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

Johns Hopkins University: Iran needs nuclear power

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

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

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.

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.

• 
  

T0 access the full details of testimony and the new revealed document go @ Parliament

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