According to a new Study by Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, Iran could run out of oil to export in eight years without significant investment in infrastructure.
The report, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, suggests that Iran's nuclear programme could be a "genuine" opportunity for investors as oil production has failed to bridge oil field losses and domestic demand growth.
Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University in Maryland said: "I'm not saying that Iran will have no oil in eight years. I'm saying that they will be using all of it for themselves."
The data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said Tehran could become "politically vulnerable" from the decline in exports as these account for about 70 per cent of government revenue.
The U.S. case against Iran is based on Iran's deceptions regarding nuclear weapons development. This case is buttressed by assertions that a state so petroleum-rich cannot need nuclear power to preserve exports, as Iran claims. The U.S. infers, therefore, that Iran's entire nuclear technology program must pertain to weapons development.
However, some industry analysts project an Irani oil export decline [e.g., Clark JR (2005) Oil Gas J 103(18):34-39]. If such a decline is occurring, Iran's claim to need nuclear power could be genuine. Because Iran's government relies on monopoly proceeds from oil exports for most revenue, it could become politically vulnerable if exports decline.
In the study the researchers survey the political economy of Irani petroleum for evidence of this decline. They define Iran's export decline rate (edr) as its summed rates of depletion and domestic demand growth, which they find equals 10-12%.
To read the full report in PDF go @ PNAS
20 Dec 2006
Think counter-intuitively about Iran, than simply upping the rhetoric
RI
In response to today's Tony Blair new round of attacks against Iran, Foreign Policy Centre in England in a statement suggested to the British PM to "think counter-intuitively about Iran, rather than simply upping the rhetoric."
The statement reads, "The Iranians want to engage with the West on a wide range of issues, including regional peace and security. The proposal by Tehran of a regional security organisation should be taken seriously by the US and the EU."
Despite the fact that Iran being one of the exceptions in the Middle East in terms of having a more advanced democratic system, Mr Blair today accused Tehran of being the most undemocratic nation in the Middle East and suggested, "We have to wake up. These forces of extremism based on a warped and wrong-headed interpretation of Islam aren't fighting a conventional war, but they are fighting one against us."
Blair, who is due to step down as prime minister next year, said: "And 'us' is not just the West, still less simply America and its allies. 'Us' is all those who believe in tolerance, respect for others and liberty."
He went on saying, "We must mobilise our alliance of moderation in this region and outside it to defeat the extremists."
As one of the critics to Blair's speech said, looking at the UK and US alliances in the region one can figure out that what kind of regimes Mr Blair is referring to as the moderate ones.
ALEX BIGHAM, Iran Analyst of the Foreign Policy Centre today said: "Iran does have legitimate security concerns, when they are surrounded regionally by nuclear powers and US troops. Persuading the Iranians not to start a regional nuclear arms race and to stop meddling in Iraq and Lebanon can only be achieved if we offer them major incentives in return - the status of a leading role in regional security could unlock the current crisis."
The centre which has close link to Tony Blair's wing in the ruling Labour party added, "Blair's speech today had the right mood music - he is correct to focus on Iran as a problem affecting the wider Middle East. However, neither the US and UK seem to be able to answer the fundamental question - How do you deal with a problem like Iran?"
The centre added, "Blair's alliance of moderation should not be exclusively focused on the moderate Gulf states, or he risks pitting Sunni government against Iran's Shi'a theocracy. With the reformist forces gaining support after their election victories over the weekend, the 'alliance of moderation' must extend to moderates in Iran. There will only be support for long term change in Iran if there is a positive offer on the table, more than the rather piecemeal offer of aircraft spare parts in return for Iran ending its nuclear ambitions."
to see Blair's speech go @ BBC
In response to today's Tony Blair new round of attacks against Iran, Foreign Policy Centre in England in a statement suggested to the British PM to "think counter-intuitively about Iran, rather than simply upping the rhetoric."
The statement reads, "The Iranians want to engage with the West on a wide range of issues, including regional peace and security. The proposal by Tehran of a regional security organisation should be taken seriously by the US and the EU."
Despite the fact that Iran being one of the exceptions in the Middle East in terms of having a more advanced democratic system, Mr Blair today accused Tehran of being the most undemocratic nation in the Middle East and suggested, "We have to wake up. These forces of extremism based on a warped and wrong-headed interpretation of Islam aren't fighting a conventional war, but they are fighting one against us."
Blair, who is due to step down as prime minister next year, said: "And 'us' is not just the West, still less simply America and its allies. 'Us' is all those who believe in tolerance, respect for others and liberty."
He went on saying, "We must mobilise our alliance of moderation in this region and outside it to defeat the extremists."
As one of the critics to Blair's speech said, looking at the UK and US alliances in the region one can figure out that what kind of regimes Mr Blair is referring to as the moderate ones.
ALEX BIGHAM, Iran Analyst of the Foreign Policy Centre today said: "Iran does have legitimate security concerns, when they are surrounded regionally by nuclear powers and US troops. Persuading the Iranians not to start a regional nuclear arms race and to stop meddling in Iraq and Lebanon can only be achieved if we offer them major incentives in return - the status of a leading role in regional security could unlock the current crisis."
The centre which has close link to Tony Blair's wing in the ruling Labour party added, "Blair's speech today had the right mood music - he is correct to focus on Iran as a problem affecting the wider Middle East. However, neither the US and UK seem to be able to answer the fundamental question - How do you deal with a problem like Iran?"
The centre added, "Blair's alliance of moderation should not be exclusively focused on the moderate Gulf states, or he risks pitting Sunni government against Iran's Shi'a theocracy. With the reformist forces gaining support after their election victories over the weekend, the 'alliance of moderation' must extend to moderates in Iran. There will only be support for long term change in Iran if there is a positive offer on the table, more than the rather piecemeal offer of aircraft spare parts in return for Iran ending its nuclear ambitions."
to see Blair's speech go @ BBC
18 Dec 2006
Embarrassing document revealed Blair's lies on Iraq war
RI
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously classified evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed by the publication of the document on the UK parliament Commons foreign affairs committee website, as the evidence presented by 40 year old Mr Ross, he, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did British government assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Damning repudiation of the government's public claims in the run-up to the war is contained in secret evidence to Lord Butler's committee on the abuse of intelligence over Iraq by Carne Ross, who at the time was a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York.
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained."
Ross was a member of the FCO from 1989 to 2004, when he resigned after giving evidence to the Butler review. As a member of the so-called "fast stream" of the Diplomatic Service, he served, as head of the Middle East Peace Process section (1995-97), speechwriter to the Foreign Secretary (1997-98), and First Secretary (Political) at the UK Mission to the UN, New York, where he was responsible for the Middle East, and in particular Iraq (1998-2002). He served briefly in Afghanistan after the US/UK invasion and was seconded to the UN mission in Kosovo in 2003-04. By the time he resigned, he had joined the Senior Management Structure of the FCO.
Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.
During the Commons Foreign Relations Committee session on 8 November 2006 the communications between the chair of the committee (a labour MP) and Mr Ross is interesting in that it is clear that the chairman is not happy of the revelations and was encouraging Ross to not publish his testimony to Lord Butler.
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously classified evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed by the publication of the document on the UK parliament Commons foreign affairs committee website, as the evidence presented by 40 year old Mr Ross, he, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did British government assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Damning repudiation of the government's public claims in the run-up to the war is contained in secret evidence to Lord Butler's committee on the abuse of intelligence over Iraq by Carne Ross, who at the time was a diplomat at Britain's UN mission in New York.
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained."
Ross was a member of the FCO from 1989 to 2004, when he resigned after giving evidence to the Butler review. As a member of the so-called "fast stream" of the Diplomatic Service, he served, as head of the Middle East Peace Process section (1995-97), speechwriter to the Foreign Secretary (1997-98), and First Secretary (Political) at the UK Mission to the UN, New York, where he was responsible for the Middle East, and in particular Iraq (1998-2002). He served briefly in Afghanistan after the US/UK invasion and was seconded to the UN mission in Kosovo in 2003-04. By the time he resigned, he had joined the Senior Management Structure of the FCO.
Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.
During the Commons Foreign Relations Committee session on 8 November 2006 the communications between the chair of the committee (a labour MP) and Mr Ross is interesting in that it is clear that the chairman is not happy of the revelations and was encouraging Ross to not publish his testimony to Lord Butler.
Chairman: Mr Ross, Black Rod is now approaching to end the proceedings, and that might be a good point at which to conclude our discussions. I say personally that I think that you should take advice before you hand over anything that might get you into problems, despite Mr Mackinlay's protestations.
Andrew Mackinlay: As long as it is on the record
Chairman: Yes, it is on the record.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am surprised. As Chairman, you should be coaxing and encouraging witnesses to give full disclosure, and I hoped that you would do that in discussions with the Clerk.
Chairman: I am trying to ensure that witnesses do not make a decision on the spur of the moment that might have wider consequences without thinking through those consequences.
Andrew Mackinlay: I absolutely agree. It has to stand up in Parliament.
Chairman: It is up to Mr Ross what he chooses to do, but I think that he should give it considered thought rather than give way to being pressured. It is his decision, but I am just saying that as we conclude the proceedings today.
Mr Ross: Mr Chairman, I have given it years of thought. This has been on my conscience for a very long time, and I was waiting for an opportunity under privilege to share my evidence to the Butler inquiry. I would be happy to share it at this point with the Committee.
Chairman: That is fine. That is your decision. Thank you, Mr Ross.
15 Dec 2006
British artists revive the call for Israel Cultural boycott
RI
Following the statement issued by Ken Lochthe on August 2006 for cultural boycotting of Israel a group of acclaimed British artists in a letter published in the Guardian on Friday 15 December called on British writers and artists to undertake a "cultural boycott" of Israel.
Loch, the the British director and winner of year 2006 Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, an artist who is known for his politically and socially engaged films, has declared in a personal statement his support of "the call by Palestinian film-makers, artists and others to boycott state sponsored Israeli cultural institutions and urges others to join their campaign".
In his statement he said:
"I support the call by Palestinian film-makers, artists and others to boycott state sponsored Israeli cultural institutions and urge others to join their campaign.
Palestinians are driven to call for this boycott after forty years of the occupation of their land, destruction of their homes and the kidnapping and murder of their civilians.
They have no immediate hope that this oppression will end.
As British citizens we have to acknowledge our own responsibility. We must condemn the British and US governments for supporting and arming Israel. We must also oppose the terrorist activities of the British and US governments in pursuing their illegal wars and occupations.
However, it is impossible to ignore the appeals of Palestinian comrades. Consequently, I would decline any invitation to the Haifa Film Festival or other such occasions."
The celebrated novelist, critic and artist John Berger on his letter to the Guardian co-signed by, among the 95 signatories, the artist Cornelia Parker, the musician Brian Eno, and writers Arundhati Roy and Ahdaf Soueif, Berger calls for support for the boycott.
He said of the boycott: "Of course its effects will not be gigantic but it is a way of not staying silent. It is a very personal call ... a way of encouraging the very courageous Israelis who oppose their government and an encouragement to Palestinians to somehow go on surviving." ...
to see the letter go @The Guardian
to see the Ken Loch statement go@ the Electronic
Washington steers up war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq
Gareth Porter in his latest analysis indicated that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated with Sunni armed groups for several weeks earlier this year on an agreement that would have supported Sunni forces in attacking pro-Iranian Shiite militias, according to accounts given by commanders of armed Sunni resistance organisations.
The new accounts make it clear for the first time that the main objective of the talks was to explore possible U.S. support for building a Sunni military force directed primarily against Shiites in Iraq.
In the talks, the Sunnis assured the ambassador that the Sunni insurgents had sufficient manpower and knowledge to deal successfully with the problem of Shiite militias in Baghdad, which Khalilzad had begun to recognise as a serious policy problem for the Bush administration. "If he would just provide us with the weapons, we would clean up the city and regain control of Baghdad in 30 days," one insurgent leader was quoted as saying.
The negotiations between Khalilzad and Sunni insurgents were said by the Sunni leaders to have been brokered by former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, at Khalilzad's request. Allawi apparently convinced Sunni resistance leaders that they could find common ground with the United States over Iranian influence in the country, which was exercised through Shiite political parties and militias. ...
Continued@IPS
The new accounts make it clear for the first time that the main objective of the talks was to explore possible U.S. support for building a Sunni military force directed primarily against Shiites in Iraq.
In the talks, the Sunnis assured the ambassador that the Sunni insurgents had sufficient manpower and knowledge to deal successfully with the problem of Shiite militias in Baghdad, which Khalilzad had begun to recognise as a serious policy problem for the Bush administration. "If he would just provide us with the weapons, we would clean up the city and regain control of Baghdad in 30 days," one insurgent leader was quoted as saying.
The negotiations between Khalilzad and Sunni insurgents were said by the Sunni leaders to have been brokered by former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, at Khalilzad's request. Allawi apparently convinced Sunni resistance leaders that they could find common ground with the United States over Iranian influence in the country, which was exercised through Shiite political parties and militias. ...
Continued@IPS
8 Dec 2006
Ellsberg: prevent Iran attack by leaking Pentagon papers
RI
Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked secret Pentagon documents during the Vietnam war called on current Washington insiders to release any classified documents that could sway public opinion against an attack against Iran.
In a press conference on wednesday 6 of December in Stockholm, as reported by Associated Press, Ellsberg, who is one of four recipients of this year's Right Livelihood Award - often dubbed the "Alternative Nobels" - also urged U.S. allies to threaten to withdraw from the NATO alliance if nuclear weapons are used against Iran.
He warned that he believed the U.S. would attack Iran before 2008 and urged Washington insiders to make new disclosures to prevent a new war.
Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military's account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to how much they had been deceived by their own government about the war.
"It is more likely than not, in the next two years, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney will direct an attack on Iran," Ellsberg said at the news conference for the Right Livelihood laureates. "Such an attack ... might escalate too, to the use of nuclear weapons against underground installations in Iran, with incalculable consequences."
But, the former U.S. State Department official added: "Of the various disastrous policies of their administration, this one is the most susceptible to being changed and averted by public pressure."
"Don't do what I did, don't wait until the war has started before you tell the truth with documents," said Ellsberg.
End/..
a good link to a video for another press conference by Ellsberg on 26 November 2006 on Iran attack @ afterDowningStreet.org
19 Nov 2006
US: a Liberal or Police state? The case of Iranian student at UCLA
RI
looking at the footage from the brutal act by the Los Angeles Police against an Iranian-American student at the university campus, one can legitimately question whether the United States is a liberal country any more, as her leaders constantly advocate, or a police state, as the video showing the student stunned four to five times with a Taser at the University library clearly represents?
The footage, taken by another student using mobile phone, thanks to YouTube is currently available in the internet and since the incident on Tuesday night on 14 November it has become one of the most viewed videos in the site.
Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a 23 years old student of UCLA, who was born in America from an Iranian descent parents, was repeatedly stunned with a Taser and then taken into custody brutally by the police from CLICC Lab in Powell Library. The reason: Because he did not show his Bruin Card (the student ID) during a random check at around 11:30 p.m.!!
The six-minute video shows Tabatabainejad audibly screaming in pain as he was stunned with a Taser, each time for three to five seconds. He was told repeatedly to stand up and stop fighting, and was told that if he did not do so he would "get Tased again" whereas, he was paralysed initially due to the hostile use of the tasers.
The police department claimed that the student was not responding to the officers' request when they asked him to leave the library, however, the footage shows clearly that while Tabatabainejad was being dragged through the room by two officers repeated in a strained scream, "I'm not fighting you" and "I said I would leave."
Attorney Stephen Yagman said he plans to file a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the U.S.-born student, Mostafa Tabatabainejad. Yagman said his client declined to show his school ID because he thought he was being targeted for his appearance.
Several civil rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have called for an independent review.
CAIR urged "state and national authorities, including the FBI" to investigate the incident involving Mostafa.
The American-Islamic relations group says an outside probe's needed to make sure the case's "civil rights aspects" are taken seriously.
The Tabatabainejad footage was the third videotape of an arrest to surface in the last week in Los Angeles.
One video showed a Los Angeles Police Department officer dousing a handcuffed suspect in the face with pepper spray as the suspect sat in a patrol car.
That video came to light Monday, just days after the LAPD and the FBI launched investigations into another videotape showing a police officer hitting a suspect in the face several times after a foot chase in Hollywood.
See Mostafa footage @ YouTube
To see the UCLA TV University report go @ Daily Bruin
15 Nov 2006
When the Israeli war criminal compares Iran to Germany in 1938!
RI
The war criminal Binyamin Netanyahu in his new campaign on threatening Iranians encouraged Americans for a full attack against Iran through every possible way.
In a speech at the United Jewish Communities' General Assembly (UJC-GA) at the Los Angeles Convention Centre on Monday 13 November 2006 he said, "Iran is Germany," and then added, "that is arming itself with atomic bombs and declaring it will destroy the Jewish State."
Likud party Chairman, repeated the Israelis media propaganda that Iran is developing nuclear weapon and then openly asked Americans to attack Iran before this country being able to get the bomb.
Based on his argument the world does not need to find evidence of wrong doing by Iranians and they have to trust Israelis in this case and go for the next phase even before the first stage (the proof of Iran's working on nuclear arsenal) being pursued.
The war criminal who is responsible for many attacks to Palestinian homes during his tenure as the prime minister of Israel also openly threatened Hamas, the elected government of Palestine and said Israelis can defeat Hizbollah and Hamas easily "if the right policy is used", - Say if Israel commits more atrocities against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians .
Netanyahu listed a number of options at Israel's disposal as a means of combating the Iranian nuclear threat and said "We must do everything to ensure that Bush holds to his promises to prevent a nuclear armed Iran."
Netanyahu claimed the international community was taking Iran's threats too lightly. He asked the American to act immediately to prevent Iran from developing her nuclear arsenal. Contrary to other Israeli leaders that normally are very careful in not openly make controversial propositions that should be said instead through their powerful media machine around the world, but this time Netanyahu has given the gaffe and openly threatened Iran and Palestinian people.
The video link below shows his speech. The site belongs to an Israeli journal and possibly when they find that its distribution would not serve to the regime's interest they will take it out of the site. So hurry it will not last long there:
To see the speech go @ jerusalemonline
The war criminal Binyamin Netanyahu in his new campaign on threatening Iranians encouraged Americans for a full attack against Iran through every possible way.
In a speech at the United Jewish Communities' General Assembly (UJC-GA) at the Los Angeles Convention Centre on Monday 13 November 2006 he said, "Iran is Germany," and then added, "that is arming itself with atomic bombs and declaring it will destroy the Jewish State."
Likud party Chairman, repeated the Israelis media propaganda that Iran is developing nuclear weapon and then openly asked Americans to attack Iran before this country being able to get the bomb.
Based on his argument the world does not need to find evidence of wrong doing by Iranians and they have to trust Israelis in this case and go for the next phase even before the first stage (the proof of Iran's working on nuclear arsenal) being pursued.
The war criminal who is responsible for many attacks to Palestinian homes during his tenure as the prime minister of Israel also openly threatened Hamas, the elected government of Palestine and said Israelis can defeat Hizbollah and Hamas easily "if the right policy is used", - Say if Israel commits more atrocities against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians .
Netanyahu listed a number of options at Israel's disposal as a means of combating the Iranian nuclear threat and said "We must do everything to ensure that Bush holds to his promises to prevent a nuclear armed Iran."
Netanyahu claimed the international community was taking Iran's threats too lightly. He asked the American to act immediately to prevent Iran from developing her nuclear arsenal. Contrary to other Israeli leaders that normally are very careful in not openly make controversial propositions that should be said instead through their powerful media machine around the world, but this time Netanyahu has given the gaffe and openly threatened Iran and Palestinian people.
The video link below shows his speech. The site belongs to an Israeli journal and possibly when they find that its distribution would not serve to the regime's interest they will take it out of the site. So hurry it will not last long there:
To see the speech go @ jerusalemonline
4 Nov 2006
Millions to raise voices against imperialist US and Britain over Iran, says Pilger
RI
The veteran journalist and documentary maker, John Pilger, once again is giving his account on the dangers that people are facing today as the new imperialist states, United States and Britain, are working hard on manipulating media around the globe to hide their real intentions for advocating wars and occupation.
On his recent article entitled Blood and Money in New Statesman to be published on Monday 07 November 2006, he says, "The promoters of an extreme form of capitalism known as neo liberalism, the supercult responsible for the greatest inequalities in history, are described as 'reformers' and 'revolutionaries'.
He continues, "The noble words 'freedom' and 'liberty' now refer to the divine right of this extremism to 'prevail', the jargon for dominate and control. This vocabulary, which contaminates the news and the pronouncements of the state and its bureaucracy, is from the same lexicon as Arbeit macht frei - 'Work makes you free' - the words over the gates at Auschwitz."
In another section he writes: British state terrorism in Iraq has cost more than £7bn. The real cost of Trident may be $76bn. Now it is more urgent than ever to raise our voices against Blair's mutant liberalism.
Pilger gives a heavy weight on the public morality and adds that, "Those who have peeled back the facades of the Blair and Bush gangs ought not to be des pondent."
He argues that, "the inspiring demonstration on 15 February 2003 may not have stopped an invasion, but the same universal power of public morality has, I believe, stalled attacks on Iran and North Korea, probably with 'tactical' nuclear weapons."
He adds that this moral force is undoubtedly stirring again all over the world, including the United States, and is feared by those who would contrive an "endless war".
Pilger concludes that, if he has learned nothing else from witnessing numerous bloody contrivances, it is never to underestimate the stamina of rampant, rapacious empire and the dishonesty of its "humanitarian interventions" and emphasises that, "Millions of us, who are the majority, need to raise our voices again, more urgently now than ever."
>>> Continued@ New Statesman
2 Nov 2006
Honorary degree to Khatami, a sign of failed media war on demonising Iran
ReportIran
Offering a distinguished honorary doctorate degree to Mohammad Khatami, the former Iranian president by a British University is a fortunate sign of failed Neo-Conservatives and Israeli lobby media manipulation on demonising Iran and prominent Islamic figures, said Majid Khabazan, an Iranian journalist living in Britain.
In a speech at the Foreign Press Association (FPA) Tuesday evening 31 October in London, Khabazan said, "this clearly shows that millions of dollars investments especially by the US congress and Bush administration on media aiming to distort the facts in favour of what the warmongers are advocating has not been successful among the European elites."
FPA invited a panel on Tuesday to open up a discussion about the honoured degree and Khatami's record on human rights.
Apart from Khabazan, Hamid Sabi an Iranian Jew and a lawyer and campaigner against Islamic Republic of Iran and Peter Tatchell from Outrage, a hardline campaigner on human right issues were in the panel.
Despite the criticism from some well known anti-Iran political figures in the UK and huge media publicity against Mr Khatami, who also heads International Centre of Dialogue Among Cultures and Civilizations (ICDACC), St Andrews university has defended itself on honouring Khatami for the Law degree.
The degree was honoured in a special ceremony on Tuesday after university principal and vice-chancellor Dr Brian Lang read a message the university had received from the Vatican in connection with Mr Khatami's visit saying - "Inter-cultural dialogue and inter-religious dialogue are the vital necessities of our time. What better place than a university to carry forward this discussion?"
Referring to the huge investments that Israeli lobbies are making on major media publications in the UK and even new media such as internet and weblogs, Khabazan admired those who despite the massive media attacks against Muslims in general, or Islamic countries like Iran and specially in the last few weeks against a prominent Islamic figure such as Khatami, were brave enough to stand firm on their decision to honour the degree.
Khabazan called the media tycoons who tend to control and manipulate the news stories, "the real tyrants of the modern age" and added, "Thanks God independent figures in the UK proved that the tyrants hegemony over the media has not been successful in achieving their goals."
"The university is honouring a man not a system or the government of Iran and criticising Khatami and seek to put all the responsibilities of the Iranian governments on his shoulder is unfair and unjust," he emphasised.
Speaking to the journalists, human right campaigners and analysts on Iranian issues at the gathering Khabazan argued that in fact the Neo-Cons have never been happy of the presidency of a reformist figure such as Khatami as they, in essence, are against any democratic and reformist movement in Iran and indeed in the Middle East as a whole.
"Speaking about promoting democracy in the Middle East by the US is a gesture to posture the main goal which is the control over the natural resources of the region," said Khabazan adding that, " whereas the background of coup d'etats against the democratic governments such as Dr Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953 shows the opposite."
On a recent media campaign against Khatami a weekly in the UK printed a loose legal claim filed by the Iranian lawyer calling it a major attempt for arresting Khatami when he travels to the UK.
The Sunday Times wrote last Sunday,"The Metropolitan police have confirmed that they are investigating complaints lodged by two Iranian exiles who claim they were falsely imprisoned and brutally tortured while Khatami was in office."
The right wing weekly did not name the source at the Metropolitan police despite the fact that the authorities had very soon rejected the claim for "insufficient grounds."
Mr Hamid Sabi, who filed the complaint, on answering to a question from the audience at FPA was forced to admit that his act was politically motivated and he knew that he does not have enough evidence for the lawsuit.
But he did not answer that how the unfounded claims against Khatami could strongly appear in one of the major publications in the UK.
***
29 Oct 2006
Iran: the pangs of power
a visit by Dr. R. Sudarshana to Iran
Travelmag
The account by which Sudarrshan describes the visit to Iran in this article is very interesting. The following passage is from the essay when he met an ordinary Iranian lady and had a short conversation with her:
‘Do you know of the atomic energy problems of your country?’, I asked.
‘Of course’ she said. ‘Look at the way we are living in utter poverty. It is like begging in a gold mine because although you dig, you are not allowed to use it’.
‘Pardon me! What has that got to do with atomic energy? You don’t sell that to make money in this country’. I clarified.
She looked at me with puzzled eyes and jerked her head down with a loosely hung lower lip. ‘I know that, sir’ she said, ‘All I said is that we can use the atomic energy for electricity so that we can sell the oil instead of using it all ourselves.’
I was shocked at her high level of common sense and at my dumbness that I couldn’t figure it out myself.
‘See my family’ she continued. ‘Everyone is like this in Iran except for those who can be dishonest. We lost everything in the revolution 30 years ago. You know, we had a good life and I remember my parents being so happy. Then after that, we lost everything in that bloody endless war with Iraq. Now the Americans want to bomb us. What do we have? We have a little oil in the country and we use it all. Now I gather that they don’t want to allow us to use atomic energy’.
She looked honest and innocent. I popped in a provocative question.
‘Don’t you think your country may also be doing something wrong?’
This time Bougardi retorted.
‘It all depends on how you make up your mind while looking at us, sir. If you look at us through your jaundice eye, we are culprits and we are hiding. If you look at us from the God’s eye, you will know how innocent we are. After all, what is there to hide in this country? We are exposed and naked. Poor people have nothing to hide’.
>>> continued @ Travelmag
Travelmag
The account by which Sudarrshan describes the visit to Iran in this article is very interesting. The following passage is from the essay when he met an ordinary Iranian lady and had a short conversation with her:
‘Do you know of the atomic energy problems of your country?’, I asked.
‘Of course’ she said. ‘Look at the way we are living in utter poverty. It is like begging in a gold mine because although you dig, you are not allowed to use it’.
‘Pardon me! What has that got to do with atomic energy? You don’t sell that to make money in this country’. I clarified.
She looked at me with puzzled eyes and jerked her head down with a loosely hung lower lip. ‘I know that, sir’ she said, ‘All I said is that we can use the atomic energy for electricity so that we can sell the oil instead of using it all ourselves.’
I was shocked at her high level of common sense and at my dumbness that I couldn’t figure it out myself.
‘See my family’ she continued. ‘Everyone is like this in Iran except for those who can be dishonest. We lost everything in the revolution 30 years ago. You know, we had a good life and I remember my parents being so happy. Then after that, we lost everything in that bloody endless war with Iraq. Now the Americans want to bomb us. What do we have? We have a little oil in the country and we use it all. Now I gather that they don’t want to allow us to use atomic energy’.
She looked honest and innocent. I popped in a provocative question.
‘Don’t you think your country may also be doing something wrong?’
This time Bougardi retorted.
‘It all depends on how you make up your mind while looking at us, sir. If you look at us through your jaundice eye, we are culprits and we are hiding. If you look at us from the God’s eye, you will know how innocent we are. After all, what is there to hide in this country? We are exposed and naked. Poor people have nothing to hide’.
>>> continued @ Travelmag
18 Oct 2006
US - UK responsible for collapse of Iraq health Services
David Wilson on his study on the collapse of the Iraq's health care services and after demonstrating the degree of damage caused as a rdirect result of invation concludes that it is time for the occupation to end and for those responsible for the invasion and all that has taken place in Iraq as a direct result of military action and civil negligence to be brought to account.
In the report, which is prepared for the London-based Stop the War Coalition, it quotes from the latest Lancet report as,"Iraq is an unequivocal humanitarian emergency. Civilians are being harmed by our presence in Iraq, not helped. We need a new set of principles to govern our diplomacy and military strategy--principles that are based on the idea of human security and not national security, health and wellbeing and not economic self-interest and territorial ambition."
Where Have All the Doctors Gone?
The Collapse of Iraq's Health Care Services
By DAVID WILSON
The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) contains specific provisions pertaining to the delivery of healthcare services in occupied territories. Article 55 states: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territories are inadequate.
Article 56 states: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishment and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
As occupying powers, the 'Coalition' forces in Iraq are in breach of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Conventions. There has been an abject failure to carry out even minimal humanitarian duties. Indeed the healthcare system in Iraq has massively deteriorated since the start of the war. From a public health point of view, an end to occupation is vital for the life-chances and good health of the population of this country. Until this takes place Iraq will remain a place of 'social breakdown', a country of the dead, the dying and the despairing. ...
>>> continue @ Counterpunch
In the report, which is prepared for the London-based Stop the War Coalition, it quotes from the latest Lancet report as,"Iraq is an unequivocal humanitarian emergency. Civilians are being harmed by our presence in Iraq, not helped. We need a new set of principles to govern our diplomacy and military strategy--principles that are based on the idea of human security and not national security, health and wellbeing and not economic self-interest and territorial ambition."
Where Have All the Doctors Gone?
The Collapse of Iraq's Health Care Services
By DAVID WILSON
The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) contains specific provisions pertaining to the delivery of healthcare services in occupied territories. Article 55 states: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territories are inadequate.
Article 56 states: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishment and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
As occupying powers, the 'Coalition' forces in Iraq are in breach of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Conventions. There has been an abject failure to carry out even minimal humanitarian duties. Indeed the healthcare system in Iraq has massively deteriorated since the start of the war. From a public health point of view, an end to occupation is vital for the life-chances and good health of the population of this country. Until this takes place Iraq will remain a place of 'social breakdown', a country of the dead, the dying and the despairing. ...
>>> continue @ Counterpunch
17 Oct 2006
Iran is not a dictatorship, says Scott Ritter
After visiting Iran on September, Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), said in a radio interview that contrary to what American and western media are advocating Iran is not a dictatorship but a very modern and pro-Western nation.
Ritter told Democracy Now radio in the US on Monday 16 October that he has been to dictatorships in the Middle East, he has been to nations that have a high security profile but Iran is not one of these nations.
"I'm a former intelligence officer who has stated some pretty strong positions on Iran, and yet I had full freedom of movement in Iran with no interference whatsoever," he added.
Ritter was able to do his agenda in Iran and interview senior government officials, senior military officials, senior intelligence officials, and to visit sites that were deemed sensitive.
He concluded from this visit that, "the American media has gotten it wrong on Iran. It's a very modern, westernized, pro-Western, and surprisingly pro-American country that does not constitute a threat to the United States whatsoever."
In this interview he gave a full account of his argument that what the Bush administration is thinking of about Iran is a regime change only and nothing else. He argued that "The path that the United States is currently embarked on regarding Iran is a path that will inevitably lead to war. Such a course of action will make even the historical mistake we made in Iraq pale by comparison."...
For listening to the 17 minute interview or reading the transcript:
>>> continue @ Democracy Now
15 Oct 2006
Declining US Empire cannot tolerate Iran
The following is a very good piece of analysis by Michael T. Klare on the mentality of the people at the Bush administration circle whom Kate refer to as members of the declining empire who are not ready to accept the reality. "How dare they stand up to us in that way?" Michael says that White House officials must be saying to one another in private today. And: "We'll teach them a thing or two! - Just you watch!"
Beware Empires in Decline
Michael T. Klare | October 13, 2006
Foreign Policy In Focus
I believe that the common wisdom in Washington regarding military action against Iran is wrong. Just because American forces are bogged down in Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice appears to enjoy a bit more authority these days, does not mean that "realism" will prevail at the White House. "
The common wisdom circulating in Washington these days is that the United States is too bogged down in Iraq to consider risky military action against Iran or - God forbid - North Korea. Policy analysts describe the U.S. military as "over-burdened" or "stretched to the limit." The presumption is that the Pentagon is telling President Bush that it can't really undertake another major military contingency.
Added to these pessimistic assessments of U.S. military capacity is the widespread claim that a "new realism" has taken over in the administration's upper reaches, that cautious "realists" like Condoleezza Rice have gained the upper hand over fire-breathing neoconservatives. Ergo: No military strike against Iran or North Korea.
But Kale is not buying any of this. ...
>>> Continued @ Foreign Policy In Focus
Beware Empires in Decline
Michael T. Klare | October 13, 2006
Foreign Policy In Focus
I believe that the common wisdom in Washington regarding military action against Iran is wrong. Just because American forces are bogged down in Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice appears to enjoy a bit more authority these days, does not mean that "realism" will prevail at the White House. "
The common wisdom circulating in Washington these days is that the United States is too bogged down in Iraq to consider risky military action against Iran or - God forbid - North Korea. Policy analysts describe the U.S. military as "over-burdened" or "stretched to the limit." The presumption is that the Pentagon is telling President Bush that it can't really undertake another major military contingency.
Added to these pessimistic assessments of U.S. military capacity is the widespread claim that a "new realism" has taken over in the administration's upper reaches, that cautious "realists" like Condoleezza Rice have gained the upper hand over fire-breathing neoconservatives. Ergo: No military strike against Iran or North Korea.
But Kale is not buying any of this. ...
>>> Continued @ Foreign Policy In Focus
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College, a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist, and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Metropolitan Books, 2004).
13 Oct 2006
Israeli filmmaker uses BBC on war against Iran
On this revealing article, Jonathan Cook exposes the identity of the filmmaker behind the recent BBC documentary entitled "Will Israel bomb Iran?"
He says, the Israeli government's fingerprints are all over this BBC "documentary". And that is hardly surprising because the man behind this "independent" production is Israel's leading film-maker: Noam Shalev.
He adds, At this potentially cataclysmic moment in global politics, it is good to see that one of the world's leading broadcasters, the BBC, decided this week that it should air this documentary.
The good news ends there, however. Because the programme addresses none of the important issues raised by Israel's increasingly belligerent posture towards Tehran.
It does not explain that, without a United Nations resolution, a military strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear research programme would be a gross violation of international law.
It does not clarify that Israel's own large nuclear arsenal was secretly developed and is entirely unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that it is perceived as a threat by its neighbours and may be fuelling a Middle East arms race.
Nor does the programme detail the consequences of an Israeli strike on instability and violence across the Middle East, including in Iraq, where British and American troops are stationed as an occupying force.
And there is no consideration of how in the longer term unilateral action by Israel, with implicit sanction by the international community, is certain to provoke a steep rise in global jihad against the West.
So why did the BBC buy this blatant piece of propaganda? ...
>>> Continued @ CounterPunch
He says, the Israeli government's fingerprints are all over this BBC "documentary". And that is hardly surprising because the man behind this "independent" production is Israel's leading film-maker: Noam Shalev.
He adds, At this potentially cataclysmic moment in global politics, it is good to see that one of the world's leading broadcasters, the BBC, decided this week that it should air this documentary.
The good news ends there, however. Because the programme addresses none of the important issues raised by Israel's increasingly belligerent posture towards Tehran.
It does not explain that, without a United Nations resolution, a military strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear research programme would be a gross violation of international law.
It does not clarify that Israel's own large nuclear arsenal was secretly developed and is entirely unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that it is perceived as a threat by its neighbours and may be fuelling a Middle East arms race.
Nor does the programme detail the consequences of an Israeli strike on instability and violence across the Middle East, including in Iraq, where British and American troops are stationed as an occupying force.
And there is no consideration of how in the longer term unilateral action by Israel, with implicit sanction by the international community, is certain to provoke a steep rise in global jihad against the West.
So why did the BBC buy this blatant piece of propaganda? ...
>>> Continued @ CounterPunch
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State, is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
655000 death in Iraq since the invasion in 2003
A Lancet reportGilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta,
Shannon Doocy, Les Roberts
Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey
An estimated 655 000 more Iraqis have died as a consequence of the March 2003 military invasion of Iraq than would have been expected in a non-conflict situation, according to an Article.
Background: An excess mortality of nearly 100 000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003 September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.
Methods: Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq.
50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.
Findings: Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5.5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4.3-7.1), compared with 13.3 per 1000 people per year (10.9-16.1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979-942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369-793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.
Interpretation: The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.
>>> Continue @ Lancet
12 Oct 2006
UK Government: the human rights situation in Iran deteriorated
Launch of the 2006 Annual Report on Human Rights
Published by Foreign and Commonwealth Office
12 October 2006
FCO published its new annual human rights report in 358 pages today and in pages 63 to 66 described the situation in Iran for the past year. However, there are other references to human right situation in Iran in other pages of the report such as the box on page 195 about the juvenile execution in Iran.
Its overview reads:
The past 12 months have seen a continued deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. There have been repeated serious violations of freedom of expression and association.
Officials who were implicated in internal repression in the 1980s and 1990s have been appointed as government ministers. While sporadic efforts have been made by some authorities in Iran to improve the administration of justice, we continue to be concerned at the lack of effective action to
reform laws, institutions and official practices. The future does not look positive. There appears to be a real reluctance on the part of the Iranian government to
undertake the necessary human rights reforms. Talk of respect for human rights needs to be matched by a demonstrable commitment to improving the human rights situation. ...
Published by Foreign and Commonwealth Office
12 October 2006
FCO published its new annual human rights report in 358 pages today and in pages 63 to 66 described the situation in Iran for the past year. However, there are other references to human right situation in Iran in other pages of the report such as the box on page 195 about the juvenile execution in Iran.
Its overview reads:
The past 12 months have seen a continued deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. There have been repeated serious violations of freedom of expression and association.
Officials who were implicated in internal repression in the 1980s and 1990s have been appointed as government ministers. While sporadic efforts have been made by some authorities in Iran to improve the administration of justice, we continue to be concerned at the lack of effective action to
reform laws, institutions and official practices. The future does not look positive. There appears to be a real reluctance on the part of the Iranian government to
undertake the necessary human rights reforms. Talk of respect for human rights needs to be matched by a demonstrable commitment to improving the human rights situation. ...
>>> Continued @ full report
10 Oct 2006
Bush's Nuclear Apocalypse
Chris Hedges
10/09/06
TruthDig
The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.
War with Iran a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks. This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as the Axis of Evil. They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran. Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. He knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions.
>>> Continue @ TruthDig
10/09/06
TruthDig
The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.
War with Iran a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks. This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as the Axis of Evil. They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran. Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. He knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions.
Chris Hedges is former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and author of the bestseller "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" reports on Bush's plan for Iran, and how a callous war, conceived by zealots, will lead to a disaster of biblical proportions.
>>> Continue @ TruthDig
7 Oct 2006
Meet the "Whack Iran" Lobby
News: Exiles peddling shaky intelligence, advocacy groups pressing for regime change, neocons bent on remaking the Middle East. Sound familiar? By Daniel Schulman
October 6, 2006
Exiles peddling back-channel intelligence, upstart advocacy groups pressing for regime change, administration hawks intent on remaking the Middle East - the scene in Washington is looking eerily familiar as the Iran standoff grows more tense. Instead of Ahmad Chalabi, we have the likes of Iran-Contra arms-dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. A new Iran directorate inside the Pentagon features some of the same people who brought you the Iraq intel-cherrypicking operation at the Office of Special Plans. Whether calling for outright regime change or pushing "democracy promotion" initiatives to undermine the Iranian government, an expanding cast of characters has emerged to promote confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. What follows is an abridged list of the individuals and organizations agitating to bring down the mullahs.
5 Oct 2006
The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf
A report by Mahdi Darius NazemroayaOctober 1, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Editor's note
We bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East.
The article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment and its relationship to "the Battle for Oil".
The structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of these war preparations.
The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war.
The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.
The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.
The naval buildup is coordinated with the planned air attacks. The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
These war plans must be taken very seriously.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
In the weeks ahead, it is essential that citizens' movements around the world act consistently to confront their respective governments and reverse and dismantle this military agenda.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 1 October 2006
>>> Main report @ GRC
2 Oct 2006
US Moving Forward on Plans for Bombing Attacks in Iran
18 September 2006
A new report
In a new report for The Century Foundation, Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner warns that some in the Bush administration are making the case for air strikes aimed not only at setting back Iran's nuclear program, but also at toppling the country's government. He says that these officials are undeterred by the concerns of military leaders about whether such attacks would be effective.
"If this uncertainty does not appear to worry the proponents of air strikes in Iran it is in no small part because the real U.S. policy objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear program, but to overthrow the regime,"he writes. 'It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air attacks.
"In The End of the Summer of Diplomacy: Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran," Gardiner explains that the policymakers' plan is to use targeted air strikes to kill the leadership and enable the people of Iran to take over their government. The assumption is that more reasonable, U.S. friendly, leadership will emerge. But, Gardiner says, the plan is dangerously flawed and would more likely yield very different results.
"No serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change," he reveals. "On the contrary, whereas the presumed goal is to weaken or disable the leadership and then replace it with others who would improve relations between Iran and the United States, it is far more likely that such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the United States into Iran's permanent enemy."
Gardiner also argues that the administration's frequent efforts to link Iran and al Qaeda may represent an effort by the Oval Office to authorize air strikes on Iran without first consulting Congress. "This linkage of Iran and al Qaeda fits neatly into the broader effort to sell a strike to the American people," he wrote. "But more importantly, it opens the way for an argument that a strike on Iran was part of the global war on terrorism already authorized by the Congress. In other words, approval by Congress does not necessarily have to be part of the calculation of when an attack could take place."
Gardiner identifies what he considers to be some high probability immediate consequences of air strikes on Iran. These include an Iranian strike against Israel, the targeting of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Iran's channeling more weapons to hard-line Shiite militias in Iraq. Longer-term consequences could include a spike in oil prices and a backlash among other Arab states in the region against the United States.
According to Gardiner's report, the administration is not seriously seeking diplomatic solutions to the Iran nuclear issue. "From diplomacy to sanctions, the administration is not making good-faith efforts to avert a war so much as going through the motions, eliminating other possible strategies of engagement, until the only option left on the table is the military one," he writes.
Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College, and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College.
>>> get the main report@ The Century Foundation
A new report
In a new report for The Century Foundation, Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner warns that some in the Bush administration are making the case for air strikes aimed not only at setting back Iran's nuclear program, but also at toppling the country's government. He says that these officials are undeterred by the concerns of military leaders about whether such attacks would be effective.
"If this uncertainty does not appear to worry the proponents of air strikes in Iran it is in no small part because the real U.S. policy objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear program, but to overthrow the regime,"he writes. 'It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air attacks.
"In The End of the Summer of Diplomacy: Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran," Gardiner explains that the policymakers' plan is to use targeted air strikes to kill the leadership and enable the people of Iran to take over their government. The assumption is that more reasonable, U.S. friendly, leadership will emerge. But, Gardiner says, the plan is dangerously flawed and would more likely yield very different results.
"No serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change," he reveals. "On the contrary, whereas the presumed goal is to weaken or disable the leadership and then replace it with others who would improve relations between Iran and the United States, it is far more likely that such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the United States into Iran's permanent enemy."
Gardiner also argues that the administration's frequent efforts to link Iran and al Qaeda may represent an effort by the Oval Office to authorize air strikes on Iran without first consulting Congress. "This linkage of Iran and al Qaeda fits neatly into the broader effort to sell a strike to the American people," he wrote. "But more importantly, it opens the way for an argument that a strike on Iran was part of the global war on terrorism already authorized by the Congress. In other words, approval by Congress does not necessarily have to be part of the calculation of when an attack could take place."
Gardiner identifies what he considers to be some high probability immediate consequences of air strikes on Iran. These include an Iranian strike against Israel, the targeting of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Iran's channeling more weapons to hard-line Shiite militias in Iraq. Longer-term consequences could include a spike in oil prices and a backlash among other Arab states in the region against the United States.
According to Gardiner's report, the administration is not seriously seeking diplomatic solutions to the Iran nuclear issue. "From diplomacy to sanctions, the administration is not making good-faith efforts to avert a war so much as going through the motions, eliminating other possible strategies of engagement, until the only option left on the table is the military one," he writes.
Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College, and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College.
>>> get the main report@ The Century Foundation
27 Sept 2006
Threats of War in Iran, U.S.-Driven Violence Surges in the Region
By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
September 22, 2006
Threats of a U.S. attack on Iran continue, although the nature of a possible attack may be different than what was earlier anticipated.
The Bush administration seems to be shifting away from its effort to coerce the UN Security Council to endorse harsh sanctions or even military force against Iran, but the threat of unilateral action remains.
New diplomatic possibilities are opening and the U.S. is increasingly isolated.
Seven weeks before U.S. elections and following Bush's series of rally-the-troops speeches, violence is rising across the Middle East; public opinion is strongly against the war but the Democrats still refuse to embrace that position, and many are afraid of the charge of "cut and run."
Post-Lebanon war, Israel-Palestine is back on the global agenda; new dangers are rising from renewed U.S. pressure on the Palestinians to accept continued U.S. control of the diplomacy, even as new international initiatives appear as possibilities.
Renewed U.S. interest in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have less to do with ending Israel's occupation than with consolidating Arab governments' acquiescence to new escalations against Iran.
>>> Continued@ Institute for Policy Studies
Institute for Policy Studies
September 22, 2006
Threats of a U.S. attack on Iran continue, although the nature of a possible attack may be different than what was earlier anticipated.
The Bush administration seems to be shifting away from its effort to coerce the UN Security Council to endorse harsh sanctions or even military force against Iran, but the threat of unilateral action remains.
New diplomatic possibilities are opening and the U.S. is increasingly isolated.
Seven weeks before U.S. elections and following Bush's series of rally-the-troops speeches, violence is rising across the Middle East; public opinion is strongly against the war but the Democrats still refuse to embrace that position, and many are afraid of the charge of "cut and run."
Post-Lebanon war, Israel-Palestine is back on the global agenda; new dangers are rising from renewed U.S. pressure on the Palestinians to accept continued U.S. control of the diplomacy, even as new international initiatives appear as possibilities.
Renewed U.S. interest in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have less to do with ending Israel's occupation than with consolidating Arab governments' acquiescence to new escalations against Iran.
>>> Continued@ Institute for Policy Studies
Threats of War in Iran, U.S.-Driven Violence Surges in the Region
By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
September 22, 2006
Threats of a U.S. attack on Iran continue, although the nature of a possible attack may be different than what was earlier anticipated.
The Bush administration seems to be shifting away from its effort to coerce the UN Security Council to endorse harsh sanctions or even military force against Iran, but the threat of unilateral action remains.
New diplomatic possibilities are opening and the U.S. is increasingly isolated.
Seven weeks before U.S. elections and following Bush�s series of rally-the-troops speeches, violence is rising across the Middle East; public opinion is strongly against the war but the Democrats still refuse to embrace that position, and many are afraid of the charge of �cut and run.�
Post-Lebanon war, Israel-Palestine is back on the global agenda; new dangers are rising from renewed U.S. pressure on the Palestinians to accept continued U.S. control of the diplomacy, even as new international initiatives appear as possibilities.
Renewed U.S. interest in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have less to do with ending Israel�s occupation than with consolidating Arab governments� acquiescence to new escalations against Iran.
>>> Continued@ Institute for Policy Studies
Institute for Policy Studies
September 22, 2006
Threats of a U.S. attack on Iran continue, although the nature of a possible attack may be different than what was earlier anticipated.
The Bush administration seems to be shifting away from its effort to coerce the UN Security Council to endorse harsh sanctions or even military force against Iran, but the threat of unilateral action remains.
New diplomatic possibilities are opening and the U.S. is increasingly isolated.
Seven weeks before U.S. elections and following Bush�s series of rally-the-troops speeches, violence is rising across the Middle East; public opinion is strongly against the war but the Democrats still refuse to embrace that position, and many are afraid of the charge of �cut and run.�
Post-Lebanon war, Israel-Palestine is back on the global agenda; new dangers are rising from renewed U.S. pressure on the Palestinians to accept continued U.S. control of the diplomacy, even as new international initiatives appear as possibilities.
Renewed U.S. interest in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have less to do with ending Israel�s occupation than with consolidating Arab governments� acquiescence to new escalations against Iran.
>>> Continued@ Institute for Policy Studies
23 Sept 2006
The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks
Friday, September 22nd, 2006
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Centre for Research on Globalization
Iran is bracing itself for an expected American-led air campaign. The latter is in the advanced stages of military planning.
If there were to be war between the United States and Iran, the aerial campaign would unleash fierce combat. It would be fully interactive on multiple fronts. It would be a difficult battle involving active movement in the air from both sides.
If war were to occur, the estimates of casualties envisaged by American and British war planners would be high.
The expected wave of aerial attacks would resemble the tactics of the Israeli air-war against Lebanon and would follow the same template, but on a larger scale of execution.
The U.S. government and the Pentagon had an active role in graphing, both militarily and politically, the template of confrontation in Lebanon. The Israeli siege against Lebanon is in many regards a dress rehearsal for a planned attack on Iran.1
A war against Iran is one that could also include military operations against Syria. Multiple theatres would engulf many of the neighbors of Iran and Syria, including Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
It must also be noted that an attack on Iran would be of a scale which would dwarf the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Levant. A full blown war on Iran would not only swallow up and incorporate these other conflicts. It would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.
An American-led air campaign against Iran, if it were to be implemented, would be both similar and contrasting in its outline and intensity when compared to earlier Anglo-American sponsored confrontations.
>>>Continued @ Centre for Research on Globalization
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Centre for Research on Globalization
Iran is bracing itself for an expected American-led air campaign. The latter is in the advanced stages of military planning.
If there were to be war between the United States and Iran, the aerial campaign would unleash fierce combat. It would be fully interactive on multiple fronts. It would be a difficult battle involving active movement in the air from both sides.
If war were to occur, the estimates of casualties envisaged by American and British war planners would be high.
The expected wave of aerial attacks would resemble the tactics of the Israeli air-war against Lebanon and would follow the same template, but on a larger scale of execution.
The U.S. government and the Pentagon had an active role in graphing, both militarily and politically, the template of confrontation in Lebanon. The Israeli siege against Lebanon is in many regards a dress rehearsal for a planned attack on Iran.1
A war against Iran is one that could also include military operations against Syria. Multiple theatres would engulf many of the neighbors of Iran and Syria, including Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
It must also be noted that an attack on Iran would be of a scale which would dwarf the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Levant. A full blown war on Iran would not only swallow up and incorporate these other conflicts. It would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.
An American-led air campaign against Iran, if it were to be implemented, would be both similar and contrasting in its outline and intensity when compared to earlier Anglo-American sponsored confrontations.
>>>Continued @ Centre for Research on Globalization
13 Sept 2006
Iran's Response to the EU: Confused but Sporadically Hopeful
By David Albright and Jacqueline Shire
September 11, 2006
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
ISIS recently obtained a copy of Iran's response to the EU package; this is the document that Ali Larijani, Iran's senior nuclear negotiator, delivered on August 22 in Tehran to diplomatic representatives of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States.
Iran is an adroit, skilled practitioner of diplomacy. If the purpose of this response was to muddy the water, buy additional time for its delayed pilot-scale uranium enrichment program at Natanz, while giving China and Russia some ammunition for delaying discussion of sanctions at the Security Council, Iran may have succeeded. The document in some ways recalls a Rorschach test from which any country can find and take what it seeks, if it tries hard enough.However, EU diplomats would be wise to interpret the document in a favorable manner and not reject it out-of-hand, while insisting on a full suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment program, even if for a limited time as a condition for launching formal negotiations. At this time, offers to allow Iran to continue with its uranium enrichment activities during the formal negotiations remain counter-productive. Despite the difficulties, the EU and United States have an obligation to try to find a successful strategy to re-establish negotiations with Iran and re-institute robust IAEA inspections in Iran. The Iranian document, while not particularly helpful, does not preclude achieving both of these goals in the short term. ...
>>> Continued @ ISIS
Voices From Iran
A report written by:
Alex Bigham
September 2006
Foreign Policy Centre - UK
This report, Voices from Iran, seeks to flesh out the spectrum of opinion amongst Iranians. In a recent trip to the Islamic Republic, we conducted interviews with people both inside and outside government. We believe, and we felt throughout our trip, that, whatever the style of debate, and however tense the discussions may be, engagement is the only means to avert a military conflict, and an informed dialogue will avoid such a crisis.
The potential crisis that could occur if Iran were attacked has been hideously illustrated by the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Some have seen a conspiracy in the timing of that crisis. The leaked memo by the Foreign Office's Political Director John Sawers, argued that there was an opportunity to send a united message to the Iranians at the G8 meeting in St Petersburg.
"the obvious occasion to do so would be in the margins of the G8 Foreign Ministers' meeting. The period running up to the G8 Summit will be when our influence on Russia will be at its maximum, and we need to plan accordingly."However, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, and the subsequent air assault on Lebanon put paid to any kind of substantive discussions on Iran while the G8 leaders thrashed out a muted compromise statement on the Lebanese conflict. Both sides have produced their own theories of the timing behind the attacks. From the Israeli perspective, the Iranians gave the green light to Hezbollah to launch Katusha rockets into Northern Israel, many of which have "made in Iran" stamped on their sides.
This was a deliberate attempt to distract the attention of world leaders from Iran's ongoing nuclear research and development.
>>> Download the report @ Foreign Policy Centre
7 Sept 2006
Iran, Its Neighbours And The Regional Crises
A Middle East Programme report at Chatham House
Edited by Robert Lowe and Claire Spencer
Iran's regional position is key to its strength
published Wednesday 23 August 2006
Key messages:
- The 'war on terror' removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Iran's two greatest regional rivals, and strengthened Iran's regional leverage in doing so;
- Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah has reinforced Iran's position as the region's focal point against US-led policy;
- If seriously threatened, Iran has the potential to inflame the region yet further;
- A US-sponsored military strike would be devastating for Iran, the Persian Gulf region and beyond
Iran's influence in Iraq has superseded that of the US, and it is increasingly rivalling the US as the main actor at the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia. Its role within other war- torn areas such as Afghanistan and southern Lebanon has now increased hugely. This is compounded by the failure of the US and its allies to appreciate the extent of Iran's regional relationships and standing - a dynamic which is the key to understanding Iran's newly found confidence and belligerence towards the West.
As a result, the US-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region. This is the key finding of Iran, its Neighbours and the Regional Crises, a major new report published by Chatham House.The report also looks into the ideology of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and unpicks Iran's complicated power structure. It claims that despite his popularity, Ahmadinejad neither holds an insurmountable position within Iran nor commands universal support for his outspoken foreign policy positions. The paper outlines the friction between Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, with the former increasingly trying to wrest control of foreign policy away from the extreme positions of Ahmadinejad and his hardline supporters.On hostility with the US, the report argues that while the US may have the upper hand in "hard"power projection, Iran has proved far more effective through its use of "soft" power.
According to the report, the Bush administration has shown little ability to use politics and culture to pursue its strategic interests while Iran's knowledge of the region, its fluency in the languages and culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills have given it a strong advantage over the West. The report also holds a cautious view of the Iran-Israel relationship. It outlines four future scenarios for the relationship between the two states, one of which is the creation of a "cold-war"style nuclear stand-off should Iran achieve nuclear capability.
Dr Claire Spencer, Head, Middle East Programme said 'Iran's intricate relationships with other states in the region, as well as a number of sub-state actors within these countries, have put it in a remarkably flexible position from which to defend its interests'
Dr Ali Ansari, Associate Fellow, Middle East Programme, said: 'Western policy towards the Middle East shows a complete lack of imagination. There is a world of opportunities between neglect and military action which has yet to be fully explored.'
Nadim Shehadi, Associate Fellow, Middle East Programme, said: 'While the US has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds.'
>>> Download the main report in 52 pages @ Chatham House
1 Aug 2006
Backing Israel attack by the US is empowering Iran
Empowering Iran
by Ivan Eland
Despite growing world outrage, the Bush administration's continued backing of Israel's over-the-top military action in Lebanon can only help Hezbollah and its patron Iran. The administration's foreign policy could not be more pro-Iranian if the White House had become infested with Iranian agents.
Even after the carnage in the Lebanese town of Qana, the administration continues its nonsensical rhetoric about seeking a "sustainable cease-fire" in Lebanon as Israeli military action continues. Most casual observers employing any logic would conclude that it would be difficult to determine the sustainability of any cease-fire unless it was first attempted. Obviously, the administration's rhetoric is designed to give Israel more time to damage Hezbollah. Of course, Israel's original and implausible goal was to eradicate Hezbollah without invading Lebanon and becoming bogged down in another quagmire there. Israel has found, however, much like the Bush administration has in Iraq, that guerrilla organizations, especially ones as competent as Hezbollah, are not that easily eliminated. Israel has found Hezbollah's infrastructure and combat skills to be much more formidable than anticipated.
The bombing of Qana has united the previously divided Lebanese and much of the rest of the world against Israel's veiled terrorism. Israel will have even less time to degrade Hezbollah, which is also committing terrorist acts against Israeli towns. Soon world opprobrium will force the U.S. to stop Israeli military action. And the thimbleful of aid the U.S. is offering Lebanon will not win back any hearts for the cause. The paltry $30 million in U.S. aid being offered to that war-ravaged country is like an armed gang busting up someone's business and then leaving them $5 for repairs. ...
>>> Continued @ Antiwar
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant Editor of The Independent Review.
Tony Benn: Blair is a party to the war in Lebanon.
Interview by Majid Khabazan
Monday 31 July 2006
London - Tony Benn a former minister in the labour governments in Britain said that not only Tony Blair ,the British prime minister, did not criticise Israel for the killings in Lebanon but in fact he is a party to this war.
"This is more than being silent", he said, "Britain is fully supporting Israel and London allowing American bombs to go through British airports and they are supplying arms and sale them to Israel," he added in an interview in London here on Monday. The labour left wing activist said, "Bush and Blair say they do not want ceasefire meaning that they want the killing to go on" so there seems to be a complete agreement between the pair.
Referring to the messages given by Bush and Blair for the casualties in Lebanon Benn angrily added, "you can weep over the deaths but it is not the same as demanding the end of fighting as Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the UN and Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury have asked for." Served in the Wilson and Callaghan governments from 1964 to 1979 as secretary of state for both industry and energy ministries, Benn described the situation as outrageous and said people are angry and are going to make a big demonstration on Saturday 5 August in Hyde Park London.
"We have organised three demonstrations in the UK so far: one was yesterday in Trafalgar square and also we presented an open letter to Downing Street two days ago," Benn said.
Asked about why Blair is supporting Israel to the price of isolating his country from the rest of the world Benn said, "I believe Blair is a Neo-Conservative and he wants American power to extend in the Middle East) and for that he agrees with Bush in every aspect.
Benn said he is worried that the invasion in Lebanon might really be a way by Americans of getting Syria and Iran to the conflict rather than doing it through the argument over nuclear power. "Because Israel might be authorised to bomb Syria or even Iran, even if it is foolish to do so but they might do that," he added.
Asked about some analyses which suggest the ultimate aim of attacking Hezbollah was to involve Iran Benn said, "I think one scenario might be that as Bush has not made progress on nuclear question so he might think that if the war extended then without invasion he might try to justify bombing or something of that kind against Iran." The activist said the ceasefire will only occur when Israel feels it is enough for it and as they said they need 10 to 14 more days.
"However, when Israel stops then presumably Bush and Blair will bring NATO army in the Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah themselves," Benn emphasised.
He argued that if they are going to have any military forces in the area they have to send these forces to occupied territories of Palestine too.
30 Jul 2006
Should Iran attack Israel or vice versa?
TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY : Should Israel take out Iranian nuclear weapons sites in retaliation for Iran's supplying Hezbollah?
By John B. Quigley
The answer is NO
COLUMBUS, Ohio - One of the more persistent rumors in the Middle East is that Israel may bomb Iran's nuclear power facility. And that the United States would give Israel a wink and a nod.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon has moved the rumors from the back burner to the front. One theory of Israel's motive in Lebanon is that it wants to provoke Iran into action that would provide a pretext for going after Iran's nuclear facility. Whereas President Bush points his finger at Syria for Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers, Israel points its finger at Iran.
For the United States, Iran is perceived as even more of a threat than previously because of our own invasion of Iraq and the consequent rise to power of the Shities in Iraq. That development has given Shites' Iran new stature in the region.
One awkward aspect for Israel is that it itself has nuclear weaponry at its Dimona facility and refuses to acknowledge it to the international community. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it is not under the inspection obligations that it accuses Iran of violating. Of any country, Israel has the shakiest grounds for criticizing Iran.
Iran would have more grounds to take out Dimona than would Israel to take out Iran's facility. Not that that would be lawful, either. But the rationale would be more plausible. ...
>>> Continued@ Grand Forks Herald
By John B. Quigley
The answer is NO
COLUMBUS, Ohio - One of the more persistent rumors in the Middle East is that Israel may bomb Iran's nuclear power facility. And that the United States would give Israel a wink and a nod.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon has moved the rumors from the back burner to the front. One theory of Israel's motive in Lebanon is that it wants to provoke Iran into action that would provide a pretext for going after Iran's nuclear facility. Whereas President Bush points his finger at Syria for Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers, Israel points its finger at Iran.
For the United States, Iran is perceived as even more of a threat than previously because of our own invasion of Iraq and the consequent rise to power of the Shities in Iraq. That development has given Shites' Iran new stature in the region.
One awkward aspect for Israel is that it itself has nuclear weaponry at its Dimona facility and refuses to acknowledge it to the international community. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it is not under the inspection obligations that it accuses Iran of violating. Of any country, Israel has the shakiest grounds for criticizing Iran.
Iran would have more grounds to take out Dimona than would Israel to take out Iran's facility. Not that that would be lawful, either. But the rationale would be more plausible. ...
>>> Continued@ Grand Forks Herald
28 Jul 2006
Empire: war and propaganda
John Pilger
July 2006
The US role in supporting Israeli's military assault on Lebanon falls into a pattern of imperial tyranny, where history is rewritten to suit America�s needs while Europe stands cravenly by. John Pilger provides a personal assessment from Washington.
The words "invasion" and "controversial" make only fleeting appearances; there is no hint that the "great mission" has overseen, since 1945, the attempted overthrow of 50 governments, many of them democracies, along with the crushing of popular movements struggling against tyranny and the bombing of 30 countries, causing the loss of countless lives. In central America, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's arming and training of gangster-armies saw off 300,000 people; in Guatemala, this was described by the UN as genocide. No word of this is uttered in the Grotto. Indeed, thanks to such displays, Americans can venerate war, comforted by the crimes of others and knowing nothing about their own. ...
>>> Continued @ New Statesman
20 Jul 2006
Mideast Conflict Boosts Chances of Iran-US Showdown
Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Jul 19 (IPS)
The week-old Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is likely to boost the chances of U.S. military action against Iran, according to a number of regional experts who see a broad consensus among the U.S. political elite that the ongoing hostilities are part of a broader offensive being waged by Tehran against Washington across the region.
While Israel-centred neo-conservatives have been the most aggressive in arguing that Hezbollah's Jul. 12 cross-border attack could only have been carried out with Iran's approval, if not encouragement, that view has been largely accepted and echoed by the mainstream media, as well as other key political factions, including liberal internationalists identified with the Democratic Party.
As was the case with Iraq, the only dissenters among the policy elite are the foreign policy "realists", who argue that this administration, in particular, has made a series of disastrous policy errors in the Middle East -- especially by providing virtually unconditional support for Israel and invading Iraq. They also include regional specialists like Norton, who maintain that the depiction of Hezbollah, for example, as a mere proxy for Iran -- let alone the notion that Tehran was behind the Jul. 12 attack -- is a dangerous misreading of a much more complex reality. These forces have been arguing for some time that Washington should engage Iran directly on the full range of issues -- from Tehran's nuclear programme to regional security -- that divide. But the current crisis, and Israel's and the neo-conservatives' success in blaming Iran for it, is likely to make this argument a more difficult sell. �
>>> Continued @ IPS
WASHINGTON, Jul 19 (IPS)
The week-old Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is likely to boost the chances of U.S. military action against Iran, according to a number of regional experts who see a broad consensus among the U.S. political elite that the ongoing hostilities are part of a broader offensive being waged by Tehran against Washington across the region.
While Israel-centred neo-conservatives have been the most aggressive in arguing that Hezbollah's Jul. 12 cross-border attack could only have been carried out with Iran's approval, if not encouragement, that view has been largely accepted and echoed by the mainstream media, as well as other key political factions, including liberal internationalists identified with the Democratic Party.
As was the case with Iraq, the only dissenters among the policy elite are the foreign policy "realists", who argue that this administration, in particular, has made a series of disastrous policy errors in the Middle East -- especially by providing virtually unconditional support for Israel and invading Iraq. They also include regional specialists like Norton, who maintain that the depiction of Hezbollah, for example, as a mere proxy for Iran -- let alone the notion that Tehran was behind the Jul. 12 attack -- is a dangerous misreading of a much more complex reality. These forces have been arguing for some time that Washington should engage Iran directly on the full range of issues -- from Tehran's nuclear programme to regional security -- that divide. But the current crisis, and Israel's and the neo-conservatives' success in blaming Iran for it, is likely to make this argument a more difficult sell. �
>>> Continued @ IPS
US hawks smell blood
By Jim Lobe
07/19/06 "IPS" -- -- WASHINGTON
- Seeing a major opportunity to regain influence lost as a result of setbacks in Iraq, prominent neo-conservatives are calling for unconditional US support for Israel's military offensives in Gaza and Lebanon and "regime change" in Syria and Iran, as well as possible US attacks on Tehran's nuclear facilities in retaliation for its support of Hezbollah.
In a Weekly Standard column titled "Our war", editor William Kristol called Iran "the prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war", which, he argued, should be considered part of "the global struggle against radical Islamism". He complained that Washington recently had done a "poor job of standing up and weakening Syria and Iran" and called on President George W Bush to fly directly from the "silly [Group of Eight] summit in St Petersburg ... to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies". "This is our war, too," said Kristol, who was also a founder and co-chairman of the recently lapsed Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
Echoed Larry Kudlow, a neo-conservative commentator, at the Standard's right-wing competitor, the National Review: "All of us in the free world owe Israel an enormous thank-you for defending freedom, democracy and security against the Iranian cat's-paw wholly owned terrorist subsidiaries Hezbollah and Hamas. ...
>>> Continued @ IPS
>>> Continued @ IPS
Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service.
18 Jul 2006
U.S. must change its thinking on Iran
Trudy Rubin
As battles raged last week between Israel and Islamist groups in Gaza and Lebanon, my mind flashed back to a conversation I had with a senior Iranian official in May.
"The United States has problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan," he said. "Iran is the one who can help (in all those places). The United States needs Iran's help, not confrontation."
When I asked what would happen if tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program led to a U.S. military attack on Iran, the official swiftly replied: "I don't think the United States is in a position to think like that." The message was clear: You Americans need us if you want to stabilize the region. But if you threaten us, we can make things much, much worse.
Flash forward to the outbreak of Mideast violence in recent days.
I recalled the Iranian's warning when fighters from the Iranian-backed groups Hamas and Hezbollah made separate incursions across Israel's southern and northern border, within two weeks of each other, to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Their timing was telling, just before the G-8 conference of the world's top industrial democracies in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the question of whether to push for U.N. sanctions against Iran was at the top of the agenda.
Suddenly, the G-8 agenda shifted from how the world community might press Iran to freeze its suspect nuclear program to how to prevent new Mideast wars from exploding.
Iran was delivering a warning to Washington via proxies, without firing a gun. ...
>>> Continued @ Centre Daily Times
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers can write to her by e-mail at trubin@phillynews.com.
A Proxy War against Iran
By: Adam LeBor
Putting aside the arguments over the rights and wrongs of Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in response to Hizbollah's missile attacks, I think it's worth taking a sideways step to analyse the west's overall response to the new crisis.
The G8's even-handed approach and failure to condemn Israel's actions seems to me indicative that something important is going behind the scenes, which the mainstream media are missing. Call it a new realism, or a realisation that the struggle against Hamas and Hizbollah is also part of the war on terror. Either way, it appears that the west has apparently more or less given a green light to Israel to try and destroy Hizbollah's mini-state in southern Lebanon.
The real reason why, I think, is Iran.
Iran - and Syria - supply much of Hizbollah's weapons, and provide political support for the Shiite milita. Iranian revolutionary guards train Hizbollah fighters. Israeli military sources confirm that the Israeli boat hit last Friday off the coast of Lebanon was struck by a high-tec shore-to-sea C-802 missile, suppled by Iran, according to the Middle East analyst Tom Gross(http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000759.html).
>>> Continued @ Harry's Place
Putting aside the arguments over the rights and wrongs of Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in response to Hizbollah's missile attacks, I think it's worth taking a sideways step to analyse the west's overall response to the new crisis.
The G8's even-handed approach and failure to condemn Israel's actions seems to me indicative that something important is going behind the scenes, which the mainstream media are missing. Call it a new realism, or a realisation that the struggle against Hamas and Hizbollah is also part of the war on terror. Either way, it appears that the west has apparently more or less given a green light to Israel to try and destroy Hizbollah's mini-state in southern Lebanon.
The real reason why, I think, is Iran.
Iran - and Syria - supply much of Hizbollah's weapons, and provide political support for the Shiite milita. Iranian revolutionary guards train Hizbollah fighters. Israeli military sources confirm that the Israeli boat hit last Friday off the coast of Lebanon was struck by a high-tec shore-to-sea C-802 missile, suppled by Iran, according to the Middle East analyst Tom Gross(http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000759.html).
>>> Continued @ Harry's Place
27 Jun 2006
Bush Will not attack Iran
Analysis by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, Jun 20 (IPS)
Despite the constant invocation of a possible military attack on Iran, however, a little-noticed section of the administration's official national security strategy indicates that Bush has already decided that he will not use military force to try to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Instead, the administration has shifted its aim to pressing Iran to make internal political changes, based on the dubious theory that it would lead to a change in Iranian nuclear policy.
News coverage of the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) issued Mar. 16 emphasised its reference to the doctrine of preemption. But a careful reading of the document reveals that its real message -- ignored by the media -- was that Iran will not alter its nuclear policy until after regime change has taken place.
The NSS takes pains to reduce the significance of Iran's obtaining a nuclear capability. "As important as are these nuclear issues," it says, "the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom."
>>> Continued @ IPS
WASHINGTON, Jun 20 (IPS)
Despite the constant invocation of a possible military attack on Iran, however, a little-noticed section of the administration's official national security strategy indicates that Bush has already decided that he will not use military force to try to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Instead, the administration has shifted its aim to pressing Iran to make internal political changes, based on the dubious theory that it would lead to a change in Iranian nuclear policy.
News coverage of the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) issued Mar. 16 emphasised its reference to the doctrine of preemption. But a careful reading of the document reveals that its real message -- ignored by the media -- was that Iran will not alter its nuclear policy until after regime change has taken place.
The NSS takes pains to reduce the significance of Iran's obtaining a nuclear capability. "As important as are these nuclear issues," it says, "the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom."
>>> Continued @ IPS
26 Jun 2006
Iran is not defenceless in a US attack
Could Iran Defend Itself Against a U.S. Attack?
Patrick Seale
Al-Hayat
16/06/06
Iran is a formidable military power, second only to Israel in the Middle East. This is the judgement of most Western observers.Unlike Israel, however, it has been denied access to American weapons, and indeed to most Western weapons, since the overthrow of the Shah by the Islamic Revolution 27 years ago.
And, again unlike Israel, Iran has no nuclear bombs - at least not yet. Nevertheless, militarily, it is by no means backward or defenceless.Largely through its own immense efforts - and with some help from Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea - Iran has created a powerful military-industrial complex, which employs more than 200,000 engineers, technicians and skilled workers.
According to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), Iran today produces almost two thousand defence items, from munitions to aircraft, and from missile boats to satellites. It exports military equipment to over 30 countries, including seven in Europe.
>>> Continued@ Alhayat
Patrick Seale
Al-Hayat
16/06/06
Iran is a formidable military power, second only to Israel in the Middle East. This is the judgement of most Western observers.Unlike Israel, however, it has been denied access to American weapons, and indeed to most Western weapons, since the overthrow of the Shah by the Islamic Revolution 27 years ago.
And, again unlike Israel, Iran has no nuclear bombs - at least not yet. Nevertheless, militarily, it is by no means backward or defenceless.Largely through its own immense efforts - and with some help from Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea - Iran has created a powerful military-industrial complex, which employs more than 200,000 engineers, technicians and skilled workers.
According to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), Iran today produces almost two thousand defence items, from munitions to aircraft, and from missile boats to satellites. It exports military equipment to over 30 countries, including seven in Europe.
>>> Continued@ Alhayat
19 Jun 2006
Chomsky hopeful on Iran nuclear crisis
negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is within reach
The US must take three basic steps to defuse this confrontation. The consequences of not doing so could be grim
Noam Chomsky
Monday June 19, 2006
The Guardian
The urgency of halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and moving toward their elimination, could hardly be greater. Failure to do so is almost certain to lead to grim consequences, even the end of biology's only experiment with higher intelligence. As threatening as the crisis is, the means exist to defuse it.
A near-meltdown seems to be imminent over Iran and its nuclear programmes. Before 1979, when the Shah was in power, Washington strongly supported these programmes. Today the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons programme. "For a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources," Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post last year.
Thirty years ago, however, when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals". �
>>> Continued @ the Guradian
18 Jun 2006
Gary Samore: US cannot break diplomatic stalemate with Iran
Interview by: Majid Khabazan
Gary Samore said the package of proposals offered to Iran by the US and EU is unable to break the diplomatic stalemate with Iran because Tehran is unlikely to accept a full suspension of its enrichment activities as required by the proposals.
Samore, the former security aide to Clinton administration, added that Iran is not prepared to accept the full suspension. "Ali Larijani and other officials have indicated that Iran might be willing to accept some limits on its enrichment related activities, but is not willing to go back to the Paris agreement, which required the suspension on broad range of activities including centrifuges operations at Natanz and production of Hexafluoride at Isfahan," he added.
The Vice President of MacArthur Foundation told from his office in Chicago he believes that Iran will provide a counter proposal containing some kind of partial suspension. ...
>>>Continued@Fars News Agency
16 Jun 2006
Washington's diplomacy-war game with Iran
Pentagon confirms Iranian directorate as officials raise new concerns about war
Larisa Alexandrovna
Current military and former intelligence officials remain concerned about a US-led strike on Iran, despite the recent appearance of diplomacy on the part of the US State Department and the offer of an incentives package to Iran.
Officials point to new developments, such as a recent meeting in Rome between an Iranian arms dealer and controversial neoconservative Michael Ledeen and the March creation of the Iranian directorate inside the Pentagon, as examples of recent events similar to the lead up with war in Iraq.
These officials also add that an as-yet uncompleted ‘Phase II’ investigation into pre-war Iraq intelligence suggests the same problems may recur when addressing Iran. They note that the Pentagon’s Iranian directorate mirrors the so-called Office of Special Plans, which played a major role in feeding intelligence to the President that bolstered a case for war. …
>>> Continued @ Information Liberation
10 Jun 2006
Is new proposal to Iran enough to defuse the nuclear dispute?
New Proposal to Iran: Will It Be Enough to Defuse the Nuclear Crisis?
A report by British American Security Information Council (BASIC)
09 June 2006,
Ian Davis and Paul Ingram
This latest offer is a definite improvement on the E3 /EU offer made in August 2005, in that it is less demanding and gives clearer incentives. The fact that it appears to have the backing of the United States, Russia and China provides much needed additional authority and credibility. The softening of the US position in particular demonstrates recognition of the importance of the multilateral approach.
We argued previously that the earlier E3/EU proposal was vague on incentives and heavy on demands. If this proposal today had been offered a year ago (or better still two years ago) we could have probably avoided much of the damage to diplomatic relations between Iran and the West, and generated a greater degree of cooperation in resolving the mistrust and fear on both sides. �
>>> Continued @ BASIC
6 Jun 2006
America retreat over Iran's case
Whether Ms. Rice has dramatically turned the administration around on Iran or whether she's their patsy du jour, the spin from the State Department and from the White House (echoed in the U.S. media) is that last week's agreement on a package of incentives for Iran if it were to give up uranium enrichment, along with Ms. Rice's statement to the Iranians, are indications of strong U.S. diplomacy, and even that the U.S. gaining the upper hand in its conflict with Iran. The reality is quite different.
Iran On Condi's Mind
Homan Majd
06 June 2006
... The U.S. has done as well as it can under the circumstances, but the diplomatic initiatives, spun as advances for America, are actually retreats and in some ways a defeat. Up until now, the U.S. has consistently made it clear that it desires a full Chapter 7 resolution on Iran in the Security Council (and that it might form another "coalition of the willing" if that doesn't work); Russian and Chinese objections have rendered moot a strong resolution allowing for sanctions and the use of force. The U.S. has also consistently argued that "all options are on the table"; today, according to the agreement reached with Russian and Chinese participation, some options most certainly are not, at least not with any international legitimacy, even if Iran chooses the so-called sticks over the so-called carrots.
Lastly, the U.S. has pointedly refused direct communication with Iran for almost 27 years; last Wednesday John Bolton was dialing the phone number of his Iranian counterpart at the U.N., asking if he could fax over the statement by his boss. (Mr. Bolton's subsequent remark that it was time for the Iranians to "put up or shut up" betrayed either his neo-con tendency to subvert diplomacy or his sheer idiocy. Anyone with a clue about Iranians, the culture and their language knows that the term "shut up" translates as a deep insult in Farsi, far more so than intended in English, but besides that, with the statement he was undoubtedly pained to have had to deliver to the Iranians, wasn't it the U.S. that had just chosen to "put up" rather than shut up"? ...
>>> Full article @ Huffington Post
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)