ISRAEL WINS 'NUKE WAR'

 

I like to know who funds these stupid warmongering studies? Are they tax deductible?

COULD DESTROY IRAN: STUDY

By ANDY SOLTIS

December 25, 2007 -- A doomsday war between nuclear-armed adversaries Iran and Israel would kill up to 28 million Iranians and destroy their nation, but the Jewish state might survive, according to a prestigious US think tank.

The nightmare "what if?" scenario concluded that Israel's state-of-the-art missile defense would intercept most of Iran's nuclear-tipped missiles.

That would limit Israel's deaths to as "few" as 200,000 - while its much more numerous and more powerful nukes would obliterate Iran, said the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term, though Israeli recovery is theoretically possible in population and economic terms," analyst Andrew Cordesman wrote.

The findings could cheer Israeli hawks who dispute the recent US National Intelligence Estimate that Iran is not seeking nukes.

But the study also indicates that Iran wouldn't use them even if it got them, because a war would lead to the same kind of "mutually assured destruction" that kept the US-Soviet Cold War from becoming hot.

"The 'War Game' paradox: The only way to win is not to play," the study concluded.

An exchange of nukes would last about 21 days and immediately kill 16 million to 28 million Iranians and 200,000 to 800,000 Israelis.

Long-term deaths, from the effects of radiation and other causes, were not estimated. The greater Iranian death toll is explained by several factors:

* Israeli bombs have a bigger bang. Israel has produced 1-megaton nukes, while Iran would be unable to produce anything more than 100 kilotons, a weapon with one-tenth the impact.

* Iran would have fewer than 50 nuclear weapons, while Israel would have more than 200.

* Israel also has an Arrow-2 missile defense, buttressed by US-made anti-missile weaponry. Iran has a limited missile defense.

* Israel's missiles would be more accurate, due to high-resolution satellite imagery.

If Syria joined its ally Iran in a wider war, it could attack Israel with mustard gas, nerve agents and anthrax in non-nuclear warheads.

That could kill another 800,000 Israelis, but in response, up to 18 million Syrians would die, the study found. With Post Wire Services

ISRAEL WINS 'NUKE WAR'

'Israel will attack Iran on its own' | Jerusalem Post

 'Israel will attack Iran on its own'

"I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran," Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents, George W. Bush among them, told the American Newsweek magazine in an article published Friday.

An IAF plane.
Photo: AP [file] , AP

Citing conversations he had in Israel with officials in Mossad and the Israeli defense establishment, Riedel concluded that "Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened."

While some US experts doubt Israel's ability to tackle Iran alone, David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, was quoted by Newsweek as saying that although information on the exact location of Iran's nuclear facility is incomplete, Israel's air strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility on September 6, widely discussed in foreign media outlets, could be seen as a test run for any future strike on Iran's facilities, as well as a direct warning to Teheran.

Riedel told the magazine his impression that Israel would venture a strike on Iran on its own was formed before the publication of the joint US intelligence agencies' report, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). "This [the NIE] makes it [a strike on Iran] even more likely," he said.

Since the publication of the NIE, which reversed a previous American assessment by concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, leaders worldwide have been adjusting their publicly stated positions on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Even inside the US, President Bush attempted some damage control by stating a day after the report's publication that "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous."

In Israel, responses to the report ranged from subtle criticism of the report's conclusions to outright slamming of the US intelligence community's capabilities, so much so that on last Sunday's cabinet meeting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert instructed his ministers to refrain from commenting any further on the report.

In the international scene, Russia's decision to renew fuel shipments to Iran main nuclear facility at Bushehr was interpreted by many anlysts as stemming directly from the NIE's publication; another development possibly stemming from the report is Russia and China's hardened position on further sanctions against Teheran.

In Teheran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quick to capitalize on the NIE, calling it an "Iranian victory" and demanding that the United States publicly apologize for its previous bellicose stance.

Uzi Arad, a former Mossad official and adviser to opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, told Newsweek that on a recent trip to Moscow, a Russian general poked fun at the naiveté of the NIE, commenting that if the Iranians had halted weapons development in 2003 it was partly because they were satisfied with progress there and wanted to devote investment to harder parts of the nuclear equation, like enrichment.

"The irony is that the effect of this report may be self-negating - by itself it will accelerate Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons," Arad told the magazine.

'Israel will attack Iran on its own' | Jerusalem Post

Stupid Intelligence on Iran - WSJ.com

Stupid Intelligence on Iran

By JAMES SCHLESINGER
December 19, 2007; Page A21

The reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, 750 miles south of Tehran, April 2007.

(Schlesinger has a new definition for civilian enrichment, Weapons program)

The NIE's about-face on Iran's nuclear weapons program represents a reversion to an earlier style of intelligence analysis -- featuring a renewed determination not to get beyond the "hard evidence." But as we shall see, this has led to a decision not to consider several crucial elements that lay behind the presumed 2003 decision in Tehran.

Clearly, the key judgments in the NIE were overstated. And that, in turn, may reflect the very late decision to declassify the key judgments, written in a kind of shorthand, and thus incautiously phrased.

The crucial decision, hidden in a footnote, was to define the "nuclear weapons program" which had been halted to mean only "Iran's weapon design and weaponization work and covert . . . uranium enrichment-related work." Thus it excludes Iran's overt enrichment program monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

We have long understood that the production of fissile material, whether overt or covert, remains "the long pole in the tent" in the development of a nuclear capability. Thus the NIE defines away what has been the main element stirring international alarm regarding Iran's nuclear activity.

Yesterday Tehran announced its Bushehr nuclear power plant will be operating at full capacity by the end of next year. Yet even though Russia supplied the nuclear fuel for Bushehr, the Iranians insist on maintaining their "civilian" uranium-enrichment program. Weapon design and weaponization, at least for the simpler weapons, is a far less demanding and less time-consuming task than uranium enrichment.

Let us examine what else has not been considered. The NIE asserts "that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure" and that "indicates that Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach." Now what might have constituted the principal elements in that "international pressure" to induce Tehran, at least temporarily, to halt its covert weaponization program?

• The American invasion of Iraq, resulting in the seizure of Baghdad in 10 days time -- something that had widely been suggested could not be accomplished.
• The earlier destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, another display of American military prowess.
• The decision of Col. Moammar Gadhafi to abandon his nuclear program and to renounce and make amends for terrorism.
• The exposure and partial demolition of the A.Q. Khan nuclear technology network, Khan's confession and his confinement by the Pakistani government to his home.

Does it not seem likely that Tehran took notice of these events, and may have been intimidated by them into more circumspect behavior? The NIE argues that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach." Given those successful American actions, those who guide decisions in Iran may well have decided that the potential costs of being caught with a clandestine program had risen sharply, and that the presumed benefits of early clandestine weaponization efforts could safely be deferred.

In brief, since the "long pole in the tent" remains the production of fissile material, Iran likely decided that the prudent course of action was to pursue an open enrichment program ostensibly to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. It is a course that had been chartered by North Korea -- and arguably was legitimate under the Nonproliferation Treaty. This central path to obtaining fissile material -- the focus of international concern -- has been treated in the NIE as quite distinct from the "nuclear weapons program."

Still, the achievements of American arms and American policy during that period were undoubtedly noted in Tehran. Why not mention them in the NIE as possibly influencing Tehran's decision in 2003?

The answer, in brief, is that it would have been speculative and in violation of the renewed commitment of the intelligence community to stick to the "hard evidence." There was no intercept; there was no agent's report that such calculations were, indeed, the source of Iran's switch. So in order to avoid the kind of speculation that had gotten the intelligence community into trouble in its judgments regarding Iraq, these realities were left up to the imagination of others and the intelligence community stuck to what it had evidence for.

What was obvious about events in and around 2003 should have been obvious at least to the American media. The media, Lord knows, have no inhibitions about engaging in speculation or urging us to "connect the dots," or feeling any obligation to limit themselves to hard evidence. The NIE almost begged for others to follow up on the nature of "international pressure" and the calculations behind Iran's "cost-benefit approach."

But the American media today almost reflexively treat any development as a setback for the administration of George W. Bush. So, the media quite clearly ignored the obvious: that a surprising decision by Tehran in 2003 to halt the covert weaponization effort likely was a tribute to the successes of American policy and arms during that period. Thus, administration policies and actions that likely induced caution in Tehran could be characterized, ironically enough, as an administration defeat.

Little more need be said about the process by which what might have been heralded as a victory was transformed into a defeat and echoed overseas. But a few words do need to be added about the intelligence community's decision to restrict its key judgments to "hard evidence." Many in the intelligence community embrace this as a return to virtue. Yet in itself it has severe drawbacks. As in this case, reading the key judgments may now require something akin to Cliffs Notes listing other relevant events and considerations that may be necessary in interpreting an Estimate limited to the hard evidence.

Exclusive reliance on hard evidence not infrequently results in deliberately blinding oneself to the most obvious explanation of what has occurred. The classic example of this failing occurred during the Vietnam War, when intelligence analysts stubbornly refused to accept that enemy supplies were pouring through Sihanoukville ostensibly on the grounds that there was no hard evidence. (Actually, there was an agent's report that revealed the activity, but it was dismissed as insufficient.) Intelligence based on hard evidence requires supplementation by other forms of intelligence.

"Failures of imagination," to which the 9-11 Commission referred, can come in a variety of modes.

Stupid Intelligence on Iran - WSJ.com

Iran Receives Nuclear Fuel in Blow to U.S. - New York Times

 

WASHINGTON — The United States lost a long battle when Russia, as it announced on Monday, delivered nuclear fuel to an Iranian power plant that is at the center of an international dispute over its nuclear program. Iran, for its part, confirmed on Monday plans to build a second such plant.

 

Pool photo by Ivan Sekretarev

Iran’s atomic chief, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, said a second power plant was being built.

Related

Times Topics: Iran's Nuclear Program

In announcing that it had delivered the first shipment of enriched-uranium fuel rods to the power plant, at Bushehr in southern Iran, on Sunday, Russian officials said that while the fuel was in Iran, it would be under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear monitoring agency for the United Nations. Russia also said the Iranian government had guaranteed that the fuel would be used only for the power plant.

The Bush administration took pains not to criticize the Russian move publicly, even expressing support for outside supplies if that led Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program.

“If the Russians are willing to do that, which I support, then the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich,” President Bush said Monday. “If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there’s no need for them to learn how to enrich.”

But from the American standpoint, the timing could not have been worse, coming just two weeks after the release of a United States intelligence estimate that concluded that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The National Intelligence Estimate also concluded that Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, undercutting a central tenet of the Bush administration’s basis for maintaining international pressure against Iran.

While administration officials maintain that the intelligence estimate does not mean that the United States and its allies should ease the pressure, the practical consequence of the report has been to embolden Iran. It has also made it more likely that China and Russia, two of the countries with perhaps the smallest appetite for sanctions against Iran, will not agree to a new round of tough sanctions by the United Nations Security Council.

Russia’s decision to deliver fuel to Bushehr further encourages Iran, several administration officials and European diplomats said privately. They did not speak for attribution because they had not been authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The White House took a different tack in its comments. “There is no doubt that Russia and the rest of the world want to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe. “And today’s announcement provides one more avenue for the Iranians to make a strategic choice to suspend enrichment.”

But privately, administration officials said they had been hoping, with dwindling confidence, that Russia would continue to stall on delivering the fuel, in part to send a message to Iran that the United States and its European, Chinese and Russian allies were hanging tough in their attempts to punish Iran for refusing to suspend enrichment.

“We for many years tried to stop it, and for the last year we’ve known there was no way to stop it, and that it was coming, and we held our breath on the timing,” a senior administration official said.

Indeed, Iran said it had no intention of suspending its uranium enrichment just because it had received the fuel shipment for Bushehr, and it even confirmed that it intended to enrich uranium for another new nuclear power plant in the south of the country, the Fars news agency reported.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the chief of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, said Iran needed to produce fuel for a second plant under construction. “We are building a 360-megawatt indigenous power plant in Darkhovin,” Mr. Aghazadeh said.

“The fuel for this plant needs to be produced by Natanz enrichment plant,” he added, according to the news agency.

Darkhovin is a city in the southern province of Khuzistan, north of Bushehr, which is better known for its oil fields. Natanz is the site where Iran has been installing centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

Both Bushehr and Darkhovin were projects planned before the 1979 revolution, and then abandoned. It was not clear how much construction had been carried out at Darkhovin.

Construction of Bushehr has been hindered by repeated delays, most of them a symptom of Russia’s uneasiness about Iran’s nuclear intentions, European and American diplomats said. This year, Russia delayed a fuel shipment expected in March, accusing Iran of tardiness in making its monthly payments of $25 million. At the time, Bush administration officials privately expressed satisfaction about the delay and attributed Russia’s move, in part, to its desire to help the West pressure Iran into more openness about its nuclear program.

Last week, Sergei Shmatko, the director of Atomstroyexport, the Russian contractor responsible for the plant, announced that Russia and Iran had ended their financial disputes over the project, although he did not indicate a date for when the long-awaited opening would occur.

Irina F. Esipova, a spokeswoman for Atomstroyexport, said Bushehr would be ready technically to operate no sooner than six months after all the uranium fuel rods needed to power the station were delivered.

Russia alerted Bush administration officials two weeks ago that the fuel shipment was going ahead, administration officials said. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue, said Russia agreed to put certain safeguards in place to allow for greater international inspections at Bushehr.

The United States had already agreed in principle that it was acceptable for Russia to provide the fuel to Iran, as long as there were safeguards to handle the spent fuel. Administration officials said they decided that the United States had no choice but to concede that it could no longer keep prodding Russia to delay shipping the fuel.

But “when I was under secretary for arms control, we spent a lot of time trying — successfully — to convince the Russians not to ship the fuel,” John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, said in an interview on Monday.

He said he believed that Russia’s latest actions reflected a change in the people who were dealing with Russia’s nuclear program, a change of heart by President Vladimir V. Putin and the economics of the deal.

Iran Receives Nuclear Fuel in Blow to U.S. - New York Times

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

 

Kissinger's foggy lens on Iran
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Henry Kissinger has thrown his shoulder behind the so-called "push-back" strategy being applied to the new US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program. Specifically, he's even given hawks in the lame-duck George W Bush administration a helping hand in countering the backlash sparked by the NIE's most inconvenient finding - that Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Despite the decades which have passed since he served in the Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford administrations, former US secretary of state Kissinger is still considered one of the most prescient US observers of global affairs. His recent opinion pieces published in The Washington Post go a long way in fanning the flames of a perceived Iranian nuclear threat - at least at the level of American public opinion - now that much of the fear has been extinguished by the NIE's findings.

This is, in fact, so typical of Kissinger. He's long made a virtue out of rehashing old ideas and assumptions as refreshingly new simply through linguistic acrobatics intermixed with calibrated obfuscation. Such rhetoric is swathed in additional, artificial layers of semantic ambiguity and "double talk". Worse, Kissinger's trademark has long been to simultaneously embrace contradictory ideas and yet escape serious scrutiny in a thick fog of semantic wordplay.

As a result, Kissinger can be everything to everyone these days. He's at once an avid advocate of serious disarmament and also a powerful voice for a "strong American military" and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's reliance on its nuclear arsenal. He's an enthusiastic supporter of various arms limitation treaties and also a reasonable voice for their reconsideration. He's a proponent of post-Cold War, post-hegemonic America and, equally, a principal architect of American primacy in the new global milieu (not to overlook his own singular contributions to the thesis of a "new Cold War" in the Middle East in recent publications in the Arab press).

 

It's nothing new: during the 1970s, Kissinger went to Baghdad and promised that the US would do everything possible "to reduce Israel's size", when, in fact, he never even waved a finger in that direction.
Kissinger now writes opinion columns about the perils of nuclear weapons without ever repudiating his earlier views. For example, in 1957, he wrote that "with proper tactics, nuclear war need not be as destructive as it appears".

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Henry A. Kissinger - Misreading the Iran Report - washingtonpost.com

 

The extraordinary spectacle of the president's national security adviser obliged to defend the president's Iran policy against a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) raises two core issues: How are we now to judge the nuclear threat posed by Iran? How are we to judge the intelligence community's relationship with the White House and the rest of the government?

The "Key Judgments" released by the intelligence community last week begin with a dramatic assertion: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." This sentence was widely interpreted as a challenge to the Bush administration policy of mobilizing international pressure against alleged Iranian nuclear programs. It was, in fact, qualified by a footnote whose complex phraseology obfuscated that the suspension really applied to only one aspect of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and not even the most significant one): the construction of warheads. That qualification was not restated in the rest of the document, which continued to refer to the "halt of the weapons program" repeatedly and without qualification.

Henry A. Kissinger - Misreading the Iran Report - washingtonpost.com

The Associated Press: Israel Officials in US to Discuss Iran

 

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli intelligence officials are in the U.S. trying to convince the Bush administration that Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapons — contrary to the findings of a recent U.S. intelligence report, security officials said.

(and they ask why Ahmadinejad is mad at Israel)

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, however, scolded a Cabinet minister on Sunday for his harsh, public criticism of the U.S. report.

The U.S. assessment, released earlier this month, concludes Iran halted its weapons development program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen at least through the middle of this year. The findings reversed a key conclusion from a 2005 intelligence report that Iran was developing a bomb.

Israeli officials fear the report will weaken international resolve to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions.

It was not clear what type of material the Israeli delegation — for the most part military intelligence officers — presented to U.S. officials during its unscheduled visit. The Israeli delegation hoped to receive additional information from the U.S. report, which for the most part was classified, the Israeli officials said.

The Associated Press: Israel Officials in US to Discuss Iran

Israeli minister says U.S. assessment on Iran could lead to regional war - International Herald Tribune

(This sounds like something out of twilight zone) 

JERUSALEM: In Israel's harshest criticism yet of a U.S. intelligence report that Iran is no longer developing nuclear arms, a senior minister warned on Saturday that the assessment could lead to a regional war that would threaten the Jewish state.

Public Security Minister Avi Dichter also suggested that Israel could no longer trust American intelligence, saying that its agencies could also issue false information about Palestinian security forces' crackdown on militant groups. The Palestinian action is required as part of a U.S.-backed renewal of peace talks with Israel this month.

Dichter cautioned that a refusal to recognize Iran's intentions to build weapons of mass destruction could lead to a regional war. He compared the possibility of such fighting to a surprise attack on Israel in 1973 by its Arab neighbors, which came to be known in Israel for the Yom Kippur Jewish holy day on which it began.

"The American misconception concerning Iran's nuclear weapons is liable to lead to a regional Yom Kippur where Israel will be among the countries that are threatened," Dichter said in a speech in a suburb south of Tel Aviv, according to his spokesman, Mati Gil. "Something went wrong in the American blueprint for analyzing the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat."

Israeli minister says U.S. assessment on Iran could lead to regional war - International Herald Tribune

Egypt and Saudi Arabia make new overtures to Iran | csmonitor.com

 

Cairo - Iran is suddenly enjoying a thaw with its Arab neighbors – all close US allies – in the wake of a US intelligence report that judged Iran probably suspended its work on nuclear weapons four years ago.

Regional actors, in particular, are scrambling to engage Iran diplomatically, and analysts say they have the tacit approval of the Americans.

Egypt, a US ally and the only Arab state not to have full diplomatic relations with Iran, this week sent a high-level delegation to Tehran for the first time since that country's Islamic revolution in 1979. On Thursday, Russia said it would resume work on an Iranian civilian nuclear plant.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was invited by the Qatari emir to speak to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) earlier this month – the first time that has ever happened. On Wednesday, Iran announced that Saudi Arabia had invited Mr. Ahmedinejad to participate in the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, a first for an Iranian leader since the 1979 revolution.

"Qatar could not have invited Ahmedinejad to the GCC without an understanding with the Americans. I don't think Egypt would be sending a diplomat without some sort of green light either," says Emad Gad, an expert on regional politics at the Al Ahram Center, a government-linked think tank in Cairo. "All of this is part of a strategy, and I think it's an American strategy as well, to keep the freeze on the nuclear program while creating a friendlier climate."

The strategy that's now being crafted looks very similar to the one that US hawks felt was discredited before the American decision to invade Iraq: One of sanctions and limited diplomatic outreach, with only muted threats to use force.

Then, proponents of an invasion argued that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction in defiance of UN sanctions and that such measures were insufficient. While it turned out that Mr. Hussein had no such weapons, analysts like Mr. Gad argue that the US invasion of Iraq was decisive in prompting the Iranian's change of course.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia make new overtures to Iran | csmonitor.com

Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism

 

Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism

---

Why our current policy will allow the Terrorists to win, and why leaving Iraq isn't "surrender" or "retreat"

---

by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)

There have been questions about Ron Paul's willingness to "fight" the radical "Islamofascists." Many in the Republican Party refuse to support Congressman Paul because they mistakenly believe that he is some sort of "pacifist hippy" since they don't understand why he doesn't support the "war." This is my attempt at explaining that position with some analogies, plain language, and references that anyone interested in actually defeating these "evil-doers" should find interesting.
The War with IslamoFascism. Let's look at that statement because it will help explain Dr. Paul's position. First of all, "war" can only be declared by Congress. America hasn't issued a real declaration of war since WWII and we haven't won a war since then. Because this "war" isn't a declared war, Ron Paul doesn't support it because as a congressman who was sworn to uphold the constitution, he understands that he has no right to do so.
Congress can only constitutionally issue a declaration of war if America is attacked or feels that an issuance of war is needed to protect us. America was attacked on September 11th, 2001. But it was attacked by 19 men who represent a larger network of men who hold similar extreme ideas. Fighting a "War" on "IslamoFascism" because of September 11th, makes about as much sense as fighting a "War" on "Depressed Asian Students" because of what happened at Virginia Tech last spring. Dr. Paul's response would have been to commit resources to catch the people who were actually responsible for and supported the attacks. This is why he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan, but now doesn't support the ongoing actions there since they are no longer designed to catch Bin Laden or others who are actually responsible for the attacks.
He also understands that part of the reason we were attacked was because of an interventionist foreign policy. Most of the Sept. 11th hijackers were Saudis. Non-coincidentally, they were upset because of our military presence in their country and the way we had influenced governments in their region. This is a priniciple the CIA calls "blowback" which is also the name of a book (by Chalmers Johnson) that was written pre-September 11th and warned that we should expect coming acts of reprisal by individuals or states because of our meddling in their affairs over the course of the previous few decades. At the time it was written, it was greeted with smug laughter (as noted in the book's introduction) exactly the same way Dr. Paul's comments were by other Republican candidates during the debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5avEmnWrtk starting around the 2:19 mark) when he suggested our current policy was a "road to disaster." Killing terrorists by unconstitutionally going into sovereign countries instead of actually removing the major cause of their hate for us is akin to killing flies instead of removing the dead carcass in the middle of the room. Worse yet, we are not only not removing the carcass we are creating more carcasses on which they feed and multiply. Dr. Paul understands that America has a problem with people who hold radical Islamic views, but doesn't think that a "War" on an "Islamo-Fascism" is the way to solve the problem.
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term used to scare people and make an enemy seem more menacing than it really is. I won't give you the history on it, but you can check out Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism. The 1978 Iranian revolution mentioned there as possibly the first time the word was used, was a direct result of our CIA installing the Shah into power in 1953 (again--our interventionist policy). It has been picked up on an popularized by people like David Horowitz who is a leading proponent of "swatting flies" to solve the problem. As an American citizen, you are more likely to drown in a bathtub than to be killed by a terrorist. Since we decided on this pre-emptive first strike doctrine, more American lives have been lost (soldiers are Americans too--and also support Dr. Paul more via donations than they support any other candidate) than in the September 11th attacks. The money we have spent in Iraq (and will continue to spend if we keep with this policy and move on to Iran) makes the money we lost both directly and tangentially due to the September 11th attacks seem paltry by comparison.

Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism

Bombs: Comment: The New Yorker

Bombs

by Steve Coll December 17, 2007

Keywords

Iran;

National Intelligence Estimate;

Nuclear Weapons;

Bush, George W. (Pres.) (43rd);

Foreign Policy;

Cheney, Dick (Vice-President);

Diplomacy

Last week, the Bush Administration released declassified extracts from a new National Intelligence Estimate about Iran’s nuclear program. The passages landed in Washington like a religious scroll; they radiated revelation. The N.I.E. drew upon new intelligence, collected last summer, to report with “high confidence” two facts that were previously unknown, or at least heavily disputed: that Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government had commissioned a secret, military-run atomic-weapons program, in addition to its open nuclear-power program, and that, in 2003, Iran halted this secret program, “primarily in response to international pressure.”

This assessment may yet prove to be no more accurate than past American intelligence evaluations of Iran (the Shah’s rule is stable; the Iranian Revolution has reliable moderates; if the United States invades Iraq, Iran will react passively). But, taken at face value, the findings expose some of the bluff, humbug, and extremism that have often dominated nuclear diplomacy between the Bush Administration and Tehran.

Iran’s ruling clerics are revealed in the estimate as nervous types. As the mullahs watched the United States recklessly invade Iraq, in 2003, to destroy weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed, they harbored the guilty secret that their atomic-bomb program did exist, and might yet be discovered. So they apparently put their bomb work to rest. To a considerable extent, the “international pressure” referred to in the estimate must have been neurotic and self-inflicted: if the mullahs confessed their secret program, they might be goners, but if they did not confess and got caught, they might also be goners. Iran’s government seems to have coped with this conundrum in the manner of deceivers throughout history and literature: it blustered, obfuscated, hinted, delayed, negotiated for some way out, but ultimately found itself imprisoned by its own deceit. More pragmatically, it launched a clandestine campaign against the American forces occupying Iraq, to forestall a possible American invasion.

The estimate’s findings provide equally bracing clarity about the Bush Administration: they show that the Cheney regency persists, and that the Vice-President and his neoconservative protégés in the Administration have continued to exaggerate and misuse intelligence to advance preconceived policies—in this case, a policy of militant confrontation with Iran, salted by public misstatements of what was known or knowable about the Iranian nuclear threat. A year ago, in these pages, Seymour Hersh reported that the C.I.A. had acquired intelligence that Iran’s nuclear program was considerably less advanced than the White House advertised, but that this reporting had been dismissed by Cheney and his aides, who wanted only intelligence that would allow them “to accomplish the mission,” as a senior intelligence official told Hersh. The official’s choice of words resonates still.

Bombs: Comment: The New Yorker

Inside Intel / How Iran was sold a lemon - Haaretz - Israel News

 

Prof. Louis Rene Beres had no doubt that, in spite of the report's arguments, Iran is still trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Therefore, he says Israel must not stop preparing for a military attack in Iran. The report, he says, is "a shameless acknowledgment that Israel has been abandoned yet again by Washington." But in spite of that, "Israel's right of anticipatory self-defense against Iran is now greater than ever."
"Naturally, such a preemptive act of self-defense would be directed exclusively at Iranian hard targets (pertinent industrial and military infrastructures) and would be entirely conventional in nature," he says. "The American NIE notwithstanding, it is incontestable that Iran still seeks nuclear weapons and that its orientation toward Israel remains authentically genocidal."

Inside Intel / How Iran was sold a lemon - Haaretz - Israel News

Olmert says Iran still seeking nuclear bomb and no evidence will convince him otherwise| Reuters

 

JERUSALEM, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that Iran was still pursuing a nuclear weapon and called on the international community to pressure the Islamic Republic to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
It was the first time Olmert commented publicly on a U.S. intelligence report published last week that said Iran's nuclear weapon programme had been on hold since 2003.
"The U.S. report has created exaggerated debate," Olmert said at a security conference. "Nothing has changed. Iran was and still is dangerous, and we need even stronger international pressure to dissuade Iran from its nuclear direction."

Olmert says Iran still seeking nuclear bomb | Reuters

All Iranians with the nuclear weapon knowledge must be killed

However, Bush has latched onto this "knowledge" aspect in an attempt to lower the bar on Iran: "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," he said at a press conference following the release of the NIE.

Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran NIE - CommonDreams.org

 

WASHINGTON — A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.

But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.                                                                   "Bastards Released the report!!"

A former CIA intelligence officer who has asked not to be identified told IPS that an official involved in the NIE process says the Iran estimate was ready to be published a year ago but has been delayed because the director of national intelligence wanted a draft reflecting a consensus on key conclusions — particularly on Iran’s nuclear program.

The NIE coordinates the judgments of 16 intelligence agencies on a specific country or issue.

There is a split in the intelligence community on how much of a threat the Iranian nuclear program poses, according to the intelligence official’s account. Some analysts who are less independent are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmist view coming from Cheney’s office, but others have rejected that view.

The draft NIE first completed a year ago, which had included the dissenting views, was not acceptable to the White House, according to the former intelligence officer. “They refused to come out with a version that had dissenting views in it,” he says.

As recently as early October, the official involved in the process was said to be unclear about whether an NIE would be circulated and, if so, what it would say.

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi provided a similar account, based on his own sources in the intelligence community. He told IPS that intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House.

Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran NIE - CommonDreams.org

The Gulf States and Iran - WSJ.com

 

The Gulf States and Iran

By MAX BOOT
December 5, 2007; Page A25

The release of the new National Intelligence Estimate will provide more fodder for those who claim that "neoconservative ideologues" and the "Israel lobby" are overly alarmed about the rise of Iran. In reality, some of those most worried about the mullahs wear flowing headdresses, not yarmulkes, and they have good cause for concern, notwithstanding the sanguine tilt many news accounts put on the NIE.

Jets from the United Arab Emirates and France fly together on a joint maneuver.

I recently visited the Persian Gulf region as part of a delegation of American policy wonks organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Throughout our meetings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, the top issue was Iran's ambitions to dominate the region.

Evidence of those imperial designs is not hard to find. The Iranians are aiding extremists who are undermining nascent democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon (No mention of Saudis financing all the murderous extremists). The beneficiaries of Tehran's largess include Hamas, Hezbollah and even, the evidence indicates, al Qaeda. (Saudi officials are quietly furious that Tehran has given refuge to some suspects in the 2003 Riyadh attacks.) Iran is building up its military arsenal, and has threatened to shut down the Persian Gulf (or, as Arabs call it, the Arabian Gulf).

The Gulf States and Iran - WSJ.com

The Morning Brief - WSJ.com

Exposing What We
Don't Know About Iran

(in other words figuring out how to discredit the report)

The Morning Brief, a look at the day's biggest news, is emailed to subscribers by 7 a.m. every business day. Sign up for the e-mail here.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran casts doubt on the hawkish warnings about Tehran's nuclear ambitions but paints such a Rorschach-like picture of the situation that it's unlikely to quiet debate.

The NIE process, it must first be noted, is now more prone to ambiguity thanks to the legislative and political overhauls of American spy work in the wake of 9/11 and the Bush administration's use of WMD estimates to take the country into Iraq. Changes in the past 18 months mean NIEs come with definitions and notes on the scope of such phrases as "we judge, we assess, and we estimate -- and probabilistic terms such as probably and likely," as well as a breakdown of the differences among high confidence, moderate confidence and low confidence. What this NIE aimed to do was reexamine a 2005 NIE that accused Iran of working toward creation of a nuclear armament and assessing the Iranian government's relatively current intentions and capabilities -- starting without an assumption of guilt, it insists.

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," the U.S. intelligence community (or IC) concludes. "We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work." The IC has "high confidence" the halt in the Iranian military's nuclear-weapons work lasted several years. But because of intelligence gaps there is only moderate confidence this halt represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear-weapons program. "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons," the NIE says. Still, the halt suggests Iran is less determined to get one "than we have been judging since 2005."

The Morning Brief - WSJ.com

US: Iran Halted Weapons Program in 2003 - AOL News

 

US: Iran Halted Weapons Program in 2003

By PAMELA HESS,

AP

Posted: 2007-12-03 22:03:30

WASHINGTON (AP) - A new U.S. intelligence report concludes that Iran's nuclear weapons development program has been halted since the fall of 2003 because of international pressure - a stark contrast to the conclusions U.S. spy agencies drew just two years ago.
The finding is part of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that also cautions that Tehran continues to enrich uranium and still could develop a bomb between 2010 and 2015 if it decided to do so.
The conclusion that Iran's weapons program was still frozen, through at least mid-2007, represents a sharp turnaround from the previous intelligence assessment in 2005. Then, U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program. The new report concludes that Iran's decisions are rational and pragmatic, and that Tehran is more susceptible to diplomatic and financial pressure than previously thought.
"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," says the unclassified summary of the secret report.

US: Iran Halted Weapons Program in 2003 - AOL News

US my not bomb Iran becasue of sense of guilt!?

Article or Op-Ed: "Leaving aside the relative merits of a strike against the Iranians, why might America's military resist such action? First, consider the fact that the US has at the moment 162,000 troops in Iraq, 30,000 in Kuwait, 4,500 in Bahrain and 3,300 in Qatar -- not to mention the two carrier battle groups in the Gulf or the 8,500 troops on the ground in Afghanistan. In the event of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, for example, the troops in Iraq, the Gulf and Afghanistan would be in even greater danger than they already are, vulnerable to an Iranian counterattack or, more likely, an Iranian-sponsored terror campaign.

Second, there exists a tremendous sense of guilt among the US senior officer corps for what is seen as a failure to stand up to the civilian leadership in the rush to go to war against Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Much of the current divide between America's generals and its junior officer corps boils down to a sense on the part of junior officers that their superiors largely acquiesced to whatever Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in the run-up to the Iraq war. The charge of spinelessness is one that hurts America's generals, especially as it comes from lieutenants and captains who have proven themselves on the battlefield of Iraq.

Third, in the wake of the Iraq war, professional military officers are more suspicious than ever of think-tank types with theories on how easy military victories can be achieved. As an active-duty US Army officer recently told me: 'If I hear one more lawyer with no military experience explain to me how air power alone really can do it this time, I'm going to kill him.' "

George Ajjan, the Aleppine Elephant: Iran

George Ajjan, the Aleppine Elephant: Iran: "Open Letter to the Arab-American Community in Behalf of Ron Paul by George Ajjan Following upon the advice of Walter Block, and in the tradition of Laurence Vance and Thomas Woods, I offer the following Open Letter to the Arab-American Community in Behalf of Ron Paul. While the previous Open Letters on LRC were addressed to a particular religious denomination, I offer this one on the basis of ethnicity. Arab-Americans need to hear Ron Paul's message, because serious concerns about the fate of US foreign policy and civil liberties captivate the minds of Arab-American Muslims, as well as Arab-American Christians, who actually comprise more than half of the community. My Open Letter will therefore be inclusive in nature and address all denominations. It is interesting to note that those who advocate this unifying approach have been disparaged by the wedge-driving, divide-and-conquer neocons as 'dhimmis' or 'Islamo-Christians' – or whatever today's new vocabulary is on the Word-a-Day calendar of the American Enterprise Institute (a.k.a. the Supreme Soviet of Neoconservatism) – for not accepting their erroneous worldview, in which Semitic people (and by Semitic, I mean Semitic) are mindless sectarian robots genetically programmed to kill each other and incapable of peaceful co-existence."

Study: U.S., Israel should begin planning Iran strike - Haaretz - Israel News

Study: U.S., Israel should begin planning Iran strike

- Haaretz - Israel News: "Study: U.S., Israel should begin planning Iran strike By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent Tags: Iran, U.S., Israel, nuclear Israel and the United States should begin an intense dialogue on ways to deal with Iran's nuclear plans and should study ways to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, a new study states. The report, by a former deputy head of the National Security Council, Chuck Freilich, says Israel and the U.S. should discuss nuclear-crisis scenarios between Israel and Iran. The report, entitled 'Speaking About the Unspeakable,' was released over the weekend by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "

In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran - Los Angeles Times

In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran - Los Angeles Times: "Since October, when attacks on American forces in Iraq dropped dramatically over previous months, U.S. commanders have been acknowledging that Tehran appears to be keeping a promise made to Iraq's government to control arms smuggling over the border. They are far from lavishing praise on the Iranian leadership, but their comments are a turnabout from the Iran-bashing of previous months. The change has been echoed in the senior military leadership, particularly by the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, and the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Navy Adm. William J. Fallon. "

Zbigniew Brzezinski - A Partner For Dealing With Iran? - washingtonpost.com

 

recently visited China, where I had the opportunity to engage Chinese leaders in wide-ranging private conversations. I returned with two strong impressions regarding China's attitude toward the Iranian problem. The first is that the magnitude of China's internal transformation makes it vulnerable to global political and economic instability. China is especially worried about the consequences of any major eruption of violence in the Persian Gulf. This concern is palpable and justified if one considers the likely financial and political effects of a major U.S.-Iran collision. Thus China, despite its meteoric rise toward global preeminence, currently is geopolitically a status quo power.

Second, the Chinese strongly advocate that in dealing with Iran the United States be guided by strategic patience. Unlike the North Koreans, they note, the Iranians have denied any intent to acquire nuclear weapons. Accordingly, they argue that Iranian denials (despite their doubtful credibility) create openings for contriving a face-saving arrangement for an internationally sanctioned, non-threatening Iranian nuclear program.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - A Partner For Dealing With Iran? - washingtonpost.com

U.S. Tells Iran: Become a Nuclear Power

U.S. Tells Iran: Become a Nuclear Power

Reese Erlich November 28, 2007
Editor: Erik Leaver




A declassified document from President Gerald Ford's administration, for which Kissinger was Secretary of State, supported Iran's push for nuclear power. The document noted that Tehran should "prepare against the time--about 15 years in the future--when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."1 The United States ultimately planned to sell billions of dollars worth of nuclear reactors, spare parts and nuclear fuel to Iran.
The Shah even periodically hinted that he wanted Iran to build nuclear weapons. In June 1974, the Shah proclaimed that Iran would have nuclear weapons "without a doubt and sooner than one would think."2 Iranian embassy officials in France later denied the Shah made those remarks, and the Shah disowned them. But a few months later the Shah noted that Iran "has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons but if small states began building them, then Iran might have to reconsider its policy."3

If an Iranian leader made such statements today, the United States and Israel would denounce them as proof of nefarious intent. They might well threaten military action if Iran didn't immediately halt its nuclear buildup. At the time, however, the comments caused no ripples in Washington or Tel Aviv because the Shah was a staunch ally of both....

...Not coincidentally, the United States and Europeans had completely halted their devil's work in Iran. Germany had stopped construction on the Bushehr nuclear reactor. The United States, Germans and French cut off supplies of equipment and nuclear material. All three governments refused to refund any money already paid, despite cancellation of the nuclear contracts.

U.S. NUCLEAR POLICY TOWARD IRAN ( June 1 , 1995)
By Mark D. Skootsky

The date by which Iran will have nuclear weapons is no longer 10 years fromnow. If the Iranians maintain this intensive effort to get everything theyneed, they could have all their components in two years. Then it will bejust a matter of technology and research. If Iran is not Interrupted in thisprogram by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less fiveyears.

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."
Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Iran oil revenue quickly drying up, analysts say
By Barry Schweid, Associated Press December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues, income could all but disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published yesterday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences...

...Stern's analysis, which appears in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports US and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of international understandings.
But, Stern said, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes "as badly as it claims."
He said that oil production is declining, and that both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production....

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs: "Iran: The uninvited guest a peace summit By Kaveh L Afrasiabi Tuesday's Arab-Israeli peace summit in Annapolis, Maryland, is supposed to be about resolving long-standing Palestinian issues, the Golan Heights, and other contentious matters. But, increasingly, it is framed in the United States and Israeli media as a dual-purpose conference, the other being the containment of Iran. Thus, an editorial in the Jerusalem Post writes that 'the process that Annapolis seeks to launch will be inherently conditional on Western success against the Iranian challenge ... The idea that holding an Arab-Israeli peace summit would be a setback for Iran is a valid one.' The more liberal Ha'aretz went even further by " stating the goal of the Annapolis conference to be the formation of a "global coalition against Iran".

Why Attack Iran?

A Question for Mr. Romney

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said something quite interesting about Iran. One of the editors at the Journal asked him how he would respond upon learning that President Bush had launched an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. He answered:
"I would hope that the president would have outlined a great deal of information. I have very little information, for instance, on: How many nuclear facilities are there? Where are they? Can we take them out? Can we not? What is the capacity of the Iranian military to respond? Are our 160,000 troops in Iraq safe, or are they going to get hit?" (Brian Carney, "Mitt Romney: Consultant in Chief," Wall Street Journal, Nov. 10, 2007)
Brian Carney, the Journal editor who wrote the article, noted that Romney always likes to ask such questions the way a consultant would: getting a quick understanding of the situation in order to assess it. That's how Romney made his substantial fortune as a business consultant. Carney and I would agree that there's nothing wrong with that. It would be nice to have a president who digs and probes. But do you notice two other questions missing? I do. These are the two follow-up questions I would have asked Mr. Romney had I been one of the interviewers:
Let's say you get your questions answered as follows. There are many nuclear facilities and they're scattered around. But we can take 100 percent of them out. The Iranian military has little capacity to respond. Let's assume, with little justification, that our 160,000 troops in Iraq are safe. [Incidentally, Mr. Romney, they're not safe. You might have heard that the U.S. is at war in Iraq. War is unhealthy for soldiers and other living things.] Here's my first question: Would you second Mr. Bush's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? My second question: If you answer yes to the first question, why would you bomb Iran?
It's too bad that Romney apparently didn't answer my first question and that, apparently, none of the Journal editors asked it. But they probably didn't need to. The reason: almost everyone understands that, if Iran were found to have nuclear weapons, virtually all of the Republican candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, would support the U.S. government trying to eliminate them with bombs. Which leads to the second, more fundamental, question: Why?

Rumors of (More) War: Iran Attack Gains Credence

 

As someone who has been writing about this crazed administration's plans to launch an attack on Iran now for over a year, I have always noted that the real sign that it might happen would be when oil industry analysts started to worry about it.

That's because the oil industry is probably more plugged into the inner sanctum of the Bush administration than any other entity. If the analysts, who have their fingers on the pulse of the oil industry, start worrying that an attack could happen--with the resulting shutdown of oil shipments through the Persian Gulf, from which the world gets roughly a third of its oil--then we need to take the threat very seriously.
While we haven't seen the kind of spike in oil futures prices that we would expect should that mad war begin--which would see oil soaring above $200 a barrel--we are seeing oil rise to a record high of around $100 a barrel.
Now comes word from the respected newspaper, the <a href="Christian">Christian'>http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071119/wl_csm/oopec">Christian Science Monitor</a>, that analysts are starting to factor a US attack on Iran into their thinking. As the newspaper put it in an article published today reporting on the recently concluded meeting of the leaders of OPEC nations:

Rumors of (More) War: Iran Attack Gains Credence

Iran isn't starting an atomic arms race, it's joining one

The Middle East has had a secretive nuclear power in its midst for years

When will the US and the UK tell the truth about Israeli weapons? Iran isn't starting an atomic arms race, it's joining one

George Bush and Gordon Brown are right: there should be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The risk of a nuclear conflagration could be greater there than anywhere else. Any nation developing them should expect a firm diplomatic response. So when will they impose sanctions on Israel?
Like them, I believe that Iran is trying to acquire the bomb. I also believe it should be discouraged, by a combination of economic pressure and bribery, from doing so (a military response would, of course, be disastrous). I believe that Bush and Brown - who maintain their nuclear arsenals in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty - are in no position to lecture anyone else. But if, as Bush claims, the proliferation of such weapons "would be a dangerous threat to world peace", why does neither man mention the fact that Israel, according to a secret briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, possesses between 60 and 80 of them?
Officially, the Israeli government maintains a position of "nuclear ambiguity": neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. But everyone who has studied the issue knows that this is a formula with a simple purpose: to give the United States an excuse to keep breaking its own laws, which forbid it to grant aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction. The fiction of ambiguity is fiercely guarded. In 1986, when the nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu handed photographs of Israel's bomb factory to the Sunday Times, he was lured from Britain to Rome, drugged and kidnapped by Mossad agents, tried in secret, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served 12 of them in solitary confinement and was banged up again - for six months - soon after he was released.

...So when the Israeli government complains, as it did last week, that the head of the IAEA is "sticking his head in the sand over Iran's nuclear programme", you can only gape at its chutzpah. Israel is constantly racking up the pressure for action against Iran, aware that no powerful state will press for action against Israel....

Bush is not going to like this

Iraq Credits Iran for Helping to Curb Attacks by Militias

BAGHDAD, Nov. 17 — The Iraqi government on Saturday credited Iran with helping to rein in Shiite militias and stemming the flow of weapons into Iraq, helping to improve the security situation noticeably. The Iraqi government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, speaking at a lunch for reporters, also said that the Shiite-dominated government was making renewed efforts to bring back Sunni Arab ministers who have been boycotting the government for more than four months.

Speaking about Iran, he said that that government had helped to persuade the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to ask his Mahdi militia to halt attacks. Mr. Sadr ordered his militia to stop using weapons in early September, and officials say that the militia’s relative restraint has helped improve stability. They say it also seems to have helped decrease the frequency of attacks with explosively formed penetrators, a powerful type of bomb that can pierce heavy armor. Mr. Dabbagh’s comments echoed those of the American military here, who in recent days have gone out of their way to publicly acknowledge Iran’s role in helping to slow the flow of weapons into the country. Mr. Dabbagh was the first Iraqi official to say publicly that Iran had used its influence with Mr. Sadr to discourage him from using his militia for armed attacks.

Idiots who influence on US Policy

WHAT IF THE U.S. BOMBED IRAN?
While many experts expect a limited Iranian response to an attack by the U.S., objects of retaliation seem vast

"Bolton and Ledeen say they believe Iran's government is fragile, and an attack could lead to its collapse. "These people in Tehran are despised," Ledeen said. "If we do attack, they will be shocked. I think the regime's days are numbered."

The Spy Who Wants Israel to Talk

By David Ignatius

JERUSALEM -- Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, titled his memoirs "Man in the Shadows." But now that he's out in the sunlight, the 72-year-old retired spy chief has some surprisingly contrarian things to say about Iran and Syria. The gist of his message is that rather than constantly ratcheting up the rhetoric of confrontation, the United States and Israel should be looking for ways to establish a creative dialogue with these adversaries.
Halevy is a legendary figure in Israel because of his nearly 40 years of service as an intelligence officer, culminating in his years as Mossad's director from 1998 to 2003. He managed Israel's secret relationship with Jordan for more than a decade, and he became so close to King Hussein that the two personally negotiated the 1994 agreement paving the way for a peace treaty. So when Halevy talks about the utility of secret diplomacy, he knows whereof he speaks.

Halevy suggests that Israel should stop its jeremiads that Iran poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. The rhetoric is wrong, he contends, and it gets in the way of finding a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.

US dismisses nuclear report on Iran

Even if IAEA report said that enrichment had been halted US would have dismissed.

"The agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the agency with access to declared material, and has provided the required material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities ... Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner and provided clarification and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan [of Iran and the IAEA]."

Roling Stone Interview

Exclusive: Ron Paul Interview

What do you make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current U.S. posturing toward Iran?He’s a loudmouth, and he hurts their cause. But we help his cause when we gang up against him. When we pass sanctions against him, the dissidents in Iran who would like to get rid of him rally around him for nationalistic reasons. We get hysterical over a guy who doesn’t have a single weapon, and nobody’s proven that he’s ever violated the arms-nonproliferation treaty. Matter of fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to have an agreement with him by the end of the year. That’s why you have all of this warmongering going on: It is to try to find an excuse to start bombing him before they prove that he doesn’t have a chance of having a weapon. That’s exactly what we did with Iraq. I’m scared to death they’re getting ready to do that with Iran.The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?
About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very, very little, if anything. They’re capable of telling us anything if they want to go to war. And that’s what they want

The Associated Press: Book: Powell Pushed Iran Policy Shift

The Associated Press: Book: Powell Pushed Iran Policy Shift: "'I think because of the four-plus years of failed European diplomacy our options are very constrained,' Bolton said. 'I think it's down basically to two. One is regime change and the other as a last resort would be the targeted use of military force against Iran's nuclear weapons program.' In his book, Bolton accuses U.S. and European diplomats of seeking compromise instead of sticking to the tough positions that he and Bush advocated."

Letter from Washington: Bush and what army? Iran war a pipe dream - International Herald Tribune

Letter from Washington: Bush and what army? Iran war a pipe dream - International Herald Tribune: "Thus, the most serious alternative discussed is a massive airstrike by U.S. cruise missiles and jet fighters loaded with 'smart weapons.' They would destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, disrupt the country and perhaps, according to the most optimistic neoconservatives, spark a revolution. If, as some suggest, this is the view of the Cheney camp, here's an inconvenient reminder: It was the vice president who assured Americans, unequivocally and repeatedly, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and was on the verge of having a nuclear weapon, in 2002. Cheney also was the hard-headed geopolitical realist who, according to Robert Draper's semi-authorized book on Bush, assured then-House Republican leader Dick Armey that the Iraqis were 'going to welcome us. It'll be like the American army going through the streets of Paris. They're sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms that we'll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two.' That may have been one of the most flawed assessments in U.S. history."

Those Nuclear Flashpoints Are Made in Pakistan - washingtonpost.com

Those Nuclear Flashpoints Are Made in Pakistan - washingtonpost.com: "George W. Bush is hardly the first U.S. president to forgive sins against democracy by a Pakistani leader. Like his predecessors from Jimmy Carter onward, Bush has tolerated bad behavior in hopes that Pakistan might do Washington's bidding on some urgent U.S. priority -- in this case, a crackdown on al-Qaeda. But the scariest legacy of Bush's failed bargain with Gen. Pervez Musharraf isn't the rise of another U.S.-backed dictatorship in a strategic Muslim nation, or even the establishment of a new al-Qaeda haven along Pakistan's lawless border. It's the leniency we've shown toward the most dangerous nuclear-trafficking operation in history -- an operation masterminded by one man, Abdul Qadeer Khan. "

Israel calls for sacking of IAEA's ElBaradei - Telegraph

Fire ElBaradei since he is not willing to lie.

Israel calls for sacking of IAEA's ElBaradei - Telegraph: "A senior Israeli cabinet member has accused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of complacency towards Teheran's nuclear programme and has called for its chief to be sacked. UN atomic energy chief Mohammed ElBaradei Shaul Mofaz, Israel's deputy prime minister and former military chief, demanded that Mohammed ElBaradei be replaced for failing to appreciate the urgency of Iran's nuclear ambitions. It is not the first time Mr ElBaradei has faced calls to go. He was criticised by American hawks for his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'The policies followed by ElBaradei endanger world peace,' Mr Mofaz said. 'His irresponsible attitude of sticking his head in the sand over Iran's nuclear programme should lead to his impeachment.'"

Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, China, Vermont: Let's just bomb ALL their nuclear plants!
by Jane Stillwater

Everyone here seems to have his or her own agenda regarding Iraq. The media seems to put the emphasis on "war" and its bloody bomb-throwing aspects because that's what sells air-time. The neo-cons in the White House milk Iraq for all it is worth as a grand excuse to tax-and-spend. They have stolen the name of "Conservative" and gone off on a tangent of elaborate spending and international meddling that should make any true Republican angry enough to chew nails -- but doesn't.

Joe Lieberman's War

Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz has written that "as an American and as a Jew" he prays that President George W. Bush will attack Iran. He rests his case on his belief that 2007 is really 1938, that Iran is Nazi Germany, and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Hitler. His most recent book, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, was described by a reviewer as "a hectoring, often illogical screed based on cherry-picked facts and blustering assertions (often made without any supporting evidence), a book that furiously hurls accusations of cowardice, anti-Americanism, and sheer venality at any and all opponents of the Bush doctrine, be they on the right or the left."

Attack Iran, Lose Your Job
BY RUSS WELLEN

Here's how to explain it to family and friends who either don't believe Bush & Co. would be crazy enough to launch another capricious war or don't care.
Oil is already approaching $100 a barrel. Now imagine that price doubled -- not in a decade, but overnight. That scenario is considered likely if Iran attacks or blockades oil shipping in the Persian Gulf. Also bear in mind it contains the world's largest offshore oil field, which would be equally vulnerable to disruption.
Now imagine your home-heating bill and the price you pay at the gas pump reflecting the post-attack price of a barrel of oil. Then envision your employer experiencing the same alarm, but amplified by the size of his facilities, as well as transportation costs.

An attack on Iran is not justified
By Cesar Chelala

Growing demand from several US political figures, government officials and commentators for an attack on Iran should be carefully assessed before embarking on such a dangerous adventure. Among the several arguments made by advocates of drastic action is that Iran represents an existential threat to the state of Israel. The evidence, however, does not support that assertion. A recent article published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz states that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni criticized the extent to which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been playing to popular fears by exaggerating the Iranian threat in order to boost his own popularity. Livni, by contrast, has made clear in a series of closed discussions that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel.

Israel on offensive against IAEA over Iran

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Campaigning for tougher sanctions on Iran, Israel went on the offensive Tuesday against the UN nuclear watchdog, accusing its leaders of playing into Tehran's hands over its nuclear ambitions.
"Unfortunately there are foreign officials playing the Iranians' game by contributing to the Iranian strategy of foot-dragging," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev told AFP.
"From this point of view the International (Atomic Energy) Agency and its leadership are guilty," Regev added.
"One could ask whether the agency agreed to fulfil the role the Iranians want it to play, to allow Tehran to implement its strategy," he said.
The criticism comes with the IAEA poised to publish a new report on Iran's nuclear ambitions that will serve as a key part of further discussions at the United Nations on whether to impose follow-up sanctions on Tehran.

W.M.D. in Iran? Q.E.D. - New York Times

 

TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, welcome to “Meet the Press.”

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Good morning, Tim.

RUSSERT: How close are we to war with Iran?

CHENEY: Well, I think we are in the final stages of diplomacy, obviously. We have done virtually everything we can with respect to carrots, if you will. It’s time for squash. Not to mention mushrooms, clouds of them.

RUSSERT: But you squashed Iraq and that didn’t work out so well.

CHENEY: Iraq will be fine, Tim. It just needs a firmer hand. We learned that lesson. We’re not going to get hung up on democracy this time. (Expletive) purple thumbs.

RUSSERT: Isn’t Secretary Rice still pushing carrots for Iran?

W.M.D. in Iran? Q.E.D. - New York Times

Fearing Fear Itself

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.

Leak Reveals Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack - Prensa Latina

 

Berlin, Oct 26 (Prensa Latina) An official close to US Vice President Richard Cheney leaked plans for an attack on Iran which have been made public Friday by the prestigious German media, Der Spiegel.

In the scenario concocted by Cheney s strategists, Washington s first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran s uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?, says Der Spiegel.

Leak Reveals Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack - Prensa Latina

Real News Debate: Why is the US threatening Iran?

Massive Ordnance Penetrator

As part of a multi-billion-dollar request for more military spending earlier this week, the Pentagon asked for $88m to develop the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a huge bunker-busting bomb, for its Stealth bombers. The Bush administration said the bomb was needed "in response to an urgent operational need for theatre commanders".

Democratic members of Congress questioned whether the weapon was intended for use against Iran, where nuclear facilities are largely hidden underground.

Jim Moran, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives' defence spending committee, said: "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan. It doesn't have any weapons facilities underground that we know of."

The immediate impact of the sanctions announcement will be felt in the boardrooms of banks and companies in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Any business continuing to trade with Iran risks US reprisals.

Libertarians for Ron Paul

Libertarians for Ron Paul: "Iran Sanctions Endanger National Security The Libertarian Party has criticized the Bush administration’s new sanctions on Iran, saying the sanctions only worsen an already delicate situation. Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory says “the United States should pursue more dialogue and less saber-rattling when dealing with Iran.” “The recent sanctions of the Bush administration on Iran indicate the United States is preparing for a war with a country it knows very little about,” Cory continues. “The talk of a potential ‘World War III’ and other harsh threats President Bush has used against Iran are extremely similar to the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. The last thing the United States needs is another war. Nothing has been worse for the national security of America than Bush’s aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East.” Full release from the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/media/article_530.shtml "

Bush warns of Iran attack threat

 

President Bush has said that a US-led missile defence system in Europe is urgently needed to counter the emerging threat of attack by Iran.

He said intelligence estimates showed Iran could have the capability to strike the United States and many European allies by 2015.

"If (Iran) chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability," he said. "And we need to take it seriously now."

Mr Bush's latest warning about Iran's nuclear ambitions came in a broad defence of his security policies at the National Defence University.

"The need for missile defence in Europe is real, and I believe it's urgent," he said.

His warning was contradicted by Russian Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov who said US-led missile defence initiatives in Europe and Asia were based on a mistaken assessment of the threat posed by Iran.

"North Korea poses a fundamental threat, but Iran does not,"he said.

Mr Bush sought to allay Russia's concerns and draw Moscow in, portraying the proposed system as a "co-operative effort" against "an emerging threat that affects us all."

He spoke positively of President Vladimir Putin's offer of facilities in Azerbaijan and southern Russia. The idea would be to replace the US plans for missiles based in Poland and a radar facility in the Czech Republic.

Mr Bush said the project was "part of a broader effort to move beyond the Cold War" and "could lead to an unprecedented level of strategic cooperation between" Russia and the US

FACT BOX KEY Iranian Nuclear Issues

Reuters) - Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani resigned on Saturday.

In August, Iran agreed with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency to provide transparency about the scope of its nuclear programme.

The West suspects Iran is violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty by using a declared civilian nuclear energy programme as a cover for mastering the means to make atom bombs. Iran says it is seeking only an alternative source of energy.

An Iranian government spokesman said there would be no change in nuclear policy following Larijani's resignation.

Below are key issues the IAEA has about Iran's work which Western diplomats will want to see addressed by the agreement with Tehran:

* ADVANCED CENTRIFUGES

Inspectors have no access to sites where Iran has said it is trying to build P-2 centrifuges, which can refine uranium 2-3 times as fast as the antiquated, brittle P-1 model it is using for its initial enrichment programme.

* MILITARY LINKS

There has been intelligence, denied by Iran, about illicit efforts to "weaponize" nuclear materials, namely a "Green Salt Project" linking work on processing uranium ore, tests on high explosives and a missile warhead design.

* BLACK-MARKET IMPORTS

The IAEA says Iran has given inconsistent answers about when and why it appeared to obtain blueprints and parts for centrifuge enrichment machines from the former nuclear black market network of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan. Iran has also declined to turn over a document on machining uranium metal into hemisphere shapes suitable for the core of bombs.

* TRACES OF BOMB-GRADE URANIUM

Inspectors have sought satisfactory explanations on the origin of some particles of highly-enriched uranium found on some equipment used at atomic research sites.

* ACCESS TO SITES, OFFICIALS IN QUESTION

Iran has stonewalled IAEA requests to examine certain nuclear or related sites and interview officials deemed key to a full understanding of Iranian nuclear activity.

* UNDECLARED SITES

The IAEA cannot rule out Iran may have a military nuclear programme in covert locations. Tehran's cancellation last year of inspections at sites not declared to be nuclear, a move in retaliation for U.N. sanctions' steps, makes it much harder for inspectors to detect possible clandestine activity.

* DESIGN INFORMATION ON PLANNED NUCLEAR SITES

In April, Iran stopped giving the IAEA advance design data on planned nuclear sites. This raised concern about Iranian goals for its planned Arak heavy-water reactor, which Western leaders say could be used to make bomb-quality plutonium. Iran permitted a one-off return of inspectors to Arak in July.

* EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF ENRICHMENT PLANT

The IAEA has sought assured access, with camera surveillance as needed, inside the underground Natanz enrichment hall as the level of centrifuge activity has risen sharply this year. The IAEA has a regular presence only outside the hall.

* PLUTONIUM EXPERIMENTS

Iran has resolved the IAEA's question about tests with plutonium, a major fissile element in atom bombs.