Two senior Republican senators say the United States, and not Israel, should attack Iran if military action becomes “necessary.”
They also say a simple strike at the country’s nuclear capability wouldn’t be enough — the US would have to launch an “all-or-nothing” war against Iran with the aim of crippling the country’s military capabilities.
“I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they’re not aligned now. It’s too much pressure to put on Israel,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News’ Chris Wallace.
He continued: “If the sanctions fail, and Iran’s going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, any Sunni Arab state that could, would want a nuclear weapon. Israel will be more imperiled. The world will change dramatically for the worst. Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at, and I would rather our allies and us take military action if it’s necessary.”
But Graham doesn’t think an attack should be limited to airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float,” said Graham.
Sen. , Republican of Georgia, agrees.
“The problem with military action also is that you’re probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple airstrike,” Chambliss said on Fox News Sunday. “Lindsey’s right. It’s an all or nothing deal. And is it worth that at this point in time, when we know they have the capability? We can slow them down, but a full-out military strike is what it would take,” said Chambliss.
This video is from Fox’s Fox News Sunday, broadcast Oct. 4, 2009.
Israel will ‘attack Iran if sanctions not in place by Christmas’
Iran’s ambassador to UN demands Security Council take steps against comments made by Ephraim Sneh, who said Israel would attack Iran if sanctions weren’t in place by Christmas.
Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in which he wrote that “there is no explanation for Israel’s continuing threats against Tehran”.
He was referring to an interview given by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh to the Sunday Times in which he said that if Iran were not further sanctioned by this Christmas Israel would attack the country.
Sneh told the paper that if Israel were forced to attack the Islamic Republic on its own it would do so, remarks the Iranian ambassador deemed “irresponsible”.
Note: Is there a possibility that military weapons such as the A.D.S. radiation device and L.R.A.D. sound cannon were used on the Honduran president at the Brazilian embassy?
Honduran President Victim of U.S. Coup: I’ve Been Gassed And They’re Torturing Me
It’s been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He’s sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and “Israeli mercenaries” are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.
“We are being threatened with death,” he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him.
“I prefer to march on my feet than to live on my knees before a military dictatorship,” Zelaya said in a series of back-to-back interviews.
Zelaya was overthrown by the U.S. military at gunpoint on June 28 and slipped back into his country on Monday, just two days before he was scheduled to speak before the United Nations. He sought refuge at the Brazilian Embassy, where Zelaya said he is being subjected to toxic gases and radiation that alter his physical and mental state.
Witnesses said that for a short time Tuesday morning, soldiers used a device that looked like a large satellite dish to emit a loud shrill noise.
Honduran police spokesman Orlin Cerrato said he knew nothing of any radiation devices being used against the former president.
“He says there are mercenaries against him? Using some kind of apparatus?” Cerrato said. “No, no, no, no. Sincerely: no. The only elements surrounding that embassy are police and military, and they have no such apparatus.”
Police responded to reports of looting throughout the city Tuesday night. Civil disturbances subsided Wednesday afternoon, when a crush of people rushed grocery stores and gas stations in the capital.
Israeli government sources in Miami said they could not confirm the presence of any “Israelis mercenaries” in Honduras.
Zelaya, 56, is at the embassy with his family and other supporters, without a change of clothes or toothpaste. The power and water were turned back on, and the U.N. brought in some food. Photos showed Zelaya, his trademark cowboy hat across his face, napping on a few chairs he had pushed together.
“Look at the shape he’s in — sleeping on chairs,” de facto President Roberto Micheletti told a local TV news station.
Micheletti took Zelaya’s place after the military, executing a Supreme Court arrest warrant, burst into Zelaya’s house and forced him into exile. The country’s military, congress, Supreme Court and economic leaders have backed the ouster, arguing that Zelaya was bent on conducting an illegal plebiscite that they feared would ultimately lead to his reelection.
Micheletti said he was prepared to meet with Zelaya and a delegation from the Organization of American States, but only to discuss one topic: November elections.
On Wednesday, the U.N. cut off all technical aid that would have supported and given credibility to that presidential race. Conditions do not exist for credible elections, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.
“I proposed dialogue, and they answered with bullets, bombs, a state of siege and by closing the airport,” Zelaya said.
Zelaya told The Herald that Washington should be taking a stronger stance against the elite economic interests that “financed and benefited” from the coup that ousted him three months ago.
If President Barack Obama hit Honduras with commercial sanctions or suspended free-trade agreements, the coup “would last just five minutes.”
The Obama administration suspended economic aid to Honduras and withdrew the visas of members of the current administration.
About 75 percent of Honduras’ commerce depends on the United States, Zelaya said. And because powerful economic forces were behind Zelaya’s ouster, Obama should hit those forces where it hurts most, Zelaya said.
“I have told this to Obama, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to the U.S. Embassy here and anyone else who will listen,” Zelaya said. “They know how to act. Until now, they have been very prudent.”
With Micheletti showing a new willingness to talk with the OAS, and the U.N. Security Council set to meet to discuss the embassy situation soon, it isn’t the moment for more penalties, the U.S. State Department said.
“Right now, when there are openings for dialogue, is not the time to announce new sanctions,” a State Department official said.
Dates for the OAS visit, which could include emissaries from 10 countries, are being worked out, the official said.
Spokesman Ian Kelly said the U.N. Security Council meeting came at the request of the Brazilian government. No date has been set for the meeting.
“In general, we continue to work with our partners in the U.N. and the OAS to come up with means to promote a dialogue and defuse the tensions, of course with the ultimate goal of resolving the crisis,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said at a media briefing in Washington. “And we’re continuing our consultations with our partners in the region, and enlisting wherever we can their assistance in this process.”
The U.S. Embassy here spent the day denying rumors that Zelaya planned to move to American grounds. The rumor may have started because U.S. Embassy vehicles were used to evacuate Zelaya supporters who left the Brazilian Embassy willingly Tuesday.
“The embassy has been turned into a bunker for Zelaya,” Assistant Foreign Minister Martha Lorena Alvarado de Casco told The Herald. “He’s turned it into his headquarters, and he is using it to call for insurrection.”
Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told CNN en Español that his government asked Zelaya to tone down his rhetoric while he remains an embassy guest.
“The word `death’ should not even be mentioned,” he said.
Rioting broke out in various parts of the capital Tuesday night, and lines hundreds deep formed at supermarkets when desperate shoppers scrambled to buy food after a round-the-clock curfew was briefly lifted.
“I have no food in my house,” said Patti Vásquez, a housewife who, after two hours, still had not reached the front doors of a supermarket in an upscale shopping mall. “I need to get milk and juice and eggs.”
Zelaya says he has no plans to leave the embassy anytime soon.
. “I am the president the people of Honduras chose,” Zelaya said. “A country can’t have two presidents — just one.”
Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the year if the West has not launched an attempt to destroy the regime with crippling sanctions, a former senior defence official has claimed.
Ephraim Sneh, Israel’s deputy defence minister until 2007, said a nuclear-armed Iran was an unacceptable threat to Israel. No Israeli government could put its faith in President Barack Obama’s efforts to bring Tehran to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme, he said.
“The Israeli government is the only entity that is responsible for the existence of the Jewish people,” he said. “Iran has been explicit in its hostility to Israel time and again. They would use these weapons.
“We believe that Iran has the capacity and the delivery capability for nuclear weapons. They can proceed to production. We have got two months to act – before the end of 2009.”
Sen. Barack Obama responded with outrage to the remarks made Tuesday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the United Nations General Assembly, expressing regret that the quirky little president was even allowed to speak. Obama’s denunciation was mild compared with that of Gov. Sarah Palin, who accused Ahmadinejad of dreaming “of being an agent in a ’Final Solution’ — the elimination of the Jewish people.” In contrast, “Larry King Live” carried an hourlong interview with Ahmadinejad in which the Iranian was allowed to speak for himself and repeatedly denied any violent intentions. King thus reinforced the trend whereby entertainment television, whether Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” or King’s own dog-and-pony interview hour, conveys reality-based news while politicians continue to paint inaccurate and even fantastic scenarios that are harmful to U.S. foreign policy.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad said “the American empire … is reaching the end of the road” and accused the U.N. Security Council of allowing “Zionist murders” because of “pressure from a few bullying powers.” Obama issued a statement saying, “I strongly condemn President Ahmadinejad’s outrageous remarks at the United Nations, and am disappointed that he had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views.” He added, “The threat from Iran’s nuclear program is grave.” Obama then called on his rival in the presidential race, Sen. John McCain, “to join me in supporting a bipartisan bill to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by allowing states and private companies to divest from companies doing business in Iran.” He slammed McCain, saying that the senator was playing partisan politics by declining to join Obama in this divestment campaign.
In the heat of the campaign, Obama surely overreached himself in appearing to advocate barring leaders of member states from addressing the United Nations because their views are obnoxious to Americans. He also fell into the trap of declining to make a distinction between anti-Zionist views and anti-Semitic ones. If a policy of exclusion had been adopted by past administrations, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev could not have announced from that podium the reduction of Red Army forces in Eastern Europe in 1988. And if anti-American statements should trigger the denial of a visa to come to New York, should Nelson Mandela, who called the United States the “most dangerous country in the world,” be excluded, too?
US President George W. Bush accused Syria and Iran Tuesday of sponsoring terrorism and said that such violence “has no place in the modern world” in his farewell speech to the UN General Assembly.
“A few nations — regimes like Syria and Iran — continue to sponsor terror, yet their numbers are growing fewer and they’re growing more isolated from the world,” he said.
“Like slavery and piracy, terrorism has no place in the modern world,” said Bush.
The outgoing US leader told the UN General Assembly that it must also enforce sanctions against North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs.
Bush said UN members must uphold resolutions “enforcing sanctions against North Korea and Iran” and stressed “we must not relent until our people our safe from this threat to civilization.”
‘Iran a major threat; I would never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect homeland, US interests, Democratic presidential candidate tells FOX’s ‘The O’Reilly Factor’
WASHINGTON – Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said Thursday.
During his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”, the Democratic presidential candidate said, “It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon; it would be a game changer.”
Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but added that diplomacy and sanctions cannot be overlooked.
“It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests,” he said.
Obama accused the Bush Administration of bringing radical Islamic groups together, and said Iran “fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations, but we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”
Obama also told FOX News he “absolutely” believes the US is fighting a war on terror against “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.”
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (right) meets with presidential candidate Barack Obama
White House hopeful Barack Obama said Monday sanctions and diplomacy must be made to bite against Iran so that Israel does not feel its “back is against the wall” and stages an attack.
A nuclear-armed Iran would be a “game-changer for the region,” allowing the Islamic republic to meddle through extremist proxies, intervene in Iraq and threaten oil supplies, the Democrat told about 250 voters at a meeting here.
“My job as president is to make sure we are tightening the screws on Iran diplomatically… to get sanctions in place so that Iran starts making a different calculation,” the Illinois senator said.
“And we’ve got to do that before Israel feels like its back is against the wall.”
Sources in Washington commented Wednesday night, Aug. 6, that, while it is unlikely that Israel would attack Iran without US approval, this might change if tough sanctions were taken off the table. They reported Israel was building up its strike capabilities for an attack, had purchased 90 F-16I planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran and would receive another 11 by the end of next year. The Jewish state had also bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads, in addition to the three already in service with its navy.
According to foreign media, Israel is active inside Iranian territory.
DEBKAfile reports that this information was leaked by Washington sources, apparently to warn Moscow that by closing the door to sanctions, it was opening the door to an Israeli attack.
Is the war in Georgia related to the Iran blockade? One thing the Georgia war has accomplished is to deny Russian troops access to Georgian territory. This may plug a major hole through which Russia could have supplied or armed Iran.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) purportedly told House Democrats in a private meeting Tuesday that Israel may strike Iran if sanctions on the country fail to prevent development of nuclear technology.
According to an attendee who spoke to ABC News’ Jake Tapper, Obama quipped, “Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don’t work Israel is going to strike Iran.”
Recently appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen flew to Tel Aviv to warn Israel’s military establishment how “important” it was that “history not repeat itself ”—referring to Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS Liberty in June, 1967. The Establishment media blacked out the event (in which 34 American men were killed) for decades—and still does.
Given the fact that this brazen two-hour attack upon the United States has been hushed up for 41 years, the reason for Mullen’s meeting is obvious—someone within the intelligence or military apparatus of the United States has concluded that Israel is planning a “USS Liberty Part II,” meaning an attack on a U.S. ship, most likely in the Persian Gulf, leading to a massive loss of life to be blamed on Iran.
As was intended in 1967, when Israel attacked the Liberty, angry Americans would demand the “obliteration” of the guilty party, the false identity of which the Jewish media establishment in America would provide. And while all players involved have been tight-lipped about the particulars of this meeting, Mullen’s impromptu trip to Israel and subsequent discussion was in effect a stern warning to Israel to “Not even think about it.”
Some in Washington are beginning to realize that they’ve just put their foot into something nasty with regards to Israel’s dirty wars in the Middle East that will never be finished as long as it exists. With oil and virtually all consumer products skyrocketing in price simultaneous to the U.S. economy going down the drain, some now understand that by signing on as Israel’s pit bull in the Muslim world that America will wind up paying the ultimate price for her devotion to the Jewish state, meaning the complete destruction of her economy and her position as a world power.
America’s top general officer seems to be wary of widening the present debacle to include war with Iran that may bring into the fray nuclear-armed nations such as Russia and China. He has now joined with saner voices both inside and outside the Bush administration who are trying to prevent an otherwise apocalyptic end to America.
In discussing an attack on Iran, Mullen recently stated that opening a third front would be “extremely stressful” on the U.S. military and added that it would lead to consequences “difficult to predict,” adding that “There is need for better clarity, even dialogue.”
Is this making Israel jittery to the point she would contemplate pulling off another USS Liberty?
“Respectable” people have begun to openly voice such thoughts as well. In a recent provocative article entitled “If Iran is Attacking, It Might Really Be Israel,” ex-CIA officer Phillip Giraldi wrote:
Some intel types are beginning to express concerns that the Israelis might do something completely crazy to get the U.S. involved. There are a number of possible “false flag” scenarios in which the Israelis could stage an incident that they will make to look Iranian, either by employing Iranian weapons or by leaving a communications footprint that points to Teheran’s involvement. Those who argue Israel would never do such a thing should think again. Israel is willing to behave with complete ruthlessness towards the U.S. if they feel that the stakes are high enough. Witness the attack on the USS Liberty and the bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Alexandria in the 1950s. If they now believe that Iran is a threat that must be eliminated it is not implausible to assume they will stop at nothing to get the United States to do it for them, particularly as their air force is only able to damage the Iranian nuclear program, not destroy it. . . .
Joined alongside Giraldi is former long-time CIA analyst Ray McGovern who in a recent essay entitled “Israel Planning a September/October Surprise?” writes the following with regards to the U.S. pulling out of the Middle East and what Israel might do as a result:
My guess is the Israeli leaders are apoplectic. . . . This dramatic change—or even just the specter of it—greatly increases Israel’s incentive to ensure U.S. involvement in the area that would endure for several years. The Israelis need to create “facts on the ground”—something to guarantee Washington will stand by “our ally.” The legislation drafted by AIPAC calls for a blockade of Iran. That would be one way to entangle; there are many others. The point is that the growing danger the Israelis perceive will probably prompt them to find a way to get the U.S. involved in hostilities with Iran. All Israel has to do is to arrange to be attacked. Not a problem. There are endless possibilities among which Israel can choose to catalyze such a confrontation. Viewed from Tel Aviv it appears an increasingly threatening situation, with more urgent need to “embed” (so to speak) the United States even more deeply in the region—in a confrontation involving both countries with Iran. A perfect storm is brewing. . . . In sum, Israel is likely to be preparing a September/October surprise designed to keep the U.S. bogged down in Iraq and in the wider region by provoking hostilities with Iran. And don’t be surprised if it starts as early as August. . . .
More than 100 nonaligned nations backed Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear power on Wednesday, an endorsement sought by Tehran in its standoff with the U.N. Security Council over its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
The decision came as supreme Iranian leader Ayatolla Ali Khamenei pledged to continue the country’s nuclear program.
Senior Iranian officials depicted the support from a high-level conference of the Nonaligned Movement as deflating claims by the U.S. and its allies that most of the international community wanted Iran to stop enrichment.
The conference’s backing, which echoes the group’s previous declarations, acts to “remove this notion that the international community opposes the nuclear activities of Iran,” said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran’s top representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the endorsement from the 115 countries present at the Tehran conference sends a “strong positive signal that the only way is negotiation and dialogue” over the nuclear standoff.
“Get the message,” he said, in blunt comments indirectly aimed at the U.S. and its Western allies, the nations at the forefront of accusations that Tehran wants to build nuclear arms. “Come to the negotiating table.”
Support was expressed in a three-page declaration in Farsi, translated by The Associated Press. It said the conference “reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all states, to develop research, production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.”
Two former senior White House security advisors have warned that a military attack against Iran would be a catastrophe for the US.
“If we get into a war with Iran, we know there would be disaster, we know there would be a disaster,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, ex-president Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor on Tuesday.
“The United States will become involved in a four-front war, probably for roughly two decades. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf,” he said during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.
The US accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, insisting the country should either stop nuclear enrichment or face confrontation. Rejecting the allegation, Tehran argues its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
Also, advisor to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, said at the meeting, “Don’t talk about ’do we bomb them now or later?”
Both former advisors said only diplomacy backed by stronger sanctions and no preconditions for negotiations might work to overcome the current frigid US-Iran relations.
In a major shift from Washington’s past policy, the US Under Secretary of State William Burns attended for the first time in talks on Iran’s nuclear program in Geneva on Saturday involving Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, as well as representatives from China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany.
Zbigniew’s Prediction of Iraqs Failure To Trigger War With Iran PBS News Hour February 1, 2007. Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned terrorist attack may occur in the United States.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon.
Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take “no options off the table” in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.
“A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.
He said the international community should immediately offer “big sticks and big carrots” to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. The West suspects Iran wants to build atom bombs but the Islamic Republic says its aims are peaceful.
“Iranians need to understand that whether it’s the Bush administration or the Obama administration, this is a paramount concern to the United States,” he said in Sderot, which has been hit by cross-border rockets fired by Gaza-based militants.
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama differ in their proposals for when and how the United States should begin a major troop withdrawal from Iraq, and under what conditions they would enter into negotiations with the government of Iran.
On just about every other issue related to U.S policy in the Middle East, the presumptive presidential candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties are in near total agreement. And when it comes to the goal, the word “near” can be deleted. Both share—as must all ruling class-approved candidates for the position of CEO of the empire—an unquestioning dedication to U.S. domination of that key strategic region. Seventy percent of known global oil reserves are located in the Middle East.
Both Obama and McCain have expressed a limitless devotion to the state of Israel. Both have emerged as leading voices in the chorus of demonization against the governments of Iran, Syria and Sudan, and popular movements such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas and other Palestinian resistance organizations.
The White House hopeful Barack Obama says an air strike on Iran will not halt its nuclear program, calling for tougher Iran sanctions.
“Iran is a big country. They have dispersed their nuclear capabilities in a way that you are not going to see smooth, surgical strikes solving the problem entirely the way that Israel was able to deal with Iraq’s nuclear threat,” he told ABC News.
The Illinois senator called for “tough sanctions” coupled with “tough diplomacy that makes the calculus for the Iranians different.”
While insisting that “war is not a good option,” Obama maintained that he “would not take military options off the table when it comes to Iran and dealing with their nuclear capacity.”
The US has set a two-week deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program, after their talks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Envoys from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council–China, Russia, the US, Britain and France–plus Germany held a meeting in Geneva on Saturday to discuss Iran’s nuclear program.
On yesterday’s edition of The 700 Club, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson sharply criticized the “moderate tone” the Bush administration has allegedly taken toward Iran and its nuclear weapons program. Robertson advocated that Israel look out for the “survival of its nation” and “make some kind of a strike” against Iranian nuclear facilities. He also predicted that it will likely happen before the 2008 elections:
But nevertheless, I think we can look in the next few months for Israel to make a strike — possibly before the next election — because I think George Bush — to use the term an “amber light” — he’s given the amber, the yellow light, saying, “Caution, but go ahead.”
Robertson’s predictions often turn out to be wrong. In 2004, Robertson claimed that the Lord told him it would “be like a blowout” re-election for President Bush. (Bush ended up receiving just 51 percent of the vote.) In 2006, he incorrectly predicted that “the outcome of the war and the success of the economy will leave the Republicans in charge.”
He does, however, have an inside track into the Bush administration. Last year, Robertson’s Regent University estimated that one in six of its graduates were employed in government work. Approximately 150 served in the Bush administration.
The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.
Other members of the right wing have also been unifying around the idea of striking Iran before Bush leaves. Both John Bolton and Bill Kristol have made the same argument.
Kagan: ‘The only way’ to ‘force’ Iran to halt its nuclear program is an ‘attack.’
Appearing on MSNBC this afternoon, Iraq surge architect Fred Kagan criticized direct talks with Iran and made his case for attacking Iran, claiming it is the only means to “force” the country to halt its nuclear program:
Well, there’s nothing we can do short of an attack to force Iran to give up its nuclear program. … At the end of the day, the only way that you can make for sure that [a nuclear arm’s race] doesn’t happen is with an attack. There are a variety of things you can do short of an attack and hope that they will work, but hope is not a method here.
This assessment was reported by Israeli national radio Saturday overnight quoting a high-placed “security-political” official.
The source predicted that President George W. Bush would order Iran attacked between the November 4 presidential election and his exit from the White House in January. The quote was aired shortly after the six-power talks with Iran in Geneva – with US official participation for the first time – failed, and just before Israel chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi set out for Washington. He is to spend a week there as guest of Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
DEBKAfile’s political sources describe the disclosure as a step aimed at slowing down the collapse of Israel’s stated policy of relying on international diplomatic pressure to thwart Iran’s acquisition of nuclear arms. It is expected to raise a furious outcry from the powers spearheading the diplomatic effort and prompt extreme reactions from Tehran.
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 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.
Republican congressman Ron Paul warns against military engagement in Iran, saying ‘bombing Iran’ will cause energy prices to skyrocket.
In a speech on the House floor, Congressman Paul suggested that the US is inching toward an ‘endless struggle’ similar to the Iraq war.
“In the last several weeks, if not for months we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple,” said the Republican.
“To me it is almost like deja vu all over again. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in the correct manner, we did not declare war, we are there and it is an endless struggle,” he told a nearly empty House chamber.
“I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran,” said the war veteran.
The 72-year-old former presidential candidate then blasted what he called the ‘virtual Iran war resolution’, which is soon to be considered by the House of Representatives.
“This resolution, House Resolution 362 is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe,” Paul said.
Supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), House Resolution 362 (and the Senate version Resolution 580), known as the ‘Iran War Resolution’ can be considered a means of imposing harsher sanctions as well as a naval blockade restricting exports to the oil-rich country.
This bill, which was introduced at an AIPAC annual policy conference, has gained 208 co-sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate. It will likely be put to a vote after July 4.
“The fear is, they say, maybe some day, [Iran is] going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate has said that the Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003,” continued the 10-term congressman.
The US and Israel accuse Tehran of making efforts to produce nuclear weapons; Iran insists its nuclear program is directed at peaceful purposes.
The most recent UN nuclear watchdog report on Tehran’s nuclear program, however, has conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and ‘the alleged studies’ of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries.
“This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this?” asked Paul.
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.
Britain will freeze assets of Iran’s largest bank in a further move to discourage the country from developing nuclear weapons, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday.
Brown, speaking at a news conference with President Bush, said Britain will work to persuade Europe to follow suit.
The British leader said that assets of Iran’s Bank Melli would be frozen. Last year, the United States accused the bank of providing services to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
“Action will start today in new phase of sanctions on oil and gas,” Brown said. “We will take any necessary action so that Iran is aware of the choice it needs to make.”
The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies that, saying its atomic program is aimed at using nuclear reactors to generate electricity.
The U.N. Security Council has imposed three sets of limited sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can both produce nuclear fuel and turn out the material needed for nuclear warheads.
The third round of U.N. sanctions passed in March introduced financial monitoring of Bank Melli and another bank with purported links to suspect Iranian nuclear activities, Bank Saderat.
Brown said his government wanted to do all it could to maintain a dialogue with Tehran.
“But we are also clear that if Iran continues to ignore (United Nations) resolutions, to ignore our offers of partnership, we have no choice but to intensify sanctions,” the prime minister said.
“I will repeat that we will take any necessary action so that Iran is aware of the choice it has to make — to start to play its part as a full and respected member of the international community, or face further isolation.”
Bush urged Tehran to accept a new package of incentives and said it should accept a Russian proposal to enrich uranium on Iran’s behalf.
“When the Iranians say we have a sovereign right to have one, the answer is ’You bet you have a sovereign right, absolutely’,” Bush said, referring to a civilian nuclear program.
“But you don’t have the trust of those of us who have watched you carefully when it comes to enriching uranium, because you have declared that you want to destroy democracies in the neighborhood.”
Brown said he will press European colleagues at a summit in Brussels, Belgium later this week to agree a tougher package of European Union sanctions against Iran, including the freezing of Bank Melli’s assets.
The EU imposes its own set of measures against Iran, in addition to U.N.- backed sanctions, which include a total arms embargo and travel bans against a number of named individuals and organizations.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has previously called for the EU to target more companies — particularly in the banking sector — and other individuals who do not now face visa bans under current EU penalties.
Iran has withdrawn around $75 billion from Europe to prevent the assets from being blocked under threatened new sanctions over Tehran’s disputed nuclear ambitions, an Iranian weekly said.
Western powers are warning the Islamic Republic of more punitive measures if it rejects an incentives offer and presses on with sensitive nuclear work, but the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter is showing no sign of backing down.
“Part of Iran’s assets in European banks have been converted to gold and shares and another part has been transferred to Asian banks,” Mohsen Talaie, deputy foreign minister in charge of economic affairs, was quoted as saying.
Iranian officials were not immediately available to comment on the report in Shahrvand-e Emrouz, a moderate weekly, which did not specify the time period for the withdrawals which it said were ordered by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“About $75 billion of Iran’s foreign assets which were under threat of being blocked were wired back to Iran based on Ahmadinejad’s order,” the weekly said.
Iran’s Etemad-e Melli newspaper, also quoting Talai, last week also reported the country was withdrawing assets from European banks but did not give any figures.
Iran urges the OPEC member states again to convert their cash reserves into a basket of currencies rather than the tumbling US dollar.
Speaking at a ceremony to open the 29th ministerial meeting of the OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his proposal made about six months ago in a rare summit of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’s heads of states.
“The fall in the value of US dollar is one of the pressing problems of the world today,” warned the Iranian president at the conference in Isfahan on Tuesday.
He further expressed concern over the adverse effect of the dollar depreciation on the international community, especially energy exporting countries through increasing the price of commodities like wheat, rice and oilseeds.
Ahmadinejad said he warned six months ago in the summit conference in Riyadh that there were many indications pointing to continued fall in the value of the greenback.
“And we see that this continues to happen and the resources and wealth of OPEC member countries have been hugely damaged.
“I again repeat my previous proposal; we should have a basket of different international hard currencies as the basis or the member countries should come up and produce a new hard currency for petroleum contracts,” he stressed.
“They get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper,” Ahmadinejad said earlier after the close of the summit in the Saudi capital of Riyadh.
The comments by the Iranian president gained backing from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as he said at the same event, “The empire of the dollar has to end.”
On the soaring oil prices, the Iranian president said, “At a time when the growth of consumption is lower than the growth of production and the market is full of oil, prices are rising and this trend is completely fake and imposed.”
“As you know the decrease in the dollar’s value and the increase in energy prices are two sides of the same coin which are being introduced as factors behind the recent instability,” Ahmadinejad added.
The following is from retired USAF Colonel Sam Gardiner today:
It is amazing how far Members of the Congress will go in support of Israel . Hidden within a resolution now being considered on the Hill is what amounts to a suggested declaration of war against Iran .
Representative Mark Kirk from Illinois is circulating a Sense of the Congress Resolution (H. Con. Res 362). The resolution now has 47 co-sponsors and “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran…”
This option in the resolution is being pushed by the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. At the AIPAC meeting in Washington last week both Senators McCain and Obama mentioned an embargo of refined products without any details.
I don’t how the United States inspects aircraft flying from Moscow to Tehran . I don’t know how the United States inspects trucks going from Azerbaijan and Pakistan into Iran . The ships part, however, produces a fairly clear image. The United States Navy operating inside and outside the Gulf stops and searches all ships entering Iranian ports. If the ships are carrying refined products, they are ordered to leave the area. If they refuse, warning shots will be fired. If they continue to refuse, lethal action will be initiated.
Since destination is not always clear, on occasion the United States Navy will have to enter Iranian territorial waters. The United States Navy will be stopping Russian ships and searching them. The United States Navy will be stopping Chinese ships.
To their credit, the McCain campaign must have begun to understand the implications. A spokesman issued a statement yesterday that the Senator was talking about, “a voluntary withdrawal from the Iranian markets of the companies providing gasoline is one option.”
One hopes there can be equal wisdom in the “Sense of the Congress.”
HE US President, George Bush, has denouned Iran for rejecting a new set of incentives to stop enriching uranium, only hours after the proposal received a cold shoulder when it was delivered by Western diplomats in Tehran.
“I am disappointed that the leaders rejected this generous offer out of hand,” Mr Bush said during a news conference in Paris on Saturday with the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. “It is an indication to the Iranian people that their leadership is willing to isolate them further. Our view is we want the Iranian people to flourish and to benefit.”
Tehran did not formally reject the offer, meaning that it may be able, as Western officials fear, to play for time, saying that it is in a continuing dialogue with the West while continuing to enrich uranium to secure the amounts necessary for a nuclear bomb.
But the response was far from warm. The package was handed to the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, by the European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. Mr Mottaki said Iran’s response would depend on how the West responded to Iran’s May 13 proposal calling for international talks on all issues and improved international inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Iran’s proposal does not mention the key Western demand – that Iran stop enriching uranium.
Before Mr Bush spoke, an Iranian Government spokesman, Gholamhossein Elham, made it clear in Tehran that stopping enrichment was unacceptable.
Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has criticized the US for keeping open the possibility of a military action against Iran.
Blix was in Rome on Friday to take part in an international gathering of experts on nuclear proliferation that was held, coincidentally, during US President George W. Bush’s three-day stop in the city.
“The military threat may well be counterproductive,’’ Blix said in a news conference.
“The rewards are more important, the carrots rather than the sticks,’’ the AP quoted the veteran Swedish diplomat as saying.
Blix tried to avert the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq because no weapons of mass destruction had been found by UN inspectors.
He said the US and Europe should offer incentives including support for Iran joining the World Trade Organization, improved economic relations and guarantees against outside attacks.
President Bush said Wednesday that his first choice is to solve a nuclear standoff with Iran by using diplomacy, but “all options are on the table.”
The president reinforced the possibility of military strike against Iran, even as a last resort, during a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a danger to world peace, and he is rallying European allies to back sanctions.
The president is pushing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment in a verifiable way. Iran insists it is enriching only for peaceful purposes.
Bush said, “I told the chancellor my first choice, of course, is to solve this diplomatically.” He quickly added, “all options are on the table.”
Merkel said if Iran does not agree to suspend its enrichment program, additional sanctions would be needed.
“The offer has been put on the table to Iran, but … if Iran does not meet its commitments, then further sanctions will simply have to follow,” she said.
Europeans want to wait on stiffer sanctions until after the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, visits Tehran to present a package of incentives in exchange for stopping its enrichment program. The offer, an updated version of one that Iran ignored a few years ago, was developed by the United States, along with Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China.
The diplomatic pressure came as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday said Bush’s era “has come to an end” and he has failed in his goals to attack Iran and stop its nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad said pressures and sanctions won’t succeed in forcing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. “If the enemy thinks they can break the Iranian nation with pressure, they are wrong,” he said.
Bush, in the midst of a farewell trip through Europe, visited with Merkel and addressed reporters in another session dominated by Iran.
The U.N. Security Council has imposed three sets of limited sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or materials for bomb. Iran continues to defy them.
Bush on Tuesday won new European promises to tighten pressure on Tehran, possibly with new sanctions. The president had not mentioned the prospect of “all options” on Tuesday in Slovenia when discussing Iran, although he has before.
“Our position is that we ought to enforce the sanctions in place and we ought to work with our allies to levy additional sanctions if they choose — if the Iranians choose to continue to ignore the demands of the free world,” Bush said.
Merkel said she favors having sanctions decided through the U.N. Security Council, but that doesn’t preclude any discussion within the European Union about whether there are other punitive measures, perhaps in the banking sector.
Addressing opponents of taking certain sanctions, Merkel said “Let us think of the people in Iran. This is what is essential. I think these people deserve a better outlook. … And we would hope that the leadership in Iran would finally see reason.”
Bush also was asked about the war in Iraq, and he said the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 was the right decision:
Israel has reportedly started to set up an ‘Iran Command’ within its air force as part of preparations for a possible war against Iran.
According to reports by unnamed Israeli military sources, the regime’s air force has launched ‘Iran Command’ to coordinate operations to ‘confront the growing threat from Tehran’.
The command’s operations are aimed at improving coordination among Israeli ballistic missiles and air and missile brigades which deploy the Arrow and Patriot missile systems.
The report comes amid ramped up Israeli rhetoric against Iran over the country’s nuclear program.
Earlier this week, Israeli deputy prime minister Shaoul Mofaz accused Iran of running a nuclear weapons program and threatened to launch a military strike on Iran with the help of US if Tehran continues with its nuclear program.
This is while Iran insists that it is conducting its nuclear program under the regulations of the UN nuclear watchdog and insists that its program is aimed at generating electricity for a growing population.
Israel, believed to be the sole possessor of ‘at least 150 nuclear warheads’ in the Middle East, seeks to persuade US President George W. Bush to halt Iran’s nuclear program by military rather than diplomatic means before the end of his term in office.
An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks “unavoidable” given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s deputies said on Friday.
“If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
“Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable,” said the former army chief who has also been defence minister.
It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Olmert’s government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should U.N. Security Council sanctions be deemed a dead end.
A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.
Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.
Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.
The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.
The military source added, “According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border.”
The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.
He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.
The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.
Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.
Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.
The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”
Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
US issues threat to Iraq’s $50bn foreign reserves in military deal
The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.
US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.
Iraq’s foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq’s funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq’s independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new “strategic alliance” with the United States.
The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.
Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.
Over the last few months, city officials in Washington, DC, have instituted an array of tactics that has civil libertarians fearing the nation’s capital is looking at the Bill of Rights as little more than a suggestion.
The latest proposal from DC’s mayor and police chief would have officers patrolling Soviet-esque checkpoints limiting residents’ ability to travel to and from targeted neighborhoods. The plan was reported Wednesday in The Examiner:
D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence. Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.
A city councilman who represents some of the affected neighborhoods — in the District’s northeast quadrant — was cautiously optimistic about the proposal’s potential to “crack down on … open-air drug markets.” But the local lawmaker, Harry Thomas, did express worries about DC “moving towards a police state.”
Local blog DCist mocked the proposal and its defenders.
“Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles actually said that measures of this sort have ’been used in other cities,’” the blog noted. “Which cities are those, Mr. Nickles? Warsaw?”
Libertarian blogger Megan McArdle asked, “Where the hell am I living?”
DC has had a spate of violence recently, and I applaud the police department’s urge to do something. However, this something seems to follow the logic outlined by Bryan Caplan:
1. Something must be done 2. This is something 3. Therefore, this must be done
Crime tears the fabric of society, but so does a government which believes that it may at any time control the movements of its citizens like so many (presumptively suspicious) sheep…
This latest draconian move follows several other recent proposals from DC officials that seemed to look upon individual rights and privacy concerns as little more than afterthoughts.
After outrage from civil liberties and gun-rights groups, DC delayed implementation of one plan that would send police door-to-door in targeted neighborhoods to conduct warrantless searches looking for drugs or guns. The so-called “safe homes” initiative has not been called off, however, so the local ACLU chapter is holding training sessions to educate people of their rights.
Another plan with Orwellian echos has the District creating a 24-hour surveillance network that aims to link together and constantly monitor thousands of closed-circuit video cameras distributed throughout the district.
The neighborhood checkpoint plan is scheduled to go into effect next week in the Trinidad neighborhood in northeast DC, according to the mayors office.
A local law school dean who leads DC’s ACLU chapter called the idea “cockamamie” and ineffective.
“I think they tried this in Russia and it failed,” Shelley Broderick told The Examiner. “It’s just our experience in this city that we always end up targeting poor people and people of color, and we treat the kids coming home from choir practice the same as we treat those kids who are selling drugs.”
Barclays uses USA Patriot Act to close British citizens’ accounts Barclays is closing the bank accounts of British customers, who are working in this country for businesses linked to Iran, to conform with US anti-terror laws.
The bank, which has considerable business interests in the US, is using guidelines drawn up under the Patriot Act to target firms which have not broken any laws in the UK.
The development emerged after a letter, which was written to lawyers representing employees of the Iranian-owned Bank Saderat and Melli Bank, was leaked to The Times newspaper.
Both banks have bases in the City of London, they are fully licensed to operate in Britain and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
There are Treasury and European Union sanctions in place against Iranian firms but neither of the banks are punished under those rules.
However, they both appear on the US government Office of Foreign Assets Control list of specially designated nationals (SDNs).
The US has accused Melli Bank of links to weapons of mass destruction and described Bank Saderat as a terrorist financier. Both banks deny the allegations strongly.
It’s been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He’s sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and “Israeli mercenaries” are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.
“Look at the shape he’s in — sleeping on chairs,” de facto President Roberto Micheletti told a local TV news station.
Sen. Barack Obama responded with outrage to 
US President George W. Bush accused Syria and Iran Tuesday of sponsoring terrorism and said that such violence “has no place in the modern world” in his farewell speech to the UN General Assembly.
Sources in Washington commented Wednesday night, Aug. 6, that, while it is unlikely that Israel would attack Iran without US approval, 
Recently appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen flew to Tel Aviv to warn Israel’s military establishment how “important” it was that “history not repeat itself ”—referring to Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS Liberty in June, 1967. The Establishment media blacked out the event (in which 34 American men were killed) for decades—and still does.
More than 100 nonaligned nations backed Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear power on Wednesday, an endorsement sought by Tehran in its standoff with the U.N. Security Council over its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
Two former senior White House security advisors have warned that a military attack against Iran would be a catastrophe for the US.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate 
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama differ in their proposals for when and how the United States should begin a major troop withdrawal from Iraq, and under what conditions they would enter into negotiations with the government of Iran. 
This assessment was reported by Israeli national radio Saturday overnight quoting a high-placed “security-political” official.
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.
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.
The L.A. Times’ 
Iran urges the OPEC member states again to convert their cash reserves into a basket of currencies rather than the tumbling US dollar. 
Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has criticized the US for keeping open the possibility of a military action against Iran. 
Israel has reportedly started to set up an ‘Iran Command’ within its air force as part of preparations for a possible war against Iran.
An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks “unavoidable” given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s deputies said on Friday.
A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned. 
The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement
noworldsystem.com 