dana
Junior Member
Posts: 30
|
Iran
Sept 28, 2005 11:37:52 GMT 4
Post by dana on Sept 28, 2005 11:37:52 GMT 4
Here we go ... Covert ops to overthrow Iran’s gov9/26/2005 6:00:00 PM GMT "U.S. offers grants to help oppose clerics" By: Trish Schuh Like the color-coded terror alert system, the Technicolor Velvet Invasions blink warning. Despite receiving an ugly bruise in Uzbekistan, the CIA and its NGO regime change industry hope to stage another cardboard coup in Iran. But it could be a Black & Blue Revolution.Tasked by the Bush administration with sending that message from America to Tehran, and "winning hearts and minds" is 'swift boat veteran' author Jerome Corsi. On May 16, Corsi's NGO The Iran Freedom Foundation, inaugurated a 12 day "Iran Freedom Walk" from Philadelphia's Liberty Bell to Washington, D.C. Dipping two fingers in red paint, Corsi waved a peace sign in solidarity "with the blood of oppressed Iranians" and called on "the spirit of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King." He declared; "I love the Iranian people. America does not hate the Persian people. We love the Persian people. We want peace and we love the Persian people." Corsi's voice then hushed to a whisper; "We stand here today and we pray in the name of the Gods. I embrace Jesus Christ as my savior- and we also pray in the name of Allah, Zoroaster, and the B'hai." [ ... ] Read the rest, here: www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9847Don't miss the comments at the end [try not to gag]. They're a perfect illustration of the Americans' war on reason, their outright war on human values. Nb: I've added a few urls in the Lighter Moments department to remind us what a precious contribution Iran makes to the world—indeed has made over the entire course of human existence. I will add more.
|
|
Anwaar
Administrator
Speak the truth and keep on coming.
Posts: 463
|
Iran
Oct 2, 2005 21:45:46 GMT 4
Post by Anwaar on Oct 2, 2005 21:45:46 GMT 4
India's shameful vote against Iran India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have to take full responsibility for blackening his country’s face in front of the whole non-aligned world, over his government’s most perfidious about-turn in succumbing to the US pressure of open and blatant blackmail and voting against Iran in International Atomic Energy Agency’s September 24 meeting at Vienna. India’s vote, even an abstaining one, would have been almost a symbol of defiance by the rest of the world to America’s relentless aggressive planning to invade and take over weak and indefensible countries in the third world by sheer use of its armed might. India has paved the way for America, UK and Israel, to repeat their nefarious aggression once again in the Middle East. Whatever be technicalities involved in the matter, Manmohan Singh cannot doubt America’s well publicized threat to Iran’s sovereignty and thus he cannot escape the blame that he has used his office to go against the universal consensus of Indian people and even its political parties, including CPI (M) and BJP, against siding with the US, in its evil plans against a weak and indefensible country and that too in its very immediate neighborhood. Manmohan has bright war at the doorstep of India. The rest here : www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2005/20051002-iran.htm
|
|
dana
Junior Member
Posts: 30
|
Iran
Oct 3, 2005 0:01:45 GMT 4
Post by dana on Oct 3, 2005 0:01:45 GMT 4
Europe hails UN resolution against Iran"London, Sep. 24 - The European Union welcomed on Saturday a resolution adopted by the United Nations nuclear watchdog requiring that Iran be reported to the Security Council for failing to convince the international community that its nuclear program was entirely peaceful.
A statement issued by the office of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency, said, “Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board [of Governors] has just passed a resolution finding Iran not compliant with its Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, whilst deferring Iran's report to the Security Council”".www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3803Jack Straw speaking for Europe ...
|
|
dana
Junior Member
Posts: 30
|
Iran
Oct 3, 2005 0:09:00 GMT 4
Post by dana on Oct 3, 2005 0:09:00 GMT 4
A set up? Halliburton secretly doing business with key member of Iran's nuclear teamBy Jason Leopold "August 6, 2005— Scandal-plagued Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was secretly working with one of Iran's top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and, allegedly, selling the official's oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies' business dealings. Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon. Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said have ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran's largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran's nuclear development team". [ ... ] www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080605Leopold/080605leopold.htmlIran’s top nuclear negotiator faces charges over Halliburton tiesIran focus "A senior member of Iran’s nuclear negotiations team, Sirus Nasseri, is the vice-chairman of the Board of Directors of the oil company. The news agency said “a well-informed source” close to the investigation sharply criticized Iran’s “security and political agencies” for their “blatant weakness” in preventing Nasseri from dealing with Halliburton". [ ... ] www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3040
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Feb 23, 2006 15:27:02 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Feb 23, 2006 15:27:02 GMT 4
Thought I'd post Ron Paul's speech from the floor of the House of Representatives. He's not your average republican, most republicans hate him, can't understand how he gets elected and stays; perhaps his constituents appreciate his honesty and direct way of speaking. He's one of my governmental heroes.....Michelle Silence the War Drumsby Ron Paul Before the US House of Representatives, February 16, 2006 Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to understand that this legislation is leading us toward war against Iran. Those reading this bill may find themselves feeling a sense of déjà vu. In many cases one can just substitute "Iraq" for "Iran" in this bill and we could be back in the pre-2003 run up to war with Iraq. And the logic of this current push for war is much the same as was the logic used in the argument for war on Iraq. As earlier with Iraq, this resolution demands that Iran perform the impossible task of proving a negative – in this case that Iran does not have plans to build a nuclear weapon. There are a few things we need to remember when thinking about Iran and this legislation. First, Iran has never been ruled in violation of its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Second, Iran concluded a Safeguards Agreement more than 30 years ago that provides for the verification of Iran's fulfillment of its obligation to not divert nuclear energy programs to nuclear weapons development. Since this agreement was reached, the International Atomic Energy Agency has never found any indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert source or special nuclear materials from a peaceful purpose to a military purpose. But, this does not stop those eager for conflict with Iran from stating otherwise. As the Washington Post reported last year, "U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council – which has the authority to impose sanctions – have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials." This reminds us of the quick move to justify the invasion of Iraq by citing Iraq's "intentions" when actual weapons of mass destruction could not be found. The resolution's second resolved clause is a real misrepresentation of the Iran/EU3 talks. The "efforts of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom" were not "to seek...suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities..." As the EU3-Iran Paris Agreement makes very clear, the suspension of enrichment is a purely voluntary measure taken by Iran and is "not a legal obligation." This is similar to the situation with Iran's voluntarily observation of the Additional Protocols (allowing unannounced inspections) without legally being bound to do so. Suspending voluntary observance of the Additional Protocols is not a violation of the NPT. But, those seeking to push us toward war with Iran are purposely trying to connect the two – to confuse voluntary "confidence building" measures taken by Iran with the legally-binding Treaty itself. Resolved clause four of this legislation is the most inflammatory and objectionable part of the legislation. It lowers the bar to initiating war on Iran. This clause anticipates that the US may not be successful in getting the Security Council to pass a Resolution because of the potential of a Russian or Chinese veto, so it "calls upon" Russia and China to "take action" in response to "any report" of "Iran's noncompliance. That is right: any report. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a drumbeat for war with Iran. Its logic is faulty, its premises are flawed, and its conclusions are dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and ponder the wisdom of starting yet another war in the Middle East. February 20, 2006 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul304.htmlALSO, READ OTHER ARTICLES:Bush Plans Huge Propaganda Campaign in Iranwww.truthout.org/docs_2006/021606B.shtmlSNIP:The Bush administration made an emergency request to Congress yesterday for a seven-fold increase in funding to mount the biggest-ever propaganda campaign against the Tehran government, in a further sign of the worsening crisis between Iran and the West. WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iranwww.truthout.org/docs_2006/021906D.shtmlSNIP:Witnessing the Bush administration's drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel, according to Heather Wokusch. Who Will Blow the Whistle Before We Attack Iran?www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021306A.shtmlSNIP:With no perceptible demurral from inside the government, George W. Bush launched a war of aggression, defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal as "the supreme international crime." If this doesn't qualify for whistle blowing, what does? Let us hope that administration officials, or analysts — or both — will find the courage to speak out loudly, and early enough to prevent the "disconnected-from-reality" cabal in the Bush administration from getting us into an unnecessary war with Iran, writes Ray McGovern.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Mar 14, 2006 13:46:50 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Mar 14, 2006 13:46:50 GMT 4
A U.S. and EU Tag Team Destroying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation TreatyBy ARDESHIR OMMANI On February 4, 2006, the five powerful gentlemen of the United Nations' Security Council, among other things, endowed with the legitimacy of the "world community", decided to hang the Sword of Damocles over the head of the Iranian people and then sat back, playing 'good cop--bad cop' and waited to see if before the day of reckoning on March 6, a crack and schism occurs either within the governing body of the Islamic Republic itself or between it and the more affluent strata of the population with greater interests in commerce with the U.S. and the West. It is worth mentioning that the U.N. monitoring agency has visited the Iranian nuclear facilities innumerable times in the last two and a half years and held meetings with the Iranian authorities in charge of the nuclear energy programs. Throughout this long period, the U.S. has adamantly claimed (without a shred of proof) that Iran has a plan of producing nuclear bombs and therefore must be denied the right of uranium enrichment, a process for production of nuclear fuel used in nuclear reactors. All along the U.S. has brought pressure on the agency and its governing board to pass a resolution stating that Iran is in violation of the NPT (again a charge unsubstantiated by proof), and must be referred to the U. N. Security Council for possible economic sanctions. And what has been Iran's response? For the purpose of confidence building, Iran, in addition to allowing the regular inspection by the IAEA, accepted the additional protocol, which permits the nuclear agency to inspect any nuclear site without prior warnings. It is interesting to know that Israel is not a party to the NPT agreement, and has more than 250 nuclear bombs in its 'secret' arsenal. In addition to the on-going inspections by the IAEA, Iran held joint meetings with the three major western European powers and for the purpose of "confidence building" it "voluntarily" suspended its operations of nuclear enrichment for almost a year. After more than a year's meetings between the three European and the Iranian representatives, Europe extended the period of total suspension without coming up with a resolution that would assure Iran's right to produce its own fuel for nuclear reactors. On the contrary, they intended to use this period of suspension and set a precedence so that if Iran decided to resume the enrichment process, in the eyes of the so-called international community it would be considered a violation. In other words, the European enthusiasm for meeting with the Iranian government was a set-up, which would have served the U.S. policy of containment and imposition of sanctions, usurping once again like in Iraq, the offices of the U.N. to commit another genocidal crime, this time, against the people of Iran. Realizing that the Iranian people, with their presence on the streets of many cities of Iran by millions, could not be cowed into accepting the language of force and violence, the U.S.-E.U. coalition of imperialists came up with a new design, for a new day. This fresh mirage, in its appearance, looked like a compromise that Iran cannot afford to reject in the eyes of the so-called international community, another name for the big powers who rule the world. The new plan proposed to grant Iran the right of continuing, as it has done since August of 2005, the conversion process, the technical stage before the enrichment of uranium. But the process of enriching uranium would be done in Russia, which would ship the fuel for energy reactors back to Iran. From the start of this plot, they knew that the Iranian people and its government would not accept such a pseudo solution to its inviolable right of leading its own destiny. Meanwhile, Condoleeza Rice was shuttling between Moscow and Beijing to coerce or grease the palms of the leaders of those countries to bring pressure on Iran to give up its right to a full-fledged nuclear energy program and accept the solutions of ever-dependency on other countries for the future generations to come. According to The New York Times of Nov. 10th, the new proposal--is an effort to give Iran a face-saving way out of its standoff, reflecting the views of the officials from both the U.S. and Europe. After so many years, as the unequal relations between the U.S.- E.U. and Iran, as a non-nuclear state, show, it is the block of nuclear states who not only violate the principles of the Nuclear-Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in practice, but intend to re-write the text of the treaty altogether. Under such a treaty, no country other than those who have gained the 'trust' of the nuclear states can have the privilege of producing their own nuclear fuel. For the rest of the world, according to this new design, the production of nuclear fuel will be concentrated in a few spots and controlled by a handful of superpowers that either sell to the "undesirable" countries at oligopoly prices, or deny them the purchase of enriched uranium, thus keeping them "in the dark." Ardeshir Ommani is an Iranian political analyst. www.counterpunch.org/ommani03042006.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Apr 9, 2006 8:45:53 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Apr 9, 2006 8:45:53 GMT 4
Issue of 2006-04-17 Posted 2006-04-08 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEApril 8, 2006 THIS WEEK IN THE NEW YORKERPRESS CONTACTS: Perri Dorset, (212) 286-5898 Daniel Kile, (212) 286-5996 Maria Cereghino, (212) 286-7936 The Bush Administration’s Plan For Iran “The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack,” Seymour M. Hersh reports in the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker (“The Iran Plans,” p. 30). Moreover, he writes, “There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.” One former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler. “That’s the name they’re using,” he says. A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror says, “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.” The danger, he adds, is that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” The former senior intelligence official, referring to activity at three U.S. military facilities, says, “The planning is enormous.” He depicts it as hectic and operational—far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. One former defense official tells Hersh that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He adds, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” A government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon confirms that undercover units are working with minority groups in Iran, and that while one goal is to have “eyes on the ground,” the broader aim is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime. Hersh reports, “In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat.” A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, tells Hersh that the Administration is “reluctant to brief the minority.” He adds, “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq.... There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.” Hersh also reveals that one of the options under consideration involves the possible use of “a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz.” The former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military and that some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed. Hersh writes, “The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option.... He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.” The adviser explains, “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries.” The Pentagon adviser warns, as do many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” he asks. He tells Hersh that any attack might also reignite Hezbollah. “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” he says. A retired four-star general tells Hersh that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” “If you attack,” a high-ranking diplomat in Vienna tells Hersh, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.” The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He adds, “The window of opportunity is now.” Source: www.newyorker.com/pressThe April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker goes on sale at newsstands beginning Monday, April 10th.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Apr 10, 2006 16:01:18 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Apr 10, 2006 16:01:18 GMT 4
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Apr 14, 2006 11:14:26 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Apr 14, 2006 11:14:26 GMT 4
US threats against Iran—the specter of nuclear barbarismStatement of the WSWS Editorial Board13 April 2006 The revelation that the United States government has conducted advanced planning and preparation for a bombing campaign against Iran that includes the possible use of nuclear weapons represents the most serious threat posed in an increasingly unstable international situation. US imperialism has embarked upon a trajectory that will, if not stopped, lead to a world historic catastrophe that will make World War II pale by comparison. That such an act could even be contemplated by the Bush White House should stun and horrify all those who are concerned with the fate of the world and the future of humanity. Little more than six decades after US imperialism carried out the first atomic bombings against Hiroshima and Nagasaki—inflicting horrors that generations since have vowed must never be repeated—Washington is actively considering the use of such terrible weapons once again, this time without provocation or even credible proof of a future threat. Such an act would have the effect of criminalizing America as a country and a society. These plans are not only real, but are already being acted upon, as was confirmed by Seymour Hersh in an article published in this week’s New Yorker magazine as well as by the Washington Post. The preparations include the deployment of special operations troops inside Iran to spot targets and the staging of air exercises in the skies over the Arabian Sea, simulating strikes with nuclear tipped missiles against Iranian nuclear facilities. The threat of war has only intensified since the publication of these articles, with the Iranian government’s announcement Tuesday that it has succeeded in enriching uranium for its nuclear power program. Teheran once again insisted that this program is meant solely for peaceful uses, and experts confirmed that the development still left Iran far from being able to produce the weapons-grade enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapon. There is undoubtedly a strong element of recklessness in the actions taken by the government in Teheran, which is pursuing shortsighted political aims of its own in the nuclear confrontation, utilizing the nationalist resentment of a large section of the Iranian people towards US bullying as a means of diverting social and political tensions within Iran. The actions of the bourgeois factions that control the Iranian government have done nothing to defend the Iranian people from the threat of war. Indeed, they have played into the hands of the right-wing militaristic clique that controls the White House. Domestic political calculations play a prominent role in the new US buildup to war. The collapse of popular support for Bush’s policies—itself a manifestation of a deep-rooted social crisis in the US—has encouraged the administration to embark on another campaign of military aggression as a means of stampeding public opinion and suppressing opposition. Predictably, the Bush administration responded to the latest announcement from Teheran by ratcheting up its bellicose threats. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the United Nations Security Council must take “strong steps” against Iran to “maintain the credibility of the international community.” She added, “We can’t let this continue.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described Iran as “a country... that supports terrorists.” He continued: “It’s a country that has indicated an interest in having weapons of mass destruction.” The administration is following a virtually identical script as that used in the run-up to the war on Iraq, with dark and unsubstantiated warnings of a supposedly imminent threat from “weapons of mass destruction” that can be stopped only through US-initiated “regime change.” Once again, Washington is dismissing United Nations monitoring of the Iranian nuclear program as useless, and there can be little doubt that, given the almost certain refusal of Russia, China and perhaps other members of the Security Council to back military action, the Bush White House will again declare the UN irrelevant and embark on its own unilateral action. Speaking before an audience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Bush repeated his bellicose 2002 denunciation of Iran as constituting—along with North Korea and the now US-occupied Iraq—part of an “axis of evil.” Bush declared that his strategy in relation to Iran was based upon a “doctrine of prevention.” In the language of international statecraft, a preventive war is a war of aggression launched with the aim of preventing a perceived rival from gaining power or achieving a strategic advantage in the future. Under the precedent established by the Nuremberg trials of the German Nazi leadership, it constitutes a war crime. The World Socialist Web Site has drawn attention to the stark parallels that exist between the policies pursued by the US administration and the methods employed by the leaders of Germany’s Third Reich in the 1930s and 1940s. The utter contempt for international law, the launching of military aggression on the basis of bogus pretexts, the use of overwhelming force against relatively powerless victims are common to both regimes. Some of our readers may have dismissed such comparisons as exaggerated. With the latest revelations concerning US war plans against Iran, such complacency is no longer tenable. There is a powerful element of recklessness and even insanity in the US threat to use nuclear weapons—for the first time anywhere on the planet since the end of the Second World War—for the supposed purpose of preventing Iran from gaining the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons. Drive for oil and strategic advantageUnderlying this apparent madness, however, is a definite policy being pursued by US imperialism. As in Iraq, the primary motive behind the war threats against Iran is not weapons of mass destruction, but oil. The Iranian nuclear program is not, in reality, seen by Washington as a huge threat. As in Iraq, WMD serves as a casus belli for military action in pursuit of other objectives. We do not support the Iranian government’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, on the principled grounds that they in no way advance the struggle of workers in Iran or elsewhere in the region. However, even if Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, it would have no major military significance, given the overwhelming force in the hands of the US. Iran is, after all, surrounded by countries with such weapons—Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India—some of them having obtained these weapons with the open support of Washington. Had the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah not been overthrown, the nuclear program that it began, with the direct support of people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, would have undoubtedly long since produced bombs. The American administration is merely exploiting popular ignorance of the situation and a compliant media to create a smokescreen behind which it is pursuing definite interests. Iran possesses the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves and the fourth largest oil reserves, which are expected to produce for some decades after Saudi Arabia’s oil runs dry. Moreover, Washington is confronted with the political fact that Iran stands to emerge as the principal beneficiary of the US intervention in Iraq, threatening to thwart the US attempt to establish unchallenged hegemony over the Persian Gulf and the region’s strategic energy resources. An even greater threat to US interests is seen in Iran’s growing ties with Russia, China and Europe. Washington has no intention of allowing its major economic rivals to reap a strategic advantage from its decades-long policy of economic sanctions against Iran. In particular, the ties between Iran and Russia are seen as an impediment to the US drive to control the enormous untapped oil and gas reserves in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. In the final analysis, the threat of a war of aggression against Iran and the use of nuclear weapons express the historic crisis of American and world capitalism, and the accelerating disequilibrium within the entire capitalist nation-state system. This disequilibrium—and its malevolent product, the danger of a new world war—has been exacerbated both by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the relative decline of US capitalism’s position within the world economy. Within America’s ruling oligarchy, these parallel developments have fostered a consensus strategy of exploiting US imperialism’s military superiority for the purpose of reorganizing the world economy in the interests of US-based banks and transnational corporations. This means the seizure of strategic positions and resources—as in the Persian Gulf—and the use of militarism and war to preclude the emergence of any rival, even of a regional character, that would challenge America’s bid for global hegemony. Bush’s dismissal of reported plans for the use of nuclear weapons notwithstanding, there is ample evidence that within the US political establishment what was once unthinkable is now seen as a viable option. Published in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, which reflects the views of the US foreign policy establishment, is an article entitled “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy.” This article makes the case for a winnable nuclear war based on technological advances in US weapons systems and the deterioration of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal. “Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy,” the article states. “It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.” A nuclear strike against Iran, which borders Russia, would represent a first step in testing out this strategy. It would serve not merely to devastate Iran and inflict massive civilian casualties on that country, but to threaten Russia, China and any other power that might stand in the way of American imperialist aims. The US is moving in a direction that leads inexorably toward a wider and catastrophic war that would claim the lives of hundreds of millions. As for the next act of US military aggression, the question is not if, but only when. Iraq has already shown that within the existing US political structure there is no means to stop this threat. On the threat of a war against Iran, the Democratic Party has remained virtually silent. In his New Yorker article, Hersh quoted one member of the House of Representatives as saying, “There’s no pressure from Congress” against launching a new war. There has been no call by any section of the Democratic Party leadership for public hearings to consider the political, military, legal and moral implications of reported plans for a war that could involve the use of nuclear weapons. There is no reason to believe that Congress and the Democrats will not be just as complicit in this new criminal act as they were in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.Symptomatic of the reaction of the erstwhile liberals was the editorial appearing in Tuesday’s edition of the New York Times under the complacent headline, “Military fantasies on Iran.” “Congress and the public need to force the kind of serious national debate that never really took place before the American invasion of Iraq,” the Times declares, noting that the administration is making threats of “future American military action in language that sometimes recalls statements made before the invasion of Iraq.” The editorial’s call for a “serious national debate” on a new war of aggression echoes precisely the language used by the Times in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. At that time it urged the administration to continue pursuing a pseudo-legal justification for the war, and advocated a “debate” to prepare the public for it. When, however, the White House ordered an invasion without UN sanction, the newspaper supported it anyway. This latest editorial warns about the possible adverse implications of air strikes against Iran for US troops in Iraq, questions whether such strikes could really “destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” and describes a war with Iran as “reckless folly.” But the newspaper does not denounce the prospect of unprovoked air attacks and the possible use of nuclear weapons for what they are—war crimes. Clearly, the editors see such things as real possibilities. Police state measures at homeThe implications for American society itself of such an act of war are staggering. Such attacks would undoubtedly provoke retaliation, which would be seized upon by the administration in Washington to mount a dramatic intensification of the “war on terror,” in the form of further military escalation abroad and the elimination of basic democratic rights at home. The use of nuclear weapons by the US would provoke outrage and horror within the American population, sparking mass opposition. The government would respond with out-and-out repression. The prospect of the American people facing a fascist-military dictatorship as the byproduct of such a military attack is very real. Posed in the new war threats against Iran is the basic alternative of the present historic epoch: socialism or barbarism. A fight against both this new threat and the ongoing war in Iraq can be waged only through the independent mobilization of American working people, together with workers and oppressed people all over the world. This must assume the form of a political struggle against the American financial oligarchy and both of its political parties. The danger is that the capitalist crisis and the resulting recourse to militarism and war are developing very rapidly, but the political means to oppose them lag far behind. This danger has to be overcome through a conscious recognition of the contradiction between the enormity of the issues posed and the lack of any political alternative within the capitalist two-party system. A new mass revolutionary movement must come forward which bases itself on the international unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism against the outmoded nation state system upon which imperialism rests. The Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site are fighting to lay the political foundations for the emergence of such a movement. See Also: Washington considering nuclear strikes against Iran [10 April 2006] UN Security Council bows to US pressure for a statement against Iran [31 March 2006] Washington seeks to bully UN Security Council over Iran [15 March 2006] US drumbeat against Iran threatens new war of aggression [11 March 2006] Source: www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/iran-a13.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Apr 17, 2006 13:21:26 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Apr 17, 2006 13:21:26 GMT 4
The Human Costs of Bombing IranBy Matthew Rothschild April 11, 2006 George Bush didn’t exactly deny Seymour Hersh’s report in The New Yorker that the Administration is considering using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Neither did Scott McClellan. Bush called it “wild speculation,” and McClellan said the United States would go ahead with "normal military contingency planning." Those are hardly categorical denials. So let’s look at what the human costs of dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran might entail.
They are astronomical.“The number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million,” according to a backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists from May 2005.The National Academy of Sciences studied these earth-penetrating nuclear weapons last year. They could “kill up to a million people or more if used in heavily populated areas,” concluded the report, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists.While Congress last year denied funding for a new nuclear bunker-buster weapon, the Pentagon already has a stockpile of one such weapon in the arsenal: the B61-Mod11, according to Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Federation of the American Scientists. That the Administration is considering using such a weapon against Iran is “horrifying and ludicrous,” says Young. But it is now Bush Administration doctrine to be able to use such weapons. The new “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” which Bush unveiled in March, discusses the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive way. “Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes,” it states. “Both offenses and defenses are necessary. . . . Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role.” Even more explicit is the Pentagon’s draft of a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons, which was revealed by Walter Pincus of The Washington Post last September. It envisions using nuclear weapons for “attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.” It says that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons “if necessary to prevent” another country from using WMDs. This is a mere amplification of the Nuclear Posture Review of December 31, 2001, which stated: “Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).” If the United States used nuclear weapons against Iran, it would be violating the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, which prohibits nations that possess nuclear weapons from dropping them on nations that don’t. But in the Bush Administration, planning to do this is just “normal” behavior. And a million casualties or more? For Bush, that is evidently not a disqualification. Source: progressive.org/mag_wx041106
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Apr 18, 2006 16:31:33 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Apr 18, 2006 16:31:33 GMT 4
The Nuclear Bunker Buster (Flash) Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator by The Union Of Concerned Scientisttinyurl.com/p43yrNote: See reply #9 above for more info.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Apr 19, 2006 19:23:49 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Apr 19, 2006 19:23:49 GMT 4
Sign Petition Opposing Attack on Iran
[This Petition and signatures and comments will be delivered to the White House by many activists, including Cindy Sheehan.]Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney, We write to you from all over the United States and all over the world to urge you to obey both international and U.S. law, which forbid aggressive attacks on other nations. We oppose your proposal to attack Iran. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, just as Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons. If Iran had such weapons, that would not justify the use of force, any more than any other nation would be justified in launching a war against the world's greatest possesor of nuclear arms, the United States. The most effective way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be to closely monitor its nuclear energy program, and to improve diplomatic relations -- two tasks made much more difficult by threatening to bomb Iranian territory. We urge you to lead the way to peace, not war, and to begin by making clear that you will not commit the highest international crime by aggressively attacking Iran. To sign: www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Apr 24, 2006 16:24:22 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Apr 24, 2006 16:24:22 GMT 4
A Path to Peace with IranPosted by Scott Ritter at 12:12 PM on April 20, 2006. Iran isn't close to developing a nuclear weapon, and is still a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The antiwar movement must now forge new alliances to prevent an Iran confrontation. It has been more than a week now since the Iranian government announced that it had "joined the nuclear club" by successfully enriching uranium, albeit for nuclear fuel, not a weapon. Once a nation has the capacity to enrich to the former, enrichment to the latter is simply a matter of time; the technology is the same. Iran's declaration immediately made headlines around the world, with stunned punditry engaging in wild speculation about the potential ramifications of this turn of events. From a simple laboratory-scale enrichment experiment, a massive nuclear weapons program grew Pheonix-like from the ashes, prompting dire warnings from US Government officials such as Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Stephen Rademaker, who told a press conference in Moscow, where he was visiting to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue with Russian officials, that Iran "...may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days." Rademaker was referring to the mathematical possibilities arising from Iran enriching uranium to weapons grade-levels at its centrifuge enrichment plant at Natanz, using a 50,000-centrifuge cascade system the United States and others say is capable of being installed at the facility. In a nod to the hypothetical nature of his outlandish remark, Rademaker did note that the Iranians have gone on record as only wanting to install a 3,000-centrifuge cascade at Natanz. In that case, Rademaker said, "We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days." Apparently 271 days isn't as terrifyingly sexy as 16 days, given that the majority of the media reported Rademakers initial statement. In all fairness to Mr. Rademaker, the full 16 days window he postulated remains open, and so it is perhaps too harsh to pass criticism until it is known whether or not his prediction will come to pass. But I'll wager a dime to a dollar that come 16 days -- or even 271 days -- the world will find Iran no closer to a nuclear bomb than it is today, because the reality is Iran does not possess an active, ongoing, viable nuclear weapons program. In all reality, Iran does not yet even possess the capability to enrich uranium on an industrial scale. Its claims regarding the laboratory-scale work that was conducted -- a limited run of some 164 centrifuges which enriched Uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) from 0.7% to 3.5% U235 -- has yet to be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is in the process of collecting samples of the enriched gas for further analysis. The fact that the IAEA safeguard inspections are at play in Iran may in itself come as a surprise to most observers of the ongoing Iranian nuclear saga. Iran is still very much a member, in good standing, of the non-proliferation treaty, and all of its nuclear activities continue to be under the stringent monitoring of the IAEA safeguard inspectors, an odd reality for a nation only 16 days away from being able to replicate the American attack on Hiroshima, if Stephen Rademaker is to be taken seriously. It takes an extraordinary stretch of the imagination to have Iran fabricating a nuclear weapon right under the nose of IAEA inspectors who today manage an inspection process that is not only technologically advanced, but seasoned after years of sleuthing after nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, North Korea, South Africa and Iran. To liken these professionals, as is the habit of many in the Bush administration today, to "keystone cops" is like comparing the US Marine Corps to the Boy Scouts. The IAEA inspectors are the best in the world at what they do. The fact that they have not found a "smoking gun" to back up what has been to date nothing more than irresponsible speculation concerning the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program should ease the fears of those politicians and pundits prone to panic. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and as a result the world finds itself inching ever closer to a tragically unnecessary war between the United States and Iran. The problems that plague Washington DC on the issue of Iran are the same problems that haunt America overall regarding Iraq -- no clear understanding of why we as a nation are doing what we are doing where we are doing it, and absolutely no system of accountability for those who are implicated, directly through their actions or indirectly through abrogation of duties and responsibilities, in embroiling America in such senseless conflict. There seems to be, especially among the so-called "anti-war" crowd, a tendency to blame the "system" for all that ails us, with a specific trend to isolate particular nodes of economic and/or political power for special indictment. In this light, the current war in Iraq and the real possibility of war with Iran becomes the responsibility of "Big Oil," the "Neo Cons," the "Military Industrial Complex," and more recently, the "Israeli Lobby." There are more names one can add to the list; everyone, it seems, is to blame. Congress, while not getting a pass, does get special dispensation in so far that we can understand why the elected representatives of the people abrogate the trust and confidence we place in them by noting that they have fallen under the ever expanding control of "special interests," namely the aforementioned power nodes that are to blame for everything. Likewise, since these power nodes also control the mainstream media, one can begin to understand why it is that the pro-war message trumps the anti-war message every step of the way. Of course, there is much merit in all of the above arguments. There are in fact special interest groups (the so-called "power nodes") which exude influence, both in terms of influencing the legislative agenda of elected officials as well as the overall "thematic" of mainstream media, far in excess of that which is healthy in an ostensibly representative democracy. But it is wrong, and futile, to simply blame these power nodes, or the institutions they have come to so heavily influence. These power nodes did not simply appear out of nowhere. They are a product of American history and culture, a manifestation of the reality that, even more so than the processes of representative democracy, America is a product of unadulterated capitalism. All that is good and bad about our society today stems from that basic truth. The American capitalist system exists to make money, and that money ends up concentrated in the hands of a few, while the majority of Americans toil in support of this massive capital generating behemoth. As a nation over time we have tinkered with the American system (imperfectly, it may be argued) in a way that seeks to protect the civil liberties of the individual. But in the end we are compelled not to bite the hand that feeds us, and the corporation for the most part has benefited at the expense of the citizen. Some would argue that the gains of the corporation translate into the gains of the citizen. This is true, as long as there remains a system of checks and balances through the vehicle of the rule of law that stays the hand of excessive greed at the expense of individual rights. But in the end the strongest proponent of individual rights must be the individual citizen, and when the system of capitalism dulls the attraction of citizenship based upon the rule of law (a process that is extraordinarily time consuming and difficult) with the allure of consumer-based creature comforts delivered to the masses, the individual is faced with an up-hill struggle of immense proportions that cannot be won unless a helping hand is offered by the very system of capitalism the individual is struggling against. In short, America as a nation is genetically constructed in a manner that places a premium on greed. However, the DNA that drives this greed gene requires a compliant host, which we could call the American citizenry, if it is to survive. There has always been a complicated Kabuki-type dance occurring between the American corporation and the American citizen, with a Constitutionally mandated system of governance, replete with pre-programmed checks and balances, serving as puppet master in an effort to preserve a relative balance. But, as President Eisenhower foretold when warning America about the ascendancy of the military-industrial complex back in the 1950's, if this delicate balance is disrupted, the system is in danger of collapsing. The American system has been in collapse for many decades now, with the rise of corporate power occurring in direct relationship with the demise of concept and reality of individual citizenship. How America as a nation reacted to the horrific events of September 11, 2001 clearly put the manifestation of this collapse on center stage. Americans for the most part remained mute and motionless as the rights of the individual were infringed on irrationally by the so-called Patriot Act. The various economic and political power nodes, once held in check by a Congress which at one time recognized its responsibilities to the individual citizen, now ran rough shod over the elected representatives of the people by exploiting the fear of the people generated by the people's own ignorance of the world they lived in. In short, the current war in Iraq, and the looming war with Iran, can be explained as a manifestation of American capitalism gone mad. Some might argue that this very definition in itself provides justification for a total rejection of the current manifestation of the American system, and the need to seek a new path or direction. There are those in the anti-war movement today who articulate such an argument. I, for one, am not prepared to embrace this way of thinking. I recognize both the good and bad inherent in the difficult blending of capitalistic greed and individual humanism that is modern America, and accept that this system is the best model in existence today, as long as it maintains a system of checks and balances that keeps the forces of excessiveness under control. In likening America to a biological entity suffering from genetic mutation, I not only attempt to identify the problem, but also the cure. The delicate balancing act that exists between capitalism and individual rights is a pre-requisite for American national survival. Right now this system is out of balance, and America is teetering down a path of self-destruction. Fortunately, like most biological beings, there is an internal mechanism that recognizes when a system is out of alignment, and seeks to make the appropriate adjustments in time to forestall its demise. Since America is, first and foremost, a capitalist system, it is to capitalism that one must look to for these adjustments. We got the first inklings of this very sort of attitudinal wake-up call just this week, when Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, a Republican of distinction who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for the Bush administration to "cool it" on the issue of Iran. Senator Lugar did not base his arguments on grand ideological principles of peace and justice, but rather the more base passion of prosperity. Speaking before an audience at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, Senator Lugar warned that a confrontation between the United States and Iran over its nuclear programs could trigger economic collapse at home and abroad should Iran's oil and gas resources be withdrawn from the global energy market. With global consumption of oil on the rise, not only in the United States but also developing economies such as China and India, spare production capacity has dwindled from 10 percent in 2002 to less than two percent today, Lugar noted. If Iran pulled its oil and gas resources from the market, or had them pulled indirectly through sustained US military intervention, the global energy market would be thrown into a crisis the likes of which have never been seen. Senator Lugar spoke of the threat that exists simply if the price of oil is sustained at the $60 a barrel level, noting that Americans paid 17 percent more for energy in 2005 than in the previous year, an increase which accounted for more than a third of the American trade deficit. "If oil prices remain at $60 a barrel through 2006, we will spend about $320 billion on oil imports this year." As of this writing, oil prices were just above $70 per barrel, with the Iranian government noting that in their opinion the price of oil was still below its "real value." What Lugar did not engage in directly, but referred to obliquely, was that the forces of capitalism which drive America also drive the global oil market, and that if America, which currently consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, engages in actions with Iran that disrupt the global oil market, the competition which fuels speculative oil pricing would go out of control as the United States, Europe, China and India competed to lock down energy supplies they all need to survive. Lugar spoke of his concerns over oil prices sustained at $60 per barrel. Imagine the consequences of sustained oil prices of $100 per barrel, or more. This reality is understood not only by Senator Lugar, but also various conservative foreign policy figures, including those who articulated in favor of war with Iraq. Influential persons such as Richard Haas and Richard Armitage have come out recently in favor of broad diplomatic and economic engagement with Iran, versus the extreme confrontational approach of the Bush White House. These conservatives are loathe to take the lead on such a volatile issue on their own initiative. Instead, their posturing away from confrontation with Iran is more likely a manifestation of the reality that the conservative capitalist circles they operate in are becoming increasingly nervous about the damage such confrontation could bring to the economic system that currently sustains them. It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows. If there is to be any hope of forestalling a disastrous war between the United States and Iran, there must be an internal realignment of the delicate Kabuki dance between capitalism and individualism in America that seeks to sustain the American way of life, versus destroy it. Today, many in the anti-war movement decry conservative capitalists as being the source of all that ails America, and the nurturing point which feeds the various economic and political power nodes that produce the variety of special interest groups the anti-war movement likes to pin responsibility for war in Iraq (and the possibility of war with Iran) on. Likewise, this total disconnect between many of those that populate the anti-war movement and the conservative circles in which Richard Lugar, Richard Haas, and Richard Armitage operate in means that there is no tendency on the part of these conservatives to reach out to the anti-war movement for help in forestalling a conflict both sides agree is wrong for America. Many in the anti-war movement seem to recognize that there is a need to expand the base of this movement to be much more inclusive of mainstream America. I suggest that the pace of current events dictate a much more dramatic solution -- that the anti-war movement begin to reach out to the very institutions that it condemns and make common cause for the preservation of a way of life -- the unique blend of corporate capitalism and individual rights -- that is at risk from the policies of the Bush administration. It is not likely that there will be many points of agreement on the long-term path that America should take regarding achieving the ideal balance between these two competing, and somewhat contradictory, concepts. But one thing is certain: if the Bush administration has its way regarding war with Iran, both concepts will be put at risk in the chaos which will follow. Source: www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/35226
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jun 2, 2006 5:08:36 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jun 2, 2006 5:08:36 GMT 4
“Echoes of Germany Under Hitler” The Office of Iranian Affairs, Embedded Journalism, and the Disinformation Campaign for War on Iran by Gary Leupp www.dissidentvoice.orgMay 29, 2006 SNIPS:According to Laura Rozen of the Los Angeles Times, the Office of Special Plans has been reincarnated as the Office of Iranian Affairs, apparently housed in the same Pentagon offices inhabited by its predecessor and involving some of the same slimy personnel. Notably, Abram Shulsky, who headed the OSP under Douglas Feith, is back. His crew will be reporting to none other than Elizabeth Cheney, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and daughter of the Vice President. Dick Cheney is generally understood to be the strongest advocate for an attack on Iran in the administration. (He is also, by the way, architect of Bush’s “signing statements” appended to laws entitling him to ignore them. He is the man behind the throne, surrounded by neocon acolytes.)
And maybe, just maybe, the neocon-led administration will stage something in Germany or elsewhere that could serve as another 9-11. In his Universal Fascism (1995), prominent neocon Michael Ledeen (widely accused of involvement in the Niger uranium forgery) wrote, “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging... [W]e [ordinary people] are rotten.... It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.”Read it all: www.dissidentvoice.org/May06/Leupp29.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jun 12, 2006 16:02:46 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jun 12, 2006 16:02:46 GMT 4
The Sun Never Sets on AIPAC. AIPAC wont be satisfied until they have a fully conscripted American Army at their 'figer tips'.. Give generously to the new fundraising campaign to make sure American Boys are ready to die for Israel again, and again, and again. Pro-Israel group pushes tough U.S. policy on Iran Wed Jun 7, 2006 4:15 AM IST By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the Bush administration pursues sensitive diplomacy, the influential U.S. pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has sent out a fundraising letter seeking support for a tough U.S. line against Iran's nuclear program. In a letter to supporters this week, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee requested contributions to build support for a proposed law tightening U.S. sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush is backing a new diplomatic initiative offering incentives to Iran, including the prospect of direct talks and economic benefits, as an inducement to end its nuclear program. The package, agreed by Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany as well as the United States, also outlines penalties if Iran rejects the deal. It was formally presented to Iranian officials in Tehran on Tuesday. Many American and European officials are doubtful that Tehran will accept any deal but see the overture as diplomacy's best chance. AIPAC, with about 100,000 members, has for years considered Iran and its nuclear program the most serious threat to U.S. ally Israel and sought to ensure a tough American policy. "Iran's apocalyptic president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) has openly and repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. But long before he began making headlines ... AIPAC was working behind-the-scenes to educate leaders throughout the U.S. government about the growing Iranian threat," the fundraising letter states. "While many organizations now realize the threat that Iran poses, AIPAC is the only organization uniquely positioned to work with (the U.S.) Congress and the administration to take meaningful action against this terrorist regime," it said. The letter added, "we need your help to stop Iran" and to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act. The act, which was overwhelmingly approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and has considerable support in the Senate, would tighten sanctions on Iran, urge disinvestment from companies investing in its oil sector and support assistance for democratic forces inside Iran. An AIPAC official said the letter's timing was not connected to the major powers' offer and its message essentially mirrored long-standing AIPAC policy. AIPAC has not formally endorsed the U.S. decision to back the major powers' offer to Iran. AIPAC spokesman Josh Block said: "If Iran fulfills the demands of the international community ... by immediately stopping all of its work on the nuclear fuel cycle and allowing inspectors unfettered access, that would be a positive development." But he added: "We must remain cautious and aware of Iran's two decade history of deception and delay, and not allow the offer of dialogue to devolve into a time-wasting exercise." The United States and its partners believe Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons but Tehran insists its activities are only aimed at generating civilian energy. Source: www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=54004ALSO:Iran given "weeks" to mull atomic offer Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:26 pm By Louis Charbonneau Western powers on Friday gave Iran just weeks to respond to a package of incentives to suspend its nuclear enrichment program. The offer, which EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana personally delivered to Tehran earlier this week, was prepared by Germany, France and Britain and is backed by the EU, United States, Russia and China. President Bush said that if Iran did not stop enrichment, "there must be a consequence." "We've given the Iranians a limited period of time -- you know, weeks not months -- to digest a proposal to move forward. And if they choose not to verifiably suspend their program, then there will be action taken in the U.N. Security Council," Bush told a news conference. European Union president Austria earlier said Iran had until next month's Group of Eight (G8) summit to consider the offer. Asked what would happen if Iran did not accept, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily: "This will be discussed within the framework of the G8. Iran has until the world economic summit in July to think it over." The G8 summit will be held in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 15-17. Iran's nuclear ambitions are expected to be one of the main topics of discussion. The comments represent the first explicit deadline for Iran to respond to the offer. "THEY WANT TO DEPRIVE US" Tehran says it wants to produce only low-enriched uranium to generate electricity. But many countries suspect Iran, the world's fourth-biggest oil producer, seeks to purify uranium to the extremely high levels needed to fuel atomic weapons. A powerful Iranian cleric used Friday prayers to send a clear message to the six world powers that prepared the offer -- that they would never stop Iran from making nuclear fuel. "Now they want to deprive us of many advantages. The package they have brought is a package that is good for themselves and is not appropriate for the Iranian people," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati told worshippers in Tehran. Jannati heads the Guardian Council, Iran's highest constitutional watchdog. The council does not directly make nuclear policy, a task Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has entrusted to the Supreme National Security Council. The International Atomic Energy Agency said on Thursday Iran had this week launched a fresh round of uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for power plants or bombs. A U.S. spokesman in Washington said the IAEA report underlined the need for major powers to stand firm in pressuring Iran to curb its atomic program. The six powers have offered civilian nuclear technology, security guarantees and other benefits if Iran freezes nuclear fuel production. But their offer also threatens economic and political sanctions if Iran rejects the offer. "There is a chance now, with the way things have changed in the past couple of weeks, to get a diplomatic solution and that's what everyone wants to see," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told a news conference in Paris with French President Jacques Chirac. Chirac added: "We can't accept that (Iran) carries out a process that could in reality lead to the creation of a nuclear weapon." (Additional reporting by the Tehran bureau, Paul Taylor in Brussels, Anna Willard in Paris, Mark Heinrich in Vienna and Carol Giacomo in Washington) Source: www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=54004&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10&sid=c1e035a2ef5d59969aae9ca1289f232a
|
|