Saturday, December 15, 2007

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

(This sounds like something out of twilight zone) 

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, December 13, 2007

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

 

Tehran: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks with journalists at press conference on Dec. 11. Iran is suddenly enjoying a thaw with its Arab neighbors, who happen to be US allies.Cairo - Iran is suddenly enjoying a thaw with its Arab neighbors – all close US allies – in the wake of a US intelligence report that judged Iran probably suspended its work on nuclear weapons four years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism

 

Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism
Why our current policy will allow the Terrorists to win, and why leaving Iraq isn't "surrender" or "retreat"
by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)

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

Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism

Bombs: Comment: The New Yorker

Bombs

by Steve Coll December 17, 2007

Keywords
Iran;
National Intelligence Estimate;
Nuclear Weapons;
Bush, George W. (Pres.) (43rd);
Foreign Policy;
Cheney, Dick (Vice-President);
Diplomacy

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

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

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

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

Bombs: Comment: The New Yorker

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

 

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

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

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

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

 

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

Olmert says Iran still seeking nuclear bomb | Reuters

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

All Iranians with the nuclear weapon knowledge must be killed

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