Great. We have an Armageddon focused messianic freak in charge of our country and so do they. Makes for a nice nights sleep doesn't it?


Iran and Armageddon

WASHINGTON — Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old extermination camp?

Except that there were no such camps, indeed no Holocaust at all, says Ahmadinejad. Nothing but "myth," a "legend" that was "fabricated ... under the name 'Massacre of the Jews.' "

This brought the usual reaction from European and American officials, who, with Churchillian rage and power, called these statements unacceptable. That something serious may accrue to Iran for this — say, expulsion from the U.N. for violating its most basic principle by advocating the outright eradication of a member state — is, of course, out of the question.

To be sure, Holocaust denial and calls for Israel's destruction are commonplace in the Middle East. They can be seen every day on Hezbollah TV, in Syrian media, in Egyptian editorials appearing in semiofficial newspapers. But none of these aspiring mass murderers are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that could do in one afternoon what it took Hitler six years to do — destroy an entire Jewish civilization and extinguish 6 million souls.

Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows they will be put on Shahab rockets that have been modified so they can now reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is pushed, it will be the end of Israel.

But it gets worse. The president of a country about to go nuclear is a confirmed believer in the coming apocalypse. Like Judaism and Christianity, Shiite Islam has its own version of the messianic return — the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. The more devout believers in Iran pray at the Jamkaran Mosque that houses a well from which, some believe, he will emerge.

When Ahmadinejad unexpectedly won the presidential elections, he immediately gave $17 million of government funds to the shrine. Last month, Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

And as in some versions of fundamentalist Christianity, the second coming will be accompanied by the usual trials and tribulations, death and destruction. Iranian journalist Hossein Bastani reported Ahmadinejad saying in official meetings that the hidden imam will reappear in two years.

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near, but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

The closest we've come to a messianically inclined leader in America was a secretary of the interior who, 24 years ago, when asked about his stewardship of the environment, told Congress, "I don't know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."

But James Watt's domain was the forest and his weapon of choice was the chainsaw. He was not in charge of nuclear weapons to be placed on missiles that are paraded through the streets with, literally, Israel's name on them. (They are adorned with banners reading "Israel must be wiped off the map.")

It gets worse. After his speech to the U.N. in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. ... It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic."

Negotiations to deny this certifiable lunatic genocidal weapons have been going nowhere. Everyone knows they will go nowhere. And no one will do anything about it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...uthammer19.html

Iranian President Bans Western Music
Monday, December 19, 2005

TEHRAN, Iran — Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Today, though, the sounds of hip-hop can be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran's streets, and Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts.

No more — the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets.

"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.

Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour lamented what he called a "terrible" decision. "The decision shows a lack of knowledge and experience," he said.

Music was outlawed by Khomeini soon after the 1979 revolution. Many musicians went abroad and built an Iranian music industry in Los Angeles.

But as revolutionary fervor started to fade, some light classical music was allowed on Iranian radio and television; some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s.

In the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997, authorities began relaxing restrictions further. These days in Iran, Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.

Ahmadinejad's order means the state broadcasting authority must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the IRAN Persian daily.

Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.

Before leaving, he played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to packed Tehran theater houses over several nights last month — its first performance in Tehran since the 1979 revolution. The performances angered many conservatives and prompted newspaper columns accusing Rahbari of promoting Western values.

The ban applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.

Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles, following the eight years of reformist-led rule under Khatami.

During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion of Iran and promote Islamic values.

Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and describing the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."

International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the claims.

The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.

"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate triteness and violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site.

The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant powers," an apparent reference to the United States.

The probibitions mirror those imposed in neighboring Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, which imposed a strict version of Islamic law, including a ban on music and film. The Taliban was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in late 2001.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179158,00.html

That's real funny. My first church hated rock music. He'd do the fire and brimstone routine and you'd hear "Amen!" and "Hallelujah!" from the pews. Then the preacher said country music was full of debauchery, drunkeness, prison, but especially adultery.

Crickets chirped.

Did you know Freddie Mercury of Queen was Iranian?

I did not know that. One of my better friends in college was/is Iranian. He was a captain in the army under the shah. Got his intelligent ass outta there quick time.
He told me a bit about the place and what was happening at that time.

Yes, but it doesn't come up very often.

that's good ... not that there's anything wrong with that

Sharon's situation, while sorrowful, is but one critical challenge facing Israel

By Caroline B. Glick











http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Wednesday night ushered in a new era in Israel's political history. As we watch and worry as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dangles between life and death, one thing is absolutely clear. Sharon's massive cerebral hemorrhage on Wednesday night spelled the end of his political career. Sharon will never return to lead the State of Israel. He will never make a full recovery.


Whatever one's views of Sharon's policies and the quality of his leadership, no Israeli can feel anything but sorrow at Sharon's abrupt demise. A nation's sudden and dramatic separation from its leader is never a good thing. It is all the more debilitating when the leader in question is as popular and powerful as Sharon.


There will come a proper time to inquire into the reports we received about Sharon's health in the three weeks that passed since the premier suffered his initial stroke. Those questions will no doubt focus on statements by his spin doctors attesting to his good health and on the media's refusal to ask hard questions about Sharon's ability to continue in office after that first stroke. But now, as we enter the post-Sharon era, those questions are beside the point. The task that now besets our political leadership and the Israeli people as a whole is to focus on the country's present challenges — for they suffer no delay.


Without a doubt, the greatest challenge facing the State of Israel today is Iran's nuclear weapons program.


Until Wednesday night, the rumor-mill running between Jerusalem, Washington and the capital cities of Europe was full of reports that Sharon planned to order an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear installations just before our general elections at the end of March. There was nothing new in these rumors. Similar ones have been making the rounds for over a year now. In autumn 2004 for instance, it was whispered that Sharon would order such an attack on the day of the US presidential elections in November 2004. This past spring it was claimed that Sharon would give the order during the IDF's withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria. And now, for the past two months or so, rumors have circulated that Sharon was planning a strike to destroy Iran's nuclear installations just ahead of the elections on March 28.


There can be no room for doubt. The need to conduct a military strike against Iran's nuclear program increases with each passing day. The threat that Iran's nuclear weapons program constitutes for Israel is the most egregious example since the Holocaust of what happens when states and societies where anti-Semitism is of a genocidal nature are allowed to acquire the means to attack the Jews.


Israel's experience, like the experience of the Jewish people throughout its history, has taught that such anti-Semites seek out opportunities to use their acquired means to kill Jews. And now, against the increasingly tangible threat that Iran will soon acquire nuclear capabilities, Israel finds itself in an election season marked by political uncertainty and instability.


Even in the absence of domestic political chaos, any Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities is today hampered by two things. First, the anti-Semitism that is endemic in the Iranian regime is equally endemic throughout the entire Muslim and Arab world. Were Iran to carry out tomorrow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's promise to complete Hitler's work, such an act would no doubt be met with glee throughout the Arab and Muslim world.


As well, Iran has been able to advance its nuclear weapons program in large part due to the vast increase in anti-Semitic sentiments throughout the Western world. Over the past five years, the notion that there is something acceptable about murdering Jews and seeking to destroy Israel has met with increasing acceptance among large swathes of European society and the ranks of the international Left. Today, as Israel enters the post-Sharon era, it is hindered by unprecedented diplomatic weakness, largely as a result of the prevalence of Western anti-Semitism and its concomitant demand that Israel do all it can to appease its enemies.


For Israel to be capable of carrying out an attack against Iran's nuclear installations it will need to receive US and NATO backing for the move. The majority of international security analysts agree that Israeli fighter bombers en route to Iran will need to fly over Iraqi airspace and may even need to refuel in Iraq. Turkish bases may also be necessary. Given this, Israel is today in dire need of leadership capable of handling some of the most sensitive and monumental diplomacy in its history — even if such leadership were only able to convince others to carry out the attacks in our place.


The genocidal anti-Semitism that lies at the root of Iran's quest to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons is also the source of Palestinian-led terror war against Israel. Yet, unlike the case of Iran, whose wherewithal to match its desire to destroy Israel with actual military capabilities has been uninfluenced by Israeli actions, the Palestinians' terror capabilities have been vastly expanded as a direct result of Israeli policies.


Today, as the Palestinian Authority has ceased to operate in any coherent manner; as the Egyptian border with Gaza has been open for terror traffic for three months; and as Hamas has emerged as the most prevalent force in Palestinian politics and society, it is impossible to deny that Sharon's decision to withdraw Israeli forces from Gaza and northern Samaria has vastly empowered Palestinian terrorists. Today the Gaza Strip has become one of the most active and dangerous bases for jihadi terrorism in the world.


And yet, the rapid transformation of Gaza into the most active terror base in the Arab world has not led to calls by the international community, led by Washington for Israel to take the military measures necessary to destroy the emerging threat. To the contrary: The international community, led by the Bush Administration, has greeted Gaza's mutation into what Palestinians refer to as a new Somalia, and what for Israelis and Westerners in general is more comparable to Taliban ruled Afghanistan, with ever more strident demands for continued Israeli appeasement of Palestinian terrorists. The latest testimony to Israel's unprecedented diplomatic weakness in Washington came with President George W. Bush's demand this week that Israel allow Arab residents of Jerusalem to vote in the upcoming Palestinian elections - elections in which Hamas is expected to receive a plurality, if not a majority of votes.


Amid the threat now constituted by Gaza and the rising chaos in Palestinian society generally, three weeks before the Palestinian elections Israel's defense and diplomatic establishments have no answers to give. Israel has no coherent policy to speak of for dealing with the acquisition of Strella anti-aircraft missiles or Katyusha missiles by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. It has no policy for contending with the fact that Al Qaida has now become an actor in the Palestinian areas and in south Lebanon. It has no effective policy for dealing with the repeated attacks against its vital infrastructures in Ashkelon or with assumption that the Palestinians will soon transfer their newfound capabilities from Gaza to Judea and Samaria. Israel's security brass has no policy for contending with the manifest links between the Iranian regime and Palestinian terror groups.


Our leadership's befuddlement was perhaps most sharply manifested on Wednesday by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who in a public statement laid out Israel's conditions for opening a dialogue with Hamas.


Mofaz's statement was not merely ill-advised. It was completely irrational. Hamas, like the Iranian ayatollahs, is a terror group totally committed to the eradication of Israel. This fact was brought home clearly in an Egyptian television interview given by Mariam Farahat, aka Umm Nidal, the mother of three dead Hamas terrorists on December 21. Farahat is considered a moderate Hamas member and is a Hamas candidate in the Palestinian elections.


In a transcript published by MEMRI, Farahat, who justified the murder of all Israelis everywhere as a legitimate means of jihad, spelled out what "peace" with the Jews means for Hamas. For her, "Peace means the liberation of all of Palestine, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] Sea. When this is accomplished - if they want peace, we will be ready. They may live under the banner of the Islamic state. That is the future of Palestine that we are striving towards."


This is Israel's current reality. Our main security challenge on all fronts is to destroy our enemies' ability to match their genocidal anti-Semitism with the means to kill us. And the carrying out of this task can only be accomplished by a leadership that truly understands that we are not to blame for our enemies' hatred and that we can do nothing to mitigate it.


The fact that Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism is met by and large by indifference from the West, which itself is suffering from a milder yet increasingly widespread form of Jew hatred, makes clear the third challenge facing Israel today: ensuring our economic independence. In the history of nations, there has scarcely been a case where the side with the weaker economy prevailed over its enemy in a war of attrition. Israel must ensure its economic vitality and independence in order to guarantee that our defense industries can continue to operate and that our military forces are properly equipped and trained. As well, in light of the rampant anti-Semitism in Western Europe, Israel must be capable of absorbing waves of Jewish immigration from Europe.


Today Israel is in the midst of a painful but successful process of economic liberalization and growth. The political instability that Sharon's departure has induced can threaten this process which is so vital to the future of the country.


In light of the critical challenges that Israel faces today, our current political instability places us in a difficult position. The fact of the matter is that Sharon's Kadima party without Sharon is nothing more than a patchwork of politicians who diverge on so many issues it is impossible to see it fashioning coherent policies. This is a cause for alarm. As well, the fractiousness of the nationalist camp that has been manifested by the Likud ministers' unjustifiable opposition to Binyamin Netanyahu's party leadership, is an additional cause for Israeli weakness at this critical juncture.


One of Sharon's greatest strengths was his ability to form coalitions of people from disparate backgrounds and political camps and move them forward to achieve goals that appeared impossible to attain. Now, with Sharon no longer leading the country, our political leaders must find a way to act in a similar manner. The future of the state depends on their success.


JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0106/glick010606.php3

Iran skips Vienna nuclear meeting

Thursday, January 5, 2006; Posted: 4:42 p.m. EST (21:42 GMT)


ElBaradei acknowledges the right of Iran "to the peaceful use of nuclear technology."
Save on All Your Calls with Vonage
When looking for local regional and long distance calling, use Vonage to make...
www.vonage.com Win a Free College Scholarship
Fill out a quick and easy form to win a scholarship for you or a family member....
www.scholarships4all.net Mortgage Rates Hit Record Lows
$160,000 loan as low as $633/month. Compare rates - refinance now.
www.lowermybills.com
More Useful Links
• Sporting Goods
• Discount Travel
• Wellness

RELATED
• Iran to resume more nuclear work
• Iran rejects Russia nuclear offer
• Iran: Russian offer 'ambiguous'
• Iran: U.S. can bid on nuclear plant
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

Iran
Russia
United States
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? (CNN) -- Iran's delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency abruptly left Vienna Thursday without attending a meeting in which delegation members were to explain the reasons behind Tehran's planned resumption of its nuclear program, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

"The meeting today was supposed to be about the clarification of Iran's 'R&D' (research and development) intentions in restarting their nuclear program," Fleming told CNN in a phone interview.

Iran's Atomic Energy Organization announced Tuesday it would restart its nuclear research program on January 9 to put idle atomic researchers back to work.

An IAEA statement Tuesday said Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general, acknowledged the right of Iran "to the peaceful use of nuclear technology."

"However, he continues to call on Iran to take the steps the IAEA requires to resolve outstanding issues regarding the nature of Iran's nuclear program," the statement said.

"In the meantime, Dr. ElBaradei also calls on Iran to take voluntary measures to build confidence, and enable the resumption of dialogue with all concerned parties."

Talks with France, Britain and Germany on Iran's nuclear activities were halted last year.

Fleming said the IAEA still would like to get some answers before Tehran takes any action on its program.

"We are still seeking clarification before they start these activities," she said.

Iran's nuclear programs are a source of contention with the West. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Sunday rejected a Russian offer to produce nuclear fuel in its plants for Iran, the latest effort to resolve a diplomatic impasse over Tehran's nuclear program.

Iran's hard-line conservative government insists it has the right to restart nuclear facilities and enrich uranium for the production of nuclear energy, despite fears expressed by some nations -- including the United States -- that Tehran's true goal is to produce nuclear weapons.

"Frankly, the patience of the international community is not infinite on this issue," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Tuesday.

"Iran is trying to pursue nuclear weapons under the cover of a peaceful nuclear program. We do not think that should be allowed to happen."

Should Iran take any further enrichment-related steps, "the international community will have to take additional measures to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iran.nuclear/

cptrev, this could also be the spot for your "Nuclear Iran" discussion.

Thanks Nomarchy,

I feel silly for missing this... although I'd like to maintain a separate thread with a narrower focus (if that's possible... most discussions tend to degenerate to "your side sucks" - no matter which side is talking.) *sigh* But I'll read this thread over and hope for the best.

Iran nuclear move concerns Europe

Iran says its nuclear programme
is for peaceful purposes only

EU leaders say they are very concerned at Iran's plans to resume sensitive nuclear research in the coming hours.

"Hello" Get with the program. How many times does the US have to save you?

Iranian officials say they will remove seals at nuclear facilities, ending a two-year suspension of research.

The German foreign minister described the developments as "very, very ominous", and the Austrian chancellor held open the possibility of sanctions.

That's an original thought!

Western countries fear Iran's nuclear programme could be used to make atomic bombs, but Tehran denies such a goal.

Israel has the biggest fear!

It says the project is for the peaceful production of energy only.

And Mohammad Khatami is a madman!

Talks between Iran and the EU trio of Germany, France and the UK, broke off last August after Iran resumed uranium conversion activity which it had suspended in 2004.

Resuming the research on Monday would mean all of Iran's nuclear activities, apart from uranium enrichment, have been revived.

Russia offer

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the latest move "marks a breach of Tehran's commitments... It cannot remain without consequence".

Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said he was "very concerned" about the developments.

He said the possibility of sanctions against Iran would "in due course be discussed by the EU", but that "that point in time has not yet arrived".

On Sunday talks between Russia and Iran on plans to transfer Iran's uranium enrichment activity to Russian soil ended without major agreement.

The EU and US back the proposal in principle as a safeguard against Iran developing a bomb.

An Iranian official is quoted as saying talks with Moscow will resume in mid-February.

US warning

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said on Sunday the resumption of nuclear research was Iran's right and would be done under the supervision of international inspectors.

But Hamid Reza Asefi refused to say what kind of research was planned or which sites were involved.

The US has warned Iran it might seek to refer the country to the UN if nuclear research resumes.

That's really a big threat!

The board of governors of the IAEA - UN's nuclear watchdog - is due to meet in March to discuss whether to pass the case to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4592140.stm

Iran Notches Up Anti-Israel Campaign

Iran Notches Up Anti-Israel Campaign With Conference to Study Evidence of Holocaust

By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran Jan 15, 2006 — Iran announced plans Sunday for a conference to examine evidence for the Holocaust, a new step in hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's campaign against Israel one that was likely to deepen Tehran's international isolation.

Ahmadinejad already called the Nazis' World War II slaughter of European Jews a "myth" and said the Jewish state should be wiped off the map or moved to Germany or the United States.

Those remarks prompted a global outpouring of condemnation, and it wasn't clear who would be willing to attend an Iranian-sponsored Holocaust conference.


Late last year, however, the leader of Egypt's main Islamic opposition group joined Ahmadinejad in characterizing the Holocaust as a "myth" and lambasted Western governments for criticizing those who dispute the Jewish genocide happened.

"Western democracies have slammed all those who don't see eye to eye with the Zionists regarding the myth of the Holocaust," Muslim Brotherhood chief Mohammed Mahdi Akef wrote on the group's Web site.

Tehran already had further raised international concern about its nuclear program last week when it resumed what it called "research" at its uranium enrichment facility.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. organization that monitors nuclear proliferation, said Iran was resuming small-scale nuclear enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for atomic bombs.

That, in turn, prompted Washington and its allies to renew their push to take Iran before the U.N. Security Council for the possible sanctions.

The United States, its European allies and Japan believe Tehran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charge and says its nuclear program is only for electricity generation.

In calling for penalties against Iran's "irresponsible" behavior, Republican Sen. Trent Lott pointed to Tehran's plans for the Holocaust conference.

"At the minimum, we should go to the U.N. Security Council and we should impose economic sanctions unless there is some dramatic change in the Iranian position," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1508453

[sarcasm]
Yes, threatening Iran has worked out so well for the White House. Let's threaten them some more and see what happens.
[/sarcasm]

So what's really their game? Anyone?

This one has 'RED FLAGS' popping up like mushrooms!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

So, threatening to drive up the price of oil is the game?

The 'nutcase' that is running Iran is certainly up to something and his 'ace in the hole' is oil. We need to get
Pat Robertson overthere ASAP to 'neutralize' the situation. To heck with Chavez!

Pat Robertson, yeah, there ya go. Mebbe he could take Jesse Jackson wif him. There'd be an International Negotiation Force Field.

What if Robertson was black?

Watch it. We need a white nut up there with the Reverends Jackson & Sharpton.

I think the days of treating black leaders as sacrosanct because of skin color are gone, insofar as they went.

I guess we're just progressing right along.

Iran issues stark warning on oil price

War of words over trade sanctions

Robert Tait in Tehran
Monday January 16, 2006
The Guardian


Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions. As diplomats from the US, Europe, Russia, and China prepared to meet today in London to discuss referring Tehran to the UN security council, Iran's economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, said the country's position as the world's fourth-largest oil producer meant such action would have grave consequences.


"Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects," he told Iranian state radio.
In a provocative move, Iran also announced plans yesterday to convene a "scientific" conference to examine the evidence supporting the Holocaust. The news comes weeks after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked a global outcry by describing the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a "myth".

Mr Danesh-Jafari's comments echoed fears voiced by energy market analysts after crude oil prices last week rose above $64 (£36.50) a barrel as hopes faded of a diplomatic solution to the dispute.

Last week, Manouchehr Takin, of the Centre for Global Energy Studies, argued that crude prices could hit $100 a barrel if Iran stopped exporting. "Supply and demand are very tightly balanced," he said.

Mr Danesh-Jafari's warning added weight to veiled threats by Iran's president on Saturday. Iran had a "cheap means" of achieving its nuclear "rights", Mr Ahmadinejad said, adding: "You [the west] need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/...1687381,00.html

really?

Buying the Bush Line on Iran Nukes
Despite uncertainty, U.S. journalists take sides

By Steve Rendall


How should U.S. journalists treat charges that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program? On the one hand, the track record of White House allegations about the weapons programs of the “axis of evil” is decidedly poor. On the other hand, Iranian officials who claim their country has only a peaceful nuclear energy program have their own history of deceptions and evasions.

With a story marked by uncertainty, the journalist’s job is to puncture official misinformation all around while digging for more solid information. Unfortunately, U.S. news media outlets have instead largely decided to echo White House charges despite the shortage of facts.

News articles in the New York Times, which often sets the tone for other news outlets, repeatedly treat the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program as a matter of fact. A front-page Times story by reporter Patrick Tyler (6/27/05) mentioned that China might block “efforts to bring the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program before the United Nations Security Council.” Another Times front-pager by Michael Gordon (10/19/04) suggested that a U.S.-friendly regime in Iraq might pressure “Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program.” And a Times article by Scott Shane (3/26/05), reporting on how U.S. intelligence on Iran is lacking, nevertheless took the administration’s view when it referred to “Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.”

The paper also tips its hand toward the White House by emphasizing official charges about Iran, while downplaying conflicting information. For instance, a front-page Times report (3/15/04) quoted George W. Bush suggesting Iran was violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by developing a nuclear weapons program: “We cannot allow rogue states that violate their commitments and defy the international community to undermine the NPT’s fundamental role in strengthening international security.” Bush cited no evidence that Iran was violating the NPT; neither did his National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, who appeared in the article echoing his boss’s views.

One had to look further down in the article—between parentheses, at the end of a paragraph—to learn that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. organization responsible for inspecting and monitoring NPT compliance, had found “no compelling evidence” of an Iranian weapons program.

Exaggerated certainty

The New York Times isn’t the only news outlet confusing White House charges with what is actually known about Iran’s nuclear program. An article in Newsweek’s July 11 edition, headlined “Iran’s Nuclear Lies,” parroted the White House line on Iran, stressing Iran’s spotty history of compliance with the IAEA while failing to tell readers about the IAEA’s cautiously positive assessment of Iran’s current compliance.

On a European trip, Bush explained to reporters in Germany how Iran was violating the NPT (AP, 2/23/05): “The reason we’re having these discussions is because they were caught enriching uranium after they had signed a treaty saying they wouldn’t enrich uranium. . . . They’re the party that needs to be held into account, not any of us.’’

Despite the fact that Iran’s right to openly enrich uranium for non-military purposes is protected by the NPT, Bush’s false charges were reported unchallenged in many outlets (e.g., AP, 2/23/05; All Things Considered, 2/23/05). In this case, the New York Times was an exception: “In his public comments about Iran’s uranium enrichment,” the paper reported (2/24/05), “Mr. Bush appeared to have misspoken, because the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permits uranium enrichment for commercial purposes as long as a country declares the activity and allows inspections.” The Times did, however, fail to mention that Iran’s enrichment program had been suspended for three months at the time of Bush’s statement.

Justifiable suspicions

There are good reasons to be suspicious of Iran’s nuclear intentions. The country hid its uranium enrichment program for years and, following its discovery, officials stalled IAEA inspectors and obfuscated details of the program. These facts have not been lost on U.S. journalists, who have routinely covered them.

More recently, the IAEA has found Iran to be more or less in compliance. A Christian Science Monitor story (3/31/05) citing Iran’s past record of secrecy and delayed inspections reported that Iran “has been relatively cooperative” and that the IAEA “says its inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program.”

According to the IAEA, Iran’s enrichment program had only produced a small amount of non-weapons-grade uranium before Iran voluntarily suspended it in November 2004 as a result of negotiations with France, Germany and Britain. On June 13, IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei declared that Iran has “respected its commitment with regard to suspension of the fuel-cycle activities” (Agence France Presse, 6/13/05).

Under the NPT, non-nuclear-weapons countries agree not to pursue or possess nuclear weapons, while nuclear-armed countries agree to pursue disarmament and to share nuclear energy technology with the non-nuclear countries. (See Extra!, 7–8/05.) Under the agreement, non-nuclear-weapons states may develop nuclear programs, enrich uranium, etc., as long the programs are for non-military purposes and they are disclosed to the IAEA.

Lacking context

When pointing out Iran’s deceptions and evasions, evenhandedness would require reporters to provide context regarding Iran’s situation. A fair analysis would acknowledge that, whatever its sins, Iran has not been particularly well-served by the current nonproliferation regime. To its east, Pakistani and Indian nuclear arsenals have thrived outside the NPT regime; and to its west, Israel, another non-NPT state, receives a wink from the U.S. for its undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Nor do White House rhetoric and threats exactly encourage Iran to remain nuke-free. Besides dubbing it part of an “axis of evil,” the White House has spoken flippantly about possible attacks on Iran.

On February 22, reacting to a reporter’s question about whether the U.S. is considering attacking Iran, George W. Bush drew laughter from journalists when he dismissed the notion as “simply ridiculous” and then immediately added: “And having said that, all options are on the table” (Public Papers of the Presidents, 2/28/05).

And in an interview on MSNBC’s Don Imus Show in January (cited in New York Sun, 2/18/05), Dick Cheney glibly referred to a potential Israeli attack on Iran in what some saw as a green light:


If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.


Independent reporting

Washington Post journalist Dafna Linzer, one of few mainstream journalists to consistently challenge White House claims about Iran’s nuclear program, reported (8/2/05) on a major new intelligence review that, while cautious about Iran’s intentions, clearly undermines White House charges:


The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. . . . The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran’s military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program.


According to Linzer, the intelligence review says Iran is about a decade away (twice as long as the White House has claimed) from having the fissile material needed for a nuclear bomb, but does not say if it would have the additional technology needed to complete a bomb at that time. While Linzer questions the White House line—“Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal”—she also includes more dire assessments of Iran’s intentions, for instance, quoting a “senior intelligence official” remarking that the consensus view of the intelligence community is that “Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons.”

Linzer has questioned other official claims as well. For instance, many news outlets have recited without challenge the White House argument that Iran, with its large oil and gas reserves, has no need for nuclear energy; thus its nuclear energy program must be a front for a nuclear weapons program (New York Times, 6/13/04; AP, 10/26/03). In a March 27 Post report, Linzer quoted Dick Cheney making the case: “They’re already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure out why they need nuclear as well to generate energy.” Then she challenged the White House logic by pointing out that Cheney and other top Bush White House officials were highly placed in the Ford White House 30 years ago when it pledged to help Iran (then possessing even larger fuel reserves) develop a network of nuclear power plants.

But Linzer’s independent reporting is the exception rather than the rule. While it is proper for journalists to report official charges and suspicions regarding Iran’s nuclear program, it’s quite another thing for them to confirm or adopt those suspicions without hard facts. This should be especially clear in the wake of the catastrophic failure of American journalism to challenge White House claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2681

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl



Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer


JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.


"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.

Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.

Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."

In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.

Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.

Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said there had been no change in its currency policy.

Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion.

____

Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

I'm glad to see that Israel is taking the responsibility for it's own protection. We've done our share of warfare for Israels protection. Time for them to step up to the plate.

And yet another er, nation heard from.



http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/OLI256313.htm

February 06, 2006
Iraq, Iran: Following Orders Is No Excuse

By Paul Craig Roberts

"A hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council."

That is how Secretary of State General Colin Powell’s February 2003 Iraq WMD speech to the UN was described last Friday (Feb. 3) on PBS by one who ought to know, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary Powell.

In a February 2005 interview with Barbara Walters on ABC News "20/20" program, Powell himself declared his UN Iraq speech to be a blot on his reputation.

Since departing the Bush administration, both Wilkerson and Powell have made it completely clear that they had serious doubts about the "evidence" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and malevolent Iraqi intentions that was loaded by the White House into Powell’s UN speech, a speech designed by neoconservatives to initiate the invasion of Iraq. Both Powell and Wilkerson knew that the "evidence" was greatly overstated if not an outright fabrication.

What if Secretary Powell had shared his doubts with the UN? What if instead of reading the Speech of Lies Powell had addressed the UN as follows:

"As a loyal soldier following orders I came here today intending to deliver the Bush Administration’s evidence against Saddam Hussein. Now that I am standing here before you, I find myself caught in conflict between following orders and doing the right thing. I should have resolved this conflict before I arrived. I do so now by delivering the speech to you in its written form—here it is—but I refuse to deliver it out of my mouth. I cannot participate in an act of deception against the United Nations Security Council, the international community, and the American people. I have no confidence in the evidence in the speech. Under the Nuremberg Standard established by the United States in the trials of Nazi war criminals, following orders is no excuse. I will not participate in the war crime of naked aggression against another state. I hereby resign as Secretary of State of the United States."

Powell would have saved the world from a strategic blunder, the disastrous consequences of which are only beginning to unfold. The maelstrom set in motion by the treachery of the neoconservatives, people who Powell has described as "crazy," has already cost tens of thousands of dead and wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed America’s reputation, and radicalized Middle East politics.

If Powell had refused three years ago to deliver the Speech of Lies, we would not now be watching an identical duplicity being rolled out against Iran. The ultimate cost of the deception being practiced on the American people will dwarf the terrible price that has already been paid.

Why didn’t Powell do the right thing? His own reputation would have been forever secure as a man of integrity. Why did he sacrifice his integrity to the crooked scheme of his commander in chief?

Alas, that is the way our generals are bred. In the politicized US military, no officer can advance beyond the rank of Lt. Col. unless he toes the political line. The game is played to advance in rank as high as possible, collect the pension, and be rewarded for compliant behavior with consultancies. Real leadership means making waves, and that is not tolerated.

Even in rare instances of a real man, concerned with the honor of his country and the safety of his troops, reaching the top, he is powerless to prevent disastrous mistakes of the ignorant civilian authorities.

Consider the fate of US Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who correctly informed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that the US invasion force was not sufficiently numerous to successfully occupy and subdue Iraq once the pitched battles were over.

Shinseki was fired for telling the truth—as was Secretary of the Army Thomas White, Lt. Gen. John Riggs, and four star general Kevin P. Byrnes.

Riggs was framed, demoted, and retired for saying that the US army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.

Byrnes, who was in charge of Army training, was framed on adultery charges for objecting to bottom of the barrel recruitment policies that accepted criminals and immigrants with a lack of English proficiency.

Nothing like having an army that can’t understand orders.

The only way a military can constrain their civilian masters from cooking up a war is to resign en masse. If every general and colonel had resigned, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.

But this would require a military with leadership and a tradition of sticking together. A military in which promotion is the highest virtue is powerless to prevent disastrous mistakes, such as the invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration went to war on the basis of its fantasy that if merely a few US troops marched into Iraq, the regime would collapse and the population would welcome Americans as liberators with flowers and kisses. It was to be a "cakewalk war."

No general officer in the US military believed that. Yet few spoke out (Marine General Anthony Zinni was a notable exception). The entire US military command could only produce a handful of men to warn of the looming catastrophe. Who can forget the orchestrated media dismissals of "over-cautious generals" that greeted these few?

The reason Colin Powell disgraced himself is that he could not free himself of the conditioning that breeds success in the US military.

Who today will stand up to stop the potential Armageddon of a US attack on Iran?

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060206_orders.htm

This is a long article, and I won't go over it pint by point, but, suffice it to say that I don't agree with all it's proposals.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/bg1903.cfm

I don't go along with a carrot/stick approach. Effective communication with the Iranian hardliners seems impossible at this point. And, I don't see any advantage in trying to promote any particular political group in Iran. What I do see as effective, is our continued support of those countries that are progressive democracies. Their advancement will be a model for Iranians to see, experience and will it help them decide what they want for their future: isolationism/fear or prosperity/freedom.

From a lot of what I hear the Iranian PEOPLE have nothing against the US, don't care for their dictators and would prefer some freedom but have no way to fight for it. Attacking them is just likely to make enemies in places we had none before, for no advantage.

There must be some groups inside Iran we can help so as to at the very least keep some opposition to the government operating.

We've made our stance well known. Internally, I don't think there's much we can do. I see isolation as the only alternative. If Iran has a viable alternative to that, then we should be willing to listen; but right now, the hardliners are running the show and they're closed to any acceptable world postition.

"...Alas, that is the way our generals are bred. In the politicized US military, no officer can advance beyond the rank of Lt. Col. unless he toes the political line. The game is played to advance in rank as high as possible, collect the pension, and be rewarded for compliant behavior with consultancies. Real leadership means making waves, and that is not tolerated..."

You know if my pockets were deep enough - I'd really consider a libel suit or at least slander against Mr Roberts.

Suffice it to say - he just stepped into a realm of which he has no understanding, no background, and nothing approaching an informed opinion, despite his many other achievements (and yes I read his biography as published on the V-Dare homepage). Simply because one is learned does not make them expert in things outside their own expertise and the military culture and life is one in his case.

Of course, my opinion is only that of one who spent 24 years in the service - excuse me, "the politicized military" - working for many fine Colonels (O-6s) and Generals who never played the politics he so rightly decries, eventually attaining the rank of Colonel myself - and I played it, the politcal game he says is required, never. But in his zeal to taint the picture for his own political "points" in the game, he slanders, if not libels, all those fine individuals and myself.

To be sure there were and are those who played the political game - some achieved great position, to the point of seeking high political office based upon such careerism. The great majority soldiered on through their careers, doing the tasks set before them as best they could, most honorably when the end of the stick they were given was dirty, most easily when it was clean. But almost none without some great personal cost to themselves and their families - in blood, sweat, and no few tears. And to much less reknown and reward when their careers, if they survived to see them end in retirement, were over, than Mr Roberts assumes.

So Mr Roberts - you stick to your knitting - skewering public figures, and collect your pay, and cease slandering those whose lives are spent protecting your right to do so, armed only with the integrity they possess and the tools given them by, how did you phrase it - "their civilian masters (of all parties)."

What happened to Shinsekki? If you do not toe the Republican line you will not survive in the military, you certainly will not rise in the ranks. If you argue with ANY member of this administration or have a different point of view and make it public they will get you. That is well known. You think the thought of retaliation doesn't cross a member of the service, no matter the rank? If they speak, Republicans will fork them like they've never been forked before. Speak out, you are retaliated against. Period. It IS that simple.

If you don't want to acknowledge it that's your problem. This administration has set up an atmosphere of silence and retaliation. No one is off limits. They've proven it again and again.

"...or have a different point of view and make it public they will get you. That is well known..."

Long-standing policy. Two, well three, examples very well known from the 20th Century illustrate the time-honored principle of civilian government setting policy and not a miitary member. Whether they were right in the final analysis is for history to decide - at the time if you do this it will cost you because that is simply the way it has to be - otherwise, you devolve into the same situation as the Caesars and the Praetorian Guard.

The examples? General William "Billy" Mitchell, General Claire Chennault, and General Douglas MacArthur.

Generals (and the military as a whole) do not set government policy, they carry it out. And if they cannot, they resign and fight their battles on a different front. They are to advise and try to shape the policy as it is being formed, but once formed they either carry it out or they step aside if they cannot.

It is not something that only started January 21, 2001.

On edit: 1:55PM. You asked what happened to General Shinseki, and Mr Roberts repeated the myth of his firing. So I did some esearch. Genral Shinseki became Army Chief of Staff in June 1999 to serve the standard 4 year term. He retired June 2003. He had previously announced hsi retirement almost a year earlier. It was no secret that he and the SecDef did not enjoy a terribly cordial relationship. This was shown by announcing the intent that General Jack Keane would succeed him almost immendiately upon General Shinseki's retirement (didn't happen General Schoomaker succeeded him). Many pundits say this announcement undercut General Shinseki making him a "lame duck". Clearly they do not understand the realities of command within the military. Until an officer is relieved of his duties, he has the responsibility to carry them out and only he has the authority of that position. He/she can only be countermanded by higher authority until no longer in that position. That it was a signal of displeasure is one judgement. Such an early annuncement of a replacing officer is unusual at this level (4-star postings) but not totally unique - had a commanding general in USAFE that knew who his replacement was 9 months ahead of time, annouced by him - the officer in question had to complete another controlled assignemnt before assumig his new post. The out-going commander was also leaving for reasons of retirement. Did that make him a lame duck? Absolutely not, as anyone who would have dared to have made such an observation would have quite publicly found out. Now at a Chief of Staff level, or a NATO commander (SACEUR) level, these things gain a notoriety of their own, since as Mr Roberts so loudly points out - at that level there is a political element. But Mr Roberts, as have others, mistakenly perpetuates the myth of General Shinseki being fired for his February 2003 statements to Congress.

It had nothing at all to do with him contradicting Wolfowitz and the other incompetents?

Yeah, right.

I'm speaking from a civilian perspective and I'm saying I don't think it was any kind of coincidence. This administration is all about retribution, Russ, you know it's true. Contradict them and you better watch your friggin back.

February 08, 2006
Next Up, Iran?

Here we go again....I know that there are many folks looking at the recent news about Iran and saying, haven't we seen this somewhere before? Disputed evidence, talk of a nuclear threat, calls for confrontation.

Humans like to see patterns. It may well be part of our biological evolution. Those knuckle-dragging genetic ancestors of homo sapiens who thousands of years ago were able to discern patterns probably had an advantage in the survival-of-the-fitest reality shows of their day. ("Hmmmm, last time that big animal with large teeth was standing in that pose it was just about to attack, so.....run!") Today's Iran theatrics strike some as rather reminiscent of what happened with Iraq not too long ago, and that's hardly unreasonable.

In addition to thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, a battered American image around the globe and a tab approaching half-a-trillion dollars (if not more), this is another cost of Bush's actions in Iraq. He and his administration have no credibility. Does Iran have a nuclear weapons program and, if so, how worried should one be about it at this moment? These, it turns out, are judgment calls, because the information on Iran's nuclear activities is imperfect. Plans for facilities that could be used for a nuclear weapons program were found on the laptop of an Iranian. But are they real? Are they actually being used? Or are they merely plans that someone was trying to sell Iran? Or are they plans that someone wanted Western intelligence services to find so they would believe Iran was moving quickly to acquire nuclear weapons? At this stage, there appear to be no clear answer to these queries. That leaves analysts and policymakers having to render an informed guess.

After Iraq, can Bush's judgment pertaining to sensitive and important topics be trusted? You can guess how I'd answer that, but more important is the fact that recent polling shows that a majority of Americans--53 percent in one survey--say that Bush purposefully misrepresented the WMD threat posed by Iraq in order to whip up popular support for war. They believe he lied to start a war. So why should the public listen to Bush and other administration officials on Iran? That's a rhetorical question. (It also applies to the neocon hawks who were wrong on Iraq's WMDs and now are pushing for a showdown with Tehran.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of he International Atomic Energy Agency (who was correct when he said before the Iraq war that there was no revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq and who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year), says he is worried about Iran's nuclear program, and he certainly deserves to be heeded. Still, as today's front-page Washington Post take-out on the case against Iran makes abundantly clear, there is smoke but no smoking gun and the evidence that intelligence services and the IAEA have in hand is open to interpretation:

Often circumstantial, unusually ambiguous and always incomplete, the evidence has confounded efforts by policymakers, intelligence officials and U.S. allies to reach a confident judgment about Iran's intentions and a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

The same sentence could have been written about Iraq before the war--except for the diplomatic solution. That was well under way at the time of Bush's invasion. UN and IAEA inspectors were doing their jobs in Iraq--with intermittent but not insurmountable resistance from Saddam's regime--and discovering that, contrary to the Bush administration's assertions, Iraq had bupkus in the way of chemical and biological weapons and had not rebooted its nuclear weapons program. They were finding that there had been no urgent WMD threat to counter.

The Post article reports that once again intelligence analysts are attempting to reach hard-and-fast conclusions from evidence that is not slam-dunk material. But the kicker is that whether a crisis is looming or not, US intelligence experts say that until Iran is able to operate an industrial-scale centrifuge to produce enriched uranium for a bomb, it will be ten years away from manufacturing a weapon. This is not unlike the prewar assessments of Iraq's nuclear capabilities, which overestimated Iraq's nonexistent program and still said it would take five to seven years for Baghdad to make a bomb.

So even if Iraq is indeed now rejecting IAEA monitoring in order to ramp up a nuclear weapons program, the crisis may not be immediate. True, this could be a crossing-the-Rubicon moment, and if ElBaradei is concerned, there probably is genuine reason for concern. (Unless, like retired General Bill Odom, the former NSA head, you take the position that it does not matter if Iran has nukes.) But this particular Rubicon is wide, and there is no cause for precipitous action (see Iraq, invasion of). And--unfortunately--there is no good reason to believe what the Bush administration has to say about Iraq.

http://www.davidcorn.com/

In Iranian Eyes, the 'Cross-Eyed British' Are to Blame


By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: February 10, 2006

TEHRAN, Feb. 7 — The Embassy of Denmark was attacked and pelted with gasoline bombs two days in a row because of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper. The Austrian Embassy was stoned and all its windows were smashed for the same reason. The United States has been dubbed the World Oppressor, and Israel has always been at the top of the enemies list.
Skip to next paragraph
Lynsey Addario for The new York Times

Bobby Sands Street, honoring an I.R.A. figure, goads the British.
Readers
Forum: The Middle East

Enlarge This Image
Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

Seyed Razi Abbassian, a seller of stamps and coins in Tehran, says his country's memories of the decades of British influence are uniformly bad.

But to understand whom Iranians distrust most of all, you need only visit Bobby Sands Street. Named after the Irish republican who died of a hunger strike in 1981, the street runs right past the British Embassy in a busy neighborhood of Tehran.

A not-too-subtle finger in the eye.

"We have not seen anything other than bad things from the British since they stepped foot here 200 years ago," said Seyed Razi Abbassian, 72, a dealer in stamps and coins at a shop across from the street from the British Embassy. "We have no good memories of the British."

In an often bitterly divided country, Mr. Abbassian's outlook is one that unites Iranians of many social, economic and political classes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/international/10iran.html

Will there be a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis?


* 16155 responses


Yes 13%


No 75%


I don't know 12%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/

Convert or die. It's the Muslim way.

Historically ignorant cowdoody!

Familiarize yourself with the history of one very Muslim empire known as the Ottoman Empire. Some of our ancestors were its subjects. And they did not convert. They died (obviously) but not because they didn't convert to Islam.

Petrodollar Warfare:
Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian “petroeuro” system for oil trade.

Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein.[1][2]

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency (i.e. “petroeuro”).[3] However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.[4]

Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar [5]


The Bush administration implemented this currency transition despite the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi’s export oil sales.[6] (In mid-2003 the euro was valued approx. 13% higher than the dollar, and thus significantly impacted the ability of future oil proceeds to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure). Not surprisingly, this detail has never been mentioned in the five U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial – yet overlooked – rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater “offense” than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.[7]

The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination, Tehran’s objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.

From the autumn of 2004 through August 2005, numerous leaks by concerned Pentagon employees have revealed that the neoconservatives in Washington are quietly – but actively – planning for a possible attack against Iran. In September 2004 Newsweek reported: Click Here to read entire article

The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken~~~

TOO little and TOO late!

Iran Says May Allow Atomic Inspections




By Associated Press

February 17, 2006, 2:29 PM EST

PARIS -- Iran's top nuclear negotiator conditionally offered to reopen the country's suspected nuclear facilities to snap international inspections, the Iranian Embassy in Paris said Friday.

Ali Larijani made the offer in a French radio interview Thursday -- the same day that France's foreign minister accused Iran of having a secret military nuclear program, the embassy said in a statement.

It paraphrased Larijani as saying that the best way to guarantee that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful would be inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog and the use of centrifuges that would limit the degree to which Iran could enrich uranium. When highly enriched, uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs.

"If such guarantees were accepted, Iran would accept to submit the additional protocol to parliament for ratification," said the embassy statement.

The protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives U.N. nuclear inspectors the power to conduct inspections on short notice of suspect areas and programs.

The Additional Protocol was signed by Iranian officials in 2003 as pressure intensified on Tehran to cooperate with IAEA inspectors probing more than 18 years of clandestine nuclear activities. Although the country has generally honored the pact, it was never formally ratified

The protocol gives the agency special inspecting powers that allow inspections on short notice of areas and programs that could be used for weapons activity.

Iran earlier this month served notice that it would stop abiding by the agreement in response to a decision by the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to report it to the U.N. Security Council because of suspicions its nuclear activities might serve as a cover for an arms program.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines

Judging from waht the administration says, how long do you think it would be until Iran was capable of producing a nuclear bomb?

I think we can agree that it doesn't matter what the administration says, nor the UN.

1. IF the administration knows exactly what has been done by Iran and how far it has to go - it wouldn't tell us.

2. Almost nobody thinks ANYONE knows beyond a "best guess/worst case" estimate what Iran has already done and how far it has to go.

3. The point - almost the only point - is whether the US is willing to do anything about it.
- 3a. The UN is WORSE than utterly worthless. Sanctions? Yep, give the Iranian govt an excuse to starve its own people and blame the West. That'll win hearts and minds.


So? Do our peaceful doves on the site trust Iran with a nuclear bomb?

I expect a general outpouring of self-loathing remarks that only the US has ever used one, and that they'd trust Hitler and Stalin with nukes more than they trust Bush, and other nonsensical noise -- anything but an answer to the question I asked.