US-Backed Terrorist Group Kills Iran Military Officers
Bankrolling and arming Al-Qaeda offshoot part of 2007 White House directive to destabilize Iranian government
The U.S. government effectively attacked Iran yesterday after its proxy terror group Jundullah launched a suicide bomb attack against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard at their headquarters in Pishin, near the border with Pakistan.
Leaders of the Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni terrorist group Jundullah have claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Iran that killed over 40 people yesterday. The group is funded and trained by the CIA and is being used to destabilize the government of Iran, according to reports out of the London Telegraph and ABC News.
In the aftermath of the attack, which killed at least five commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard along with scores of others, media reports have swung between Iranian accusations of US and British involvement and blanket denials on behalf of the U.S. State Department.
However, the fact that Jundullah, who have since claimed responsibility for the attack and named the bomber as Abdol Vahed Mohammadi Saravani, are openly financed and run by the CIA and Mossad is not up for debate, it has been widely reported for years.
“President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert “black” operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs,” reported the London Telegraph in May 2007.
Part of that destabilization campaign involved the the CIA “Giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,” stated the report.
Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The fact that it is being directly supported by the U.S. government under both Bush and now Obama destroys the whole legitimacy of the “war on terror” in an instant.
The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.
The group also produces propaganda tapes and literature for al-Qaeda’s media wing, As-Sahab, which is in turn closely affiliated with the military-industrial complex front IntelCenter, the group that makes available Al-Qaeda videos to the western media.
In May 2008, ABC News reported on how Pakistan was threatening to turn over six members of Jundullah to Iran after they were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities.
“U.S. officials tell ABC News U.S. intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundullah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran,” reported ABC news, highlighting again the close relationship between the terror group and the CIA.
Abdolhamid Rigi, a senior member of the group and the brother of the group’s leader Abdolmalek Rigi, who was one of the six members of the organization extradited by Pakistan, told the court that Jundullah was being trained and financed by “the US and Zionists”. He also said that the group had been ordered by America and Israel to step up their attacks in Iran.
Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.
Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the U.S. is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.
It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran.
After a bombing inside Iran in March 2007, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.
A story entitled, US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran, reveals how funding for the attacks carried out by the terrorist groups “comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget,” a fact that is now “no great secret”, according to a former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.
Former US state department counter-terrorism agent Fred Burton backed the claim, telling the newspaper, “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: “The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity.”
The timing of the bombing that targeted Iranian Revolutionary Guard members yesterday was clearly orchestrated to coincide with talks between representatives from Iran, Russia, France, the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna today concerning Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Israeli transportation minister Shaul Mofaz has reiterated his previous threats against Iran, saying Israel must be ready to act.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post published late Thursday, Mofaz said sanctions were not effective in halting Iran’s nuclear program and “there will be no choice but to attack Iran to halt the Iranian nuclear program.”
“Israel cannot let Iran get to the point of nuclearization,” Mofaz said. “All options are on the table. If there won’t be a choice other than a nuclear Iran or a military option, it’s clear what our decision has to be.”
“The strategy against Iran has not changed and it will continue to be led by the United States,” Mofaz said, adding Israel could not let Iran ’threaten the entire world.’
Mofaz had told Yediot Aharonot on June 6 that Israel would attack Iran if it did not cease nuclear development.
Following his remarks in June, Israeli officials condemned his threats, calling them ’irresponsible’ and ’cynical.’
His new remarks against Tehran come as even the United States seems to have backed down on its demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before entering talks on its nuclear program.
US diplomat William Burns is to be present at the negotiating table on Saturday in Geneva where Iran’s nuclear issue will be discussed.
John Bolton demands US support for Israeli strike on Iran
John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, has said that America should “facilitate” an Israeli attack on suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.
In a Wall Street Journal editorial, the leading voice of Washington’s hawks warned that time is running out for efforts to stop the Islamic Republic’s covert nuclear research programme.
Recent tests of ballistic missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv had demonstrated the external threat posed to the Jewish state by a nuclear-armed Tehran.
While the Bush administration no longer appears interested in military action against Iran, there is no doubt about Israel’s intentions.
American air and naval power in the Middle East, as well as its current control of Iraqi airspace, would mean that an Israeli attack could not take place without the superpower’s tacit consent.
“We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible,” Mr Bolton writes.
“At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel’s path, and facilitate its efforts where we can.”
Mr Bolton said that further rounds of United Nations sanctions were no longer a realistic deterrent.
“We have almost certainly lost the race between giving ’strong incentives’ for Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Swift, sweeping, effectively enforced sanctions might have made a difference five years ago. No longer.”
Iran’s Air Force plans to stage a large-scale combat and defensive drills to beef up deterrence against threats from the US and Israel.
Air Force commander Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said Tuesday that the armed forces would conduct a military exercise, dubbed Defenders of the Sky of Velayat, to enhance aerial capabilities.
The Iranian Air Force will prove its dominance by immediately crushing anyone who dares to try and penetrate Iran’s airspace, said Brig. Gen. Miqani.
The extensive air maneuvers will follow the six-day drills held by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) directed at demonstrating Iran’s defensive ballistic power.
The IRGC ended an extensive military exercise on Sunday during which Iran successfully test-fired various advanced shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles.
Iran also tested the upgraded Shahab-3 missile equipped with a one-ton conventional warhead and capable of hitting targets within a 2,000-kilometer range.
Iran will target “32 US bases and the heart of Israel” if it is attacked, the Fars news agency quoted an aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying on Saturday.
“If America and Israel shoot any bullets and missiles against our country, Iranian armed forces will target the heart of Israel and 32 US bases in the region before the dust from this attack has settled,” Mojtaba Zolnoor said.
Zolnoor is Khamenei’s deputy representative for the elite Revolutionary Guards, the force which controls Iran’s more potent weaponry, particularly its longer-range missiles capable of striking Israel and US bases in the Gulf.
The United States and its top regional ally Israel have never ruled out attacking Iran over its nuclear drive, which the West fears could be aimed at making nuclear weapons.
There has been concern an attack against Iran could be imminent after it emerged Israel had carried out manoeuvres in Greece that were effectively practice runs for a potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Iran test-fired more weaponry on Thursday as it continued war games, ignoring global concern over its launch of a broadside of missiles amid efforts to end the crisis over its nuclear programme.
The weapons fired in the Gulf by the naval section of the Revolutionary Guards included shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles, state television said. No details were given on the names of the missiles.
It said the war games also included firing the Hoot (Whale) torpedo that Iran unveiled in April 2006 and which it says is a super-fast weapon capable of hitting enemy submarines.
Iran on Wednesday test-fired its Shahab-3 long-range missile, which the Islamic republic says can reach Israel and US bases in the Gulf, and eight other more medium-range missiles.
The move sparked major concern in Western governments which say they fear Iran’s nuclear drive is aimed at making atomic weapons, a charge that Tehran vehemently denies.
In a separate land exercise late on Wednesday, the military also fired “longer and medium range missiles,” state television said, showing several missiles being fired into the night sky.
Footage was also broadcast of the naval manoeuvres, showing divers fixing mines to a pier, missiles being fired from shore-based mobile launchers and the Hoot speeding towards a target.
Israel’s defence minister has warned of his country’s readiness to act against Iran if it feels threatened.
Ehud Barak, speaking in Tel Aviv, said Israel had “proved in the past that it won’t hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake”.
He spoke as Iran’s testing of missiles that could reach Israel stoked tensions between the two, and with the US.
But Mr Barak added that diplomatic solutions should be pursued before other options were taken up.
“Currently the focus is international sanctions and vigorous diplomatic activity, and these avenues should be exhausted,” he said.
US warning
Over the past two days, the Iranian military has tested missiles, including one that it says could reach Israel.
State media said the tests included the first night launch of the Shahab-3 missile, said to have a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles), along with shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US had increased its security in the region and Iran should not be “confused” about US capabilities.
Israel has responded to the missile tests by putting on display one of its aircraft that it says can spy on Iran.
The state-run Israel Aerospace Industries says it has equipped its Eitam aeroplane, unveiled a year ago, with sophisticated intelligence-gathering systems.
Mr Barak spoke of the “potential for accords, particularly with the Palestinians and the Syrians”, but stressed that the situation was very complex.
Quoted by Israeli news website Ynet, Mr Barak said: “We must work towards an accord – but if not, then we must strike our enemy when it is required.”
He also warned that Israel must consider the reactions from other nations in the region that could be provoked by action against Iran.
“The responses of our adversaries must be taken into account. Hamas and Hezbollah and the Syrians and the Iranians – there is activity all around us. And there exists a potential for confrontation.”
Meanwhile, the AFP news agency has issued a warning that a still image of the missiles being launched, one of several distributed by Iran, was “apparently digitally altered”.
The photograph, published on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards website and reproduced by media organisations – including the BBC News website – showed four missiles taking off from a desert launch-pad.
But a similar image, issued by the Associated Press, shows one of the missiles still in its launcher after apparently failing to fire.
The BBC News website’s picture editor, Phil Coomes, said: “Having examined the photograph from AFP, it can be seen that parts have been edited, with smoke trails and parts of the foreground being cloned.”
In recent weeks, both Israel and Iran have been testing and showing off their military hardware, each saying that in the event of provocation it is more than capable of defending itself.
The Israeli air force recently carried out a large-scale exercise over the Mediterranean – regarded by many observers as a dress rehearsal should the order be given to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel believes Iran is building nuclear weapons, although Tehran insists its nuclear programme is purely for civilian energy.
Western leaders have been trying to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium, which it has continued doing despite sanctions from the UN and the European Union.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Iran’s missile test bolsters the U.S. argument that Tehran is a threat. He also says it counters Russia’s case against the need for a missile defense system in Europe.
Gates says the U.S. has said for some time that there is a real threat Iran could develop long-range missiles to use against Europe. He says Tehran’s launch of several missiles Wednesday helps make that point.
The U.S. Navy said on Monday it was carrying out an exercise in the Gulf, days after vowing that Iran will not be allowed to block the waterway which carries crude from the world’s largest oil-exporting region.
“The aim of Exercise Stake Net is to practise the tactics and procedures of protecting maritime infrastructure such as gas and oil installations,” Commodore Peter Hudson said in a U.S. Fifth Fleet statement.
The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said in remarks published late last month that Tehran would impose controls on shipping in the Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz if it was attacked.
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its nuclear programme has risen since a report last month said Israel had practised such a strike.
Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, said last week the United States would not allow Iran to block the Gulf.
Fear of an escalation in the standoff between the West and Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer, has helped propel oil prices over $140 a barrel.
Two U.S. vessels were taking part in the exercise alongside a British warship and one from Bahrain, a Gulf Arab ally which hosts the Fifth Fleet. “Stake Net seeks to help ensure a lawful maritime order as well as improve relationships between regional partners,” the fleet’s statement said.
Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards began military maneuvers on Monday, news agencies said, the same day the U.S. Navy said it was carrying out an exercise in the Gulf.
The war games were conducted by missile units of the Guards’ naval and air forces, the Fars and Mehr news agencies said. They said the exercises, which began a few hours ago, were aimed at improving combat readiness and capability.
The reports did not give details of where the exercise was taking place. The Guards often conduct maneuvers in the Gulf.
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its disputed nuclear program has risen since the New York Times newspaper reported last month that Israel’s armed forces had practiced such a strike.
Iraq will be plunged into a new war if Israel or the US launches an attack on Iran, Iraqi leaders have warned. Iranian retaliation would take place in Iraq, said Dr Mahmoud Othman, the influential Iraqi MP.
The Iraqi government’s main allies are the US and Iran, whose governments openly detest each other. The Iraqi government may be militarily dependent on the 140,000 US troops in the country, but its Shia and Kurdish leaders have long been allied to Iran. Iraqi leaders have to continually perform a balancing act in which they seek to avoid alienating either country.
The balancing act has become more difficult for Iraq since George Bush successfully requested $400m (£200m) from Congress last year to fund covert operations aimed at destabilising the Iranian leadership. Some of these operations are likely to be launched from Iraqi territory with the help of Iranian militants opposed to Tehran. The most effective of these opponent groups is the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which enraged the Iraqi government by staging a conference last month at Camp Ashraf, north-east of Baghdad. It demanded the closure of the Iranian embassy and the expulsion of all Iranian agents in Iraq. “It was a huge meeting” said Dr Othman. “All the tribes and political leaders who are against Iran, but are also against the Iraqi government, were there.” He said the anti-Iranian meeting could not have taken place without US permission.
The Americans disarmed the 3,700 MEK militants, who had long been allied to Saddam Hussein, at Camp Ashraf in 2003, but they remain well-organised and well-financed. The extent of their support within Iran remains unknown, but they are extremely effective as an intelligence and propaganda organisation.
Though the MEK is on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups, the Pentagon and other US institutions have been periodically friendly to it. The US task force charged by Mr Bush with destabilising the Iranian government is likely to co-operate with it.
In reaction to the conference, the Iraqi government, the US and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have started secret talks on the future of the MEK with the Iraqi government pressing for their expulsion from Iraq. Dr Othman, who speaks to the MEK frequently by phone, said: “I pressed them to get out of Iraq voluntarily because they are a card in the hands of the Americans.”
An embarrassing aspect of the American pin-prick war against Iran is that many of its instruments were previously on the payroll of Saddam Hussein. The MEK even played a role in 1991 in helping to crush the uprising against the Baathist regime at the end of the Gulf war. The dissidents from Arab districts in southern Iran around Ahwaz were funded by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence organisations, which orchestrated the seizure of the Iranian embassy in London in 1980 which was supposedly carried out by Arab nationalists from Iran.
The one community in Iran most likely to oppose the Tehran government is the Iranian Kurds. There have been an increasing number of attacks by PJAK, the Iranian wing of the Turkish PKK, which claims to be a separate party. Based in the Kandil mountains in Iraqi Kurdistan, PJAK has carried out frequent raids into Iran and has reportedly been able to win local support. But it would be extremely dangerous for the US to be seen as a supporter of PJAK as this would offend the Turks who have a military co-operation agreement with Iran against terrorism
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.”
The visiting Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, carried out a guided tour of Israel’s borders with Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip over the weekend. It was led by the IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and OCs Northern and Southern Commands, Maj. Gens. Eisenkott and Galant.
He was briefed on IDF tactics in a war on all these potential flashpoints in the context of a comprehensive conflict with Iran and then held long conversations with defense minister Ehud Barak and Ashkenazi.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that it is very unusual for the top American commander to carry out a close, on-the-spot study of Israel’s potential war fronts. It was prompted on the one hand by skepticism in parts of the US high command of Israel’s ability to simultaneously strike Iran’s nuclear installations and fight off attacks from three borders while, at the same time, Adm. Mullen showed he was open to persuasion that the IDF’s prospective tactics and war plans were workable.
Israel must destroy Iran’s nuclear program within the next 12 months or risk being attacked with an atomic bomb itself, the former head of the Mossad told the British Sunday Telegraph.
“As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared,” Shabtai Shavit, who served as Mossad chief from 1989 to 1996, told the British paper.
“We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don’t work. What’s left is a military action.”
“The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time,” Shavit told the Telegraph.
Shavit added that a victory by Democratic nominee Barack Obama in the November presidential election would significantly lower the chances that the U.S. would approve of military action against Iran.
“If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it,” Shavit told the paper. “If it’s Obama: no. My prediction is that he won’t go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House.”
Shavit told the Telegraph, however, that Israel would not hesitate to go it alone, with or without U.S. support.
“When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something,” Shavit told the paper. “It’s not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement,” he said.
Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister said on Sunday he did not believe Israel was in a position to attack the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.
“They know full well what the consequences of such an act would be,” Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki told reporters.
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its disputed nuclear ambitions has risen since a report this month said Israel had practiced such a strike, prompting increasingly tough talk of retaliation, if pushed, from Tehran.
Mottaki said Israel was still dealing with the consequences of its 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and was also suffering a “crisis of deepening illegitimacy” in the Middle East region.
“That’s why we do not see the Zionist regime in a situation in which they would want to engage in such an adventurism,” he said when asked about the possibility of an Israeli attack.
A senior Iranian commander says the country is digging some ’320,000 graves’ in its bordering provinces for future slain invaders.
Brigadier General Mir-Faisal Baqerzadeh, the Head of the Foundation for the Remembrance of the Holy Defense, said Sunday that the decision had been approved by Iran’s Armed Forces Headquarters.
“We will dig 15,000 to 20,000 graves in each of the border provinces,” he said.
“We do not wish the families of enemy soldiers to experience what Americans had to go through in the aftermath of the Vietnam War,” added Brig. Gen. Baqerzadeh, who is also the head of the search committee for missing soldiers.
The commander said the preemptive measures would decrease the time slain soldiers would be ’missing in action’.
“The burial of slain soldiers will be carried out decently and in little time,” he continued.
Baqerzadeh added that the decision is in line with the Islamic Republic’s commitment to comply with the Geneva Convention and the additional protocol regarding wartime cooperation between Iran and the Red Cross.
US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama calls the Islamic Republic of Iran a ’threat’ during a word association game in a TV interview.
In an interview on Fox Business channel Thursday, Obama played a word association game, responding in rapid-fire to words thrown at him by the program anchor.
When given the word ’Iran’ Obama responded by saying ’threat’. The Illinois Senator also described Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain as ’honorable’.
Earlier this month, Obama called Iran a threat when addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
“The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,” he told his audience at the gathering.
Obama also stressed that he would always keep the military option against Iran on the table to defend US security and its ally, Israel.
The presumptive Democratic nominee has said he would do everything in his power to go against Iran if it does not stop threatening Israel and continues uranium enrichment.
But political observers say Barack Obama is simply using harsh rhetoric against the Islamic Republic to secure his Presidency with the support of influential pro-Israel lobbies in the US.
Obama sends Bush letter expressing unwavering support for Israel
“We must press Egypt to devote more resources and effort to stopping the smuggling of weapons into Gaza from the Sinai, where much of Hamas’ weaponry arrives from,” Democratic US presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama said in a letter addressed to US President George W. Bush.
In the letter Obama reiterated many of the positions he presented at AIPAC’s annual conference in Washington at the beginning of the month.
Clarifying his support for Israel Obama wrote, “A fundamental principle of America’s Middle East policy must be our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. I believe that is a bipartisan commitment and I will work to continue and advance that consensus. But I am deeply concerned that Israel’s security has been put at greater risk, both because of renewed threats from implacable enemies like Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas, and because of policy choices by the United States.”
The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq’s border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.
The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.
He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.
“The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel.”
According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran’s nuclear complex.
CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn’t want to wait for a new administration.
“The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize,” Oren said. “Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran.”
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.
“Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers,” Oren said. “The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.”
The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region.
IRAN: American public won’t allow another war, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman says
Despite constant talk of war, U.S. officials have tried to reach out to the Iranian people in an attempt to get past the animosity between Washington and Tehran.
But Iranian officials have also been on a diplomatic offensive, reaching out to ordinary people in the Middle East as well as, more modestly, to Americans.
Known for his good looks, polite manners and kindly attitude toward the media, Iran’s silver-haired foreign ministry spokesman, Mohammed Ali Hosseini has emerged as a frequent public face on his government’s policies.
In a lengthy interview in his office Wednesday, he described Americans as a peace-loving people who “hate violence” and are suffering because of the mistakes of their leaders. He said he believed economic pressures, the military entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and American public opinion would prevent war from breaking out between Iran and the United States. “The U.S. and the Zionist regime, thanks to the increasing economic, political, security and military crises in which they are stuck, are not logically in a position to tolerate the expenses of another massive and far-reaching crisis,” Hosseini said.
He continued:
Public opinion in the world will not permit [President] Bush to exacerbate the pains and tragedies already inflicted on the nations of the region and the American people. Nowadays, the polling surveys carried out among U.S. elites, thinkers and, by and large, the American people, show they hate violence, further battles and anarchy. The surveys indicate that the Americans are seeking genuine peace, stability and security.
But he warned:
If there is a war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, it will be out of control and with unpredictable consequences. Thus, anyone with minimum rationality and political logic does not dare to step on this path.
Hosseini, 47, is a physicist by training and a career diplomat. A native of Tehran, he studied in India before joining Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs 20 years ago. He’s a family man, with a wife and three children. He sat down for an exclusive and wide-ranging interview with the Los Angeles Times about Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. relations and turmoil in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, which have became contested terrain in the Cold War between Washington and Tehran.
US officials and heads of four Kurdish anti-Iran groups have held a secret meeting in the Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah, a Kurdish website says.
The two-day meeting was aimed at coordination of the US and the anti-Iran groups on mounting more pressure on the Islamic Republic.
Ten American military officers and leaders of four Kurdish terrorist groups attended the meeting in the Palace Hotel in Sulaimaniyah, northern Iraq, the website said.
During the meeting, the Kurdish leaders called on the US officials to pursue the same policies, which led to fall of the Iraqi Baath regime, in a bid to overthrow the Iranian government.
The latest developments within the anti-revolutionary groups indicate that winning the US cooperation and support is the groups’ objective.
Kurdistan Democratic Party’s former Secretary Mostafa Hejri, had reportedly underlined cooperation with the US against Iran as a “necessity”, in a meeting he held with students of Arbil University last year.
General Secretary of Komala terrorist group, Abdulah Mohtadi had also officially affirmed the need of monetary and arms support from the US.
Mostafa Hejri, Abdulah Mohtadi, secretary-general of a faction of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, Abdullah Hassanzadeh, and the general secretary of the Revolutionary Union of Kurdistan, Hussein Yazdanpanah were the four Kurdish leaders attending the meeting.
Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be ‘Delighted’
Bolton predicts “likely period” for Israel strike on Iran is between November 4, 2008 and January 20, 2009
This morning on Fox News, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton continued his drumbeat for war against Iran. Adopting Bill Kristol’s argument, Bolton suggested that an attack on Iran depends on who Americans elect as the next President:
I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don’t think they will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it. And they’d have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor.
Bolton gamed out the fallout from an attack on Iran. He claimed that Iran’s options to retaliate after being attacked are actually “less broad than people think.” He suggested that Iran would not want to escalate a conflict because 1) it still needs to export oil, 2) it would worry about “an even greater response” from Israel, 3) and it would worry about the U.S.’s response.
Bolton then concluded that Arab states would be excited if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran:
I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.
Bolton: Israel Would Be “Delighted” If U.S. Strikes Iranian Training Camps
In a Fox News interview this afternoon, former UN Ambassador John Bolton discussed his desire to bomb camps inside Iran that are reportedly training and arming Shiite insurgents who fight in Iraq. Fox host Martha McCallum asked, “Can you imagine a scenario where President Bush would do that before the end of his term?” Bolton responded, “I think so, definitely.” He added later, “This is entirely responsible on our part.”
Asked by McCallum whether Israel would be supportive of the strikes given the possibility of Iranian retaliation, Bolton responded, “I think they’d be delighted.”
Fox News claims Iranian missile could ‘hit some military installations’ in the U.S.
The L.A. Times’ Babylon & Beyond blog reports on “a serious recommendation made by two neoconservatives in case sanctions fail to persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment of uranium, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons or fuel for peaceful energy production.” Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, described as two “scholars” working for the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, have suggested taking out Iran’s oil infrastructure.
Because the ultimate goal of prevention is to influence Tehran to change course, effective strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may play an important role in affecting Iran’s decision calculus. Strikes that flatten its nuclear infrastructure could have a demoralizing effect, and could influence Tehran’s assessment of the cost of rebuilding. But the most effective strikes may not necessarily be against nuclear facilities. Iran is extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks on its oil export infrastructure…. The political shock of losing the oil income could cause Iran to rethink its nuclear stance — in ways that attacks on its nuclear infrastructure might not.
Or it may move Iran’s “decision calculus” in a different direction — deadly missile salvos against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and smoldering oil tankers clogging up passage of the Persian Gulf. If these two criminal minds have their way, you will be paying $10 a gallon or more at the pump for gasoline. No problem for the WINEP “scholars,” who write:
To be sure, in a tight world oil market, attacking Iran’s oil infrastructure carries an obvious risk of causing world oil prices to soar and hurting consumers in the United States and other oil-importing countries…. If the choice is between higher oil prices and a Middle East with several nuclear powers, higher oil prices and reduced economic growth are not clearly the greater evil.
Talk about hubris. But then neocons are more than comfortable with imposing economic hardship on you, considered a lowly commoner and easily distracted chump by the neocons and their globalist associates. It should be remembered that the neocons consider themselves “philosopher-kings,” a self-appointed elite, and advocate benevolent dictatorship – a process well underway — although it remains to be seen how benevolent it would be to freeze to death thousands of people unable to heat their homes or starve them to death because the cannot afford to drive to work.
Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former George W Bush administration official.
J Scott Carpenter, who was then deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, recalled in an interview that senior Defense Department (DoD) officials and the Joint Chiefs used the escalation issue as the main argument against the Cheney proposal.
McClatchy newspapers reported last August that Cheney had
proposal several weeks earlier “launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran”, citing two officials involved in Iran policy.
According to Carpenter, who is now at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, a strongly pro-Israel think-tank, Pentagon officials argued that no decision should be made about the limited airstrike on Iran without a thorough discussion of the sequence of events that would follow an Iranian retaliation for such an attack. Carpenter said the DoD officials insisted that the Bush administration had to make “a policy decision about how far the administration would go – what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks”.
A former State Department official and daughter of Dick Cheney says Iran ’will face military action’ if it does not halt its nuclear work.
Speaking at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee convention, Elizabeth Cheney said the time for diplomacy on Iran is ’rapidly coming to an end’.
Former deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs deplored the Bush administration over key elements of its Middle East policies, suggesting that the administration needed to adopt a tougher stance in the region.
“In my view, this administration has gotten it right when we have been bold, when we have been decisive, when we have been focused, when we have used our military force when necessary,” she said.
Cheney added that Washington must clearly declare that if Iranians “don’t give up diplomatically [to United Nations demands that Iran freeze its nuclear program], they will face military action”.
Iran has repeatedly asserted that as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and that has no intention to give up its inalienable rights.
The UN nuclear watchdog, in its latest report, certified the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in the country’s nuclear activities. However, Washington with a blatant disregard for international reports continues to accuse Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program in a bid to justify the drumbeat for a war against the country.
The Bush administration is planning to carry out air strikes against Iran by August and two U.S. Senators have already been briefed on the attack according to a report in the highly respected Asia Times, which cites a former assistant secretary of state and U.S. career diplomat as its source.
Muhammad Cohen’s article claims that Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, were informed of the attack plan and planned to voice their opposition to it in a New York Times editorial in an attempt to offset the air strike. The editorial is yet to materialize.
According to Cohen’ source, the Neo-Cons believe that they can perpetrate a “limited” air strike aimed more at sending a message than destroying Iran’s supposed nuclear program, but the consequences of such a move are likely to provoke a massive Iranian retaliation, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently warned.
The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC’s elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds’ stated mission is to spread Iran’s revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.
Speculating on whether such a strike will benefit either McCain or Obama on the eve of the presidential election, the report points out that McCain has built his candidacy around an aggressive foreign policy therefore would be the likelier to take advantage.
“A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain,” states the article.
“On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.”
Iran’s inevitable response would send oil prices skyrocketing towards $200 dollars a barrel as global instability threatened to boil over into numerous different regions in the aftermath of any attack. McCain’s ability to grandstand as a tough war leader would no doubt be amplified by a compliant corporate media and a sizable proportion of the American public would rally behind the Arizona Senator, especially if American interests were the subject of terrorist attacks on behalf of Hezbollah and Hamas.
China’s response to any attack, with the Communist nation being Iran’s biggest customer for oil, would also be key. Any inkling of a hostile reaction would place the world under the greatest threat since the height of the cold war.
Lugar and Feinstein’s public opposition to the plan “would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan,” states the article but, “Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration’s plan or their knowledge of it.”
The impending invasion of Iran has been on the grapevine for the past three summers running and many are beginning to fear that the “boy who cried wolf” mentality is starting to discredit those who repeatedly warn of the coming attack. However, rhetoric has notably heated in the past few months.
During a recent news conference at Israel’s parliament, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House majority leader Steny Hoyer stated that the military option against Iran was still on the table.
Prominent political figures such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Gary Hart have warned that an attack on Iran won’t arrive absent a staged provocation or a new Gulf of Tonkin style incident.
During a 2007 Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran,” which would revolve around “some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
In an open letter to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former Senator and current CFR member Hart warned the Iranian President that he would be, “Well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964,” two false flag events manufactured by the U.S. itself to kick start a war.
Neo-Con General Calls For Terror Attacks In Iran McInerney urges U.S. government to support terrorist organization MEK, Bush administration already bankrolling Al-Qaeda-linked Jundullah groupPaul Joseph Watson Prison Planet May 16, 2008
Fresh off the revelation of Donald Rumsfeld’s 2006 audio tape admission that a method to reinvigorate the Neo-Con agenda would be another terror attack, Neo-Cons like Ret. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who was part of the Pentagon’s “message force multipliers” propaganda program, have been calling for the Bush administration to commit acts of terror in Iran.
According to the Crooks and Liars blog, McInerney has appeared on Fox News 144 times since Jan 2002. In one of his recent appearances he publicly called for the U.S. government to support groups like MEK, which is listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and carry out deadly bombings in Iran.
McInerney: Here’s what I would suggest to you. Number one, we take the National Council for Resistance to Iran off the terrorist list that the Clinton Administration put them on as well as the Mujahedin-e Khalq at the Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Then I would start a tit-for-tat strategy which I wrote up in the Wall Street Journal a year ago: For every EFP that goes off and kills Americans, two go off in Iran. No questions asked. People don’t have to know how it was done. It’s a covert action. They become the most unlucky country in the world. …
McInerney’s frothing desire to see women and children blown to bits in the streets of Tehran may have something to do with the fact that “McInerney is on the Board of Directors for several companies with defense-related contracts that would seem to benefit from his pro-war propaganda. For example, Alloy Surfaces Company (ASC), whose contracts for “ammunition and explosives” with the Department of Defense appear to have grown from $15 million in 2002 to more than $169 million in 2006. A conflict of interest, perhaps?”
McInerney “tit-for-tat” strategy, to support MEK-run terror bombings in Iran in retaliation for Iran supposedly killing U.S. troops in Iraq, a baseless claim in itself, is all the more horribly ironic when one considers the fact that MEK “has killed US troops and civilians before back in the 1970s”.
As Crooks and Liars points out, the U.S. government is already funding MEK and the group has been linked with numerous bombings inside Iran over the course of the last few years.
“The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,” the London Telegraph reported last year.
The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.
Crooks and Liars documents White House efforts to censor reports about MEK and other Iranian terror groups in the U.S. corporate media.
In Dec 2006, just days after Rumsfeld was forced to step down, the NYT published a heavily redacted op-ed by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann. Though none of the info was classified, all of which had previously “been extensively reported in the news media,” much of their article was blacked out because the “White House intervened” before it went to print. In response, Leverett and Mann followed up with an accompanying piece “What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran“ where they provided citations to previously reported sources for all of the redacted info. Raw Story compiled those sources in their “The redacted Iran op-ed revealed” and, surprise, many of the articles refer directly to the MEK terrorist group, but there had been nary a mention in the portions the White House allowed.
So, to recap: One of the Pentagon’s propaganda TV analysts who has clear ties to defense industries that would likely stand to benefit from any increased hostilities is advocating that the US ought to use a terrorist organization to commit acts of terrorism against Iran in response to alleged Iranian involvement in attacks against US forces in Iraq, which might be true, or maybe not. And if that wasn’t outrageous enough, it seems that Bush may have been authorizing such tactics already.
In November 2007, Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade openly called for US support for acts of terrorism, such as car bombings, in Tehran. Colonel David Hunt, who has over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations, agreed with Kilmeade, stating “absolutely” in response to Kilmead’s question about whether cars should start blowing up in Tehran.
Former UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter claims the United States is undoubtedly planning a military strike against Iran.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that the United States is planning right now, as we speak, a military strike against Iran. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and almost every senior US military official has pretty much acknowledged the same,” he told Democracy Now on Monday.
“We take a look at the military buildup, we take a look at the rhetoric, we take a look at the diplomatic posturing, and I would say that it’s a virtual guarantee that there will be a limited aerial strike against Iran in the not-so-near future-or not-so-distant future, that focuses on the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps,” Ritter claimed.
Earlier in April, Ritter asserted that there was an 80 percent chance of a US war with Iran.
Ritter added that the preparations for such a conflict has been steadily developing and involves Congress as well as the Bush administration.
According to Ritter, a war with Iran would speed up the ongoing decline of US standing in the world subsequently leading to Russia and China’s readiness to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum.
The commander of the Israeli Air Force says the regime’s decision makers have been preparing plans to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.
General Eliezer Shkedi, who also heads the Israeli task force on Iran, made the remarks in an interview with “60 Minutes” on Sunday.
A large portion of Shkedi’s service has been dedicated to the preparation for a possible mission that was never discussed in public; an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, should international economic sanctions fail, Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported on Monday.
Shkedi spoke of a mission in 1981, when Israeli war planes attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq.
He went on to say that today the Israeli decision makers are faced with a similar choice about Iran’s nuclear program.
Israeli and US officials accuse Iran of seeking nuclear bombs.
Iran, a member of the IAEA and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), maintains that its nuclear activates are solely aimed at peaceful purposes.
Tehran has warned Tel Aviv of a crushing response, in case the regime launches an attack on the Islamic Republic.
The Zionist regime says it is pondering all options against Iran, accusing the Islamic Republic of pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said late Sunday Iran must be prevented from gaining nuclear weapons, adding that all options were on the table against Tehran, The Jerusalem Post reported.
Mofaz made the remark as he headed a delegation to Washington for talks on the Israel-US Strategic Dialogue.
“Teheran leads the axis of evil, poses a threat to the entire world, is up to its neck in the Middle East and is even trying to get a foothold in the West Bank,” he claimed.
Iran says that as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows its members to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, it is following a peaceful nuclear program within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and NPT regulations.
This is while the Zionist regime has so far refused to join the NPT and refused to allow any inspections whatsoever of its vast nuclear facilites by competent international agencies such as the IAEA.
Furthermore, the Zionist regime happens to be up to its neck in causing all the problems, conflicts and human sufferings in the Middle East.
Hundreds of innocent men, women and children in occupied Palestine are ruthlessly murdered every year by its indiscriminate use of the most lethal weapons ever used against a defenseless civilian population in human history.
During the Faux News “debate,” actually a tightly scripted soap opera, the Huckster said Iran would see the “gates of Hell” if it dared confront U.S. warships parked off its coastline in the Strait of Hormuz.
Mr. Law and Order, faux good ol’ boy Fred Thompson, agreed whole heartedly. “Mr Huckabee has faced grave doubts about his foreign policy experience, his greatest vulnerability, but got one of the biggest cheers of the night when asked about the incident last week when Iranian boats swarmed US navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz,” reports the Times Online.
Asked whether the American commanders on the scene were right in not attacking the Iranian boats, Mr Huckabee said he backed their decisions, before warning Iran: “Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that.”
Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and Law & Order star who is banking all on victory in South Carolina to revive his campaign, said of the Iranian boat crews: “I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they’re looking forward to seeing.” The crowd cheered.
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, said: “I think an incident like this reminds us that we shouldn’t be lulled into some false sense of confidence about Iran.”
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor seeking to become America’s first Mormon president, said: “I believe it was a very serious act.”
Indeed, the “crowd cheered,” as they are accustomed to celebrating lies, sort of the same way a well trained monkey dances to an organ grinder. As Gareth Porter notes for Inter Press Service, the entire incident is little more than a boatload of hooey. “Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a ‘battle at sea’, new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats.”
In fact, it appears the neocon propaganda spinners exploited the fact “that in the Persian Gulf, the ‘bridge-to-bridge’ radio channel used to communicate between ships ‘is like a bad CB radio’ with many people using it for ‘hurling racial slurs’ and ‘threats.'” Porter writes that a “veteran U.S. naval officer who had served as a surface warfare officer aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in the Gulf sent a message to the New York Times” indicating that his “first thought” was that the message “might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft.” Pentagon officials later sheepishly admitted to the New York Times that they could not rule out that the broadcast might have come from another source, not the Revolutionary Guard.
In other words, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that the entire affair was made up, as the neocons are infamous for making things up as a pretext for mass murder.
Of course, none of this matters because, thanks to the corporate media, a lot of people now believe Iran was ready to attack our precious warships. All it takes to “catapult the propaganda,” as the neocon tool Bush would have it, is to run a few hours of sensationalistic and bogus sound bites on Faux and CNN, rerun file footage of destroyers and fast boats, and of course ominous images of mullahs and fanatical Revolutionary Guards marching in formation.
Bingo, zingo — you have another Gulf of Tonkin, or something perilously close.
Thus serious catapulting as a matter of course occurred during the “debate,” with the selectees pounding their chests like primates and making not so veiled threats against a country that has done absolutely nothing to the American people, not that any actual threat is the reason the neocons have made so much noise about Iran. It has nothing to do with reality. It has everything to do with the neocon plan to deconstruct the Muslim Middle East by way of bunker buster and cruise missile.
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.
Iran broadcast video Thursday of its boats and U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf in an apparent attempt to show that there was no confrontation between the vessels.
The grainy 5-minute, 20-second video showed a man speaking into a handheld radio, with three U.S. ships floating in the distance. It appeared to be shot from a small boat bobbing at least 100 yards from the American warships.
The footage did not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels or any provocation. But the short clip likely did not show Sunday’s entire encounter, which U.S. Navy officials described as threatening, and said lasted about 20 minutes.
Just two days after the U.S. Navy released the eerie video of Iranian speedboats swarming around American warships, which featured a chilling threat in English, the Navy is saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship.
The near-clash occurred over the weekend in the Strait of Hormuz. On the U.S.-released recording, a voice can be heard saying to the Americans, “I am coming to you. You will explode after a few minutes.”
The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.
Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else. We’re saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there,” said the spokesperson. “It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we’re not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we’re not saying it absolutely didn’t.”
The Iranians have denied using the threatening language and are saying U.S.-released video is fabricated. Today, the Iranian government aired its own video of the event on state-run TV there. On the audio, the voice that the Iranians say is the communication from their vessel can be heard identifying itself to the American ship, “Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat.”The incident ended without shots being fired, but senior defense officials told ABC News that the USS Hopper’s gunners were within seconds of firing on the Iranians.
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.
Despite a recent National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program, libertarian-leaning GOP presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says there is still “a great possibility” of US military action against the country.
Appearing on MSBNC’s Morning Joe, Paul described what he characterized as a deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and said the US was preparing to kickstart yet another conflict — this time in Iran.
“It is getting worse over there,” he said. “Afghanistan is getting worse. Turkey is bombing Iraq. And Pakistan is blowing up and we’re getting ready to bomb Iran. A bunch of those neocons want to bomb Iran.”
Asked how the US could justify military action against Iran in the wake of the National Intelligence Estimate — which determined that the country hadn’t actively pursued a nuclear weapon since 2003 — Paul said he didn’t think the report would do much to deter a strike.
“I think it’s a great possibility. Read Seymour Hersh. He is the expert over there,” said Paul of the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, who has previously reported that the US is preparing a preemptive strike against Iran.
“And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been declared a terrorist organization for the purpose of them being the targets rather than had the nuclear power plants,” Paul said. “So, wait and see… there are still quite a few neoconservatives that want to go after Iran under these unbelievable conditions.”
Concluded Paul, “That is the absurdity of the whole mess we have in there…stay out of entangling alliances, stay out of nation building. We ought to just get out of that place.”
This video is from MSNBC’s Morning Joe, broadcast on December 27, 2007. (the 2nd clip has the quotes)
Maverick Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says the leaders of Israel are impelling the White House to wage war on Iran.
“The government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran,” Paul said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press.
The 10-term Texas lawmaker added that neoconservatives have also been pushing the administration into ‘bombing Iran’.
When asked what he would do as the US president ‘if Iran invaded Israel’, Paul said the illusion of the Islamic Republic’s attack on Israel is like saying, “Iran is about to invade Mars.”
The 72-year-old politician made the remarks as Israeli officials are stepping up their war rhetoric against Tehran, over its nuclear program despite the recent reports confirming the peaceful nature of the country’s activities.
Ron Paul also made it clear that he would cut the ‘billions of dollars’ in annual aid Washington provides for Israel if elected President.
In Thursday night’s debate, defending her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment – which critics have charged was intended to escalate towards military confrontation with Iran – Senator Clinton said, “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has assisted the militias… in killing…Americans.”
This unsubstantiated allegation echoes unsubstantiated claims by Senator Lieberman and the Bush Administration that both Lieberman and Administration have claimed would justify U.S. military attacks on Iran. But, as Senator Clinton surely knows, the Bush Administration has not produced evidence to substantiate these allegations. Why is she repeating them, now, when even the Bush Administration has moved away from them?
On February 12, the Washington Postreported on a much-awaited U.S. military briefing in Iraq that was supposed to substantiate these claims. “The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the ‘highest levels’ of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops.,” noted the Post, adding that “the U.S. government has never publicly offered evidence proving the allegations.”
Iraq’s deputy foreign minister said the Iraqi government remains in the dark about the U.S. investigation into Iranian activities in Iraq. “It is difficult for us here in the diplomatic circles just to accept whatever the American forces say is evidence,” he said. “If they have anything really conclusive, then they should come out and say it openly.”
The components of the one device shown at the briefing “require precision machining that Iraq has shown no evidence of being able to perform,” U.S. officials said.
But as NBCreported on February 23, U.S. military officials subsequently admitted that these devices were indeed being manufactured in Iraq. That doesn’t prove that some were not also coming from Iran, but it does undermine the previous U.S. claim that they had to be coming from Iran since they couldn’t be manufactured in Iraq.
Regardless of what was true in the past, U.S. military officials are now saying that Iran has halted the smuggling of bombs into Iraq. “We have not seen any recent evidence that weapons continue to come across the border into Iraq.” Army Maj. Gen. James Simmons said, the Los Angeles Timesreported Thursday. “We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up.”
It’s very unfortunate, to say the least, that Senator Clinton is still pushing the claim that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq when even the Bush Administration is moving away from it. “Aktar maliki min il malik,” as they say in Arabic – more royalist than the king.
Micah Brose, privately contracted interrogator working for US forces in Iraq.
Photograph: David Smith
US military officials are putting huge pressure on interrogators who question Iraqi insurgents to find incriminating evidence pointing to Iran, it was claimed last night.
Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is ‘gold’. The claim comes after Washington imposed sanctions on Iran last month, citing both its nuclear ambitions and its Revolutionary Guards’ alleged support of Shia insurgents in Iraq. Last week the US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two it had accused of links to the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force.
Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: ‘They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there’s clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I’ve had, I’d say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.’
‘It feels a lot like, if you get something and Iran’s not involved, it’s a let down.’ He added: ‘I’ve had people say to me, “They’re really pushing the Iran thing. It’s like, shit, you know.” ‘
Brose said that reports about Washington’s increasingly hawkish stance towards Tehran, including possible military action, chimed with his experience. ‘My impression is they’re just trying to get every little bit of ammunition possible. If we get something here it fits the overall picture. The engine needs impetus and they’re looking for us to find the fuel – a particular type of fuel.
‘It now really depends on who gets elected President in the US. If nothing changes in the current course, I’d say military action is inevitable. But we have to hope there will be a change of course.’
He denied ever being asked to fabricate evidence, adding: ‘We’re not asked to manufacture information, we’re asked to find it. But if a detainee wants to tell me what I want to hear so he can get out of jail… you know what I’m saying.’
Other military intelligence officials in Iraq refused to comment, but one said: ‘The message is, “Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran.” It’s sickening.’
Last week in Baghdad the US military showed journalists a recently discovered cache of mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making materials it claims are of Iranian origin. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, spokesman for Multi-National Force Iraq, said it was possible they crossed the border before a recent promise by Iran to stop the flow of munitions into Iraq.
He said: ‘Iran has had a historic malign influence here in Iraq. They have financed many of the activities of Shia extremist groups. In many cases they have done training, they have actually deployed some of their personnel here in theatre. The Qods Force (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) have come here – we know that, we’ve got some in detention. They have said in many cases they were not here and intend to support a more peaceful outcome in Iraq and we look for their excellence in achieving that.’
Among the weapons Washington has accused Iran of supplying to Iraqi insurgents are EFPs, or explosively formed projectiles, which fire a slug of molten metal capable of penetrating even the most heavily armoured military vehicle. The number two US commander in Iraq, Lt Gen Ray Odierno, said there has been a sharp decline in the number of EFPs found in Iraq in the last three months.
Head of the US Central Command Admiral William Fallon has said the Pentagon is not preparing for a pre-emptive attack against Iran.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Adm. William Fallon said while resolving the Iranian issue is a ‘challenge’ for Washington, a military strike is not ‘in the offing’.
“Another war is just not where we want to go,” said Adm. Fallon, who oversees military operations in the Middle East.
He added that attacking Iran as a means to force Tehran to alter its nuclear policies is not ‘the first choice in [his] book’.
According to several senior active and retired military officers, the Pentagon believes striking Iran would be ‘a strategic mistake’.
The US and its allies have accused the Islamic Republic of pursuing nuclear weaponry, while Iran and UN nuclear watchdog have repeatedly rejected the allegations as ‘baseless’.
Amid Washington’s increasing bellicose rhetoric against Tehran, analysts have raised the question whether Washington plans to wage a war against Iran.
Speaking today at the Johns Hopkins Center for Politics and Foreign Relations, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) accused “left-wing blogs” of making up “conspiracy theories” about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which passed the Senate last month. It designated part of the Iranian army a terrorist organization. Lieberman called opponents of the amendment “politically paranoid” and “hyper-partisan.”
He also claimed that the “amendment contained nothing” that could be seen “as a green light” for war:
These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing–nothing–that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.
On the contrary, by calling for tougher sanctions on Iran, the intention of our amendment was to offer an alternative to war.
Lieberman’s argument is the only “deception” going on. It didn’t take “conspiracy theories” to realize that the amendment would move America closer to war with Iran. In the original version of the bill, which was only changed after pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), language was included that explicitly endorsed the use of “military instruments” against Iran:
4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
Even after the “military instruments” language was removed from the amendment, the final bill still shifted America into a more war-prone posture. As Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) noted at the time, just labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” could “mandate” the military option against Iran:
It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.
Given the language of the bill and Lieberman’s previous calls for “aggressive military action” against Iran, progressive blogs were hardly “delusional” in warning against the dangers of the amendment. But Lieberman would rather lash out at straw men caricatures of “left-wing blogs” and “hyper-partisans” than deal with legitimate criticism.
FOX Anchor Calls for Terrorist Car Bombings In Iran
Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmeade: “One thing could we do, could we start arming the anti-government groups inside Iran? Could their cars start blowing up like our humvees are blowing up maybe in Tehran so maybe they won’t be doing it in Baghdad?” […] “…there were these militant groups who are as upset about the direction of the Iranian government as almost the United States is, and that we are not doing enough to arm them to support them, and let them create havoc inside Iran…”
U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran’s nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.
The Army and Marine Corps are under enormous strain from years of heavy ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran if President Bush decided to target nuclear sites or to retaliate for alleged Iranian meddling in neighboring Iraq.
Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran’s ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil.
The Navy has an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf area with about 60 fighters and other aircraft that likely would feature prominently in a bombing campaign. And a contingent of about 2,200 Marines are on a standard deployment to the Gulf region aboard ships led by the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship. Air Force fighters and bombers are available elsewhere in the Gulf area, including a variety of warplanes in Iraq and at a regional air operations center in Qatar.
But there has been no new buildup of U.S. firepower in the region. In fact there has been some shrinkage in recent months. After adding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf early this year — a move that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said was designed to underscore U.S. long-term stakes in the region — the Navy has quietly returned to a one-carrier presence.
Talk of a possible U.S. attack on Iran has surfaced frequently this year, prompted in some cases by hard-line statements by White House officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, stated on Oct. 21 that the United States would “not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” and that Iran would face “serious consequences” if it continued in that direction. Gates, on the other hand, has emphasized diplomacy.
Bush suggested on Oct. 17 that Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear arms could lead to “World War III.” Yet on Wednesday, in discussing Iran at a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Bush made no reference to the military option.
“The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous, and, therefore, now is the time for us to work together to diplomatically solve this problem,” Bush said, adding that Sarkozy also wants a peaceful solution.
Iran’s conventional military forces are generally viewed as limited, not among the strongest in the Middle East. But a leading expert on the subject, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says it would be a mistake to view the Islamic republic as a military weakling.
“Its strengths in overt conflict are more defensive than offensive, but Iran has already shown it has great capability to resist outside pressure and any form of invasion and done so under far more adverse and divisive conditions than exist in Iran today,” Cordesman wrote earlier this year.
Cordesman estimates that Iran’s army has an active strength of around 350,000 men.
At the moment, there are few indications of U.S. military leaders either advising offensive action against Iran or taking new steps to prepare for that possibility. Gates has repeatedly emphasized that while military action cannot be ruled out, the focus is on diplomacy and tougher economic sanctions.
Asked in late October whether war planning had been ramped up or was simply undergoing routine updates, Gates replied, “I would characterize it as routine.” His description of new U.S. sanctions announced on Oct. 25 suggested they are not a harbinger of war, but an alternative.
A long-standing responsibility of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to maintain and update what are called contingency plans for potential military action that a president might order against any conceivable foe. The secret plans, with a range of timelines and troop numbers, are based on a variety of potential scenarios — from an all-out invasion like the March 2003 march on Baghdad to less demanding missions.
Another military option for Washington would be limited, clandestine action by U.S. special operations commandos, such as Delta Force soldiers, against a small number of key nuclear installations.
The man whose responsibility it would be to design any conventional military action against Iran — and execute it if ordered by Bush — is Adm. William Fallon, the Central Command chief. He is playing down prospects of conflict, saying in a late September interview that there is too much talk of war.
“This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful,” Fallon told Al-Jazeera television, adding that he does not expect a war against Iran. During a recent tour of the Gulf region, Fallon made a point of telling U.S. allies that Iran is not as strong as it portrays itself.
“Not militarily, economically or politically,” he said.
Fallon’s immediate predecessor, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, raised eyebrows in September when he suggested that initiating a war against Iran would be a mistake. He urged vigorous efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but failing that, he said, “There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran.” He also said he believed Iran’s leaders could be dissuaded from using nuclear arms, once acquired.
The possibility of U.S. military action raises many tough questions, beginning perhaps with the practical issue of whether the United States knows enough about Iran’s network of nuclear sites — declared sites as well as possible clandestine ones — to sufficiently set back or destroy their program.
Among other unknowns: Iran’s capacity to retaliate by unleashing terrorist strikes against U.S. targets.
Nonmilitary specialists who have studied Iran’s nuclear program are doubtful of U.S. military action.
“There is a nontrivial chance that there will be an attack, but it’s not likely,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of a nuclear strategy project at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy group.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said yesterday that the U.S. needs its nuclear arsenal to strengthen its position in negotiating with Iran. If Americans want to leverage a better result from talks with Iran, they must be willing to go to war, he said.
“I wouldn’t ever unilaterally disarm the United States,” he said in response to a question at Saint Anselm College in Manchester yesterday. “And I think I certainly wouldn’t do it right now in the face of the Islamic terrorists’ war against us, in the face of an Iran that wants to be nuclear.”
Giuliani’s aggressive stance on Iran has worried some, especially Democrats who say the Bush administration’s tough talk on Iran resembles the preparation for war against Iraq in 2002 and 2003. But Giuliani’s message resonated with many who attended the town hall meeting yesterday.
“He makes me feel safe,” said Jeanne Zelensky of Goffstown.
Betty Larson of Amherst said, “He’s a mean son of a bitch, and that’s exactly what we need.”
None of the leading Republican and Democratic presidential candidates has ruled out a military option in Iran. Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton voted in the Senate last month to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a decision her opponents called confrontational.
But Giuliani compared Iran’s advancement of its uranium-enriching program to the Cold War and said that following President Reagan’s tough negotiation tactics – a mix of military display and diplomacy – is the best way to negotiate with Iran.
Giuliani aims to emulate Ronald Reagan’s optimism in his campaign, even when he talks about war and nuclear weapons.
“Of the major Republican candidates, Giuliani tends to sound the most optimistically aggressive,” said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire. “John McCain often speaks of the war on terror as the great battle of our time, but . . . McCain has emphasized the sacrifice . . . whereas Giuliani tends to talk about the war on terror as something that we’re winning.”
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who leads the Republican polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, has stressed tougher sanctions and diplomatic isolation of Iran.
Yesterday, Giuliani said his stance on Iran is realistic, not provocative.
“I’m not overestimating the threat,” he said. “I’m
just taking them at their word, and my conclusion is that it would be too irresponsible and too dangerous to allow Iran to become nuclear.”
He said the U.S. government shouldn’t read too much into what Iran’s leaders say.
“We have to take Iran’ s leadership at its word,” he said. “We have to take Iran at its word when they say that they’re going to attack Israel . . . and when they say they want to destroy us. There’s something behind that.”
He added, “I think America has acted at its peril when it has discounted terrorist tyrants and dictators. And America has never been wrong when it takes them seriously.”
Giuliani said military force would not be his first option in dealing with Iran, but sanctions and negotiations will only work if America appears poised for battle. He recalled Reagan’s tactics with the Soviet Union, calling the nation an evil empire and sending missiles to Europe.
“There were a lot of things he did in advance to change the leverage,” Giuliani said. “Of course we can negotiate, but we’ve got to have someone to negotiate who’s tough and a realist.”
Scala said Giuliani’s rhetoric on Iran is red meat for Republicans who may be less enthused about a candidate who supports rights to abortion and gay marriage. And Giulaini’s blend of social moderate and national defense hawk may be just right for New Hampshire Republicans.
“In the context of winning the Republican primary, it does not hurt him,” he said.
Giuliani leads the Republicans in most national polls and is running close behind Romney in New Hampshire. With the New Hampshire primary expected to take place in early January, Giuliani has stepped up his pace in the state.
He’s visited five times since he filed two weeks ago to put his name on the ballot.
Yesterday Giuliani made a brief campaign stop with Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta, a Republican running for re-election. The two split a slice at Caesario’s Pizza on Elm Street in Manchester. Giuliani and his wife, Judith, nuzzled a baby, shook hands and posed for some pictures before heading out the door.
Iran has access to evidence of U.S. support for terrorist groups in the Middle East, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying on Sunday.
Iran’s new chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, made the allegation in comments to visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, whose country may soon send troops to hunt down Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq.
Tehran says the rebels are operating in Iraq with U.S. forces present in the country and this shows Washington is refraining from tackling them.
Like Turkey, Iran also has faced cross-border attacks by Kurdish rebels and has shelled targets inside Iraq in response.
“Escalation of terrorism in the region is one of the direct results of the presence of occupiers in Iraq, particularly America,” Jalili, an ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said according to the country’s state broadcaster.
“And there are documents and information available proving America’s support for terrorist groups in the region,” he said, without giving details. Jalili is also the new secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
The United States often accuses Iran of backing and training militias responsible for some of the bloodshed threatening to tear Iraq apart. Tehran denies the charge and blames the violence in Iraq on the presence of U.S. forces.
The two countries are also locked in a stand-off over Tehran’s nuclear program, which Western powers suspect is aimed at developing bombs. Iran says it only wants to generate electricity.
Washington last week dubbed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and accused its Qods force of backing terrorists. It also imposed sanctions on more than 20 Iranian companies, major banks and individuals.
At a joint news conference with Babacan, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Sunday also accused the United States and Israel of involvement in terrorism in the region.
“We see … their hand behind some of the regional terrorist activities,” Mottaki said.
Babacan, whose country’s ties with the United States have deteriorated sharply in recent weeks, thanked Iran for helping Turkey fight the PKK guerrillas and said the two sides had talked about continuing their cooperation.
The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) launched its campaign for a Kurdish homeland in southeastern Turkey in 1984. More than 30,000 people have been killed in the conflict since then.
Jalili on October 20 replaced Ali Larijani as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, a move analysts saw as signaling a toughening of Tehran’s position in the atom row.
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.
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.
The U.S. government effectively attacked Iran yesterday after its proxy terror group Jundullah launched a suicide bomb attack against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard at their headquarters in Pishin, near the border with Pakistan.
Israeli transportation minister Shaul Mofaz has reiterated his previous threats against Iran, saying Israel must be ready to act.
John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, has said that America should “facilitate” an Israeli attack on suspected nuclear facilities in Iran. 
Iran’s Air Force plans to stage a large-scale combat and defensive drills to beef up deterrence against threats from the US and Israel.
Israel’s defence minister has warned of his country’s readiness to act against Iran if it feels threatened.
The U.S. Navy said on Monday it was carrying out an exercise in the Gulf, days after vowing that Iran will not be allowed to block the waterway which carries crude from the world’s largest oil-exporting region. 
Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards began military maneuvers on Monday, news agencies said, the same day the U.S. Navy said it was carrying out an exercise in the Gulf.
Iraq will be plunged into a new war if Israel or the US launches an attack on Iran, Iraqi leaders have warned. Iranian retaliation would take place in Iraq, said Dr Mahmoud Othman, the influential Iraqi MP.
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 must destroy Iran’s nuclear program within the next 12 months or risk being attacked with an atomic bomb itself, the former head of the Mossad told the British Sunday Telegraph. 
A senior Iranian commander says the country is digging some ’320,000 graves’ in its bordering provinces for future slain invaders.
US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama calls the Islamic Republic of Iran a ’threat’ during a word association game in a TV interview.
“We must press Egypt to devote more resources and effort to stopping the smuggling of weapons into Gaza from the Sinai, where much of Hamas’ weaponry arrives from,” Democratic US presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama said in a letter addressed to US President George W. Bush.
The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq’s border with
Despite constant talk of war, U.S. officials have tried to reach out to the Iranian people in an attempt to get past the animosity between Washington and Tehran.
US officials and heads of four Kurdish anti-Iran groups have held a secret meeting in the Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah, a Kurdish website says.
The L.A. Times’ 
A former State Department official and daughter of Dick Cheney says Iran ’will face military action’ if it does not halt its nuclear work.
noworldsystem.com 