Talk to Iran, President Bush
International Herald Tribune
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006
The undersigned, a group of former foreign ministers from Europe and North America, find disturbing the reports that the Bush administration may be actively planning to launch military strikes soon against possible nuclear weapons facilities in Iran.Such reports, though denied by the administration, raise alarms nevertheless. Similar reports, and similar denials, preceded the administration's decision in 2003 to invade Iraq.We accept Iran's legitimate right to pursue civilian nuclear power with appropriate international safeguards.European leaders have made strenuous efforts to negotiate a solution that met Iran's energy development needs while ensuring respect for nonproliferation norms. Unfortunately, Iran's government continues to resist accepting verifiable constraints on its development of all elements of the nuclear fuel cycle, including large-scale uranium enrichment facilities that could be used to manufacture fuel for nuclear weapons. …
More at International Herald Tribune
26 Apr 2006
Ebadi: Link Iran nuclear program to human rights
Link the nuclear program to human rights
Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi
Tribune Media Services International
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006
TEHRAN Lost in the international fury over Iran's partial restart of its nuclear energy program and the deplorable statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding Israel is the fact that respect for human rights and democracy are the most effective deterrent against the threat that any aspiring nuclear power, including Iran, may pose to the world. When the United States and its allies encouraged the shah to start Iran's nuclear energy program in the 1970s, at a time when it had no economic justification, they helped create the Frankenstein that ultimately became Iran's current nuclear program.If, instead, they had pressed the shah to undertake political reforms, respect human rights and release Iran's political prisoners, history could have been very different. …
Continued at International Herald Tribune
Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi
Tribune Media Services International
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006
TEHRAN Lost in the international fury over Iran's partial restart of its nuclear energy program and the deplorable statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding Israel is the fact that respect for human rights and democracy are the most effective deterrent against the threat that any aspiring nuclear power, including Iran, may pose to the world. When the United States and its allies encouraged the shah to start Iran's nuclear energy program in the 1970s, at a time when it had no economic justification, they helped create the Frankenstein that ultimately became Iran's current nuclear program.If, instead, they had pressed the shah to undertake political reforms, respect human rights and release Iran's political prisoners, history could have been very different. …
Continued at International Herald Tribune
24 Apr 2006
"Is Iran the next neocon target?" questions American senator
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 5, 2006
Iran: The Next Neocon Target?
It has been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They?re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today. ...
More at Senate web page
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 5, 2006
Iran: The Next Neocon Target?
It has been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They?re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today. ...
More at Senate web page
22 Apr 2006
Are warmongers stupid enough to attack Iran by October?
Iran: war by October?
Paul Rogers
20 - 4 - 2006
Washington's political timetable may turn harsh rhetoric into military escalation, unless voices of restraint in both the United States and Iran can prevail.
Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker article on the risk of war between the United States and Iran contained many insights into the current thinking of US political and military leaders. The one that has attracted most attention was the desire of figures on the political side to keep the "nuclear option" on the table, even in the face of reported opposition from some military planners (see "The Iran plans", New Yorker, 17 April 2006).
The idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities may seem almost unbelievable, but it is not too far removed from the "war-fighting" ideas that have been around the nuclear-weapons establishment ever since Hiroshima (see "The nuclear-weapons gambit", 13 April 2006). Meanwhile, there have been repeated press reports that the Iranians are attempting to protect their key facilities by placing them so far underground as to be beyond the limits of conventional munitions. ...
Continued at Open Democracy
Paul Rogers
20 - 4 - 2006
Washington's political timetable may turn harsh rhetoric into military escalation, unless voices of restraint in both the United States and Iran can prevail.
Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker article on the risk of war between the United States and Iran contained many insights into the current thinking of US political and military leaders. The one that has attracted most attention was the desire of figures on the political side to keep the "nuclear option" on the table, even in the face of reported opposition from some military planners (see "The Iran plans", New Yorker, 17 April 2006).
The idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities may seem almost unbelievable, but it is not too far removed from the "war-fighting" ideas that have been around the nuclear-weapons establishment ever since Hiroshima (see "The nuclear-weapons gambit", 13 April 2006). Meanwhile, there have been repeated press reports that the Iranians are attempting to protect their key facilities by placing them so far underground as to be beyond the limits of conventional munitions. ...
Continued at Open Democracy
21 Apr 2006
Will the US attack Iran?
Will the US attack Iran?
By Bernardo V. Lopez, 20 April 2006 (source: Business World)
The US is currently on a media blitzkrieg about its threat to attack Iran on the nuclear issue. But such an attack is highly improbable. First, any US military option has grave consequences on all nations, and the US knows it. It will be alone in such brinkmanship. Second, nobody in his right mind announces a preemptive strike. American saber-rattling via global media, including being "open" to the nuclear option, is simply a bluff to force Iran to accede to diplomatic pressures. There are two options, economic sanction or a military initiative. Economic sanction via the UN is out of the question because Russia and China will surely veto it. A US unilateral sanction, consisting of no trade, no visas and freezing assets will not work. Iran has its big trading partners - Russia and China - and anyone else in the world market in desperate need of its oil, including Japan. Iranian assets abroad - about $110 billion - are beyond the reach of US banking systems. The Iranians have long moved their assets. No-visa is inconsequential.
…
Continued at CASMII
By Bernardo V. Lopez, 20 April 2006 (source: Business World)
The US is currently on a media blitzkrieg about its threat to attack Iran on the nuclear issue. But such an attack is highly improbable. First, any US military option has grave consequences on all nations, and the US knows it. It will be alone in such brinkmanship. Second, nobody in his right mind announces a preemptive strike. American saber-rattling via global media, including being "open" to the nuclear option, is simply a bluff to force Iran to accede to diplomatic pressures. There are two options, economic sanction or a military initiative. Economic sanction via the UN is out of the question because Russia and China will surely veto it. A US unilateral sanction, consisting of no trade, no visas and freezing assets will not work. Iran has its big trading partners - Russia and China - and anyone else in the world market in desperate need of its oil, including Japan. Iranian assets abroad - about $110 billion - are beyond the reach of US banking systems. The Iranians have long moved their assets. No-visa is inconsequential.
…
Continued at CASMII
"the cleansing" in Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere
Globalisationists seek to expedite the cleansing in Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere
Globalisationists are currently seeking to pursue an all-out nuclear War on the pretext of Iran, to expedite their sought "cleansing" of the world from "inferior races". This seems a little "crazy", until one begins to appreciate the psychoanalytical prism of "Globalisationists". Humanity can either choose to save itself from these "Globalisationists" or face extinction of the species by this fanatical pursuit.
What is Globalisation?
Continued at rinf
Globalisationists are currently seeking to pursue an all-out nuclear War on the pretext of Iran, to expedite their sought "cleansing" of the world from "inferior races". This seems a little "crazy", until one begins to appreciate the psychoanalytical prism of "Globalisationists". Humanity can either choose to save itself from these "Globalisationists" or face extinction of the species by this fanatical pursuit.
What is Globalisation?
Continued at rinf
20 Apr 2006
US-IRAN Nuclear Wrangle Job Loss
US-IRAN NUCLEAR WRANGLE COULD MEAN LOSS OF JOBS
Derby Telegraph
BY ANDREW HIBBERD
09:30 - 20 April 2006
Jobs could be lost in Derbyshire unless the US makes clear its intentions over Iran. Fears that America could launch military action against the country over its stance on nuclear development are driving up the cost of petrol and diesel in the UK. The cost of crude oil has gone up by US$10 (£5.60) a barrel to a record US72.2 (£40.40) over the past four weeks. Forecourt fuel prices, as a result, have soared close to the record levels seen after Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico in the autumn. Diesel, already averaging over 97p a litre nationally, is expected to rise above £1 a litre before the summer. Petrol, currently over 94p a litre, is expected to brush £1 a litre but not to go over…
Do Blair and Straw really follow different lines on Iran?
Blair and Straw at odds over US action in IranThe Independent,
20 april 2006
by Colin Brown and Andy McSmithJack
Straw has warned Cabinet colleagues that it would be illegal for Britain to support the United States in military action against Iran. But Tony Blair has backed President George Bush by warning that ruling out military action would send out a "message of weakness" to Iran. Differences opened up yesterday between Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary over growing alarm in the US at the refusal of Mr Bush to rule out military action. Mr Straw said on BBC Radio 4 that it was "inconceivable" that Britain would support a military strike against Tehran. Four hours later, Mr Blair refused to go that far when challenged to do so at Prime Minister's questions by the former minister, Michael Meacher. Mr Blair accused Iran of fostering international terrorism, and said young people were signing up to be suicide bombers directed at US and UK targets. " I do not think this is the time to send a message of weakness," he said. Mr Straw has told ministerial colleagues he does not believe that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, would approve the legality of British action, because Iran does not pose a direct threat to Britain. Mr Straw also said it would be "nuts" to consider a nuclear strike…
Continued at the main page: the independent
A scary war scenario against Iran
The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009. In retaliation, suicide bombers trained by Tehran massacred civilians in Tel Aviv, London and New York
Timothy Garton Thursday, April 20, 2006
The Guardian
May 7 2009, will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded.
Timothy Garton Thursday, April 20, 2006
The Guardian
May 7 2009, will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded.
Coup against Wilson Labour government
link to the main article: WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Britain: Documentary reveals plan for coup against Wilson Labour government—Part 2
By Ann Talbot20 April 2006
This is the conclusion of a two-part article reviewing the BBC 2 documentary “The Plot against Harold Wilson.” Part 1 was posted on April 19.
The media have always dismissed the formation of private armies in the 1970s as the work of a few retired military men, disgruntled with the modern world, who were little more than figures of fun. The reference to Lord Mountbatten immediately links them into a wider pattern of conspiracy that stretched over a longer period and gives them a greater significance than they would have as isolated acts.
The fact that the hostility towards Labour leader Harold Wilson was only a specific expression of more general political fears of the danger of social revolution played itself out in the events following the election of the Conservative government of Edward Heath, which replaced the Wilson government in 1970.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)