noworldsystem.com


Admiral Fallon Quits Over Iran War

‘Fox’ Fallon Fired: And we’re f*cked…

Justin Raimundo
Antiwar.com
March 12, 2008

“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran,” says the March Esquire, “it’ll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.” The piece describes this top military figure as the last obstacle to the Bush administration’s persistent push for war with Iran: “It’s left to” him and him “alone … to argue that, as he told al-Jazeera last fall: ‘This constant drumbeat of conflict … is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working [for].'”

That was Adm. William “Fox” Fallon speaking, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, last of the Vietnam vets in the high command, and, yes, the very same Adm. Fallon who has just submitted his resignation as head of Central Command. What makes this particularly ominous is that, according to former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Patrick Lang, Fallon told him, upon taking over at Centcom, that war with Iran “isn’t going to happen on my watch.” Lang asked him how he thought he could stop it: “‘I have options, you know,’ Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken.”

Do I really need to draw you a picture to get you to imagine what’s coming next? This is as clear a signal as any that the Bush administration intends to go out with a bang – one that will shake not only the Middle East but this country to its very foundations.

In a statement, Fallon hinted at the reason for his resignation:

“Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region. And although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there.”

What “efforts” is he hampering but the effort to drag us into another war?

Fallon has long been a thorn in the administration’s side: while in Egypt, on a tour of his Centcom command, he assured President Hosni Mubarak that there would be no attack on Iran, which leaked to the Egyptian media. Washington was livid. “I’m in hot water, again,” he confided to Thomas P.M. Barnett, the Esquire journalist who accompanied him on his trip.

He’s been in hot water with administration hawks – including the president, wildest hawk of them all – before. Last fall, he was quoted by Pentagon insiders as calling Gen. David Petraeus an “ass-kissing little chickensh*t” for telling the president what he wanted to hear on Iraq and the “surge.” Long an advocate of engagement with China as well as Iran, Fallon has been relentlessly attacked by the neocons as “soft and accommodating.” After Fallon began reaching out to the Chinese, the response was delayed but vehement – and telling – when it came:

“It was only after the Pentagon and Congress started realizing that their favorite ‘programs of record’ (i.e., weapons systems and major vehicle platforms) were threatened by such talks that the sh*t hit the fan. ‘I blew my stack,’ Fallon says. ‘I told Rumsfeld, Just look at this sh*t. I go up to the Hill and I get three or four guys grabbing me and jerking me out of the aisle, all because somebody came up and told them that the sky was going to cave in.'”

The military-industrial-neocon complex, as it were, has been working overtime to get him out of the way of their war plans, and this week they finally succeeded. Not that Fallon is all that surprised, I’ll bet. Speaking freely to Barnett, he telegraphed his resignation:

“Sitting in his Tampa headquarters office last fall, I asked Fallon if he considered the Centcom assignment to be the same career-capping job that it’d been for his predecessors. He just laughed and said, ‘Career capping? How about career detonating?'”

It’s a detonation that will reverberate throughout the Middle East, prefiguring the mega-explosion to come. One can hardly imagine a clearer indication that the White House has made the decision to go to war with Iran . It’s just a matter of when and how the administration can provoke an incident.

That’s why U.S. warships are patrolling the Lebanese coast; and why our warships are playing hide-and-go-seek with Iranian gunboats in the Gulf. It’s the reason the Israel lobby has been beating the tom-toms for war, and the reason the anti-Fallon, Petraeus, has been so vocal about the Iranian roots of our Iraqi problem. With Fallon out of the way, the road to war – a regional conflagration that will make the invasion of Iraq seem like a holiday picnic – is cleared. Get ready for World War III.

Read Full Article Here

 

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

Times Online
February 27, 2007

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

Read Full Article Here

 

Podhoretz: Bush will “do it” before he leaves office

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w

The Joint Chiefs Chairman, Secretary of Defense and “Almost Every Senior Military Officer … is Against Launching Military Strikes Against Iran”
http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/754424.aspx

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-de..s-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html

Last year, we were told senior military commanders would resign if war with Iran were ordered. This week, Adm. Fallon resigned
http://griperblade.blogspot.com..hat-if-fallons-just-first-of-many.html

Centcom Commander Resigns
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4431212&page=1

 



Former CIA: Warhawks Pray Iran Backs Terror to Justify Military Strike

Former CIA: Warhawks Pray Iran Backs Terror to Justify Military Strike
Here is an excerpt from the New York Times by a former CIA officer who writes that the warhawks pray Iran backs a terror attack that kills Americans to justify a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities

Marc Gerecht
NY Times
February 20, 2008

What has been the response of most American hawks to this mess? Prayer. They are essentially waiting for (Iran) the clerical regime to do something stupid so that they can galvanize an awareness among Americans that mullahs should not have the bomb. True, the Iranian clerics have often done the wrong thing at the right time, from aiding the bombers of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 and our African embassies in 1998, to the kidnapping of British sailors and marines last year. It is possible that Tehran, which wants to cause us great harm in Iraq and Afghanistan, could again back a terrorist attack that kills enough Americans to make preventive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities mandatory. But the Iranians know this. They know they are in the final nuclear stretch: they will likely play it sufficiently cool to make it difficult for the United States to strike them pre-emptively.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Read Full Article Here

 

Ellsberg: Speak out while you can

Press TV
February 22, 2008

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg raps those aware of Bush’s violations of the Constitution, saying they should speak out and save lives.

“When they keep silent about their knowledge of that situation, they are themselves violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Ellsberg said in an interview with City Pages.

Advising such people to reveal truths that might save an untold number of lives, the former military analyst explained that there is a high possibility of new military adventurism in the Middle East.

“Don’t wait till bombs are falling in Iran or a new war is started wrongly or thousands more people have died when you know that your bosses are lying the public into a wrongful war or committing other crimes or violating the constitution,” said the former Pentagon official.

According to Ellsberg, there is a good chance that Bush will wage war on Iran in the next year.

“I think that the risk remains significant, and indeed the fact that the President isn’t running again for office may free him in his mind,” he explained.

Daniel Ellsberg, who shocked the world in 1971 by disclosing 7,000 classified pages of a Defense Department report, revealed the existence of a much deeper battle in Vietnam than the public was aware of.

Recent News:

Neocon Godfather Podhoretz Trying to Re-Ignite Fires of War Against Iran
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2008/0..gnite-fires-of-war-against-iran/

Iran slams US support for terrorism
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43222&secti..351020101

Judge holds reporter in contempt in anthrax case
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-19-reporter-anthrax_N.htm

US secretly met Iran banking officials
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran

US will back new Iran sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/..iddle_east/7260122.stm

France heads for war games in the Gulf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/77c38c2c-e1a1-11dc-a302-0000779fd2ac.html

McCain: Sanctions, attacks await Iran
The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History

Chertoff Warns Of “Earth Shattering” Events
Iran plans to launch two more rockets into space
Bush hails ‘headway’ on highlighting Iranian threat
U.S. heading to war in Iran, says former inspector
Key figures in the Israel lobbies support a terrorist group that has fired on US troops
Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg: Bush Likely to Attack Iran, Impeachment a Must
Order given to fire on Iranian speedboat, but it turned away: Joint Chiefs chairman
Buchanan: McCain win would mean war with Iran
Bush’s State of the Union: Mandate for Iran Attack

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Nato and Pentagon: Nuclear First-Strike Nessesary

NATO recommends pre-emptive nuclear strike to preserve the Western way of life

Kav Kaz
January 22, 2008

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

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.

 

‘Pray next US president bombs Iran’
Press TV
January 20, 2008
Fbiiraqisbein_mn

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.

Related News:

Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html

Russia concerned over NATO military buildup around its borders
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080123/97602111.html

Will The Doomsday Clock Will Be Set Forward To Compensate For NATO And Russia
http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=390

Russian missile cruiser hits all test targets in Atlantic
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080121/97461951.html

US Army Unable to Confront Iran
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8611010699

Bush Admits He Plans to Attack Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCBJm1X48XQ

Bolton: The overthrow of Iran has to come before they get the weapon
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Israel_may..1212008.html

PNAC founder predicts US-China war
http://presscue.com/node/41651

Following Podhoretz’s Lead, Right Wing Continues Push For ‘Bombing Campaign’ Against Iran ‘Now’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/18/npod-bomb-iran/

Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w

Bush needs that war in Iran to distract from the plunging economy
The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks
George Galloway vs neocon David Frum on the subject of a supposed Iranian threat
Israel “would not dare attack Iran”: Ahmadinejad
Iran: Another Perspective A Photo Tour
Journalist: Pentagon Fabricated “Non Event” Iranian “Provocation”
Fox News Reverses Course After Initially Calling For U.S. Navy To Blow Iran Boats ‘Out Of The Water’
Olbermann accuses U.S of trying to FAKE new Gulf of Tonkin
Ex-Lawmaker Charged With Funding Al-Qaeda
Rogue HAM Operator Blamed For Iran Incident
Olmert: All options on table regarding Iran

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Neocons Continue To Push ’Bombing Campaign’ Against Iran ’Now’

Following Podhoretz’s Lead, Right Wing Continues Push For ‘Bombing Campaign’ Against Iran ‘Now’

Think Progress
January 18, 2008

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

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.”

In a new article for Commentary, titled “Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands,” he argues that Bush should commence with a “bombing campaign”:

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.

Bill Kristol:

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.

National Review’s Mark Steyn:

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 brought Podhoretz on his show yesterday, where he explicitly endorsed bombing Iran “now”:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d0DKbbv0Lg

Israel “would not dare attack Iran”: Ahmadinejad
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=world…RAEL-IRAN.xml

Iran: Another Perspective A Photo Tour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkkt7_dGW-s

Journalist: Pentagon Fabricated “Non Event” Iranian “Provocation”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2008/160108Pentagon.htm

Fox News Reverses Course After Initially Calling For U.S. Navy To Blow Iran Boats ‘Out Of The Water’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/fox-friends-iran-speedboat/

Olbermann accuses U.S of trying to FAKE new Gulf of Tonkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADchtd0Hms

Norman Podhoretz: Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w

Ex-Lawmaker Charged With Funding Al-Qaeda
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U767QO0&show_article=1

Rogue HAM Operator Blamed For Iran Incident
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/st..ss&feed=networkfront

Olmert: All options on table regarding Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S..rticle%2FShowFull

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Pentagon Fabricated “Non Event” Iranian “Provocation”

Journalist: Pentagon Fabricated “Non Event” Iranian “Provocation”
Echoes of faked Gulf of Tonkin incident as Pentagon distortions exposed

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
January 16, 2008

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

A respected American Journalist has accused a Pentagon spokesman of falsifying events surrounding the recent encounter between Iranian patrol boats and a US navy vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, which was eventually labeled a “provocation” by the White House.

Gareth Porter, a journalist who previously broke a story regarding a secret Iranian peace overture to the Bush Administration in 2006, writing for the Asia Times states that the event was hyped up into a major incident after the original press release described the event as somewhat routine and did not refer to any threat to “explode” US ships or any similar confrontation.

the release reported that the Iranian “small boats” had “maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy]. But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.

On the contrary, the release made the US warships handling of the incident sound almost routine,” Porter adds. “‘Following standard procedures,’ the release said, “Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering.’

The release did not refer to a US ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that US ships would “explode in a few minutes”, as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a US ship as a potential danger.

That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.

The fact that several mainstream reports then emerged at the same time all carrying almost identical accounts of the incident, including the details of threats to explode vessels and dropping white boxes, can be traced back to a press briefing by a top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, Porter divulges.

He identifies Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman’s off the record comments to journalists as the catalyst for the ensuing pandemonium. Porter states that Whitman hadn’t wished to be identified as the source:

In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that US ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away – a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.

Three days later, at the height of the hype, the Pentagon released a video of the incident into which had been inserted audio of a strange voice threatening to “explode” the US vessel.

Porter reveals that according to Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon’s Public Affairs Office the decision on what to include in the video was “a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command and navy leadership in the field”. Porter also reveals that according to an official in the US Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified, the decision was made in the office of the Secretary of Defense.

Shortly after Iranian officials had denounced the video as a fake and had released alternative footage of their boats in contact with the US warship, it became apparent that the audio spliced into the video had not originated from the boats themselves but must have instead come from hecklers, often referred to as the “Filipino Monkey”, who cut in on VHF ship-to-ship radios and make rude comments or threats.

The Pentagon then backed away from claims that it knew the source of the audio or had ever known the source.

By January 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. “No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats,” said Morrell.

No one said it but that doesn’t excuse the fact that they spliced the audio into the video of an unrelated incident!

The story then essentially fell apart altogether and dropped off the radar as Navy officials began to discredit the rest of the distortions perpetuated by the Pentagon.

Porter also spoke to a Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified who told him that many officers have experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are “just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination”.

These revelations show just how easy it is for a non event to be hyped to serve an agenda and how the mainstream media is eager to swallow whole whatever the government feeds them.

The event mirrors that of the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where an attack on US warships by North Vietnamese PT Boats, was cited by President Johnson as a legitimate provocation mandating U.S. escalation in Vietnam. However Tonkin was revealed as a staged charade that never took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes featured discussions on how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes. In addition, the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost. This information was again reiterated in a report released last week.

 

Fox News Reverses Course After Initially Calling For U.S. Navy To Blow Iran Boats ‘Out Of The Water’

Think Progress
January 16, 2008

On January 7, the media reported that five Iranian speedboats had harassed three U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz, almost instigating a military confrontation. The next day, Fox News anchor Brian Kilmeade angrily claimed the Navy should have blown the Iranian boats out of the water. Speaking on the morning show Fox & Friends, Kilmeade said the following:

KILMEADE: Was this a mistake not to blow these other Iranian speedboats out of the water? […] Why did we not destroy these speedboats? […] We had an opportunity to send a message to a nation that has been needling us for 20 years.

Today, a week after his call for war with Iran, Brian Kilmeade was forced to concede that the verbal threats made against the U.S. ships are “a possible hoax from a man called the ‘Filipino Monkey.'” Kilmeade’s co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that she knew it all along. “I remember sitting in my office thinking, you gotta be kidding me? That voice does not sound to me like an Iranian accent.” She didn’t say that on-air, however, prior to this morning.

Kilmeade’s other co-host, Steve Doocy, piped in with this comment:

DOOCY: But can you imagine, had we blown those little boats out of the water to find out, you know, that they didn’t have bombs and in fact it was the Filipino Monkey who was somewhere on shore pulling a prank?

Indeed, we would have have, if Fox News had its way. Watch a compilation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZmb3fa22Ek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDfDHNZdLsI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHt_r7hWVUA

Carlson wrapped up the segment by stating, “Let’s hope it’s not the Filipino Monkey, for our sake. Because I think it’s a humongous embarrassment.”

 

Olbermann accuses U.S of trying to FAKE new Gulf of Tonkin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADchtd0Hms

 

Norman Podhoretz: Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w

Related News:

Ex-Lawmaker Charged With Funding Al-Qaeda
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U767QO0&show_article=1

Rogue HAM Operator Blamed For Iran Incident
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/st..ss&feed=networkfront

Olmert: All options on table regarding Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S..rticle%2FShowFull

Iran sees end to nuclear crisis ‘very soon’
>http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080116130609.bqenkh5g.html

U.S. option to bomb Iran still on the table
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/01/15/9255.shtml

Iran says Bush’s accusations “words without value”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHAF45102720080114

Bush accuses Iran of undermining peace
http://www.mercurynews.com..091?nclick_check=1

Bush: Iran is the “Worlds Leading State Sponsor of Terror”
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITIC..index.html

Things Have Gotten So Crazy Now a Prankster Could Start World War III!
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/..-so-crazy-now.html

Mullen: ‘I Have Not Seen’ Iran Act So Provocatively, But Admits ‘I Haven’t Seen The Full Video’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/14/iran-speedboats-mullen/

Gulf allies turn their backs on Bush
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA16Ak02.html

Huckabee: Deliver Iran to “Gates of Hell”
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1643

Navy Says It Fired Warning Shots At Iranian Boats
http://ap.google.com/article/A..d09QD8U3TFRG0

Bogus Iran story was product of Pentagon spokesman, reporter says
US using 1994 Argentine bombing investigation to pressure Iran
Pentagon backs down over Iranian boat claims
UN Inspector Scott Ritter: Fools would Bomb Iran
US-Iranian naval clash: Radio trolls probably to blame
US blacklists Iranian commander, Syrian-based TV station
George Bush to push $20bn Saudi arms deal
Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida – part 1
US, Israel on ‘same page’ on Iran
Tehran: U.S. trying to spread ‘Iran-phobia’
Sarkozy says pressure on Iran should be increased
U.S. Navy Withdraws Claims Against Iran
Israel’s Netanyahu Claims President Bush Promised Unilateral Nuclear Bomb Attack Against Iran
US Navy threat may not have been Iranian
Bush in Kuwait to seek Gulf backing against Iran
Israel stressed to Bush that Iran is a nuclear ‘threat’: general
Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game
Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel
Ron Paul: “People are looking around for an excuse to bomb Iran”

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Fox ambushes Ron Paul with ‘9/11 Truthers’ question

Fox ambushes Ron Paul with ‘9/11 Truthers’ question

Raw Story
January 11, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-lxZmrqLxU

During Thursday night’s Republican debate, after the other candidates had been invited to exchange views on whether the Reagan conservative coalition is now a thing of the past, Fox host Carl Cameron turned to Ron Paul with a very different question. “Many of your supporters call themselves ‘9/11 Truthers,'” Cameron began. “They believe that the US government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it or divorce themselves from your candidacy?” “Well, I can’t tell people what to do, but I’ve abandoned those viewpoints,” Paul replied. “I don’t believe that, and that’s the only thing that is important. … But I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we’ve been debating here for the last 20 minutes.” Rather than letting Paul join in the general discussion, however, Cameron continued to attempt to corner him on the 9/11 question, demanding, “Would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf?”

“Well, it doesn’t do me any good,” answered Paul, “so if they care about me they should, but the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say. I can’t tell them what to do. … So please, could I participate in the current debate …”

This remark was met with cheers and applause, and Paul went on to argue that the Republican Party has lost its way.

“I don’t think we’re fiscal conservatives any more,” Paul stated. “Look at what we’ve done over these last 10 years. We finally got control of the government, and we became big government people. … And then we turn around and we talk about liberty, and we’ve undermined the Fourth Amendment and personal liberty and personal privacy. … We’re policing the world … at the same time our economy is suffering. … So no wonder our coalition is breaking up. We actually have lost our way.”

A full transcript of the debate is available here.

 

Ron Paul: 9/11 Commission ‘Hid Ineptness’ Just as Most Government Investigations Usually Do
Warns that fighting a war “for no good reason” will lead to a draft, expansion of troop numbers and a collapse of the dollar

Jones Report
January 10, 2008

Reporters from WeAreChange.org confronted Ron Paul in a New Hampshire spin room about supporting victim’s family members in pursuing a new 9/11 investigation. “Yes, I support more investigation,” Paul responded.

The Presidential candidate indicated that the full truth was still not known “because ineptness was hidden” in the 9/11 Commission investigation.

“This is generally what government investigations do,” Ron Paul said. “They hide inefficiencies and ineptness.”

He further criticized those in charge who “can’t and won’t admit” that the country is “fighting a war for no good reason.” “They’ve dug their heels in and they’ll lose everything they’ve said,” he said about war hawks.

Paul commented that Giuliani’s intention to expand the military by 200,000 troops would lead to a draft and the printing of more money. “Get ready. They’re going to draft you– all you young people,” Paul warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0

“They’ll print it and the dollar will go bust– and everyone going to get poor– and then we’ll bring our troops home. I don’t want to wait to that point I want them bring home in a more logical fashion,” Paul said.

Other reporters asked about Giuliani’s odd dismissal of history as a factor in current middle-east foreign policy. “He’s been saying that for a long time,” Paul told cameras, “but I’ve given my explanation and I bet a majority of Americans agree with me.”

Giuliani and his advisors have consistently refused to even discuss foreign policy or address the consequences it could have.

WeAreChange.org asked Norman Podhoretz— a Giuliani advisor– about the U.S.-led overthrow of Iran in 1953. Podhoretz dismissed the incident as “ancient history,” when reporters brought up its impact in current tensions. Yet, Podhoretz advocates a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Ron Paul also addressed his concerns about the emerging North American Union, stating that “there are people who would like to have it, like a European Union.” But, he said, “the American people are waking up to this and are resisting it.” Paul urged people to “join the Ron Paul Revolution.”

Ron Paul has been the only presidential candidate unafraid to stand up to WeAreChange.org questions and give an explanation without avoiding the issues. Others on the campaign trail have deflected or even run away.

It isin’t Ron Paul’s nature to police 9/11 Truther’s viewpoints
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018533.html

 



Israel warns Iran to co-operate or pay the price

Israel warns Iran to co-operate or pay the price

The Age
December 7, 2007

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.”

Read Full Article Here

 

U.S. and allies continue to push for sanctions against Iran

RIA Novosti
December 5, 2007

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 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), published on Monday, stated that Tehran had put a stop to weapons production in 2003, although it was continuing to enrich uranium.

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.”

The envoy’s words echoed those of President George W. Bush, who said on Tuesday that, “Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the know-how to make a nuclear weapon.”

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3BLVyeUGiA

Related News:

Rice Seeks Russian Backing on Iran
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg….i115908S90.DTL

Israeli Defense Officials Knew At Least a Month Ago About NIE Findings, Weeks Before Bush Claims He Was Informed
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/editorblog/017

Iranian Attack on Hold Only Temporarily
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com…old-only-temporarily.html

Iran report won’t slow Giuliani
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article…0/1017/NEWS0501

Bush: Iran Intel Report Is Warning Signal
http://www.breitbart.com/article…icle=1&catnum=0

Podhoretz’s ‘Dark Suspicion’: Intel Community Trying To Sabotage Bush With NIE
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/04/podhoretz-nie-iran/

Former CIA Officials: Bush Iran Claims “Preposterous”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/…cials-bus_n_75518.html

Israel Insists Iran Still Seeks Bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/wo…ewanted=print&oref=slogin

Bush told in Aug Iran may have halted nuclear program
http://www.reuters.com/art….USN0454599720071206

Bush: ‘[I]t’s the sovereign right of Iran to have civilian nuclear power’
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=3891196

Is Iran NIE a Blessing in Disguise for Israel?
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40373

Bush told in Aug Iran may have halted nuclear program
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0454599720071206

Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’
/http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/12…e-hes.html

Bill O’Reilly Works Feverishly To Keep Iranian Threat Alive
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/12/04/b…_threat_alive.php

Bush says Iran still dangerous
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00802020071204

Ok. now we’re not going to bomb Iran
http://www.slate.com/id/2179084/

Bolton Calls For Congressional Witch-Hunt Into Anti-Bush ‘People In The Intelligence Community’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/04/bolton-nie-iran/

Nuclear report a victory – Iran
Bolton Takes to Factor, Promises Neocon Objection to NIE
Paul right to oppose Iran war; intelligence report is the proof
Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran NIE
Hadley: Bush Learned Of NIE’s Findings ‘In The Last Few Months,’ But Continued To Ratchet Up Rhetoric
Ritter: God has told Bush to attack Iran
Ron Paul Vindicated on Iran
Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program
CNN: Seymour Hersh ‘vindicated’ by new Iran intel estimate
Iran is not ‘imminent threat’: UN nuclear watchdog
Bush Drops Standard on Iran as Credibility Questioned
White House Still Won’t Answer When Bush First Learned Iran Halted Its Nuclear Weapons Program
Paul right to oppose Iran war; intelligence report is the proof
Analyst: New NIE shows US intelligence has ‘rediscovered its spine’
Debunking Iran’s Nuclear Program: Another ‘Intelligence Failure’ — On the Part of the Press
Young Pakistanis: Bin Laden Is A CIA Creation
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

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Powell: No military strike on Iran

Powell: No military strike on Iran

Press TV
November 19, 2007

Former US secretary of state Powell says military strike against Iran is unlikely, adding Iran is far from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon,” Colin Powell told Sunday in the gathering of bankers, businessmen and diplomats in Kuwait.

Asked about the possibility of US war on Iran, the retired US general said although no American official will say the option was ‘off the table’, he did not see prospects of a military conflict.

There is no base of support among Americans for such an action, Powell said, adding that the US military already has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Powell was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.

Related News:

Neocon accused of misquoting Iran’s leader to push case for invasion
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/N….er_1119.html

A focus group is test marketing language that could be used to sell war with Iran
http://www.motherjones.com/washingt….tch-iran.html

Powell: Iran is a long way from having nuclear weapon
http://www.iht.com/…ica/ME-GEN-Kuwait-Powell-Iran.php

IAEA: Iran generally truthful on nukes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear

US, Israel refuse to cooperate with inquest into Syria strike
http://rawstory.com/news/2007…e_with_1114.html

So will Bush nuke Iran?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/page….page_id=1811

Reps: Bush doesn’t have authority to attack Iran; AIPAC interferes
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/abercr…-11-16.html

‘Pentagon is preparing for nuclear Iran’
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=….e%2FShowFull

US PKK policy ‘provokes Turkish attack’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=30930

Taking Aim at the Cheney Threat
http://www.observer.com/2007/taking-aim-cheney-threat

Why Must We Be the Loudest Drum-Beaters?
http://www.forward.co…rum-beaters-00755/

Bush Awards Historian Who Downplayed Abu Ghraib, Said We Need To Bomb ‘Paper Tiger’ Iran
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/15/hanson-medal-humanities/

Israel slams IAEA for ‘failing to expose’ Iran ambitions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007…clearpoliticsiaeaisrael

Chávez sees oil at $200 if Iran invaded
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/…779fd2ac.html

Iraqi fighters ‘grilled for evidence on Iran’
Fallon: Iran strike ‘strategic mistake’
British PM open to military role in Iran
US strike on Iran ‘not being prepared’
FOX Anchor Calls for Terrorist Car Bombings In Iran
Brown warns Iran of investment sanctions
Report: Israel, US teaming up to take on Iran
Israel training intensively for nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear plants
In the Hands of the Military: We’re in Trouble
Experts: Danger of nuclear-armed Iran may be hyped
Bolton Smears ElBaradei As Iran Apologist, Says ‘Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day’
White House frustrated with Brown over Iran
Lieberman: ‘Paranoid, Hyper-Partisan’ ‘Left-Wing Blogs’ Wrote ‘Conspiracy Theories’ On Iran
US: Iran attack plans ready if needed
Spooks refuse to toe Cheney’s line on Iran
US okays $155m arms package for Israel
Washington worried Israel gearing up to attack Iran
PGCC ‘ready for Iran-US confrontation’
‘Apocalyptic’ if Egypt, Saudi go nuclear: Israel minister
Two Iranian diplomats freed in Iraq
Bush defends World War Three comments on Iran
US generals planning revolt over Iran
U.S. Fifth Fleet in Gulf exercise for possible war in Iran
U.S. establishment’s acceptance of a possible war with Iran shows that the folly that led to Iraq still rules Washington
Italy’s Prodi opposed to military action against Iran
Iran’s nuclear programme irreversible
Giuliani: U.S. can’t afford to rule out war with Iran
What kind of nut wants war with Iran? : Joseph Galloway
Poll: Americans split on Iran
Bush Plan Envisioned Nuking Iran, Syria, Libya
Rod Dreher: Launching a war on Iran would be demented
War with Iran = Democrats’ Defeat?: Frank Rich
Lecture by Naomi Wolf – ‘End of America’
Bolton: U.S. should pursue “regime change” in Iran
Cheney : Military action still an option with Iran
B-2s drop dummy bombs on Big Island

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Bush: ‘I Know I Would Respond’ If Iran Were To Attack Israel

Bush: ‘I Know I Would Respond’ If Iran Were To Attack Israel

Think Progress
October 30, 2007

Before his press conference today, President Bush met exclusively with a group of GOP congressional leaders. According to Fox News, which spoke with some of the members at that discussion, Bush unequivocally promised that he would attack Iran if Iran “were ever to attack Israel.” Bush told the lawmakers, “I know I would respond. … In order for diplomacy to be effective, all options have to be on the table.”

Watch it:

Screenshot

The Bush administration continues to publicly insist that it is pursuing a “path of cooperation” with Iran. But behind closed doors, in meetings such as the one today, the White House seems to be charting a different course. David Wurmser, who until recently served as Vice President Cheney’s Middle East adviser, told a “small group of people” that Cheney is pushing for an Israeli attack on Iran:

[T]he magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney’s Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that “Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz — and perhaps other sites — in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out.

According to the report, “The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran.

Bush and Karl Rove also recently met privately with Norman Podhoretz for 45 minutes, listening to his case for war with Iran. Earlier this month, Podhoretz told CSPAN, “I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office.”

Americans increasingly view a strike on Iran during Bush’s term as inevitable. A new Zogby poll finds that 53 percent of the public believe it is “likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election.”

Watch The Video Here

Related News:

The Israel lobby has its sights on Iran
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article…._id=86389

Attacking Iran for Israel? : Ray McGovern
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/103007a.html

Russia FM delivers ‘Putin message’ to Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071031092303.o2fop480.html

Iran warns U.S. of “quagmire” as Russia urges diplomacy
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL3013165820071031

Tricking Iran into World War IV
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=572

Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1792035.0.0.php

Was Bin Laden’s Last Video Faked
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21530470

Hersh: US, Israel support PKK
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=28988&secti..3510203

Video: Saber Rattling Over Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfPjDT-spIs

Iran says documents show U.S. backing “terrorists”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071028/ts_nm/iran_usa_turkey_dc

CFR President: $200 Oil If War With Iran
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4723

Romney Says He Is Open to Iran ‘Bombardment’
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytime..n-to-iran-bombardment/

Fox Panel: Dems Are ‘Terribly Weak’ If They Don’t Threaten ‘Devastating Military Strike’ Against Iran
No evidence Iran is making nuclear weapons: ElBaradei
Brooks: Bush’s ‘Body Language’ Means He Won’t Attack Iran
GOP Senator: Bush ‘dead right’ about ‘World War III’ with Iran
W.M.D. in Iran? Q.E.D.
Leak: Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Strike
Pentagon Chief Calls Iran Planning Routine
US denies being on warpath with Iran
Iran Says It’s Safe From US Attack
Iran’s Guards: We are ready for war
Attack Iran and you attack Russia
Dialogue Undermined by White House’s Iran Sanctions
Condoleeza Rice Alludes to US Funding of ‘Al-Qaeda’
Ann Coulter: Nuke Them!
Neo-Con Podhoretz Tells Audience To ‘Shut Up’ After Tough Questions
“Bomb Iran” Scholar: Rudy Invited Me To Discuss “World War IV”
Rice: Iran Perhaps Greatest Security Risk
Bush: Iran Missiles Could Strike U.S. By 2015
AEI’s Muravchik: ‘I Don’t Mind If We Bomb Iran Next Month Or The Month After’
Rice Says Iran an Obstacle to U.S. Goals
Kuwait: Arab States Need To Prepare For Crises
Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs
Castro Speaks On Biofuel Scam & World War III
Media pundits ask: Should the US bomb Iran now?
Think Iran is a threat to the int’l order? What planet are you on?
Iraq: US involved in terrorist acts
‘UK special forces operating in Iran’
Juan Williams: Kristol Is Pushing For ‘The Next World War’

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Leak: Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Strike

Leak: Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Strike

Spiegel
October 26, 2007

Washington society has been chattering about the risk of war with Tehran. It’s an open secret that Vice President Dick Cheney has made bombing plans, but even high-ranking military experts think an attack would lead to world economic chaos, or even what George W. Bush calls ‘World War III.’


A member of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard fires a rocket during a maneuver in a central desert area of Iran in 2006.

US Vice President Dick Cheney — the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile — is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He’s capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it’s no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.

In the scenario concocted by Cheney’s strategists, Washington’s first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran’s uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn’t denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he’s been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil,” is inevitable.

Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?

Grandiose Plans, East and West

In the September strike, Israeli bombers were likely targeting a nuclear reactor under construction, parts of which are alleged to have come from North Korea. It is possible that key secretaries in the Bush cabinet even tried to stop Israel. To this day, the administration has neither confirmed nor commented on the attack.

Nevertheless, in Washington, Israel’s strike against Syria has revived the specter of war with Iran. For the neoconservatives it could represent a glimmer of hope that the grandiose dream of a democratic Middle East has not yet been buried in the ashes of Iraq. But for realists in the corridors of the State Department and the Pentagon, military action against Iran is a nightmare they have sought to avert by asking a simple question: “What then?”

The Israeli strike, or something like it, could easily mark the beginning of the “World War III,” which President Bush warned against last week. With his usual apocalyptic rhetoric, he said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could lead the region to a new world war if his nation builds a nuclear bomb.

Conditions do look ripe for disaster. Iran continues to acquire and develop the fundamental prerequisites for a nuclear weapon. The mullah regime receives support — at least moral support, if not technology — from a newly strengthened Russia, which these days reaches for every chance to provoke the United States. President Vladimir Putin’s own (self-described) “grandiose plan” to restore Russia’s armed forces includes a nuclear buildup. The war in Iraq continues to drag on without an end in sight or even an opportunity for US troops to withdraw in a way that doesn’t smack of retreat. In Afghanistan, NATO troops are struggling to prevent a return of the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. The Palestinian conflict could still reignite on any front.

In Washington, Bush has 15 months left in office. He may have few successes to show for himself, but he’s already thinking of his legacy. Bush says he wants diplomacy to settle the nuclear dispute with Tehran, and hopes international pressure will finally convince Ahmadinejad to come to his senses. Nevertheless, the way pressure has been building in Washington, preparations for war could be underway.

In late September, the US Senate voted to declare the 125,000-man Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. High-ranking US generals have accused Iran of waging a “proxy war” against the United States through its support of Shiite militias in Iraq. And strategists at the Pentagon, apparently at Cheney’s request, have developed detailed plans for an attack against Tehran.

Instead of the previous scenario of a large-scale bombardment of the country’s many nuclear facilities, the current emphasis is, once again, on so-called surgical strikes, primarily against the quarters of the Revolutionary Guards. This sort of attack would be less massive than a major strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Conservative think tanks and pundits who sense this could be their last chance to implement their agenda in the Middle East have supported and disseminated such plans in the press. Despite America’s many failures in Iraq, these hawks have urged the weakened president to act now, accusing him of having lost sight of his principal agenda and no longer daring to apply his own doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

Sheer Lunacy?

The notion of war with Iran has spilled over into other circles, too. Last Monday Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives, made it clear that the president would first need Congressional approval to launch an attack. Meanwhile, Republican candidates for the White House have debated whether they would even allow such details to get in their way. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said he would consult his attorneys to determine whether the US Constitution does, in fact, require a president to ask for Congressional approval before going to war. Vietnam veteran John McCain said war with Iran was “maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.”

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has also adopted a hawkish stance, voting in favor of the Senate measure to classify the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Her rivals criticized Clinton for giving the administration a blank check to go to war.

The US military is building a base in Iraq less than 10 kilometers (about six miles) from Iran’s border. The facility, known as Combat Outpost Shocker, is meant for American soldiers preventing Iranian weapons from being smuggled into Iraq. But it’s also rumored that Bush authorized US intelligence agencies in April to run sabotage missions against the mullah regime on Iranian soil.

Gary Sick is an expert on Iran who served as a military adviser under three presidents. He believes that such preparations mark a significant shift in the government’s strategy. “Since August,” says Sick, “the emphasis is no longer on the Iranian nuclear threat,” but on Iran’s support for terrorism in Iraq. “This is a complete change and is potentially dangerous.”

It would be relatively easy for Bush to prove that Tehran, by supporting insurgents in Iraq, is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. It might be harder to prove that Iran’s nuclear plans pose an immediate threat to the world. Besides, the nuclear argument is reminiscent of an embarrassing precedent, when the Bush administration used the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — which he didn’t — as a reason to invade Iraq. Even if the evidence against Tehran proves to be more damning, the American public will find it difficult to swallow this argument again.

The forces urging a diplomatic resolution also look stronger than they were before Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants the next step to be a third round of even tighter sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. Rice has powerful allies at the Pentagon: Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which is responsible for American forces throughout the region.

Rice and her cohorts all favor diplomacy, partly because they know the military is under strain. After four years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US lacks manpower for another major war, especially one against a relatively well-prepared adversary. “For many senior people at the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department, a war would be sheer lunacy,” says security expert Sick.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and now a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, agrees. A war against Tehran would be “a disaster for the entire world,” says Riedel, who worries about a “battlefield extending from the Mediterranean to the Indian subcontinent.” Nevertheless, he believes there is a “realistic risk of a military conflict,” because both sides look willing to carry things to the brink.

On the one hand, says Riedel, Iran is playing with fire, challenging the West by sending weapons to Shiite insurgents in Iraq. On the other hand, hotheads in Washington are by no means powerless. Although many neoconservative hawks have left the Bush administration, Cheney remains their reliable partner. “The vice president is the closest adviser to the president, and a dominant figure,” says Riedel. “One shouldn’t underestimate how much power he still wields.”

‘Is it 1938 Again?’

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Tehran last week also played into the hands of hardliners in Washington, who read it as proof that Putin isn’t serious about joining the West’s effort to convince Tehran to abandon its drive for a nuclear weapon. Moreover, the countries bordering the Caspian Sea, including Central Asian nations Washington has courted energetically in recent years, have said they would not allow a war against Tehran to be launched from their territory.

Cheney derives much of his support from hawks outside the administration who fear their days are as numbered as the President’s. “The neocons see Iran as their last chance to prove something,” says analyst Riedel. This aim is reflected in their tone. Conservative columnist Norman Podhoretz, for example — a father figure to all neocons — wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he “hopes and prays” that Bush will finally bomb Iran. Podhoretz sees the United States engaged in a global war against “Islamofascism,” a conflict he defines as World War IV, and he likens Iran to Nazi Germany. “Is it 1938 again?” he asks in a speech he repeats regularly at conferences.

Podhoretz is by no means an eccentric outsider. He now serves as a senior foreign-policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. President Bush has also met with Podhoretz at the White House to hear his opinions.

Nevertheless, most experts in Washington warn against attacking Tehran. They assume the Iranians would retaliate. “It would be foolish to believe surgical strikes will be enough,” says Riedel, who believes that precision attacks would quickly escalate to war.

Former presidential adviser Sick thinks Iran would strike back with terrorist attacks. “The generals of the Revolutionary Guard have had several years to think about asymmetrical warfare,” says Sick. “They probably have a few rather interesting ideas.”

According to Sick, detonating well-placed bombs at oil terminals in the Persian Gulf would be enough to wreak havoc. “Insurance costs would skyrocket, causing oil prices to triple and triggering a global recession,” Sick warns. “The economic consequences would be enormous, far greater than anything we have experienced with Iraq so far.”

Because the catastrophic consequences of an attack on Iran are obvious, many in Washington have a fairly benign take on the current round of saber rattling. They believe the sheer dread of war is being used to bolster diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis and encourage hesitant members of the United Nations Security Council to take more decisive action. The Security Council, this argument goes, will be more likely to approve tighter sanctions if it believes that war is the only alternative.

 

Pentagon Chief Calls Iran Planning Routine

Reuters
October 25, 2007

OVER THE NORTH SEA (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday characterized U.S. military planning for a strike on Iran as “routine”.

“I would characterize it as routine,” Gates told reporters on a flight en route to Washington, when asked about any U.S. planning for military action against Iran.

The Pentagon plans for hundreds of potential scenarios that could involve military force in a variety of roles ranging from offensive operations to disaster response.


Tensions between Washington and Iran have climbed this year. The United States and others accuse Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons under cover of a peaceful nuclear energy program.

The United States also accuses Iran of providing weapons, training and other support to insurgents in Iraq.

Iran has denied those charges.

Gates said the United States was focused on diplomatic and economic pressure against Iran.

“The focus that we all have is on using diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions to persuade the Iranian government that they are isolated, they need to alter their policies and ambitions,” he said.

Related News:

US denies being on warpath with Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071026155152.9jhm5uyq.html

Iran Says It’s Safe From US Attack
http://www.breitbart.com/article.p…00&show_article=1

Iran’s Guards: We are ready for war
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht…0/26/wiran126.xml

Attack Iran and you attack Russia
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html

Dialogue Undermined by White House’s Iran Sanctions
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/gharib.php?articleid=11817

Condoleeza Rice Alludes to US Funding of ‘Al-Qaeda’
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/10/c…-us-funding.html

Ann Coulter: Nuke Them!
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/10/ann-coulter-nuke-them.html

Neo-Con Podhoretz Tells Audience To ‘Shut Up’ After Tough Questions
http://www.prisonplanet.com/artic…/231007_shut_up.htm

“Bomb Iran” Scholar: Rudy Invited Me To Discuss “World War IV”
http://www.observer.com/2007/i-podhoretz-mr-world-war-4-tutors-giuliani

Rice: Iran Perhaps Greatest Security Risk
http://www.breitbart.com/article…how_article=1

Bush: Iran Missiles Could Strike U.S. By 2015
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071023/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_1

AEI’s Muravchik: ‘I Don’t Mind If We Bomb Iran Next Month Or The Month After’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/23/matthews-muravchik-iran/

Rice Says Iran an Obstacle to U.S. Goals
Kuwait: Arab States Need To Prepare For Crises
Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs
Castro Speaks On Biofuel Scam & World War III
Media pundits ask: Should the US bomb Iran now?
Think Iran is a threat to the int’l order? What planet are you on?
Iraq: US involved in terrorist acts
‘UK special forces operating in Iran’
Juan Williams: Kristol Is Pushing For ‘The Next World War’

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Pro-Iran War Neocon Tells Audience to ’Shut Up’

noworldsystem.com note: The man who predicted “Bush is going to hit Iran before presidential term is up tells audience member to ‘shut up’ after asking tough questions about the possibility of a War with Iran.

Neo-Con Podhoretz Tells Audience To ‘Shut Up’ After Tough Questions

Giuliani’s foreign policy advisor Implies Iran should be bombed because it carried out 9/11

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
October 23, 2007

Arch-Neo Con Norman Podhoretz’s book reading at a recent Barnes and Noble appearance in New York turned into a hostile affair after he told the audience that Iran should be bombed because “We were attacked by Islamofascists on 9/11,” before being bombarded with accusatory questions and eventually telling the crowd to “shut up”.

Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy advisor was subject to walkouts by individuals disgusted at the fact that Podhoretz openly called for air strikes on Iran, labeling Podhoretz a “fascist” who would have blood on his hands.

Asked whether there should be a fresh investigation into 9/11, Podhoretz simply dismissed the suggestion as “paranoia” and refused to answer the question.

Watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MBzLTjVMhY

He later defended the fact that he signed the infamous Project For a New American Century documents, a Neo-Con manifesto for world domination that includes advocating the use of race-specific bio-weapons, and claimed that the PNAC had been “misrepresented”.Podhoretz then admitted that the CIA had overthrown the U.S.-friendly Iranian government of Mohammad Mossadegh in the 50’s, but called it “ancient history.”


He then went on to make a case that Iran was behind the violence in Iraq and had formed an alliance with Al-Qaeda, despite the fact that the two are Shia and Sunni respectively and as such are arch-enemies. He was then educated about how in fact it was the U.S. government that is funding Al-Qaeda affiliated groups to attack Iran. This mattered little to Podhoretz, who was then asked why we should “fight back” against Iran by bombing them when they had never attacked us?

Podhoretz’s answer was to state that, “We were attacked by Islamofascists on 9/11,” clearly implying that Iran attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Such unmitigated and bellicose propaganda might fly on Fox News, but many members of the audience were having none of it, asking why they should trust Bush and the Neo-Cons after being lied to for six years.

“Why don’t you shut up,” barked Podhoretz, seemingly having abandoned his ceaseless regurgitation of warmongering rhetoric and finally losing his temper.

Several members of the audience were kicked out of the store by cops but as Podhoretz left he was heckled again as protesters chanted “No Iran war,” before ducking into a vehicle and scurrying away.

The incident was another example of the sterling efforts of We Are Change NYC, who have made headlines this year for their prolific confrontations of numerous public figures from Hillary Clinton, to David Rockefeller, to Alan Greenspan.

We Are Change have almost single handedly ruined Rudy Giuliani’s Republican nomination campaign by repeatedly hounding him at public events and reminding that watching media that he is universally hated by New York firefighters and other 9/11 heroes while constantly invoking their names for cheap political points scoring.

Giuliani enlisted Podhoretz as his foreign policy advisor back in July. In September, Podhoretz met secretly with President Bush and Karl Rove and encouraged them to bomb Iran. Podhoretz is widely considered to be one of the few remaining hardcore Neo-Con loyalists, while a sizeable majority of the rest begin to flee the sinking ship as public opinion turns ferociously against the Neo-Con’s anti-American agenda and incessant warmongering.

“Bomb Iran” Scholar: Rudy Invited Me To Discuss “World War IV”
http://www.observer.com/2007/i-podhoretz-mr-world-war-4-tutors-giuliani

Top neocon urged Bush to bomb Iran during private White House meeting
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Top_neocon_urged_Bush_to_bomb_0924.html

Podhoretz Granted Secret Access To Lobby Bush On ‘The Case For Bombing Iran’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/24/podhoretz-bush-meeting/

Politico: Podhoretz secretly urged Bush to bomb Iran
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5964.html

 



Top Neocon Urged Bush to Bomb Iran

Top neocon urged Bush to bomb Iran during private White House meeting

Nick Juliano
Raw Story
September 24, 2007

Giuliani adviser Podhoretz predicted Bush ‘will hit’ Iran before term is up
One of the few remaining neoconservatives in America was recently granted a private audience in the White House to deliver a 45-minute sales pitch to convince President Bush, accompanied by political deputy Karl Rove, to bomb Iran.

Norman Podhoretz, who is among a dwindling class of agressive defenders of President Bush’s Iraq invasion, argued the United States needed to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, the author tells The Politico Monday. The longtime editor of Commentary magazine, Podhoretz is now serving as a foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign.

Although Bush “didn’t tip his hand,” Podhoretz says he believes that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before his term ends, The Politico reported.

“”I did say to [the president], that people ask: Why are you spending all this time negotiating sanctions? Time is passing. I said, my friend [Robert] Kagan wrote a column which he said you were giving ‘futility its chance.’ And both he and Karl Rove burst out laughing,” Podhoretz said.


“It struck me,” Podhoretz added, “that if they really believed that there was a chance for these negotiations and sanctions to work, they would not have laughed. They would have got their backs up and said, ‘No, no, it’s not futile, there’s a very good chance.'” ? Podhoretz said his prediction of a US strike is based on instinct, rather than any indication from the president.

His most recent book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism has been praised by conservative talker Rush Limbaugh and defends Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, the Politico reports.

One of the country’s most ardent hawks, Podhoretz was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004 when criticism of what some were then beginning to see as a quagmire in Iraq began to intensify.

Podhorets has remained steadfast in arguing in favor of US preemptive war, saying in a recent op-ed that he “hopes” and “prays” for an invasion of Iran.

 

Podhoretz Granted Secret Access To Lobby Bush On ‘The Case For Bombing Iran’

Think Progress
Seotember 24, 2007

Norman Podhoretz, the “patriarch of neoconservatism,” recently published a book entitled “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism,” staunchly supporting the Iraq war and pushing for war with Iran. In June, Podhoretz published a controversial piece in Commentary magazine titled “The Case for Bombing Iran.

The Politico reports today that President Bush has been listening to Podhoretz’s radical agenda, recently enlisting Podhoretz to discuss his views on Iran. In a meeting that “was not on the president’s public schedule,” Bush and Karl Rove “sat listening to Norman Podhoretz for roughly 45 minutes at the White House”:

Rove was silent throughout, though he took notes. The president listened diligently, Podhoretz said as he recounted the conversation months later, but he “didn’t tip his hand.”

“I did say to [the president], that people ask: Why are you spending all this time negotiating sanctions? Time is passing. I said, my friend [Robert] Kagan wrote a column which he said you were giving ‘futility its chance.’ And both he and Karl Rove burst out laughing.

“It struck me,” Podhoretz added, “that if they really believed that there was a chance for these negotiations and sanctions to work, they would not have laughed. They would have got their backs up and said, ‘No, no, it’s not futile, there’s a very good chance.'”

President Bush has loyally supported Podhoretz’s agenda in the past. In 2004, he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation’s highest civilian honor — on Podhoretz, calling him a “fierce intellectual man” with “fine writing and a “great love for our country.”

Today, Podhoretz’s calls for bombing Iran are being echoed in the administration. According to Newsweek, Vice President Cheney considered a plan to allow Israel to conduct missile strikes against Iran “in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.”

Podhoretz has argued that “if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will…we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.” By enlisting Podhoretz’s advice, President Bush is demonstrating that there isn’t any idea too radical for him to consider.

Politico: Podhoretz secretly urged Bush to bomb Iran
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5964.html