US Nuclear Hypocrisy and Iran

FRIDA BERRIGAN

The Bush administration is very focused these days on Iran's nuclear program.


The new round of hand-wringing and saber-rattling about Iran's nascent but worrisome nuclear program comes just a few weeks after the Bush administration announced its new budget, which included billions for nuclear weapons development. The Department of Energy's "weapons activities" budget request totals $6.4 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon's $481.4 billion proposed budget. But the budget for new nukes is large and growing -- even in comparison to Cold War figures.

Key to revitalizing nuclear weapons is Complex 2030, the NNSA'a "infrastructure planning scenario for a nuclear weapons complex able to meet the threats of the 21st century." It is a costly, illegal, and dangerous program aimed at rebuilding the 50-year-old nuclear facilities where the weapons are both assembled and disassembled...
See full article @ Counterpunch

Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

ICH
"Ghosts of Abu Ghraib," a new HBO documentary produced and directed by Rory Kennedy, daringly approaches a scandal that hardly anyone wants to see reexamined -- least of all, one can safely assume, the Bush administration and the Pentagon.

The reason is not just that what happened at Abu Ghraib is, to understate in the extreme, unpleasant. The documentary says it's also because this breakdown was not so much nervous as inevitable -- and not so spontaneous, having been sanctioned by the top brass, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
too see videos go @ ICH

Military strikes against Iran will simply not work

Military strikes could speed Iran's development of nuclear weapons, warns new report.

Military strikes, instead of setting back Iran's nuclear program, could actually speed up their production of a nuclear weapon, according to a new report written by one of the UK's leading nuclear scientists published today (Monday).

The report shows that following an armed attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran could change the nature of its program to assemble a small number of devices relatively quickly.

The report is written by Dr. Frank Barnaby, who worked as a weapons scientist at the headquarters of the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment (Aldermaston) during the development of Britain's own nuclear weapons, and is published by Oxford Research Group, one of the UK's leading global security think tanks.

"If Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capacity it is doing so relatively slowly, most estimates put it at least five years away. However attacking Iran - far from setting back their progress towards a bomb - would almost certainly lead to a fast-track program to develop a small number of nuclear devices as quickly as possible. It would be a bit like deciding to build a car from spare parts instead of building the entire car factory. Put simply, military attacks could speed Iran's progress to a nuclear bomb," said the report's author Dr Barnaby.

Commenting on the launch of the report, Dr. John Sloboda, Executive Director of Oxford Research Group, said: "This report doesn't get into the rights and wrongs of military strikes on Iran - it asks whether they will achieve their objectives of destroying or setting back Iran's nuclear program. The conclusions should be food for thought for even the most hawkish: military strikes against Iran will simply not work. Indeed they could even bring a nuclear-armed Iran closer."

See the full report@ Oxford Research Group

Iran: a Chronology of Disinformation

By GARY LEUPP

The disinformation campaign eschews logic, gambling that fear alone will produce popular support. It anticipates the eventual discovery of its lies and charades, but calculates that the attainment of its heroic ends will make any embarrassment worth the effort. So what if following the nuking of Iran, after the rubble's cleared, we discover that Iran had no military nuclear program? Maybe there will be no evidence of anything at all left anyway. Maybe that's the radiant beauty of the plan.

Don't expect the neocons urging the Iran attack to apologize after the event, not matter how catastrophic the consequences. Consider Douglas Feith's response to the report by the Pentagon's inspector general that his Office of Special Plans peddled allegations about Iraq "not supported by the available intelligence" in order to get the U.S. into a bloody war.
"All of that was wrong, wasn't it?" Feith was recently asked by Chris Wallace in the most neocon-friendly environment imaginable, Fox News studio.
"No, not at all," Feith responded. "There was substantial intelligence. . . . There was a lot of information out there."
A lot of information indeed. Lots of stuff to believe and fear. That's how it works, again and again, in the history of U.S. imperialism. From the imaginary Spanish sinking of the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to Saddam Hussein's WMD to Iran's plans for genocide. Disinformation has a long proud history of working well when deployed by amoral, unscrupulous, maybe insane men holding state power. Will it work once more?

Full report @ Counterpunch

Neocons attack on Iran is a Six-Year Project

Larisa Alexandrovna
Raw Story

The escalation of war rhetoric against Iran from the Bush White House and the neocons is just the latest installment of a long-term plan for another preemptive war.

The escalation of US military planning on Iran is only the latest chess move in a six-year push within the Bush Administration to attack that country. While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror.

Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA's own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq's insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
For the full report go @ AlterNet

Attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences, warn 15 groups

A coalition of fifteen British groups urges new diplomatic push to avoid crisis in the Middle East.

Military action against Iran could have disastrous global consequences according to a new
report published Monday 5 February by a diverse group of organisations including Oxfam, the Foreign
Policy Centre, faith groups and others.

On the one year anniversary of Iran's referral to the Security Council, a new joint report by 15
organisations - including think tanks, aid agencies, religious groups and Trade Unions - warns
that, despite the seriousness of the situation, there is still 'time to talk'. This must be used to
avoid an escalation with potentially disastrous consequences.

According to the report, military action against Iran could:

-- Further jeopardise the prospects of peace taking root in the Middle East - Long standing
Iranian links to Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia
groups in Iraq, along with the presence of significant minority Shia populations in Saudi
Arabia, could lead to severe destabilisation throughout the Middle East.

-- Severely undermine hopes for stability in Iraq - Iran has several thousand intelligence
agents operating in the Shia region of Iraq and has been accused of arming Shia
insurgents. A decision to activate insurgent units could lead to a massive escalation in
violence.

-- Bolster the position of hard-liners and set back chances of reform within Iran - Recent
municipal elections suggest that the bellicose rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is beginning to
lose appeal. Over the winter there have been fuel shortages and inflation continues to
rise. Ahmadinejad's popularity is waning. Military strikes would unify Iranians, ignite
greater nationalist feeling and undermine the growing prospects of an internal shift in
power.

-- Cause significant civilian casualties

-- Push developing countries into greater poverty - If military action led to an increase in
oil prices. For example, a $10 increase in oil price could drop the GDPs of Sub-Saharan
African states by an average of 3% with serious implications for those already living in
poverty.

-- Damage UK, US and European economies - if oil prices rose to $100 per barrel this
could increase the risk of recession.

-- Threaten serious environmental contamination - Bombing could result in radioactive
contamination, oil slicks and oil well fires that could take years to deal with.

-- Increase the terror threat to the UK by fuelling resentment and bolstering extremists.
The Coalition includes: Amicus, Amos Trust, British Muslim Forum, Christian Solidarity
Worldwide, Foreign Policy Centre, GMB, International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War, Medact, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Parliament, Ockenden
International, Oxfam, Oxford Research Group, Pax Christi, PCS, People and Planet, Unison.

Read full report @ Crirsis Iran

Iran self-sufficient in producing centrifuges

RI
International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London in its latest world military assessment concluded that Iran is self-sufficient in producing centrifuges, the heart of the uranium enrichment fuel cycle.

Iran so far has been accused of obtaining the centrifuges from A. Q. Khan black market network but the reality of producing over 3000 centrifuges forced the Think Tank close to American circles admits that Tehran is capable of producing them domestically.

However, IISS, in its latest annual report entitled "The Military Balance 2007"wrote: "It obtained at least 500 disassembled centrifuges from Pakistan through the A.Q. Khan black market network plus the blueprints to produce its own."

IISS estimated that, "Iran is probably on track to meet its goal of producing 3,000 centrifuges by the end of March or shortly thereafter."

Read the press release for the report @ IISS

Bush Is About To Attack Iran-Why Can't Americans See it?

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorised the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorisation for the war in Iraq.

BBC: US seeks MKO terrorist organisation to reach out Iraqi Sunni insurgents

In a rare report BBC Newsnight revealed that some elements of Bush administration are seeking to use MKO (or MEK), a proscribed terrorist organisation on both sides of the Atlantic, to reach out the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

The programme, broadcast Wednesday night on 17 January, contains shocking revelations on how the Americans were thinking of using a group which even their own government has openly recognised as a terrorist organisation.

Tim Whewell in this report said that in April 2003 Iran offered to withdraw military backing for Hezbollah and Hamas. In return, Tehran wanted help to disband a fanatical group called the People's Mujahadeen (MKO) - but was rejected.

Watch the video @ BBC Newsnight

Greater Middle East War, the consequence of American policy against Iran

Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner
The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.

It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we'll see a few more steps unfold.

First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff. The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II...
Cntinued @ Counterpunch

2007: Decisive Year for the Israeli-Neocon Attack Iran Plan

Another Day In Empire,
Kurt Nimmo

As if to kick off the New Year, and usher in the required political mindset, the Israelis are switching the attack Iran mantra into hyperdrive.

"As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors," declares Israeli Brigadier General Oded Tira. "We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

It is refreshing, in a sadistic sort of way, so little translation is required here. First, Tira, a former IDF chief artillery officer, has cut to the chase, not belaboring us with the sort of platitudes uttered by a Binyamin Netanyahu or Ehud Olmert. In order for Israel to exist, so the reasoning goes, it is required for the United States to attack Iran and kick off world war three, or as the neocons call it, world war four. Of course, by "existence" the former IDF officer means Israel must continue the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, continue killing and torturing the Palestinian people, and mucking around in the domestic affairs of its Arab neighbors.
Continue @ ADI

Iranians See Tougher Times Ahead

IPS
Kimia Sanati

As 2006 closed Iranians witnessed two events that will impinge on their lives in the new year. The hardline government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came a cropper in two key elections and the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted to put the country under sanctions for its defiant nuclear enrichment programme.

Iran has lived under sanctions for many years now and hardliners say they are prepared to face sanctions, however dire. In an editorial released after the Security Council resolution, the Keyhan newspaper's editor demanded that Iran exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which the country is a signatory.

The hardliners and conservatives who dominate Iranian parliament responded to the sanctions, adopted on Dec. 23, by approving outlines of a bill which binds the government to reconsider its relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Continue @ Inter Press Service News Agency