There Are Eight Battle Groups At Sea

Six Are Nimitz Class Super Carriers

http://judicial-inc.biz/si.x_battle_groups_at_s.htm

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.
~~~~~~

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

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.

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.

Dee

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.

ANOTHER WAR DREAM:

PREDICTION FOR WAR BASED ON THESE IMAGES:

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.

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.

SEE: 

February 21, 2005

"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."

http://www.911kemet.co.uk/iran.html

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."

Optimism

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

Iran's Rafsanjani suggests  nuclear attack on Israel

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.

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).

THE CHENEY - BUSH PERSPECTIVE

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

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."

ISRAELIS COULD ACT

"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.

"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

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.  

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

by Steven D

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.

    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

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.

SOMETHING FISHY GOING ON HERE

General lost job over romance, his lawyer says

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.

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

:: The incoming address of this article is :
   www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/100805fourstargeneral.htm

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

China and Russia's unprecedented war games

By Simon Tisdall
THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
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.

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.

Peace,

Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLIES.org

9/11-PNAC, 9/11-PNAC SHOULD BE THE #1 TOPIC OF DISCUSSION - A WAKE-UP CALL THE ALTERNATIVE AND LIBERAL MEDIA: TO STOP IGNORING 9/11 AND THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

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.

THAT'S ONLY 3 WEEKS AWAY.

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.

Neal

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
Oxford

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
London
--
Visit my Website at ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/one_world_government.html
See my "Why Come Out" page here ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/why_come_out.html
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.

Neal


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.

More

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. 

Neal

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. 

Neal

    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.

    Diplomacy

    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

    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.

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.

    Great.

    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.

Mind Games Over Iran

    By Jim Lobe

    TomPaine.com

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."

    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.

    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.

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."

PAGES ABOUT IRAN ON THIS SITE

TULGHUR, IRAN - ANOTHER WAR?

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 - 

DREAMS AND PROPHECY OF IRAQ
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 ...
www.greatdreams.com/dreams_and_prophecy_of_iraq.htm 

THE RED WARNING

Middle East Photos, Iran Mourns Earthquake Deaths Iran is observing three days of ... ... CNN.com - Deadly earthquake rocks Iran - May 28, 2004 . ...
www.greatdreams.com/red_warning.htm 

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 ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/media05.html

BOMBING OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 7

[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 - 

BOMB DOWNED EGYPTAIR SAY CRASH INVESTIGATORS

"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 ...
www.greatdreams.com/homeland-security.htm 

THE DOGS OF WAR - BLOWBACK AND THE MARBLE GAME
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 -

DREAM OF 33
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 ...
www.greatdreams.com/hezbollah.htm 

THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

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; ...
www.greatdreams.com/moon/darkmoon.htm 

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 ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/lawrence.htm

SYPHILIS AND THE MILITARY MAN

The refugees are dispersed throughout Iran. According to UNHCR estimates, ... Meanwhile, despite these problems and the continuing Iran-Iraq war which is ... www.greatdreams.com/syphilis.htm

THE WEAPONS OF THE SEA

THE WAR WE WATCHED ON TV - THE FACTS AND MORE

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/wariraq.htm

ASIA REVEALS ITS DARK SIDE

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, ... www.greatdreams.com/war/asia.htm

JOHN DOE #2 - WHO IS HE?

"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. ... www.greatdreams.com/john-doe-2.htm

THE FRENCH CONNECTION

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/french-connection.htm

TERRORISM - WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 10

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_day10.htm

THE KOREAN LEADER - ATTACK ON AMERICA?

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 -

D-DAY - HISTORICAL OR FUTURE?

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week accused Iran and Syria of smuggling ... Damascus ordered these military steps after asking Iran to send new ... www.greatdreams.com/d-day.htm

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/media04.html

SAMUEL B MORSE - CODES

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 TRAIN IS COMING - THE DREAM AND PROPHECY

BOMBING OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - NUMBER SYMBOLISM

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 - ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_numbers.htm

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/bush_speech_92001.htm

HOPES IN BELARUS - A PROPHECY

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 -

KENT STATE - PROTEST - A DREAM

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 -

TERRORISM - WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 11

The two Hercules could not fly over Iran, but Turkmenistan, the third ex-Soviet state bordering Afghanistan granted permission. ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_day11.htm

PAKISTAN HISTORY AND PROPHECY

RED LINE - BLUE LINE - THE DREAM AND THE REALITY

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 -

BOMBING OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 8

... Afghanistan in 1996, the Taliban have declared holy wars against the northern-based anti-Taliban alliance, Russia and Iran, but never the United States. ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_day8.htm

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/911-411.htm

The American Tragedy: A Symbolic Event, Manifest Revelation

INVESTIGATION INTO THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS

THE BLACKENED WHITEHOUSE

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/blackened-whitehouse.htm

BOMBING OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER 9-11-2001 - PAGE 6

BUSH PROTESTS

... 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

GENERAL NEWS ON THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/general.htm

PEACE

... US-origin food assistance for displaced persons in Afghanistan and refugees in neighboring countries, including Pakistan, Iran and Central Asian states. ... www.greatdreams.com/nobody_wants_peace.htm

NEW ISLAND BEING CREATED IN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS

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, . ... www.greatdreams.com/hawaiian-islands.htm

THE TRUTH ABOUT "SARS"

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/sars.htm

CABAL OF CABALA - PART III

... 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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/cabal3.htm

A CALL TO ACTION TO PREVENT THE WEAPONIZATION OF SPACE Date: 4/8 ...

... distinguished history as public interest counsel in milestone cases, such as the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Three Mile Island, and Karen Silkwood. ... www.greatdreams.com/weaponization.htm

HOW THE GOVERNMENT BLEW UP MANHATTAN - 9-11-2001

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), ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_blew_up.htm

STRING OF PEARLS COMETS

Iran established a Zoroastrian calendar similar to the Egyptian type (VI-V ... Earthquakes in Iran in 856 (200000 victims) and in 893 (150000 victims) ... www.greatdreams.com/lostland/string-pearls.htm

A PROPHET IN OUR OWN TIME - DR. JOHN COLEMAN

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 . ... www.greatdreams.com/peterjenningsdefrauding.htm

DIASPORA and RACE RIOTS

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 -

WILL THE GASOLINE PRICE PROBLEM TAKE DOWN THE ECONOMY

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/gasoline-economy.htm

CABAL OF CABALA - PART II

... 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 -

NATIONAL SECURITY - HOLIDAY TERRORISM

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 -

ANOTHER PEARL HARBOR IN OUR FUTURE?

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/land_forces.htm

THE HORRORS OF WAR - PEACE AT ANY PRICE?

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, ... www.greatdreams.com/war_peace.htm

FLIGHT 111 - PLANE CRASH - NOVA SCOTIA

... 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 -

NEW WORLD ORDER

IS THE INTERNET BEING DISABLE OR DESTROYED FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY?

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. ... www.greatdreams.com/internet.htm

BOMBING OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - DAY 5

IRAN CLOSES ITS BORDER TO PREVENT AFGHANIAN REFUGEES FROM FLOODING IN. THE WAR HAS BEGUN: Afghan Opposition Leader Dead - Massood's Death Deals Blow to ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_day5.htm

TERRORISM - WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - MILITARY PAGE

Iran Closes Its Frontier With Afghanistan. Britain Runs Paratroop-Commando. Airlift to Oman. Turkish Forces Are Poised on Iraqi Frontier ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_military.htm

THE UNITED NATIONS - A VISION AND THE REALITY

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 -

THE PRESIDENTIAL CABINET - HILARY CLINTON VS CLONING - THE DREAM ...

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 -

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - JAIR FARM

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

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. ... www.greatdreams.com/terror_in_the_skies.htm

WJKM AM 1090 / CMR - BLASTED OFF THE AIR

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 -

TERRORISTS COMING FROM THE NORTH IN CROP DUSTING PLANES?

WEAPONS OF WAR - REVELATIONS 9:13-21

Note that in Sept. ... ... www.greatdreams.com/eastern-disaster.htm. TULGHUR, IRAN - ANOTHER WAR? ... www.greatdreams.com/war/tulghur-iran.htm - ... www.greatdreams.com/war/weapons_of_war.htm

THE THIRD FIRE - REVELATION

THE NEW WORLD ORDER - A GOOD THING?

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. ... www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm

POPULATION EXPLOSION - A PROBLEM TO SURVIVAL OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

... 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. ... www.greatdreams.com/population.htm

BOMBING OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - DAY 4

... 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 -

TERRORISM AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, PENTAGON, AND PENNSYLVANIA 9 ...

The American Tragedy: A Symbolic Event, Part One

PROPHECIES BY REGULAR PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME

Dirty bombs (nuclear) in the Middle East between 2003 - 2004 - with Iran/Iraq and Israel - 8. Arafat will be replaced by a woman ... www.greatdreams.com/regular_prophecy2.htm

A WARNING OF TERRORISM - UPS TRUCKS

... 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. ... www.greatdreams.com/UPS-terrorism-warning.htm

TERRORISM - WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 3

... Kosova, ending aggression against Sudan, ending embargoes against Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan and ending Anti-Islam campaign worldwide. ... www.greatdreams.com/trade_day3.htm THE ELECTION - 2000 - DREAMS AND VISIONS

Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated the promise to prevent Iraq, Iran and North Korea from threatening America or its allies ... ... www.greatdreams.com/elec2000.htm ANTI - WAR LINKS ON THIS SITE 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 ... www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm

KENT STATE - PROTEST - A DREAM

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/kent.htm

WAR PAGES ON GREATDREAMS.COM

ANTI-WAR PROTEST · BIOLOGICAL WARFARE A PROPHECY SMALLPOX · IS AMERICA GOING TO BE ATTACKED THE KOREAN LEADER HATES THE U..S. ... www.greatdreams.com/war-pages.htm

THE LADY IN GREY - DEATH IN THE OFFICE!!!!

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/lady-grey.htm

INVESTIGATION INTO THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS

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 . ... www.greatdreams.com/political/downing_street_memos.htm

2004 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION

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

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRSIDENT - 2004 - JOHN EDWARDS

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 -

DEMOCRATIC CANDITATE FOR PRESIDENT - 2004 - HOWARD DEAN

"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 -

BUSH PROTESTS

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-BUSH PROTESTS REPUBLICAN CONVENTION 2004 288 arrested and the ...

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 . ... NEW ANTI-WAR PROTESTS COMING. ... Protesters march in capital against US military ... www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-protests.htm

SURVIVAL AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY LINKS

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 RED WARNING

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/red_warning.htm

STRUGGLING WITH 11:11

10-27-2002 - ANTI WAR PROTESTS. updated 12-21-2002 - THE BLITZ - IS THIS A PROPHECY? PEACE! NOBODY WANTS ANY - WHO CAN DECLARE WAR? ... www.greatdreams.com/brigid-11-11.htm -

DENNIS KUCINICH POLITICAL NEWS

Today, he continued his antiwar leadership in Congress by challenging the Bush administration on its dangerous rhetoric and stance toward Iran. ... www.greatdreams.com/political/kucinich.htm

CATHOLIC DATABASE

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/catholic_database.htm

IRAQ - PART 2

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/iraq-part2.htm

CABAL OF CABALA - PART III

ANTI-WAR PROTESTS. BIOLOGICAL WARFARE A PROPHECY SMALLPOX. ... FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY? THE PUPPETMASTER. SYPHILIS AND THE MILITARY MAN. ... ... www.greatdreams.com/political/cabal3.htm

DISASTER FOR EASTERN UNITED STATES

Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 . ... inspection of American nuclear arms.''. ... www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm ... www.greatdreams.com/eastern-disaster.htm

666

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 -

UNARMED

... attacking antiwar demonstrators and sending many to the hospital, ... illegal wiretapping and burglaries against even moderate antiwar organizations. ... www.greatdreams.com/political/unarmed.htm

THE NEW WORLD ORDER -WHAT IS IT?

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 -

BECHTEL - THE CHENEY CONNECTION

Recently anti-war protestors blockaded the port of Oakland, California when the ... In San Francisco, anti-war activists have accused the Bechtel Corp., ... www.greatdreams.com/political/bechtel.htm

CABAL OF CABALA - PART II

... 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 -

THE ELECTRIC OCTOPUS

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 -

DREAMS OF THE GREAT EARTH CHANGES - TABLE OF CONTENTS

10-25-03 - ANTI-WAR PROTESTS PROTESTORS ASKING FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. A MODIFIED GECKO THIS IS A GOOD LUCK SYMBOL ... www.greatdreams.com/contents.htm -

THE BLACKENED WHITEHOUSE

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 -

THE REPO MAN - PRESIDENT CLINTON

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 -

TERRORISTS COMING FROM THE NORTH IN CROP DUSTING PLANES?

WAR PAGES ANTI-WAR PROTESTS. BIOLOGICAL WARFARE A PROPHECY SMALLPOX. ... DREAMS AND PROPHECY OF IRAQ AND SADDAM HUSSEIN. TERRORISM - 2001. ... ... www.greatdreams.com/north.htm

THE KOREAN LEADER - ATTACK ON AMERICA?

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 -

WEAPONS OF WAR - REVELATIONS 9:13-21

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 -

CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN THE US?

... 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 -

IS THE INTERNET BEING DISABLE OR DESTROYED FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY?

... 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 -

ASIA REVEALS ITS DARK SIDE

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 - ... www.greatdreams.com/war/asia.htm

WHAT IS PATRIOTISM?

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/patriotism.htm

RING-PASS-NOT - DREAMS TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT

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 -

THE FRENCH CONNECTION

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 ... www.greatdreams.com/political/french-connection.htm

THE DOGS OF WAR - BLOWBACK AND THE MARBLE GAME