updated 4-26-07

compiled by Dee Finney

There Are Eight Battle Groups At Sea

Six Are Nimitz Class Super Carriers


Iran's War Games Claimed not a Threat to any Country

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini stressed that Iran's maneuvers in the Persian Gulf aim to strengthen the country's deterrent power and that they don't serve to pose a threat to any country.

Speaking to reporters at his weekly press conference here in Tehran on Sunday, Hosseini said that the Iranian officials have frequently announced that the military exercises have a message of peace, friendship and security for the region.

"We have always raised proposals to initiate collective security measures and treaties in the region and we have had frequent political briefing sessions to inform the regional countries of our peaceful intentions in this regard," he said in response to the question whether Iran is prepared to suspend its maneuvers to remove concerns of Arab countries about the Islamic Republic's war games in the Persian Gulf.

Asked if nuclear talks between Iran and the West have come to a dead-line, the spokesman said, "We have always stressed the need for continued negotiations to find a logical solution based on international rules and regulations and all the visits to other countries and meetings with their officials serve the same goals."

Meantime, he informed that some of the counterparties seem to have stronger motivations to resume talks with Iran, adding, "If others join this group, then there will be the hope that the settlement of the case is facilitated."

Hosseini voiced Tehran's preparedness to attend prerequisite-free talks with all the member states of the Group 5+1 i.e. the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany

Is the Middle East heading towards a state of Chaos?

By Salim Nazzal

Al-Jazeerah, March 4, 2007

Since publishing the Sunday times report in January 2007 that Israel is training two squads of planes to attack Iran the reports about attacking Iran whether from the USA or Israel or both has been intensified in the later period. In the view of Chomsky the American Israeli war on Lebanon last July 2006 is part of the American policy "to wipe out the deterrent so as to free up the United States and Israel for an eventual attack on Iran". http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3999

Some reports linked between the late Rice visit to the region and the preparation towards striking Iran nuclear facilities a matter that has not been neither confirmed nor denied by Washington and Israel. But the language spoken in both states indicates that this question has not been far from the thinking.

However the last report that Israel got the permission of three Arab countries to use its air space to attack Iran is casting more light not only on the intention of Israel which has never been unknown but confirming the Israeli policy to "integrate" in the region through playing on the sectarian differences which is an old Israeli policy, according to Ina'am Ra'ad the late secretary of the Syrian party: "The diary of Moshe Sharette revealed the correspondence amongst the three Israeli statesmen, David Ben Gorion Moshe Sharette and Eliaho Sasson in February and March 1954, as to the splitting of Lebanon and the whole area into sectarian homelands, which were to emerge in the event of a civil war and turmoil".
ben+gorion+and+the+question+of+dividing+syria&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 .

Few years ago some argued in the Middle East that despite the alliance between the USA and Israel in oppressing the voice of the Arab resistance, there was some who argued that there is difference between both states in dealing with the regional problem. That point of view postulates that the USA is interested in supporting some form of Banana Arab "democratic" states which follows the American policy along side its project known as the grand Middle East. While it was always obvious that Israel last interest is the question of democracy in the Arab countries for two reasons, the first that the Arab democratic states will be more willing to resist Israel while its people is on its side more the one party system regimes. Two, the creation of democratic Arab countries will remove from Israel the self proclaimed label that it is the only democratic country in the region. Yet later developments indicate a greater American involvement in the Israeli deconstruction project which apparently aims to remove the spots of resistance in the region.

Arab observers in the Middle East point out that the change in the American politics has been clear in the American retreat from earlier positions which shyly criticize the Arab countries which lack human rights to consolidate its friendship with. The American position was very obvious in besieging the elected government in Palestine while at the same time supported the non elected Arab regimes which go along its policy. The "new" American approach has become based on who support its policy and who does not which confirmed the suspicion of the Arab democratic forces that the Us has not made a break with its historical policy which was based on supporting the oppressive regimes which serve the Us interests. On that base the Us has coined the terms (the moderate Arab countries!) vis avis (the extreme Arab countries!) to differentiate between those countries which accept its policy and who are not. This policy goes in harmony with the American/Israeli deconstruction policy to divide the region between moderates and extremes, as if demanding the rights of the Palestinians as formulated by the united nation resolutions 224,181 and 194 has become an extreme position while the silence on the Israeli daily violations in Palestine is moderation. The American political writer Seymour Hersh refers to the change in the American policy towards adopting the policy of playing off the sectarian differences in the so called (redirection) policy of the United States in its efforts to isolate and probably attack Iran. http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

Obviously, the USA has become near to the Israeli position in the question of playing off the sectarian elements, and in adopting the policy of encouraging all sorts of divisions with the aim to weaken the forces which resist the American and the Israeli domination projects in the region. Nevertheless, apart from the question of the credibility of (the airspace permission report) which was denied by the secretary general of the Arab league the point is that it consolidates earlier analysis that deconstructing the region is the title which summarized the Israeli policy since the times of Ben Gorion is being adopted by the Bush administration. However the Arab secretary general denial does not free Arab leaders from taking a strong position against any possible attack against Iran. Arab leaders need to remember that their position in supporting the American invasion to Iraq has aided the Us and Israel to play on the sectarian divisions in the region which threatening the integration and the stability of each Arab country.

Arab leaders need to review their policy on the light of the Us /Israel policy as implemented clearly in Palestine where encouraging and helping in the Palestinian inter division has been the policy of Israel and the USA, a position was confirmed in rejecting the Palestinian unity agreement reached in Makkah in Saudi Arabia. It was also materialized in Iraq in playing and feeding the sectarian inter-fight in order to weaken the Iraqi resistance, it become also visible in Lebanon in feeding the differences between the conflicting coalitions with the aim to destabilize Lebanon and to weaken the anti Zionist forces in the country.

Since Israel has played a historical functional role to serve the Imperial interests time has come to the opened minded and the peace activities in Israel to take the responsibility and to intensify their efforts to stand against the Zionist government which drag them from war to war. Israelis has to choose between continuous wars or lasting peace, because with each war the seeds of the next wars are planted.

Israelis need to think of the lesson given by the white South Africans who had to face the truth that the policy of domination and suppression will end one day.

Inevitably, the only way for Israel to integrate in the region is to recognize the Palestinian rights and to remove the apartheid laws which were imposed by force in Palestine. The revolt occurred lately among the British Jews against the blind obedience to the state of Israel must be a good example to Israelis to follow. If some rich Israelis have already left to Canada and to America and Europe to escape from the possible war, the majority of the Israelis will be paying the price along side Arabs and Iranians if Israel attacked Iran. Attacking Iran or Syria is not a matter that can be taken lightly. There is no doubt that the question of the nuclear power in Iran can be peacefully resolved provided that the Us learns from the Iraq lessons and provided that Israel knows that the fire wont be located in one place once inflamed. Some Arab analysts warned that that using nuclear weapon to attack Iran will be open invitations to all Arabs to obtain mass destruction weapons because it will create a state of insecurity and chaos in the whole region. In other words such attack will lead into chaos which no body can predict where it will lead the region.

Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian historian. He has written extensively on social and political issues in the Middle East .Can be contacted at gibran44@hotmail.com


FROM: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html


FROM: http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/index.php?articleid=6212


8-1-05 - I couldn't go to sleep to save my life. Every few minutes I would have a vision of the words, "Dave and the Stalemate!"  I would change positions in bed and wait to fall asleep and I'd have the same vision a gain, "Dave and the Stalemate!"

After what I knew was hours had gone by and I had changed positions numerous times, the vision changed and I saw that every one of those statements about the Stalemate had been imprinted on the front page of my website and now they formed a long paragraph, telling about Dave and the Stalemate.

Now I felt better that I wasn't wasting good hours of sleeping time seeing the same vision over and over 'Dave and the Stalemate'.

Finally I fell asleep and went into a dream.

DREAM:  I was with my mother-in-law Audrey and she had written a novel. The novel was large - over 900 pages and the publisher told her it was too expensive to publish.  She couldn't afford to publish it herself, so she decided to have her manuscript copyright just the way it was.

She gave her manuscript and the outline to the copyright people in the government and got nothing for all her work.

I was writing a novel also about a beautiful woman and a serviceman going to war and I wanted to know how she had outlined her book, but now she had nothing to show me.  She had just given everything she wrote to the copyright people.

So she sat down for a few minutes to instruct me in outlining my novel.

We were writing in the office where I worked and all of a sudden we all got called to the bosses office and were told to stand in line and get our shots.

I didn't even know what these shots were for, but everybody had to have them, men and women alike.

As soon as we got our shots, the younger men were told to get into a different line that they were being taken to the navy ship at the dock because we were now at war.

The young guy named Dave was standing right in front of me. He was so scared, he vomited on the floor right in front of me. What was even worse, I saw a tape worm in the vomit.

I turned around to tell Dave that he was sick, and the men had already been escorted out the door and the door was slammed in our faces. Nobody could know where they were going.

I tried to force the door open and I yelled to the Navy officer in charge, "I've got to get a message to Dave."

The Navy officer said back, "I'm sorry Maam!" but we can't send telegrams to the men now!  We're at war."

I yelled back, "But I've got to tell Dave that he's really sick."

The Navy officer yelled back as he left the door area, "I'm sorry Maam!  Like I said, "We're at war!"

I knew that all the men in our office were in the reserves just like Dave. They just hadn't had to ship out because they were older.

So I went back down the hall to where the older men were working. I actually had to step over 3 long fishing rods with reels on, that were leaning against a desk.

These guys all had stern looks on their faces and had taken their suit-coats off and sleeves were rolled up and they were working hard.

I knew the protocol of how to get a message to Dave. - it had to go through chain-of-command. War or no, Dave had to notified that he was sick with more than just fear.

So I walked up to the youngest guy's desk after I passed the fishing rods.

I didn't know if I should salute or not. All these guys were in the naval reserve and could be called off to war at any second.

I knew they'd be able to get Dave the message and they were all within hearing distance when I spoke.

So I walked up to the youngest guy's desk and said loudly, "Sir!"

and woke up.

3-4-07 - DREAM by a reader

This dream feels all too real. Noting that Iraq is destroyed for all time from the uranium bombs and bullets used there and who knows what else.

Iran is certain to be worse. I hate to think that it is 'our' boys and girls who are going to have to be there and get all those shots which destroy the body all by themselves, not to mention side effects - long term.


In a message dated 3/4/2007
 ANONYMOUS writes:

I was in Iran with my son, not sure the purpose of our trip there. We were in some large mall or airport carrying a single carry-on with groups of others traveling. A tall dark man brought us these small zip bags for survival. I looked inside and there were several very large turquoise blue elongated pills that were used to put into water to make the ingestors immune to disease. The man gave me a larger black flight bag...that looked military. It had many used pens and pencils in it. I asked about those pencils as they were not what we needed but we did need the antibiological drug. I saw were being watched and I was cautious to not draw attention but I didn't want to get into trouble for sharp objects on a plane. I also noticed patch cords...like what you would plug into amplifiers or the back of DVD's and TV's for sound. I finally packed these bags in my main bag with the wheels...

My son and I stopped to eat at a food court...then on to a transport to travel to a further remote area. A man spoke to us of our instructions and who we were to meet there and where we were to stay. The primary concern here...was a biotoxin was being tested where we were going near Iran...in Pakistan across a border in a remote area away from the cities. Those pills we had were to protect us....like an antidote. We were not part of this project but had to report the source so we could prevent a major epidemic. I didn't think I had enough pills...as I planned on educating the families on what to avoid...then sharing them...although that was not why we were sent. I woke up at that point.

** My thoughts on waking...this was a test for a future major bio attack using this agent.



A cruciform type of crop circle formation appears in England. It is bird-like, with the "head" facing South. The central circle is 68 feet in diameter. Each of the three swastika-like right-angled arms is twelve foot wide, 60 feet long from the edge of the circle to the angle, then 45 feet in length to the end of the arm. A small, 11 foot circle is near the "head."

The formation seems to show the American Eagle turning its face away from the 13 laurel leaves that represent peace and negotiation, toward the 13 arrows of war.


DREAM - 4-26-07 - I was living and worked in an apartment building and when I checked into the office on the first floor in room115, I was told I would be living i apartment 110.  But when I went down the hall I saw 109 and then the elevator was right next to it and there were 4 narrow doors for maintenance people numbered 23a, 23b, 23c, and 23d.

So I went back to 115 and the head cleaning woman said she was getting 111 ready for me.  She also told me and my husband Ed to go upstairs to the maintenance man's apartment, which was right by the stairs on the second floor, and get a couple upper shelves out of his kitchen, because apartment 111 needed them.

She also said that nobody would pay any attention to us because former President Clinton was coming to make a speech and people would be watching him and not us.

We ran up the stairs to the apartment. The door was open so we walked in. First thing I noticed was a thick book laying on the floor face down that he had been reading.  I picked it up and looked at the title. It was War & Peace.

Then I noticed that he had stacks of magazines, about the size of Life magazine as it used to be. He had about 7 copies of each magazine ad since these were distributed to the people living in the building, I decided to take one of each.  I picked out 4 of them. The one that surprised me most had a plain black cover and the large headline on it said, 'MICHAEL JACKSON".

We then went into the kitchen and looked into the cabinets that were open.  The first cabinet only had one upper shelf that I could take but it had wine glasses on it.  The lower shelf also had wine glasses on it and three empty wine bottles .laying down.

I moved the wine glasses from the upper self over to the next cabinet that was larger and practically empty. All it had on its second shelf, way over on the right was a small teddy bear and a Chinese figurine.

So I moved 6 wine glasses over to that cabinet and started removing the now empty upper shelf and as I did, one of the empty wine bottles slipped out of the cabinet and smashed on the floor.

That scared me because the maintenance man would know that someone had been messing around in his apartment, because I didn't have time to clean it up. We had to get downstairs to have Clinton's speech.

We could already hear people cheering for him.

So my husband Ed grabbed the shelf, and I grabbed the magazines I had picked out and we ran out of the apartment and down the stairs.

That's when we saw former President Clinton on the 1st floor, standing in front of the people in the meeting room.

On his right had, like a glove, he wore a large black eagle talon and he pointed it left as he turned left..

Former Presidents Bush and Carter were sitting on a balcony above him, watching the speech. I saw both of their heads turn into eagles and they both faced left as well..

NOTE: The wine bottles represent the wine of the harlot and it has already been drunk.  Recall also the Bible story of the wine at the wedding of Cana which had all been drunk and Mother Mary had to ask her son Jesus to get more wine for the people. That's when he changed the water into wine.  In this time period, the Bride is still coming for the wedding and Jesus is expected to return to provide the new wine.










Another Prominent Doctor who worked with SARS and BIRD FLU
suddenly dies at dinner.



Naval Reserve
www.navalreserve.com      Advance your career. Enhance your life. Learn more now.

US Naval Reserve
Prior Service/Active Duty, No Prior Service/Civilian. USNR | 4400 Dauphine St. | New Orleans, LA 70461. Gallery, |, Glossary, |, Navy.com ...
www.navalreserve.com/ps/ -

Navy Reserves - Public - Commander Navy Reserve Force - Welcome ...
From left, Navy Reserve Force SOY, Chief Utilitiesman Thomas E. Mock; ... VR-57 assigned to Naval Air Station North Island is staffed by more than 200 ...

Navy Reserves - Public - Commander Navy Reserve Forces Command ...
Naval Air Reserves ... The Navy Reserve Forces Command is made up of 88000 Reserve and active duty Sailors located throughout the United States. ...
reserves.navy.mil/Public/Staff/ Centers/Forces+Command/WelcomeAboard/default.htm


February 21, 2005

Iran goes on war alert, fears attack by U.S.

From UPI, with thanks to Kemaste:

Iran has begun preparing for a possible U.S. attack, or at least trying to dissuade Washington from such an attack by appearing to prepare for war.

Tehran has recently disclosed efforts to bolster and mobilize recruits in citizens' militias and making plans to engage in the type of asymmetrical warfare used against U.S. troops in Iraq, the Washington Times reported Saturday.

"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," said an Iranian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

FROM: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005132.php


The American Conservative
July 25, 2005
by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."



Tehran says its right to nuclear power is non-negotiable

Wednesday, 23 March, 2005

Iran and leading EU nations have failed to reach agreement in talks about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The EU Three - France, Germany and the UK - want Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

They are offering Tehran economic, political and technological incentives for giving up the programme.

Iranian negotiators, who insist Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear programme, said all sides have agreed to meet again in the coming weeks.

Iranian nuclear negotiators had said on Tuesday that Tehran would reconsider its position on the talks if no real progress was made.

Wednesday's meeting offered a chance to review progress made in working groups over three months.

At the end of the talks, Sirus Nasseri, a senior Iranian negotiator, confirmed the four parties would meet again, adding: "Each side still has its own views."


The EU Three recently admitted that progress had not been as rapid as they might have wished.

Nevertheless, the BBC's Pam O'Toole says they appear encouraged that Iran is willing to suspend uranium enrichment while negotiations are under way.

Publicly, Iranian officials have been dismissive about a US offer of limited economic incentives.

The Europeans have warned they would back US moves to take Tehran to the UN Security Council if Iran breaches agreements or resumes uranium enrichment during the talks.

Iran maintains its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, but Washington suspects it of secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon.

FROM: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4374485.stm


May 14, 2005 The Iran Crisis in Global Context
by Dilip Hiro and Tom Engelhardt
Tom Dispatch

At a moment when the North Koreans claim to have just "harvested a nuclear reactor for weapons fuel," the latest flare-up in the Iranian/European Union negotiations involving the "Iranian bomb," well described below by Dilip Hiro, only highlights the increasingly precarious state of nuclear proliferation on our poor planet. It's almost impossible to tell quite who is doing what, but many countries from China and Israel to the United States and Russia are stirring and, in one fashion or another, planning or upgrading.

As the 7th "review" conference of Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) signees continues in New York – one week in and the 188 parties evidently can't even agree on an agenda – the treaty itself, like some dam overflowing and beginning to structurally degrade, looks shaky indeed. The NPT, the major instrument of nuclear safety (other than "mutual assured destruction") that the planet has developed these last decades, is in danger of biodegrading, and the Bush administration can thank itself for at least a reasonable part of the nuclear fix that we're now in. We are clearly at the edge of an all-nuclear-all-the-time world, and our leaders, who – thank you, John Bolton – have wanted to keep every nuclear "edge" possible while shutting off much of the rest of the world, long ago opted for an improbable military solution to the globe's nuclear proliferation problems. It seems this includes planning for the possible use of nuclear weapons to stop "rogue" nuclear programs. As a recently leaked Pentagon document put the matter, the U.S. arsenal is to be "so numerous, advanced, and reliable that the U.S. retains an unassailable edge for the foreseeable future."

Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weaponless Iraq was supposed to be the test case for the administration's anti-proliferation policies, which involved the threatening of, and then launching of, proliferation wars to rein in proliferation, and we can see where that got us. If anything, it only confirmed the value of actually possessing nuclear weapons, which turned out to be the coin of the realm of power in the age of the younger Bush. In fact, for all of Washington's official and unofficial bluster, however eager officials there might be to take military action against Iran, the U.S. might be incapable of doing so, given the situation in neighboring Iraq (and forget about North Korea).

The split between the U.S. and non-nuclear signees of the NPT that Dilip Hiro analyzes below is growing. As with so many treaties and agreements, the Bush administration is interested in this one, if at all, only as a one-way street. As Richard Butler, the Australian former head of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq, wrote recently:

"The Bush administration has not only refused to adhere to its obligations under the treaty … but has now embarked on what is anathema under the treaty – the production of a new generation of nuclear weapons. These are the new, more compact, nukes the administration says it needs for the so-called war on terrorism. It beggars belief that the administration appears to believe it can succeed in restraining Iran while it proceeds to violate its obligations."

According to American intelligence, Iran is probably still seven years away from producing a nuclear weapon (assuming that's what it's intent on doing, which is not at all clear) – and yet Iran may prove the fulcrum on which the NPT is cracked open. In the meantime, the Bush administration is in search of that new generation of mini-nukes (while protecting nuclear allies, in particular transforming post-9/11 Pakistan from a "nuclear outlaw to 'major non-NATO ally'"), while Israel, with an estimated nuclear arsenal of 200-300 weapons, ranging from ones small enough to imagine using in war-fighting situations to those large enough to level any city in the Middle East, evidently continues to quietly upgrade. In fact, it seems that once any country has such weaponry, the urge to build and upgrade is almost irresistible, even when militarily completely pointless. Tom

The Iranian Nuclear Issue in a Global Context

by Dilip Hiro

With the Iranians threatening to resume some nuclear activities in the near future, their European Union (EU) interlocutors are threatening to break off their six-month long negotiations to resolve the nuclear issue diplomatically. They have called an emergency meeting of the 35-member Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna at which they are likely to join the United States in recommending that the Iranian situation be referred to the United Nations Security Council.

But they are unlikely to get their way. The Europeans – represented in the negotiations by the troika of Britain, France, and Germany – claim that before the latest round of talks, starting in mid-November, Tehran promised to freeze "all uranium enrichment-related activities." What the Iranians have, in fact, done is not to start the actual enrichment of uranium hexafluoride (UF6 gas), but to convert uranium yellowcake into a precursor for UF6. According to a non-European diplomat in Vienna, the nonaligned governors of the IAEA Board will accept the Iranian argument that this is uranium-conversion work and not uranium-enrichment work.

The emerging crisis is the result of a stalemate between Iran and the EU troika. The Europeans are aiming to get Tehran to cease all uranium-related activity permanently and depend instead exclusively on imports of low-enriched fissile material produced by the Europeans for Iran's civilian nuclear program. This is totally unacceptable to the Iranians.

On May 3, addressing the UN conference to review the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi hinted at the real reason for the devolving Iranian nuclear situation. He spoke of the demands being made on Iran as "arbitrary and self-serving criteria and thresholds regarding proliferation-proof and proliferation-prone technologies" which violate "the spirit and letter of the NPT and destroy the balance between the rights and obligations in the Treaty."

At the core of the Nonproliferation Treaty is Article IV. It gives any signatory "an inalienable right to develop, research, produce, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," and to acquire technology to this effect from fellow signatories. In practical terms, removing Article IV from the NPT – as some in the Unites States have proposed – would mean terminating the right of the signatory to "the nuclear fuel cycle."

Fueling What?

This nuclear fuel cycle consists of mining uranium ore, processing it into uranium oxide (yellowcake), transforming yellowcake first into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) gas and then into uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas, followed by the enrichment of UF6 to varying degrees of purity for the lighter U235 isotopes: 3.5 to 4 percent for use in nuclear power reactors; 10-20 percent for research reactors; and 90 percent-plus pure for use in the building of nuclear weapons.

After the fuel rods in a nuclear power plant have yielded their energy, transforming water into steam to run electricity-generating turbines, they are called "spent rods." They can then be reprocessed with the aim of extracting from them plutonium (Pu239 or Pu241), which can be used as yet more fissile material. Nuclear fuel thus produces both electric power and more nuclear fuel, and is therefore in principle a renewable source of energy.

"The termination of the fuel cycle activities demanded of Iran [by the EU] means you have killed off the nuclear NPT," said Hassan Rouhani, Iran's chief negotiator with the EU troika and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC). "If you take out Article IV, all developing countries will step out of the treaty."

This is not a fanciful scenario. Just before the UN conference of 188 countries opened in New York on May 2 to review the Nonproliferation Treaty, the non-nuclear weapons signatories to the NPT met in Mexico City under the auspices of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC).

Seven foreign ministers from Asian, African, European, and South American countries that do not have nuclear weapons summarized the NAC's stance in the International Herald Tribune in the following fashion: "When the nuclear NPT came into force 35 years ago, the central bargain was that non-nuclear-weapons states like us would renounce their right to develop nuclear weapons while retaining the inalienable right to undertake research into nuclear energy and to produce and use it for peaceful purposes … while the five declared nuclear-weapon states reduced and then eliminated their nuclear weapons [Article VI]."

By now, it has become crystal clear that this bargain has not been – and will not be – kept. The New Agenda Coalition criticized the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for spending all its time and energy monitoring and enforcing compliance by non-nuclear-weapon countries suspected of wanting to develop such weapons, while overlooking the obvious – that the nuclear powers have not implemented the commitments they made at the NPT review conferences of 1995 and 2000 .

For instance, in 2000 the U.S. government pledged to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty but has not done so yet and shows no signs that it will. It also promised to sign a verifiable accord to end the production of new fissile material for nuclear weapons but has failed to do so. To make matters worse, the Bush administration has been trying for two years to get Congressional authorization to fund research on a new generation of nuclear weapons including small yield mini-nukes and nuclear bunker busters. It has also mandated nuclear labs in the U.S. to come up with ways of upgrading the present nuclear arsenal by making it more robust and longer lasting.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker carefully pointed out to the NPT review conference that the Bush administration's Moscow Treaty with Russia in 2002 required sharp reductions in the number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads it retained by 2012. What he failed to say was that these warheads would be mothballed, not destroyed, and that the bilateral treaty lacks verification procedures.

The New Agenda Coalition representatives also brought up another sore point for non-nuclear NPT signatories. They highlighted the 2000 NPT review conference where nuclear-weapon countries once again formulated an "unequivocal" undertaking to completely eliminate their nuclear arsenals. "This goal is all the more important in a world in which terrorists seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction," they wrote. "The nuclear-weapons states should acknowledge that disarmament and nonproliferation [are] mutually reinforcing processes: What does not exist cannot proliferate."

In contrast, the three western nuclear-weapon counties (the United States, Britain, and France) are primarily interested in closing what they see as loopholes in the NPT that, in their view, can be exploited by non-nuclear-weapon states to fabricate nuclear arms – especially, of course, "the inalienable right" to acquire dual-use technology which could then be deployed for civilian or military ends. For example, centrifuges used for enriching uranium to 3.5 to 4 percent purity for nuclear-power plants or 10-20 percent purity for research reactors can also be harnessed to produce 90 percent-plus pure uranium for weapons.

Iranian Moves

In the case of Iran, its leaders have publicly offered the EU troika "objective guarantees" regarding the peaceful intentions of its uranium-enrichment program (to be monitored by the IAEA). Washington, on the other hand, insists that Tehran is using the NPT as a cover to go to the brink of nuclear weapons production; that it intends to withdraw from the NPT at a time of its own choosing (just as North Korea did) and then assemble a nuclear weapon within weeks. By so doing, Iran would break the nuclear weapons monopoly Israel has enjoyed in the Middle East since 1968. Both the Bush administration and Israel are determined to maintain this monopoly.

Washington also argues that Tehran has forfeited any rights under the treaty by misleading the IAEA over the nature of its uranium-enrichment program. Iran does not accept this assessment nor have the remaining 34 members of the IAEA's board of governors.

Iran attributes its cat-and-mouse behavior in the past to the economic sanctions applied against it by the Europeans and the Americans that deprived it of access to civilian nuclear technology to which it is entitled as a signatory to the NPT.

These days, however, Iranian leaders are learning that transparency has its virtues. Following the publication in the March 13 Sunday Times of a leak from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office regarding his country's possible plans to raid Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, President Muhammad Khatami escorted a party of 30 local and foreign journalists to the underground facility.

That dispelled some of the fear-filled mystique about the place created by the story Israeli officials had planted. Among the structures the visiting journalists saw was a huge empty hall meant for the installation of thousands of centrifuges at some future date. A few weeks later, Iran broke another taboo. It took Elahe Mohtasham, a representative of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, on a day-long visit to the Uranium Conversion Facility in Isfahan.

In a long report she published in the Sunday Times on May 1, she described not just the equipment and buildings she saw, but also her conversations in Persian with scientists and other officials at the site. The facility, completed in March 1998, is visited by the IAEA every three or four weeks. It was there that, in March 2004, the Iranians converted yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas UF6 for the first time. Iran thus became the tenth country in the world to do so – the five members of the initial nuclear club, the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China; and later, Israel, India, Pakistan, and Brazil.

Within three months, the Isfahan facility had produced 45 kg of UF6. By October, its stock of UF6 rose to 3,000 kg. The scientists and technicians, including women, had also managed to transform UF6 gas into liquid. It was then, with Iran entering talks with the EU Troika, that all such activity was suspended. When asked whether they would be able to produce enough UF6 to feed the prospective 50,000 centrifuges at Natanz, 90 miles to the northeast, the scientists replied, "Yes."

According to the IAEA, between April and October 2004, the number of centrifuge rotors in Iran rose from 1,140 to 1,274. And Rouhani revealed that the government had built and assembled all those centrifuges in a year and several months. Later, he stated that the reports of protective tunnels and underground facilities being built by Iran for its nuclear facilities "might be true."

The scientists at the Isfahan uranium conversion plant were familiar with the Sunday Times story about Israeli plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. They told Mohtasham that they had no protection against military attack and that the tunnels were actually very narrow, just enough for two people to squeeze through. They believed, however, that any attack by the U.S. or Israel would destabilize the whole region and, at that point, Iran would probably withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty and start a genuine nuclear-weapons program.

The European negotiators seem aware of the dire consequences of military attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States. Until now, they seemingly wanted to keep the talks simmering along, hoping that a pragmatic winner in the presidential election on June 17 could open the way for accommodation on the issue. "Pragmatic" is their code word for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rasfanjani, a wily politician who, along with Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, is now the only surviving member of the top leadership that was instrumental in bringing about the Islamic revolution in 1979.

The Iranians do not seem unduly worried that the emergency meeting of the IAEA governors will postpone the discussion of the Europeans' complaint to their regular quarterly meeting, due to take place just a few days before the Iranian presidential election. Even if the issue is referred to the UN Security Council, there is a very strong chance that China and Russia will veto any resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. Overall, the Iranians feel that this issue, if pushed into the international arena, will cause a global divide between the developing world and the Western world. It may be that they are overestimating, but there is no doubt that this is an issue of paramount importance in international affairs.

Dilip Hiro is the author of The Iranian Labyrinth: Journeys Through Theocratic Iran and Its Furies (just now being published by Nation Books) and The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide.

A printed version of this article is available in The Middle East International, no. 750.

Copyright 2005 Dilip Hiro

FROM:  http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5952
May 28, 2005


Just heard on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' that Congressman Charlie Rangel has re-introduced his bill (into the House of Representatives) to bring back the military draft (just in time for the coming attack on Iran for Israel!).

Also just heard on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' that Iran has put forward a law to the Guardian Council to resume its nuclear enrichment program, and the Guardian Council has 'approved'. This could go to the 'crisis' stage if Iran resumes its nuclear enrichment program (as such a 'crisis' would be right in accordance with Scott Ritter's 'Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran' article which is linked at the following URL):




Iranian hard-liners approve boost to nuclear work

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's hard-line Guardian Council on Saturday approved a law that puts pressure on the government to develop nuclear technology that could be used to build atomic weapons, state run radio reported.
Parliament had passed the bill on May 15 and sent it to the Guardian Council for approval. The council must vet all bills before they become law.

The passing of the law does not force the government to resume uranium enrichment immediately but encourages it to pursue nuclear goals in spite of international pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program.

The law calls on the government to develop a nuclear fuel cycle, which would include resuming the process of enriching uranium — a prospect that has drawn criticism from the United States and Europe because the technology could be used in developing atomic weapons.

Iran suspended enrichment last November under international pressure led by the United States. Iran maintains its program is peaceful and only aimed at generating electricity.

The legislation was viewed as strengthening the government's hand in negotiations with European Union representatives, allowing it to demonstrate domestic pressure to pursue its nuclear program as talks have deadlocked.

Iran agreed Wednesday to meet with European Union negotiators for a new round of talks in the summer.

France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, want Tehran to abandon its enrichment activities in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Iran's efforts to join the World Trade Organization.

The European Union has threatened to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if it again starts uranium reprocessing. Tehran says it won't give up its treaty rights to enrichment but is prepared to offer guarantees that its nuclear program won't be diverted to build weapons.

FROM: http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=35312

Iran's Rafsanjani suggests  nuclear attack on Israel

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COMTuesday, December 18, 2001

One of Iran’s most influential ruling clerics called on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

The speech by former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani failed to catch the attention of the western press but made waves  in the Middle East.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

In Washington Sunday, administration officials said the United States does not plan to target Iran in the war against terrorism.

 "Iran is a situation where there are clearly some pressures from young people, there are pressures from women in that country," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "Iran had a different history than Iraq.  I don't know, if nothing else happened and one looked at those two countries, I would say the likelihood of Iraq reforming itself is zero.  The possibility, the remote possibility of Iran reforming itself is considerably above zero."

Dr. Assad Homayou, president of the Azadegan Foundation in Washington, D.C. agreed.   "To me the issue is not nuclear weapons but the responsibility of the regime," he said. "This regime is not responsible and that is why I have always emphasized that the removal of this regime is imperative. As the U.S. secretary of defense said the situation with Iran is different from that of Iraq. People only need the moral support of the United States."

Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that  Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning that a war "of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of World War III."

Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He was speaking on "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" which is celebrated in Iran only.

     The Pentagon, which has pressed for a second stage in the U.S. war against terrorism, does not support any military campaign against Iran. Instead, officials have urged that Washington target the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

       On Monday, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami said the stifling of dissent in the country could spark a new wave of student protests, Middle East Newsline reported. Over the last 20 months, officials said, 56 publications have been closed. This includes 24 daily newspapers.

    U.S. officials acknowledge that Iran is more advanced than Iraq in both missile development and weapons of mass destruction. They said that Iran, with Russian help, has succeeded in advancing its nuclear project and they could arrive at weapons capability as early as 2005.

    But the officials said the administration has been impressed with Iran's help in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. The help has included military coordination, security along the Afghan border and intelligence exchange.

    Some officials expect Iran to also quietly support any U.S. military campaign against Iraq. Iraq is Teheran's rival and neighbor and Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during their 1980-88 war.

    One scenario being envisioned by Pentagon sources is increased Iranian help to Shi'ite opposition forces in southern Iraq. The Iranian help could also include coordination for any U.S. ground attack in the oil fields around the southern port of Basra.

    "I would characterize Iraq as a dictator in a repressive system that is unlikely to be altered from within absent an assassination or something like that," Rumsfeld said.



June 4, 2005 'Realists' Press for Bush to Engage Iran, North Korea

by Jim Lobe

Hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush may think that they are tough, but their dreams of "regime change" in Iran and North Korea are increasingly deluded, not to say dangerous, according to their hard-edged realist rivals who have become increasingly outspoken in recent weeks.

Their latest broadside comes in the form of an article by Richard Haass, president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, in the forthcoming edition of the journal Foreign Affairs entitled "The Limits of Regime Change."

Haass, who served under Bush in a top State Department position, also has just published a new book, The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course, one of the central themes of which is that the hawks have overestimated Washington's ability to change the world.

Haass' article and book release follow the publication of a column last week by arch-realist Brent Scowcroft in the Wall Street Journal which argues that the hawks' rejection of bilateral talks with North Korea in the hopes that the government there will collapse are "irresponsible."

Yet another realist, former Foreign Affairs editor Fareed Zakaria, made much the same argument in a recent Newsweek column that assailed the White House for what he called a four-year "stalemate" within the administration between hawks who "want to push for regime change" in North Korea and "pragmatists" who "want to end the North's nuclear program."

Common to all three authors is the conviction that the U.S. is not all-powerful; that it must coordinate its policy with other great powers to achieve its ends; that creative diplomacy can be far more constructive than military action; and that, despite the tough rhetoric of administration hawks, U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea, both members of Bush's "axis of evil," effectively is adrift.

The realist offensive comes amid a growing sense that the intra-administration fights between hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney and realists led by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell have continued unabated nearly six months into Bush's second term, albeit more recently without Powell and fewer leaks from unhappy State Department and intelligence officers who generally lined up with the realists.

While Washington has persisted in its refusal to directly engage either Iran or North Korea, it has provided nominal, if skeptical, support to negotiations between the so-called EU-3 – Germany, Britain and France – and Iran on Teheran's nuclear program. while also stating that a military option of one kind or another remains on the table if an agreement is not reached.

Washington also has continued to insist that Pyongyang return to the Six-Party Talks – which also involve China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia – to discuss a possible agreement for dismantling its nuclear program.

But the administration has rejected entreaties by China and South Korea, in particular, to put on the table what it might be prepared to offer if the North were to strike such a deal. In recent weeks, Washington also has sent 17 Stealth warplanes to South Korea as part of a series of steps to increase pressure on the North and signal the other parties that its patience is running out.

Haass, who, as head of the influential Policy Planning office in the State Department during the first two years of the Bush administration, was a top adviser to Powell, argues in his Foreign Affairs article, that the hawks' pursuit of regime change is flawed on many counts.

He concedes that regime change appears superficially attractive because it "is less distasteful than diplomacy and less dangerous than living with new nuclear states."

"There is only one problem," he adds. "It is highly unlikely to have the desired effect soon enough."

Haass dismisses the notion that Washington is prepared to invade either country simply due to the "enormous" expense involved, the ability of Pyongyang's conventional military power to inflict destruction on South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there, and the size and large population of Iran that would make "any occupation costly, miserable, and futile."

In addition, "regime replacement," often is far more difficult and expensive than the initial regime ouster, as Washington's experience in Iraq has demonstrated, according to Haass.

As for the option of carrying out a military attack on Pyongyang's or Teheran's nuclear sites, as urged by some hard-line circles outside the administration, Haass warns that, given the state of U.S. intelligence on the two countries' nuclear programs, this is likely to be limited in its effectiveness and would almost certainly prove strategically counterproductive.

In the first place, Washington is unlikely to face a demonstrable imminent threat from either country that would justify preemptive action. Any preventive attack on North Korea would be opposed by Washington's Six-Party partners because of the dangers posed by war on the Korean Peninsula, according to Haass.

While a preventive attack on Iranian targets could set back its nuclear program. by months or years, he argues, Teheran could respond in any number of ways, from "unleashing terrorism" and promoting instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, to triggering oil price increases that "could trigger a global economic crisis."

Instead, Haass urges what he terms a "containment" policy similar to that pursued by Washington during the Cold War which, he notes, had as a "second, subordinate goal" incremental regime change or "regime evolution." Such a policy, he says, "tends to be indirect and gradual and to involve the use of foreign policy tools other than military force."

"A foreign policy that chooses to integrate, not isolate, despotic regimes can be the Trojan horse that moderates their behavior in the short run and their nature in the long run," he writes.

Critical to this strategy is Washington's willingness to offer clear incentives, "including economic assistance, security assurances, and greater political standing," to both countries if they satisfied U.S. and international concerns regarding their nuclear programs It also would spell out clear penalties, including military attack "in the most dire circumstances," if they failed to cooperate, says Haass.

Washington also should work with its negotiating partners to devise packages for both countries that lay out similar carrots and sticks on which all parties would commit themselves, he adds.

He admits it is quite possible this strategy will not work, and that one or both countries will use the time to build up their nuclear capabilities either overtly or covertly. The option then is to accept their de facto nuclear status similar to that currently accepted for Israel, India, and Pakistan.

Given the stakes that would be involved, particularly the likelihood that the two countries' neighbors would try to follow suit, Washington, according to Haass should declare publicly that any government that uses or threatens to use weapons of mass destruction or knowingly transfers them to third parties "opens itself up to the strongest reprisals, including attack and removal from power." At the same time, the U.S. should try to persuade all other major powers to sign on to such a policy, he adds.

Iranian Nukes Called Likely Result of Stalemate
May 19, 2005

Iran is likely to gain nuclear weapons as a result of the current stalemate over the country’s atomic program, an expert said yesterday in testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee (see GSN, May 19).

“We ought to get used to the idea of thinking about what it would be like to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

U.S. and European officials should not expect to persuade “a proud country of 70 million people with abundant resources” to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, said Geoffrey Kemp, a former National Security Council official.

Without “fundamental change in the Iranian leadership, combined with a willingness on the part of the Bush administration to take big risks, the United States is on course for a serious crisis with Iran at some point in the coming months,” Kemp said.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told the committee that there is “no sign Iran has made the necessary strategic decision to abandon its nuclear ambitions.”

Iran must “maintain suspension of all nuclear-related activities and negotiate in good faith the eventual cessation and dismantling of all sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities” or European nations currently negotiating with Tehran would refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council, Burns said (Sonni Efron, Los Angeles Times, May 20).

Burns cautioned that “anything could happen” if Iran is referred to the Security Council, USA Today reported today

However, Iran’s growing ties with China could make it difficult for the Security Council to take any action, Burns added (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, May 20).

Burns also ruled out economic incentives as a way to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear program, the Associated Press reported.

“There is no reason to believe that extra incentives offered by the United States at this point would make a real difference,” Burns said.

Normal diplomatic and trade relations between Iran and European nations have done little to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.

Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said economic incentives, regime change, military action and a decision to accept Iran’s nuclear programs are the only options available to the United States (George Gedda, Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle, May 19).

Meanwhile, Iran recently proposed sending nuclear materials to Russia for enrichment. This idea is expected to be the focus of next week’s talks between Iran and the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the Financial Times reported today.

Russia has been reaching out diplomatically to all parties involved in negotiations (Dombey/Dinmore, Financial Times, May 20).

FROM: http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_5_20.html#92E61DBF



Bush, Cheney Team Up to Soften Americans for War on Iran
by Jim Lobe

Two very different messages about the future of U.S. foreign policy were broadcast to the world on Inaugural Day Thursday, and listeners everywhere could be forgiven for feeling confused about their import.

On the one hand, George W. Bush's lofty rhetoric about his administration's commitment to bring democracy, liberty and freedom to every country where tyrants rule naturally grabbed the most attention; after all, he is the president.

Even as the speech was much criticized by normally friendly critics – probably more than the White House had anticipated – as being hopelessly ambitious and unrealistic, the idealism that it expressed was widely praised and unquestioned.

On the other hand, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney's dark words of warning against Iran on MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning" television show conveyed something altogether different, both in tone and substance, even if they were relegated to the inside pages.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, (and) Iran is right at the top of the list," the vice president intoned, noting that Washington's chief concern with Tehran had less to do with democracy or even terrorism but rather with its "fairly robust new nuclear program."

And while Cheney stressed that Washington still hoped Europe's efforts to persuade Tehran to abandon any ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon would succeed, he grimly observed that Israel might well decide to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, presumably before the Bush administration, "and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it," he concluded as cheerfully as he could – at least until he was caught up short by the cowboy-hatted Imus, who reminded him that the U.S. already has a war there.

To former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cheney's remarks sounded "like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis" to carry out an attack.

He noted that, coinciding with Bush's idealistic address, they underlined that the administration was "really very unclear regarding its genuine strategic doctrine."

For neoconservatives, who have long used the velvet glove of pro-democracy rhetoric to hide the steel fist of what has consistently been a U.S.- and Israel-centered Machtpolitik, Cheney's warning came as the perfect topper to Bush's inaugural speech, much of which was borrowed from right-wing Israeli leader Natan Sharansky's new book, The Case for Democracy.

After biting their tongue about making Iran the next target of U.S. military power after Iraq through most of 2004 so as not to jeopardize Bush's re-election, they have been noisily pushing Tehran as the chief candidate for Public Enemy Number One in Bush's second term.

Just the day before the inaugural, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who doubles as chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), had told an audience at the neoconservative Hudson Institute that the administration considered Iran to be a much bigger threat than North Korea.

"I don't think George W. Bush thinks he got re-elected to preside over the theocratic regime getting nuclear weapons," he confidently asserted, although he also admitted that there were "big practical questions" as to how to stop it.

Both Cheney's and Kristol's remarks followed the publication earlier in the week of a much-noted article in the New Yorker magazine by prize-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, which maintained that Washington has been infiltrating Special Operations Forces (SOFs) into Iran from Iraq and Pakistan since last summer precisely to seek out Tehran's secret nuclear facilities and other weapons targets in preparation for possible combined air and ground strikes.

The article, which the Pentagon said was "riddled with errors" that it declined to further identify, also reported that Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whose Middle East views accord closely with Israel's extreme right and whose office is widely blamed for corrupting the intelligence process leading up to the Iraq war, has been working with Israeli planners and consultants on a target list.

It asserted that he and other hard-liners in the Pentagon, Cheney's office and the White House fervently believe that a major military blow against Tehran will topple the regime.

"The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West," one unnamed Pentagon consultant told Hersh, "the Iranian regime will collapse" like the regimes in Romania, East Germany and the Soviet Union because of popular hatred for the ruling theocracy.

Hersh's article was greeted with unrestrained joy by neoconservative publications, such as the New York Sun, the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, as evidence that the administration, hopelessly split over Iran policy during the Bush's first term largely because of the State Department's and the CIA's desire to gain Tehran's cooperation on Afghanistan and Iraq, has finally opted for confrontation.

For regional specialists, such as Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University, however, both the Hersh article and Cheney's grim mutterings are "deja vu all over again."

"In Iraq, we listened to the exiles who said we'd be greeted with flowers and candies so it would be 'cakewalk,' but it turned out not to be quite that way," said Sick, who served on the National Security Council under former President Jimmy Carter and later wrote a book, All Fall Down, about U.S. policy in Iran.

"I can't believe there are people who want to repeat that process now," he added.

Sick and other regional specialists insist that the assumptions apparently being made by administration hawks about the nature of the government, its goals in Iraq, and how a U.S. or Israeli military strike would affect internal Iranian politics are all deeply flawed.

"The ramifications of a military strike are going to be all negative," according to Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution, who supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He said it would likely rally the population behind the regime and provoke serious retaliation both in Iraq and beyond.

Even the "big practical questions" acknowledged by Kristol represent formidable hurdles to ensuring the destruction of Iran's ability to build a bomb, according to Pollack. Anticipating Cheney, he asserted at a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) forum last week that "we would all like the Israelis to take care of this problem, (but) they can't."

Central and eastern Iran, where most of the facilities are believed to be situated, is beyond the range of their fighter jets. So in order to reach their targets, the bombers would have to fly over U.S.-occupied Iraq, thus making Washington complicit.

Worse, "(a)ny bombing raid that tries to take out so many sites will be of no value unless it's followed up on the ground," Sick told IPS. "My guess is that neither Cheney nor anyone around him really looks forward to putting boots on the ground in Iran."

Moreover, while there is "quite a lot of real respect for the United States and for Bush in Iran today, if there were an American attack, all of that would just vanish overnight," he said, pressing a more hopeful view of Cheney's and the administration's intentions.

"I think this is actually a campaign to intimidate Iran," he said. "It's holding out a palpable threat that if you don't cooperate this is what is going to happen to you."

(Inter Press Service)

FROM: http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4522

Published on Thursday, January 20, 2005 by Reuters Cheney Says Iran Tops List of Trouble Spots by Adam Entous

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Thursday that Iran was at the top of the administration's list of world trouble spots and expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to eliminate any nuclear threat from Tehran.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Cheney said in an interview aired on MSNBC on the day that George W. Bush was sworn in for a second four-year term as president.

Cheney, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, said the administration would continue to try to use diplomacy to address what he said were serious concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons program and ties to terrorism.

The administration has also accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of neighboring Iraq, where U.S. forces have been bogged down in a ferocious insurgency since the 2003 invasion.

If Iran resists demands to rein in its nuclear program, Cheney said the next step would be to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council and seek international sanctions "to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations."

Cheney described Iran's nuclear program as "fairly robust." Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make weapons. Cheney, who was a leading advocate for the Iraq invasion, said one concern was that Israel might act against the Iranians "without being asked."


"If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said.

Israel set a precedent for such action in 1981 when it sent warplanes to destroy Iraq's French-built Osiraq reactor, seen as the key to President Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," Cheney said.

Like Cheney, Bush has stressed the importance of diplomacy in dealing with Iran, but said this week, "I will never take any option off the table."

The Bush administration imposed economic penalties this month against Chinese companies it accused of helping Tehran improve its longer-range ballistic missiles.

After being sworn in on Thursday Bush admonished what he called "the rulers of outlaw regimes" and said, "We will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."

The New Yorker magazine reported this week that the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets.

The White House and Pentagon have disputed the report.

© Reuters 2005

FROM: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0120-08.htm


Cheney Warns of Iran As a Nuclear Threat

Vice President: 'We Don't Want a War'

By Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 21, 2005;

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that Iran is a top threat to world peace and Middle East stability, accusing Tehran of sponsoring terrorism against Americans and building a "fairly robust new nuclear program."

In an interview aired on MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning" show a few hours before President Bush's inaugural address, Cheney warned that Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities if the United States and its allies fail to solve the standoff with Tehran diplomatically.

Vice President Cheney says he fears a "diplomatic mess" in the Middle East if Iran does not agree to comply with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. (File Photo)

"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said. In 1981, Israel sent warplanes to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor.

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it," he said.

Iran says its nuclear facilities were built to support a peaceful energy program; the Bush administration disagrees.

In the interview with Don Imus, the vice president made a rare admission, saying he had miscalculated how quickly Iraqis would be able to recover from Saddam Hussein's government and begin running their country.

"I think the hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered at the time, including anybody who had the gumption to stand up and challenge him, made the situation tougher than I would have thought," he said. "I would chalk that one up as a miscalculation, where I thought things would have recovered more quickly."

The White House has been widely criticized for its postwar planning in Iraq, especially its failure to prepare for the insurgency that is threatening stability and the upcoming elections for a 275-member national assembly.

Bush condemned Iran as part of an "axis of evil" shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, heightening tensions and raising the possibility of U.S. military action to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power in the volatile Middle East.

In his inaugural address, Bush did not mention Iran, but he vowed to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes." Some foreign policy experts predict Bush might use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear program during his second term, but the president and Cheney have promised to pursue diplomacy first.

"Certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," Cheney said. The current Bush policy calls for European nations to take the lead in negotiating for a full and verifiable halt to Iran's nuclear program. Bush has said on several occasions that all options are on the table if Iran does not comply.

If current negotiations fail, Cheney said, the United States would ask the U.N. Security Council to impose international sanctions on Iran to force compliance with the nonproliferation treaty. "You look around the world at potential trouble spots; Iran is right at the top of the list," he said. The administration has offered no concrete evidence to support its assertion regarding Iran.

The Pentagon has denied a report in the Jan. 24 issue of New Yorker magazine that the United States is conducting secret reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify potential nuclear targets.

FROM: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24677-2005Jan20.html


Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca 1 May 2005

At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it": 

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,"  (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )

Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.

Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran

Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.

"A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )

The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor,  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html ).

Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.

Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.

Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware

A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000  "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.     The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":

 "Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement." (See Richard Bennett, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )

The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.

While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).

Iran's Military Capabilities

Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine.  Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).

The US "Military Road Map"

The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.

Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )

The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran:

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , emphasis added)

Main Military Actors

While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004. 

Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran

According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )

The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.

Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.

2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

3)  A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

4)  Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.

5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.

6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

Timeline of Key Initiatives

In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:

November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania.  "NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries. 

January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine. 

February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.

February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )

The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as  "the appointment of the right man at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda:  "As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario."

March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February.  These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack: 

"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )

The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.

Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)

March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.

US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).

April 2005:  Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."

In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.

Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan.  The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's  "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.

During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:

"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)

Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.

April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan. 

Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.

Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.

Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough enough on Iran..."  Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)

Late April 2005.  Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as  "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the  GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf

Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense      and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes.  Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.

May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.  

Iran Surrounded

The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq. 

In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation agreements with NATO

In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:

"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries...  Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).

Concluding remarks:

The World is at an important crossroads.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified  as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")

In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. 

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.  

Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.  

Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.

The Antiwar Movement

The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.

This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.

What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems)  must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office. 

What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the "war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.  

 Israel's Nuclear Capabilities 

With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.

Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...

The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."

Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."

Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.

From John Steinbach,  Israel's Nuclear Arsenal, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed.  For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

FROM: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

To: cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com
 From: "mark urban" <mcurb@hotmail.com>
 Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005
Cheney Orders STRATCOM To Prepare Nuclear Attack Against Iran

 Cheney Orders STRATCOM To Prepare Nuclear Attack Against Iran

Politcal activists and observers have sent out a "world wide red alert' in response to what they called Cheney's  "Hitler-like" state of mind. 

 July 28, 2005

 By Greg Szymanski

A number of political observers and activists today sounded `a red alert' after reports surfaced this week Vice  President Dick Cheney directly ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to  make contingency plans for a nuclear strike against Iran in the aftermath of another `9/11 type attack' on America.

Cheney's orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the Aug 1, 2005, issue of The American Conservative.  Geraldi was unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say:

"Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the  immediate aftermath of "another 9-11." That's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi's article. 

The statement was then distributed widely over the  internet as a number of political observers have issued "world wide" warning statements," declaring Cheney's order to be  interpreted as "sounding the bell for World War III."

In response to Cheney's order, outspoken political activist and former candidate for U.S. President, Lyndon La Rouche, Wednesday issued a "world wide" internet warning covering the time period of August 2005, saying:

"Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to unleash the  recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran..  "The danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even further heightened, were the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until September 4. With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August" attack on Iran."

In the warning distributed widely throughout the world on July 27, LaRouche based his alarming assessment on a series of factors reported to him over the recent days, beginning with the qualified report, from a former U.S. intelligence official, published in the American Conservative magazine.

 The report claims that Cheney already ordered the Strategic Command to prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical nuclear strike against hundreds of targets in Iran, in the event of a "new 9/11-style attack" on the United States.

And as reported several months ago, La Rouche said the Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant "mini-nukes" under the control of theater military commanders, as part of a new Global Strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

"The recent bombings in London have provided Tony Blair with his own "Reichstag fire" incident, and the full resources of the British "liberal imperial" faction can now be expected to weigh in behind the brutish Cheney circles in Washington, added La Rouche.

"The most compelling evidence of this "Guns of August" plan in discussions I've had with colleagues is the pattern of eyewitness reports of Dick Cheney's state of mind. Cheney is living out an American version of "Hitler in the bunker," lashing out at Republican Senators who have dared to resist his mad tirades, accusing anyone who fails to follow his orders—including senior members of the United States Senate—of being "traitors" and worse."

 For more informative articles, go to  www.arcticbeacon.com.

 Greg Szymanski

Cheney to Generals: Prepare to Attack Iran

Fri Jul 22nd, 2005 at 13:48:41 PDT

In the event of another "9/11 type attack" according to Philip Giraldi, in the print edition of the American Conservative (courtesy Justin Logan). And when he says attack Iran, he means ATTACK IRAN! The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Two things: First, Giraldi is a former CIA officer (specifically a CIA counterterrorism specialist according to his bio at American Conservative), so he probably has contacts among the intelligence services and the military that few journalists in Washington can match. Second, the leak of this information appears to be coming from the military officers in charge of drawing up this plan, or at least with someone familiar with their views. This means the military is starting to become very ansty at the direction the Bush administration is taking the country.

The military has seen up close and personal what the Iraq War has done to the Army and Marines with their extended and multiple tours of duty in theater. They also have to be scared shitless about the possible consequences of a nuclear attack on Iran. The blowback would be massive. Iran, if it has any nukes would surely use them against American Forces in the Gulf. I leave to your imagination what the results of that would be.

Even if Iran doesn't have the ability to respond in kind, however, the entire region would go up in flames. The shia in Iraq would be outraged and some of them (Sadr's militia perhaps?) would likely begin their own violent resistance to the American occupation. Meanwhile recruitment of Muslims to Al Qaida or other terrorist organizations would shoot up tremendously, and any allies we still have would likely abandon us in horror at the breach of the nuclear threshold by the US.

Longer term? We might see the more extremist elements of the Pakistani miltary depose Mussharef and begin to covertly aid Al Qaida, perhaps even providing them with the means to attack the US with nuclear or biological weapons. We would also likely face an oil boycott from OPEC, if merely to satisfy their own populations demand for Jihad against us. We can't know all the consequences, frankly, but once you unleash nukes on the Middle East, a positive result for our national security is the least likely scenario.

FROM: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/22/164841/163
 The Iran War Buildup
    By Michael T. Klare
    The Nation

    Thursday 21 July 2005

    There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran if Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment activities viewed in Washington as precursors to the manufacture of nuclear munitions. Top Administration officials are known to have argued in favor of military action if Tehran goes ahead with these plans - a step considered more likely with the recent election of arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president - but Bush, so far as is known, has not yet made up his mind in the matter. One thing does appear certain, however: Bush has given the Defense Department approval to develop scenarios for such an attack and to undertake various preliminary actions. As was the case in 2002 regarding Iraq, the building blocks for an attack in Iran are beginning to be put into place.

    We may never know exactly when President Bush made up his mind to invade Iraq - some analysts say the die was cast as early as November 2001; others claim it was not until October 2002 - but whatever the case, it is beyond dispute that planning for the invasion was well advanced in July 2002, when British intelligence officials visited Washington and issued what has come to be known as the Downing Street memo, informing Prime Minister Tony Blair that war was nearly inevitable.

    What these officials undoubtedly discovered - as was being reported in certain newspapers at the time - was that senior officers of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, had already been developing detailed scenarios for an invasion of Iraq and that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been deeply involved in these preparations. On July 5, 2002, for example, the New York Times revealed that "an American military planning document calls for air, land, and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions - the north, south, and west." Further details of this document and other blueprints for war appeared in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. At the same time, moreover, the Pentagon reportedly stepped up its aerial and electronic surveillance of military forces in Iraq.

    This record is worth revisiting because of the many parallels to the current situation. Just as Bush gave ambiguous signals about his intentions regarding Iraq in 2002 - denying that a decision had been made to invade but never ruling it out - so, today, he is giving similar signals with respect to Iran. "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush declared in Belgium on February 22. He then added: "Having said that, all options are on the table." And, just as Bush's 2002 denials of an intent to invade Iraq were accompanied by intense preparations for just such an outcome, so, today, one can detect similar preparations for an attack on Iran.

    Just what form such an attack might take has probably not yet been decided. Just as he considered several plans for an invasion of Iraq before settling on the plan described in the Times, Rumsfeld is no doubt considering a variety of options for action against Iran. These could range from a burst of air and missile attacks to a proxy war involving Iranian opposition militias or a full-scale US invasion. All have obvious advantages and disadvantages. An air and missile attack would undoubtedly destroy some key nuclear centers but could leave some hidden facilities intact; it would also leave the hated clerical regime in place. The use of proxy forces could also fail in this regard. An invasion might solve these problems but would place almost intolerable demands on the deeply over-stretched US Army.

    It is these considerations, no doubt, that are preoccupying US military planners today. But while a final decision on these options may be put off for a time, the Defense Department cannot wait to make preparations for an assault if it expects to move swiftly once the President gives the go-ahead. Hence, it is taking steps now to prepare for the implementation of any conceivable plan.

    The first step in such a process is to verify the location of possible targets in Iran and to assess the effectiveness of Iranian defenses. The identification of likely targets apparently began late last year, when the Central Intelligence Agency and US Special Operations Forces (SOF) began flying unmanned "Predator" spy planes over Iran and sending small reconnaissance teams directly into Iranian territory. These actions, first revealed by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker in January, are supposedly intended to pinpoint the location of hidden Iranian weapons facilities for possible attack by US air and ground forces. "The goal," Hersh explained, "is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision [air] strikes and short-term commando raids."

    It is also probable, says military analyst William Arkin, that CENTCOM is probing Iran's air and shore defenses by sending electronic surveillance planes and submarines into - or just to the edge of - Iranian coastal areas. "I would be greatly surprised if they're not doing this," he said in an interview. "The intent would be to 'light up' Iranian radars and command/control facilities, so as to pinpoint their location and gauge their effectiveness." It was precisely this sort of aggressive probing that led to the collision between a US EP-3E electronic spy plane and a Chinese fighter over the South China Sea in April 2001.

    As this information becomes available, it is no doubt being fed into the various "strategic concepts" and "strike packages" being developed by US strategists for possible action against Iran. That such efforts are indeed under way is confirmed by reports in the international press that Pentagon officials have met with their Israeli counterparts to discuss the possible participation of Israeli aircraft in some of these scenarios. Although no public acknowledgment of such talks has been made, Vice President Dick Cheney declared in January that "the Israelis might well decide to act first" if Iran proceeded with the development of nuclear weapons - obviously hinting that Washington would look with favor upon such a move.

    There are also indications that the CIA and SOF officials have met with Iranian opposition forces - in particular, the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) - to discuss their possible involvement in commando raids inside Iran or a full-scale proxy war. In one such report, Newsweek disclosed in February that the Bush Administration "is seeking to cull useful MEK members as operatives for use against Tehran." (Although the MEK is listed on the State Department's roster of terrorist groups, its forces are "gently treated" by the American troops guarding their compound in eastern Iraq, Newsweek revealed.)

    Given the immense stress now being placed on US ground forces in Iraq, it is likely that the Pentagon's favored plan for military action in Iran involves some combination of airstrikes and the use of proxy forces like the MEK. But even a small-scale assault of this sort is likely to provoke retaliatory action by Iran - possibly entailing missile strikes on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf or covert aid to the insurgency in Iraq. This being the case, CENTCOM would also have to develop plans for a wide range of escalatory moves.

    Repeating what was said at the outset, there is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran. But there are many indications that planning for such a move is well under way - and if the record of Iraq (and other wars) teaches us anything, it is that such planning, once commenced, is very hard to turn around. Hence, we should not wait until after relations with Iran have reached the crisis point to advise against US military action. We should begin acting now, before the march to war becomes irreversible.

 FROM: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072305F.shtml


Offer by Europe Would Give Iran Nuclear Future

Published: August 5, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 - In a first test of the new leadership in Iran, European negotiators have prepared a sweeping proposal that raises the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear reactors and fuel, and of achieving a full political and economic relationship with the West, if it ends nuclear activities suspected to be part of a weapons program, Western diplomats said Thursday.

The European offer, drafted with the tacit approval of the Bush administration, is to be transmitted by the end of this weekend as the latest step in a European-American effort to get Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear arms ambitions. That effort has run into repeated difficulties, most recently over Iran's announced intention to resume uranium conversion and enrichment in defiance of European warnings.

Western diplomats who have read the European offer or who know its contents said that it presented a full spectrum of relationships for Iran with the West, from technology sharing to trade preferences to security guarantees, if the Tehran government cooperates on nuclear matters, and also on improving human rights and combating terrorism. They said it was much more detailed and specific than the more general offers floated by the Europeans earlier this year, but they did not describe the offer in full.

Since it seeks a pledge by Iran to end the uranium conversion and enrichment activities that Iran insists are its prerogative under international accords governing nuclear technology, there is considerable doubt that Iran will accept it, at least right away. Iran suspended its nuclear work during the negotiations.

A senior Iranian official, reached by telephone on Thursday, said when told about the contents of the proposal that it seemed to fall far short of what Iran wanted.

"If the proposal asks Iran to continue its suspension indefinitely, let alone renouncing these activities, I think it will be dead on arrival," said the senior official, whose job involves him directly in these matters but who would not be identified by name because he had not seen the document. "I don't think it's prudent for the Europeans to make this presentation, because it shows that they have not moved their position from that of two years ago."

A European official said: "Our proposal pulls together a whole range of different ideas intended to forge a framework for an arrangement between Iran and the rest of the world. There are lots of political, economic and security elements, but the biggest piece is the offer of cooperation on a civilian nuclear program for Iran. We've never said that Iran cannot have one."

Bush administration officials say they cannot comment on the contents of the proposal, except to say that they approved of it. But the administration maintains that it cannot establish a normal relationship with Iran unless it changes its conduct, not simply in the nuclear sphere but in what the United States and the Europeans say is support of terrorism, particularly against Israel, and its interference in Iraq.

Details of the package were disclosed by diplomats who insisted they not be identified even by country because the package is supposed to be secret and its terms have not yet been formally presented to Iran.

The proposal would bar Iran from operating a "closed" nuclear fuel cycle, in which it would effectively control every aspect of fuel production and disposal. Instead, according to the diplomats who have seen it, the proposal suggests that Iran be allowed to acquire fuel and then transfer the used fuel to another country for disposal, precluding Iran from using it for weapons.

More specifically, Iran would be obliged to continue its current suspension of the conversion of raw uranium into a gas that can be enriched for use as fuel with the use of centrifuges that international inspectors have found in Iran in several places. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has said that it is investigating Iran's failure to disclose many elements of its program, would continue to play its inspection role to ensure compliance with the agreement.

While taking a hard line on uranium conversion and enrichment, the diplomats said, the proposal contains a face-saving provision for Iran conceding its right to certain activities it is being asked to give up. The wording, according to one diplomat, says that nothing in an agreement with Iran affects "the inalienable rights of all the parties to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

In some respects, Iran is not likely to be surprised by the basic outlines of the European proposal. France, Germany and Britain - the partners along with the European Union in the negotiations - have held firm to this broad position of barring uranium conversion and enrichment under pressure from Washington.

The view shared in Europe and Washington is that while Iran may have the right to enrich uranium as a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, which governs peaceful nuclear technology in nearly all countries with civilian nuclear programs, Iran has forfeited that right because it has been found over the years to be engaging in clandestine activities.

Iran's anger that it is being asked to give up activities allowed to other countries is at the heart of its repeated announcement that, like it or not, it will resume such work when it chooses. Indeed, Iran announced last week that it was renouncing its pledge of last year to suspend these uranium activities.

On the other hand, the Tehran government has not unilaterally resumed uranium conversion or enrichment. Instead, it has called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to go to its facilities and break the inspectors' seals on equipment that would be used for these activities, and also to install monitors and sensors for the purpose of observing them.

Iran's announcement was made in the days leading up to the inauguration Saturday of the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who until recently was the mayor of Tehran.

It is widely believed in the West that Iran decided to invite the inspectors before Mr. Ahmadinejad took office in order not to taint him with the move or force him to make one of his first decisions in defiance of the wishes of the Europeans.

Several diplomats said that it was shrewd of Iran, in political terms, to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to its nuclear facilities to break the seals and install monitors and sensors. That way, these diplomats said, Iran can claim to be showing the world that, while it is proceeding with uranium processing, not a single gram of fuel will go to a weapons program.

The international agency, meanwhile, has been taking its time before installing the sensors and monitors, to give the Europeans time to refine their proposal. The Europeans have rushed the proposal to meet a deadline of this week and have begun hinting that if Iran rejects it outright, or forces the seals to be broken, some countries may call for the agency's board to meet next week to address the matter.

That Iranian tactic, said several Western diplomats, seems clearly intended to woo wavering board members of the agency - notably Russia, China and several other countries with similar enrichment programs - that it is acting in good faith and doing what other countries are allowed to do. They expressed concern about getting enough votes on the board to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.



Posted 8/10/2005

General lost job over romance, his lawyer says

WASHINGTON — The four-star Army general who was fired this week had been romantically involved with a civilian woman while separated from his wife, his attorney said Wednesday.

Lt. Col. Dave Robertson, the attorney for Gen. Kevin Byrnes, said the woman was not connected to the military and the relationship has ended. He challenged the severity of the punishment for Byrnes, 52, who was three months from retirement when he was fired as head of the Training and Doctrine Command. He had served for 36 years.

The Army announced the dismissal Tuesday after reviewing the report of a Defense Department investigation. It gave no reason, but Army spokesman Paul Boyce cited "personal conduct."

"We were surprised" at the dismissal, "based on my reading of the findings of the investigation," Robertson said.

He said the relationship, a violation of adultery regulations, was the only allegation of an improper relationship in the investigation. He would not comment on whether he plans to challenge the firing.

Boyce said the Army would have no further comment.

Byrnes' firing is rare for a four-star general. Robertson said a more appropriate punishment would have been an early retirement or a letter of reprimand.

Scott Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer who is a law professor at Duke University, said Byrnes' dismissal probably was influenced by a sex scandal in January. The Air Force's top lawyer, Maj. Gen. Thomas Fiscus, was dismissed and demoted two ranks for affairs over a 10-year period.

"Given the problem with that earlier situation, the Pentagon had no choice but to make this public," Silliman said.

He recalled a case similar to Byrnes'. In 1997, Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston was about to become head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top uniformed military position, when it was revealed he dated a woman 13 years earlier while separated from his wife. The publicity derailed his nomination. He later headed a command in Europe.

Former secretary of the Army Tom White said Byrnes, whose headquarters was charged with training Army officers on personal ethics, was "taking a risk." Even so, he said, the punishment may have been too harsh if Byrnes was legally separated. "In light of the fact that he was going to be retired in three months," White said, "maybe you could have given him a letter of reprimand."

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a military research organization, also questioned firing a general he described as a loyal soldier who served for more than half his life. "It appears to be a not very important infraction," he said.

Under military law, Silliman said, sex by a married soldier with anyone other than the spouse is adultery. An officer who left a marriage must have a final divorce decree or risk being in violation.

Although adultery is a crime under military law, typically it is prosecuted with other infractions. Perhaps the best-known case involved Lt. Kelly Flinn, an Air Force pilot who faced court-martial in 1997 for disobeying orders to stop dating a married man. The Air Force dropped the case and allowed Flynn to leave the service.


Four Star General Fired For Organizing Coup Against Neo-Cons?

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

August 10, 2005

Reporter suggests Byrnes discovered plan to turn nuke exercise into staged terror attack

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 10 2005

The head of Fort Monroe's Training and Doctrine Command, four star general Kevin P. Byrnes, was fired Tuesday apparently for sexual misconduct according to official sources.

Other sources however have offered a different explanation for Byrnes' dismissal which ties in with the Bush administration's unpopular plan to attack Iran and the staged nuclear attack in the US which would provide the pretext to do so.

According to reporter Greg Szymanski, anonymous military sources said that Byrnes was the leader of a faction that was preparing to instigate a coup against the neo-con hawks in an attempt to prevent further global conflict.

Indications are that, much like popular opinion amongst the general public, half the military oppose the neo-con's agenda and half support it.

Further revelations were imparted by journalist Leland Lehrman who appeared today on The Alex Jones Show.

Lehrman's army sources, including a former Captain in intelligence, became outraged when they learned that the official story behind 9/11 was impossible.

They told Lehrman that the imminent Northcom nuclear terror exercise based in Charleston, S.C, where a nuclear warhead is smuggled off a ship and detonated, was originally intended to 'go live' - as in the drill would be used as the cover for a real false flag staged attack.

This website has relentlessly discussed similar style drills which took place on the morning of 9/11 and on the morning of 7/7 in London.

"Speculation exists that he had potentially discovered the fact that it was gonna go live and that he was trying to put a stop to it or also speculation indicates that he may be part of a military coup designed to prevent the ridiculous idea of doing a nuclear war with Iran, " said Lehrman.

Lehrman said that other sources had told him all army leave had been cancelled from September 7th onwards, opening the possibility for war to be declared within that time frame.

Northcom officials also admitted to Lehrman that CNN had been using its situation room as a studio.

Earlier this week, Washington Post reported that the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within the continental United States, in which terrorist attacks would be used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions or the entire country.

American Conservative Magazine recently reported that Dick Cheney had given orders to immediately invade Iran after the next terror attack in the US, even if there was no evidence Iran was involved.

Government and media mouthpieces have been fearmongering for weeks about how a nuclear attack within the US is imminent.

Now would be the most opportune time for the Globalists to stage a major attack, as it would head off any potential indictments against the Bush administration for their involvement in illegally outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.

While rumors circulating about indictments having already taken place against Bush and Cheney should rightly be treated very carefully, the fact that there is an ongoing criminal investigation into the matter is something that's admitted and shouldn't be viewed as speculation.

:: Article nr. 14516 sent on 11-aug-2005 08:24 ECT

: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=14516

:: The incoming address of this article is :

Nuclear Terror Drill to Go Live? Let's Hope Not.
by R. Leland Lehrman, 505.982.3609

     August 10, 2005 12:56PM Santa Fe, New Mexico (Mother Media) - On June 29th, the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) posted news of a nuclear terrorism drill on its website: "Here’s the scenario…A seafaring vessel transporting a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off the coast of Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle the warhead off the ship to detonate it." It went on to say that "Sudden Response 05 will take place this August on Fort Monroe and will be carried out as an internal command post exercise. The exercise is intended to train the JTF-CS staff to plan and execute Consequence Management operations in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV’s response to a nuclear detonation." As Alex Jones of infowars.com and others have pointed out, terror "drills" are now known to be the favorite "cover story" for New World Order terrorist operations, as evidenced by the eerily synchronous terrorism drills happening on both 9/11 and 7/7.

Recently, former CIA/DIA analyst Philip Giraldi has informed us that "Vice-President Cheney has tasked STRATCOM with "drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11- type terrorist attack on the United States" and that "the plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." Investigators and counter-intelligence specialists are concerned that this upcoming August nuclear terror scenario might go live to create the pretext for tactical nuclear war against Iran.

Mother Media contacted NORTHCOM Public Affairs this morning and learned that the Fort Monroe drill will begin in a "couple of days." We are waiting on the press release which should also be posted at the Joint Strike Force Civilian Support (JSF-CS) website. Fort Monroe internal communications indicate that antiterrorism exercises are slated for August 17th, but there is no mention of a anything nuclear . Concerned parties can contact JTF-CS Public Affairs Officer Michael Eck at 757.788.6259 or Michael Kucharek of Northcom Public Affairs at 719.554.6889 ext. 2. Mother Media hopes that mass awareness of New World Order methods could prevent additional false flag attacks, whether tomorrow, next week or next year.

Separately, Mother Media also learned that CNN recently launched their military operations news special "Situation Room" from inside the NORTHCOM situation room in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Wolf Blitzer, New World Order mouthpiece, is the show's hawkish host. Imagine that - a new CNN "Situation Room" military focus news program debuts in NORTHCOM headquarters days prior to a nuclear terror drill. They're not even bothering to pretend there's separation between the press and the government anymore. CNN here makes it obvious that they are now the New World Order's propaganda mouthpiece.

Adding to the drama, the four-star commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at the Fort Monroe base where the nuclear terror drill is to occur, Kevin P. Byrnes was just relieved of his command amidst allegations of sexual misconduct. Veteran investigator Greg Szymanski has uncovered another plausible motive: "Sources close to the military who remain anonymous said Byrnes was part of a U.S. military faction discontented with the Bush administration war policies in Iraq and the potential for a nuclear disaster in Iran.

In an effort to stop the Bush administration in its tracks, sources say Byrnes was about to lead a coup against the hawks in the military and executive branch determined to lead America into a global conflict, leading to devastating ramifications for the country, as well as financial and social chaos.

Rumors inside the military say that a growing faction of discontented high-ranking officers are attempting internally to try and stop the Bush administration’s imminent plans for war with Iran in an effort to avert global war.

Although the exact number of high-ranking military involved is undetermined, sources have disclosed it appears to be evenly split between pro Bush and anti Bush factions.

Even though speculation abounds about an attempted coup relating to the Byrnes firing, no one would question the strange rumblings of war against Iran and warnings of terrorist threats on the homeland that are beginning to circulate from administration officials and media talking heads almost on a daily basis.

Further, ominous reports are even coming from the Washington Post this week that the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within the United States, plans justifying and making necessary preparations for martial law in case of a homeland terrorist attack."

If you look at NORTHCOM's website, you will find a discussion of the situations under which Posse Comitatus, the restriction against military policing in America, can legally be suspended. One of those conditions is an attack by a nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction. Another is "insurrection."

Diabolically standing over all of these scenarios is Global Cleanse 2000 or just Global 2000, a population control methodology developed by the New World Order which includes triggered natural disasters, wars and diseases designed to reduce the world population by two thirds. Rene Welch, who had access to the Global Cleanse 2000 database in the late eighties, recently appeared on Mother Media's radio program to discuss her findings.

In response to this author's article, Israel, Iran and a Nuclear False Flag Attack, reports have been flowing into Mother Media's office confirming and buttressing this story. One former Air Force member writes that all military leaves have been cancelled after September 7th and that Homeland Security is beefing up security at local Draft Board Offices. Writing as TeaParty2Come, this source paints an ominous picture:

About 3 weeks ago I was surfing some of the sites I enjoy posting on, when someone posted in all caps that they had just heard from an officer friend in the military that all leaves had been cancelled for the month of September. Obviously aware of the false flags our government is famous for, this person sounded desperate, asking for help in confirming or denying this "rumor" from anyone who had connections in the military.

I happened to ask a co-worker friend of mine whose son in-law is in the Army (82nd) about checking out the "rumor". Well guess what, they've had to move up their leave to this coming week to come home because his unit has to be back by September 7th where upon all leaves are cancelled! They have seen a steady build up of heavy materials just sitting in storage facilities. He also commented that they were rushed through a training course on new weapons systems they just rolled out. He thought this very odd and a first.

This sent shivers all through me.

Not to push any panic buttons I spoke with a dear woman with whom I work whose son is in the Army in an artillery unit. She is a former Captain, her husband is a former Colonel and Vietnam vet and successful attorney here in our area who also happens to be dying from the effects of Agent Orange. Lo and behold their son was told all leaves are cancelled for September and in December they may get leave, but can travel no further than 17 kilometers from their base.

My niece is married to a young man in the Army stationed on the East Coast he is also 82nd, his leave has also been cancelled. Their first baby is due in December.

...I'm not prone to fits of paranoia but I have to tell you, I have begun stocking water and canned goods. I am ex Air Force, I was on three ring standby most of my enlistment and was in a constant training mode. I know how this works and it doesn't sound good.

The draft board offices are in place with staff waiting for the word to go. I read an article from a guy who works in one of those offices, he said Homeland Security came in there early last month and put up bullet proof glass on the windows and iron bars, they installed blast proof glass on the doors, and removed the mail drop box slots on the outside of the building. When he asked what was going on they identified themselves as Homeland Security and said don't worry about the rest and left.

It's coming no doubt about it. Sorry I can't be more positive, but this is what I have heard with my own ears from three independent military member sources in different parts of the country.

A source in New Mexico passed this on to Mother Media a couple weeks ago:

"A friend came by today. His relative is fairly high-level in regional counter-terrorism. My friend says his relative told him they are preparing for the strong possibility that there will be 7 U.S. cities attacked with small, backpack-held nuclear devices by 'al-Qaida types.' It sounds like the propaganda -- the cover stories for PNAC or whomever these bad guys are -- has begun."

The sheer number of warnings and events, subtle hints and overt threats is now too much to ignore. More background and warning signs, especially as regards Israel and Iran can be found in my article at physics911.net entitled Israel, Iran, Mossad and a Nuclear False Flag Attack. Americans should alert friends and family members and active citizens should inform their neighbors and local authorities. Mother Media has contacted FBI counterintelligence director David Szady, who is in charge of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee spying investigation, with some this information and plans to distribute it widely throughout the local, national and international media. An FBI investigation directed by Szady caught AIPAC using Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin to spy on America's Iran policy and more. Given that AIPAC is committed to war with Iran, we can imagine why they were interested in official American policy on Iran. It is still possible to stop this insanity, but it will require serious citizen initiative. Good Luck, Fellow Citizens, and God Bless You. Please email or call 24/7 at 505.982.3609 with corroborating evidence or additional stories.

FROM http://physics911.net/nuclearterror.htm


Washington Post: Northern Command to lead domestic terror response

The Washington Post reports Aug. 8 that the Pentagon "has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans."

The plans are classified, and the Post mostly relies on anonymous sources at Northern Command headquarters in Colorado Springs, where they were developed. They supposedly "outline a variety of possible roles for quick-reaction forces estimated at as many as 3,000 ground troops per attack, a number that could easily grow depending on the extent of the damage and the abilities of civilian response teams. The possible scenarios range from 'low end,' relatively modest crowd-control missions to 'high-end,' full-scale disaster management after catastrophic attacks such as the release of a deadly biological agent or the explosion of a radiological device, several officers said. Some of the worst-case scenarios involve three attacks at the same time, in keeping with a Pentagon directive earlier this year ordering Northcom, as the command is called, to plan for multiple simultaneous attacks."

"In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, a chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is best positioned - of the various eight federal agencies that would be involved - to take the lead," said Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head of Northcom, one of the few sources to speak on the record.

The plans are said to consist of two main documents. One, CONPLAN 2002, is reportedly an "umbrella document" identifying various threat scenarios and response strategies. The other, CONPLAN 0500, deals with the specifics of the response operations. CONPLAN 2002 has passed a review by the Pentagon's Joint Staff and is due to go soon to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top aides for approval. CONPLAN 0500 is still undergoing final drafting. (CONPLAN stands for "concept plan," generally an abbreviated version of an OPLAN, or "operations plan," which specifies forces and timelines for movement into a combat zone.)

Since Northcom's inception in October 2002, its headquarters staff has grown to about 640, making it larger than the Southern Command, although smaller than the regional commands for Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific. Writes the Post: "A brief tour late last month of Northcom's operations center at Peterson Air Force Base found officers monitoring not only aircraft and ship traffic around the United States but also the Discovery space shuttle mission, the National Scout Jamboree in Virginia, several border surveillance operations and a few forest firefighting efforts."

Pentagon authorities have reportedly rejected the idea of creating large standing units dedicated to homeland missions, opting instead for a "dual-use" approach, "drawing on a common pool of troops trained both for homeland and overseas assignments. Particular reliance is being placed on the National Guard, which is expanding a network of 22-member civil support teams to all states and forming about a dozen 120-member regional response units. Congress last year also gave the Guard expanded authority under Title 32 of the U.S. Code to perform such homeland missions as securing power plants and other critical facilities. But the Northcom commander can quickly call on active-duty forces as well. On top of previous powers to send fighter jets into the air, Keating earlier this year gained the authority to dispatch Navy and Coast Guard ships to deal with suspected threats off U.S. coasts. He also has immediate access to four active-duty Army battalions based around the country, officers here said."

Reference is made to secretive "homeland" military exercises code-named Vital Archer, involving troops in lead roles. In contrast, homeland exercises featuring troops in supporting roles are widely publicized.

Towards the end, the Post does mention concerns of civil liberties that the Northern Command operations could violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which "restricts the use of troops in domestic law enforcement." (It is actually generally held to ban it outright.) "But Pentagon authorities have told Congress they see no need to change the law. According to military lawyers here, the dispatch of ground troops would most likely be justified on the basis of the president's authority under Article 2 of the Constitution to serve as commander in chief and protect the nation. The Posse Comitatus Act exempts actions authorized by the Constitution." But the Post also noted that "Keating left the door open to seeking an amendment of the Posse Comitatus Act."

We have noted before that plans for domestic military rule or martial law, suspension of constitutional rights and mass detainment were drawn up in the Reagan era by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then National Security Council operative Lt. Col. Oliver North. In 1984, FEMA carried out a series of "readiness exercises" (dubbed REX 84 ALPHA) in preparation for the mass detainments. The secret plans were revealed in the 1987 Congressional hearings on the "Contragate" scandal. Then, the emergency scenario was a massive wave of refugees and domestic protest sparked by a US invasion of Central America. As Diana Reynolds writes for The Public Eye, a watchdog newsletter on the right-wing:

Since the advent of changes which took place during the Reagan regime, America has been a presidential directive away from a civil security state of emergency which, if ever enacted, could create a constitutional crisis equal in severity to the American Civil War.

A national state of emergency can be declared by a concurrent resolution of both houses of Congress or by the President in the case of natural disasters, nuclear war, a massive mobilization in anticipation of an enemy attack on U.S. territory, or domestic civil unrest.

A disturbing shift in policy occurred during the Reagan years which could have profound consequences with respect to civil liberties. Whereas civil defense planning in the past had focused on disaster relief, the national security focus of the Reagan administration meant implementing new ways to expand police powers in times of nuclear war, domestic unrest, or civil disorder.

This passage was written shortly before 9-11. When do we decide that we are already in a constitutional crisis?

See our last post on the War on Terrorism's threat to democracy.

China and Russia's unprecedented war games

China undoubtedly wants to send a message to Taiwan during the joint exercises with Russia that will begin next week, but analysts note the drills also mark deepening cooperation between the two countries

By Simon Tisdall
Thursday, Aug 11, 2005

When Taiwanese military forces launched a combined operations exercise off Tsoying in the Taiwan Strait last week, it was not hard to guess who the "enemy" was.

Mines and depth charges were detonated in simulated sinkings of invading landing craft and torpedoes were fired at notionally hostile frigates and submarines. The Taipei Times said it was Taiwan's biggest show of force in years.

But China, whose threats to seize the "renegade province" and recent "Anti-Secession" Law make it the main focus of Taiwan's attentions, is flexing its military muscles, too.

Next week will see far larger war games involving Chinese and Russian troops in and around the Shandong peninsula in the Yellow sea. Regional observers say such military cooperation is unprecedented and could mark the start of something new.

"The China-Russia exercise is intended to send a message to Taiwan," said Andrew Yang of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei. "But it's also a very significant move in terms of the developing relationship between Russia and China and joint efforts to manage regional security.

"China considers it's time to increase strategic cooperation with Russia to balance the US role in the region. Both are interested in demonstrating this is a multipolar rather than a unipolar world," Yang said.

Russia was already China's biggest arms and energy supplier. Bilateral collaboration would progressively deepen not only in the Asia-Pacific area but also in central Asia, he predicted.

The prospect of a revamped Beijing-Moscow "axis" is feeding American paranoia about the challenge to US security and economic interests posed by China's rise.

American fears were illustrated recently by intense, and successful, political opposition to a Chinese bid to buy Unocal, a US oil company; and by the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which was narrowly approved by Congress after the specter of a Chinese takeover in Washington's backyard was raised.

Max Boot, of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in New York, warned ominously last month of a Chinese "stealth war" involving financial, resource, psychological, media and even ecological warfare.

Some US worries have a basis in fact. A recent Pentagon report re-emphasized concerns that China's military build-up could in time pose a "credible threat" to the US and its allies in the Asia-Pacific theater. Japan, whose relations with both China and Russia could be better, offered a similar assessment this month.

Working through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which embraces Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, China and Russia are also pursuing a common security and economic agenda in central Asia.

An SCO call for the US to vacate its post-9/11 military bases in the area closely foreshadowed Uzbekistan's expulsion this month of American troops.

But while seeking to reduce US influence, a more important, shared target is "terrorism, separatism and extremism." By this, China and Russia mean Islamic resistance from Xinjiang to Chechnya -- although Beijing also includes the non-Muslim "splittists" of Taiwan.

When the regime of the Uzbek president, Islam Karimov, killed supposed Islamists in Andizhan in May, the US and the EU protested -- and Russia and China cheered. Lack of respect for human rights and democracy are two other binding characteristics of the budding Moscow-Beijing alliance.

But Jennifer Moll, of the Foreign Policy Center in London, said enhanced China-Russia collaboration, underpinned by their 2001 Friendship Treaty, did not necessarily mark the beginning of a new Asian "Great Game."

"They definitely share a lot of objections to US policies," Moll said. "But it would be wrong to define the relationship simply in terms of anti-Americanism."

Fiona Hill, of the Brookings Institution in Washington, suggested the significance of the alliance could be exaggerated, however unsettling it appeared in Taipei or Kiev.

"China is a rising power but Russia is a declining one," Hill said. Each country remained deeply suspicious of the other. And given their respective weaknesses, she said, each had good reason to fear -- and to court -- American power.

In a message dated 8/8/2005 10:08:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
godsmystery@impulse.net writes:

----- Original Message -----
From: Sir David-Andrew.
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 12:18 AM
Subject: WARNING! Possible NUKE Attack Clarleston

Bushites Next Planned Terrorist Attack Greeting Folks or is it:

I have been wanting to write an article on POSSIBLE Charleston, South Carolina suitcase NUKE  attack; however, I have been unable to complete my report.  And, time is of utmost essence at this point.  I have every reason to believe that the NUKE attack on Charleston will take place on August 9, 2005.  I have been study the Kabala in great depth and what I have found is very disturbing. I will give more on numeric values later.

"On August 6 and 9, 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the first atomic bombs used in warfare."

"Documents on the decision to use the atomic bomb are reproduced here
http://www.dannen.com/decision/ in full-text form. In most cases, the originals are in the U.S. National Archives.  Other aspects of the decision are shown from accounts by the participants.  This (web) page was new May 29, 1995, and it was last updated August 9, 2003."

The Talmudic Jews love the number 50 and Tuesday will be the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.  To all Luciferian demoniacs this is some sort of sign or omen of Good Luck.  Plus, throughout August Mars the Luciferian demon of WAR.  I am just too tired to complete the Kabala numeric values. 

However, the numbers in this date have to deal with the supreme destruction of old age and the rise of the new order.

World War II ended by the use of Atomic Bombs; and now, Bush, Chaney and the Israelis have decided to start World War III by using Nuclear Bombs.  If there are indeed two this time the second will most likely go off the same day or else on August 12, 2005, in Chicago with the Dirksen Building being the primary target, because this where the Grand Jury is convened, which is handing down felony indictments against Bush, Chaney and company.

These neocons are becoming desperate.  They are facing several lawsuits for wrongful death, impeachment hearings before Congress since June 16, and now felony indictments.  Plus there is a felony warrant for Bush in Canada, as well, awaiting the opportunity to be served.  These Luciferian demoniacs will do anything to stay in office to establish full martial law and one world government under their control.   Cheney may even have Bush assassinated in order to gain public support to justify MARTIAL LAW and WAR.  And, of course, all acts
will be blamed on Iran or Syria.  Though, Venezuela and North Korea need to be on the look out since the Bushites intend to attack them next, as well this month.  I cannot imagine these demoniacs passing up such a satanic opportunity as this.  I will attempt
to release the information on the Kabala numeric system later today.  I just felt that I could not sleep without warning the good folks of Charleston the evil plot that may befall them on Tuesday. These Oil Men of Texas and been chopping at the bit for months about finding a way to gain total control of Iran's oil.  But, did you that GOLD has been struck in Iran and that two mining operations are about to begin in Iran with a third to be opened before the end of this year.   Bush and Cheney been LUSTING over Iran's Black Gold, but now there is Yellow Gold, as well; and they would kill each or anyone, who gets in there way in their hast to steal both.  Is this worth your sons and daughters dying for?  IS IT??  Hey!  Is anybody home? 

Is this worth dying for?

WARNING!  WARNING!  I am dead serious, I have reason to believe that the Bushites and the Israeli Mossad are planning on dropping a suitcase Nuke in Charleston on 8 - 9 - 2 0 0 5, and they will blame I ran.  I am trying to finish a report on this.  They plan on have us involved in WW III on 8 - 2 7 - 2 0 0 5. 

Count the numbers, it is the same sum total. These number have satanic purpose according to the Kabala.  If you have friends there you should warn them to get out for that day.  The target was chosen to take revenge against that city for starting America's second Revolution.  The Bushites and PNAC members are real sick puppies.

If anyone does not think that there is a high probability this going down, go back and re-read my articles on the Game Of RISK.  (Available on request.) Yes, this is my conspiracy theory, but this scenario is on the planning table and PNAC and the Bushites just might use it, since the hour glass is about to run out.  As I have stated previously the half wit in the Whitehouse and his side kick "Igor" are playing RISK on the big board and they are planning on going for broke. 

Every country around the world is poised and ready, but dumb, stupid American sheople are still watching the boob-tube, think that it cannot happen in America.  I may be wrong about Tueday, but are the good folks Charleston willing to RISK the possibilities, for they know much they are hated by the neocons in Washington.  Remember, too, that the English government was running a training drill when the bombs went off.  Oops!

Sir David-Andrew.

"America's third Revolution, an idea whose time has come!"

P.S. -- Scroll down there are seven supporting articles and famous quotes

"The sabers are rattling with sounds of distant cannon roar. 
And, you thought this could not happen in your back door! 
There is a MAD-hu-man sitting with a straw up his nose.
His finger on the RED BUTTON, and he's ready to go!"
For it is our sons and daughters that will pay the toll.
May Yah have mercy on their souls!

Sir David-Andrew. (2005)

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things.  Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."   -

President Dwight David
Eisenhower, 1952, Republican

If these Texas oil millionaires are STUPID, what does that make their followers?

FOOLS! But, then to come to think about it, that is exactly what George Bush calls them.


"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

Whoever controls the money of a nation, controls that nation. -- Nathan Rothschild

The BOHEMIAN GROVE is "the most faggy goddamn thing I've ever seen." 
- Richard Millhouse Nixon.

On the Watergate tapes Nixon is heard agreeing with Billy Graham that something had to be down about the "Jewish stranglehold" on the mass media or the "country will go down the drain."  Now, I wonder why Nixon was impeached, HUM!

The Zionists have said for a long time that

"Once 10% of the Goyim Understand, the Game is Over."

Muslims are not our enemies, fascist Israelis are; and don't y'all forget that!

It ain't funny any more.
Do I here someone knocking at the door?

America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know
we need you now
We can't fight alone
against the monster
~John Kay

"Those who steal from private individuals spend their lives in stocks and chains; those who steal from the public treasury go dressed in gold and purple." 
~ Marcus Porcius Cato, Roman Statesman (190 BC)

"We hang the petty thieves and elect the great ones to public office."
- Aesop

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams (1780)

"There's three things to remember: claim everything, explain nothing, deny everything."
- Senator Prescott Bush (Skull & Bones member, 1917)

"You can FOOL some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
- George W. Bush,
(supposedly joking) at a Gridiron Club dinner,
Washington, D.C., March 2001.
{I submit that he has played the whole world, to be the fool.}

George Bush is cousin to Queen Elizabeth, King Juan Carlos, Sir Collin Powell, Sir Norman Schwartzkopf, Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Blythe the Third, grandson of John D. Rockerfeller), David Rockefeller, Bob Doyle, Jack Kemp, Jim Carter, Al Gore, Dick Chaney and the list goes on.  He is the son Sir George-Hubert Walker Bush, a British Crown Knight.  He is a direct descendant of Edward Longshank; he and Al Gore are direct descendants of King Charlemagne X, the last Emperor of the Roman Empire.  He is the 34 President, being a direct descendant of Charlemagne and is the 43 President of the United States.   Oops! The numbers game!  Members of Skull and Bones are 34º Masons and above.  3+4=7 and 4+3=7, the number representation for SUPREME DEITY and 77 is SUPREME OF THE SUPREME.  This moron has a really swollen head.  I wonder how long before it will be, that he, like Nebuchadnezzar, looks like a Jackass?  (How about October 2006?)  Though, come to think of it, he is beginning to bray like one, already!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Iron_Clay" <iron_clay@clear.net.nz>
To: "1 Iron & Clay" <iron_clay@clear.net.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:55 AM
Subject: Exercise to focus on nuclear terror scenario "Where was Charleston anyway??"

Exercise to focus on nuclear terror scenario
By: U.S. Northern Command on: 19.07.2005

"Since we already know that the 2 biggest terrorists strikes were during simulations.. 9/11, 7/7.. could I suggest that if you are within 100 miles of Charleston you take a "HOLIDAY" to a more peaceful place.

To help you choose The Editor of Iron and Clay has this advice. Try staying clear of any political component, oil installation, main road or any rail or airport.

Your Great American hideaway and holiday to tell your children about, would be best several hundred feet below the surface of the earth in a well protected concrete bunker with plenty of food and water."

Have a nice one and don't forget to send a post card. Loving regards


FORT MONROE, Va. - Here's the scenario. A seafaring vessel transporting a 10-kiloton  nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off the coast of Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle the warhead off the ship to detonate it. Is this really a possibility?

Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) here is planning its next exercise on the premise that this crisis is indeed plausible.

Sudden Response 05 will take place this August on Fort Monroe and will be carried out as an internal command post exercise. The exercise is intended to train the JTF-CS staff to plan and execute Consequence Management operations in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV's response to a nuclear detonation.

Some of this year's objectives for SR05 are to refine nuclear incident Concept of Operations, produce a CM Operation Order, refine command post set-up procedures and maintain situational awareness of multiple CM incidents.

The Sudden Response exercise has been held at Quantico, Va., in the past, but has been moved to Fort Monroe to maximize command post training time. The senior leadership felt that it was more important to accomplish training instead of losing up to a day and a half in travel time, said Paul Deflueri, J7 Lead Exercise Planner. "This will allow us to still meet our training objectives," he said.

Some external participants may work with JTF-CS during the exercise.

"We're trying to get representatives from FEMA Region IV as well as representatives from South Carolina Emergency Management Division and active duty soldiers from the (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive) Consequence Management Response Force to play the role of task force units," Defluri said.

"Each time we do one of these internal exercises, we try to make it more robust and try to add in fidelity," Defluri said. "That's what we're trying to do for SR05: create a good scenario and be able to replicate the effects as best we can. That way we can give the command a really good CM exercise."

----- Original Message -----
From: Iron_Clay
To: 1 Iron & Clay
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:12 PM
Subject: 51% of Americans certifiably insane ... Prrrroooooofffff

The one group and question that was not asked is politicians and the question is: "Do you think World Wide Biometric ID Cards for everyone wanting to step outside their home would help?"

The Iron and Clay Official Survey (:o)) carried out over the last 6 years on every politician approach has provided this response. 110%  of the worlds politicians (having forked tongues and multiple heads several of them voted twice) say they want to install World Wide Biometric ID Cards "Mark of The Beast" and it doesn't matter how many Muslim lives or families it destroys in the process.   {Neal, I disagree, this is not the mark of the beast, but that is an issue for another time.   Though, I do agree that the Biometric ID Card or Chip are bad ideas. -- Sir.} Neal

51% certifiably insane Americans Want Military Response to London Bombing Survey of 1,500 certifiably insane Americans

July 15-17, 2005
How Should US and Allies Respond to London Bombings?

Military Attacks 51%
Negotiate 7%
Withdraw from Iraq 25%


Most American Troops Home This Year or Next?
Very Likely 9%
Somewhat Likely 20%
Not Very Likely 41%
Not at Likely 28%

July 18, 2005--In response to the terrorist bombings in London, 51% of Americans want the U.S. and its allies to attack with military force. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 25% believe the appropriate response is to withdraw US and British troops from Iraq.
Just 7% believe the allies should negotiate with terrorists.

As with most issues relating to the War on Terror, Republicans are largely united, while Democrats are divided.

Republicans, by a 7-to-1 margin, say that military attacks are the appropriate response. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats share that view while 39% favor withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats favor negotiations.

Among those not affiliated with either major party, 48% favor military attacks while 28% prefer withdrawal.
Visit my Website at ...
See my "Why Come Out" page here ...
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood."   - Eze 33:6

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas R. Ascher
To: AB
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:28 AM
Subject: Fw: Please distribute

More about those nuclear attack speculations

VERY good piece.

More About Those Nuclear Attack Speculations

Before I get to the current rumor mill, I want you to think about why it might be important to pay attention to rumors even if they never pan out. Consider the rumors that can serve us well financially. When we come across buzz about a corporate takeover or a drug about to be approved by the FDA, what do we do? Many of us do the smart thing, we inquire. We call our broker or we talk to knowledgeable friends, just in case there is something to the rumor. If there is a way to take advantage of what we heard, we do not want to miss a good opportunity. Some of us will even skip an intensive validation process before we put in a buy or sell order with a trusted, low fee, on-line brokerage service. Sometimes it's worth risking a little in order to gain a lot.

It seems that when it comes to personal gain or profit, we are willing follow through on rumors. Even more interesting, we also are willing to admit that others know more than we do. When it comes to making a buck, we seem more ready to listen to people who have some knowledge about things we know little or nothing about. We will seek out people with some expertise in areas in which we have absolutely no experience. When we come across stock tips on the financial rumor mill, we have no problem placing our trust in other sources. If some of these tips fall flat and disappoint us, we don't stop trusting these more informed sources. We continue to have faith in their good intentions and we wait eagerly for the next bit of market gossip to come along.

Why, then, do the attitudes of most people change so dramatically when the tips are rumors that involve their government? Most, and I repeat most of us do not understand the powerful factors that control the governments of the world. Most people have a view of the world as it is presented in school books.

They have no idea that a handful of very wealth, very powerful, and very well entrenched people wield enormous power over most of us. There is no room here to discuss this huge and complicated topic in detail. Suffice it to say that some very powerful people have inordinate power to influence the agendas of many governments of the world. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is fact.

Before you pass judgment, do some reading and find out for yourself. Spend some time looking up the private adjuncts to our governmental bodies: the Bilderberg Group, the Illuminati and the World Bank. Research the Tri-Lateral Commission, the National Security Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then ask yourself why these unelected bodies are so closely and consistently entangled in so many aspects of so many governments. Then ask yourself why do the members of these groups also have deep ties to many multi-national corporations; many of which are energy, defense and media related. We are not just talking about one or two conflicts of interest here. We are talking about people who sit on the boards of multiple companies and who are involved in these secretive yet powerful organizations. Who do they actually represent; the corporations or the organizations? Why is it that only that extremely wealthy and corporately connected individuals are involved in these organizations?

But let's do some of your homework right here. One example is a power group with inordinate influence over the policies of the Bush administration, yet totally hidden to most Americans.. This group is one of the most easily researched and verifiable of all: the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The motives and goals of this organization are not secret. They are not some mythical theory. They are not the paranoid fabrication of a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut. The agenda of this organization is available for all to see. Their plans and visions are clearly detailed on their own website. Their activities, past
and present, are recorded and archived for everyone to examine. These are the people who proposed war with Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11. These are the people who designed the doctrine for global military superiority long before George Bush was even a candidate for the presidency. And today, these are the people who hold an extraordinary number of key positions in every major foreign policy department of the US government. They are seen and heard over and over on the corporate media. They are invited to offer advice and give opinions to an unsuspecting public that never hears a single word about their relationship to PNAC.

Thanks to the controlled corporate media, most Americans have no idea who these people are. PNAC members hold dozens of key positions in the Bush administration. They are never identified as being members of PNAC. There is never mention of their common affiliation and history. Oddly, the one non PNAC person in the White House is George W. Bush. He is the outsider.

Research this group and you will find that many of these key members of the Bush administration were once known in Washington as 'The Crazies! These men - and women, who have been connected to several past administrations, supported agendas that were so radical that that they were kept out of positions in which they could really do some harm. Today, they direct, and control the foreign & military policies of the United States. That is not an exaggeration. Keep this in mind when you get to the rumor mill portion of this blog.
This being said, let's understand there is a pretty good chance that there are people who know a great deal more about the power brokers behind our government than the average American. Many of you might be ahead of the curve on this and may have read up on the topics I mentioned. You may also have listened to or read the works of Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Meria Heller, Whatreallyhappened.com, David Ickey or others on the Internet. There is a great deal of information about these power brokers out there for those who really want to know.

Sadly, many people simply dismiss these sources as the ranting of crackpots or conspiracy theorists whose information is not credible. They do this without ever considering the validity of what is claimed. By doing this, they place themselves in the same class of those who dismissed the round-world theorists.

These people could not and would not open their minds to any idea that refuted their belief that the world was flat. They ridiculed and denigrated the findings of people who, in fact, knew what they were saying, and who knew more than their deriders. This made no sense at the time, and makes no sense now. It is self defeating and possibly dangerous to ignore the words of informed sources. It makes even less sense to dismiss them outright before they ever have a chance to be heard.

It makes a great deal more sense to have an open mind about information that has been researched and documented, especially when that information directly affects your life. This is not unlike accepting, or at least considering information about your health given to you by a doctor. You may not have a clue about the technical facts leading to the diagnosis, but you listen to what is being said. When you go home, you might research the condition that was described. You might get a second professional opinion and ask others about the condition. Finally, after listening and asking and reading and thinking, you discern the validity of what the doctor told you. You would not simply dismiss the claims made by your doctor because you were unable deal with what you heard. Even if the diagnosis was bizarre and too extreme to accept at the moment,. you would not dismiss it outright. You would not allow your lack of medical knowledge to get in the way of accepting life saving information. Obviously, that close-minded approach could very well endanger, if not end your life. By the time you figure out that the doctor was right, it might be too late to use what he had to say.

So, why not take this approach with other vital issues such as those involving the government? It might be an essential strategy for becoming more open-minded and ultimately more aware of what goes on in this very complex and confusing world. It also might be helpful in finding ways to distinguish legitimate information from unfounded rumor. You really can't lose if you listen and think about things you are tempted to dismiss or ignore. At worst, you will have wasted some time. But at best you might be on the receiving end of some very valuable information. Bear in mind what was just said: a close-minded approach could endanger your life. You really wouldn't want to start listening when it
was too late to use the information.

Okay. I think I've made my point, so on with the rumors: As some of you know, there are many rumors afoot about state-sponsored, false flag, nuclear terror attacks right here in the good old USA. You can catch up on these rumors by reading my last piece on the topic.

Recent events are adding fuel to the rumors, and suggest that the final pieces of the puzzle may be falling into place. Here is some background:

1. The entire rumor is based on the concept that elements within the government (and their adjuncts, see above) are intent on creating a New World Order in the form of a single world government.

2. In order for the people to go along with these plans events have to take place that create an atmosphere of great fear. Frightened citizens will permit their government to do anything so long as they believe it is for their own safety. This is an old psychological ploy that has been used successfully by governments in the past. At present, the American government promotes and engenders constant fear in the public. In part this is done, as it was during the Cold War years, to finance the military industrial complex. When the Cold War ended, military budgets needed new life - so along came the international terrorist. For war profiteers there is no better enemy than one that can not be seen or identified, and ultimately can never be defeated. There can be no end to a war on the catch phrase, "Terrorism". Terrorists are not an enemy that can surrender, so there is no way to tell when the military effort has succeeded. The war that is being waged today is the perfect never-ending war that will provide a never-ending flow of funds. It is the perfect business plan for the military industrial complex. An enemy that can not be identified can not be
defeated. Everlasting war is the result. Everlasting war funding is the goal.

3. The PNAC crew, formerly know as the Crazies, control a virtual dictatorship. As we speak, there is no oversight or accountability in the Bush administration. Those in power do pretty much whatever they want. Their march into Iraq was a prime example of the way they do business. The world stood still as the administration, with the help of their corporate adjunct, the mainstream media, convinced the American people that Iraq was to be feared. This was a ludicrous claim that was almost laughable. Iraq was a smashed and defeated nation with no military to speak of, that had undergone 12 years of crippling embargoes and 12 years of bombing raids and they were the ideological enemy of Al Qaeda.
There was nothing to fear, but fear we did so that phase one of the PNAC plan could go into action.

4. Don't believe for a moment that the PNAC crew that took control of our government will ever let go of that power. They waited too long and planned too hard to stop in their tracks. They assumed power by stealing elections and reaping the benefits of the 'new Pearl Harbor' they themselves said they needed. 

On September 11th, 2001, these not-so-crazy men went into full gear. The oil pipelines to the Caspian could be fully in their hands if Afghanistan and Iraq were under their control A rapid defeat of these countries would lead to domination of the region. Despite the setbacks to their poorly laid, albeit ambitious plans, these people are here for the duration. There is no way this long awaited power is going to slip through their hands. This is a now or never opportunity for to achieve the goals they openly laid out year before.

5. There is no possible argument to refute the reality that the people in power today needed a tragedy like 9/11 to take place. Without it, there would have been no opportunity at all, none, nada, nil, to implement their openly published agenda. Without the attacks of that day, there would be no wars against Afghanistan or Iraq. Saddam Hussein would be trading his oil in Euros, the pipelines of the oil rich Middle East would be in the hands of other nations, and the ambitions of the PNAC power brokers would be in the garbage. For whatever it's worth, this is a harsh reality. Think about it.

Here is what has recently changed:

1.The public is beginning to catch on to what is going on. Questions are being asked. Answers are being demanded. 

2. There is a groundswell of public interest in the events of 9/11. A great deal of new evidence has been uncovered by the independent 9/11 research community that exposes the official story of 9/11 as the real conspiracy theory. A great deal of evidence points to government complicity, at least to the level of permitting the events to unfold. The media can no longer stem the grass roots information campaign taking place. The more people examine the findings of the independent community, the more they realize that something sinister is at hand. One can not view the uncovered information without becoming suspicious
about what the Bush administration knew and when they knew it. 

3. The Plame investigation is coming to a head. According to recent reports, indictments have already been issued or are underway. The investigation reportedly goes far beyond the leak of a CIA agent, and has looked into illegalities by people at the highest levels of government concerning 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

4. If we get past the midterm elections and vote rigging is under control, there is a chance that many members of Congress will be getting their walking papers. If Republicans lose control of Congress there is a chance that impeachment proceedings will take place. The grounds for impeachment of the President and Vice President have been clearly established - and include the high crimes of lying to Congress, and manipulating intelligence information for political gain.

What does all this mean? Let's consider the most recent rumors that involve the indictment of people in high places. Such an event will mean the end of the PNAC dream. This is why they have to work fast, before any such indictments are issued or before too much truth gets out. This administration cannot risk letting Americans know really took place on 9/11. That, too, would mean the end of the PNAC dream.

The last pieces of the PNAC power structure were just put in place. John Bolton is Ambassador to the UN. He is PNAC. Zalmay Khalilzad is Ambassador to Iraq. He is PNAC. Paul Wolfowitz is the head of the World Bank. He is PNAC. So are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Scooter Libby. Need I go on? If undeterred, they can proceed at full speed with their global domination agenda. Only now things don't look to good, and if the rumor about the indictments is true, something will have to be done. This something, according to the rumor mill, will be a false flag terror operation in the form of a limited nuclear attack on our own soil. This will permit the PNAC crazies to freeze our government, implement martial law and maintain absolute dictatorship level powers indefinitely.

Don't put it past this dangerous gang of radicals to do this. Here are my two cents: In my scenario George W. Bush does not survive an attack. I say this for several reasons:

1. Bush is not a PNAC member. Cheney runs the show. Bush has been a burden for these people. They have to teach him what to say, how to present his little issues, tutor him, give him his sound bites, etc. He could not even handle one hour in front of the friendly 9/11 Commission by himself; Cheney had to accompany him. He had nothing to do with creating the PNAC agenda and by getting him out of the way Cheney and crew can move faster and harder.

2. If George Bush were no longer President, it would add to the power of the PNAC crew. If you think they assumed great power because 3,000 anonymous Americans died, just imagine how much more power they can assume after claiming that terrorists are a great enough threat to get to an American president. Bush would be the sacrificial poster boy. He would have served his purpose and would no longer be needed. He would provide PNAC with more power than they ever could achieve if he had lived. An interesting side note is that George W. Bush's Skull and Bones nickname is 'Temporary!' Interesting, to say the least.

3. Also, look for a hit on Chicago . The records and principles involved in t he Plame investigation have to be eliminated. Just as a great deal of Enron information perished in the WTC, the criminal evidence against PNAC members must disappear. How convenient that would be.

4. (Added 05-Aug-2005) - If the event takes place at night it would also be an indication of a false flag operation. It would help prevent being caught. For instance if a device is delivered by air, eye witnesses will not be able to see the plane or missile that delivers or detonates the device. Then again, with a micro nuke a device can be delivered, placed and detonated by timer or remote. Just some thoughts.

Do I know for certain that any of this will happen? NO, OF COURSE NOT! The idea that the US will experience a nuclear terror event and it will unfold as I describe IS INDEED A CONSPIRACY THEORY. I repeat THIS IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY!!! However, the information used to compile my theory, most notably the goals and motives of the PNAC crazies is NOT THEORY; it is FACT. And if my frightening theory got you to pay attention to the people who are really running this country, this blog entry has accomplished its goal.

OK, so there is my brain dump. Why am I sharing this with you? I am writing this because, amazingly, I know more about the thugs in PNAC than almost every single person I meet, anywhere. With the exception of the people I have met through running TvNewsLIES.org, almost everyone I know or meet is clueless as to who the PNAC people are and knows nothing whatsoever about their agenda. Even some the most informed activists against this administration are unaware of the affiliation, the intrigue, and the cabal that is PNAC. So many Americans have no idea about the people behind the people who run the government, and I feel it is about time to turn that around. If your curiosity has been piqued at all, I've done something worthwhile. Please let me be wrong! But if I am correct¦ let's not wait until it's too late to listen to what I am saying! We could be talking about life and death.


Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLIES.org


They Are Not 'Conspiracy Theories' - They Are, in Fact, 'Discoveries'

Added 04-Aug-2005 - Leak prosecutor's boss likely to be replaced with Bush classmate; 'Skull and Bones' - Newsweek's Michael Isikoff will splash a story in tomorrow's Newsweek which reveals that the boss of CIA leak probe prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is likely to be replaced by a former Bush classmate at Yale. - What's more, Newsweek has found that the new boss is a fellow initiate of the Yale secret society, Skull and Bones. Details will appear on the magazine's s website early Sunday and on newsstands Monday. 

Posted by Jesse on Thursday, August 4th, 2005 at 10:01 am.

3 Responses to 'More About Those Nuclear Attack Speculations'

Left by TvNewsLIES.org » Blog Archive » About Those Nuclear Attack Speculations on August 4th, 2005

You are very accurate about the connection of Enron to 9-11. Also, a major criminal investigation of Exxon/Mobil was ongoing at that time also. George W. Bush is simply a pawn in the hands of his controller, Cheney. He is expendable, as was Reagan. GWB is a classic example of an individual who has been subjected to intense, and from an early age, trauma-based mind control, a la MKULTRA.

This is not speculation. It is evidenced in his behavior and speech patterns. We should feel sorry for him, and concentarte on the real gangsters, the PNAC-ers!

Left by jhawk620 on August 4th, 2005

I have been tracking the election on Tuesday in the Ohio 2nd Congressional District. Clearly it was another 'questionable' result. And, I think it was done for a couple of reasons. Firstly, a victory by the anti-war vet Hackett would have been a very bad PR situation for the PNAC/WH. It would have given the few remaining 'loose cannon' in the right-wing spin-machine controlled media something to hang their teeth on in their 'the war is going bad' stories. It would have put a FIRST crack in the dam that is Republican control of congress, and it would have energized the fight to take back the house and senate in 2006. No, that would have been bad. But, even more important, I think they wanted to produce a fairly BLATANT looking fraud to see if people would even care and if they really had the media well locked-down. They needed to 'dry run' their plans for ‘06 to make sure they were well set.

YES, they might go the 'martial law' approach to keeping power, but they might also simply go the 'fear' approach after a terrorist incident. They would begin to label Dems as 'non-patriotic' and 'pro-terrorist' if they didn't vote for Patriot III on the first vote, and hope to enable their continued theft of congress.

Just as they did a 'dry run' on the whole election fraud with Hagel's election in 98, I think Paul Hackett's defeat in the Ohio 2nd was a test run for another massive national election fraud in November of 2006.

And, they were successful. Except for a few isolated instances in the blogsphere, this story is dead and they pulled off their silent coup once more. I fear for our republic.

Charlie L Portland, OR CLL2001@Gmail.com
Left by CyberChas on August 4th, 2005

----- Original Message -----
From: Iron_Clay
To: 1 Iron & Clay
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 12:07 AM
Subject: Israel's secret bomb

The interest to me here is that the media and therefore Zionists are now opening up the flood gates of public opinion against Israel in the area of their Nukes. One of the two "payments" I believe, will be required by the US after the Israeli attack on Iran, will be "give up your nukes" and the other will be "obey the roadmap".

This is simply bait to raise public opinion on the subject and ready the public for the total destruction of Zionist Israel due on either 22 Sep or 12 Nov or 09 Oct or 29th Nov 2005.
Those are the four likely dates for the destruction of Zionist Israel from what I can work out in Scripture.

The opening date for the Israeli attack on Iran and the American attack on Syria is the 31st August 2005.


See Subject:  The Temple ... I believe I've found THE TEMPLE

Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:49:24 +1200
From: Iron_Clay <iron_clay@clear.net.nz>

The closing date will be one of those above ... lets leave some room and say 29 Nov 2005.

Things will look a lot different by then ... I believe.


Israel's secret bomb
Saturday August 6, 2005
The Guardian

While it is undoubtedly true that Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy were opposed to Israeli acquisition of nuclear weapons (How the UK gave Israel the bomb, August 4), later US administrations and their Nato allies have adopted policies of secret, and then more overt, cooperation with Israel. Knowing nuclear weapons are only as effective as their delivery systems, they have made sophisticated systems available to Israel. According to the Monterey Institute, as well as 50 Jericho 2 missiles targeted at the Middle East, Israel has also Ra'am planes (range 4,500km) and Shavit space launchers (4,800 km) that have the
capability to strike targets in the EU, western Russia and north Africa, as well as central and south Asia.

During his presidency, Clinton allowed Israel to acquire the supercomputers needed to operate these delivery systems. In addition, Israel has recently purchased from Germany Dolphin submarines that could be used to provide a second-strike nuclear capability. Israel already has some cruise missiles and is seeking long-range Tomahawk weapons from the US. On past form, it will probably be successful in acquiring or developing these. There has also been intensive cooperation between Israel and the US on militarisation of space programmes, such as Arrow.

Israel has been allowed to opt out of the non-proliferation treaty, while acquiring all of these weapons and delivery systems of mass destruction. In February this year Israel was brought into partnership with Nato. However, this does not of itself ensure that the policies Israel adopts are in conformity with the perceived interests of Nato members. Pressure should be brought to bear on Israel to ensure it enters into the NPT and other related treaties, and that Israeli facilities for the production of WMD are inspected by the UN. EU governments should press for a nuclear-free Middle East.

Also see Subject: G8 urge Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty "immediately":

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:25:20 +1200
From: Iron_Clay <iron_clay@clear.net.nz>

We should also work to see that Mordechai Vanunu, who brought to the attention of the world the extent of the Israeli WMD, is freed from all restrictions on his liberty and recognised as one of the most important defenders of world peace during the last 50 years.

(Prof) Irene Brennan

In July 1958, the British and US governments signed an "agreement for cooperation on the use of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes", despite questions over the reliability of Britain as an atomic ally raised by some senators.

The MDA accorded the UK special status as the only foreign country to which the US Congress was to prepared to give permission to the administration (ie the president, Pentagon and Atomic Energy Commission) to share their military nuclear secrets.

This delicate deal has provided the foundation of our nuclear WMD cooperation with the US, including on Trident, ever since. So it is astonishing that within months Foreign Office officials, without any reference to elected ministers, were prepared to endanger the MDA by covertly selling on heavy water to Israel, knowing of its likely military use.

It is no wonder that the Foreign Office's top man in charge of nuclear security (Douglas Cape) would state in the internal government papers now released: "I would prefer not to mention this to the Americans."

Dr David Lowry
Stoneleigh, Surrey

Now we have a much better idea of why British governments over the last 40 years have not been prepared to condemn Israel's nuclear-weapons arsenal. And the deceit continues. In answer to a question from Lynne Jones MP just three weeks ago as to whether Israel possesses a deployable nuclear arsenal, Kim Howells MP, minister of state at the Foreign Office, neatly hid behind Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity by saying: "The Israeli government has refused to confirm this assumption." Yet he must have known the truth.

Ernest Rodker
Visit my Website at ...
See my "Why Come Out" page here ...
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood."   - Eze 33:6

----- Original Message -----
From: "Iron_Clay" <iron_clay@clear.net.nz>
To: "1 Iron & Clay" <iron_clay@clear.net.nz>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 1:42 AM
Subject: Iran warns U.S., Israel against attack

A solid little warning from Albert Einstein who said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- I don't believe one has to be an Albert Einstein to recognise that the second and final stage of WWIII is about to begin.

I think maybe what Albert foresaw was the remnant of the earth roasting marsh mallows on sticks over what you now call Israel ... that seems the most likely outcome.

Iran warns U.S., Israel against attack (Russia has also warned Israel using terms such as "Vaporize Israel".)

Israel has said it will not allow Iran to have Nuclear power stations and would take action to ensure they don't.

Scriptures in Daniel would appear to support that this warning is not heeded.

What will the Zionists have left to believe after Israel is blasted into vapour and hangs around in the air for 3 years I don't know but I'm looking with interest ... at their faces. The Zionist attack should fit into the window of Aug 31 - 2005 to Nov 29 - 2005.

For your full enjoyment try having a religious state church Zionist in front of you at the time.


July 29, 2005

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Friday that Iran is ready to confront any military attack  by Israel and the United States.

Speaking in an interview with Saudi daily al-Hayat, which is monitored in Beirut, Shamkhani said Iran has plans to face  any possible military aggression by Washington and Israel.

He, however, played down such a possibility noting that "Washington is already drowning in the Iraqi river and the  drowned cannot move from the river to the sea."

"Iran is a military and security sea in which America cannot float," he added.

Shamkhani also pointed out that Iran completed the process of producing solid fuel used for activating long-range ballistic  missiles.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said it would restart some nuclear activities on Monday unless it receives European Union proposals on Sunday to break a diplomatic impasse.

The EU is due to offer Iran some economic and political incentives in return for an indefinite suspension of uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel reprocessing and related activities.


Iran: Europe Proposes Nonaggression Pact

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press WriterSun Jul 31,12:55 PM ET

Iran's top nuclear negotiator said his European counterparts have proposed a guarantee that Iran will not be invaded if Tehran agrees to permanently halt uranium enrichment, the state-run news agency said Sunday.

Hasan Rowhani said the proposal is being discussed by Europeans and includes several important points such as "guarantees about Iran's integrity, independence, national sovereignty" and "nonaggression toward Iran," the Islamic Republic News Agency said Sunday.

"If Europe enjoys a serious political will about Iran's nuclear fuel cycle, there will be the possibility of understanding," the agency quoted Rowhani as saying in a letter to outgoing Iranian president Mohammad Khatami.

Iran has been negotiating with France, Britain and Germany, who are acting on behalf of the 25-member European Union.

A senior European diplomat accredited to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency who is familiar with the talks confirmed that the Europeans were offering the Iranians "security guarantees," but the diplomat said no country could give "a 100 percent guarantee" to another country that it would not be invaded.

The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the confidential negotiations with the media.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to produce weapons, while Iran insists it aims to generate electricity. The Europeans are trying to persuade Iran to accept economic incentives in exchange for a permanent halt to enrichment.

Iran has shown growing impatience with the negotiations, insisting its suspension - in place since November - is not permanent.

Iran could resume nuclear conversion and enrichment at any time, Rowhani said in his letter. In the case of military attack on Iran's scattered nuclear facilities, the country could continue both tasks without any delay or fear of damage, he said.

Meanwhile, Iran's top officials were to meet Sunday evening for a final decision on when to resume work at a reprocessing center in Isfahan, said Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council.

"Europe has only a few hours, up to when the council meets, for the proposal. If it does not arrive by that time, the council will discuss breaking the ice" on Iran's stalled nuclear program, Agha Mohammadi told state-run radio.

Other incentives offered by European negotiators include promoting political and security cooperation between Iran and Europe, considering Iran as a chief source of energy for Europe, and support for Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization, Rowhani's letter stated.

Earlier Sunday, Iran threatened to resume its nuclear program and hoped to do so under the watch of the IAEA.

"Today or tomorrow we will send a letter to the IAEA about resumption of activity in the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. "We would like to unseal the equipment and carry on the activity under the IAEA."

Asefi said IAEA inspectors already were in Tehran, which means a short flight to the central Iranian city of Isfahan.

"Since our nuclear policy is transparent and legal, we will start activity upon delivering the letter to the IAEA, with the inspectors in attendance," Asefi said.

Later Sunday, Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the Vienna, Austria-based IAEA, told the AP the agency had not received any official notification from Iran about resumption of activity at the Isfahan facility.

Once the Isfahan plant resumes work, Asefi said Tehran no longer will discuss halting activities there.

Britain warned Iran to honor agreements on its nuclear program, with a Foreign Office spokesman saying a resumption of work at the uranium reprocessing center "would be an unnecessary and damaging step."

"Should the Iranians persist, we will as a first step consult urgently with our partners on the board of the IAEA," the spokesman said on condition of anonymity, according to policy.

Rowhani said it appeared that European negotiators were trying to draw out their talks with Tehran until September, when the incoming Iranian administration is expected to announce its nuclear policies.

On Saturday, Iran rejected a request from European negotiators to postpone by a week the release of new European proposals for resolving the nuclear dispute.

France, Britain and Germany had been expected to present the proposals to Iran by the beginning of August but requested a delay until Aug. 7.

The proposals are part of an agreement reached in May under which Iran would continue its suspension of nuclear activities in return for a comprehensive European plan for resolving the nuclear dispute.

Khatami, who will be replaced Aug. 6 by ultraconservative president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesday that Iran would resume some suspended activities, with or without European consent.

Iran has said it will not resume the more controversial step of feeding the gas into centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which can be used either as nuclear energy fuel or as the core of a weapon.

EU will accept Iranian right to fuel cycle gradually - Rowhani

Tehran, July 31, IRNA

Iran-Nuclear Program-Rowhani

Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Hassan Rowhani on Sunday offered a report to President Mohammad Khatami about his performance as the chief negotiator with European Union (EU) over nuclear program.

He said that since initiating the negotiations with three European states, France, Britain, Germany in 2003 and subsequent Paris Accord, Iran has been successful in confidence-building with the international community about national nuclear program.

Rowhani said that Paris Accord followed five topics:

1. The accord aims to reach an agreement unanimously by the two parties. It means that the European partners well know that Iran will agree to a settlement which guarantees Iranian right to go ahead with fuel cycle.

2. Paris Accord recognizes Iranian right to possess nuclear technology for civilian utility. Though right of member states has been enshrined by Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but, Paris accord was another step by the EU partners for recognition of Iranian fuel cycle capability.

3. Paris Accord called for Iran to give objective guarantee to ensure that Iranian nuclear program is civilian. It is clear Iran is expected to give objective guarantee to go ahead with civilian program and not to cancel it.

4. In return, the EU undertook to give decisive guarantee for political, economic, security and technology cooperation with Iran. It is a step forward to develop long-term cooperation and confidence building about aspirations of the two parties.

5. Cooperation to help resolve regional crises and on international campaign against terrorism including al-Qaeda and Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO).

Rowhani said that Iran-EU negotiations have led to turn the crisis to an opportunity for cooperation.

He said that intensive negotiations with the European partners led EU to draft a proposal according to which:

1. EU supports Iranian nuclear program and provides Iran with power plants from European executives.

2. EU undertakes to provide Iran with fuel for power plants. The fuel supply is being guaranteed by United Nations specialized agency International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

3. EU undertakes to support Iranian territorial integrity, independence, national sovereignty vis-a-vis any aggression.

4. EU undertakes to bolster political and security cooperation with Iran and regional security cooperation as well.

5. EU regards Iran as major oil and gas supplier for EU member states.

6. Gradual lifting of the obstacles in the way of supplying Iran with nuclear technology and civilian nuclear equipment.

7. Developing international cooperation with Iran including in the international campaign against terrorism and drug trafficking in the region.

8. Rapid progress of finalization of Iran-EU trade agreement and and speeding up Iranian membership in World Trade Organization (WTO).

Rowhani maintained that evidences indicated that the EU will gradually recognize Iranian right to possess fuel cycle plant.

Iran has made clear that import of fuel cycle is uneconomical when it set up full fuel cycle in line with IAEA safeguard agreement.

Iran is a signatory state to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and signed Additional Protocol to NPT which grants intrusive inspection to United Nations nuclear energy agency (IAEA).

IAEA charter specifies Additional Protocol to NPT and abiding by safeguard agreement as objective guarantee to ensure that nuclear programs of the member states are merely civilian and will not be diverted to military purpose.

Iran has declared that production of nuclear bomb is Haram (forbidden) in Islam.

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei whose religious decrees are effective for all levels of power structure in Iran has banned proliferation of nuclear weapon.

"During Iraqi-imposed war, we did not think about retaliating Iraqi chemical attack against Iran even for a moment, because, Islam forbids weapons of mass destruction (WMD)," the Supreme Leader said in one of his statements on Iranian nuclear technology making it clear that national nuclear program is for civilian purpose.

Rowhani said that he would no longer serve as SNSC secretary with term of President Khatami coming to an end.

News sent: 18:55 Sunday July 31, 2005

----- Original Message -----
From: Iron_Clay
To: 1 Iron & Clay
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 3:14 AM
Subject: Netanyahu warns West it must halt Iran nuclear plans

Okay here's the game ... don't read it but tell me what nation Netanyahu comes from.
Okay now see if you're right.

What I've been saying is that: from what I can see in the Greek and Hebrew in Matthew 24 and Daniel 2 is that Israel is likely to hit Iran's Russian built reactor sites triggering off a chain of events the Zionist christian's cannot come back from. Russia has said it will "vaporize Israel" if she hits the $800 million Russian investments in Iran.

Russia only gets paid out after the power stations are up and running. How did Russia know a year ago that it would be Israel and not America that hits Iran?

Israel has said it will not allow Iran to have nuclear power ... oh for propaganda sake they use the terms "Weapons" and it's true ... a light bulb can be made into a bomb however.

America has given Israel bunker buster bombs ... (what for) and moved the EU patriot missiles into Israel.

Matthew says that "he stands in the holy place" .... but looking at related Scripture in Daniel that is a military stand.

America has said it will support Israel with intel and air-strikes to soften the Iranian defenses.

I also expect America to attack Syria because that's the nearest Russian missiles that could "vaporize Israel".

When it all goes down and I don't believe it won't be long now America will take the military stand but this protection will have a cost.

Part of that cost is spelt out in the email after this one. 

Subject: G8 urge Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty  "immediately":

The rest will be obey the Middle East Road Map.

The price will not be accepted and the protection will be withdrawn allowing the rest of Daniel 2 to happen. 

Well that's my punt ... you are welcome to yours.

For your interest I've bolded some interesting comments below. 


The Sunday Times - World
July 10, 2005
Netanyahu warns West it must halt Iran nuclear plans
THE Israeli finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has warned that the West must do more to counter Iran's potential nuclear threat following the election last month of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran, as president of the country.

Netanyahu, in London to address a conference, said concerted action was required to rein in Iran, not least because of its links with Islamic terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. He said he wanted the shipment of Russian nuclear equipment and nuclear fuel to a plant under construction at Bushehr to be stopped.

"The Iranian regime supports terror, both ideologically and operationally" he said. "I think the regime will go as fast as it can to develop nuclear weapons, regardless of who leads it."

Netanyahu, prime minister from 1996-9, said that if Iran succeeded in developing nuclear weapons it would boost radical Islamic groups by providing them with 'a nuclear umbrella'.

Iron and Clay Editor Comment: Note the timing of this statement ??? Right after London???
"This is not an Israel problem - this is a world problem that concerns everybody, including Russia," he said. "There has to be a common solution here: first to prevent the transfer of nuclear technology or fuel, secondly to punish regimes that deviate from this and, thirdly, to put pressure on the Iranian regime, in all avenues possible, to stop this programme."

Netanyahu contrasted Iran's apparent determination to develop nuclear weapons with Libya's decision to abandon its own fledgling programme in response to the American attack on Iraq. “The deterrent effect has worked on some, but so far has not worked on others," he said.

Asked whether there would ultimately have to be a military solution to the problem 'perhaps involving a repetition of Israel's pre-emptive strike on Iraq' s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 - Netanyahu replied: "I don't know."

He added: "I am not aware of any plans, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, for example in America."

Iron and Clay Editor Comment: When a politician says to you that the board is black you can bet it's white ... the above statement now reads "I know and am aware of plans" ... and this is supported by the terms "but that doesn't mean they don't exist" and now the hand is quicker than the eye card trick "for example in America".

... Don't miss Subject: G8 urge Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty  "immediately":

This is not an urge ... this is a demand and time is all but out. 


Bush Raises Option of Using Force against Iran

    Saturday 13 August 2005

    Crawford, Texas - President Bush said he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.

    But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, one of the most prominent European opponents of the US-led war on Iraq, told an election rally on Saturday the threat of force was not acceptable.

    In what appeared to be a reference to Bush's remarks that "all options are on the table," Schroeder told the crowd in his home city of Hanover:

    " ... let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work."

    Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear program.

    Tehran says it aims only to produce electricity and denies Western accusations it is seeking a nuclear bomb.

    The EU - represented by Britain, France and Germany - has been trying to find a compromise for two years between arch foes Iran and the United States.

    Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, was asked in the interview broadcast on Saturday whether possible options included the use of force.

    "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country," he told state-owned Israel Channel One television.


    Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program more time before getting tougher with the country, and Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution.

    "In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we're working feverishly on the diplomatic route and we'll see if we're successful or not," Bush said in the Israeli interview.

    Bush has also previously said that the United States has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes. But US officials have played down media speculation earlier this year they were planning military action against Iran.

    French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Friday that negotiations were still possible with Iran on condition the Iranians suspend their nuclear activities.

    The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously called on Iran on Thursday to halt sensitive atomic work.

    If Iran continues to defy global demands, another IAEA meeting will likely be held, where both Europe and Washington will push for a referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

    Schroeder, whose Social Democrats are lagging the opposition conservatives in opinion polls ahead of September elections, said he was worried about developments in Iran because no one wants it to gain possession of atomic weapons.

    "The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal. Up to now we were also united in the way to pursue this," he said.

    Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq war was seen as a decisive factor in his unexpected victory in the 2002 general election, which he won narrowly after coming from behind.

    But his critical stance caused serious ruptures in Germany's traditionally strong relations with the United States.

  FROM: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081305A.shtml


US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?

    Saturday 31 December 2005

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.

    It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.

    German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago - long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.

    The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets - a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.

    According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

    DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.

    In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

    Links to al-Qaida?

    According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

    The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map") have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.

    The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."

    Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets.

    At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting - it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war."

    How Great Is the Threat?

    So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

    But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

    Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

    Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour - an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter - but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike.

    Skepticism in Ankara

    Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing.

    Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself.

    At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran - Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe.

    Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently - as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from heart surgery. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task.

    The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that - at least when it comes to the Kurdish question - Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board - either as an active or passive partner.

    It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region.


 How Crazy Are They?
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective
    Tuesday 11 April 2006
No sane person would undertake an action so fraught with peril, 
but if we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that sanity
takes a back seat in this administration's hayride.
Note:   William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.  - CR
------------- article follows:
    I had a debate with my boss last night about Sy Hersh's terrifying New Yorker article describing Bush administration plans to attack Iran, potentially with nuclear weapons. After reading the Hersh piece, my boss was understandably worried, describing his reaction to the article in road-to-Damascus-revelation terms. They're going to do this, he said.
    I told my boss that I couldn't believe it was possible the Bush administration would do this. I ran through all the reasons why an attack on Iran, especially with any kind of nuclear weaponry, would be the height of folly.
    Iran, unlike Iraq, has a formidable military. They own the high ground over the Persian Gulf and have deployed missile batteries all throughout the mountains along the shore. Those missile batteries, I told him, include the Sunburn missile, which can travel in excess of Mach 2 and can spoof Aegis radar systems. Every American warship in the Gulf, including the carrier group currently deployed there, would be ducks on the pond.
    The blowback in Iraq would be immediate and catastrophic, I reminded him. The Shi'ite majority that enjoys an alliance with Iran would go indiscriminately crazy and attack anyone and anything flying the stars and stripes.
    Syria, which has inked a mutual defense pact with Iran and is believed to have significant chemical and biological weapons capabilities, would get into the game.
    China, which has recently established a multi-billion dollar petroleum relationship with Iran, might step into the fray if it sees its new oil source at risk.
    Russia, which has stapled itself to the idea that Iran's nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, would likewise get pulled in.
    Blair and Britain want nothing to do with an attack on Iran, Berlusconi appears to have lost his job in Italy, and Spain's Aznar is already gone. If the Bush administration does this, I told my boss, they'd instantly find themselves in a cold and lonely place.
    The nuclear option, I told my boss, brings even more nightmarish possibilities. The reaction to an attack on Iran with conventional weapons would be bad enough. If we drop a nuke, that reaction will be worse by orders of magnitude and puts on the table the ultimate nightmare scenario: a region-wide conflagration that would reach all the way to Pakistan, where Pervez Musharraf is fending off the fundamentalists with both hands. If the US drops a nuke on Iran, it is possible that the Taliban-allied fundamentalists in Pakistan would rise up and overthrow Musharraf, thus gaining control of Pakistan's own arsenal of nuclear weapons. All of a sudden, those nukes would be loose, and India would lose its collective mind.
    It was a cogent argument I made, filled with common sense. My boss seemed mollified, and we bid each other goodnight. Ten minutes later, I had an email from my boss in my Inbox. He'd sent me Paul Krugman's latest editorial from the New York Times, titled "Yes He Would." Krugman's piece opens this way:
"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace. "But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking.
    Things have come to a pretty pass in the United States of America when the first question you have to ask yourself on matters of war and death is, "Just how crazy are these people?" Every cogent estimate sees Iran's nuclear capabilities not becoming any kind of reality for another ten years, leaving open a dozen diplomatic and economic options for dealing with the situation. There is no good reason for attacking that country, but there are a few bad reasons to be found.
    The worst of the bad reasons, of course, is that an attack on Iran would change the conversation in Washington as the 2006 midterm elections loom. Bush and his congressional allies are about as popular as scabies right now, according to every available poll. If the current trend is not altered or disrupted, January 2007 may come with Democratic Rep. John Conyers Jr. sitting as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with subpoena powers in hand.
    "As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out," continued Krugman in his editorial, "the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: 'The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The US secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on US troops.'"
    For the moment, one significant departure from the Iraq script has been the Bush administration vehemently denying that an attack on Iran, particularly with nuclear weapons, is an option being considered at this time. Bush himself called the Hersh article "wild speculation," and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan bluntly stated that the US is committed to diplomacy.
    Gary Sick, an Iran expert quoted by columnist Jim Lobe in a recent article, seems to think the reputation for irrational and dangerous actions enjoyed by the Bush administration is being used as a psychological lever. "That is their record," said Sick, "so they have no need to invent it. If they can use that reputation to keep Iran - and everybody else - off balance, so much the better."
    Then why this cold feeling in the pit of my stomach? Julian Borger, writing for the UK Guardian, has some added insight. "Vincent Cannistraro," writes Borger, "a former CIA counter-terrorism operations chief, said Mr. Bush had not yet made up his mind about the use of direct military action against Iran. 'There is a battle for Bush's soul over that,' he said, adding that Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser is adamantly opposed to a war. However, Mr. Cannistraro said covert military action, in the form of special forces troops identifying targets and aiding dissident groups, is already under way. 'It's been authorized, and it's going on to the extent that there is some lethality to it. Some people have been killed.'"
    A battle for Bush's soul? Some people have been killed? It's a wild day here in Bizarro World when I find myself in total agreement with Karl Rove. It is the uncertainty in all this that makes the situation truly terrifying. No sane person would undertake an action so fraught with peril, but if we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that sanity takes a back seat in this administration's hayride.
    I bought a coffee this morning at the excellent café‚ around the corner, which is run by a wonderful Iranian woman. I asked her point-blank what would happen in her home country if we did attack. She dismissed the possibility out of hand. "I read that Krugman article," she said, "but there's no way they would do this. They'd have to be crazy."
    Indeed. Too bad that hasn't stopped them yet.


Before the U.S. House of Representatives

The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? 
 With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing.
April 5, 2006

Iran: The Next Neocon Target

It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.  Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States.  Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection.  Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. 

The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States.  There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there.  That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq.  They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy -- the largest in the world.

The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq?  With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing.  There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created.  But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion?  Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars.  Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred.  My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.

Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government.  There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Almadinejad, is an elected leader.  Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain.  Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had.  It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran.  It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations--Afghanistan and Iraq.  We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it.  We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11.  This effort has been virtually abandoned.  Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before.  Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch enemy, more than our own.

The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for Osama bin Laden.  The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his neighbors.  This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war.  Saddam Hussein is out of power and most people are pleased.  Yet some Iraqis, who dream of stability, long for his authoritarian rule.  But once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy.

Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government.  This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.

Talk about unintended consequences!  This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs.  It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends.  Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran.  What will it take for us to learn from our failures?

Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran.  Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran-- whether planned or accidental-- will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3.  All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.

Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight.  Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals.

Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have any.  It’s hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other people’s children.  This, I’m sure, would be denied-- which means their own children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much.  If so, they should think more of their own children.  If this is not so, and their children are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent.  Remember, most Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks.

For the past 3 years it’s been inferred that if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy.  Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies.  This is an insulting and preposterous argument.  Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Khrushchev.  Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein.  Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous-- especially when there’s no evidence that our national security is being threatened.

Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion.  Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort.  Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it’s time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the propaganda that we’re there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim.  Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that’s worth the risk to life and limb.

I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong.  I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost.  Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda.  We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom.  The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts.  Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war.  I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!”

The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun.  It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes.

This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped.  But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue.  We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table.  And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress.  So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq.  It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy.  Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.

It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq.  Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot stand.  Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored.

Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history.  This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us.  Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq.  Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us.  But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president took office.

In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech.  We placed the Shah in power.  He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected him-- that is until 1979.  We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor.  Evidently we didn’t buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy.  From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979.  This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists.  Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953.

During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran.  This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad.  When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately proceeded to do so.  We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran.  Of course this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch enemy.  The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it never forget.  And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs.  Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us.

For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership.  This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security.  The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq.  The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq.  One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran.  The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value.  Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for UN sanctions against her.

There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her.  There are many reasons not to do so, however.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one?  Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero.  And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.

Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans.  They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons.  But we reward them just as we reward India.

We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons.  But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this: “Obviously, we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don’t know if they’re developing them, but if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy.”

There’s been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear program.  This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.

IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.

We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative.  El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.

We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them.

Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we’re hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self interest.

Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process.  Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation.  Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT.  It’s the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT.  Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.

The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress.  The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations.  At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal.  Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran.  Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East.  The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq.

Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance.  Imagine how American citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change!  How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power?  Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders?  Even though El Baradi and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible.

Let there be no doubt, though the words “regime change” are not found in the bill-- that’s precisely what they are talking about.  Neo-conservative Michael Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly:  “I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter.  You can’t have freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs.”

Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war.  Once again we’re unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so.  And don’t expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution.  For the past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.

Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran.  She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government.  We’re seven thousand miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors.  We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor.  This provocation is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.

Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences.  The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads.  Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation.  Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a terrorist attack on us.  They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily.

One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our” oil supply.  This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel.  Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result.  We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump.  The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand.  One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion.

Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options remain on the table.  The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our pre-emptive strike against Iraq.  We should remember the saying:  “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”  It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again.

Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation.  But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government.

The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war.  In it he claims:  “We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.”  He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities-- though the IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years ever sanctioned Iran.  The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow.  The problem is the diplomatic effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative.  The West-- led by the U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.

The President states:  Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.”  A “desire” is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved.  Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it doesn’t have a “desire” to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, and Israel—whose nuclear missiles surround Iran.  Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.

Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran.

Cause for Concern

Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops.  Getting out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968.  Getting into war is much easier.  Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no significant threat to our security.  The need to go to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger.  Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that’s about to engulf us.  The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the public.  Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.

If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations.  A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world.  The debate shifts from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves.  Most of the time it’s for less than honorable reasons.  Even when cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the world safe for democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions.

One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution.  Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war.  Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress.  The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras.  Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier administration.

Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional.  Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its “success,” and against the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough.  We must once again understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation building.  We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy.

The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both sides.  We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable accounts.  The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war.  Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home.  The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen’s rights.  Extreme nationalism is common during wars.  Signs of this are now apparent.

Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences.  No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier.  World War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim.  If a billion dollars is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount.   But the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised someone’s standard of living.

Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly.  Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war.  This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation.  Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it.  Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war.  The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies.  Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war.

The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class than the rich.  Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits.

A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation.  Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist legislation.  It’s always easier to blame foreign producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss of industrial jobs.  Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse.  Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living for most of our citizens.

Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results.  The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won.  The early signs of civil discord are now present.  Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s.

In a way it’s amazing there’s not a lot more outrage expressed by the American people.  There’s plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not part of our American tradition.  War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage.  When the issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is ignored.

Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived.  We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning.  Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade.  We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil.  Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption.  This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending.  It’s fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation.  That’s when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the “humanitarianism” of the Neo-conservatives.

The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is nonsense.  If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none good.  Today’s economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won’t be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by imposing high tariffs.  Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures.

Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought.  Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class.

The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East.  The two nations have been protecting  “our” oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong.  Fear of China and Russia moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources.  Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is factored in.  Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled.  Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise.

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world.  They are unpredictable as to time and place.  9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953.  These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government.  We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.

There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda:  Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.

First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA.  If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States.  Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality.  With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles.  If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list.  Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il.  Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11.  Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability.  Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place.  We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea.  It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy.

The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention.  A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it.  The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business.  The principle of self-determination should be respected.  Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas.  We can’t afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation.  If the moral arguments against intervention don’t suffice for some, the practical arguments should.

Intervention just doesn't work.  It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad.  Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military.  As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.

Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today’s liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy.  There’s no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations.  A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.

It’s time for a change.
Mind Games Over Iran
    By Jim Lobe
Leading the charge are clearly the same aggressive nationalist and pro-Israel elements
within and outside the administration that were behind the drive to war in Iraq.
    Tuesday 11 April 2006
    Three years after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, Washington is abuzz about new reports that the administration of President George W. Bush is preparing to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.
    In just the past few days, lengthy articles detailing planning for aerial attacks on as many as 400 nuclear and military targets have appeared in The Washington Post, the London Sunday Times, The Forward (the main weekly of the U.S. Jewish community) and The New Yorker.
    The New Yorker account, written by legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who two years ago was the first to disclose U.S. abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, was the most spectacular, although it relied heavily on unnamed sources outside the administration.
    Among other assertions, Hersh's 6,300-word article, "The Iran Plans", alleged that U.S. combat forces have already entered Iran to collect target data and make contact with "anti-government ethnic-minority groups" - assertions that the Post said it was unable to confirm. It also claimed that efforts by senior military officials to get the administration to eliminate contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against specific hardened targets had been "shouted down" by the Pentagon's civilian leadership.
    Unlike other accounts that have argued that any U.S. attack was unlikely to take place until after the November mid-term elections at the earliest, Hersh also suggested that a U.S. attack could come at any time.
    "The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium," Hersh wrote, citing official sources. In an interview on CNN April 10, the journalist insisted that planning for an attack had moved into an "operational" phase, "beyond contingency planning".
    Without denying any of Hersh's assertions, Bush himself insisted the same day that the latest reports constituted "wild speculation" and that his administration remained committed to "diplomacy". At the same time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that military force remained an option.
    The sudden spate of detailed stories has raised the question of whether the administration really intends such an attack - if not imminently, then before it leaves office, as contended by the Sunday Times - or if it is carrying out a psychological warfare campaign designed to persuade the Iranians and Washington's less warlike friends, especially in Europe, that it will indeed take action unless Tehran agrees to U.S. demands to abandon its enrichment program.
    There is no consensus on this question.
    To some experts, the potential costs of such an attack-from an Iranian-inspired Shiite uprising in Iraq to missile attacks on Saudi oil fields and skyrocketing energy prices (not to mention a rise in anti-U.S. sentiment in Europe and the Islamic world)-so clearly outweigh the possible benefits that Bush's top political aides would recognize them as exorbitant.
    "Although they may be reckless with the security of the United States, I think they are utterly cold-blooded realists when it comes to political power," noted Gary Sick, an Iran policy expert at Columbia University, who sees the latest reports and threats by senior administration officials as an effort to intimidate Tehran.
    "(O)ne of their strongest negotiating tools is the widespread belief that they are irrational and capable of the most irresponsible actions. That is their record, so they have no need to invent it. If they can use that reputation to keep Iran - and everybody else - off balance, so much the better," he added, noting, however, that if that analysis is correct, "there is always the huge danger of miscalculation and accident".
    Graham Fuller, a former CIA officer and Middle East specialist at the RAND Corporation, echoed this view. He toldThe Forward that the recent spate of articles "shows the fine hand of U.S. (maybe U.K. too) disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran ...(that) may now be intensified, perhaps out of frustration that the 'real thing' is not, in fact, on the table any more."
    Other analysts, however, do not see the administration as bluffing.
    "For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran," wrote Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) last week.
    "In the last few weeks, I have changed my view," he went on. "In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran."
    "In recent months, I have grown increasingly concerned that the administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes against Iran's nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the possible ramification of such action," Wayne White, the State Department's top Middle East analyst until 2005, told The Forward.
    Whether psychological warfare or serious premeditation, leading the charge are clearly the same aggressive nationalist and pro-Israel elements within and outside the administration that were behind the drive to war in Iraq.
    Thus, the rhetoric of Vice President Dick Cheney and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton -- two of the administration's most hawkish figures - has been particularly threatening in recent weeks, with Cheney vowing "meaningful consequences" and Bolton "tangible and painful consequences" in speeches last month to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) if Iran did not freeze its nuclear program.
    Similarly, neo-conservatives closely associated with right-wing sectors in Israel have been most outspoken in arguing that the benefits of an attack strongly outweigh the possible costs.
    Thus, while Hersh quoted Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as calling for war, if covert action, including "industrial accidents," is not sufficient to set back Iran's nuclear program, the Sunday Times quoted former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle as asserting that destroying the program would be much easier than many anticipate.
    "The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened," said Perle who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers could handle the problem overnight.
    His colleague at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin, has also stressed that "the administration is deadly serious... and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going nuclear would be worse."
    Indeed, as in Iraq, hardliners in and outside the administration may be embarked on their own psy-war campaign against more moderate forces within the administration, either to counter European pressure on Washington to engage Iran in direct negotiations, to provoke Iran into an overreaction that would offer a pretext for an attack, or to rhetorically box the administration into a position where it would look unacceptably weak if it did not take action.
    "A sudden unexplained explosion at a U.S. embassy, a clash with militias in Basra, or a thousand other things could call the administration's bluff," according to Sick. "(T)here are certainly individuals in and around the administration who would not hesitate for a second to recommend a bombing attack on Iran."


By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer, Saturday, April 15, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "HEADING TOWARD ANNIHILATION," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it
successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "SOON" BE LIBERATED. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,"

Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."  Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "WIPED OFF THE MAP."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have
its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon." He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories. Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either
fueling nuclear reactors or making nuclear weapons.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity. The U.N. Security Council
has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.

The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade."
© Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
Britain Took Part in Mock Iran Invasion
    Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
    The Guardian

    Saturday 15 April 2006

Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops.

    British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable.

    The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004.

    A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said.

     The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who sparked outrage in the US, Europe and Israel last year by calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, created more alarm yesterday. He told a conference in Tehran in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

    The senior British officers took part in the Iranian war game just over a year after the invasion of Iraq. It was focused on the Caspian Sea, with an invasion date of 2015. Although the planners said the game was based on a fictitious Middle East country called Korona, the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian.

    A British medium-weight brigade operated as part of a US-led force.

    The MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which helped run the war game, described it on its website as the "year's main analytical event of the UK-US Future Land Operations Interoperability Study" aimed at ensuring that both armies work well together. The study "was extremely well received on both sides of the Atlantic".

    According to an MoD source, war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters. He cited senior military staff carrying out a mock invasion of southern England last week and one of Scotland in January.

    However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations.

    William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking."

    A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, as unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued."

    After the failure of a mission to Tehran on Thursday by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia announced a diplomatic initiative yesterday. It is to host a new round of talks in Moscow on Tuesday with the US, the EU and China.


IRAN – Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend U.S. news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive
strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. 

"I would advise them to first GET OUT OF THEIR QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."

Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28. The Islamic regime says it only wants to
generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire.

At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the U.S. as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a U.S. push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed
up by the threat of military action. 

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile. On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."

"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations
Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear."

Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China.
Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis.

In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel.

"The ZIONIST REGIME IS AN INJUSTICE and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers.

"Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said ISRAEL

Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust.

"If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "MYTH" the killing of an
estimated SIX MILLION JEWS by the Nazis and their allies during World War II.

"I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said.

Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control.

"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said.

There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel.

"As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement.

"Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added.
© Copyright AFP 2005,
 Key Senator Bucks Bush, Urges US-Iran Talks

    Sunday 16 April 2006

    Washington - The United States should hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program and go slow on pressing for sanctions, contrary to Bush administration strategy, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman said on Sunday.

    Breaking with President George W. Bush's insistence on a multilateral approach through the U.N. Security Council, Sen. Richard Lugar said direct U.S. talks with Iran would be useful as part of a broad dialogue on energy.

    Lugar, on the ABC television program "This Week," said it was too soon to press hard for sanctions aimed at halting Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program even as the Bush administration prepares to do so at a meeting in Moscow Tuesday.

    "I believe, for the moment, that we ought to cool this one, too," said Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. "We need to make more headway diplomatically."

    Spokesmen for the White House and the State Department had no immediate comment.

    Bush, wary of any Iranian effort to undo multilateral diplomacy, has ruled out direct U.S.-Iran talks on the nuclear issue, although he has opened a door to bilateral discussions on sectarian violence in neighboring Iraq.

    Iran announced last week it had enriched uranium for use in fueling power stations for the first time in defiance of a March 29 U.N. Security Council demand that it halt its enrichment program.

    The announcement fanned Western fears of a covert atomic bomb program that has spurred reports of U.S. planning for the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons to knock out underground nuclear sites.

    Iran says its nuclear program aims only to produce electricity. Bush dismissed reports of planning for a possible military strike as "wild speculation" and said he remained focused on diplomacy to defuse the issue.

    Useful Talks

    Asked whether there should be direct talks with Iran now, Lugar said: "I think that would be useful ... the Iranians are a part of the energy picture.

    "Clearly their ties with India and with China, quite apart from others, are really critical to (international energy issues)," he said.

    "We need to talk about that. Maybe we need to focus our attention less right now on the centrifuges than on how power is going to come out ... to all of these countries in some more satisfying way," he said.

    The United States will push its allies this week to consider punitive measures against Iran that include a freeze on assets, targeted sanctions and visa restrictions, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.

    Russia and China each hold veto power that could block U.N. Security Council-backed sanctions and each have strong economic ties with Iran. Each opposes sanctions or the use of force against Tehran.

    Asked about sanctions, Lugar said: "I would hold off for the time being until we're certain that they're going to be effective."

    "And they will not be effective without European friends who are in our negotiations quite apart from the Chinese, the Indians and the others," he said.

    Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the State Department's third-ranking official, said Friday that Iran's continued nuclear work was leaving it "no exit points" and isolating itself.

    Burns, who will attend the Tuesday meeting in Moscow with senior officials from France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, said he hoped sanctions could be imposed in a way that would "get the attention of the Iranian government" but not be too damaging to the Iranian people.

Will Iran Strike First?
There are signals suggesting an Iranian First-Strike
(AO Newsire) -- As the furor dies down over the letter sent to President Bush by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one things seems to be overlooked. The Iranian leader's signals that Iran may not only be preparing for war, but preparing to start a war.
That's right, there are a few experts who are quietly suggesting that Iran may be planning to launch pre-emptive strikes. The letter sent by Iran's President is one indicator cited that subtly suggests that perhaps Iran might just strike first and not wait to get hammered by America's military might and lose its ability to respond. It reflects that attitude of "use it, or lose it." There is some merit in such logic. Here's why.
According to the various published stories including the New York Sun news-paper, there was a coded message in the original letter's Arabic text. The case for Iran starting a war based upon the letter to President Bush begins with the very start of the lettter, the Salutation, which was initially ignored by translators as because salutations are traditionally, the same meaningless "hellos." Not this time.

The letter starts out with a rather unique and obscure statement:
"Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda"
The translation: "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."
So right from the start, Iran's President is putting America 'on notice.' That's not all there is to this though. There is more historical meaning behind the statement. In the earliest days of Islam, dating somewhere between 620 and 630, (exact year is up for heated debate apparently in the muslim world) the prophet Mohammed sent letters to Byzantine and Sassand emperors giving them the opportunity to convert to Islam or be conquered. Mohammed then went on to launch military operations against those empires when Islam was rejecte. Those letters included that same phrase, indicating that the Iranian president may well be thinking on parallel lines to launch offensive operations against "the Great Satan" as part of an overall war to conquer the world for Islam.
The letter itself, did seem to touch all the Islamic pre-requisites for launching a war against an infidel nation. But there's more than just the letter. There is the matter of the Iranian president's actions within Iran itself.
The Iranian president has been seen giving speeches to some of the more than 52,000 volunteers who've signed up for martyrdom operations and meeting with martyrs and their families, strenuously promoting suicide brigades.
The Iranian president has stated:
"Our army is the army that angels rush to them to send them messages not to be sad or worried, to let them know that paradise is awaiting them,� Ahmadinejad said. �We thank god that our army is the army of Allah -- the army that is ready to sacrifice for Allah."
The Lovers of Martyrdom is the name of this military suicide organization. The goal was to recruit and train men and women for suicide operations whereever they are sent. The group hopes to form a "martyrdom division" in every Iranian province for the possibility of an invasion by America and her allies.
So far, some 52,000 people have reportedly joined The Lovers of Martyrdom group.

Iran's president is promoting martyrdom. In the above photo, Ahmadinejad is shown meeting with both volunteers for martyrdom and the families of martyrs from the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s.
The Iranian president has even been seen sporting a "purity scarf" like  these suicide bombers. (shown below) The black and white scarf concept was borrowed from the Palestinian martyrdom movement.

Then again, shortly after the letter to Bush, the Iranian President joined some new recruits for suicide terror attacks on the infidel nation of Iran. He was photographed wearing the traditional suicide-martyr's scarf. This is yet another subtle indication of the Iranian President's approval of martyrdom and its offensive military applications.


 Notice the white scarves around the necks of these volunteers for martyrdom? The scarves are supposed be symbols of purity?
Now notice that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (shown below) is also wearing such a similar scarf in solidarity with those dedicated to attacking Islam's enemies, America, Israel, European or any other infidel nation. The scarf means, " I am pure, I am miliitarily trained and ready for sacrificial suicide in martyrdom."

The Iranian President, by his actions of wearing the martyrs scarf is proclaiming that he, too, is ready for martyrdom, while standing in solidarity with the 40,000 Iranian volunteers for suicide bombings.
Recently, Ahmadinejad told loyal supporters that the "end of history will occur in two to three years" implying that the Islamic Messiah would soon be coming, thanks to the work of the new President of Iran.

Of course, Ahmadinejad also believes that as the 6th President ( #6 ) of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, he has been chosen to usher in the Islamic Messiah, known as the Mahdi or the 12th Imam leading the world in global control for Islam and Allah.
It has been reported that the new president of Iran has ordered the city of Tehran to prepare a parade route for the 12th Imam or Mahdi (Islamic Messiah) upon his "return." Meanwhile, the President is telling the citizens of Iran to prepare for the return of the Mahdi and more specifically he reminds his military that it is they who will usher in the return of the Islamic Messiah to rule the whole world and it will be soon, within the next two to three years or less.
It would seem, that Iran's president is prepared to take the bull by the horns and may well be preparing to launch an offensive attack or even a "sneak attack" against America. "Use 'em or lose 'em" as the saying goes. Perhaps it is what this fiery leader has in mind, much like Hitler in 1938 when few leaders in Europe took him as a serious threat.
President Bush however, is reportedly wishing, hoping perhaps even praying (to whom?) for Iran to give him an excuse to launch attacks or even to declare war against Iran. Bush is reportedly wanting nothing more than for Iran to launch some sort of major terror attack in the Persian Gulf. They're hoping for a scenario not unlike the terror boating attack on the USS Cole a few years ago while coming into port in Yemen. Bush and his team would love for Iran to send suicide bombers to create another, spectacular 9-11 incident. [See our separate article detailing Bush's strategy and planning for war, link here.]
From what we can see, perhaps, just perhaps President Ahmadinejad will grant President Bush his wish and take the initiative with some sort of sneak attack or spectacular terror strike in hopes it will trigger the arrival of the Islamic messiah onto the world stage.
At this point, we think that none of us, who are veteran prophecy watchers should be surprised at anything which might transpire out of the current nuclear crisis.
Iranian official: Iran will attack Israel, American targets if attacked

By israelinsider staff  April 26, 2007
Iranian Presidet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who, in his own words, would like to "wipe Israel off the map."

Iran's Deputy Interior Minister, Muhammad Baqer Zolqadr, said Thursday that Iran would attack Israeli and the American targets around the world if Teheran were attacked, Israel Radio reported.

According to the Iranian news agency, the Deputy Interior Minister said that, "Nowhere would be safe for America with (Iran's) long-range missiles ... We can fire tens of thousands of missiles every day."

He added, "With long-range missiles Iran can also threaten Israel as America's ally."

Iran claims that its Shahab-3 missile have a range of 1,250 miles and are capable of hitting Israel and American bases in the Gulf.

The European Union and the United States fear that Iran is in the process of creating an atomic bomb with its nuclear program, but Tehran has said that the program is aimed only at generating electricity. The US prefers a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis, but does not rule out a military option if diplomacy fails.

Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator reported Thursday that meetings with EU Foreign Police Chief Javier Solana had been productive and brought the sides closer to "a united view" of how to move forward in the face of Iran's refusal to comply with a UN Security Council demanding that Iran halt uranium enrichment, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a group of UJA Federation of New York members on Wednesday night that he was "hopeful" that the Iranian nuclear crisis could be resolved diplomatically and without military intervention.

He added that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to, in his words "wipe Israel off the map," is not "something that can be tolerated."



During the 1970s, both Iran and Iraq invested heavily on their air forces, ... During 1980-88, Iran fought a bloody, indecisive war with Iraq over disputed ...
www.greatdreams.com/war/tulghur-iran.htm -

Subj: RAYELAN:...***TWO powerful "FACTIONS"
Many people have speculated that Iran was behind the bombing. ... Does the action taken by the Argentine government mean that Iran will finally have to pay ...
www.greatdreams.com/managed_news.htm - 

Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated the promise to prevent Iraq, Iran and North ... Growing US hostility to Iran and North Korea was seen in Brussels as a ...


Middle East Photos, Iran Mourns Earthquake Deaths Iran is observing three days of ... ... CNN.com - Deadly earthquake rocks Iran - May 28, 2004 . ...

The Changing of the Guard: Part V: The Oracle

Iran is the new target, not North Korea. Keep that strictly in mind on coverage. ... (May 25) The decision to proceed against Iran has been taken…using file ...


[See "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider"]. Iraq Gate and Iran Contra are perfect examples of how similar these two operations are compared ...
www.greatdreams.com/trade_day7.htm - 


"Let's say they know it was a surrogate from Iran that was responsible. ... "Iran is a very tough nut to screw with. They've got cells all around the world ...
www.greatdreams.com/bomb2.htm - 

Homeland Security ???? You Are a Suspect You Are a Suspect 11/14 ...

He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in ...

In the early 1980s after the overthrow of the pro-US Shah of Iran by Shiite ... the CIA supported and pushed Saddam Hussein to wage war against Iran. ...
www.greatdreams.com/blowback.html -

Further tests were carried out by Iran, which had based its Shebab 3 missile on the Nodong technology bought from Pyongyang. ...
www.greatdreams.com/33drm.htm - 

HEZBOLLAH This religious and ideological tie between Hezbollah and Iran following the ... NEW YORK Israel said Sunday that Iran had supplied Hezbollah militants in ...


Iran was promised return of its frozen assets in the United States and the foundation for the Iran- Contra deal was set into motion. LICIO GELLI; ...

TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) | British Soldier and Author

Meanwhile, despite these problems and the continuing Iran-Iraq war which is putting ... As well as of the reason that Iran hosts the second most important ...

The refugees are dispersed throughout Iran. According to UNHCR estimates, ... Meanwhile, despite these problems and the continuing Iran-Iraq war which is ...


Iran Fires Anti-Ship Missiles in Gulf War Games · Russian Anti-Ship Missiles Russian Anti-Ship Missiles. Can New Nuclear Weapons Prevent Nuclear War? ...

The Iran-Iraq War, which began in 1980, lasted for eight years and had a crippling effect on the economy of both countries. Before Iraq had a chance to ...

In addition, the legal regime of the Caspian Sea and Iran’s border line are yet to ... Presently, Iran does not approve the border line determined for it, ...

"Striking inside the US is presently a high priority for Iran," stated the ... Now President Bush has labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil. ...

Iran was the menace of the 1980s, so we snuggled up with Iraq. ... The United States first imposed economic sanctions against Iran in 1979 after the Islamic ...

Iran, which has no love for the Taliban, is even more unlikely to offer basing for US aircraft. China, too, is unlikely to offer basing, and even if it does ...

He also contended that North Korea had supplied Iran with a medium-range missile and ... The wild card is that some (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, ...
www.greatdreams.com/korean.htm -

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week accused Iran and Syria of smuggling ... Damascus ordered these military steps after asking Iran to send new ...

The Changing of the Guard Part Four: Secrets of Skolnick
Another, little-known part of the treasonous Daddy Bush/Iran deal, was Bush's promise ... During World War Two, oil-rich Iraq and Iran were both pro-Hitler ...

WEBSITES ABOUT IRAN RELATING TO GREATDREAMS.COM. ... www.greatdreams. com/war/tulghur-iran.htm. Arguments Against the Hoax Theory of Crop Circles . ...
www.greatdreams.com/codes.htm - 


The accident resembled a disaster in Iran on Feb. 18, when runaway train cars carrying fuel and industrial chemicals derailed in the town Neyshabur, ...


According to The Plan, America was to have invaded both Iran and Syria by now. ... Does he invade Iran and/or Syria and risk not being reelected because of ...


Born in Saudi Arabia in 1957, bin Laden drew inspiration from Iran's Islamic ... And then there are the governments: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya among them. ...
www.greatdreams.com/trade_day2.htm -

666 Calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea an axis was good rhetoric, but there was ... Iran. India / Pakistan. Turkey. ... North Korea: (March 12) At this point in ...

SUSPICIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 EVENTS AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER Afghanistan borders Iran, India, and even China but, more importantly, the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and ...

119 is the area code to Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11. Twin Towers - standing side by side, looks like the number 11. The number of stories is 110 (2x) 110 - ...

Transcript of President Bush's Speech
Dozens of Pakistanis, more than 130 Israelis, more than 250 citizens of India, men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan, and hundreds of ...

They present solid evidence that Libya, Iraq, and Iran have each expressed interest in both ingredients and advice. Recently, the strong suspicion that ...
www.greatdreams.com/belarus.htm -

The State of the Union address, in which Bush called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an ''axis of evil'' that was threatening to the United States, ...
www.greatdreams.com/kent.htm - 

The two Hercules could not fly over Iran, but Turkmenistan, the third ex-Soviet state bordering Afghanistan granted permission. ...


1951 -- Assassination of Ali Razmara of Iran, Riad Al-Sulh and Abdullah of Jordan and Ali Knah Liaquat of Pakistan. Army simulated germ warfare project in ...

They live in eastern Iran and western Pakistan in inhospitable desert terrain ... Through Iraq's many years of conflict with Iran, first in the early 1970s ...
www.greatdreams.com/redline.htm -

... Afghanistan in 1996, the Taliban have declared holy wars against the northern-based anti-Taliban alliance, Russia and Iran, but never the United States. ...

9/11 - The 411 - How the Saudi Government is Using Alien ...
... the Khashoggi brothers (of whom Adnan was the preeminent Saudi arms dealer of the Iran-contra era), and Kamal Adham, the billionaire who ran Saudi ...

The American Tragedy: A Symbolic Event, Manifest Revelation

This is the area of ancient Persia, and present day Iran. The USA is the fulfillment of the great and mighty nation that came from Ephrahim's brother Tribe ...


... and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” ... who are close to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran). ...

In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens ...


Iran is still being considered at this time but is not expected to be part of ... *Also, the US is considering reaching out to Libya and Iran (which in the ...

... Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, ... "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/ bush-protests-inauguration.htm 

The world would be better off without a lot of people, including the mullahs who run Iran and the maniac who rules North Korea, the other two members of ...

... US-origin food assistance for displaced persons in Afghanistan and refugees in neighboring countries, including Pakistan, Iran and Central Asian states. ...

Volcanic and earthquake activity in the Pacific and Mexico will be triggered for ... and explosive events through Alaska and Hawaii in the west and Iran, . ...

This man will come from Iran, and will proudly display the number 666….. With contemptuous ease, the Beast will assassinate Saddam Hussein early in 2003 in ...

... a question of launching an assault on Syria or Iran . . . then one has to be candid. ... Jimmy Carter and the CFR cabal who ran his Administration, Iran ...

... distinguished history as public interest counsel in milestone cases, such as the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Three Mile Island, and Karen Silkwood. ...

Will it be Iran, Iraq, the Red Chinese (fat chance, the Government is setting us up to be attacked by them at a latter date via Nuclear weapons), ...

Iran established a Zoroastrian calendar similar to the Egyptian type (VI-V ... Earthquakes in Iran in 856 (200000 victims) and in 893 (150000 victims) ...


... Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and to ensure that they will reach the market places in the US and Western Europe with the minimum cost of doing business." ...

Peter Jennings Defrauding The American Public
Iran-Contra, Three Mile Island, and Karen Silkwood. DISCLOSURE PROJECT ... www.greatdreams.com/weaponization.htm. Star Wars: The Next Generation . ...

The Iranians were not an urban people, and the way of life which these expatriates followed appears to have reflected that of Iran itself, with the nobles ...
www.greatdreams.com/diaspora.htm -

Iran is also committed to export 150000 barrels per day of crude oil to China ... Iran's oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh, who is on a two-day visit to Beijing ...

... during the height of his involvement in Iran-Contra stirred up debate. ... States what the fundamentalist Ayatollahs have done for Iran--they want to ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/cabal2.htm - 

Radical states with reputations for supporting terror, such as Iran and Libya, ... The wild card is that some (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, ...
www.greatdreams.com/wacovst.htm - 

Though Iran denies it is trying to build a bomb, according to US sources ... Iran’s main source of technology and nuclear material is considered by the US ...

Not in eight years of war with Iran," she said as she tried to console her son, Rami, who was crying ... "With the war against Iran, we knew what to expect, ...

... Iran-Contra, drugs from the Golden triangle, sale of chem/bio weapons to ... was an Iran-Contra player, and some have suspected him of being involved in ...
www.greatdreams.com/crash.htm - 


... Pugliese http://www.greatdreams.com/nwo.htm THE NEW WORLD ORDER ... THE NEW WORLD ORDER - A GOOD THING? H ... www.greatdreams.com/war/tulghur-iran.htm - ...

Worse, his home might be as far away as Tehran, Iran. ... China, Libya, Russia, Iraq, and Iran are among those deemed a threat, sources later said. ...


Iran Closes Its Frontier With Afghanistan. Britain Runs Paratroop-Commando. Airlift to Oman. Turkish Forces Are Poised on Iraqi Frontier ...

United Nations Member Flags - M - R United Nations Member Flags - S - Z. China · India · Iran · Iraq · Israel · Korea North · Korea Sourth · Libya ...
www.greatdreams.com/unvision.htm - 

He recently headed a panel that concluded countries such as North Korea and Iran could eventually have the capacity to launch ballistic missiles at the ...
www.greatdreams.com/cabinet.htm - 

Since 1996, she has been saying that several nations, including Iraq and Iran, were helping plan a major terrorist attack in lower Manhattan, ...
www.greatdreams.com/jair-farm.htm -

Revelation 19 - War of Armegeddon

Which includes, Persia (Iran),Ethiopia which includes Sudan, and Libya...Gomer, Togarmah which is modern Turkey will also be allies of Russia. ...

Terror in the Skies
Last month, two security guards at Iran's mission to the United Nations were ... for supporting terror, such as Iran and Libya, are seeking germ weapons. ...

The phenomenon was seen from two aircraft approaching Mehrabad Airport in Teheran, Iran on June 17, 1966 and reported by their pilots. ...
www.greatdreams.com/1090wjkm.htm -


It is aimed at preventing the equipment from reaching Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and Libya. At the State Department, an official could ...

Note that in Sept. ... ... www.greatdreams.com/eastern-disaster.htm. TULGHUR, IRAN - ANOTHER WAR? ... www.greatdreams.com/war/tulghur-iran.htm - ...


Laser weapons--not yet demonstrated but sure to be used soon against Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea or other terrorist centers--will also do "great wonders. ...
www.greatdreams.com/sacred/third-fire.htm -


H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey). I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and ...
www.greatdreams.com/nwo_good.htm - 

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 ...
Now, we hear talk of Iran and Syria , and their threat to world peace. Complacency, ignorance and intolerance are the greatest threats to world peace. ...

... one third of a billion each, whereas those of Mexico, Vietnam, Iran, Zaire and the Philippines could reach well over 150 million be fore leveling off. ...

... the support and sponsorship in close cooperation with such sovereign states as Iraq and Iran, havens in Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern regimes. ...
www.greatdreams.com/trade_day4.htm - 


... British Airways also canceled flights to Islamabad in Pakistan while Italy's Alitalia said it canceled flights to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iran. ...
www.greatdreams.com/passengers.htm - 

The American Tragedy: A Symbolic Event, Part One

The history of Persian Jews dates back to ancient Iran marked by the emancipation of the Jews from Babylonian captivity after the Persian conquest. ...

Dirty bombs (nuclear) in the Middle East between 2003 - 2004 - with Iran/Iraq and Israel - 8. Arafat will be replaced by a woman ...

... though manufacturers fear that some of the stolen booty is finding its way to countries on the do-not-export list such as Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. ...
... Kosova, ending aggression against Sudan, ending embargoes against Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan and ending Anti-Islam campaign worldwide. ...


Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated the promise to prevent Iraq, Iran and North Korea from threatening America or its allies ... ...


Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 ...

Demonstrators gathered in Washington on Saturday to protest a possible US-led war on Iraq with anti-war chants, placards and speakers chastising ...


of anti-war protests that began on campus and spilled into the city of Kent's ... As some of us walked closer to shout our anti-war and anti-National Guard ...


ANTI-WAR GLOBAL RALLIES PROTEST POSSIBLE US WAR ON IRAQ - ... ... A group of about 20 children led the parade as protesters carried signs bearing pictures ...

Though many British and American anti-war groups have questioned the war ... of anti-war protests that began on campus and spilled into the city of Kent's . ...

Two fellow protesters from the anti-war group Code Pink, who dressed in pink ... Bl(A)ck Tea members joined with anti-war groups in a march that began in ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/ democratic-convention-2004.htm 

Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, an anti-war documentary, is critical of the president and his aides. With polls showing a tight race, Bush, who is staying at his ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/john-edwards.htm - 

"Democrats are starting to realize upstart antiwar candidate Howard Dean could actually ... Democrat Howard Dean says anti-war stand doesn't mean he's weak ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/howard-dean.htm -

Critics hope to move beyond self-satisfaction of anti-war protests, ... Anti-war chants competed with pomp and circumstance as the inauguration of President ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/ bush-protests-inauguration.htm 

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 . ... NEW ANTI-WAR PROTESTS COMING. ... Protesters march in capital against US military ...

Most often anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-environment, anti- war, against prayer in school, against death penalty... Supporters of the ACLU, ...
www.greatdreams.com/survival.htm -

The Landstuhl Regional Medical Center has been a fixture on America's military landscape for ... Copyright 2004 Antiwar.com. www.antiwar.com/casualties/ - ...

www.greatdreams.com/brigid-11-11.htm -

Today, he continued his antiwar leadership in Congress by challenging the Bush administration on its dangerous rhetoric and stance toward Iran. ...

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 . ... a bitter wind that made temperatures feel ... www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm ...

In a related development this week, the cyber-anti-war group MoveOn launched a new website and email service at http://www.misleader.org that will track ...


Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 . ... inspection of American nuclear arms.''. ... www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm ...

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 ... ... ANTI-WAR PROTESTS. BIOLOGICAL WARFARE A PROPHECY SMALLPOX. ...
www.greatdreams.com/war/1715-war.htm -

... attacking antiwar demonstrators and sending many to the hospital, ... illegal wiretapping and burglaries against even moderate antiwar organizations. ...

United for Peace and Justice, the huge antiwar coalition that formed in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, is calling on its membership to join in mass ...
www.greatdreams.com/nwo.htm - 

Recently anti-war protestors blockaded the port of Oakland, California when the ... In San Francisco, anti-war activists have accused the Bechtel Corp., ...

... the afternoon rally denounced anti-war demonstrators for being unpatriotic.' ... father of Hollywood film director King Vidor, whose anti-war classic, ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/cabal2.htm - 

There's the International Socialist Organization, the UC Anti-War Committee, Food Not Bombs, the Students for Solidarity in El Salvador… ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/electric-octopus.htm -

www.greatdreams.com/contents.htm -

The socialist funded anti-war group ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) is supportive of the impeachment campaign and has provided Clark space on its ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/blackened-whitehouse.htm -

But Dean’s intensity on foreign policy issues appears to be what still arouses crowds in Iowa, where Democratic activists have been virulently anti-war. ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/repo-man.htm -


Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq ... similar rallies were planned and held in San Francisco, California, Chicago, Illinois, ...
www.greatdreams.com/korean.htm -

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 ... ... biological and nuclear weapons ... www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm - ...
www.greatdreams.com/war/weapons_of_war.htm -

... of its 'Civil Crisis Management' program on a standby basis during the 1967 and 1968 urban riots and during a number of national antiwar demonstrations. ...
www.greatdreams.com/concentration.htm - 

... side in the Balkan conflict have bombarded NATO Web sites with e-mails and scrawled antiwar messages on government Internet sites around the world. ...
www.greatdreams.com/internet.htm -

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 ... ... while China's ambassador to the United ... www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm - ...

But the antiwar insurgency grew powerful only toward the end of the 1960s, when it drew in people who looked for leadership to such liberal patriots as King ...

I was living in my 16th St. house and there was an anti-war protest going on across the street. It seemed they were blaming me and/or my husband for the war ...
www.greatdreams.com/sacred/ring_pass_not.htm -

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 ... ... A group of about 20 children led the parade as protesters carried signs bearing ...