Iranian army soldiers march during the Army Day military parade in Tehran – April 18, 2007
Iran’s military chiefs warned on Saturday that the Islamic republic would shut down the Strait of Hormuz vital for oil exports and use “blitzkrieg tactics” in the Gulf if it came under attack.
“All the countries should know that if Iran’s interests in the region are ignored, it is natural that we will not allow others to use it (the strait),” said army chief General Hassan Firouzabadi, quoted by the Fars news agency.
However, Iran’s armed forces joint chief of staff stressed his country’s priority was that the Strait of Hormuz remain open.
Speculation has been rife that Israel could be planning a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites, using force to halt Tehran’s controversial atomic activities.
The chief of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards militia, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, meanwhile, warned that his forces would use “blitzkrieg tactics” in the Gulf if his country came under attack.
“The Guards are equipped with the most advanced missiles that can strike the enemies’ vessels and naval equipment with fatal blows,” Fars quoted the Guards chief as saying.
In case of attack, “blitzkrieg tactics and operations of the Guards’ boats will not leave a chance for the enemies to run away.”
“These words do not mean that the prerequisites of war are being set but these are the strategies that our alert armed forces have prepared for any hypothesis,” he added.
The new commander of the US Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral William Gortney, said on Saturday that the American naval presence in the region was “a very clear message that we are here to maintain security and to provide stability.”
“The chief of naval operations wanted me here, I think, because of my experience,” Gortney, who was navy chief during the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, told reporters in Bahrain where the fleet is based.
His predecessor, Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff, has warned that Fifth Fleet would not allow Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The strait between Iran and Oman is a vital conduit for energy supplies, with as much as 40 percent of the world’s crude passing through the strategic waterway.
US President George W. Bush has not ruled out using force in the nuclear standoff between Iran and the West, but emphasised that he preferred a diplomatic solution.
Iran insists its atomic drive is peaceful, but Western powers fear Tehran is using the programme to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran Says Attack on Atomic Sites to Be `Start of War’
Iran will view an attack on its nuclear facilities as an act of war and will respond, the head of the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said.
“Any act on Iran will be considered the start of war,” General Mohammad Ali Jaafari told reporters yesterday in response to questions about the threat of an Israeli strike on Iranian atomic sites, according to remarks carried today on the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency. Jaafari also said he thought it is unlikely such an attack would be carried out.
The U.S. and many of its allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists the program is aimed at producing electricity. Iran today will present its response to incentives from world powers intended to persuade the country to suspend work to enrich uranium, Agence France-Presse reported. The material can fuel a power station or arm a nuclear weapon.
Reports that Israel may attack Iran have boosted oil prices. If attacked, Iran will “impose control” on the Strait of Hormuz, Jaafari said on June 28. About 20 percent of the world’s daily supply of oil passes through the strait. Crude for August delivery rose $5.08, or 3.6 percent, to $145.29 a barrel this week on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures reached $145.85 a barrel yesterday, the highest since trading began in 1983.
Iranian Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari, who was in Madrid for the World Petroleum Congress, yesterday reiterated his nation’s pledge to respond to any strike.
Impact on Markets
“Iran’s stance in this connection against enemies is clear, vivid and strong,” Nozari told the Iranian news agency before leaving Madrid. “Oil is an energy and industry for peace and its durability depends on peace and security. So, any tension in any region, especially in the Persian Gulf, which is the major supplier of the main part of the world’s energy, will have an impact on the energy market which is principally unpredictable.”
Israel is increasingly likely to attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, a U.S. Defense Department official told ABC News.
Iran’s government dismissed as propaganda the ABC report on the unidentified Pentagon official’s comments. Israeli government officials declined to comment on the report.
In the U.S., Pentagon spokesmen Bryan Whitman declined to address the report. “I don’t comment for Israel,’’ he said. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he had “no information that would substantiate’’ the ABC report and criticized the official for not speaking publicly.
An Israeli strike might be triggered by the production of enough enriched uranium at Iran’s Natanz nuclear plant to make a bomb, ABC cited the official as saying. A second possible trigger would be the delivery of a Russian SA-20 air-defense system, the installation of which would make an Israeli attack more difficult, the U.S. official told ABC.
A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.
The onetime undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.
The former operative alleged in a 2004 lawsuit that the CIA fired him after he repeatedly clashed with senior managers over his attempts to file reports that challenged the conventional wisdom about weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Key details of his claim have not been made public because they describe events the CIA deems secret.
The consensus view on Iran’s nuclear program shifted dramatically last December with the release of a landmark intelligence report that concluded that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons design in 2003. The publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran undermined the CIA’s rationale for censoring the former officer’s lawsuit, said his attorney, Roy Krieger.
“On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all,” Krieger said in an interview.
In court documents and in statements by his attorney, the former officer contends that his 22-year CIA career collapsed after he questioned CIA doctrine about the nuclear programs of Iraq and Iran. As a native of the Middle East and a fluent speaker of both Farsi and Arabic, he had been assigned undercover work in the Persian Gulf region, where he successfully recruited an informant with access to
sensitive information about Iran’s nuclear program, Krieger said.
The informant provided secret evidence that Tehran had halted its research into designing and building a nuclear weapon. Yet, when the operative sought to file reports on the findings, his attempts were “thwarted by CIA employees,” according to court papers. Later he was told to “remove himself from any further handling” of the informant, the documents say.
In the months after the conflict, the operative became the target of two internal investigations, one of them alleging an improper sexual relationship with a female informant, and the other alleging financial improprieties. Krieger said his client cooperated with investigators in both cases and the allegations of wrongdoing were never substantiated. Krieger contends in court documents that the investigations were a “pretext to discredit.”
Krieger maintains that his client is being further punished by the agency’s decision prohibiting him from fully regaining his identity. “He is not even allowed to attend court hearings about his own case,” Krieger said.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on the specifics of the case but flatly rejected the allegation that the agency had suppressed reports. “It would be wrong to suggest that agency managers direct their officers to falsify the intelligence they collect or to suppress it for political reasons,” he said. “That’s not our policy. That’s not what we’re about.”
Republican congressman Ron Paul warns against military engagement in Iran, saying ‘bombing Iran’ will cause energy prices to skyrocket.
In a speech on the House floor, Congressman Paul suggested that the US is inching toward an ‘endless struggle’ similar to the Iraq war.
“In the last several weeks, if not for months we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple,” said the Republican.
“To me it is almost like deja vu all over again. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in the correct manner, we did not declare war, we are there and it is an endless struggle,” he told a nearly empty House chamber.
“I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran,” said the war veteran.
The 72-year-old former presidential candidate then blasted what he called the ‘virtual Iran war resolution’, which is soon to be considered by the House of Representatives.
“This resolution, House Resolution 362 is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe,” Paul said.
Supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), House Resolution 362 (and the Senate version Resolution 580), known as the ‘Iran War Resolution’ can be considered a means of imposing harsher sanctions as well as a naval blockade restricting exports to the oil-rich country.
This bill, which was introduced at an AIPAC annual policy conference, has gained 208 co-sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate. It will likely be put to a vote after July 4.
“The fear is, they say, maybe some day, [Iran is] going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate has said that the Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003,” continued the 10-term congressman.
The US and Israel accuse Tehran of making efforts to produce nuclear weapons; Iran insists its nuclear program is directed at peaceful purposes.
The most recent UN nuclear watchdog report on Tehran’s nuclear program, however, has conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and ‘the alleged studies’ of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries.
“This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this?” asked Paul.
Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”
But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.
One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.
A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”
Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.
Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”
But Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power.
Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.
Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.
“They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.
Any Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the program’s infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel’s ability at this time.
But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran’s ability to detect planes flying at low altitude.
Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel’s attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded.
For both the United States and Israel, Iran’s nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran’s work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.
In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran’s suspected work on nuclear matters was a “matter of serious concern” and that the Iranians owed the agency “substantial explanations.”
Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq’s nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein’s program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea.
The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.
Pentagon officials said that Israel’s air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission.
Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel’s military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah.
“They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they’re ready,” the Pentagon official said. “They’re not taking any options off the table.”
ISRAEL’S Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has warned the radical Islamic movement Hamas that the truce due to take effect today is the last chance to avoid a massive military incursion into the Gaza Strip.
In an exclusive interview with the Herald – his first interview with the Australian media in four years – Mr Olmert said the people of Gaza were “pissed off with Hamas” and sick and tired of the years of violence.
Since Israel withdrew from Gaza three years ago, the 250,000 residents who surround Gaza have been subjected to almost daily rocket attacks from Palestinian militants.
“You think the people of Adelaide would put up with this?” demanded Mr Olmert. “Or the people of Brisbane?
“I think the strategy of Hamas, which does not want to recognise Israel’s right to exist in the first place, and the extremism, and the fanaticism, and the religious dogmatism is the enemy of peace. We are at the end of our tolerance with regard to terror in Gaza.”
Dismissing an escalating corruption investigation which looks certain to force either his resignation or fresh elections by November, Mr Olmert said he was “going nowhere” and did not rule out running again for the leadership of his Kadima party.
So certain is Mr Olmert of his political survival that he has already sent an invitation for Kevin Rudd to visit Israel later this year.
“I don’t know yet personally enough the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, but I am very impressed with his friendship and his commitment to the well-being of the state of Israel,” Mr Olmert said.
The Greek Air Force says it partook in an Israeli military exercise which is regarded as a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran.
Greek sources speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed a New York Times report that Israel’s military maneuvers which were carried out earlier this month off the southern Mediterranean island of Crete, were preparations for a future war with the Islamic Republic.
The Greek source, however, assured that no terrestrial targets were involved as the operation was mainly aimed at personnel training.
According to a New York Times report, more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the military drills which involved simulated aerial combat, attacks on terrestrial targets, aerial refueling, and search and rescue missions.
The United States is moving closer to ordering a limited attack on Iranian Revolutionary Guard installations, a military intelligence group reports.
The operation would target training camps and munitions factories that assist Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah and terrorist groups in Gaza, DEBKAfile.com, a military intelligence Web site, reported Tuesday, quoting sources in Washington.
U.S. President George Bush in May said talk of a military action of some kind against Iran is “highly speculative.””I’ve always made it clear that options are on the table, but, you know, the biggest weapon we have against those who can’t stand freedom is the advance of freedom,” he said.Iran reportedly is preparing counter measures, perhaps on a larger scale, the Web site said.
“Iran’s Armed Forces are fully prepared to counter any military attack with any intensity and to make the enemy regret initiating any such incursions,” Iran defense minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar said Sunday.
The Revolutionary Guard has completed preparations for a U.S. attack on their bases, DEBKAfile.com said, and have evacuated training camps and bases.
“Cover meeting held at British embassy in Washington: A meeting held at the British embassy in Washington, DC on May 30 was billed as one dealing with common military strategy on Russia. However, the presence of a US Marine Brigadier General and his aides, a Captain and a Corporal, raised eyebrows. The meeting actually dealing with the subject of military preparedness in the Sultanate of Oman, opposite the Strait of Hormuz from Iran.
In March, Vice President Dick Cheney visited Oman. Although Cheney denied it, the trip to Oman was designed to enlist the Omanis’ support in a U.S. military assault on Iran. The May 30 meeting at the British embassy is an indication that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government, battered in a series of recent elections, may see a war with Iran as a way to boost its polling against the Tories.
The British embassy in Washington is next to the US Naval Observatory, the official residence of Vice President Cheney.”
The U.S. and Britain use five air bases in Oman, including the island base of Masirah and bases at Thumrait, Salalah, and Seeb. Another newer air base, Al-Musanah, west of the capital Muscat, is capable of handling B-52s.”
It’s Insane to Attack Iran, Devastating Consequences: Chris Hedges
Recent statements coming from one of Russia’s highest-ranking military commanders indicate that America and Israel plan to go ahead with war on Iran despite the release of the National Intelligence Estimate late last year.
Russia’s military chief of staff General Yuri Baluyevsky threatened the use of nuclear weapons in case of a major threat. He said that, although they have no plans of attacking anyone, they nevertheless “consider it necessary for everyone around the world community to clearly understand, that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including, preventively, the use of nuclear weapons.”
His statements (which can only have been made in concert with the overall policies established by his boss President Vladimir Putin) come a week after George Bush’s visit to the Persian Gulf, in which he attempted to rally the nations in that region around U.S. and Israeli plans of “confronting Iran’s nuclear program before it is too late.”
What Vietnam Veterans Think of John McCain
This is the “REAL” John McCain in living color seen belittling Delores Alfond, head of the National Alliance of POW/MIA whose brother went missing in action in Vietnam . . .
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain says the US and its European allies will adopt unilateral sanctions against Iran.
He stated that if the UN is not prepared to impose stronger political and economic sanctions, the United States and its European partners will take such measures.
He also said that a military solution should remain on the table as a last resort and that Iran is playing ‘a game it cannot win’.
“I intend to make it unmistakably clear to Iran that we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of … Israel . . .and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions,” Suddeutschen Zeitung quoted the senator as saying.
The recently published US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has confirmed that Iran is not developing nuclear arms.
Iran says under the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) it is entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and that its nuclear activities are aimed at civilian purposes.
Nato must prepare to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks to ward off the use of weapons of mass destruction by its enemies, a group of former senior military officials has warned.
Calling for a major change to Nato’s approach to defending its members and their interests, the authors of the report, which has been handed to Nato and Pentagon chiefs, said the first-strike use of nuclear weapons was a “indispensable instrument”.
The authors of the blueprint for reforming Nato are understood to include Lord Peter Inge, the former British chief of the defence staff and US General John Shalikashvili, the former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff.
“The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible,” the report said.
“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”
The document reportedly includes Lord Inge’s comments on the controversy surrounding nuclear weapons policy: “To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence.”
The report called for a wholesale reform of Nato and a new pack between Nato, the US and the European union in order to tackle modern military and “terrorist threats” to the West.
It warned the spread of nuclear technology meant there was “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.
“Terrorism”, “political fanaticism” and “religious fundamentalism” were major threats to the West, and organised crime, climate change and migration on a mass scale posed dangers to the way of life of Nato members.
The report’s authors also cited the weakening of global alliances, including the United Nations.
The authors have proposed major changes to the way Nato operates, including abandoning consensus decision making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and caveats imposed by some nations.
They also called for military action without ratification by the UN in cases where “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”.
The report was compiled after authors were briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to speak publicly about their concerns with Nato’s military strategy.
A senior advisor to Rudy Giuliani says the next Chief Executive must discharge President Bush’s ‘responsibility’ of waging war on Iran.
Writing for the February edition of Commentary, Norman Podhoretz said if the next US president doesn’t have the ‘courage’ to attack Iran, the outcome will be catastrophic for Washington.
“We had all better pray that there will be enough time for the next president to discharge the responsibility that Bush will have been forced to pass on,” Podhoretz added.
“If not – God help us all – the stage will have been set for the outbreak of a nuclear war that will become as inescapable then as it is avoidable now,” continued the 78-year-old politician.
Podhoretz, who is the foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, stated last year that President George W. Bush would attack Iran under the pretense of frustrating Tehran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’.
This is while the neocon Czar admitted the December 3 US National Intelligence Estimate, which conceded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, made it ‘politically impossible’ for the Bush administration to launch a military strike on Iran.
Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Monday that Israel may have to take military action to prevent its archfoe Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. Bolton also said that further UN sanctions against the Islamic republic will be ineffective in stopping Iran’s controversial nuclear programme which Israel and the US believe is aimed at developing a bomb — a claim denied by Tehran. “One can say with some assurance that in the next year the use of force by the United States is highly unlikely,” Bolton told AFP on the sidelines of the Herzliya conference on the balance of Israel’s national security. “That increases the pressure on Israel in that period of time… if it feels Iran is on the verge of acquiring that capability, it brings the decision point home to use force,” he said.
The hawkish former diplomat said that after a US intelligence report published late last year that claimed Iran had suspended a nuclear weapons programme in 2003, the US was unlikely to take military action against it.
“The pressure is on Israel now after the National Intelligence Estimate because, I think, the likelihood of American use of force has been dramatically reduced,” he said.
Widely considered the Middle East’s sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel considers Iran its number one enemy following repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
Bolton said that military action against Iran should be taken before Tehran acquires a bomb.
“The calculus in the region changes dramatically once Iran has nuclear capability, meaning the preemptive use of force or the overthrow of the Iranian regime has to come before they get the weapon,” Bolton said.
“If you are worried about an Iran with nuclear weapons and an extreme theological regime in power, the time to take the plan of action is before Iran acquires the weapons.
“Once it acquires the weapons there is a risk of retaliation with nuclear capability and that’s why Israel is in danger — it is a very small country and two or three nuclear weapons (and) there is no more country. The pressure to act is intensive and the window of time available is narrow.”
Bolton also said that despite Iranian threats to hit hard if it is attacked, “their response will be a lot more measured than people think.”
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week said that all options were on the table to prevent an Iranian bomb. The Israeli military last week also successfully test-fired a ballistic missile said to be able to carry a non-conventional warhead.
Bolton said that a new round of United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran was “unlikely” and that Tehran would not be deterred by further diplomatic sanctions.
“Maybe there will be another resolution but it will be even more toothless than the previous two sanction resolutions… International pressure through diplomacy of sanction has no chance of shifting Iran’s policies over the next year.”
A senior Israeli security official said in reaction that “one should listen very closely to what Bolton has to say.”
In the June 2007 issue of Commentary, neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz laid out “The Case for Bombing Iran,” in which he argued that “the only prudent–indeed, the only responsible–course” is to “strike” Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.” Though the recent NIE has slowed down hawkish belligerence towards Iran a bit, Podhoretz is still arguing that President Bush should take “military action” against Iran “soon.”
Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and even more millions of lives can be saved–but only provided that we summon up the courage to see what is staring us in the face and then act on what we see.
Podhoretz isn’t alone in his desire to keep pushing for an attack on Iran. Ever since Podhoretz’s recent article was released online, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt has been promoting it, encouraging his audience to “read the whole thing. Twice.” Hewitt has also been asking his guests, including New York Times columnist William Kristol, if they agree with Podhoretz’s assessment. Scarily, they do.
HEWITT: Bill Kristol, do you think it is possible, not even likely, but just possible that the Bush administration will take military action against Iran in their last year?
KRISTOL: I think it’s possible. I think people were a little too quick after that National Intelligence Estimate came out, which was, I think, an attempt by the intelligence agencies to prevent the Bush administration from sort of seriously considering taking action. And I think people were too quick to say ooh, that rules it out, you know, they’re just paralyzed for the next year.
If we had a CIA that actually did anything, as opposed to sitting around Langley reading e-mail all day, we would be able to do that. But because we haven’t done that, the bombing option is becoming the only one that will be left, if not for this president, then for somebody.
HEWITT: Do you think President Bush needs to authorize air strikes against Iran now?
PODHORETZ: Yes, I do. The question is whether he will, although I thought, I was pretty confident that he would before the National Intelligence Estimate came out in early December. I still think in the end, he will order air strikes before he leaves office. But I am, as the NIE would say, I offer that prediction now with only low to moderate confidence.
HH: Well, I agree with your assessment of what has to happen.
With their desire to bomb Iran undeterred by the NIE, Hewitt and company are presumably pleased with President Bush’s repeated efforts to distance himself from the report.
George Galloway vs neocon David Frum on the subject of a supposed Iranian threat
US President George W. Bush promised Israel’s opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu that the United States will join the Jewish state in a nuclear strike against Iran, Israel Radio reported today.
Former Prime Minister Netanyahu, opposition Likud party’s hardline chairman who opposes the US-backed Annapolis peace process, reiterated to President Bush his stance, that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran’s nuclear installations was the only way to stop the Islamic nation’s nuclear weapons ambitions.
“I told him my position and Bush agreed,” Netanyahu told Israel Radio.
During their 45-minute meeting at King David hotel in Jerusalem Netanyahu also told Bush that “Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity.”
President Bush issued a stark warning to Iran over Strait of Hormuz incident, saying that “all options are on the table to protect our assets.”
“There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple,” Bush said during the joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem. “And my advice to them is, don’t do it.”
Bush criticized those who interpret the National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003, as a sign that Iran was no longer a threat.
“Let me remind you what the NIE actually said,” Bush stold reporters. “It said that as far as the intelligence community could tell, at one time the Iranians had a military — covert military program that was suspended in 2003 because of international pressure. My attitude is that a non-transparent country, a country which has yet to disclose what it was up to, can easily restart a program.”
Israel is keeping all options on the table if economic and diplomatic pressure fails to halt archfoe Iran’s nuclear programme, Israel’s ambassador to the United States said on Thursday.
“In assessing the threat from Iran we see in sync and think similarly. Both America and Israel understand the severity of the threat, the implication of the threat if it grows,” Israel’s US Ambassador Sallai Meridor said.
He spoke a day after visiting US President George W. Bush met Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem at the start of his regional visit for talks that focused on the Islamic republic.
“Both the US and Israel would prefer seeing this threat removed through diplomatic-economic means without any need to take other steps,” he said.
Asked if a military strike was a realistic option, Meridor said “both the US and Israel haven’t removed any option from the table,”
“All options are on the table, not only in the future. They are on the table if we get to the point, and I hope we don’t get to the point, that diplomactic and economic preferred alternatives will fail to produce the hoped for results.”
International support for new sanctions on Iran has been waning since a US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in early December said that the Islamic republic had halted a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
Israel considers the Islamic republic its main regional threat in the wake of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repeated statements for it to be wiped off the map.
Widely considered to be the Middle East’s sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel along with the US suspects that Tehran’s nuclear programme is a cover for developing atomic weapons, a charge Iran denies.
Desperate for a Gulf of Tonkin style incident to reinvigorate momentum for an attack on Iran after the National Intelligence Estimate derailed the push for war, the Pentagon is crying foul over the alleged hostile intent of Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats after an incident in the Strait of Hormuz this weekend.
In what U.S. officials called a serious provocation, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to explode the American vessels, reports the Associated Press.U.S. forces were on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats in the early Sunday incident, when the boats turned and moved away, a Pentagon official said. “It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we’ve seen yet,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Of course, the hyping of such an incident is directly timed to correlate with Bush’s visit to the middle east this week in which he will make a desperate attempt to resurrect the boogeyman of Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.
He will also be briefed by Israeli security officials about “Iran’s nuclear programme – and how it could be destroyed,” reports the London Times.
But that matters not to war junkie Neo-Cons who will use any pretext to send more American boys and girls into the imperial meat-grinder in the interests of middle eastern hegemony and corporate blood money.
Numerous respected public figures, from Ron Paul to Zbigniew Brzezinski have warned that a Gulf of Tonkin style stunt could be pulled as a pretext for air strikes on Iran.
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the Bush administration has considered staging incidents as a justification for war. During Bush’s January 31 2003 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a scenario whereby Saddam Hussein would be goaded into shooting down a U2 spy plane painted in UN colors was discussed.
An Iranian official has dismissed Washington’s claims that IRGC speedboats harassed three US navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz.
The US vessels approached the Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, warning they were in the red zone, the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Press TV on Monday.
He added that the Iranians had asked the warships to identify themselves, as such radio communications are usual between vessels in the Persian Gulf.
Although the Pentagon claimed that US sailors were given orders to open fire on the Iranian boats, the official confirmed no hostile encounter took place.
A former senior CIA analyst says the United States and Israel are planning war against Iran before the next presidential election.
Ray McGovern said Monday despite a recent National Intelligence Estimate conceding that Iran is not conducting a nuclear weapons program, a joint US and Israeli war on the Islamic Republic is likely to happen.
The former analyst expounded that the close American relationship with Israel, which alleges Iran is a threat to its existence and to the international community, is the driving force behind a potential strike.
McGovern called on those wishing to prevent a military conflict with Iran to voice their opposition to President Bush’s headstrong approach towards Tehran and its nuclear program.
Although the report by US intelligence services has meant another embarrassment for the White House over its accusation against Tehran, the US president seems to be indifferent to the assessment.
President Bush, who is scheduled to visit Jerusalem in January, bald-facedly continues his rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, claiming Tehran poses a threat to the international community.
Former US Intelligence official: Israel will attack Iran
“I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran,” Bruce Riedel, a former career CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents – including George W. Bush – on Middle East and South Asian issues, told Newsweek Thursday, citing conversations he had with Mossad and Israeli defense officials.
“And that was before the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). This makes it even more likely. Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened,” the American magazine quoted Riedel as saying in an article titled, “What will Israel do?”.
Published in early December, the American NIE determined that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
According to Newsweek, “a rising tide of opinion in Israel’s intelligence and national-security circles believes that the NIE does signal American retreat-and, more profoundly, renewed Israeli isolation over what is deemed an existential threat out of Tehran.”
‘Israel has gotten away with it’
The magazine quoted Knesset Member Ephraim Sneh, a former deputy defense minister who has “warned for years that Israel would eventually have to confront Iran alone,” as saying that “today we are closer to this situation than we were three weeks ago … we have to be prepared to forestall this threat on our own.”
David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington told Newsweek that Israel was likely encouraged by the non-reaction to their September air strike on a reported Syrian nuclear facility, “which may have been a test run for Iran, or at least a warning directed at Tehran”.
“Israel has gotten away with it in a sense,” Albright was quoted as saying. He suggested that any Israeli pre-emptive action might not be a “traditional strike” but could involve more “sabotage of equipment”.
Newsweek said Israel also knows that the Arab states are “terrified of an Iranian nuclear power, possibly to the point of looking the other way at another such strike”.
Read Full Article Here
US President George W. Bush insisted Iran was “dangerous” Tuesday and would be more so if it began enriching uranium, stepping up warnings a week after a US report said Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program.“Iran is dangerous and they will be even more dangerous if they learn how to enrich uranium,” Bush said after meeting his Italian counterpart Giorgio Napolitano.
Bush said Tehran had an obligation to disclose all of its past nuclear activities, and added he had expressed to Napolitano his “deep concern about Iran.”
His comments came after a surprise joint report released last week by 16 US intelligence agencies said Iran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Bush had escalated his warnings that Iran posed a threat in recent months and pushed for tougher sanctions, amid growing talk of a US military strike against it.
The White House promptly responded by insisting Iran still posed a threat.
“Iran is dangerous, we believe Iran had a secret military weapons program and Iran must explain to the world why they had a program,” Bush said Tuesday.
ISRAEL has warned Iran to either co-operate with the West over its uranium enrichment program or face military action.
Ron Prosor, Israel’s newly appointed ambassador to Britain and one of his country’s leading experts on Iran’s nuclear program, said that Tehran could enrich enough uranium to make an atomic bomb by 2009.
“At the current rate of progress, Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009,” he said.
“This is a global threat and it requires a global response.
“It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation.”
Mr Prosor, who served Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, as his senior adviser on Iran, said that time for resolving the nuclear issue was rapidly running out. But he was non-committal about the possibility of Israel launching military action.
“There needs to be full verification of what is happening in Iran,” Mr Prosor said. “In Israel, there is a belief that the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear weapons program.”
The U.S. and its European allies are continuing to seek stronger sanctions against Iran despite an intelligence report that says the Islamic Republic halted efforts to build a nuclear weapon in 2003.
The report contradicted a previous U.S. intelligence assessment in 2005 which said that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear bomb.
However, the U.S. envoy to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on Tuesday that he had received no new instructions from the Bush administration, and that he was preparing to complete work on a new sanctions resolution.
Commenting on the NIE at a news briefing, Khalilzad said, “Let me say what the NIE says and what it doesn’t say. The NIE says that there was a covert military dedicated nuclear weapons program. That in 2003 stopped because of international pressure… But, it does not say that Iran does not have the intention to develop a nuclear weapons capability, that it has abandoned the goal of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability permanently.”
When asked if military action remained an option, the president answered, “The best diplomacy – effective diplomacy – is one in which all options are on the table.”
“What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?” the president told a news conference at the White House.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei welcomed the report, saying it was consistent with the agency’s own findings and that it “should prompt Iran to work actively with the IAEA to clarify specific aspects of its past and present nuclear program.”
“This would allow the agency to provide the required assurances regarding the nature of the program.”
Russia, which has previously stated its opposition to increased sanctions against Teheran, did not comment on the NIE, although President Vladimir Putin insisted that Iran’s nuclear program should be transparent and carried out under the supervision of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. Iran’s foreign minister was in Moscow on Tuesday for talks.
China has, however, demonstrated its opposition to new sanctions in more direct terms, saying that the UN Security Council would have to take into account the new information because “now things have changed”.
Britain and France, who have backed U.S. calls for sanctions in the past, reiterated their commitment to maintaining pressure on Iran.
“We must maintain pressure on Iran,” said French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani. “There is no new element that could make us change our position.”
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told BBC Radio that, “None of us want to see Iran as a nuclear proliferator. … We have got to be clear there are negative consequences if they pursue enrichment which could lead to a nuclear weapons program.”
Two sets of mild UN sanctions are already in place against Iran. China and Russia have both so far blocked the imposition of any new round of punitive measures against the Islamic Republic.
Cheney Lied about Iranian Nuke Threat While Suppressing Intel For A Year That Iran Suspended Weapons Program in ’03
Is the Iran NIE a Trojan Horse?
Russ Wellen Huffington Post
December 5, 2007
The Iran NIE has elicited a range of emotions in those opposed to the Bush administration’s policies from gloating to discreet celebration. In the minds of many, it’s like V-Day: Let the church bells peal, kiss a girl in Times Square. Others, particularly Iranian commentators located in the US, are considerably less sanguine.
They fear, as Farideh Farhi writes at Juan Cole’s spin-off, Informed Comment: Global Affairs, that the NIE can “easily become an instrument in support of the Bush Administration’s current policy.”
In fact, according to Kaveh Afrasiabi at Asia Times Online, “The temporary freeze on the military option [resulting from] the new intelligence report has nested within it its exact opposite.” In other words, a Trojan horse.
Even though, he maintains, the nuclear programs that Iran halted in 2004-2005 were not weapons, the NIE and the administration painted them as such. If a follow-up report were to indicate that Iran planned to resurrect said weapons program, that would provide “ample justification for Washington’s planned ‘pre-emptive strikes’ on Iran, not to mention added sanctions.”
Thus leaving “the pendulum capable of swinging in wildly different directions almost at will.”
Meanwhile, at CASMII (Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Action Against Iran), Daniel Pourkesali writes, “Forgive this writer for being a spoiler.” But he too finds that the resurrection theme is like a ticking time bomb embedded in the NIE.
He mentions the “assertions on page 7 paragraph D [of the NIE] that ‘Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to produce nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so.'”
They leave “the door wide open for administration hawks like Mr. Cheney to abruptly accuse Iran of resurrecting its ‘nuclear weapons program much as he did back in 2002, claiming that Saddam Hussein had ‘resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons.'” In other words, the hawks are fixated on another bird, the phoenix.
At NIAC (National Iranian-American Council), Trita Parsi explains how the administration further unrolls the rock before the resurrection justification. “Rather than adjusting policy on Iran in accordance to the reality-check provided by the NIE, the President moved the goal post on Iran.
“As the NIE declared that Iran likely doesn’t have a weapons program, the President shifted the red line from weaponization to the mere knowledge of enriching uranium [which, of course] is not of a military nature and is permitted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
“The President also pointed out, as though to justify military strikes, that Iran’s knowledge of the enrichment process would permit Tehran to have a clandestine program. [But, of course] a full suspension of the Iranian program would not eliminate the Iranian knowledge of the enrichment program and, as a result, the risk of a clandestine program would continue to exist.”
Unless, of course, the atomic scientists of Iran submitted to the erasure of their memories as if their minds were hard drives.
Finally, Farideh Farhi weighs in at Juan Cole’s spin-off, Informed Comment: Global Affairs on the “propitious convergence between the NIE and the Bush Administration’s current policy and the timing of the release of this report,” which was finished a year ago. (See Gareth Porter for a full explanation.)
First she reminds us of Stephen Hadley’s statement that “the President has the right strategy, intensified international pressure along with the willingness to negotiate. . . [and for it] to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran — with diplomatic isolation, United Nations Sanctions, and with other financial pressure.”
Then she frets that “this NIE can so easily become an instrument in support of the Bush Administration’s current policy.”
We’ll allow Dr. Afrasiabi to be the last to rain on the parade. “The bottom line. . . [is that the US] has now pre-positioned itself for yet another disastrous gambit in the volatile Middle East.”
Lavrov: There Is No Proof That Iran Ever Had a Nuclear Program
The recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report, which has sent a cat among Cheney’s killer pigeons, claims Iran has abandoned its nuclear program some time in 2003. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who met with Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili this week, said Dec.5 there was no proof Iran ever had a weapons program, as claimed in the U.S. report. In Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini dismissed the U.S. report that said Tehran pursued nuclear weapons up to 2003.
Lavrov said Russia supports Iran’s determination to cooperate with the IAEA, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin this week urged Iran to answer all IAEA questions and suspend enrichment. Acting Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last September told visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that neither military force nor unilateral sanctions were acceptable in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.
The latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program was released on Monday and caused various reactions.
The report by the U.S. intelligence community is the consensus view of all 16 U.S. spy agencies, including the CIA.
Unfortunately, in Iran many people hastily responded positively, and even some government officials expressed the view that the report was favorable to Iran.
This case is similar to the recent report by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, which was called totally positive.
However, like always, ElBaradei’s report gave short shrift to Iran’s cooperation and the transparency of its nuclear activities but highlighted the alleged ambiguities cited by Western intelligence agencies and their unsubstantiated accusations.
In any case, the issue is not over the contents of ElBaradei’s report, because the IAEA director general’s claim that the process of Iran’s cooperation with the agency is slowing down should have given Iranian officials a signal to be more cautious in evaluating the Arab diplomat’s five-page report.
Now the U.S. intelligence agencies’ report is being treated in the same hasty and offhand manner as ElBaradei’s report was.
Although it is expected that the heavy challenges of the past few years would have made our diplomacy more proficient, it seems that the rashness in adopting stances, the novice diplomatic moves, and the misanalysis of the nature of such reports will cause some problems for us in the future.
What is the content of the U.S. intelligence report?
The intelligence agencies’ report can interestingly be divided into evaluations with “high confidence” and “moderate confidence”.
The conclusions that are made with high certainty are:
“In fall 2003 (September), Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”
Attention: The abovementioned time is exactly after an agreement was made with three European countries, and Iran suspended its uranium enrichment activities.
Moreover, contrary to what was declared in ElBaradei’s recent report (which indicated the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program had been peaceful), the U.S. intelligence report referred to an IAEA report that was issued on September 24, 2005 in which ElBaradei had violated the agency’s regulations by stating that the UN Security Council was authorized to investigate Iran’s motives behind 18 years of concealment!
In this way, ElBaradei created a pretext for referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council, and he was then immediately appointed to serve a third four-year term as IAEA director general.
While the nuclear watchdog states that it has not observed any non-peaceful nuclear activities, the U.S. intelligence agencies have evaluated Iran’s nuclear program to be of a military nature, so that, unlike a technical approach, this political evaluation would influence public opinion.
“The halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure…”
In this way they are trying to justify their decision to pressure Iran and implying that the country is not committed to the agreements.
“Until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.”
This big lie is not mentioned in any of the IAEA reports and is only an allegation made by the United States.
“Since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications”; “Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing”; “Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015”; and “Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.”
These sentences suggest that the pressure that was put on Iran, under the leadership of the U.S. government, has been successful in halting the country’s efforts to produce nuclear weapons and thus should be continued.
The conclusions that were stated with “moderate confidence” are:
“Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons”; “Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons”; “Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon”; “Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU (highly enriched uranium) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame”; and “Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but… it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon.”
But what are the unusual points of the report?
The timing for the release of the NIE is noteworthy.
ElBaradei’s report, which was released on October 30, 2007, states that some of the ambiguities should be cleared up through the modality plan devised by Iran and the IAEA.
In addition, China, Russia, and even other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany have made it very clear to the United States that they adamantly believe that only diplomatic methods should be used in the nuclear standoff.
However, it is also important to examine their definition of diplomacy. We suppose that diplomacy means interaction through dialogue in order to reach an understanding, but in the conception of diplomacy of some members of the 5+1 group, any tool can be utilized to exert pressure except Article 42 of the United Nations Charter and the military option.
Moreover, after the Republicans lost the midterm congressional elections and the inconclusive occupation of Iraq, the people of the United States became weary of war. Even former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton has talked about the need to revise the U.S. war policy.
In such a situation, the following points are significant:
(1) It seems that the time to release the report was deliberately chosen to influence public opinion in the United States and other countries in order to validate the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush.
Bush’s policies have in fact failed, and thus a scenario had to be devised which could turn a loser into a winner.
Is it a coincidence that immediately after the report was released, U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said that the NIE supported Bush’s strategy of piling pressure on Iran?
(2) Apparently, another objective that the report seeks is to strengthen those who favor imposing sanctions on Iran by pretending that the U.S. is being logical and realistic in regard to the current nature of Iran’s nuclear program and is avoiding the military option.
This means it was meant to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, while the U.S. is not capable of handling a military confrontation with Iran, it can act as if avoiding the military option is a voluntary move by the neoconservatives and thus will obtain concessions from Russia, China, and also its domestic opponents.
On the other hand, the U.S. can use the report in its efforts to create an international consensus on the need to impose more illegal and unilateral sanctions on Iran.
Acknowledging this strategy, Hadley said the NIE report proves that the “international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran — with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure — and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution.”
In other words, since the report emphasizes that the previous U.S. pressure convinced Iran to abandon its alleged nuclear weapons program, continuing the pressures is necessary for international peace!
(3) Instead of pointing the finger at the neoconservative system of the United States, the report attempts to give the impression that the Islamic Republic of Iran is belligerent by nature and to justify Bush’s statements last month, when, probably in line with this report, he said, “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
In fact, the report was released to influence world public opinion and convince people that if there is going to be a third world war, Iran will be the instigator, not the U.S.!
Now, we expect high-ranking Iranian officials to avoid making hasty evaluations of such reports and adopting incautious stances toward them.
The fact is that ElBaradei’s report has not created any problems for U.S. objectives and was designed completely in line with the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate.
As mentioned before, it seems that the IAEA director general’s only responsibility is to provide the additional information needed by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Washington’s plot against the Iranian nation and their nuclear program has a technical phase and a political phase.
ElBaradei’s duty is to prepare the technical requirements under the auspices of an allegedly professional international organization, but the main job is put on the shoulders of the U.S. spy agencies and media outlets.
Therefore, we should be aware that ElBaradei’s mission is not yet completed, and in this situation, instead of praising him for making a few positive statements, it would be better for us to be more reasonable and wait until the end of autumn.
The question still remains: Which part of ElBaradei’s report and the NIE was positive
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration’s earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could undermine U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.
Tensions have escalated in recent months as Washington has ratcheted up the rhetoric against Tehran, with U.S. President George W. Bush insisting in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.
But in a finding likely to surprise U.S. friends and foes alike, the latest NIE concluded: “We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons.”
But the new assessment found Iran was continuing to develop technical means that could be used to build a bomb and it would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon “sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame.”
The shift in the intelligence community’s thinking on Iran comes five years after a flawed NIE concluded neighboring Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction — a report that helped pave the way for the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
No nuclear, chemical or biological weapons were ever found in Iraq and intelligence agencies since have been more cautious about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, were briefed on the new NIE last Wednesday.
Washington, which insists it wants to solve the Iran problem diplomatically while leaving military options “on the table,” is pushing for tougher U.N. sanctions against Tehran but faces resistance from China and Russia.
Iran insists it wants nuclear technology only for civilian purposes, such as electricity generation.
The nuclear standoff has become a major issue in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, with candidates weighing in on the prospects for military action against Iran.
For Congress to stop passing bills to fund the war on Iraq, or never pass a bill to fund an attack on Iran, wouldn’t matter to Bush and Cheney http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/1008
Iran will view an attack on its nuclear facilities as an act of war and will respond, the head of the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said.
ISRAEL’S Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has warned the radical Islamic movement Hamas that the truce due to take effect today is the last chance to avoid a massive military incursion into the Gaza Strip.
The Greek Air Force says it partook in an Israeli military exercise which is regarded as a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran. 
The United States is moving closer to ordering a limited attack on Iranian Revolutionary Guard installations, a military intelligence group reports.
“Cover meeting held at British embassy in Washington: A meeting held at the British embassy in Washington, DC on May 30 was billed as one dealing with common military strategy on Russia. However, the presence of a US Marine Brigadier General and his aides, a Captain and a Corporal, raised eyebrows. The meeting actually dealing with the subject of military preparedness in the Sultanate of Oman, opposite the Strait of Hormuz from Iran.
Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Monday that Israel may have to take military action to prevent its archfoe Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. Bolton also said that further UN sanctions against the Islamic republic will be ineffective in stopping Iran’s controversial nuclear programme which Israel and the US believe is aimed at developing a bomb — a claim denied by Tehran. “One can say with some assurance that in the next year the use of force by the United States is highly unlikely,” Bolton told AFP on the sidelines of the Herzliya conference on the balance of Israel’s national security. “That increases the pressure on Israel in that period of time… if it feels Iran is on the verge of acquiring that capability, it brings the decision point home to use force,” he said.
noworldsystem.com 