Posts
Friday, November 30, 2007
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
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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....
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....
Monday, November 26, 2007
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".
Thursday, November 22, 2007
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?
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?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
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:
Monday, November 19, 2007
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....
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.
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.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
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."
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."
Friday, November 16, 2007
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.
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]."
"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]."
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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
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
Monday, November 12, 2007
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."
Sunday, November 11, 2007
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."
Saturday, November 10, 2007
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. "
Friday, November 9, 2007
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.'"
Thursday, November 8, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)