U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

[Jerry_B]

This all seems rather trite. It's possible that materiel and other support for the insurgents comes in from various other areas. Jordan - perhaps Saudi Arabia too. Early on in the insurgency it seemed quite obvious (to me at least) that some of the insurgents were carrying weapons that could only have come from Jordan. But nothing is said about such things.

Also note how it's somehow not okay for Iran to 'interfere' in Iraq.

All in all, there's still no evidence being shown about this supposed Iranian link.

 

[techybloke666]

All in all, there's still no evidence being shown about this supposed Iranian link.

what makes you think they will need REAL evidence ?

they didnt have any when they invaded Iraq !!!

why change the habit of lifetime ?

evidence will appear to surface as time goes on.

If anyone says its not good evidence they either "commit suicide ala Kelly" or get shoved out " scot ritter style"

its still about OIL burses and petrodollars and Iran won't back down so the bombs will be falling eventually.

 

[techybloke666]

Tuppence for the intellectual?

By Mike Marqusee

On the Iraq issue, sneering at "intellectuals" is a tried and tested piece of political vaudeville, entirely in keeping with Tony Blair's philistine elitism. Ironically, a substantial proportion of the British intelligentsia supports him.

TONY BLAIR has dismissed opposition to his Iraq policy as the province of "urban intellectuals". A strange comment from the Prime Minister of one of the most urbanised societies on earth. But then he also managed to ignore the latest opinion poll showing that 57 per cent of his electorate want to see British troops out of Iraq.

Back in 1970, Spiro Agnew, then vice-president of the United States, disparaged anti-Vietnam War activists as "effete intellectuals". Within three years of that jibe, a bribery scandal forced Agnew to resign in disgrace. His master, Richard Nixon, followed soon after, covered in Watergate sludge.

Nixon and Agnew were leftists compared to the current occupants of the White House, so from a historical perspective, it's extraordinary that Bush's staunchest global ally should be a Labour prime minister. As the U.S. satirist Michael Moore put it to British audiences, "We're dumb. What's your excuse?"

Blair is not alone


There's undoubtedly a personal element in Downing Street's warmth for Washington. Blair's unblushing reversals and evasions are underpinned not only by opportunism and a Nixon-like contempt for truth-telling, but also by conservative convictions and what appears to be a deep rooted reverence for the rich. There's also an evident incapacity to grasp the consequences of his decisions for others. A recently published memoir by a former employee depicts his childish excitement when he first ordered U.K. troops into combat — in 1998, when in league with Bill Clinton, he waged a brief but lethal aerial war against Iraq.

But it would be wrong to think that Blair is alone. He has been served ardently by his cabinet, only one member of which, the late Robin Cook, resigned over Iraq. Given the scale of popular opposition to the invasion, not to mention the starkness of the moral and political choice, Cook's isolation was remarkable — certainly without precedent in the history of Labour governments. But then the vast majority of Labour MPs have put aside their initial disquiet over the invasion and now share Blair's eagerness to see the political agenda "move on". Disgust with the Iraq war is widespread among the diminishing ranks of Labour party members (2,00,000 — 50 per cent — lost since 1997), but the cumulative effect of the changes imposed on the party since the defeat of the miners' strike of 1984-85 has been to sever the organisation from its social roots and seal off access to elite decision-making.

Helped by the mainstream media


Although he claims otherwise, Blair has also been well served by the BBC and much of the mainstream media. Lord Hutton's inquiry into the circumstances of the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, released in early 2004, exonerated Blair's coterie while heavily criticising the BBC. The upshot was that the BBC was punished for reporting, accurately, that Blair's office had exaggerated the evidence on Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in order to secure parliamentary and public support for war. Though the Hutton report was widely derided as a whitewash, it succeeded in intimidating the BBC, whose coverage of Iraq since then has been lamentable. Civilian casualties of U.S.-British military actions are rarely noted — although they account for five times the number of deaths as car bombs and other Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. Last year's bombardment and the siege of Fallujah, in which thousands may have died, was reported exclusively from outside the city limits, by journalists embedded with U.S. forces. The recent air and ground assault on Tal Afur, in which hundreds are reported to have died, was ignored.

Preoccupied with suicide bombers and the Sunni-Shia divide, the BBC rarely refers to Shia opposition to the occupation, or indeed to civil and political opposition in general. Anyone restricted to BBC coverage will be unaware that more than 1/3 of the members of the Iraqi assembly elected in January have called for the prompt withdrawal of foreign forces. Voices arguing for an end to the occupation, Iraqi or British, are largely excluded, though tests of opinion indicate that this is a majority view in both countries.

Again, it's not just the BBC. In its coverage of recent events in Basra, The Observer, a venerable liberal weekly, referred to "the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers". Surely that should read "the arrest by Iraqi police of two British troopers disguised as Arabs and in possession of an arsenal of high powered weapons and sophisticated surveillance equipment". The British army's response to the detention of these two men — whose mission remains, at the moment, unexplained — was to attack and destroy an Iraqi police compound with tanks, armoured vehicles and helicopters. Civilians then surrounded the British and hurled petrol bombs at them. The British replied with fire — killing an unknown number of "rioters".

"Not as bad as the Americans"


Many in Britain have comforted themselves with the thought that at least we're not as bad as the Americans. It's been assumed that in southern Iraq the sophisticated British had cleverly avoided the kind of hostility that confronts the cowboy Americans elsewhere in the country. Again, on-the-ground reportage from the British zone of occupation has been scanty in the extreme. So the recent Basra events have come as a shock. But the myth of British restraint is not the only one to have been exploded by these events. The bigger casualty is the myth of Iraqi sovereignty.

Here the British public has to grapple with the core injustice of U.S.-U.K. policy — the military occupation of a foreign country, against the will of its people, and in pursuit of a thinly veiled colonial project. The London-Washington axis is a function of much more than the Blair-Bush romance. The linkage between the two governments and their corporate sectors class has been comprehensive since World War II, at the end of which the U.S. inherited the U.K.'s empire, most crucially its oil-rich west Asian branch.

Sneering at "intellectuals" is a tried and tested piece of political vaudeville, entirely in keeping with Blair's philistine elitism. Ironically, a substantial proportion of the British intelligentsia supports him, if not on the wisdom of the invasion certainly on the commitment to keeping British troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Increasing numbers of "non-intellectuals" here and in the U.S. disagree. Blair's problem, then, isn't "urban intellectuals", it's the reality of the war in Iraq.

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/10/02/sto ... 270300.htm

 

[Mal_Adjusted]

greets

Are we going to war with Iran?

Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards a new conflict in the Middle East

Tuesday October 18, 2005

The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last chance to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week, the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the problem on its own.

Only days before, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had dismissed military action as "inconceivable" while both the American president and his secretary of state had insisted war talk was not on the agenda. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found that Iran has not, so far, broken its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, although it has concealed activities before.

It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes in the confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded the IAEA board - including India - to overrule its inspectors, declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and say that Iran's activities could be examined by the UN security council. Critics of this political process point to the fact that India itself has developed nuclear weapons and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted that Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side there is also much belligerent talk and pop music now proudly speaks of the nuclear contribution to Iranian security.

The timing of the recent allegations about Iranian intervention in Iraq also appears to be significant. Ever since the US refused to control Iraq's borders in April 2003, Iranian backed militia have dominated the south and, with under 10,000 soldiers amongst a population of millions, the British army had little option but to go along. No fuss was made until now. As for the bombings of British soldiers, some sources familiar with the US army engineers report that these supposedly sophisticated devices have been manufactured inside Iraq for many months and do not need to be imported.

But is the war talk for real or is it just sabre rattling? The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack.

But in Washington, Tel Aviv and Downing Street, if not the Foreign Office, Iran is regarded as a critical threat. The regime in Tehran continues to demand the destruction of the state of Israel and to support anti-Israeli forces. In what appeared to be coordinated releases of intelligence assessments, Israeli and US intelligence briefed earlier this year that, while Iran was years from a nuclear weapons capability, the technological point of no return was now imminent.

Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, warned that Israel might attack Iran. Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets with aircraft and long-range cruise missiles launched from submarines, while Iranian air defences are still mostly based on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah. A US attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option than a renewed Israeli-Islamic confrontation.

The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but soldiers could be found if the Bush administration were intent on invasion. Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising the army to increase front-line forces by a third. More importantly, naval and air force firepower has barely been used in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could target 5,000 points in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one mission. It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all. US action is often portrayed as impossible, not only because of the alleged lack of firepower, but because Iranian facilities are too hard to target. In a strategic logic not lost on Washington, the conclusion then is that if you cannot guarantee to destroy all the alleged weapons, then it must be necessary to remove the regime that wants them, and regime change has been the official policy in Washington for many years.

For political-military planners, precision strikes on a few facilities have drawbacks beyond leaving the regime intact. They allow the regime too many retaliatory options. Certainly, Iran's neighbours in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who are worried about the growth of Iranian Shia influence in Iraq would want any attack to be decisive. From this logic grows the idea of destroying the political-military infrastructure of the clerical regime and perhaps encouraging separatist Kurdish and Azeri risings in the north-west. Some Washington planners have hopes of the Sunnis of oil-rich Khuzestan breaking away too.

A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former UN weapons inspector, points out that few in the Democratic party will stand in the way of the destruction of those who conducted the infamous Tehran embassy siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency. Mr Ritter is one of the US analysts, along with Seymour Hersh, who have led the allegations that Washington is going to war with Iran.

For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years. With regard to Mr Blair's position, it would be helpful to know whether he has committed Britain to preventing an Iranian bomb "come what may" as he did with Iraq.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1594976,00.html

mal

 

[techybloke666]

U.S. considers military attack against Iran, Syria
10/20/2005 9:00:00 AM GMT




Rice testifies before members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill


Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to rule using the military option against Syria and Iran, repeating pervious claims that both countries are aiding the occupation resistance in Iraq, according to Boston News.

In her three hours of testimony, the Secretary of State said that Iraq war is part of a long-term agenda that might take more than a decade to achieve.

President Bush wont’ need the Congress authorization to use military force against Iraq's neighbors, Rice said.

''I don't want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers," Rice said when asked whether the administration would have to return to Congress to seek authorization in using the military option against Iraq’s neighbours.'

'I think you'll understand fully that the president retains those powers in the 'war on terrorism' and in the war in Iraq."

''Syria and indeed Iran must decide whether they wish to side with the cause of war or with the cause of peace," Rice told senators.

However Rice showed more flexibility toward Iran, leaving the door open to the possibility that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, could initiate direct negotiations with his Iranian counterparts.

Rice tried once again selling the Iraq war to the increasingly skeptical U.S. politicians – Democrats and Republicans, ABC NEWS reported.

But she was faced with an attack of tough questions from both Democrats and Republicans.

''Under the Iraq War Resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq," Senator Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Rhode Island Republican, reminded Rice.

''So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil," Chafee said, ''you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?"

Rice replied that the president did not need new authorization.

Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd pressed her for details on what the U.S. plans do about Syria.

"Is there a White House Syrian group, for instance, that's meeting? Are we planning some action in Syria that we ought to be aware of in this committee?- Are we considering military action against Syria?," Dodd said.

"I'm not going to get into what the President's options might be," she replied.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_s ... ce_id=9891

gearing up for the war

 

[techybloke666]

Iran 'has proof' of British role in bombings; British embassy denies allegation
10.20.2005, 06:56 AM

TEHRAN (AFX) - Iran said it has proof that Britain was involved in a double bomb attack last week that killed six people and injured more than 100 in the restive southwestern city of Ahvaz.

'Information obtained by the concerned organs show that Britain is the main accused in the recent events,' Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state television.

'The information shows that Britain is seeking to create insecurity in our country by interfering in our internal affairs,' he added, warning that the consequences 'could be worrying for the British.'

The British embassy in Tehran immediately denied the allegations.

'We reiterate our total rejection of these accusations, as well as our condemnation of these terrorist attacks,' a senior British diplomat told Agence France-Presse.

'We have made it clear to the Iranian authorities that the British government and British forces in Iraq stand ready to assist in preventing attacks of this kind.'

On Saturday, a double bomb attack killed six people and injured more than 100 in Ahvaz, the capital of the oil-rich Khuzestan province, and on Tuesday police said they had defused a large bomb planted under a bridge in the city.

Several Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have already said that Britain was a suspect -- but had generally stopped short of claiming they possessed evidence directly implicating Britain.

Ahvaz, dominated by ethnic minority Arabs, has been hit by a wave of unrest this year, including riots in April and a series of car bombings prior to Iran's presidential election in June.

The Iranian allegations come in the wake of similar allegations made by Britain concerning Iran's alleged interference in Iraq.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials have said there is evidence of an Iranian connection to a series of deadly attacks on British troops in southern Iraq.

Britain is also playing a leading role in efforts to force the Islamic republic to limit its nuclear fuel activities, seen by the West as a cover for weapons development.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx ... 88450.html

 

[techybloke666]

UN Gives Green Light for Israel, Syria, Iran War

Jerusalem----October 21......Israel has been living in a state of war with Syria for decades. Living under the constant threat of missile attacks from both Syria and Lebanon territory hour after passing hour. This tiny, democratic Jewish state has reached out for peace time and time again. Syria responded with Katusha rocket terror attacks across the Israel Lebanon border and the planning of Islamic terrorism inside both Israel and Lebanon.

Now the UN has provided clear proof that Syria has been an open aggressor in the Middle-East with its findings that the Syria government was directly involved in terrorism and the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

Syria President Bashar al-Assad, who was educated in the UK, has had more than enough time to decide if he truly wanted peace in the region or was satisfied hanging onto lobster, fancy cars and ultimate power in Damascus. His expelling of Saddam Hussein's relatives this week will not save him from the same fate for which Saddam finds himself in today - facing criminal charges in an open, democratic court.

US Ambassador John Bolton said today that a UN inquiry into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister had presented hard-hitting findings on Syrian involvement in the killing. Bolton was consulting with fellow Security Council members on a wide range of possible responses, he said, but he would not say whether sanctions against Syria was among them. "This report is obviously very significant. It finds probable cause to believe that the assassination could not have been undertaken without the knowledge of senior figures in Syrian intelligence," Bolton told reporters. "It refers to a lack of cooperation by Syria with the investigation, which is diplo-speak for obstruction of justice. It is a very hard-hitting report," he said. Asked whether he was looking at U.N. sanctions, he responded, "We're considering still a range of options."

As the UN now debates a "doctored" a report which deleted the names of the Syria president's brother and others allegedly involved in the plot to assassinate Lebanon's former premier, Israel must take the necessary action to defend herself against more aggression by both Syria and Iran.

The 53-page UN report sent to the Security Council late on Thursday by U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis accused Syrian officials and their Lebanese allies of carrying out an intricate scheme to kill Rafik al-Hariri and 20 others in a February 14 truck bombing in Beirut. Perhaps the most explosive section of the report described an account of the plotting given by an unidentified Syrian witness.

The witness said that Maher Assad, the brother of Syria President Bashar al-Assad, and the president's brother-in-law, Maj. Gen. Asef Shawkat, were among a group of Syrian and Lebanese security officials who "decided to assassinate" Hariri in a mid-September 2004 meeting in Damascus. But while the names appeared in an early draft of the report, they were removed before the final version was released.

One version of the report circulated at the United Nations showed the precise details of the computerized editing process, identifying what was deleted and when the edits took place. The tracking details indicated that the names of Maher Assad, Shawkat and others had been deleted at the time Mehlis was meeting on Thursday with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had earlier promised not to edit the report. While Shawkat, widely seen as the No. 2 man in the Syria regime, was named in several parts of the report, Maher Assad's name appeared only once in the first draft and not at all in the final version. Mehlis and UN chief spokesman Stephane Dujarric quickly insisted that the editing had been done by Mehlis himself and not by Annan, who had transmitted the report to the Security Council about seven hours after receiving it from Mehlis.

"No one outside of the report team influenced those changes. No changes whatsoever were suggested by the secretary-general or by anyone at the United Nations," he said. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the flap was distracting the United Nations from the report's main findings, which he said showed "clear evidence" of Syrian obstruction of justice and "probable cause to believe that the assassination could not have been undertaken without the knowledge of senior figures in Syrian intelligence." "In the absence of serious Syrian cooperation on substantive matters, the mission can't get to the ultimate truth," Bolton told reporters. The report's substance "doesn't change no matter what version you have," he said.

And Bolton is entirely correct. The report clearly states that Syria dictator Bashar Assad and his government crossed every red line in Lebanon. Beyond occupying the Lebanese people for years under the pretense of defending Lebanon from an Israel army which left Lebanon soil in an unilateral peace move, consistently allowing Iran Hizbullah to attack Israel from the south, the murder of Rafik al-Hariri cannot and will not be excused by the international community.

Prominent Israel officials from both the Right and Left wings called today for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The calls came following the publication of the United Nations report charging that high level Syria officials were involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, and a key political ally of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for regime change in Damascus. "As far as I am concerned ... and here I have a dispute with some of the people in the security establishment, it is not just an American interest but a clear Israeli interest to end the Assad dynasty and replace Bashar Assad," he said, according to a report in the Israel newspaper Haaretz.

Ephraim Halevy, former chief of Israel's Mossad espionage agency under Sharon, said it was not necessary to prove a direct involvement by Assad. "The head of the Syrian pyramid is Bashar Assad," Halevy told Israel Army Radio. "I don't think ... there is any doubt that this was an extensive and coordinated operation that was planned for many months. Lots of people from the Syrian elite were involved."

The US and the UK could easily take out the present regime in Syria.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/syriais ... 51021.html

 

[techybloke666]

Israel warns of Tehran 'danger'

Ahmadinejad warned Muslim leaders not to recognise Israel
Israel regards Iran as "a clear and present danger", Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has said.
His comments came after the Islamic republic's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map".

Mr Shalom said it was clear that Iran was trying to develop a programme to make nuclear weapons.

Iran denies this, but insists it has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.

Speaking at a joint press conference in Jerusalem with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Mr Shalom said: "We believe that Iran is trying to buy time... so it can develop a nuclear bomb."

He added that he believed "Iran is a clear and present danger".

'World oppressor'

Mr Ahmadinejad made his comments at a conference in the Iranian capital Tehran entitled The World without Zionism.

He said Israel's establishment was "a move by the world oppressor (the West) against the Islamic world".

Referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."


Iran says its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful purposes
Correspondents say this was the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official had called for Israel's eradication, although such slogans are still regularly used at regime rallies.

Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they "face the wrath of their own people".

He added: "Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world."

Mr Ahmadinejad came to power earlier this year, replacing Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who attempted to improve Iran's relations with the West.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Mr Ahmadinejad's opinion "just reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear operations."

The US suspects Iran's civilian nuclear programme is a cover for a nuclear weapons programme, and has threatened to refer Tehran to the United Nations Security Council to face possible sanctions.

An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report last month said questions about Iran's nuclear programme remained unanswered, despite an intensive investigation.

The UK, France, Germany and the US are pressing Iran to provide more access to its nuclear plans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

more knashing of teeth

inch by inch we head towards a millitary confrontation with Iran.

 

[Iggore]

Do you honestly think that the americans will go after every countries that "dare" to deal in euros insteed of US dollars? Well... actualy, maybe. The stakes are pretty high here. Without their position as the world's currency reserve, the americans will actualy have to pay their debts, and they will face many more problem down the road.

Why don't you go and find out who it was who promoted IRAN went to Nuclear Power all those years ago.

I think you find the answer surprising !

I dont uderstand the question. Maybe its because its 2 am and im tired and typing with one eyes closd. Or maybe your post really is incoherant. Would you be so kind as to repeat the question please? pwety pwety pleeeaaase!

And now, it seem the brit are playing are increasing the tempo. Well, Britain has the support of this forumer, thats for sure! A little bit of backbone is what is needed damnit!

British officials used to be certain that a military attack on Iran was out of the question. Now, it seems, they’re not so sure.

TURNING UP THE HEAT: British Prime Minister Tony Blair is talking tough about Iran.
Turning up the heat: British Prime Minister Tony Blair is talking tough about Iran.



British Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided to play hardball with Iran. Frustrated by the lack of progress in negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, the British—who used to give Iran the benefit of the doubt—are now hedging their bets on nuclear diplomacy by using Iran’s meddling in Iraq to make military options more palatable to the British public.

Blair’s policy of treating Iran with kid gloves was born out of the conviction that Iran would soon evolve into a democracy. In 1998, a year after Blair won his first election, full diplomatic relations were restored between Britain and Iran (despite the fatwa on British author Salman Rushdie remaining in place). Jack Straw became the first British foreign secretary to visit Tehran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Straw assured the Iranians they were not a target in the post-9/11 war on terror.

Now, though, the tide is turning. Jonathan Lindley, a Middle East expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London, says that the prime minister’s office has decided to use “more stick and less carrot” in its relations with Iran. The first evidence of this new approach came early this month, when a British official accused Iran of supplying the Basra insurgency with bombmaking technology via Hezbollah. The next day, Blair himself repeated the charge. That was a turnaround from previous statements, when British officials had argued that the Iranians were actually helping in Iraq by acting as a calming influence on the more excitable Shiite groups.

Then on October 11, the Foreign Office’s Middle East Minister, Kim Howells, declared in a Parliamentary debate that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give momentum to proposals for Britain to upgrade its own nuclear arsenal. Howells ended the debate by responding to calls from members of parliament for a tougher policy toward Iran with a cryptic message, suggesting that the government is no longer quite as certain that it will never strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. “[T]he world of diplomacy requires one to choose language very carefully. My right honorable friend the foreign secretary said that he could not envisage any circumstances in which there would be some sort of armed response to the problem of nuclear proliferation. I hope that the honorable gentleman will understand what I am saying.”

That same day, British officials privately briefed The Sun, a jingoistic tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch. They told The Sun’s reporters that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was training bombmakers and smuggling them into Basra to kill British troops. The newspaper treated the story in a way the briefer must have anticipated. The headline roared, “Trained in Iran to kill our boys.” The choice to leak to The Sun, as opposed to briefing a more subdued or dovish publication, suggests that Blair was trying to whip up public anger toward Tehran. “They could depend on [that kind of spin], given everything The Sun has written about Iraq,” says Stephen Glover, the media commentator of the daily Independent. “The Sun has been the most bellicose supporter of British and American policy in Iraq. A fairly safe bet, on the government’s part, that it would continue to be so in relation to Iran.” If the government’s intention was to influence pundits, rather than the general public, The Times—also owned by Murdoch—would have been the more logical choice. And if the aim was simply to disseminate information, the bbc would have been the obvious venue.

So, why is this new British approach taking the form of a covert domestic pr blitz? The British public, which did not go through the emotional trauma that Americans experienced during the Iranian hostage crisis, has generally been unconcerned by the prospect of Iran’s acquiring the bomb. But it has felt burned by Iraq. After the past four years, Blair simply doesn’t have the political capital to sell another intelligence-driven war. Without any increase in public concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, British threats to support military action against Iran are hollow. And there is no better way to drum up anger than by telling the public that the Iranians are responsible for the deaths of British soldiers.

The Iranians, of course, know what is going on. The Iranian ambassador to Britain recently complained that Iran does “not expect the British to use Iraq to put pressure on Iran during nuclear negotiations.” If Iran can persuade the British public that accusations about Iran’s involvement in Basra are being used to build support for a possible military action, this new strategy will fail. Following the “dodgy dossiers” on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, people are not inclined to give Blair the benefit of the doubt. For now, however, London seems determined to use Iraq to strengthen its hand in the nuclear negotiations. The success of this approach depends on how seriously Tehran takes the threat of an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The victory of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran’s June presidential elections dented British hopes that a Tehran spring was about to bloom. Instead, we now may be in for a bitter cold winter of tough nuclear talk.

James G. Forsyth is assistant editor at FOREIGN POLICY.

 

[Melf]

blair is a bitch/arse licker of shurbs?

what shrub wants, blair gives!

Thats why

 

[Jerry_B]

What's not needed right now is any sort of pressure to be placed on the talks with Iran WRT the nuclear question. If there's solid proof for Iranian involvement in Iraq, then it should be shown - and hopefully independantly verified. The same should be done about Iran's claims about UK involvement in recent bombings.

That said, there's still absolutely no proof whatsoever that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. It's not even clear if it's nuclear power programme is all that capable at present. So any moves to try and force the situation seem to be based more of foreign policy ideals rather than any actualities about nuclear weapons proliferation.

I can't see the point of bombing imagined nuclear weapons sites, any more than I could see the point of bombing supposed chemical weapons sites in Iraq.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

It hardly matters whether Iran's actually developing nukes, or not. They've got a Fundie populist nutjob for a prezident at the moment and he's stirring the pot with a big shit covered spoon:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm

Iran leader's comments condemned
BBC News Online: 27 October 2005

There has been widespread condemnation of a call by the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

The UK, France, Spain and Canada are summoning Iranian diplomats to demand an explanation for the remark.

The US said the comment highlighted concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is being used to develop weapons.

Iran says its programme is for peaceful purposes only.

"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world"
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mr Ahmadinejad made his comments at a conference in Tehran entitled The World without Zionism, the official Irna news agency reported.

Western governments are bound to see it as further proof that Iran's hardline president is disinclined to curb his country's controversial nuclear programme, the BBC's diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says.

...

Not to put too fine a point on it: it looks like they're gagging for it.

The World can have just too many Fundie populist nutjob Leaders.

 

[Jerry_B]

That's still not any excuse whatsoever for 'pre-emptive' bombing. This all seems like tit-for-tat rhetoric.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

That's still not any excuse whatsoever for 'pre-emptive' bombing. This all seems like tit-for-tat rhetoric.

Hardly matters, I haven't seen very much evidence of anyone waiting for the good excuse, universal approval, or even the appropriate moment, just recently.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

It hardly matters whether Iran's actually developing nukes, or not. They've got a Fundie populist nutjob for a prezident at the moment and he's stirring the pot with a big shit covered spoon:

it looks inevitable that there will be a clash with iran at some point in the near future, if not from a uk/us coalition then from the israelis perhaps backed by a uk/us coalition. to be honest, it may be a neccessity now.

i just wonder if the sabre rattling of the last couple of years by bush led to the nutjob getting given the job.

 

[Jerry_B]

Israel really couldn't do all that much to Iran - perhaps a few airstrikes at best, but that's about it. As for the US and UK going for some sort of military action, again it's only really an airstrike option. Either way, that sort of thing won't really achive much, even if they completely destroy what they belive to be Iran's nuclear infrastructure. I really don't think a ground war option is on the cards.

Of course, all of this could be sorted out if everyone acted like adults and made some sort of effort at negotiation. After all, Iran has still yet to do anything that's actually illegal, and so recent words by some in the West are really driven by particular foreign policies (whatever they may be) rather than anything more 'altruistic' in terms of trying to curb proliferation.

 

[ramonmercado]

Iran May Be 'Six Months' From Nuclear Bomb: Israeli FM

Iran May Be 'Six Months' From Nuclear Bomb: Israeli FM

Shalom spoke a day after the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped from the map", drawing international condemnation.

Paris, France (AFP) Oct 27, 2005

Iran may be only six months from having the necessary means to make an atomic bomb, Israeli Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom said Thursday, urging quick international action on Tehran's nuclear program.
"The next meeting of the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) is a crucial meeting, because there is a limit of time until (Iran) will have a full knowledge of how to develop a nuclear bomb," Shalom said after meeting with his French counterpart Philippe Douste-Blazy.

"It may only be six months from today," he added.

Shalom spoke a day after the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped from the map", drawing international condemnation.

The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors in September found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, paving the way for the matter to be referred to the UN Security Council if Iran does not halt nuclear fuel work and cooperate fully with an IAEA investigation.

The matter is to be taken up at the next IAEA board meeting in Vienna on November 24.

The vote followed a collapse in talks led by Britain, France and Germany to get Iran to voluntarily limit its nuclear fuel work in exchange for trade benefits after Tehran broke a pledge and resumed fuel activities.

"The French determination is very important because France is a key player", Shalom said Thursday, calling for "the whole international community" to unite "to stop the Iranians."

"The Iranians are developing now missiles with much longer range than Israel," Shalom said.

The new missiles would have "a range of 3,000 kilometres (1,800 miles) that will include all the capitals of Europe within that range: Paris, Berlin, London, Rome, Madrid... It's a tyranny that should be stopped immediately."

Israel has repeatedly warned Iran may be close to developing a nuclear weapon.

http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzzd.html

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Didn't Israel warn the World of the Iraqi bomb, as well?

Oh yes! So they did!

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mar91albright_022

By David Albright and Mark Hibbs
March 1991 pp. 26-28 (vol. 47, no. 02) © 1991 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

...

During the late 1980s Iraqs ongoing effort to make nuclear weapons made only sporadic headlines. On the eve of a visit to the United States by Israeli Premier Yitzhak Shamir in April 1988, the Washington Post asserted that Iraq had a secret two year crash program to develop a nuclear weapon, financed by Saudi Arabia. Two years later, an internationally coordinated sting operation exposed an Iraqi attempt to acquire detonator components usable in nuclear weapons [see the preceding article]. Neither event prompted a significant reassessment of the timetable for an Iraqi nuclear weapon. "Too much important know-how and technology was missing," according to an official at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

Another strain of the story focused on Iraq's effort to develop centrifuges to enrich uranium for use in weapons. Before the invasion, Der Spiegel, followed by U.S. nonproliferation and export control experts, asserted that machine tools acquired by Iraq from Germany could be used to make centrifuges. [1] But no one who made these claims pointed out the difference between making centrifuges and making some centrifuge components. That distinction "could make a difference of about five years" in Iraq' s enrichment timetable, according to an official at Urenco the European trilateral centrifuge manufacturer and operator whose plans were diverted to Iraq.

It was also said that Iraq had working centrifuges. Based on unspecified sources, William Safire asserted in a series of five articles in the New York Times between August and November that Iraq was enriching uranium with 26 centrifuges on hand and was producing a lot more centrifuges. "With the first few thousand off the line, a 'cascade' can be set up to separate U-235 from uranium in a gaseous state. Each cascade can turn out 50 pounds of weapons-grade uranium-enough for a city-destroying atom bomb-every three months." [2]

U.S. officials who watch Iraq's nuclear program say they have never seen any intelligence documents indicating that Iraq has 26 working centrifuges, or any at all. They assume the story was launched by Israeli officials and backed by officials at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency who have an interest in motivating the United States to strike Iraqi targets.

...

Why bomb a country with your own weapons, when you can persuade an enormous pinheaded giant who'll use their's instead?

(see Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome for further details) 8)

 

[Degrizzzz]

I notice from the front pages of todays papers here in the UK that lapdog Blair is talking up zapping Iran to stop em gettin nukes...Here we go....

 

[Jerry_B]

Recent US estimates about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons capability put it at 10 years, so one assumes that Israel is just trying to up the ante. One also assumes they also want others to continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's own nuclear capability - and it could said that they have a much worse foreign policy as far as certain neighbouring states are concerned

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Didn't Israel warn the World of the Iraqi bomb, as well?

to be fair to israel here they've probably got a pretty good idea of how long it takes to clandestinely develop a nuclear bomb.

 

[ramonmercado]

to be fair to israel here they've probably got a pretty good idea of how long it takes to clandestinely develop a nuclear bomb.

Heh! Heh! Thats certainly true. The piece I posted above about the 6 month development period is most likely Israeli propaganda though.

 

[ramonmercado]

to be fair to israel here they've probably got a pretty good idea of how long it takes to clandestinely develop a nuclear bomb.

Heh! Heh! Thats certainly true. The piece I posted above about the 6 month development period is most likely Israeli propaganda though.

 

[ShadowPrime]

Jerry:

Yes, you COULD say Israel has a much worse foreign policy re its neighboring states (than does IRAN?), if by that you mean it is worse to defend yourself against a bloodthirsty alliance of states who routinely deny your right to exist, have launched repeated wars in an effort to END your existence, and who routinely support and condone the most savage and bloodthirsty kind of barbaric terrorism.

Interesting worldview.

Shadow

 

[Quake42]

to be fair to israel here they've probably got a pretty good idea of how long it takes to clandestinely develop a nuclear bomb.


Heh! Heh! Thats certainly true. The piece I posted above about the 6 month development period is most likely Israeli propaganda though.

All probably very true, but if we were all to be completely honest about this...

a nuclear Iran is far, far more scary than a nuclear Israel.

 

[ramonmercado]

All probably very true, but if we were all to be completely honest about this...

a nuclear Iran is far, far more scary than a nuclear Israel.

It certainly is. If the Mullahs thought they were going to lose control of Iran, they might well send a nuclear to Tel Aviv. Despite Israeli atricities, I think the present Govt and any likely replacement are sane enough not to start aNuclear conflagaration in the Middle East.

Again though, if it looked as if Israel was going to be overrun, what might they do?

Personally, I believe Israel has a right to peacefully exsist within its pre 1967 borders. But the question of the Palestinian Diaspora (those who were driven out or fled in 1948) must also be addressed.

 

[ramonmercado]

US drops nuclear “bunker buster” from budget

At least the Iranians wont have to worry about this...

US drops nuclear “bunker buster” from budget
14:03 27 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Shaoni Bhattacharya
Controversial plans to research nuclear “bunker busters” have been abandoned by the by the US in the country's 2006’s budget.

The Bush administration and the Senate have agreed with the House of Representatives to scrap the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in the 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.

The Pentagon will instead focus on developing a conventional deep-earth penetrating bomb, said Senator Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate subcommittee dealing with the issue.

He said the National Nuclear Security Administration had requested such a switch. "The focus will now be with the Defense Department and its research into earth-penetrating technology using conventional weaponry. The NNSA indicated that this research should evolve around more conventional weapons rather than tactical nuclear devices,” he said in a statement.

Political fallout
The RNEP would have been designed to bury deep into the ground before detonating a nuclear device. Its proponents argued this would give the capability to destroy buried weapon dumps or communication centres. They also said underground explosions would lead to less fallout than airborne nuclear weapons.

But critics said it would be extremely difficult for a bunker buster to plunge deep enough into the ground to contain any subsequent nuclear explosion.

“I have long cautioned against an RNEP weapon and I am relieved that the Administration has abandoned this irresponsible and dangerous path,” says Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, a democrat in California. “Since their first days in office, the Bush Administration has appeared intent on finding new uses for existing nuclear weapons and designing new nuclear weapons - whether the military had any use for them or not, and regardless of the grave international ramifications.”

She adds: “Developing new nuclear bunker busters would undermine decades of United States leadership aimed at preventing non nuclear states from acquiring nuclear weapons and encouraging nuclear states to reduce their stockpiles.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8219

Related Articles
Novel warhead may bust the deepest bunkers
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 725086.000
14 July 2005
US Congress slashes nuclear spending budgets
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 424761.800
04 December 2004
Nuclear bunker busters come under scrutiny
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3434
28 February 2003
Weblinks
US Senate Committee on Appropriations
http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcom ... ode=energy
Ellen Tauscher
http://www.house.gov/tauscher/
US National Nuclear Security Administration
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/
US Department of Energy
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=DOEHOME
US Department of Defense
http://www.defenselink.mil/

 

[Quake42]

Personally, I believe Israel has a right to peacefully exsist within its pre 1967 borders. But the question of the Palestinian Diaspora (those who were driven out or fled in 1948) must also be addressed.

Indeed. But realistically they ain't gonna be able to settle in what is now Israel. It's really not much different to the Sudeten Germans who were driven out of what is now the Czech Rebublic after the end of WWII. It's harsh, and it's sad, but they have had to deal with it and move on, and I haven't noticed any Germans blowing up Czech restaurants in protest at their removal from their ancestral lands.

Of course, if neighbouring Arab states had really cared about their Palestinian brothers they could have granted all of the diaspora citizenship and helped them get established... but in fact it suits these states to keep a resentful refugee population on Israel's doorstep.

No one comes out of the story looking very good, but let's get back on topic. Recent Iranian rhetoric does really look as though they are spoiling for a fight.

 

[Jerry_B]

Yes, you COULD say Israel has a much worse foreign policy re its neighboring states (than does IRAN?), if by that you mean it is worse to defend yourself against a bloodthirsty alliance of states who routinely deny your right to exist, have launched repeated wars in an effort to END your existence, and who routinely support and condone the most savage and bloodthirsty kind of barbaric terrorism.

I was thinking more of it's actions in occupied territories (which, after all, are not ostensibly part of Israel) and Palestine, as well as in the Lebanon. It's actions in such areas have been condemmned by most of the world, as it's approach goes far beyond what is acceptable (no matter what reasons Israel claims). As to whether I have an 'interesting world view' - let's just say it's not as black and white as some other peoples' Let's try and not to turn a blind eye to Israel's failings, any more than we should any other state in the region.

Aside from that, as I've said before, there is still a double-standard involved. Either there is a move to stop all nuclear proliferation, or only on certain terms. Those terms being, it seems, dependent on whether any given state is a client of a larger power (i.e. the US). The US, UK, and Germany all have a hand in the Israeli nuclear programme, which is singularly irresponsible. The end result is that it has kicked off a possible nuclear arms race in the region - that is, if we allow ourselves to believe that iran does indeed have any plans to develop nuclear weapons. If we start from the premise that none of the states in the region are exactly angels in terms of various factors, it seems extremely unwise to me that one of them should be supported in it's drive to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Jerry_B]

Of course, if neighbouring Arab states had really cared about their Palestinian brothers they could have granted all of the diaspora citizenship and helped them get established... but in fact it suits these states to keep a resentful refugee population on Israel's doorstep.

No, because that would be seen as doing Israel's job for it. The worst thing possible would be to negate the Palestinian state by diffusing it's population into other states by means of citizenship. Remember that most of those refugees have been forced away from areas of their own country, which has been occupied by another state.