, Iran will use their missiles and air force to stop oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, an limited air attack by the U.S. on the nuclear facilities would be more satisfactory by both sides. Iran would certainly resist the U.S. attack and try to shoot down U.S. planes entering Iran's air space. However, a limited U.S. attack is unlikely to set off a major war with Iran. But, as discussed previously, the air attacks are unlikely to completely remove the Iran nuclear facilities which are spread over Iran. Casualties on both sides should be low in the event of a limited air attack on Iran. That looks like a winner to me. So, expect some sort of limited air attack on Iran by the U.S. late this summer or early fall. If the attack does not occur prior to the November midterm elections, all my predictions in this matter are cancelled. I anticipate no attack on Iran from Israel, acting alone, under any circumstances. Israel would be dreaming to think they could handle Iran in a non-nuclear clash without U.S. military aid. Why Iran is suspicious of U.S. and Israel Intentions. Iran's leaders do not like Israel and have stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. If Iran ever gets nuclear weapons, the weapons will be pointed at Israel although I don't believe that Iran would use the weapons even if a shooting war broke out between Israel and Iran. The Iran leaders may talk a little crazy at times but they are not stupid. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and would use them if they had to. Iran is also very wary of the U.S. After all, it was the U.S. (with British support) that instigated the overthrow of the Iran government in 1953 to protect U.S. and British oil interests. The U.S. and British put Shah Mohammad Reza Pablavi in charge of Iran. In 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeni threw the Pavlavi government out of the country and took over. The takeover of the American embassy in Tehran occurred at this time. No, things have not gone well between the U.S. and Iran! And not all the problems have been instigated by Iran. Resources and Military Capabilities of Iran. Iran or Persia, as Iran was formerly known as, has a historical past that was over a thousand years old when the U.S. was born. The Iranians are a proud people and there is ever indication that an attempt is being made to resurrect the old Persian empire that fought Alexander the Great. With oil revenues pouring in and vast deposits of natural gas, copper and other materials soon to be developed, and with a substantial part of Iraq likely to fall under Iran's control, the Persian empire is on its way back. Iran knows they are on the way up and are cocky and have been thumbing their nose at the Americans who have gotten bogged down in the much smaller and weaker country of Iraq. Iran is twice the size of Texas with a population of 70,000,000. Their GDP is high for a developing nation. With the abundance of natural resources discussed above, Iran has an excellent chance of moving up quickly into the ranks of developed nations. Then, Iran can assume a true world leadership role for Muslim nations. Not exactly what the Bush administration had in mind for Iran! Defense-wise, Iran has over 1,700,000 men in their active military. This is an impressive number but remember Saddam's 'million man army'? How many of Iran's soldiers are adequately trained and equipped to fight effectively is a question mark. (Note: We should not assume that Iran's troops are of the same poor caliber as the bulk of Saddam's army was. Saddam didn't believe in squandering too much money on his troops. He kept the money for himself.) Iran has more of an air force than Iraq did but the air force has not recovered from the ravages of the Ayatollah Khomeni who virtually destroyed the once-proud air force (trained and equipped by the U.S.) with his purges. Khomeni took irrational actions against the entire Iranian military just before Iraq attacked Iran in 1980. In the Iran-Iraq war, despite the poor condition of the purged Iran military and despite the tens of billions of dollars of aid poured into Iraq by the U.S. and the Arabian oil-rich kingdoms, Iran was able to eke out a draw in the conflict. A substantial, home-grown missile fleet is probably the best single weapon that Iran now has. In a U.S.-Iran war or Israel-Iran clash, Iran should be able to totally stop oil shipments from leaving the Persian Gulf. A world energy crisis would soon develop. No, I don't see an easy answer for the developing U.S. - Iran crisis. Summary of Iran, U.S.-Iran, and Iraq-Iran. The war rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran is ramping up and some U.S. military action against Iran is possible in late summer or fall of 2006. Hopefully, the fighting between the two countries will be limited and a full-scale U.S. - Iran war can be avoided. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Pentagon has been prepping for war on Iran since 2003 (William Arkin, WP)
Written by Donna Quexada
William M. Arkin, author of Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World, wrote in the Outlook section of Sunday's Washington Post that at least since early 2003 the U.S. military has been planning for an attack on Iran.[1] -- That was when it undertook an "analysis, called TIRANNT, for 'theater Iran near term,' [which] was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for 'major combat operations' against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form." -- " Under TIRANNT," Arkin wrote, "Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change." -- William Arkin is not an anti-war writer: he endorses the belief that Iran is engaged in the "illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons," approves planning for aggressive war, and accepts that the "United States is now a first-strike nation"; Arkin thinks such plans out to be acknowledged publicly as a way of influencing Iranian leaders. -- According to Arkin, " Iran controls the two basic triggers that could set off U.S. military action. The first would be its acquisition of nuclear capability in defiance of the international community. . . . The second trigger would be Iran's lashing out militarily (or through proxy terrorism) at the United States or its allies, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to international oil traffic." -- In his Apr. 13 blog entry to which Arkin's article refers, he wrote that at the Pentagon there has been a shift of "the bulk of planning from almost exclusive focus on Iraq to Iran."[2] -- Unmentioned in his Apr. 16 piece but described in his Apr. 13 blog is the "Toy Study," which stands for TIRANNT Out-Year, positing a U.S.-Iran war in the year 2011. -- "Under the TOY modeling effort, Army division-sized formations as currently organized are sent up against real world models of Iranian ground units. . . . The product gauges not only the impact of military 'transformation' efforts in the Army but also the most propitious timing for war." -- There is also a "2015 timeframe" "extremely complex Caspian Sea scenario [that] has become the standard non-Asian platform for education, training, and force development in the Army," Arkin said.... 1. Going Nuclear THE PENTAGON PREPS FOR IRAN By William M. Arkin Washington Post April 16, 2006 [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401907.html[/url] Does the United States have a war plan for stopping Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons? Last week, President Bush dismissed news reports that his administration has been working on contingency plans for war -- particularly talk of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran -- as "wild speculation." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chimed in, calling it "fantasyland." He declared to reporters that "it just isn't useful" to talk about contingency planning. But the secretary is wrong. It's important to talk about war planning that's real. And it is for Iran. In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass de struction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form. None of this activity has been disclosed by the U.S. military, and when I wrote about Iran contingency planning last week on the Washington Post web site [see #2 below], the Pentagon stuck to its dogged position that "we don't discuss war plans." But it should. The diplomatic effort directed at Iran would be mightily enhanced if that country understood that the United States is so serious about deterring the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons that it would be willing to go to war to stop that quest from reaching fruition. Iran needs to know -- and even more important, the American public needs to know -- that no matter how many experts talk about difficult-to-find targets or the catastrophe that could unfold if war comes, military planners are already working hard to minimize the risks of any military operation. This is the very essence of contingency planning. I've been tracking U.S. war planning, maintaining friends and contacts in that closed world, for more than 20 years. My one regret in writing about this secret subject, especially because the government always claims that revealing anything could harm U.S. forces, is not delving deeply enough into the details of the war plan for Iraq. Now, with Iran, it's once again difficult but essential to piece together the facts. Here's what we know now. Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change. The core TIRANNT effort began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran. TIRANNT has since been updated using post-Iraq war information on the performance of U.S. forces. Meanwhile, Air Force planners have modeled attacks against existing Iranian air defenses and targets, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal defenses and drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz at the base of the Persian Gulf. A follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis, which began in October 2003, calculated the results of different scenarios for action against Iran to provide options for analyzing courses of action in an updated Iran war plan. According to military sources close to the planning process, this task was given to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, now commander of CENTCOM, in 2002. The Marines, meanwhile, have not only been involved in CENTCOM's war planning, but have been focused on their own specialty, "forcible entry." In April 2003, the Corps published its "Concept of Operations" for a maneuver against a mock country that explores the possibility of moving forces from ship to shore against a determined enemy without establishing a beachhead first. Though the Marine Corps enemy is described only as a deeply religious revolutionary country named Karona, it is -- with its Revolutionary Guards, WMD, and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant to be Iran. Various scenarios involving Iran's missile force have also been examined in another study, initiated in 2004 and known as BMD-I (ballistic missile defense -- Iran). In this study, the Center for Army Analysis modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapons systems to determine the number of Iranian missiles expected to leak through a coalition defense. The day-to-day planning for dealing with Iran's missile force falls to the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha. In June 2004, Rumsfeld alerted the command to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran. CONPLAN 8022 calls for bombers and missiles to be able to act within 12 hours of a presidential order. The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were called upon to deliver "prompt" global strikes against certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances, the president might have to be told that the only option is a nuclear one. Contingency planning for a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, let alone full-fledged war, against Iran may seem incredible right now. But in the secretive world of military commands and war planners, it is an everyday and unfortunate reality. Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options. It needs to realize that it can't just stonewall and evade its international obligations, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes that it will "win" merely because war is messy. On the surface, Iran controls the two basic triggers that could set off U.S. military action. The first would be its acquisition of nuclear capability in defiance of the international community. Despite last week's bluster from Tehran, the country is still years away from a nuclear weapon, let alone a workable one. We may have a global strike war plan oriented toward attacking countries with weapons of mass destruction, but that plan is also focused on North Korea, China, and presumably Russia. The Bush administration is not going to wait for a nuclear attack. The United States is now a first-strike nation. The second trigger would be Iran's lashing out militarily (or through proxy terrorism) at the United States or its allies, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to international oil traffic. Sources say that CENTCOM and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed "flexible deterrent options" in case Iran were to take such actions. One might ask how these options could have any deterrent effect when the government won't talk about them. This is another reason why Rumsfeld should acknowledge that the United States is preparing war plans for Iran -- and that this is not just routine. It is specifically a response to that country's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, its meddling in Iraq and its support for international terrorism. Iran needs to know that the administration is dead serious. But we all need to know that even absent an Iranian nuke or an Iranian attack of any kind, there is still another catastrophic scenario that could lead to war. In a world of ready war plans and post-9/11 jitters, there is an ever greater demand for intelligence on the enemy. That means ever greater risks taken in collecting that intelligence. Meanwhile, war plans demand that forces be ready in certain places and on alert, while the potential for WMD necessitates shorter and shorter lead times for strikes against an enemy. So the greater danger now is of an inadvertent conflict, caused by something like the shooting down of a U.S. spy plane, by the capturing of a Special Operations or CIA team, or by nervous U.S. and Iranian forces coming into contact and starting to shoot at one another. The war planning process is hardly neutral. It has subtle effects. As militaries stage mock attacks, potential adversaries become presumed enemies. Over time, contingency planning transforms yesterday's question marks into today's seeming certainty. 2. DESPITE DENIALS, U.S. PLANS FOR IRAN WAR By William M. Arkin Early Warning April 13, 2006 [url]http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/despite_denials.html#more[/url] The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term." The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran. After new reports of intensified planning for Iran began to circulate over the weekend, the President dismissed the news as "wild speculation." On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld similarly called media speculation about Iran war planning as "fantasyland." Asked at a Pentagon new conference whether he had in recent days, weeks or month, asked the Joint Staff or CENTCOM to "update, refine, [or] modify the contingencies for possible military options against Iran," Rumsfeld said: "We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department. And the last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful." I beg to differ, Mr. Secretary. World pressure and American diplomacy would be mightily enhanced if Iran understood that the United States was indeed so serious about it acquiring nuclear weapons it was willing to go to war over it. What is more, the American public needs to know that this is a possibility. Think the U.S. military isn't serious about war with Iran? Since at least 2003, in response to a number of directives from Secretary Rumsfeld and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, the military services and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been newly working on a number of "near term" and "near-year" Iranian contingency studies in support of CENTCOM war planning efforts. These studies, war games, and modeling efforts have been the first step in shifting the bulk of planning from almost exclusive focus on Iraq to Iran. At CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, at Army and Air Force CENTCOM support headquarters in Georgia and South Carolina, and at service analysis and operations research organizations like the Center for Army Analysis at Fort Belvoir (thanks readers for correcting me), a monumental effort has been underway to "build" an Iran country baseline for war planning. Under the TIRANNT campaign analysis program, Army organizations, together with CENTCOM headquarters planners, have been examining both near term and "out year" scenarios for war with Iran, covering all aspects of a major combat operation from mobilization and deployment of forces through post-war "stability" operations after regime change. The core TIRANNT effort itself began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data sets needed for theater level (large scale) scenario analysis in support of updated war plans. Successive iterations of TIRANTT efforts have updated "blue" (United States), "green" (coalition), and "threat" databases with post-Iraq war information. The follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis (TIRANNT-CA), which began in October 2003, has calculated the results of different campaign scenarios against Iran to provide options for "courses of action" analysis. According to military sources close to the planning process, in 2002-2003, the CENTCOM commander, Gen. John Abizaid was directed to develop a new "strategic concept" for Iran war planning and potential courses of action for Secretary of Defense and Presidential review. Parallel with the TIRANNT and TIRANNT-CA analysis, Army and CENTCOM planners have also been undertaking the "TOY study." TOY stands for TIRANNT Out-Year, and posits a U.S.-Iran war in the year 2011. Under the TOY modeling effort, Army division-sized formations as currently organized are sent up against real world models of Iranian ground units. The results are compared to the same engagements when fought by newly reorganized Army brigade combat teams who fight independent of a strict divisional hierarchy. The product gauges not only the impact of military "transformation" efforts in the Army but also the most propitious timing for war. Under a separate "BMD-I study," for ballistic missile defense -- Iran, the Army Concepts Analysis Agency has modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapon systems to determine the number of missiles expected to "leak through" a coalition missile defense in the 2005 (current) time frame. The BMD-I study has not only looked at U.S. Patriot surface-to-air missile performance and optimum placement to protect U.S. and coalition forces, but also the results of combined air, cyber warfare and missile defense operations to disable Iranian command and control capabilities and missiles on the ground before Iran can fire them. In July 2004, U.S. and British Army planners also met at Fort Belvoir to play the Hotspur 2004 war game, a 2015 timeframe Caspian Sea scenario examining deployment of forces, movement to "contact" with the enemy, and "decisive" operations. A U.K. medium weight brigade operated subordinate to U.S. forces and the game included an assessment of lessons learned in U.S.-British interoperability during similar operations in southern Iraq. The extremely complex Caspian Sea scenario has become the standard non-Asian platform for education, training, and force development in the Army. The current 2005 "high resolution" version model provides analysts with the ability to manipulate thousands of entities using tens of thousands of combat orders to simulate all aspects of major combat operations. The scenario not only has variable "physical battlespace" including urban terrain, but an adaptive enemy, allowing analysis of not just standard military operations but also complex counter-insurgency activity. In February 2005, after a similar flurry of news reporting on U.S. military options for Iran, the Deputy Commander of CENTCOM Lt. Gen. Lance Smith was asked at a Pentagon briefing if the Tampa based command was in any kind of heightened state of planning when it comes to Iran. "We plan everything," Smith responded. "We have a requirement on a regular basis to update plans. We try to keep them current, particularly if -- you know, if our region is active. But I haven't been called into any late-night meetings at, you know, 8:00 at night, saying, 'Holy cow, we got to sit down and go plan for Iran.'" Throughout mid-2002, when a similar public debate about an Iraq war plan swirled in the news, Secretary Rumsfeld, Myers, and then CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks insisted that there were no "war plans," that they hadn't been asked to prepare a war plan, that no decisions had been made, that no war plan sat on the President's desk. It would take a doctoral dissertation to wade through the chronology of statements and actions to sort out the specifics of the truth, but here is the reality: Iraq war planning consumed the government inner circle all through this period and the government made a knee jerk decision -- never really thoughtfully reviewed -- not to speak about it. "We don't discuss war plans," the mantra goes. And it is dead wrong. Maybe history will show that the Bush administration was so hell-bent on war in 2002-2003, nothing that Saddam Hussein could have done would have prevented it. Still, the world went through the motions of U.N. inspections and the Security Council and the U.S. Congress made decisions based upon the illusion that war could still be averted, that all diplomatic options would be exhausted before the decision to go to war was made. We now also know that the Iraqis themselves didn't quite believe that the United States was serious about regime change and that it would go all the way. Perhaps, though, had the United States candidly stated its intentions rather than spending so much time denying reality, Baghdad would have gotten the message and war would have been averted, perhaps in another time and place. It seems today we face a similar problem with Iran. The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options. I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran. Contingency planning for a full-fledged war with Iran may seem incredible right now, and Iran isn't Iraq. But Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options, Iran needs to know that it can't just stonewall and evade international inspections, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes of "winning" because war is messy. As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed out militarily against anyone. But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking. It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones, but Iran shouldn't make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called "experts" are quoted in the Washington Post today saying that there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well. But most important, this constant drum beat in the newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran, and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add, is not just routine, it is not just what military's do all the time. It is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism. Iran needs to know the facts and the American public need to know the facts. But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options, and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran
by Michael T. Klare
As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation. Before proceeding further, let me state for the record that I do not claim oil is the sole driving force behind the Bush administration's apparent determination to destroy Iranian military capabilities. No doubt there are many national security professionals in Washington who are truly worried about Iran's nuclear program, just as there were many professionals who were genuinely worried about Iraqi weapons capabilities. I respect this. But no war is ever prompted by one factor alone, and it is evident from the public record that many considerations, including oil, played a role in the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that many factors -- again including oil -- are playing a role in the decision-making now underway over a possible assault on Iran. Just exactly how much weight the oil factor carries in the administration's decision-making is not something that we can determine with absolute assurance at this time, but given the importance energy has played in the careers and thinking of various high officials of this administration, and given Iran's immense resources, it would be ludicrous not to take the oil factor into account -- and yet you can rest assured that, as relations with Iran worsen, American media reports and analysis of the situation will generally steer a course well clear of the subject (as they did in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq). One further caveat: When talking about oil's importance in American strategic thinking about Iran, it is important to go beyond the obvious question of Iran's potential role in satisfying our country's future energy requirements. Because Iran occupies a strategic location on the north side of the Persian Gulf, it is in a position to threaten oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates, which together possess more than half of the world's known oil reserves. Iran also sits athwart the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world's oil exports pass. In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran's potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States, that undoubtedly govern the administration's strategic calculations. Having said this, let me proceed to an assessment of Iran's future energy potential. According to the most recent tally by Oil and Gas Journal, Iran houses the second-largest pool of untapped petroleum in the world, an estimated 125.8 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia, with an estimated 260 billion barrels, possesses more; Iraq, the third in line, has an estimated 115 billion barrels. With this much oil -- about one-tenth of the world's estimated total supply -- Iran is certain to play a key role in the global energy equation, no matter what else occurs. It is not, however, just sheer quantity that matters in Iran's case; no less important is its future productive capacity. Although Saudi Arabia possesses larger reserves, it is now producing oil at close to its maximum sustainable rate (about 10 million barrels per day). It will probably be unable to raise its output significantly over the next 20 years while global demand, pushed by significantly higher consumption in the United States, China, and India, is expected to rise by 50%. Iran, on the other hand, has considerable growth potential: it is now producing about 4 million barrels per day, but is thought to be capable of boosting its output by another 3 million barrels or so. Few, if any, other countries possess this potential, so Iran's importance as a producer, already significant, is bound to grow in the years ahead. And it is not just oil that Iran possesses in great abundance, but also natural gas. According to Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has an estimated 940 trillion cubic feet of gas, or approximately 16% of total world reserves. (Only Russia, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet, has a larger supply.) As it takes approximately 6,000 cubic feet of gas to equal the energy content of 1 barrel of oil, Iran's gas reserves represent the equivalent of about 155 billion barrels of oil. This, in turn, means that its combined hydrocarbon reserves are the equivalent of some 280 billion barrels of oil, just slightly behind Saudi Arabia's combined supply. At present, Iran is producing only a small share of its gas reserves, about 2.7 trillion cubic feet per year. This means that Iran is one of the few countries capable of supplying much larger amounts of natural gas in the future. What all this means is that Iran will play a critical role in the world's future energy equation. This is especially true because the global demand for natural gas is growing faster than that for any other source of energy, including oil. While the world currently consumes more oil than gas, the supply of petroleum is expected to contract in the not-too-distant future as global production approaches its peak sustainable level -- perhaps as soon as 2010 -- and then begins a gradual but irreversible decline. The production of natural gas, on the other hand, is not likely to peak until several decades from now, and so is expected to take up much of the slack when oil supplies become less abundant. Natural gas is also considered a more attractive fuel than oil in many applications, especially because when consumed it releases less carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect). No doubt the major U.S. energy companies would love to be working with Iran today in developing these vast oil and gas supplies. At present, however, they are prohibited from doing so by Executive Order (EO) 12959, signed by President Clinton in 1995 and renewed by President Bush in March 2004. The United States has also threatened to punish foreign firms that do business in Iran (under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996), but this has not deterred many large companies from seeking access to Iran's reserves. China, which will need vast amounts of additional oil and gas to fuel its red-hot economy, is paying particular attention to Iran. According to the Department of Energy (DoE), Iran supplied 14% of China's oil imports in 2003, and is expected to provide an even larger share in the future. China is also expected to rely on Iran for a large share of its liquid natural gas (LNG) imports. In October 2004, Iran signed a $100 billion, 25-year contract with Sinopec, a major Chinese energy firm, for joint development of one of its major gas fields and the subsequent delivery of LNG to China. If this deal is fully consummated, it will constitute one of China's biggest overseas investments and represent a major strategic linkage between the two countries. India is also keen to obtain oil and gas from Iran. In January, the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) signed a 30-year deal with the National Iranian Gas Export Corp. for the transfer of as much as 7.5 million tons of LNG to India per year. The deal, worth an estimated $50 billion, will also entail Indian involvement in the development of Iranian gas fields. Even more noteworthy, Indian and Pakistani officials are discussing the construction of a $3 billion natural gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan an extraordinary step for two long-term adversaries. If completed, the pipeline would provide both countries with a substantial supply of gas and allow Pakistan to reap $200-$500 million per year in transit fees. "The gas pipeline is a win-win proposition for Iran, India, and Pakistan," Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz declared in January. Despite the pipeline's obvious attractiveness as an incentive for reconciliation between India and Pakistan -- nuclear powers that have fought three wars over Kashmir since 1947 and remain deadlocked over the future status of that troubled territory -- the project was condemned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a recent trip to India. "We have communicated to the Indian government our concerns about the gas pipeline cooperation between Iran and India," she said on March 16 after meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh in New Delhi. The administration has, in fact, proved unwilling to back any project that offers an economic benefit to Iran. This has not, however, deterred India from proceeding with the pipeline. Japan has also broken ranks with Washington on the issue of energy ties with Iran. In early 2003, a consortium of three Japanese companies acquired a 20% stake in the development of the Soroush-Nowruz offshore field in the Persian Gulf, a reservoir thought to hold 1 billion barrels of oil. One year later, the Iranian Offshore Oil Company awarded a $1.26 billion contract to Japan's JGC Corporation for the recovery of natural gas and natural gas liquids from Soroush-Nowruz and other offshore fields. When considering Iran's role in the global energy equation, therefore, Bush administration officials have two key strategic aims: a desire to open up Iranian oil and gas fields to exploitation by American firms, and concern over Iran's growing ties to America's competitors in the global energy market. Under U.S. law, the first of these aims can only be achieved after the President lifts EO 12959, and this is not likely to occur as long as Iran is controlled by anti-American mullahs and refuses to abandon its uranium enrichment activities with potential bomb-making applications. Likewise, the ban on U.S. involvement in Iranian energy production and export gives Tehran no choice but to pursue ties with other consuming nations. From the Bush administration's point of view, there is only one obvious and immediate way to alter this unappetizing landscape -- by inducing "regime change" in Iran and replacing the existing leadership with one far friendlier to U.S. strategic interests. That the Bush administration seeks to foster regime change in Iran is not in any doubt. The very fact that Iran was included with Saddam's Iraq and Kim Jong Il's North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" in the President's 2002 State of the Union Address was an unmistakable indicator of this. Bush let his feelings be known again in June 2003, at a time when there were anti-government protests by students in Tehran. "This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran, which I think is positive," he declared. In a more significant indication of White House attitudes on the subject, the Department of Defense has failed to fully disarm the People's Mujaheddin of Iran (or Mujaheddin-e Khalq, MEK), an anti-government militia now based in Iraq that has conducted terrorist actions in Iran and is listed on the State Department's roster of terrorist organizations. In 2003, the Washington Post reported that some senior administration figures would like to use the MEK as a proxy force in Iran, in the same manner that the Northern Alliance was employed against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Iranian leadership is well aware that it faces a serious threat from the Bush administration and is no doubt taking whatever steps it can to prevent such an attack. Here, too, oil is a major factor in both Tehran's and Washington's calculations. To deter a possible American assault, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz and otherwise obstruct oil shipping in the Persian Gulf area. "An attack on Iran will be tantamount to endangering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and, in a word, the entire Middle East oil," Iranian Expediency Council secretary Mohsen Rezai said on March 1st. Such threats are taken very seriously by the U.S. Department of Defense. "We judge Iran can briefly close the Strait of Hormuz, relying on a layered strategy using predominantly naval, air, and some ground forces," Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16th. Planning for such attacks is, beyond doubt, a major priority for top Pentagon officials. In January, veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine that the Department of Defense was conducting covert reconnaissance raids into Iran, supposedly to identify hidden Iranian nuclear and missile facilities that could be struck in future air and missile attacks. "I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran," Hersh said of his interviews with senior military personnel. Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post revealed that the Pentagon was flying surveillance drones over Iran to verify the location of weapons sites and to test Iranian air defenses. As noted by the Post, "Aerial espionage [of this sort] is standard in military preparations for an eventual air attack." There have also been reports of talks between U.S. and Israeli officials about a possible Israeli strike on Iranian weapons facilities, presumably with behind-the-scenes assistance from the United States. In reality, much of Washington's concern about Iran's pursuit of WMD and ballistic missiles is sparked by fears for the safety of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, other Persian Gulf oil producers, and Israel rather than by fears of a direct Iranian assault on the United States. "Tehran has the only military in the region that can threaten its neighbors and Gulf security," Jacoby declared in his February testimony. "Its expanding ballistic missile inventory presents a potential threat to states in the region." It is this regional threat that American leaders are most determined to eliminate. In this sense, more than any other, the current planning for an attack on Iran is fundamentally driven by concern over the safety of U.S. energy supplies, as was the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the most telling expression of White House motives for going to war against Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney (in an August 2002 address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars) described the threat from Iraq as follows: "Should all [of Hussein's WMD] ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East and the United States.... Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends throughout the region." This was, of course, unthinkable to Bush's inner circle. And all one need do is substitute the words "Iranian mullahs" for Saddam Hussein, and you have a perfect expression of the Bush administration case for making war on Iran. So, even while publicly focusing on Iran's weapons of mass destruction, key administration figures are certainly thinking in geopolitical terms about Iran's role in the global energy equation and its capacity to obstruct the global flow of petroleum. As was the case with Iraq, the White House is determined to eliminate this threat once and for all. And so, while oil may not be the administration's sole reason for going to war with Iran, it is an essential factor in the overall strategic calculation that makes war likely. plz pray, Sardarzada |
Iran Plans
Journalist Seymour Hersh argues in this New Yorker article that the Bush administration is secretly preparing to wage war on Iran – with covert operations already taking place inside the country. The US even considers using tactical nuclear weapons, so called “bunker busters,” to reach facilities located deep beneath the surface. Beyond the destruction of Tehran’s nuclear program, Washington seems to be particularly keen on imposing a regime change to oust the Iranian leadership. Some people inside the administration and the Pentagon criticize these plans, believing an attack on Iran would cause grave repercussions in the Middle East and internationally.
Been There, Done That Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argues in this Los Angeles Times article that a military attack on Iran would be “damaging to long-term US national interests” and cites reasons why. There is no legal backing for such a unilateral attack. Reactions by Tehran would seriously complicate the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The price of crude would rise dramatically. Finally, the US would become an even more likely target for terrorists. Zbigniew concludes that “a sense of a religiously inspired mission” should not guide the US. Iran: Don't Do It This TomDispatch article gives very cogent reasons why attacking Iran would be “insane.” Military airstrikes would only lead to an acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program and a full-blown invasion is just unthinkable, regarding how stretched already the US forces are in Iraq. Iran has so far not violated international law - the Non-Proliferation Treaty - which makes finding a pretext for war hard for Washington. Finally, the often-cited danger that Tehran will launch a nuclear strike on Israel seems highly unrealistic, because it would amount to committing “national suicide.” Britain Took Part in Mock Iran Invasion Despite rhetoric by both Washington and London, the two long-standing allies seem to prepare attacking Iran. Two years ago, the US and the UK jointly conducted a war game codenamed “Hotspur 2004.” The planners said the scenario was a fictitious Middle East country called “Korona,” however the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian. This is one article in a recent stream of articles showing how the US and the UK get ready to invade Iran. (Guardian) To Battle Stations! To Battle Stations! This Inter Press Service article gives a good overview of the intensified efforts by neo-conservative authors, publications and think-tanks to promote military strikes against Iran. The Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, and their affiliated authors such as William Kristol and Michael Ledeen openly call for an invasion of Iran to force a regime change in Tehran. Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away Despite Iran’s announcement that it had enriched Uranium to levels that could fuel a nuclear reactor, experts claim it will take Tehran many more years to actually construct an atomic bomb. Nevertheless, various countries, including China and Russia, have criticized Tehran for escalating the tensions that already exist between Iran and the US. Such provocative actions might in fact play into the hands of some members of the Bush administration, who seek confrontation. (New York Times) An Iranian Missile Crisis? This Washington Post Op-Ed compares the current confrontation between the US and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear activities with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Washington will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and Tehran believes that only by acquiring nuclear capabilities can it deter a US intervention. The Op-Ed quotes Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski saying that if the US attacks Iran “we will lose our position in the world.” Government in Secret Talks about Strike Against Iran The British Government is secretly discussing US-led air strikes against Iran. According to this Telegraph article, some members of the government believe that “an attack [by the US and/or Israel] is now all but inevitable,” if Tehran continues to pursue its enrichment program. Such attacks would have grave repercussions in the whole Middle East and beyond. "Cabal" Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks with Iran This Inter Press Service argues that in 2003 the Bush administration has deliberately avoided negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Tehran sought consultations and even offered to provide the names of the al-Qaeda operatives it had detained. Washington refused this offer, because a “secret cabal of neoconservatives” wanted to push for regime change in Tehran. Washington Seeks to Bully UN Security Council over Iran The Security Council is under intense pressure from the US to adopt a statement that will allow aggressive action against Iran. In language that recalls the period before the US invasion of Iraq, US Ambassador John Bolton warned that Washington’s patience was running out and that the “negotiating process was not indefinite.” Bolton also questioned the legitimacy and authority of the world body, declaring that “if the Security Council cannot deal with the greatest threat we have with a country like Iran, you have a real question of what it can deal with.” (World Socialist) Iran: Where Do We Go From Here? Why did the US take the case of Iran’s nuclear program to the Security Council if Washington knew that the five veto-holding powers would not reach consensus on sanctions against Tehran? According to this Uruknet article, the Bush administration’s intention was to increase suspicion about Iran’s nuclear program and mobilize public support for a war. The author warns that if the Security Council issues a presidential statement accusing Iran of developing a nuclear weapons program – even though there is “no evidence” of such program according to the IAEA – it will only strengthen Washington’s plans to attack Iran. Instead, the Council should take positive steps to diffuse the crisis, starting by supporting Iran’s rights under the Non Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium under the strict supervision of the IAEA. US Envoy Hints at Strike to Stop Iran This Guardian article reports that US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has openly voiced the possibility of a military strike against Iran. Bolton was quoted as having said to British members of Parliament that “you only have to take out one part of their (Iran’s) nuclear operation to take the whole thing down." Most other observers, including the CIA, remain skeptical about a military solution. US Marines Probe Tensions Among Iran’s Minorities The US marines’ intelligence wing contracted the Science Applications International Corporation to investigate Iran’s ethnic minorities, says the Financial Times. They studied whether Iran would be prone to a violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault lines that are splitting Iraq. This could mean that the US plans to actively destabilize the regime in Tehran. How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al Qaeda The US and Iran were on a course to cooperate in the fight against al Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002. However, neocon members of the Bush administration disrupted that cooperation, because they wanted to include Iran in the Axis of Evil. This Inter Press Service article draws on sources from the State Department and the National Security Council. Funding Regime Change This Asia Times article claims that the Bush Administration’s US$ 75 million plan to undermine the regime in Tehran will only have limited effects. The US has antagonized the target of this initiative – the Iranian civil society – with its aggressive foreign policy. Iranians still remember that the US tried several times before to topple the Iranian leadership with covert operations. WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran This article argues that the US actively seeks confrontation with Iran, using the alleged Iranian nuclear threat as a pretext. The real reasons are economic - the US wants to secure the vast fossil energy reserves. The US also seeks to safeguard the dollar as Iran plans to allow oil trading in euros in March 2006. (Common Dreams) Rice Seeks $75 Million to Spur Democracy Drive in Iran On top of US$10million already allocated in Iran for 2006, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested US$75 million extra to expand Washington’s media influence in the country. Allocating these funds to broadcast US radio and TV programs, Rice argues that the media campaign will inspire Iranian citizens to pursue “freedom and democracy.” Although Rice’s request attracted criticism from the Democratic and Republican party, she stated that the US will “actively confront the aggressive policies” of Tehran. (Daily Star-Lebanon) US Instigated Iran's Nuclear Policy in the '70s The Bush administration opposes Iran’s nuclear enrichment program even though Washington started Tehran’s nuclear development in the 1970s. After the oil crisis in 1972, Washington pursued investment opportunities in Iran, including selling Tehran nuclear plants and offering a “full nuclear cycle.” This Providence Journal article questions US motives behind a possible military action against Iran 30 years after having developed its nuclear facilities with “great enthusiasm.” Juggernaut Gathering Momentum, Headed for Iran This truthout article shows how Washington tries to prepare the US public for a war with Iran by constantly repeating how dangerous the country is. In support for this claim, the US is even manipulating pieces of intelligence or only using the intelligence deemed supportive. In addition, the article exposes how key figures from the Bush administration offered Iran a deal for nuclear facilities in the 1970s, jumpstarting Iran’s nuclear research. US Tries to Pressure Iran with Attack Stories This Washington Post article argues that while “all options [against Iran] are on the table,” the Bush administration focuses on covert commando operations to sabotage Iranian nuclear facilities. In addition, Washington sends high-level officials from the Central Intelligence Agency to Turkey and arranges “sensational” reports in the Turkish and German press to increase pressure on Tehran. Such leaks about a possible military action against Iran aim at forcing the country to make concessions over its nuclear enrichment program. And Now Iran Neoconservative William Kristol argues in this Weekly Standard article that the US should be willing to use military force to “halt the nuclear program of the Iranian regime.” Kristol criticizes European countries for being “generally hesitant and wishful” in dealing with Iran. Who's Afraid of Big, Bad Iran? The US is selective when it comes to condemning countries for violating the nuclear non-proliferation policy, Philip Bowring argues in this International Herald Tribune commentary. On the one hand, Washington aligns with nuclear countries such as Israel, Pakistan and India. On the other hand, the US condemns Iran’s resumption of nuclear activities, calling it a grand threat to the Middle East and the world. By bullying Iran, the US may shoot itself in the foot and give Tehran the incentive to develop nuclear technology. US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? Journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte argues that Washington is preparing for a military strike against Iran’s suspected nuclear sites early in 2006. Ulfkotte interprets CIA Director Porter Goss’s visit to Turkey as an attempt to win support from Ankara for Washington’s possible attack against Iran. While Washington discusses the use of force to bring Tehran “into line,” critics argue that an attack could instead increase support for Ahmadinejad’s regime in the region. (Spiegel) A Possible Israel-Iran War If the Security Council fails to put the Iranian nuclear issue on the agenda by the end of March 2006, Israel, backed by the US, declared it will attack secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. Israel fears that by April 2006, Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead. (Sunday Times) Iran and the United States: A Clash of Perceptions According to this openDemocracy article, Washington has viewed Tehran as the “real problem” in the Middle East since the downfall of the Shah. When Iran insisted on enriching its nuclear program, the Bush administration's view hardened still further. This article argues that following the intervention in Iraq, Washington has established permanent bases in the region to achieve greater control of the Middle East’s energy resources. This move can only lead to an increased tension between Washington and Tehran. Are We Going to War with Iran? Is the US threat to go to war with Iran real or is it just a scare tactic to get Iran to halt its nuclear program? Dan Plesch writes in the Guardian that Washington regards Iran as enough of a critical threat to warrant an attack. Indeed, US intelligence considers that while Iran is years from a nuclear weapons capability, “the technological point of no return is now imminent.” US Ambassador John Bolton warned that if the Security Council failed to deal with Iran’s alleged breach of its commitments on nuclear proliferation, “the US would solve the problem on its own.” Experts Predict US Attack on Iran Dan Plesch, Scott Ritter and Fred Halliday discuss the possibility of a US military operation against Iran. Focusing on the causes and consequences of a confrontation with Iran, these experts base their arguments on the Iraq experience, the Cold War era, and the history of US-Iran relations. Although the feasibility of military action or overthrow of the regime by Iranians may seem like a “fantasy,” Ritter asserts that “fantasy is reality in the neo-con’s Washington.” (Democrat's Diary) Iran's Nukes: Jack's Straw Man During his speech at the UN World Summit 2005, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad defended Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology in accordance with international treaties and regulations. The US and EU officials claimed that the speech was “very aggressive,” “disappointing and unhelpful.” His speech, however, emphasized “the double standards” over nuclear weaponry “that [allow] powerful states to access materials...while denying access to less powerful states.” (spiked) US Deploys Slide Show to Press Case against Iran During an August 2005 briefing in Vienna, US officials tried to convince their allies that Iran’s energy program aims at producing nuclear weapons. Although UN inspectors did not find “proof of a weapons program,” Washington wants to increase pressure on the Iranian government, and insists that the UN should impose sanctions against it. This article compares the briefing to the “the flawed presentation on Iraq’s weapons program” in the Security Council, and warns that the Iraq experience is still “fresh in the minds of international decision-makers.” (Washington Post) Don't Make Hollow Theats This Newsweek article argues that the Bush administration uses “hollow threats” against Iran to make it stop its nuclear development. US President George Bush stated that “all options are on the table,” in his response to Iran’s decision to resume its nuclear program. However, because Iran has well-hidden and scattered facilities and good economic relations with China and Russia, neither a military intervention nor comprehensive economic sanctions would likely produce a desired outcome for the US. Therefore, these threats, rather than influencing Iran’s nuclear development, help “cheapen [the US] credibility around the world.” The Iran War Buildup Michael Klare warns that there are striking similarities between the Bush administration’s activities before the invasion of Iraq, and its current attitude towards Iran. Citing evidence that the Defense Department has begun serious planning for military action against Iran, he urges the US government to halt such moves before it has built up an unstoppable momentum towards war. (The Nation) Anatomy of a Neocon Smear The US Neocons attempted to demonize Iran’s new president before he even took office, says TomPaine. From dismissals of the elections as “fixed” to claims that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the 1979 hostage takers at the US embassy, in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, the neocon establishment is trying to portray Iran’s leader as a hard-line fanatic the US cannot negotiate with. The US War with Iran Has Already Begun Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter compares the process which led to war in Iraq with current US-Iran relations to reach the frightening conclusion that the Bush administration’s policy of forcible regime change is well underway. "From its “liberation/democracy rhetoric” and the conditioning of public opinion, to covert operations and advanced logistical planning, he argues that the US march to war has begun. (al-Jazeera) Bush and Hawks Try Pre-Emptive Strike Vs. Iran Vote US President George W. Bush and a group of hard-line US “hawks” tried to discredit the Iranian elections before they took place, “the better to justify some kind of attack leading to regime change,” according to experts interviewed by Inter Press Service. Iran specialists say “some hardliners are trying to fit the facts into their preferred policy.” The hawks’ “orchestrated public-relations campaign” depicting the election as a sham is “simplistic at best, a deliberate distortion at worst.” Letter from Tehran: In Washington's Cross-Hairs The US “has not waited for the first ballot to be cast before dismissing Iran’s presidential election as rigged.” Truthout argues that this is “wishful thinking” stemming from the Washington neocons' “delusion that they can overthrow the Iranian regime with plenty of missiles.” In fact, American “bombast” is undermining genuine grassroot democratic change underway in Iran, strengthening the hand of hardliners for whom “a missile strike against Iran would be a godsend.” Trade Group to Start Talks to Admit Iran The United States has dropped a long-standing veto, allowing Iran to begin membership negotiations with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The US change of heart comes as an apparent reward for Iran’s agreement to halt its nuclear program. The US holds significant clout over WTO decisions, and although politics is not supposed to play a role in issues relating to WTO membership, membership negotiations with Iran are clearly conditional on the status of its nuclear program. (New York Times) Iran: Tehran Opposes US Pro-Democracy Initiatives The US has appropriated millions of dollars for Iran’s pro-democracy movement under the Iran Freedom Support Act, which ominously calls for holding the Iranian government accountable and supporting a “transition to democracy.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports that the initiatives have fostered “hatred against America” and that Iranian officials object to US meddling. However, the article fails to consider these enterprises as a cover-up for more aggressive US-sponsored regime change. Cheney’s Other Trick NIE ? Former CIA officer Ray McGovern refutes the Bush administration’s claims about dangers in Iran, likening the rising threats to the fabricated weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002 and warning that the real US reasons for intervention include “oil, Israel and a strategic presence in the region.” McGovern calls for an “honest” national intelligence estimate on Iran and hopes government officials will not “take the course of least resistance” in arguing about foreign policy. (TomPaine) US May Aid Iran Activists In another effort to spur regime change in Iran, the Bush administration may earmark $3 million for Iranian activists. But the administration’s inclination for “more creative solutions” to further “spread freedom” could backfire; several Iranians have harbored strong anti-US sentiments since the CIA-sponsored coup in 1953, and any US-sponsored activity could incite violence. As US-Iranian relations in the past make it clear, the administration “can’t buy political action.” (Los Angeles Times) Doomed to Fail Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter writes in the Baltimore Sun that the Bush administration must separate nonproliferation policies from those of regime change. Using Iraq as an example, Ritter warns that weapons of mass destruction do not serve as a good excuse for military intervention. Iran and North Korea have begun to develop nuclear weapons because of US aggression, he says, and the world could see a “nuclear apocalypse” if the US does not back down. Iran Vows to Down US Spy Planes: Blast Near Dam Sparks Panic Following media and civilian reports of unmanned drones spying on Iran’s nuclear sites, Tehran officials ordered the military not to engage but then authorized shooting down US spy planes. The announcement came after an unrelated explosion stirred tensions that the US was planning an attack, though US officials deny the allegation and instead claim the intelligence searches revolve around suspicions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. (DAWN) Iran's Choice The Wall Street Journal has "substantial reservations and doubts about Iran's good faith" with respect to the country's pledge to cease its uranium enrichment program. This article argues that Iran avoided Security Council referral by "negotiating a departure from the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) normal safeguards standards" and warns that this may set a precedent for further IAEA inspections. Conservative criticism aimed at the IAEA echoes US justification to invade Iraq and could serve as propaganda to legitimize US action against Iran. Military Rumblings on Iran This New York Times editorial likens the hints of US military intervention in Iran to the build-up of the Iraq war, and warns that the US has neither the troops nor the support to make such a move. Given the potential consequences of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities, the author urges the US government and European diplomats to present a firm line to the Iranian leadership: dismantle the nuclear program or “suffer severe economic penalties.” The Coming Wars Seymour Hersh uncovers a covert US military and intelligence campaign directed at Iran. The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has used the guise of “intelligence reform” to take over some of the CIA’s intelligence gathering and secret operations and place them even further outside of Congressional oversight. Pentagon operations may signal a growing commitment in Washington to topple Iran’s government. (New Yorker) Cheney Warns of Iran as A Nuclear Threat Denying Seymour Hersh’s article on covert US military operations in Iran, Vice President Dick Cheney said the Bush administration plans to “pursue diplomacy first” and propose UN Security Council sanctions if diplomacy fails. But Cheney warned that “all options are on the table,” and that Israel “might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess.” (Washington Post) Persian Dilemmas This Slate article debates the uncanny similarities between “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and the current Iran situation, where the US refuses to follow Europe’s advice for a “diplomatic solution.” Instead of a military intervention, it suggests a “serious US strategy of regime change” focusing on constructive bilateral relations with Iran. There Are Worse Things Than a Nuclear Iran This International Herald Tribune article challenges the US and EU assumption that they cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, saying "if the price for a democratic Iran is Tehran's being allowed to develop limited nuclear capabilities, then so be it." The author argues against military action, citing the proven inefficiency of a top-down approach to democracy, and claiming that military strikes would only enrage Islamists and isolate reformists. He also rules out the possibility of sanctions, saying that the world economy needs Iran's oil, and, as with military action, veto-wielding Security Council members would be unlikely to authorize them. Pentagon Turns Heat Up on Iran Following suspicions of uranium enrichment in Iran, the US government considers taking military action in the country, warning of “possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets.” (Observer) Today Iraq, Tomorrow Iran This article lists 21 mistaken predictions of the US administration in its invasion of Iraq. The author suggests that the US government may consider a “pre-emptive” attack on Iran to “distract the American people from their catastrophic and incompetent record.” (Salon.com) Shifting the War to Iran Columnist Charles Krauthammer supports a US war against Iran, but former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends “selective political engagement” with the Iranian regime. This Znet commentary presents their arguments, concluding that Krauthammer and Brzezinski share the long-term goal of US control over the Middle East’s energy reserves. Furthermore, the author suggests that Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard is the blueprint for US foreign policy, and not the Project for a New American Century as many people believe. Iran in Bush's Sights The 9/11 commission’s attempt to show links between Iran and al-Qaeda is part of a campaign to justify a US war against Iran, writes Middle East scholar Juan Cole. Arguing that the alleged relationship between Iran’s regime and Sunni militants is extremely unlikely, Cole asks who benefits from these claims and the war that they could help to bring about. (Informed Comment) Regime Change in Iran Now in Bush's Sights According to a government official, if US President George W. Bush wins the November election “there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran.” The US will act to provoke revolts against the current Iranian regime, rather than using overt military action to overthrow it. (Sunday Herald) The Next War In “An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror,” Washington’s hawks Richard Perle and David Frum present an agenda for how to proceed in the “War on Terror.” The authors propose a US sponsored regime change in Iran, a military blockade of North Korea, and "economic quarantine" for Syria, and state that France should be treated as an “enemy.” (TomPaine) plz pray, Sardarzada |
Mission impossible? US-Iran
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
The US decision to hold a direct dialogue with Tehran over Iraq coupled with a policy of isolating Iran over the nuclear-weapons issue and Washington's often-stated goal of regime change might seem like mission impossible, yet some decision-makers in Washington would argue that under the present circumstances these objectives can in fact be pursued simultaneously. But no matter what transpires from the dialogue over Iraq, the administration of US President George W Bush faces a problem about if and how really to pursue the policy of regime change in Iran, which has been formally articulated under the guise of a new US$75 million fund to undermine the rule of the theocrats and promote democracy in Iran that was announced recently by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Many in the US Congress, pushing for a similar result under the rubric of the Iran Freedom Act, argue that by opting to have any kind of dialogue with Iran, the Bush administration might be diverted from what they consider the real mission. Some US lawmakers insist that the US should recognize the exiled opposition group the People's Mujahideen Organization (Mujahideen-e Khalq, or MEK), even though it is deemed a terrorist organization by the Department of State. For the moment, however, enough concrete signals have been received from Tehran to confirm a positive reaction to the US overtures. These were initially expressed by Rice at a congressional hearing last October, wherein she stated that she had authorized the US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to meet with his Iranian counterpart. Subsequently, Khalilzad confirmed that both the president and the secretary of state had given him explicit authorization for this purpose. As of this writing, the date and time of the dialogue have not been finalized and, by all indications, both sides are engaged in an intense pre-talks session, sending mixed feelers toward each other and demonstrating that they have both arrived at a rather awkward moment in which neither party quite knows how to begin. For instance, no sooner had the Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei given his blessing to the dialogue than a US spokesperson raised questions about "the curious timing" and suggested that Iran's decision was due to the international pressure over the nuclear issue. In turn, through its mission to the United Nations, Iran reacted rather negatively, reminding everyone that Tehran had not initiated the idea of dialogue. Hence the fate of the dialogue is contingent on the state of the Iraq crisis, or the nuclear crisis, each of which tends to act as a brake on the other. The fact that the Arab world has also raised serious questions about the talks between Iran and the US over their heads cannot be altogether ignored either, even though, objectively speaking, the Arabs should welcome any thaw in the US-Iran relations. It is bound to benefit the cause of peace in the Middle East. At this stage the most important thing the two parties can do is set the ground rules for a constructive dialogue, one that will be something more than a "dialogue of the deaf" where both sides talk past each other. Dialogue is a style of communication that, to quote the philosopher Martin Buber, encourages "tolerance and civility". There is a huge difference, however, between a genuine two-way engagement on the one hand and a distorted, pseudo-monological dialogue on the other. Another problem is somehow to insulate the issue of US-Iran dialogue and/or rapprochement from the competitive contingencies of electoral politics in both the US and Iran, which have so far proved yet another brake on the omnibus of such a dialogue. Lessons from the past Unfortunately, for the past quarter of a century, US-Iran relations have been predominantly, though by no means exclusively, of a monological nature - the 2001 dialogue on Afghanistan being an exception. Both sides have dwelt mainly on points of disagreement, have subsumed dialogue to their conflicting geostrategic jockeying and have evinced studied indifference to the other side's interests and concerns. In the worst of times, they have wrapped their direct or indirect dialogue in comparative discourses of antagonism and even annihilation. One of Iran's enduring complaints, most recently aired by Iran's envoy to the UN on the popular television program The Charlie Rose Show, is that all Iran got for its cooperation on the anti-Taliban campaign in Afghanistan in 2001 was to be labeled a part of the "axis of evil" in President Bush's January 2002 State of the Union speech. There is, in other words, a thick residue of distrust by both sides that would require a tremendous effort to overcome. Learning from the past can come in handy today, in light of the rather endless series of half-steps stretching back to the hostage crisis of 1979. Ideally, both Washington and Tehran need to express an explicit desire to improve relations with each other, as the very manifestation of such a desire is a powerful antidote to the harsh polemics of the past. Clearly, significant hurdles on the path of rapprochement remain and, as a result, a further deterioration of relations is by no means improbable. Suggested ground rules 1. Each side must strive for a clear understanding of the other side's interests as well as problems. This is both a precondition and a result of dialogue, and it requires serious homework in advance. Thus, for example, the US must put the recent impressive week-long military exercise in the Persian Gulf in the context of Iran's post-September 2001 security worries, instead of misconstruing them as a sign of militarism or offensive purposes. 2. Each side should have a clear understanding of its own interests and priorities. This implies an eagerness to articulate one's position and a willingness to have it scrutinized. Part of the United States' problem, therefore, is to engage in some strenuous intramural debate about the long-term purpose of its military presence in Iraq: Is it designed mainly as an anti-Iran deterrence force or something else? As for Iran, there is need for much greater public debate on whether or not the time for normalization of relations with the US has arrived and how this is likely to impact Iran's national interests. With respect to Iraq and its current dangerous descent toward a civil war and the potential for spillover into Iran and other neighboring countries, both sides need to express their determination to halt this unwanted situation in favor of peace and stability in the region. 3. Each side must work to "water down" differences with the other side. This can be achieved by analytically distinguishing between differences, separating those that preclude normalization from those that can be accepted within normal diplomatic relations. Examples of this can be found in the diplomatic history of both countries, such as America's relations with Russia and China and Iran's relations with the other Persian Gulf states. This distinction helps to winnow the list of differences and rank them either as corresponding interests, such as combating terrorism; conflicting interests, such as US unilateralism in the Gulf and parallel interests, such as Gulf stability, Iraq's national unity and the containment of Iraq's civil strife. There is always the possibility that some of the differences may turn out to be less divisive than hitherto thought, such as the Iranian antipathy to a transitional US-led multinational military presence until the situation in Iraq is stabilized. In light of this possibility, each side must exhibit a genuine willingness to revise its understanding and interpretation of the other side. A chief prerequisite for all this is Washington's understanding that stability is not a one-way phenomenon, and that US power does not by itself necessarily guarantee stability. As with China, US relations with Iran will most likely be buffeted by various problems for the foreseeable future with or without diplomatic normalization. Yet instead of coercive diplomacy, the US would be well advised to implement the options of conciliation and negotiation. 4. Each side must maintain a constant willingness to engage in sustained, constructive dialogue instead of half-hearted attempts without meaningful follow-ups. To minimize the effects of discontinuity, a preliminary roadmap for dialogue agreed upon by both sides is needed, so that a movement toward improved relations is not stalled by any counter-dialogue momentum it generates. Also, it requires a continuous "positive signaling" that incrementally prepares public opinion in both countries for normalization. A good example is an opinion article by Iran's envoy to the UN, Mohammad Javad Zarif, reiterating Iran's anti-nuclear-weapons stance that was published simultaneously in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. 5. Both sides must strive to engage in dialogue in good faith. This means avoiding public arguments over who made the first move, as well as avoiding the perception that dialogue is for political "expediency" and not aimed at the possibility of any eventual good emerging from the discussions. Unfortunately, the climate for US-Iran dialogue today is rife with serious misgivings about the other side's motives and characterized by a running mill of accusations and counter-accusations. Some elements in the US recently attacked Iran for allegedly being a haven for al-Qaeda terrorists, and this author was struck, in the course of listening to a recent interview by the Voice of America, about how determined are the efforts to make this allegation stick at this sensitive juncture. In response, the author pointed at the varying positions of the UN Security Council's Committee Concerning al-Qaeda, Taliban, and the Associated Individuals and Entities, praising Iran's cooperation with this committee. In conclusion, lingering suspicion about motives can be cleared away by deepening the process of dialogue and broadening its scope by initiating a North Korea multilateral dialogue, for instance. Questions about the motives and intentions can be cleared up, however, only when the discrete issue of Iraq's stability is telescoped into the larger issues blocking normalization. Perpetuation of ill-will between the two countries is guaranteed as long as they continue to shun direct dialogue on the "mother of all issues" - the nuclear issue. plz pray, Sardarzada |
| 07:45 PM (GMT +5) |
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.