Washington Watch: Haman is a crybaby | Jerusalem Post

 

Today's successors to the Persian Haman remind the world almost daily that they still want to destroy the Jewish people, but when their intended victims threaten to hit back, they run crying to the United Nations.

In paroxysms of chutzpah that resemble some perverted Purim spiel, Iranian leaders have been demanding international condemnation and sanctions against Israel for taking seriously their threats to wipe it off the map with the nuclear weapons it may be developing.

When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he wouldn't tolerate any Iranian nuclear threat and all options for stopping it are on the table, Iran filed a formal protest with the UN Security Council accusing Israel of violating international law and the UN Charter by threatening the use of force against another member state, and insisted it be ordered to "cease and desist."

Iran maintains its nuclear program is purely peaceful so Israel shouldn't complain when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says "the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed," and the commander of the Revolutionary Guards declares "the cancerous bacterium called Israel" would soon be eradicated by "radiation." Maybe that's because they recall what Israel did in 1981 to Iraq's nuclear ambitions, and more recently they heard Vice President Dick Cheney in the Middle East declare, "Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons." Cheney in the past has suggested that Israel might have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

When they met last week Iran, not the Palestinians, was at the top of the agenda for Olmert and Cheney, who repeated America's "commitment to Israel's right to defend itself against…forces dedicated to Israel's destruction."

Cheney's tough talk was echoed by Sen. John McCain, who told Israelis that the Iranians "are obviously pursuing nuclear weapons."

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was warmly welcomed by Israeli leaders, who insist that Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats are a global problem, not just theirs. McCain, despite mixing up Shi'ites and Sunnis and confusing Purim with Halloween, was on a tour to burnish his foreign policy credentials, accompanied by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Their hawkish attitude toward Iran struck a resonant chord in Israel, but it's a view that polls indicate is not shared by most American Jews.

American Jewish voters are not as militant nor as anxious to see US military action against Iran, and they're overwhelmingly supporting Democratic contenders, Sen. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who advocate keeping up the current economic and political pressure but also want to see more robust diplomacy. And the Bush administration has repeatedly said it will not directly negotiate with Teheran until it first ceases all uranium enrichment.

THE MOST recent American Jewish Committee survey of Jewish public opinion, conducted late last year, showed Jewish respondents opposed US "military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons" by a 57-31 percent margin.

But, according to Cheney, public opinion is meaningless. When told last week by ABC News's Martha Radditz that "two thirds of Americans" say the Iraq war is "not worth fighting," Cheney said, "So?"

She followed up, "So - you don't care what the American people think?"

Cheney replied, "No."

Last week President Bush said Iran "want(s) to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people," particularly in the Mideast, "and that's unacceptable."

He and Cheney are as certain today that Iran is pursuing nukes as they were Saddam was before they decided to invade five years and 4,000 American deaths ago. They may be right this time, but their track record undermines their credibility and undercuts international support for the anti-Iran effort.

That may have contributed to the resignation - probably firing - of Adm. William Fallon, the Centcom commander, who reportedly feared Bush and Cheney were looking to settle scores with Iran before leaving office.

The Iranians have cause to worry. They can't go about making threats with impunity.

A State Department report this month called anti-Zionism a form of anti-Semitism and accused Arab states, some European countries and the United Nations of allowing it to fester and grow. The Iranians do more than talk about it. They are building long-range missiles to carry non-conventional warheads to any target in Israel, and they are funding anti-Israel and anti-Jewish terror globally, often through allies like Hizbullah and Hamas, and are investing a billion dollars in upgrading Syrian armaments.

Military action may be the only option left that will neutralize that threat, but it is hard to see how the Bush administration - alone in a world that distrusts it and no longer believes its "axis of evil" claims, and with a bloody record of military mismanagement - can successfully accomplish it.

John McCain may talk tough on the campaign trail, but if elected he will face military and diplomatic realities that will make it tough for him to use force in Iran - including the consequences of an Iraq misadventure that he vigorously supports.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who eulogized Hizbullah's master terrorist - the assassinated Imad Mughniyeh - as "pure and pious," may be the 21st century version of Haman; let's hope he meets the same fate. But if Israel is waiting for the Bush administration or the Republican who wants to continue its policies to do the job, it should think twice.

Washington Watch: Haman is a crybaby | Jerusalem Post

US Attack on Iran: Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney Visit

 

US Attack on Iran: Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney Visit

by Chris Floyd

Global Research, March 31, 2008

Empire Burlesque

Email this article to a friend

Print this article

I. One Tick Closer to Midnight
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper's story.
Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely -- and more imminent -- than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict.
We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more to the point, what he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his departure, would seem to be a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming attack on Iran's nuclear sites and are actively preparing for it.
II. A Nuclear Epiphany in Iran?
And they certainly should be bracing themselves. A U.S. attack on Iran will come suddenly, and if it is indeed aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities -- a "threat" being talked up again with new urgency by both Cheney and Bush lately -- it has the potential for unimaginable consequences. As we noted here in a previous piece:

Twelve hours. One circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one course of the moon from dusk to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily round of human life is now a doom-laden interval between the voicing of an autocrat's brutal whim and the infliction of mass annihilation halfway around the world.

Twelve hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to gear up and launch an unprovoked sneak attack – a Pearl Harbor in reverse – against Iran, the Washington Post reports….And when this attack comes – either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow" or else as the precursor to a full-scale, regime-changing invasion, like the earlier aggression in Iraq – there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no hearings, no public debate. The already issued orders governing the operation put the decision solely in the hands of the president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" – and in twelve hours' time, up to a million Iranians could be dead.

This potential death toll is not pacifist hyperbole; it comes from a National Academy of Sciences study sponsored by the Pentagon itself, as The Progressive reports. (Although Bush's military brass like to peddle the public lie that "we don't do body counts" of the enemy, in reality, like all good businessmen they keep precise accounts of their production outputs: i.e., corpses.) The Pentagon's NAS study calibrated the kill-rate from "bunker-busting" tactical nukes used to take out underground facilities – such as those which house much of Iran's nuclear power program.

Another simulation by scientists, using Pentagon-devised software, was even more specific, measuring the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan, the magazine reports. This small expansion of the Pentagon franchise would result in stellar production figures: three million people killed by radiation in just two weeks, and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of cancer-causing radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Bush has about 50 nuclear "earth-penetrating weapons" at his disposal, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Nor is the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran mere "liberal paranoia." Bush himself pointedly refused to take the nuclear option "off the table" this week. But what's more, Bush has made the use of nuclear weapons a centerpiece of his "National Security Strategy of the United States," issued last month, The Progressive notes. While reaffirming the criminal principle of "pre-emptive" attacks on perceived enemies which may or may not be threatening America with weapons they may or may not possess, Bush declared that "safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role" in the "offensive strike systems" that are now a key part of America's "deterrence."

In the depraved jargon of atomic warmongering, a "credible" nuclear force is one that can and will be used in the course of ordinary military operations. It is no longer to be regarded as a sacred taboo. This has long been the dream of the Pentagon's "nuclear priesthood" and its acolytes, going back to the days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For decades, a strong faction within the American power structure has been afflicted with a perverted craving to unleash these weapons once more. An almost sexual frustration can be discerned in their laments as time and again, in crisis after crisis, their counsels for "going nuclear" were rejected – often at the very last moment. To justify their aberrant desire, they have relentlessly demonized an ever-changing array of "enemies," painting each one as an imminent, overwhelming threat, led by "madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason, fit only for destruction. Evidence for the "threat" is invariably exaggerated, manipulated, even manufactured; this ritual cycle has been enacted over and over, leading to many wars – but never to that ultimate, orgasmic release.

Now this paranoid sect has at last seized the commanding heights of American power....

And they have found a most eager disciple in the peevish dullard strutting in the Oval Office. Under their sinister tutelage, Bush has eviscerated 40 years' worth of arms control treaties; officially "normalized" the use of nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear states; rewarded outlaw proliferators like India, Israel and Pakistan; and is now destroying the last and most effective restraint on the spread of nuclear weapons: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The treaty guarantees its signatories – such as Iran – the right to establish nuclear power programs in exchange for rigorous international inspections. But Bush has arbitrarily decided that Iran – whose nuclear program undergone perhaps the most extensive inspection process in history – must end its lawful activities. Why? Because the country is led by "madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason, who one day may or may not threaten America with weapons they may or may not have.

So the NPT is dead. As with the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, it now means only what Bush says it means. Force of arms, not rule of law, is the new world order. The attack on Iran is coming….

The nuclear sectarians have waited decades for this moment. Such a chance may never come again. Will they let it pass, when with just a word, in just twelve hours, they can see their god rising in a pillar of fire over Persia?

Chris Floyd is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Chris Floyd

US Attack on Iran: Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney Visit

Averting war with Iran: A matter of trust

 

Averting war with Iran: A matter of trust
By John Stanton
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 27, 2008, 00:18

With approximately 10 months remaining of US President George W. Bush's second and final term of office, a nervous world wonders whether Bush will authorize a military strike on Iran to neutralize what he believes to be a nuclear weapons program camouflaged behind the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

In a March 19, interview on Radio Farda (Radio Tomorrow), Bush extended New Year's wishes to the Iranian people and took the opportunity to remind the Iranian people that their government will be prohibited from developing nuclear weapons. Prohibition may take the form of US conventional and/or tactical nuclear air strikes on Iran.

�And the Iranian people have got to understand that the United States is going to be firm in our desire to prevent the nation from developing a nuclear weapon, but reasonable in our desire to see to it that you have civilian nuclear power without enabling the government to enrich [uranium]. And the problem is that they [government] have not told the truth in the past, and therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest of the world -- or much of the rest of the world -- to trust the Iranian government when it comes to telling the truth.�

On March 21, a report by the Islamic Republic Iranian News Agency (IRNA) noted that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, signaled that Iran would continue its nuclear program undeterred. "Bullying powers have done everything in their power, from imposing economic sanctions to waging war and launching psywar, to paralyze the Islamic Republic. However, the nation has continued to tread the path of scientific and social progress . . ."

Volatile environment

Echoing those sentiments, on March 22, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated the same. � . . . Iran is entitled to peaceful nuclear technology and will not back-down its stances even one iota . . . Many of the enemies broadcast satellite programs to avoid extensive public turnout in the elections but to no avail. Under present circumstances, strong presence of people in the elections made the counter more authoritative.� Mottaki's comments not only referred to Iran's nuclear development efforts but recent elections there that saw Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's support among conservatives decline primarily due to inflationary pressures on the Iranian economy. The US dismissed the Iranian electoral process as �cooked.�

With the notoriously conservative national leadership in Iran and the US unable or unwilling to find a common ground to establish trust, an incendiary political and cultural environment has been created providing ample opportunity for opponents of Iran to instigate for a war between the two countries and Iran's brand of theocracy. Opportunists abound in this environment: Iranian exiles hoping to return to Iran and rule once again, neo-conservatives in and out of government who long for an American empire, and Israeli government officials and pro-Israel interest groups who are attempting to convince US policymakers and the public that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry is a threat to the world. In such a volatile environment, sage advice comes at a premium. For example, Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at Hebrew University in Israel, believes that the US, Israel and the world can live with a nuclear armed Iran.

On March 17, US Vice President Dick Cheney began a whirlwind, 10-day peace mission to visit leaders of the Middle East/Persian Gulf states. Coincidently, the vice president's trip began six days after the resignation of CENTCOM UCC head Admiral William Fallon, a vocal critic of pro-Iran war elements in the Bush Administration. Cheney has been a longtime advocate of destabilizing and corrupting the Islamic theocratic model of government that Iran employs. Iran's nuclear program has provided Cheney and his supporters with a pretext for US military action. "I've been pretty consistent over time about Iran. I don't think I've ratcheted up the rhetoric. I felt strongly for a long time, and a lot of us have, that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons."

According to China View, on March 23, Cheney visited with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. �During a meeting with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in Tel Aviv, Barak stressed that Iran's nuclear program posed a threat to the stability of the region and the entire world . . . Cheney said his country would do everything it could to deal with the alleged Iranian nuclear threat to Israel . . ."

During the same visit, Cheney met with Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli ambassador to the US and leader of Israel's Likud party. According to Ynet News, Netanyahu claimed, "I spoke to him [Cheney] about the need to remove the Iranian threat before (the Islamic republic) arms itself with a nuclear bomb. There are additional Iranian issues which must be prevented, including the need to prevent Iran from building its main bases in the region, from Gaza to Lebanon, and particularly in Jerusalem . . ."

Crazy Eddie diplomacy

Reza Pahlavi, exiled Iranian son of the former Shah of Iran, believes that �Iran�s clerical regime�s continued support for terrorism and confrontational behaviour, both regionally and beyond, its lack of transparency on issues such as its nuclear program, its continued repression of its citizenry, and a host of other issues, has rightfully led the world to the conclusion that, as such, this regime cannot be trusted.� Pahlavi opposes US military action against Iran but believes that a majority of the Iranian people want a secular government. It is difficult to trust the sincerity of Pahlavi's antiwar message. The Iranian government survives still and the throne Pahlavi seeks is becoming ever more distant. Further, both Pahlavi and Bush appear to believe that the Iranian government cannot be trusted. If they can't be trusted, the question is, why negotiate at all?

Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist and expert from Benador Associates -- whose work appears frequently on David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine and elsewhere -- has opined that US and European diplomats who attempt a carrot and stick approach with Iran are Crazy Eddies. There is no point dealing with the theocratic regime there. The implication is that it must be eliminated.

�A few years back there was a character on American television advertising known as Crazy Eddie. Shouting at the top of his voice, he would offer something, usually a gadget of doubtful utility, for sale at a ridiculously low price . . . Reading statements made by the ambassadors of the major Western powers at the United Nations the other day, one could not help remembering Crazy Eddie. The diplomats were speaking after a Security Council session that approved a new resolution, imposing further sanctions on Iran. The British ambassador spoke of the numerous advantages that Iran could reap by complying with Security Council resolutions aimed at ending the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme.. His French colleague was even more generous. All that the mullahs had to do was stop enriching uranium to be rewarded with "access to the latest technology.

However, the US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad came closest to the Crazy Eddie image. The package of incentives includes active international support to build state of the art light water power reactors and access to reliable nuclear fuel, he promised. Iran would also receive spare parts for its ageing US-made jetliners, credit facilities through the World Bank, membership of the World Trade Oganisation, and a lifting of the ban on Iranian exports. However, as Crazy Eddie used to say, that was not all. We call on Iran to engage in constructive negotiations over the future of the nuclear programme, the ambassador wrote [in the Wall Street Journal]. Such negotiations, if successful, would have profound benefits for Iran and the Iranian people. The message from the US to the people of Iran is that America respects your great country. We want Iran to be a full partner in the international community.

Only Crazy Eddie would think that Ahmadinejad . . . could be bribed with spare parts for Boeing's or state of the art power stations. "

In a July 28, 2005 press release titled �Opposing Statements of Iranian Jews on Meeting Ahmadinejad,� Pooya Dayanim, president of the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee (IJPAC), declared that there would be no talks for peace with the Iranian government. �Please be advised that it is the policy of IJPAC not to meet or negotiate with terrorists, murderers and hostage-takers who have the blood of the Iranian, Jewish and American people on their hands.� Dayanim is a staunch supporter of policies advocated by Michael Leeden and refers to Los Angles, IJPAC's home, as Tehrangeles.

Dayanim's blunt message lurks in the recent statements made by Bush, Cheney, Netanyahu and Barak. And it echoes around the globe as proponents of harsh economic sanctions and US military action mock diplomatic efforts ensuring that trust will not be an obstacle to war.

John Stanton is a Virginia-based writer specializing in national security and political matters. His latest book is "Talking Politics with God & the Devil in Washington, DC." Reach him at cioran123@yahoo.com.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Averting war with Iran: A matter of trust

Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists - washingtonpost.com

 

Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists

Experts Say President Is Wrong and Is Escalating Tensions

Repeating a lie make it true

Video

Bush Calls on Iran to Stop Enriching Uranium

In an interview intended to reach out to the Iranian public Thursday, President Bush said Iran has declared it wants to be a nuclear power with a weapon to "destroy people."

» LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER

By Robin Wright

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 21, 2008; Page A14

President Bush said Thursday that Iran has declared that it wants to be a nuclear power with a weapon to "destroy people," including others in the Middle East, contradicting the judgments of a recent U.S. intelligence estimate.

The president spoke in an interview intended to reach out to the Iranian public on the Persian new year and to express "moral support" for struggling freedom movements, particularly among youth and women. It was designed to stress U.S. support for Iran's quest for nuclear energy and the prospects that Washington and Tehran can "reconcile their differences" if Iran cooperates with the international community to ensure that the effort is not converted into a weapons program.

But most striking was Bush's accusation that Iran has openly declared its nuclear weapons intentions, even though a National Intelligence Estimate concluded in December that Iran had stopped its weapons program in 2003, a major reversal in the long-standing U.S. assessment.

"They've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world," Bush told U.S.-funded Radio Farda, which broadcasts into Iran in Farsi.

Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation said the president's statement was wrong. "That's as uninformed as [Sen. John] McCain's statement that Iran is training al-Qaeda. Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. It's just not true. It's a little troubling that the president and the leading Republican candidate are both so wrong about Iran," said Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

Others said it is unclear whether the president believes what he said or was deliberately distorting Iran's position.

"The Iranian government is on the record across the board as saying it does not want a nuclear weapon. There's plenty of room for skepticism about these assertions. But it's troubling for the administration to indicate that Iran is explicitly embracing the program as a means of destroying another country," said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the State Department until last year and now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush was referring to previous Iranian statements about wiping Israel off the map. "The president shorthanded his answer with regard to Iran's previously secret nuclear weapons program and their current enrichment and ballistic missile testing," Johndroe said.

In two interviews beamed into Iran, Bush expressed deep respect for Iranian history and culture. In a second interview with the Voice of America's Persian News Network, Bush said: "Please don't be discouraged by the slogans that say America doesn't like you, because we do, and we respect you."

But analysts warned that Bush's statement on Iran's nuclear intentions could escalate tensions when U.S. strategy for the first time in three decades is to persuade Iran to join international talks in exchange for suspending its uranium enrichment, a process used for peaceful nuclear energy that can be converted for use in a weapons program. "The bellicose rhetoric from one side only produces the same from the other," Maloney said.

Signaling further pressure on Tehran, the administration also issued a warning on Thursday to U.S. financial institutions about the dangers of doing business with Iranian banks because of inadequate checks on money laundering and the growing risks to the international financial system posed by Iran's financial sector. "The government of Iran disguises its involvement in proliferation and terrorism activities through an array of deceptive practices," the Treasury Department said.

The advisory lists 59 major banks or their branches in cities such as Athens, Hong Kong, London and Moscow. It includes Iran's Central Bank and covers many banks not facing sanctions from the United Nations or the United States.

The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network said that Iran's Central Bank and commercial banks started asking that their names be removed from global transactions to make it more difficult for intermediary financial institutions to determine their true identity or origin.

The United States recently imposed new restrictions on dealings with Bahrain-based Future Bank, which is controlled by Iran's Bank Melli.

"Over the past eight days, the U.S. government has undertaken a number of steps to put Tehran on notice that the international community will not allow the Iranian government to misuse the international financial system or global transportation network to further its aspirations to obtain nuclear weapons capability, improve its missile systems, or support international terrorism," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement.

Staff writers Michael Abramowitz and William Branigin contributed to this report.

Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists - washingtonpost.com

Ambassador Ardeshir zahedi's letter to McCain

 

Ambassador Ardeshir zahedi's letter to McCain

Source: www.ardeshirzahedi.org

Dear Sir,

Senator McCain's recent remarks on Iran at a panel discussions (I.T. 9 - 10 February) in which he expressed concern over the Iranians ambition, "which are as old as history: a Persian domination of the region" was to me heart breaking. Such remarks could have conveyed an ambiguous message in these crucial days to the American people. His remarks are also disappointing to the majority of the Iranians as to the senator's knowledge and understanding of Iran's history, past and contemporary.

By assuming the fact that the aspirations of all nations, including those of the Iranians do not change with the going and the coming of an administration or regime, I do not recall any historian has recorded "as old as history" an ambition of the domination of the region by the Persians.

Having had the privilege of working closely from 1959 to 1979 with seven American Presidents from both parties, with all of whom I am proud to say I had most cordial friendships, I never came across a similar remark by any of them that my country at any time in its more than two and half thousand years of proud history and peaceful co- existence had an eye on the neighboring territories or indeed the ambition of dominating them. On the contrary, it was Iran that throughout the same period of her existence had been invaded by foreign adventurers, beginning by Alexander the Great in 335 B.C , the Arabs in 633-656, the Mongols in the 13 Century, the Afghans and the Russians in the 18th and 19 centuries - up to the last occupations of a neutral and defenseless Iran by the British and Russian armies during the first and second world wars.

In fact throughout post Second World War era and up to 1979 the emergence and existence of a powerful Iran was the core of the US policy under various administrations, both the Republican and Democrat, as a vital source of maintaining peace and stability of the Middle East and Western Asia. The 1979 revolution in Iran may temporarily have had certain adverse consequences on the balance of such Iranian factor of stability, but surely it has no origin in the alleged historical ambition.

Having had the bitter experience of the past invasions from east and west, north and south of the globe, the sole choice for the Iranians to deter the would be aggressors had been and is to become powerful enough to defend their land, dignity, integrity and sovereignty. This was last proved in the 1980s invasion of southern Iran by Saddam's Iraqi army; notwithstanding the generous support provided by the west and the east as well certain regional oil rich nations to the dictator of Baghdad.

Astonishingly, the distinguished Senator's remarks were made at a gathering well familiar with the Persian history; the least with the Cyrus the Great first Declaration of the Human Rights and his treatment of the Jews in Babylon, paving their return to the Promised Land.

Ironically, your paper in reporting Senator McCain's lecture on the Persian history, noted side by side a dispatch from Tehran back precisely 100 years ago; in February 1908 in its "In Our Pages" column: "of the sitting of the (Persian) National Assembly as a very stormy one due to further entry of Russian Cossacks in the Persian territory of Azarbyjan" on a pretext that need no amplification!

Yours truly,

Ardeshir Zahedi
Villa les Roses
Montreux
Switzerland
13 February 2008

Ambassador Ardeshir zahedi's letter to McCain

CJR: Rod Parsley's Free Pass

 

Rod Parsley’s Free Pass

Jeremiah Wright gets torched, while McCain’s “spiritual adviser” offends with impunity

By Zachary Roth Fri 14 Mar 2008 02:45 PM 

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have religious allies who have made controversial, and sometimes flat-out offensive, public statements. But the media have treated them very differently.

First, Obama. Yesterday evening, CNN aired a report on a recent sermon given by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who has long been Obama’s pastor, and who the candidate has referred to in the past as his “spiritual adviser.” The sermon, CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen told viewers, “may come back to haunt” Obama.

In the YouTube clip that CNN aired, Wright says the following:

It just came to me with … within the past few weeks, you all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the model. He isn’t white. He isn’t rich. And he isn’t privileged. Hillary fits the mold.

And:

Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary isn’t never been called a (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-persons.

The LA Times, the Baltimore Sun, CBS News.com, and, unsurprisingly, Fox News, also got into the act, drawing attention to Wright’s controversial remarks, and in some cases to his history of similarly inflammatory rhetoric.

Meanwhile, John McCain has a Christian ally of his own. At a rally in late February, McCain appeared with Rod Parsley, the pastor of an Ohio mega-church, and called him a “spiritual guide.”

Parsley has his own history of controversial statements. As David Corn reported this week for Mother Jones, Parsley has called for Christians to wage war against the “false religion” of Islam, in order to destroy it. He does not distinguish between Islamic extremists and ordinary Muslims. “What some call ‘extremists’ are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam,” he has written.

And it’s not just Muslims he’s got it in for. Last year, Parsley’s organization called for people who commit adultery to be prosecuted, and in January he compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis.

But the press has largely shrugged off the Parsley story. I couldn’t find one mainstream American news outlet that has so much as mentioned Parsley’s extremist views since McCain appeared publicly with him in late February.

To be clear: I think it’s more than appropriate for the media to be scrutinizing Wright. But given that Parsley has a record of making equally offensive public statements (more offensive, I’d argue, but never mind), there’s clearly a double standard here.

Could it be that white, Christian conservatives are now such a familiar part of the landscape of American politics, that reporters often fail to look closely at the beliefs of some of their leaders. (Last week, I noted that the press had dropped the issue of McCain’s support from another controversial Christian conservative, Pastor John Hagee, after McCain assured reporters he didn’t agree with Hagee on everything.) Liberal African-American preachers with roots, like Wright, in the 1960’s black-nationalist movement, don’t enjoy the same kind of mainstream respect—even though Wright’s views are no more objectionable than Parsley’s.

Still, at the end of her report on Wright, CNNs Roesgen hinted at a different reason for the double standard in this case. She told Wolf Blitzer:

The spokesman that I spoke to today for the Barack Obama campaign is challenging us reporters to look into what other pastors for other candidates are saying in their pulpits. And I told him, well, if those sermons appear on YouTube, as well, then we just might.

Because, as we all know, finding stuff that’s not on YouTube is kind of a hassle.

CJR: Rod Parsley's Free Pass

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

 

Israel raises the ante against Iran
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
"We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us. We cannot say so too openly, however, because we have a history of using any threat in order to get weapons ... thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the US and Germany."
- Israeli author, Martin van Crevled, June 2007.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is on a speaking tour in the United States, putting her considerable personal charm in the service of a shrewd salesmanship - of a US war on Iran.
Although considered a dove by Israeli standards, Livni is now on a historic mission that has begun with a pre-travel warmer in the form of a highly publicized telephone call to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, assuring him that there is

direct linkage "between Iran and the terror groups".
Coinciding with the ominous news that US CENTCOM chief Admiral William Fallon has resigned - or been sacked - for his opposition to a war with Iran, Livni hopes to harvest a blowing wind of war against another Middle Eastern country that dares to challenge Israel's regional hegemony. It is a familiar story with a recent precedent in Iraq and a script for action, requiring high-pitched public diplomacy with the help of a vast network of sympathetic media pundits, that Israel has fully mastered.
Last week, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's pressure on Israel "to honor peace obligations" fell on deaf ears and as far as Israel is concerned the so-called "Annapolis roadmap" - to have a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital - is a sideshow to a sideshow, with the central focus on the "Iran threat", just as it was on the "Iraq threat" a mere few years ago.
But, of course, the Israelis and their infinite reservoir of support in the US would rather the world fall into a Nietzschean "sham of forgetfulness" on how aptly, and cunningly, they sold the perception of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and even his direct connection to the September 11, 2001, atrocities.
Although the US government has conclusively found no evidence of such connections, the various pro-Israel pundits who excelled in their assignment to propagate that false image, refuse to acknowledge their error, let alone recant.
Chief among the latter is Laurie Mylroie, who was given free access to the US media as a "terrorism expert" prior to the US's invasion of Iraq, advertising her book on Saddam and September 11, time and again repeating the line that the September 11 attacks "had to be sponsored by a state", that is, Iraq.
In compensation for a job well done, Mylroie landed a full professorship at a US university, despite the fully questionable and empirically refuted nature of her unfounded allegations against Saddam. Who knows, maybe she is even the recipient of an Israeli medal of honor for her unique salesmanship of war.
This time, however, with the stakes on Iran relatively higher, the discrete charm of the affable Livni is fully required to pave the way for another disastrous war in the Middle East, since Israel is incapable of peace with the Palestinians and is in dire need of other pretexts to channel public attention away from its oppressive policies against the Palestinian people.
This is reflected in the Israeli government's blunt announcement of a new settlement in the West Bank, timed with Rice's visit, which must have surely sent a signal that no matter how it may be interpreted as a provocation that belies the peace process, Israel's policy of annexation and confiscation of Palestinian lands will continue unabated.
But not everything proceeds according to Israel's wishes, given the United Nations' recent condemnation of Israel's "excessive force" against the Palestinians in Gaza. Much as Livni and other Israeli officials hope otherwise, there is a limit to the gullibility of US public, who are averse toward another costly US "proxy war" on Israel's behalf. No matter how many US editorials spin their services in this direction, the fact remains there is a growing healthy concern in the US regarding the undue influence of Israel on US foreign policy.
Unfortunately, that healthy skepticism is presently staved off by a sophisticated public relations ploy on Israel's part that blames Iran  for the death of the peace process and exonerates Israel, while presenting a caricature of independence-seeking Palestinians as mere proxies of Iran's "messianic fundamentalists".
Such self-serving image projections of the Iranian enemy conveniently overlook US-Iran shared interests in the region and, instead, seek desperately to paint a black and white picture of US-Iran relations as a zero-sum game. Of course, this is a harder sell, as the US and Iran both support the same regimes in Baghdad and Kabul and also have a vested interest in preventing the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
Meanwhile, amid new US allegations of Iranian subversive activities in Iraq, a fourth round of US-Iran talks has been postponed and, per an informed Iranian analyst, that is simply because the US does not want to negotiate with Iran from the position of weakness since Tehran has gained much as a result of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent trip to Baghdad. "The US should make a strategic adjustment with Iran or continue with its cold war crusade that is disfunctional because Iran and the US have common interests in the region," the analyst insisted.
So, the clever Israelis and their friends have mounted a serious campaign to convince the world that Iran is in bed with the Taliban and also with al-Qaeda, as well as with practically "every terror group opposed to the US", to paraphrase Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns at his recent talk at Harvard University.
Burns, who was the US's pointman on Iran until recently, boasted of his role in US-Israel strategic dialogue and put a complete seal of approval on Israel's warmongering policy with regard to Iran. Surely, this will earn Burns a suitable position in the next US administration, another reminder of how real change in US foreign policy is foreclosed by the recycling of complaint, pro-Israel voices in the US government. [1]
In conclusion, the waning months of the George W Bush administration represent a golden opportunity for Israel to ignite another Middle East conflict that, in essence, is rooted in Israel's structural inability to make peace with the Arab and Muslim world.
Note
1. At his Harvard talk, Burns discounted the importance of the recent US intelligence report on Iran, regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear work, and insisted the US is determined to stop Iran's development of its "nuclear weapon capability", which he defined first and foremost in terms of Iran's uranium enrichment program. He dispensed with the argument that the International Atomic Energy Agency can detect any diversion from that program, which is allowed under the articles of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, nor did Burns address the question of why the US continues to refuse giving security guarantees to Iran.

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

McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam

"This is the guy PersianPac want you to support, first bomb then eradicate Muslims"

McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam

Washington Dispatch: Televangelist Rod Parsley, a key McCain ally in Ohio, has called for eradicating the "false religion." Will the GOP presidential candidate renounce him?

By David Corn

March 12, 2008

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:

There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."

At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement.

McCain's relationship with Parsley is politically significant. In 2004, Parsley's church was credited with driving Christian fundamentalist voters to the polls for George W. Bush. With Ohio expected to again be a decisive state in the presidential contest, Parsley's World Harvest Church and an affiliated entity called Reformation Ohio, which registers voters, could be important players within this battleground state. Considering that the Ohio Republican Party has been decimated by various political scandals and that a popular Democrat, Ted Strickland, is now the state's governor, McCain and the Republicans will need all the help they can get in the Buckeye State this fall. It's a real question: Can McCain win the presidency without Parsley?

The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding Parsley and his anti-Islam writings. Parsley did not return a call seeking comment.

"The last thing I want to be is another screaming voice moving people to extremes and provoking them to folly in the name of patriotism," Parsley writes in Silent No More. Provoking people to holy war is another matter. About that, McCain so far is silent.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C. bureau chief.

McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam

Think Progress » McCain ‘Very Honored’ By Support Of Pastor Preaching ‘End-Time Confrontation With Iran’

 

McCain ‘Very Honored’ By Support Of Pastor Preaching ‘End-Time Confrontation With Iran by pre-emptive Military strike <to stone age>’

Yesterday, hard-line conservative Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, endorsed John McCain. Hagee said that McCain “is a man of principle, [who] does not stand boldly on both sides of any issue.” McCain, who had been courting the endorsement for over a year, said that he was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.”

Demonstrating how wildly out of the American religious and political mainstream Hagee’s views are, McCain’s acceptance of Hagee’s endorsement was condemned today by conservative William Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Calling Hagee a “bigot,” Donahue said the right-wing pastor has waged “an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church” by “calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’”

Hagee holds many other radical beliefs. In a 2006 address to CUFI, Hagee declared:

The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.

Speaking to the 2007 AIPAC conference, Hagee compared supporters of a two-state solution in the Middle East to Nazis. Hagee also echoed right-wing Israeli politician Binyamin Netanyahu, telling the audience that “Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler.”

Paging Tim Russert: Someone should ask John McCain if, unlike Hagee, he supports a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, and whether he believes that a military strike against Iran would “fulfill God’s plan for…a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation” as Hagee does.

UPDATE: Faith in Public Life has more.

UPDATE II: Hagee’s tv show, “John Hagee Today,” is also broadcast on Cornerstone Television. In 1999, McCain wrote to the FCC on behalf of campaign contributor Lowell “Bud” Paxson, urging a deal that would have made $17.5 million for Cornerstone.

Think Progress » McCain ‘Very Honored’ By Support Of Pastor Preaching ‘End-Time Confrontation With Iran’

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran - News Desk (usnews.com)

 

Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran

March 11, 2008 08:47 PM ET | Permanent Link

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon -- whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq -- signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

6.Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.

--Terry Atlas

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran - News Desk (usnews.com)

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : The U.N. is escalating the Iran nuclear crisis

 

The U.N. is escalating the Iran nuclear crisis

Siddharth Varadarajan

If the Security Council were truly concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme, it would have lifted sanctions in the light of the IAEA’s latest report and thereby secured Iranian adherence to the Additional Protocol.

On Monday evening, the United Nations Security Council voted 14-0 with one abstention to impose a fresh set of sanctions against Iran for failing to suspend its civilian nuclear fuel cycle programme. The resolution had the backing of not just the United States, Britain and France but also Russia and China. The latter two, who have made much of their official commitment to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue, justified their support for the latest resolution by adver tising the absence of any reference to the “use of force” in its language. But this reading of the text is wilfully naïve: Resolution 1803 authorises the U.S. military to inspect all air and sea cargo into and out of Iran on board Iranian vessels if “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft or vessel is transporting goods prohibited under this resolution.” It doesn’t require much imagination to see how this enabling provision can serve as the trigger for a showdown between the U.S. — with its overwhelming naval presence around the Persian Gulf — and Iran.

Leaving aside the possibility of military confrontation, Resolution 1803 is a dishonest and provocative document that undermines not just the credibility of the Security Council but also the International Atomic Energy Agency. Just how irrelevant the IAEA and its work have been rendered is proved by the fact that the resolution’s text was prepared before the IAEA’s latest report on Iran, a point mentioned by the South African ambassador to the U.N., who made it clear his government was deeply unhappy with the draft despite agreeing to go along with it in the interest of “consensus.”

Astonishingly, the UNSC resolution takes virtually no notice of the fact that all outstanding issues which led to the Iran file being sent to New York in the first place have now been resolved. The demand, first made in 2006, that Iran suspend enrichment and reprocessing activity, was a derivative demand aimed at instilling confidence pending resolution of those outstanding issues. Now that those original issues have been resolved — and this is what the IAEA has pointed out in its last two reports — there is no basis for the suspension demand to be pressed, let alone made the basis for fresh sanctions.

When Iran was censured by the IAEA Board of Governors in September 2005 and January 2006 and declared in breach of its safeguards obligations, it was for failing to declare in a timely and complete manner a number of nuclear-related activities and procurements. Even though the IAEA has certified that no nuclear material inside Iran has been diverted for prohibited purposes, it said it was unable to certify the absence of “undeclared nuclear activities” pending investigation into those Iranian failures. Over the past six months, however, each and every one of those documented failures has been exhaustively probed. These include questions over the extent of Iranian research into the P-1 and P-2 centrifuge designs, the purpose of its experiments with Polonium-210, the source of uranium contamination at a number of research sites, the possession of a document on the casting of uranium into hemispherical shapes provided unsolicited by the A.Q. Khan network in 1987, and the reasons behind its attempt to procure certain equipment with nuclear applications. Under each of these heads, the IAEA now says the explanations Iran provided are either “consistent with” or “not inconsistent with” information the Agency has. “Therefore, the Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage,” IAEA DG Mohammed el-Baradei’s February 22, 2008 report categorically states.

As far as the uranium metal document is concerned — at one point the Bush administration regarded this as the smoking gun of an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons programme — the IAEA says any further assessment of its significance must await “a response from Pakistan on the circumstances of the delivery of this document.” Thus, the only peg the U.S. and its allies now have to hang their charge of Iranian non-compliance on is the alleged research Tehran is said to have conducted on a nuclear warhead. And thereby hangs a tale.

It was in 2004 that U.S. officials first began speaking of this issue based on information they said they had obtained from an Iranian laptop. This laptop was provided to the U.S. by the German intelligence agency, BND. On November 22, 2004, the Wall Street Journal ran a story quoting a senior German diplomat by name as acknowledging that the source of the computer was “an Iranian dissident group.” Gareth Porter of Inter-Press Service reconfirmed this information in a report last week, quoting a German diplomatic source as identifying the group as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). The NCRI is the political wing of the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq, a group designated as terrorist by the U.S. State Department. On the basis of the NCRI and MeK’s links with Tel Aviv, Porter speculates that the “incriminating” laptop might well have Israeli fingerprints.

Indeed, so sceptical were both the U.S. and the IAEA of its authenticity that this so-called “laptop of death” never formed the primary, secondary or even tertiary focus of concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. The U.S. briefed the IAEA about its contents in the summer of 2005 and news reports at the time spoke of the agency’s experts being sceptical. This scepticism was official. The crucial September 2, 2005 report by Dr el-Baradei — which was to form the basis later that month for the IAEA Board declaring Iran in non-compliance with its obligations — makes no mention of the alleged studies contained in the shady laptop though its contents had been shared with Agency experts a few months earlier. Even now, the IAEA’s latest report refers to the documents as “alleged studies,” notes it has seen no evidence of the use of nuclear material in connection with the “alleged studies” and that it does not have “credible information” in this regard.

Despite this, we are now supposed to believe that these “alleged studies” — about which there is no “credible information” tying them to the use of nuclear material — is the proverbial smoking gun!

In a sense, this dishonest spin was inevitable. For as the U.S. found the IAEA knocking off the other (equally irrelevant but slightly more credible) “outstanding issues” one by one, it was forced to wheel out the laptop’s contents once again, but this time as Exhibit No. 1. Even now, the Agency’s experts are divided. Dr. el-Baradei’s report treats the laptop’s contents with justified circumspection. However, his deputy, Olli Heinonen, briefed IAEA Board members about its contents, buttressing them with more information provided by unnamed intelligence agencies. In his telling, the same documents which looked suspect two years ago now seem to paint an alarming picture. His briefing took place in Vienna on February 25, three days after the official IAEA report was released.

One week later, unnamed diplomats helpfully provided the notes they took at that briefing so that virtually identical stories on Iran’s “nuclear warhead” appeared in the Washington Post, New York Times and Reuters on the eve of the crucial March 3 Security Council vote. Conveniently, dubious information that America (or perhaps the MeK or Israel) first put out thus found its way into the American press as an “IAEA briefing.” After Iraq, the American press has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. And neither, it seems, has the international community, with the honourable exception of Jakarta.

An opportunity lost

The irony is that in upping the ante, the Security Council has allowed a golden opportunity slip out of its hands. What the IAEA needs more than anything else is for Iran to resume its adherence to the Additional Protocol. If there is an iota of truth in the “alleged studies” — which Iran says are based on fabricated documents — the best way for the IAEA to find out is by invoking the wider powers to inspect unlisted sites that the AP confers. Iran had declared that if the UNSC lifts its sanctions now that all concrete outstanding issues have been resolved, it is willing once again to adhere to the AP. As for the enrichment issue, the Iranian offer of running its national facilities as a multinational venture (with multinational oversight) very much remains on the table. These two elements would go a long way towards assuring the international community that Iran’s nuclear programme was entirely peaceful. But it seems there are more powerful interests at work, with aims that go well beyond what is stated.

Later this week, India, which blindly voted against Iran at the IAEA Board in 2005, will get another chance to redeem its place as a responsible member of the international community. Britain is likely to introduce a resolution echoing Monday’s UNSC resolution and ignoring the progress Iran and the IAEA have made in resolving all outstanding issues. With their permanent seats and vetoes on the Security Council — and their delusions about “not allowing the use of force” — Russia and China can afford the luxury of censuring Iran once again. And other non-aligned countries like South Africa may well lack the political and economic heft to resist the kind of pressure that will no doubt be brought to bear. But India is a different story. It is big. It is powerful. And unlike Russia and China, geography has placed us in the same region as Iran. Under no circumstances should India allow itself to once again become party to the irrational and disastrous confrontation that Washington is foisting on our neighbourhood.

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : The U.N. is escalating the Iran nuclear crisis

Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran? - Haaretz - Israel News

 

Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran?

By Yossi Melman

Tags: Iran, Israel, Mossad

The Bush administration is prolonging the hunting season against journalists. The latest victim is James Risen, The New York Times reporter for national security and intelligence affairs. About three months ago, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena against him, ordering Risen to give evidence in court. A heavy blackout has been imposed on the affair, with the only hint being that it has to do with sensitive matters of "national security."
But conversations with several sources who are familiar with the affair indicate that Risen has been asked to testify as part of an investigation aimed at revealing who leaked apparently confidential information about the planning of secret Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad missions concerning Iran's nuclear program.
Risen included this information in his book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," which was published in 2006. In the book, he discusses a number of ideas which he says were thought up jointly by CIA and Mossad operatives to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Advertisement

One of these ideas was to build electromagnetic devices, smuggling them inside Iran to sabotage electricity lines leading to the country's central nuclear sites. According to the plan, the operation was supposed to cause a series of chain reactions which would damage extremely powerful short circuits in the electrical supply that would have led to failures of the super computers of Iran's nuclear sites.
According to the book, the Mossad planners proposed that they would be responsible for getting the electromagnetic facilities into Iran with the aid of their agents in Iran. However, a series of technical problems prevented the plan's execution.
Another of the book's important revelations, which made the administration's blood boil about James Risen, appeared in a chapter describing what was known as Operation Merlin, the code name for another CIA operation supposed to penetrate the heart of Iran's nuclear activity, collect information about it and eventually disrupt it.
Operation Merlin
The CIA counter proliferation department hired a Soviet nuclear engineer who had previously, in the 1990s, defected to the United States and revealed secrets from the Soviet Union's nuclear program. His speciality was in the field of what is called weaponization, the final stage of assembling a nuclear bomb.
The scientist was equipped with blueprints for assembling a nuclear bomb in which, without his knowledge, false drawings and information blueprints were planted about a nuclear warhead that was supposedly manufactured in the Soviet Union. The plan's details had been fabricated by CIA experts, and so while they appeared authentic, they had no engineering or technological value.
The intention was to fool the scientist and send him to make contact with the Iranians to whom he would offer his services and blueprints. The American plot was aimed at getting the Iranians to invest a great deal of effort in studying the plans and to attempt to assemble a faulty warhead. But when the time came, they would not have a nuclear bomb but rather a dud.
However, Operation Merlin, which was so creative and original, failed because of CIA bungled planning. The false information inserted into the blueprints were too obvious and too easily detected and the Russian engineer discovered them. As planned, he made contact with the Iranian delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and handed over to them, also as planned, the blueprints.
But contrary to the CIA's intention, he added a letter to the blueprints in which he pointed out the mistakes. He did not do this with ill intent or out of a desire to disrupt the operation and harm his operators. On the contrary, he did so out of a deep sense of mission and in order to satisfy his American operators. He hoped that in this way he would simply increase the Iranians' trust in him and encourage them to make contact with him for the good, of course, of his American operators.
The result was disastrous. Not only did the CIA fail to prevent the Iranians in their efforts to enhance their nuclear program, this operation may also have made it possible for them to get their hands on a plan for assembling a nuclear warhead.
Freedom of the press
In Israel, military censorship would have prevented the publication of details such as these. But in the U.S., where the principle of freedom of the press is sacred and anchored in the constitution, there is no compulsory and binding censorship. There is, however, an expectation there that the press will show responsibility. This expectation has increased in recent years, particularly with the conservative Bush administration and in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Risen is not the first journalist to have been subpoenaed to give evidence before a grand jury and reveal his sources. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, some 65 journalists have been summoned for such investigations since 2001. Some agreed, cooperated and testified. Most refused, so that they would not have to reveal their sources. In this way, they exposed themselves to being charged with contempt of court.
There were some who even preferred to be jailed so long as they were not forced to reveal their source. The best-known case was that of Judith Miller, another New York Times writer. The background to her 85-day imprisonment was her refusal to reveal who had leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, to the media.
"It is true that there is tension between the Bush administration and the media," says Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, an independent body which aims at analyzing the activities of government with a critical eye, "but I would not go so far as to say that the administration is waging war against the media."
In Aftergood's assessment, the danger to the freedom of the press comes rather from private citizens and organizations, those who feel themselves harmed by journalistic publications and commentators and who would therefore like to limit the press' freedom. The most conspicuous of these is Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior editor at Commentary, who believes that liberal newspapers like The New York Times are not sufficiently patriotic. In his articles and in testimony before a Senate committee that discussed the issue, Schoenfeld claimed that
The New York Times reporters had revealed confidential material that weakened America's struggle against Al-Qaida. He calls for relinquishing the soft approach which he says the administration has taken against journalists in whose publications, in his opinion, America's security is harmed.
There are many others who take the opposite approach and believe that the right of journalists to keep their sources secret should be anchored in law. Two Congressmen, the Republican Mike Pence, and Rick Boucher, a Democrat, have proposed legislation to this effect - a law for the free flow of information. The House of Representatives has already approved their proposal but the legislation is being held up in the Senate, to the displeasure of the American Civil Liberties Union.
On the face of it, this is a sensitive issue that is intended to draw the lines between the freedom of information, freedom of the media, and the public's right to know, against the right of a democracy to defend itself against enemies that are not democratic. But James Risen has no doubt that the correct and just moral act on his part has to be to defend his sources, even if this means he will lose his freedom.
The next test case in the U.S. concerning the freedom of the press could be of even greater interest to Israel. It is connected to next month's trial of two former senior American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) employees, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who have been charged with crimes based on an old First World War anti-espionage law, which has hardly ever been put into practice since.
The indictment states that they obtained confidential information from officials at the Pentagon and transferred it, inter alia, to Israeli diplomats and journalists. A number of American journalists have already been investigated by the CIA in connection to this, and it is possible that they will be called to give evidence incriminating the two senior AIPAC officials.

Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran? - Haaretz - Israel News

The Iran hawks' latest surge | Salon News

 

For its part, AIPAC is behind an effort to tighten the financial noose around Tehran. Rather than pushing for wide-ranging sanctions, as some have in the past, AIPAC is lobbying lawmakers to introduce more specifically targeted -- and potentially much more potent -- sanctions, which may have a higher chance of being adopted than broader measures. While commending the latest U.N. sanctions, AIPAC is pushing for the U.S. government to unilaterally sanction "foreign banks who continue to conduct transactions with the four state-owned Iranian banks," and "designate the Central Bank of Iran as a supporter of terrorism and weapons proliferator," according to one of its recent policy memos.

In addition, according to AIPAC spokesman Josh Block, the organization is throwing its lobbying muscle behind two new congressional bills that include a raft of sharp measures -- such as prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business with Iran. A key goal here is that the U.S. would no longer have to rely only on multilateral enforcement of U.N. sanctions to squeeze Iran. (AIPAC at this point is not openly advocating any military measures against Iran -- arguably an untenable approach for any presidential contender if not most American politicians right now.)

McCain is a favorite of many in the AIPAC fold. Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy director, also told me that McCain believes the new U.N. sanctions aren't enough, and that tougher measures are necessary. He said that McCain would support "sanctions outside of the U.N. framework," and that although "the military option is fraught with danger" he would not take it off the table.

The Iran hawks' latest surge | Salon News

The Iran hawks' latest surge | Salon News

 

David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, has referred to the latest NIE as the "National Incompetence Estimate," and told me that CUFI is engaged in serious efforts to counter the reduced sense of urgency about Iran that it spawned. Although he hadn't yet had a chance to fully analyze the latest sanctions, he said his sense was that they were again relatively "soft," because that would've been "the only way to get consensus" at the U.N. Security Council. He said that his organization is pushing for all measures against Iran short of war -- but also repeatedly stressed, "No one should take the military option off the table. It would be ill-advised diplomacy to assure Iran or any foe that there will never be military consequences to their actions

The Iran hawks' latest surge | Salon News

How to end the U.S.-Iran standoff

"I am not sure Iran will accept the 3rd condition"

By William Luers, Thomas Pickering and James Walsh

Monday, March 3, 2008

U.S. policy toward Iran is stuck. It is more a holding game than a policy.

The third sanctions resolution at the UN Security Council, which will probably pass this week, will not add much to the squeeze on Iran and is likely to be the last such resolution the United States can get.

Continuing to try to sanction Iran has made life difficult for some Iranians but will not coerce Iran to change its commitment to a nuclear program.

Nor will sanctions result in regime change. U.S. diplomacy has proven that there is world opposition to Iran having nuclear weapons, but it has not prevented Iran from continuing to build large numbers of centrifuges to enable them to enrich uranium.

While the Security Council has been tightening the screws, Iran has moved from having a single cascade of 164 centrifuges in 2006 to approximately 3,000 centrifuges today, and the number is rising.

The Iranians are having technical problems with their cascades, but every new centrifuge that Iran builds - whether it works or not - creates new facts on the ground. Iran will eventually perfect the technology. We just do not know when they will be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. The best bet is still 5-10 years.

The U.S.-sponsored Security Council sanctions effort is still alive, but just barely. We have been told that key UN member states negotiating the next round of sanctions are seeking a U.S. commitment to talk directly with Iran.

The Chinese and Russians continue to seek commercial arrangements with Iran and doubt that sanctions will be effective in heading off the Iran nuclear program. Iran continues its diplomatic offensive in the Gulf, is more cooperative in Iraq and is carrying out a constructive dialogue with the International Atomic Energy Agency. All of these developments have weakened the sanctions approach.

Face-to-face U.S.-Iran talks on the nuclear program are blocked because Washington will not agree to talk until Iran suspends nuclear enrichment. Iran says it will never suspend. The U.S. insistence on zero enrichment on Iranian soil grows less viable with every newly constructed Iranian centrifuge.

Within the growing number of American leaders calling for direct talks with Iran, not one has yet made a concrete proposal on what to say to the Iranians other than to tell them to stop enrichment. The United States needs a new strategy soon on how to structure direct talks on the nuclear issue.

In the current issue of The New York Review of Books, we propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments.

We propose the institution of a rigorous and broad monitoring regime over Iran's nuclear program. Turning Iran's sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will enable the international community to have closer monitoring and inspections as well as joint management and operation of the program.

This approach would reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion of our serious disagreements and of our common interests.

But there are risks in such a plan. Negotiating a multilateral arrangement would be an ordeal involving a complex set of financial, legal and technical issues.

Some argue it would increase the risk of proliferation because it would transfer technical knowledge, facilitate the diversion of nuclear material to clandestine operations, or present the possibility that Iran could decide to re-nationalize the consortium and expel the partners - including all monitoring.

The IAEA has demonstrated that it can monitor effectively, thereby reducing significantly the risks of Iranian "break out" to build a nuclear weapon.

We also believe that the deal that would be negotiated would make it extremely costly for Iran to expel inspectors and partners. We propose to include a Security Council resolution sanctifying the new arrangement and specifying that if Iran breaks the agreement, member states would be authorized to take punitive action against Iran.

Offering such talks to Iran without preconditions would give the United States the initiative while putting the burden on the Islamic Republic to demonstrate that it wants to have a truly peaceful nuclear program. Iran would have to agree to the full transparency of the program on Iranian soil.

Conditions that should be negotiated with Iran would include: 1) Iran would be prohibited from producing either highly enriched uranium or reprocessed plutonium; 2) Iran would fully implement the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which places added inspection and transparency requirements on Iran; 3) Iran would commit itself to a program of only light water reactors, which would reduce significantly the opportunities to produce quantities of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Looking at U.S. policy toward Iran, the best possible outcome would be no enrichment by Iran of any kind. The worst possible outcome would be a purely national program on Iranian soil without inspections, safeguards or Iranian obligations or commitments to the international community.

Unfortunately, the worst outcome today seems more likely than the best. Our proposal offers the best of numerous bad options for dealing with the Iran nuclear issue. We are convinced, after more than five years of track-two diplomacy with a group of Iranians under the auspices of the United Nations Association of the USA, that if the nuclear issue would become a subject of constructive negotiations, Iran and the United States would be able to open up discussions on the broad range of issues.

The National Intelligence Estimate's conclusions on Iran's cessation of its nuclear weapons program and diminishing support of insurgency in Iraq offer a serious opportunity to turn around this long standing mutually paranoid and hostile relationship.

The United States is the only nation that can take on this task directly and achieve the breakthrough that is necessary. The payoff for this difficult task could well be a more stable and manageable Middle East.

William Luers is president of the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA). Thomas Pickering, former U.S. under secretary of state for political affairs, is co-chairman of UNA-USA. Jim Walsh, is a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

---

Notes:

---

Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com