michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jan 7, 2007 17:38:50 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jan 7, 2007 17:38:50 GMT 4
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on IranUzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington The Sunday Times January 07, 2007 ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources. The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout. “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources. The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years. Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said. Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack. Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world. Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme: Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”. The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike. Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey. Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force. Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981. Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released. The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel. However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West. Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil. Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.” Source: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Israeli general suggests to use Azerbaijan's airbases in strike against Iran 02 January 2007 [01:20] - Today.Az In a stark statement published on Saturday Brigadier General Oded Tira observed, "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure." Because of the dramatic loss of political power of the Bush-Cheney administration, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to, "turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran."
In another move designed to strengthen Bush politically, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries so that, "Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."As if all of that Israel-lobbying in America and Europe were not enough, General Tira proposes an even more aggressive political tactic, "We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack." Based on the urgency of General Tira's extraordinary pleas, it is immediately apparent that he has been shocked by the turn of political events inside America. By this time, he has learned from official US sources that the long-anticipated attack against Iran has been shelved because of tectonic shifts in American politics. Apparently, General Tira did not realize that President Bush has become the most deeply unpopular president in American history and that it was his subservience to the dictates of the Israel Lobby and its demands for wars against Iraq and Iran that led him into the political prison where he now finds himself isolated and impotent. Neither does General Tira realize that the Republican Party is no longer unified in its support of President Bush's deeply unpopular war in Iraq or his plans for expanding the war by a sustained bombing campaign against Iran. Since General Tira did not publish any remarks about the Iraq Study Group headed by former US Secretary of State, James Baker, he may be oblivious to the political facts now in place in 2007 America. Instead of the bipartisan commitment to broaden Bush's unpopular war as General Tira proposes, there is now a broadening bipartisan movement to reign in the US losses in Iraq. No major American politician has voiced any enthusiasm for broadening Bush's war into Iran as General Tira beseeches the US to do. General Tira's outburst suggests that the official channels for news and the analysis of public affairs in Israel are not working as efficiently as they should in the 21st century. Perhaps, someone should provide the General with a subscription to Ha'aretz and the International Herald Tribune for starters. By Michael Carmichael, Global Research Source: www.today.az/news/politics/34565.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jan 8, 2007 7:29:43 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jan 8, 2007 7:29:43 GMT 4
An unholy alliance threatening catastropheAnatole Kaletsky Our correspondent on a concerted attempt to confront Iran and Shia Islam Most people think that the bungled invasion of Iraq, climaxing last week with the bungled execution-assassination of Saddam Hussein, will go down in history as the ultimate symbol of the Bush Administration’s hubris and incompetence. They should think again. With the dawning of a new year, the Bush-Blair partnership is working on an even more horrendous foreign policy disaster. What now seems to be in preparation at the White House, with the usual unquestioning support from Downing Street, is a Middle Eastern equivalent of the Second World War. The trigger for this all-embracing war would be the formation of a previously unthinkable alliance between America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain, to confront Iran and the rise of the power of Shia Islam. The logical outcome of this “pinning back” process would be an air strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with a renewed Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, aggressive action by American and British soldiers to crush Iraq’s Shia militias, while Saudi-backed Sunni terrorists undermined the increasingly precarious pro-Iranian Government in Baghdad. Consider the ominous events that occurred in the Middle East and Washington over the holiday season, while most people were paying more attention to their turkeys and Christmas stockings. The first in this sequence of events was Tony Blair’s abrupt announcement that members of the Saudi Royal Family accused of taking bribes from British defence contractors would be exempted from the application of British law. To risk a confrontation with the Saudi Royal Family, Mr Blair asserted, would have jeopardised Britain’s security interests in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, as well as dashing hopes of progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This embarrassing announcement by Mr Blair was quickly followed by his Dubai speech, in which he called for an “arc of moderation” to “pin back” Iran’s advances in the Middle East. The second event, almost simultaneous with Mr Blair’s bribery announcement, was the equally unexpected resignation of Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, on December 15. Prince Turki has long been a key figure in the Saudi security establishment, whose last abrupt career move occurred in the autumn of 2001, when he suddenly resigned as liaison between the Saudi Royal Family and the Taleban terrorists that they had been financing until just before September 11. Turki was a leading member of a faction in the Saudi Royal Family that has for months been advocating a more conciliatory response towards the Shia hegemony in Iraq, including an effort to open direct negotiations between America and Iran, as recommended by James Baker’s Iraq Study Group. The Turki group’s main rivals in the Saudi establishment have by contrast argued for much tougher military action against what they called the “Christian-Shia conspiracy” created by the US toleration of Iranian influence over Iraq. The Saudi power struggle came into the open through an article published in The Washington Post in mid-December, by Nawaf Obeid, a Saudi security consultant ostensibly working for Turki, but actually closer to the hardliners. Obeid cautioned that if American troops were withdrawn from Iraq prematurely, in line with the Baker report’s recommendations, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene forcibly “to stop Iranian-backed Shi a militias from butchering Iraq’s Sunnis”. Turki immediately fired Obeid, but shortly afterwards was himself replaced by a hardliner. Within Saudi Arabia itself, meanwhile, the anti-Iranian rhetoric is gathering strength. Take this example from al-Salafi magazine, quoted in The New York Times: “Iran has become more dangerous than Israel itself. The Iranian revolution has come to renew the Persian presence in our region. This is the real clash of civilisations.” The link between Israel and Iran in Saudi thinking brings us to the third event in this chillingly unfestive sequence: the confrontation over nuclear proliferation between the UN Security Council and Iran. If Iran is now really hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, Israel has made it abundantly clear that it is equally hell-bent on stopping it — whether by diplomatic or military means. Whether Israeli bombing would in practice do serious damage to the Iranian nuclear programme is far from clear, but there are certainly hotheads in the Israeli Government and military establishment who are itching to try. There is, however, one binding constraint on Israel’s freedom of action against Iran. This is the US. It is unlikely that Israel would bomb Iran without explicit American approval and it is certain that a US president would stop Israel if he believed America’s national interest demanded it. That has been the situation until recently, since America has depended on Iranian-backed Shia politicians to prevent a total collapse of order and a humiliating Saigon-style expulsion of American soldiers in Iraq. Although Israel has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, many Israeli politicians believe that they are entitled to punish Iran for its non-compliance with the treaty. For these trigger-happy Israelis, Iran’s backdoor influence over Washington via the Iraqi Shia has become a nightmare. The same is true of the Saudi princes. The Saudi Royal Family rules a largely Shia country on the basis of a fanatically enforced state religion whose senior spokesmen denounce the Shia as heretic scum. These feelings are entirely mutual — Iran’s mad mullahs hate the Wahhabis every bit as much. Thus, if there is one country in the world more worried than Israel about an Iranian A-bomb, it is Saudi Arabia. And if there are two countries in the world with real influence on the Bush White House, they are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now both these countries are telling President Bush that he must pull the plug on Iraq’s Shia Government, tear up the Baker report, whose most important advice was to open diplomatic channels to Tehran, and prepare to attack Iran, either directly or using the Israelis as a proxy. This is the basis of the unholy alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia and America, with Mr Blair contributing a few choice soundbites. The anti-Iranian “arc of moderation” may seem like another meaningless Blairism, not nearly as threatening as Mr Bush’s “axis of evil”. But this soundbite could unleash a disaster on the Middle East, beside which the war in Iraq would be a mere sideshow. Source: business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-2530313,00.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position. The Maryland DemocRAT said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran. He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option.
Democrats: Nuclear Iran unacceptableJan. 7, 2007 0:21 | Updated Jan. 7, 2007 2:25 By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position. The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran. He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option. Hoyer, second only in the hierarchy of the House of Representatives to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is charged with articulating and strategizing on party policy. He spoke to the Post on Thursday, the opening day of the 110th Congress, after making an appearance at the National Jewish Democratic Council reception honoring the six new Jewish members of Congress. The council gathering was one of scores of events on Capitol Hill held to celebrate the start of the new session. Hoyer is considered close to the Jewish community and many Israel supporters have hailed his elevation in the House. He was one of the few non-Jewish lawmakers to attend the council reception. Hoyer said the Democrats' position, like that of the Bush administration, was that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran had to be done through "discussions, negotiations, sanctions." Hoyer added that the US needed to work with the international community to block Teheran's nuclear ambitions. At the same time, Hoyer said the use of force hadn't been taken off the table. "I've not ruled that out," he said, but added, "It's not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option."• Source:www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Israel denies plan to hit Iran enrichment plant with tactical nukes By Haaretz Service and Agencies The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem denied Sunday a report in the British media that Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Citing what it said were several Israel Defense Forces sources, the British newspaper The Sunday Times said two Israel Air Force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters." Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said. But Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said that Israel wanted the issue of Iran's nuclear program resolved through diplomacy. "The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions and the expeditious and full implementation of Security Council resolution 1737. If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office declined earlier to respond to the report. "We don't comment on stories like this in the Sunday Times," said Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin. Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment. In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference that the newspaper report "will make clear to the world public opinion that the Zionist regime is the main menace to global peace and the region." He said "any measure against Iran will not be left without a response and the invader will regret its act immediately." The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment that Western powers fear could lead to making bombs. Tehran insists its plans are peaceful and says it will continue enrichment. Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against Iran along the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq, though many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too much for Israel to take on alone. The newspaper said the Israeli plan envisaged conventional laser-guided bombs opening "tunnels" into the targets. Nuclear warheads would then be used fired into the plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce radioactive fallout. IAF pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000 mile round-trip to the Iranian targets, the Sunday Times said, and three possible routes to Iran have been mapped out including one over Turkey. However, it also quoted sources as saying a nuclear strike would only be used if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene. Disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, the paper added. Washington has said military force remains an option while insisting that its priority is to reach a diplomatic solution. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has said it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel has long maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity. Recent perceived slips by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have reinforced suspicions that Israel does have nuclear arms, but Jerusalem has stuck to its line that it will not be the first to introduce atomic weapons to the region. The Sunday Times newspaper was the first to report on Israel's nuclear capabilities in 1986, based on leaked information by Mordechai Vanunu, a former employee at the Dimona research plant. Following the expose, Vanunu was snatched by Israeli agents in Italy and returned to Israel, where served an 18-year prison sentence. He was released in April 2004. [*see note below]Source: www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/810130.html*This is interesting that Vanunu's name is mentioned here. Nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu alleged that Jerusalem was behind the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, who was exerting pressure on the then Israeli head of state to shed light on the Dimona nuclear plant. What tangled plots appear through-out our history! You can read more about Vanunu here at FH Forum at:Remembering Camelot & JFK Reply #1 on Apr 28, 2006, 3:55pm tinyurl.com/yg3uek
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jan 14, 2007 13:48:24 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jan 14, 2007 13:48:24 GMT 4
The White House's setup to attack Iran gains momentum ....MichelleTensions rise as Washington accuses Iran over militias By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 14 January 2007 Tensions between the US and Iran were set to escalate last night after it was revealed that President George Bush had signed an executive order several months ago, authorising American troops to undertake wide-ranging military action against Iranian operatives active inside Iraq. That discreetly issued directive was the basis for at least two raids against Iranian targets last week - including one in the Kurdish city of Irbil.The President's decision - revealed by Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, who yesterday arrived in the Middle East for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders - was taken amid growing concern that Iran has been providing weapons and training to Shia forces in Iraq. Without irony, the US has long accused Iran of meddling in the affairs of its neighbour. "There has been a decision to go after these networks," Ms Rice told The New York Times before leaving Washington. "[The President acted] after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity among Iranians in Iraq and increasing lethality in what they were producing." Her comments echoed those made by Mr Bush during his address to the nation on Wednesday evening, when he outlined his plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. In his address, without citing any evidence, he accused Iran of supplying support for attacks being carried out on US troops and vowed to respond. "[Iran and Syria] are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops," Mr Bush said. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."Privately, US officials claim Iran has provided explosives and infrared triggering devices for roadside bombs that can penetrate armour. Some of the attacks have been on British forces in southern Iraq. Officials have also reportedly claimed that thousands of Shia militia fighters have been trained in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Again, no evidence to support these claims has been made public. US officials deny that the Bush administration is seeking to provoke Iran. The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said that there was "an urban legend that's going around that Mr Bush was trying to prepare the way for war" with Iran or Syria. ['urban legend'?!...yes, Bush is the stuff of 'urban legends,' those nightmare stories we tell at teenage parties to scare the pants off of us...Michelle]But in recent days the US has deployed an additional aircraft carrier off the Iranian coast. USS John Stennis will join the battle group led by USS Dwight D Eisenhower. In addition, a 600-strong Patriot anti-missile defence system unit from Fort Bliss, Texas, has been deployed to the Middle East, though it is unclear where precisely it will be located. Against this backdrop, Ms Rice, perhaps not surprisingly, has played down expectations from her trip to the Middle East - her eighth since becoming Secretary of State. Speaking to reporters on the way to Israel, she said: "I'm not coming with a proposal. I'm not coming with a plan." She added: "I expect this trip to really be one in which we have intensive consultations. If you don't lay the groundwork very well, then it's not going to succeed. And I think no plan can be made in America." Her mission was given some headway last night by news that significant progress had been made in secret coalition talks in Damascus between the supreme Hamas leader and envoys of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. As another round of talks was held yesterday in the Syrian capital, officials from both sides signalled a sudden shift in atmosphere after several weeks of tough internal fighting. Ms Rice was last night due to meet Israel's defence and foreign ministers. Today she heads for the West Bank city of Ramallah to meet Mr Abbas, and tomorrow talks are scheduled with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. Her trip also includes stops in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Britain. Source: news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2152461.ece------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Related:Arrested Iranians tied to group arming Iraqis--U.S. By Ibon Villelabeitia Sat Jan 13, 8:18 PM ET BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five Iranians arrested by U.S. forces in northern Iraq are connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard group that provides weapons to Iraqi insurgents, the U.S. military said on Sunday. The five were arrested on Thursday in a U.S. raid on an Iranian government office in the Iraqi city of Arbil -- the second such operation in a month. "Preliminary results revealed the five detainees are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - Qods Force (IRGC-QF), an organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the Government of Iraq and attack Coalition forces," the U.S. military said in a statement. "The Multi-National Force, in keeping with U.S. policy, will continue to disrupt logistical support to extremists that originate from outside Iraq," it said. The United States has long accused Iran of interfering in Iraq, including providing weapons and training to Shi'ite forces. Complete article at:news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070114/ts_nm/iraq_dc_6------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Will someone - *anyone* curb U.S. aggression?]Rice: U.S. aims to curb Iran aggression By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer Sat Jan 13, 8:06 PM ET JERUSALEM - U.S. raids that President Bush approved against Iranian targets in Iraq are part of broad efforts to confront Tehran's aggression, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday. "The United States is simply responding to Iranian activities that have been going on for a while now that threaten not just to destabilize the chance for Iraq to proceed to stability but also that endanger our forces," Rice said before meeting with Israel's foreign minister. Bush approved the strategy several months ago, U.S. officials said, in response to what Washington claims is Iran's support for terrorists inside Iraq and the alleged funneling of bombs to anti-U.S. insurgents. Echoing other Bush administration figures, Rice said the U.S. does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians. Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces after a raid Thursday on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq. The move further frayed relations between the two countries. The United States accuses Iran of helping provide roadside bombs that have killed American troops in Iraq. Also, a bitter standoff already exists over Iran's nuclear program. Rice told reporters that the Iranian office was not a diplomatic consulate, which would be protected by international treaty. The State Department said Friday that U.S.-led forces entered an Iranian building in Kurdish-controlled Irbil because information linked it to Revolutionary Guards and other Iranian elements engaging in violent activities in Iraq. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said there was no truth to reports that Iran was carrying out legitimate diplomatic activity at the site. But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate. In Iran, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the U.S. raid constituted an intervention in Iranian-Iraqi affairs. Source: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iran_9
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jan 14, 2007 14:45:20 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jan 14, 2007 14:45:20 GMT 4
More on the story from last post....M US raids Iran ‘liaison office’, Russia says it is unacceptableThe US armed forces detained five Iranians working at a “liaison office” located in Erbil, Iraq, and did not “raid the Iranian Consulate General” as earlier reported. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told the AFP news agency that the building raided was, “not a consulate or a government building” and this appears confirmed by the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who said the Iranians were working at an office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate, but was not a Consulate nor the Iranian Consulate General. Sources said that the US forces first landed their helicopters around the building, then broke through the consulate’s gate, disarmed the guards, confiscated some documents and certain objects, arrested five terrorists, and then left for an undisclosed location. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Kamynin said that the raid was absolutely unacceptable and was a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Kurdistan Regional Government also expressed their shock and disapproval of the raid. On Thursday’s hearing on Iraq, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delware), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush Administration did not have the authority to send US troops on cross-border raids. Biden said, “I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker.” After the meeting, Biden sent a follow-up letter to the White House asking for an explanation from the Bush Administration on the matter.On Thursday morning, Iran’s foreign ministry official sent a letter to Iraq’s foreign ministry asking Iraq to stop the Bush Administration from interfering with Iraq-Iran relations, and has protested the raid on its consulate general. The official said, “We expect the Iraqi government to take immediate measures to set the aforesaid individuals free and to condemn the US troopers for the measure. Following up on the case and releasing the arrestees is a responsibility of primarily the Iraqi government and then the local government and officials of the Iraqi Kurdistan.” Source Wiki News Source:www.ecanadanow.com/world/2007/01/13/us-raids-iran-liaison-office-russia-says-it-is-unacceptable/
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jan 19, 2007 17:11:50 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jan 19, 2007 17:11:50 GMT 4
Washington 'snubbed Iran offer' Thursday, 18 January 2007 Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion. Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said. The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities. In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members. Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had allowed the rebel group to base itself in Iraq, putting it under US power after the invasion. One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled. "We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself." Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now. Since that time, Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah inflicted significant military losses on the major US ally in the region, Israel, in the 2006 conflict and is now claiming increased political power in Lebanon. Palestinian militant group Hamas won power in parliamentary elections a year ago, opening a new chapter of conflict in Gaza and the West Bank. The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran following its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. Iran denies US accusations that its nuclear programme is designed to produce weapons. Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jan 24, 2007 8:59:28 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jan 24, 2007 8:59:28 GMT 4
The REAL Plan for IranGeorge Washington's Blog Monday, January 22, 2007 A top former U.S. intelligence analyst has stated that the U.S. plans a broad-scale war against Iran. In other words, contrary to what we are hearing, a "limited strike on Iran's nuclear facilities" in order to protect everyone from Iran's nuclear weapons program is not the game-plan. The military is, instead, planning a "broad-scale war".But how would the U.S. -- which has already stretched its military thin in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- pull it off? By using "The Khuzestan Gambit", as military planners call it. Basically, the U.S. would invade Khuzestan, a small region of Iran containing 90% of Iran's oil. As described by a leading military website, the province "is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain to the west of the Zagros Mountains. American heavy forces could swiftly occupy Khuzestan, and in doing so seize control of most of Iran's oil resources, and non-trivial portions of the country's water supply and electrical generating capacity." Because Khuzestan is a relatively small area, the U.S. and Israel will be able to take it without that many boots on the ground. Therefore, a new draft won't be needed, and only a relatively small portion of the soldiers now in Iraq and Afghanistan will need to be shifted out-of-country and into Iran. Indeed, the Khuzestan Gambit is not even a new idea: apparently, Khuzestan is the province that Saddam Hussein tried to conquer in the Iraq-Iran War. By seizing Khuzestan, the U.S. (and Israel) would cut off the heavily oil-dependant Iranian military from most of the country's oil supplies, and put a huge dent in the military's access to water and electricity as well. Of course -- since seizing the oil is one of the prime objectives of the war with Iran -- the U.S. and Israel will undoubtedly plunder the oil for themselves in the process. And since creating instability and civil war in the Middle East is another prime objective of the U.S. and Israel -- in order to weaken Arab countries so as to lessen their perceived threat toward Israel -- the Khuzestan Gambit will likely lead "by accident" into the same type of chaos and civil war as we are now seeing in Iraq. Take the oil. Create chaos so as to weaken Iran as a threat against Israel. Invade Khuzestan, and the rest is easy (or so think the architects of war). The battle plan is in place. All the military leaders need is a Gulf of Tonkin type incident or a larger false flag operation to give it an excuse to carry out the plan. You should keep in mind that America might not be the first to launch: a likely scenario is that America's proxy, Israel, will attack Iran, and then -- when Iran strikes back -- the U.S. will join the war "in order to protect its ally". There are many ways to play the game.
If you've never heard of Khuzestan before, here's an introduction.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuzestanposted by George Washington at 12:01 PM Source:georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/01/real-plan-for-iran.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Feb 5, 2007 15:03:41 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Feb 5, 2007 15:03:41 GMT 4
Here's a sane viewpoint from the Cleveland Jewish NewsAgainst pre-emptive holocaust in Iran BY: LARRY DERFNER Israel Commentator Almost imperceptibly, the debate in Israel over what to do about Iran’s nuclear development has gone over the edge. The unthinkable is now not only thinkable, it’s speakable, writeable, doable. In the last few weeks or so, it has become acceptable, legitimate, to argue for an Israeli nuclear first strike to knock out Iran’s nuclear facilities. This ultimate escalation in the debate happened mainly, I think, because it came to be widely understood that Iran’s nuclear operations are probably too well buried, hidden, defended and widespread to take out with conventional weapons. Destroying them the “normal” way might also require a ground invasion which, after what’s happened in Iraq, doesn’t appeal to many people. Moreover, in another outgrowth of the debacle in Iraq, it now seems unlikely that President Bush, or his successor, will be politically able to go to war against Iran. So, as most Israelis seem convinced that Iran will inevitably nuke Israel once it gets the capability, which is expected to happen sometime within the next decade, the Israeli nuclear option has made its public debut. If you read the “talkbacks” on The Jerusalem Post or Ha’aretz websites, not to mention the radical right-wing blogs, the idea of nuking Iran has been boiling in the minds of more than a few people, Jews and gentiles, for a long time. But this idea has now traveled beyond the boundaries of the crackpot Right, and is reportedly on the menu of options for dealing with Iran that the Israeli military is preparing to put at the government’s disposal. According to the Sunday Times of London on Jan. 7, the Israeli air force is training to launch “low-yield nuclear ‘bunker-busters,’” or “mini-nukes,” against the facilities Iran has buried under 70 feet of concrete n because there’s no conventional way to wipe them out. Then, in The Jerusalem Post two weeks ago, Benny Morris, one of Israel’s leading historians and possibly the world’s number one historian of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, made a barely-veiled appeal for Israel to nuke Iran and thereby save itself from what he sees as certain destruction. I always admired Morris’s work as a historian for its combination of boldness and balance. He may still be an outstanding historian, but as a political commentator he is implicitly advocating an act of unimaginable evil, of monstrousness. In his essay, “This holocaust will be different,” Morris declares it a fait accompli that Iran will destroy Israel with nuclear weapons, and he maintains that the only way to prevent this would be for Israel to nuke Iran’s nuclear facilities first. He points out that some of these facilities “are in or near major cities,” then asks a rhetorical question about Israel’s “incompetent” and “demoralized” leadership: “Would they have the stomach for this? Would their determination to save Israel extend to pre-emptively killing millions of Iranians and, in effect, destroying Iran?” His answer is no, and, just slightly between the lines, he’s saying that the answer should be yes: that this country’s leaders should have the stomach and determination to save Israel by killing millions of Iranians and, in effect, destroying Iran. If the future was as knowable as Morris evidently thinks it is, if it really was guaranteed that Iran was going to launch nuclear weapons at Israel, then I would agree n we should nuke them first, even if it means killing millions of innocent Iranians. But, of course, the future isn’t knowable n even by people who know and understand the past. Yet a lot of Israelis, not just Morris, have become so unhinged by Iran’s nuclear program and Ahmadinejad’s threats that they can only imagine one possible future, and it is Israel’s extermination. For them, Israel has the natural right to do whatever’s necessary to prevent that future from occurring. My own view is that while a nuclear Iran is obviously a danger, and something that should be strongly resisted by diplomatic means, I don’t think Iran is going to nuke Israel. I think Iran’s leaders understand what the price would be the certain annihilation of Iran and the deaths of many, most, or all of its 69 million people n and neither Ahmadinejad nor the mullahs are willing to pay it. Stalin and Mao had hydrogen bombs that could have blown up the world, and they were far, far more bloodthirsty than the Iranians. They weren’t only ideologically insane but maybe clinically insane as well, yet they never pushed the button. As crazy as they were, they weren’t that crazy. The Iranians, for all their genocidal talk, have never by their deeds shown anything remotely approaching the fanatic will to actual genocide that Stalin and Mao demonstrated. The Iranians have weapons of mass destruction n chemical and possibly biological, too. They also have missiles that can reach anywhere in Israel. If they are so bent on wiping us out, why haven’t they showered tiny little Israel with WMD-armed missiles? The answer, again, is that while the Iranians are crazy, they’re not that crazy. I believe that even if they think they could take out Israel with a first strike before Israel could retaliate, they realize that the U.S. would immediately nuke Iran to rubble, and would have the backing of the world’s other nuclear powers. Conversely, by nuking Israel, Iran would become, in the world’s eyes, the rabid killer dog that has to be shot before it kills again. The risk of living with a nuclear Iran is much, much, much smaller than the risk involved in nuking Iran first. If Israel uses its nuclear weapons against Iran, which is nearly 80 times Israel’s size, the very least that would likely happen is that Israel would immediately be showered by Iranian missiles carrying chemical and possibly biological weapons. What’s not just a possibility but a very strong probability, though, is that since some of Iran’s nuclear facilities “are in or near major cities,” Morris is absolutely right: millions of Iranians would be killed. What would such an act by Israel be? It would be genocide. It would be a holocaust. Those who think they can see into the future might try to call it a “pre-emptive holocaust.” But a holocaust it would be. Source:www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2007/02/01/news/israel/commentary0201.txt
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Feb 11, 2007 17:17:23 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Feb 11, 2007 17:17:23 GMT 4
'NYT' Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims By Greg Mitchell Published: February 10, 2007 10:30 PM ET Friday updated Saturday NEW YORK Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.” What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.” Sound pretty convincing? Well, almost all the sources in the story are unnamed. It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. Gordon wrote with Miller the paper's most widely criticized -- even by the Times itself -- WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2002, “aluminum tubes” story that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it on TV talk shows. When the Times eventually carried an editors’ note that admitted some of its Iraq coverage was wrong and/or overblown, it criticized two Miller-Gordon stories, and noted that the Sept. 8, 2002, article on page one of the newspaper "gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program." This, of course, proved bogus. The Times “mea-culpa” story dryly observed: "The article gave no hint of a debate over the tubes," adding, "The White House did much to increase the impact of The Times article." This was the famous "mushroom cloud" over America article. Gordon also wrote, following Secretary of State Colin Powell's crucial, and appallingly wrong, speech to the United Nations in 2003 that helped sell the war, that "it will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington's case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information." Now, more than four years later, Gordon reveals: “The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.” Gordon's unnamed sources throughout the story are variously described as "Administration officials," "intelligence experts" and "American intelligence." Today, in contrast to the Times' report, Dafna Linzer in The Washington Post simply notes, "Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said serial numbers and markings on some explosives used in Iraq indicate that the material came from Iran, but he offered no evidence." For some perspective, here is how that "mushroom cloud" Gordon-Miller story of Sept. 8, 2002, opened: “More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today. “In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped. “The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months. “The attempted purchases are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms. President Hussein has met repeatedly in recent months with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and, according to American intelligence, praised their efforts as part of his campaign against the West. “Iraq's nuclear program is not Washington's only concern. An Iraqi defector said Mr. Hussein had also heightened his efforts to develop new types of chemical weapons. An Iraqi opposition leader also gave American officials a paper from Iranian intelligence indicating that Mr. Hussein has authorized regional commanders to use chemical and biological weapons to put down any Shiite Muslim resistance that might occur if the United States attacks…. "'The jewel in the crown is nuclear,'' a senior administration official said. ‘The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card. The question is not, why now?' the official added, referring to a potential military campaign to oust Mr. Hussein. 'The question is why waiting is better. The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with.' ”Hard-liners are alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war. Conscious of this lapse in the past, they argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.” Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) Source: www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003544369------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here's the New York Times' article by MICHAEL R. GORDON:Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says By MICHAEL R. GORDON Published: February 10, 2007 WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran. The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete. In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing “lethal support” to Shiite militants in Iraq. CLIP Continued at: www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?pagewanted=all
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Feb 14, 2007 5:59:13 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Feb 14, 2007 5:59:13 GMT 4
An Appeal to Conscience to Those Who Would Bomb Iran By US Army Reserves Colonel (Retired) Ann Wright t r u t h o u t | Columnist Tuesday 13 February 2007 George Bush is going to war again. We see it in the Bush administration's rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program. We see it in the Bush administration's commentary on Iran's reported role in training and equipping Iraqis who are fighting US forces that have invaded and occupied that country. We see it in the Bush administration's criticism of Iran's role in funding and equipping Hezbollah in Lebanon. We see it in the Bush administration's direction to the US military to detain Iranian diplomats in Iraq, breach diplomatic facilities, and capture or kill Iranian operatives in Iraq. We see it in the deployment of the third US Naval carrier group (twenty more ships) to the Gulf. These actions indicate a very high probability of a US military attack on Iran within the next month. The Bush administration will attempt to argue that any of these triggers are so vital to the national security of the United States that military action is required. Since January, 2002, the Bush administration has listed Iran as one of the "Axis of Evil" nations. Iran is now surrounded by the United States military. Iran's neighbors have been invaded and occupied by the Bush administration: Iraq to the west, and Afghanistan to the east. 100 US naval ships control access to the Persian Gulf to the south. Iran is a country with a remarkable 2,500 year history. Iran has a population of 68 million people, 80,000 of whom still suffer from Iraq's use of US, French, German and UK chemical weapons on them (20,000 more were killed outright). This was the largest use of weapons of mass destruction, since the US atomic bombing of two cities in Japan at the end of World War II. Iran has a land mass three times the size of Iraq. Iran has a large military, unconstrained by twelve years of sanctions. Iran has a modern infrastructure. And Iran has a democracy in which the Parliament reportedly is within ten votes of impeaching the country's abrasive president. Unless we de-rail Bush's next war, US Air Force and US Navy pilots will be ordered to drop bunker busting, "smart" bombs on facilities of the Iranian nuclear program. US Navy submarine and ship missile operators will be ordered to push the buttons to release $1 million dollar Cruise missiles that will demolish nuclear and military facilities. The military will claim limited collateral damage, but, no doubt as in every military operation, many innocent civilians will be killed by these attacks. Many in the Bush administration believe in retribution. 52 US diplomats were held for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981 by Iranian revolutionary guards and eight US military personnel were killed in the unsuccessful, April 25, 1980 rescue attempt. To those in the Bush administration who may believe in the retribution principle, one should remind them of the 1988 shooting down of an Iranian civilian passenger aircraft by a US Navy missile, that killed 290 civilian passengers. The 1979 US Embassy takeover score has been settled. Bombing Iranian facilities by the US military will cause the cycle of violence to begin again. If the US attacks Iran, by international law Iran has the legal right to defend itself from aggressive action by another country. The world will be watching carefully to see if the US provokes an incident whereby the Iranian military is forced into action against US forces. The Gulf is filled with US military ships which may, by the actions of the Bush administration, become legitimate targets. While we are on the topic of history and aggression, after World War II, the United States executed German and Japanese military officers who were convicted of crimes against peace (wars of aggression) and for violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles. The Nuremberg Principles provide for accountability for war crimes committed by military and civilian officials. Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Principle VI of the Nuremberg Principles: The following crimes are punishable as crimes under international law: a. Crimes against peace: i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). b. War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. c. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done, or such persecutions are carried on in execution of, or in connection with any crime against peace, or any war crime." Attacking Iran will be a crime against peace, a war crime. Those conducting military operations will be violating the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Land Warfare. Prosecution for commission of war crimes is possible. I appeal to the conscience of US Air Force and US Navy pilots and military personnel who command cruise missiles and pilot bombers and those who plan the missions for the pilots and missile commanders. I ask that they refuse what I believe will be unlawful orders to attack Iran.
Accountability for one's actions is finally becoming possible under the new Congress. While refusal to drop bombs may initially draw punishment and the loss of one's military career, those who refuse will save their soul, their conscience and will prevent another criminal action in the name of our country by the Bush administration. A Reminder: The oath for commissioned officers is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and not to a particular person or political party. Ann Wright retired from the US Army Reserves as a Colonel after 29 years. Ms. Wright served in Grenada, Panama, Greece, the Netherlands, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in December 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war.Source: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021307B.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jun 21, 2007 7:05:45 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jun 21, 2007 7:05:45 GMT 4
U.S.-IRAN: New Arms Claim Reveals Cheney-Military RiftAnalysis by Gareth Porter* WASHINGTON, Jun 20 (IPS) - In a development that underlines the tensions between the anti-Iran agenda of the George W. Bush administration and the preoccupation of its military command in Afghanistan with militant Sunni activism, a State Department official publicly accused Iran for the first time of arming the Taliban forces last week, but the U.S. commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan rejected that charge for the second time in less than two weeks. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns declared in Paris Jun. 12 that Iran was "transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan", putting it in the context of a larger alleged Iranian role of funding "extremists" in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq. The following day he asserted that there was "irrefutable evidence" of such Iranian arms supply to the Taliban. The use of the phrase "irrefutable evidence" suggested that the Burns statement was scripted by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. The same phrase had been used by Cheney himself on Sep. 20, 2002, in referring to the administration's accusation that Saddam Hussein had a programme to enrich uranium as the basis for a nuclear weapon. But the NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeill, pointed to other possible explanations, particularly the link between drug smuggling and weapons smuggling between Iran and Afghanistan. Gen. McNeill repeated in an interview with U.S. News and World Report last week a previous statement to Reuters that he did not agree with the charge. McNeill minimised the scope of the arms coming from Iran, saying: "What we've found so far hasn't been militarily significant on the battlefield." He speculated that the arms could have come from black market dealers, drug traffickers, or al Qaeda backers and could have been sold by low-level Iranian military personnel. McNeill's remarks underlined the U.S. command's knowledge of the link between the heroin trade and trafficking in arms between southeastern Iran and southern Afghanistan. The main entry point for opium and heroin smuggling between Afghanistan and Iran runs through the Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchistan to the capital of Zahedan. The two convoys of arms which were intercepted by NATO forces last spring had evidently come through that Iranian province. According to a report by Robert Tait of The Guardian Feb. 17, Sistan-Baluchistan province has also been the setting for frequent violent incidents involving militant Sunni groups and drug traffickers. Tait reported that more than 3,000 Iranian security personnel had been killed in armed clashes with drug traffickers since the 1979 Islamic revolution. McNeill further appeared to suggest in the interview with U.S. News that not all the arms coming from the Iranian side of the border were necessarily Iranian-made. Munitions in one convoy, he said, "were without a whole lot of doubt in my mind Iranian made," implying that the origins of the arms was not clear in other cases. McNeill's rejection of Burns' accusation reflected the views of Afghanistan's Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, who told Associated Press on Jun. 14 that it was "difficult" to link the arms traffic to the Iranian government. Wardak said the arms "might be from al-Qaida, from the drug mafia or from other sources." The clash between key civilian officials and the command in Afghanistan over the explanation for the arms entering Afghanistan from Iran followed a series of news stories in late May and early June quoting an anonymous administration official as claiming proof of a change in Iranian policy to one of military support for the Taliban. These anonymous statements of certainty about such a policy shift, for which no intelligence has ever been claimed, pointed to Cheney's office as the orchestrator of the campaign.
Given the very small scale of the arms in question, Cheney's interest in the issue appears to have much less to do with Afghanistan than his aim of ensuring that President Bush goes along with the neoconservative desire to attack Iran before the end of his term. The U.S. military command in Afghanistan, on the other hand, sees the external threat in Afghanistan coming from Pakistan rather than from Iran. U.S. commanders there are very concerned about the increase in Taliban attacks launched from Pakistan's North Waziristan and South Waziristan following Pakistani Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf's truce with Islamic separatists in those border provinces last year. McNeill told a press conference Jun. 5 that there can be no "long-term stability" in Afghanistan "if there are sanctuaries just out of reach for both the alliance and the Afghan national security forces that harbor insurgents." Apparently reflecting Cheney's dominant influence on policy, the Bush administration has continued to defend the Musharraf government's policy of compromise with the Pakistani Islamists and has said nothing publicly about the rise in Taliban attacks launched from Pakistan or the massive arms flow from Pakistan to Taliban forces. U.S. military officials in Afghanistan could be expected to be sceptical about an anti-Iran propaganda line aimed at making it more difficult for Bush to resist neoconservative pressures for a war against Iran. An attack on Iran could only make the task of coping with the threat from the Taliban more difficult. Burns, who served in senior positions in the Bill Clinton administration, is part of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's team, which is resisting Cheney's pressures for preparations for an attack on Iran. But the Burns statements came during a visit to France that was aimed at ensuring the French government would support tougher sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council if Iran did not suspend enrichment of uranium within a week or two. So Rice apparently agreed to the new accusation against Iran in order to strengthen the U.S. argument for tougher sanctions -- an administration policy with which she and Burns have both been identified since late 2005. Meanwhile, despite the public statement by Burns indicting Iran, both the State Department and Defence Department appear to have adopted a more ambiguous position on the issue. In the daily press briefing by State Department on Jun. 13, spokesman Sean McCormack did not claim that Iran has actually changed its policy toward the Taliban, much less support the "irrefutable evidence" language used by Burns. "At this point we can't make that assessment," McCormack said in regard to a change in Iranian policy. Asked by reporters to explain the categorical language used by Burns, McCormack offered the rather awkward explanation that Burns was merely expressing the "concerns and suspicions" that everyone in the administration had about Iran's intentions. That remark effectively undercut the use of the headline-grabbing language by Burns, but was buried in media coverage of Burns' remarks. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, who was then on his way to a NATO meeting on Afghanistan, did not repeat a previous dismissal of the charge of Iran's arming the Taliban, but also failed to endorse the language used by Burns. "I would say, given the quantities [of arms] that we're seeing, it is difficult to believe that it's associated with smuggling or the drug business, or that it's taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government," Gates said. However, Gates, who had denied on Jun. 4 that there was any evidence linking the arms trade to Iran, made the significant admission that he had seen no new intelligence supporting such speculation. *Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005. (END/2007) Source: ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38244
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Sept 25, 2007 10:15:30 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Sept 25, 2007 10:15:30 GMT 4
Perhaps this explains some of the Bush regime's aggression toward Iran and all the hullabaloo recently over Ahmadinejad's U.S. visit...MichelleIran leader will visit Bolivia, sign energy deals24 Sep 2007 17:25:33 GMT Source: Reuters LA PAZ, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is set to visit Bolivia on Thursday to tighten diplomatic ties and sign energy and industrial aid agreements, Bolivia's government spokesman said. Ahmadinejad was in New York on Monday for the U.N. General Assembly meeting and plans to visit Venezuela on Wednesday. Iran, deeply at odds with the West over its nuclear program, has gained influence in Latin America as anti-U.S. sentiment has risen among leftist leaders such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales. Bolivia said the Iranian leader's visit did not imply that La Paz supported an Iranian arms buildup that has been strongly criticized by the United States and other countries. "We're talking about advances in technology and petrochemistry," government spokesman Alex Contreras told official news agency ABI. "We will not support war-mongering and weapons buildup policies." Bolivian Government Minister Juan Ramon Quintana said in Washington that Bolivia was also looking at possible Iranian investment in its mining sector. (Additional reporting by Adriana Garcia in Washington) Source: www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24294901.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Oct 5, 2007 11:27:32 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Oct 5, 2007 11:27:32 GMT 4
Christians for Israel Bill Moyers Journal Airdate: Friday, October 5, 2007, at 9 p.m. EDT on PBS. (Check local listings at www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/airdates.html.) Bill Moyers Journal reports on the politically powerful group Christians United for Israel, whose leader, Pastor John Hagee, advocates for a preemptive strike against Iran. As leader of the politically powerful group Christians United for Israel (CUFI), Pastor John Hagee wants to bring millions of Christians together to support Israel. But some say his message is dangerous: "It is time for America to ... consider a military preemptive strike against Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel and a nuclear attack in America." Bill Moyers Journal reports on CUFI and then gets theological and political context from Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, a Jewish journal of politics, culture and spirituality, and Dr. Timothy P. Weber, an evangelical Christian, historian and the author of "On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend." See:www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Iran
Jul 18, 2008 12:51:45 GMT 4
Post by michelle on Jul 18, 2008 12:51:45 GMT 4
US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979Washington move signals thaw in relationsEwen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Thursday July 17, 2008 The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush. The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country. The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way. The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff. Burns is to sit at the table with Iranian officials despite Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which is a possible first step on the way to a nuclear weapon capability. A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal directly with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany. Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to. The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he was not against the opening of a US mission. Iran would consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries, he said. US interests in the country at present are looked after by the Swiss embassy. The British government restored its embassy in Tehran after Labour's 1997 general election victory as part of a policy of constructive diplomacy with countries that had previously been branded rogue states. The creation of a US interest section would see diplomats stationed in Tehran for the first time since the hostage crisis that began when hundreds of students, as part of the Iranian revolution that led to fall of the Shah, stormed the US embassy in 1979 and held the occupants until 1981. The special interests section would be similar to the one in Havana, Cuba. The US broke off relations with Cuba in 1961 after Castro's takeover but US diplomats returned in 1977. The special interests section carries out all the functions of an embassy. It is, in terms of protocol, part of the Swiss embassy but otherwise is staffed by Americans and independent of the Swiss. There has been an intense debate within the Bush administration over Iran, with the vice-president, Dick Cheney, in favour of a military strike against Iranian nuclear plants and the state department in favour of diplomacy. The state department has been pressing the White House for the last two years to re-establish diplomatic relations with Tehran by setting up an interest section. The state department is keen that the move should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness. Sending Burns, who left Washington last night, to Geneva and the establishment of an interests section undercuts one of the main planks of foreign policy advocated by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, who argues for direct negotiations with Iran. The White House has been working in tandem over the last month with Obama's Republican rival, John McCain. The US has had to rely on British diplomats based in Tehran, as well as other diplomats, for information about the inner workings of Iranian politics. Having its own staff would give them access to students, dissidents and others. The staff would also process visa applications, at present handled by a small office in Dubai, which is difficult for Iranians to get to. Ahmadinejad told a reporter earlier this week, in response to a question about a possible US interests section: "We will receive favourably any action which will help to reinforce relations between the peoples." He added: "We have not received any official request but we think that the development of relations between the two peoples is something correct." That sentiment was echoed last month by secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, who told reporters: "We want more Iranians visiting the United States ... We are determined to reach out to the Iranian people." Iran has an interests section in Washington, which would make it harder for Tehran to deny the Americans a similar arrangement. Rice set up a group to study the feasibility of re-establishing a presence after the idea cropped up repeatedly in discussions among Washington thinktanks. Asked last month about the idea, she would not confirm or deny it. But she indicated that the present arrangement where there is an American visa office for Iranians in Dubai was inadequate. "We know that it's difficult for Iranians sometimes to get to Dubai," she said. Source:www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Envoy To Meet Iran Nuke Negotiator Breaking With Past Policy, Senior Diplomat Will Attend Weekend Talks In Geneva, "To Listen, Not Negotiate" Jul 16, 2008 4:30 am US/Pacific WASHINGTON (CBS) ¯ In a break with past Bush administration policy, a top U.S. diplomat will for the first time join colleagues from other world powers at a weekend meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, CBS News has confirmed. William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Geneva on Saturday. Burns will join European colleagues in talks aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior State department official told CBS News on Tuesday. Official contacts between Iran and the United States are extremely rare and although Washington is part of a six-nation effort to get Iran to stop enriching and reprocessing uranium, the administration has shunned contacts with Tehran on the matter. The senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement of Burns' plans expected on Wednesday, acknowledged a shift in the administration's approach but stressed that Burns would not meet Jalili separately and would not negotiate with him. "This is a one-time event and he will be there to listen, not negotiate," the official said. Nevertheless, CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the Bush administration's decision to send Burns "represents a departure from the President's policy and a decision to negotiate aggressively with the Iranians on the nuclear issue, without the precondition that Iran first suspend uranium enrichment." The meeting in Geneva is being led by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who is seeking a definitive answer from the Iranians to an offer of incentives that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany presented last month. The package of incentives was accompanied by a letter from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign ministers of the other five countries and sets out a scenario in which Iran would get a temporary reprieve from crippling economic and financial sanctions in exchange for freezing its enrichment activities. Preliminary negotiations over a permanent halt could then begin, although the United States would not join them until after Iran agrees to fully suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce the fuel needed to make nuclear bombs. The proposal "gives the Iranians a face-saving way out of the issue by recognizing Iran's right to uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, gives them support for construction of a light water reactor, support for Iran's admission to the World Trade Organization and the lifting of economic sanctions," says Falk. "And it may calm Israel's fear that Iran will continue its nuclear program to the point where it could develop nuclear weapons." "Incentives to the Bush administration and to Iran to work out a deal are strong: U.S. financial markets have reeled at the possibility of a new military confrontation and Iran's economy has suffered from the isolation," of strict economic sanctions, adds Falk. An administration official said "the sanctions are having some effect... they're feeling some heat," reports CBS News correspondent Charlie Wolfson. The administration official noted that some Europeans have imposed additional restrictions of their own and some deals made with European companies have been cancelled. The senior U.S. official said Burns would be at the meeting with Jalili to demonstrate the unity of the countries making the offer of incentives but also to reinforce Rice's signature on the letter from the foreign ministers. But Burns will also "reiterate that our terms for negotiations remain the same: Iran must suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities," the official said. Iran last week responded to the offer through the European Union but indicated that it has no plans to stop enriching uranium - a key demand. The process can be used to generate electricity or build nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is purely energy-related, but the United States accuses it of trying to develop atomic weapons, prompting sanctions. Source: cbs5.com/national/nuke.iran.envoy.2.772075.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William J Burns (1956) was United States Ambassador to Russia in 2005-2008. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Ambassador to the Russian Federation on July 29, 2005. On January 18, 2008, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that Burns will be succeeding R. Nicholas Burns (no relation) as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in March 2008, which is usually the highest position occupied by a career appointee in the State Department. Ambassador Burns served from 2001 until 2005 as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and was Ambassador to Jordan from 1998 until 2001. Ambassador Burns has also served in a number of other posts since entering the Foreign Service in 1982, including: Executive Secretary of the State Department and Special Assistant to the Secretary of State; Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow; Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff; and Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council staff. Ambassador Burns earned a B.A. in History from LaSalle University and M.Phil. and D.Phil. degrees in International Relations from Oxford University, where he studied as a Marshall Scholar. He is the recipient of three honorary doctoral degrees. Ambassador Burns is the author of Economic Aid and American Policy Toward Egypt, 1955-1981 (State University of New York Press, l985). He speaks Russian, Arabic, and French, and is the recipient of two Presidential Distinguished Service Awards and a number of Department of State awards, including two Distinguished Honor Awards, the 2006 Charles E. Cobb, Jr. Ambassadorial Award for Initiative and Success in Trade Development, the 2005 Robert C. Frasure Memorial Award, the James Clement Dunn Award, and five Superior Honor awards. In 1994, he was named to TIME Magazine's list of the "50 Most Promising American Leaders Under Age 40", and to TIME's list of "100 Young Global Leaders." Ambassador Burns and his wife, Lisa Carty, have two daughters. (Retrieved from moscow.usembassy.gov/embassy/embassy.php?record_id=ambassador)Source:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joseph_Burns
|
|