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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using journalism for dehumanizing Iran before military action

RI: When John Pilger says that he had never been as concerned about the state of the media as he is today, we should get really worried. In his interview with McNeill he says, "I think there are a lot of reasons to be very concerned about the information or the lack of information that we get. There's never been such an interest, more than an interest, almost an obsession, in controlling what journalists have to say."

To Pilger the most significant way journalists are used by American government is in what he calls a 'softening up process' before planned military action. "We soften them up by dehumanizing them. Currently journalists are softening up Iran, Syria, and Venezuela,"Pilger said.

Normalizing the Unthinkable
John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Charlie Glass, and Seymour Hersh on the failure of the world's pressBy Sophie McNeill
03 June 06 - Information Clearing House

The late journalist Edward R. Murrow might well have been rolling in his grave on April 21. That's because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a lecture that day in Washington, DC to journalists at the Department of State's official Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists.

For the Bush administration to use the memory of a person who stood up to government propaganda is ironic to say the least. Secretary Rice told the assembled journalists that "without a free press to report on the activities of government, to ask questions of officials, to be a place where citizens can express themselves, democracy simply couldn't work."

One week earlier in New York City, Columbia University hosted a panel on the state of the world's media that would have been more in Murrow's style than the State Department-run symposium. Reporter and filmmaker John Pilger, British Middle East correspondent for the Independent Robert Fisk, freelance reporter Charlie Glass, and investigative journalist for the New Yorker Seymour Hersh appeared together at this April 14 event.
>>>> Continued @ ICH

Iranians and the West: two views - one single nuclear issue

Iran's nuclear views issue from deeply within the nation's soul

Saturday June 03, 2006
By BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) In nearly every Iranian statement on its nuclear program, officials stress that uranium enrichment and related technology are the nation's ``right'' according to international treaties. To Western ears, it's the sound of heels being dug in.
But to Persian sensibilities, the declarations are far more nuanced and powerful. They touch on history, pride, fears and the belief among Iran's leaders that they are standing up not only for themselves but also other countries against injustices orchestrated by the United States.
With the standoff moving toward high-level talks which could include Washington after a 27-year diplomatic freeze these differing perceptions may test the flexibility of negotiators on all sides.
``It's really like hearing two versions of the same story,'' said Mohammad Ghaed, a respected Tehran-based author and essayist. ``The West is talking about issues such as security and strategic balance. Here in Iran, that's part of it. But we also have all our psychosis and cultural baggage along for the ride.''
On one level, it's a selective history lesson. ...

>>>> Continued@ AP

Embedded Journalism and the Disinformation Campaign for War on Iran

Now Introducing, the Office of Iranian Affairs

(Formerly Doing Business as the Office of Special Plans)

By GARY LEUP
May 30, 2006-06-02

According to Laura Rozen of the Los Angeles Times, the Office of Special Plans has been reincarnated as the Office of Iranian Affairs, apparently housed in the same Pentagon offices inhabited by its predecessor and involving some of the same slimy personnel. Notably, Abram Shulsky, who headed the OSP under Douglas Feith, is back. His crew will be reporting to none other than Elizabeth Cheney, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and daughter of the Vice President. Dick Cheney is generally understood to be the strongest advocate for an attack on Iran in the administration. (He is also, by the way, architect of Bush's "signing statements" appended to laws entitling him to ignore them. He is the man behind the throne, surrounded by neocon acolytes.)

As I wrote last November, "it is too soon to speak of the 'twilight of the neocons' while [John] Hannah, [Stephen] Hadley, [William] Luti, [David] Wurmser, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, John Negroponte and other neocons remain in power, with [Michale] Ledeen and [Abram] Shulsky still skulking about."
Continued @ CounterPunch

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.