Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?

[Ron Ecker]

Is it that you don't believe a Zionist movement exists?

Certainly a Zionist movement exists. But it's oil the U.S. is primarily after in the Middle East.

Or that you believe the 'PNAC' is more powerful?

The PNAC as an organization is of course not in power. What I'm saying is that the most powerful ideologues who have been running the Bush regime and led us to war - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and various lesser officials - are members of PNAC, signatories to its agenda, which they have attempted to carry out as U.S. foreign policy with disastrous results. This is all a matter of record. It is no secret and is indisputable.

[Mark Stapleton]

Is it that you don't believe a Zionist movement exists?

Certainly a Zionist movement exists. But it's oil the U.S. is primarily after in the Middle East.

Or that you believe the 'PNAC' is more powerful?

The PNAC as an organization is of course not in power. What I'm saying is that the most powerful ideologues who have been running the Bush regime and led us to war - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and various lesser officials - are members of PNAC, signatories to its agenda, which they have attempted to carry out as U.S. foreign policy with disastrous results. This is all a matter of record. It is no secret and is indisputable.

Ron, the problem is that while the PNAC is an organisation (think tank) dedicated to Pax Americana hegemony (maintenance of world order through strong American leadership), it's position on the Middle East is a mirror reflection of the Zionist agenda. PNAC Chairman William Kristol was a vocal supporter of Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year. Indisputable fact.

While the PNAC website carefully avoids mentioning Israel, its views are strongly influenced by Zionism, imo. The fact that US policy has been subverted by a mindset which includes a healthy dose of Zionism is one which many Americans seem reluctant to acknowledge.

[Ron Ecker]

While the PNAC website carefully avoids mentioning Israel, its views are strongly influenced by Zionism, imo.

That's your opinion and you may be correct. The PNAC website may also avoid mentioning oil, I'm not sure, but IMO these people are in step with Brzzzzinski (sp) and Lewis and whomever else about the need to control energy resources where we are now not coincidentally fighting wars. This need was apparently underscored in the secret energy conference that Cheney held in Washington soon after taking office. We don't actually know nor are we entitled to know what was discussed and concluded. They may planned 9/11 right there. Those Americans who want to know (a smaller minority than those who are even aware of such a conference) must think they live in a democracy or something.

[Sid Walker]

While the PNAC website carefully avoids mentioning Israel, its views are strongly influenced by Zionism, imo.

That's your opinion and you may be correct. The PNAC website may also avoid mentioning oil, I'm not sure, but IMO these people are in step with Brzzzzinski (sp) and Lewis and whomever else about the need to control energy resources where we are now not coincidentally fighting wars. This need was apparently underscored in the secret energy conference that Cheney held in Washington soon after taking office. We don't actually know nor are we entitled to know what was discussed and concluded. They may planned 9/11 right there. Those Americans who want to know (a smaller minority than those who are even aware of such a conference) must think they live in a democracy or something.

Hard to square an analysis that PNAC is the 'key driver' behind US foreign policy with the following report about arm-twisting in the democrat-dominated US Congress.

CQ Reports: AIPAC Pushes to Eliminate Anti-Iran War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill

By M.J. Rosenberg | bio

As everyone knows, House and Senate Democrats are trying to put together an Iraq war spending bill that will pressure the President to bring the troops home sooner rather than later. There is a general consensus on most issues relating to Iraq. However, the authoritative Congressional Quarterly daily report reveals today that some Democrats are fighting Speaker Pelosi's language which would prevent the President from going to war in Iran without the approval of Congress. Simply put, Pelosi wants to avoid a repeat of the Iraq experience in Iran. For Dems, this is a no-brainer, or so one would think.

But, according to CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war in Iran. The hypocrisy is astounding. It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another.

This battle over the Pelosi language is part of the overall Iran effort.

And you thought it couldn't happen again!

Content of CQ report follows.

Iran Language Draws Opposition as Democrats Near Agreement on Supplemental

CQ TODAY -- March 8, 2007

By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff

Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.

The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker.

The language is likely to spark an internal battle among House Democrats, some of whom fear an expansion of the Iraq War into Iran and others who are wary of sending a signal to Tehran that Congress wants to take the use of force off the table.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers.

Emanuel said opposition could extend beyond pro-Israel lawmakers. “‘Keep this all about Iraq’ is the view,” he said.

But a Democratic leadership aide said there are no plans to remove the provision.

“There’s heat,” the leadership aide acknowledged. “We’ve heard their concerns, but we think it’s likely to remain on the bill.”

login or register to post comments

Mar 9, 2007 -- 01:24 PM EST | Tags: Iran Iraq

Edited March 12, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

Anyone know the last time Israel issued a travel advisory like this?

# 5. Updated Travel Warnings

Israel’s National Security Council Counter-Terrorism Division presents the following updated travel warnings for Israelis traveling abroad. It is advised thattravelers should avoid visiting and leave the area as soon as possible in the following high to very high-threat countries: Algeria, Afghanistan, Chechenya, (southern Russia) Djabouti, Egypt, (especially the Sinai peninsula), Jordan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kashimir (northern India), Lebanon Malaysia, Mindanao, (southern Philippines) Northern Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia Southern Thailand, Syria & Yemen. Travelers should postpone non essential travel to: Bangladesh, Bangkok, Libya, Oman, Nigeria & southeastern Turkey (borders with Iraq and Iran). Travelers in general, should avoid visiting the following countries: Bahrain, Chad, Kenya, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Tunisia. Israeli citizens are called upon to be especially cautious when visiting: Philippines, Turkey, Thailand, & Uzbekistan. (Sources: National Security Council Counter-Terrorism Division, GPO)

[Sid Walker]

Siamese twins enraged at Iranian Minister's 'divisive' remarks

(How dare the cheeky Iranians talk back to their elders and betters!)

Israel, U.S. storm out of UN nuclear forum

By Haaretz Staff and Agencies

The Israel and U.S. delegations walked out of the United Nations' disarmament forum in Geneva, Switzerland yesterday after Iran said Israel was the "real source of nuclear danger in the Middle East" and had a "dark record of crimes."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Conference on Disarmament that Israel's nuclear weapons posed a "uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security" requiring action by the international community.

In a statement, Israel's ambassador Itzhak Levanon to the UN in Geneva, said that he and his aides, and the entire U.S. delegation had "abruptly left the room as the Foreign Minister of Iran ... was in the middle of a vitriolic speech".

A U.S. spokeswoman in Geneva confirmed the walk-out and called Mottaki's remarks "outrageous and divisive" at a time the forum was trying to find common ground on global arms issues.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said yesterday that a peaceful solution must be found to the Iranian nuclear problem, despite its president's vow to wipe Israel off the map.

"I wouldn't like to darken the future with belligerent declarations," Peres said at a news conference when asked about the possibility of a preemptive strike.

"I do hope that the problem can be solved economically, politically and psychologically."

Peres is in Tokyo for a four-nation meeting today about Middle East peace that includes officials from the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and host Japan, as well as a two-day confidence-building conference that starts today.

[Douglas Caddy]

Siamese twins enraged at Iranian Minister's 'divisive' remarks

(How dare the cheeky Iranians talk back to their elders and betters!)

Israel, U.S. storm out of UN nuclear forum

By Haaretz Staff and Agencies

The Israel and U.S. delegations walked out of the United Nations' disarmament forum in Geneva, Switzerland yesterday after Iran said Israel was the "real source of nuclear danger in the Middle East" and had a "dark record of crimes."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Conference on Disarmament that Israel's nuclear weapons posed a "uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security" requiring action by the international community.

In a statement, Israel's ambassador Itzhak Levanon to the UN in Geneva, said that he and his aides, and the entire U.S. delegation had "abruptly left the room as the Foreign Minister of Iran ... was in the middle of a vitriolic speech".

A U.S. spokeswoman in Geneva confirmed the walk-out and called Mottaki's remarks "outrageous and divisive" at a time the forum was trying to find common ground on global arms issues.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said yesterday that a peaceful solution must be found to the Iranian nuclear problem, despite its president's vow to wipe Israel off the map.

"I wouldn't like to darken the future with belligerent declarations," Peres said at a news conference when asked about the possibility of a preemptive strike.

"I do hope that the problem can be solved economically, politically and psychologically."

Peres is in Tokyo for a four-nation meeting today about Middle East peace that includes officials from the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and host Japan, as well as a two-day confidence-building conference that starts today.

The Sunday Times (U.K.)

March 18, 2007

Iran to hit back at US ‘kidnaps’

Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv

IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.

Asgari’s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.

Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.

A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing — the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.

“This is no longer a coincidence, but rather an orchestrated operation to shake the higher echelons of the Revolutionary Guard,” said an Israeli source.

Other members of the Quds Force are said to have been seized in Irbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, by US special forces.

“The capture of Quds members in Irbil was essential for our understanding of Iranian activity in Iraq,” said an American official with knowledge of the operation.

One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders.

The Iranians have also accused the United States of being behind an attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran last month in which at least 17 were killed.

Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.

Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.

“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.

[Sid Walker]

One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders.

The Iranians have also accused the United States of being behind an attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran last month in which at least 17 were killed.

Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.

Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.

“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.

A plausible and alarming article, Douglas.

Here's an interesting piece from the excellent website 'News Hounds', that performs a public service comparable to the wonderful folk who clean municipal lavatories for a living.

News Hounds "watches Fox so you don't have to".

Is FOX News’ Foreign Affairs Analyst A Former Terrorist? points out the interesting background of one of Hannity & Colmes' recent guests. Apparently a Saddam era "terrorist" is now being used to talk up attacking Iran. Whatever it takes, I guess?

The article says "Just in case that didn’t get the message across, the screen read “Only one option?” and “Time to attack Iran?"

I've noticed helpful subtitles are used on all the major networks. They are usually more informative than the chattering heads when it comes to a clear, precise summation of the intended take home message.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

According to the IHT, Russia is pulling technical personel out of Iran.

Russians yanking key personnel from Iranian nuclear site

[Kathleen Collins]

Saddam’s execution and the violence will also be a convenient cover while the administration moves pieces into position.

Note: Larisa Alexandrovna maintains the blog At-Largely and is Managing Editor - of Raw Story.

I liked Larisa's chess analogy. But what I enjoyed more was watching the execution of Saddam Hussein. I watched it several times, especially the next day when they had more footage. Great entertainment.

Kathy

[Sid Walker]

Latest in this saga, of course, was the arrest a few days ago of a dozen or so British sailors enjoying an innocent cruise in the pleasant waters of the Arabian Gulf.

The arrest is a terrible outrage against humanity.

I know this for a fact, because I heard Tony Blair say so on BBC TV. Both Mr Blair and the BBC have a reputation for honesty second to none.

The British released GPS data which proves the sailors were in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters.

British soldiers, of course, have a "right" to go wherever they please in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the precision accuracy of the British case is not quite as decisive as one might imagine, as the marine border itself is disputed in that area.

See below.

Brits in the Gulf and a Doctored British Map? - UPDATED

03.28.2007 Barry Lando / Craig Murray

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines.

"Fake Maritime Boundaries

I have been unpopular before, but the level of threats since I started blogging on the captured marines has got a bit scary.

It is therefore with some trepidation that I feel obliged to point this out.

"The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

"But there are two colossal problems.

"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

" Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

"None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position."

When I spoke with the former Ambassador he told me how dumbfounded he is by the way in which the mainstream media continues to treat this dispute.

The BBC for instance has already interviewed a supposed expert regarding the map, who vouched for its authenticity. But the point is, as Craig Murray, points out, how can such a map exist if the subject of boundaries has never been settled between Iraq and Iran? Turns out the expert had been referred to the BBC by the British Ministry of Defense--who also turned out the plan.

Sounds like the rerun of a bad movie we've already seen.

Barry Lando is the author of WEB OF DECEIT: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, From Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush, just published by Other Press. Born in Canada and educated at Harvard and Columbia, Lando was a correspondent for Time-Life before becoming a producer for 60 Minutes, where he worked for twenty five years. He has won several top journalism awards, including two Emmys, a Dupont and a George Polk. Aside from producing more than a hundred reports for 60 Minutes, he also reported and produced an hour long documentary in 2004 for France’s Canal+ on Saddam Hussein, a documentary which was then rebroadcast in several countries around the globe. He has written extensively for such publications as The Atlantic, The Los Angeles Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The International Herald Tribune, Le Monde, and Salon. He currently lives in Paris.

Can't the Anglo-US-Israeli war criminals, scratching for a pretext to bomb yet another independent nation, do better than this?

Incidentally, it is interesting to speculate on the fate of a boatload of Iranian sailors caught on the boundary of British territorial waters in the English Channel - and how the BBC might spin that story to the ever-trusting British couch potato public.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Evan Burton]

Sid,

While it is true that Iran & Iraq have not agreed on their maritime territorial limits, something has to apply in the meantime. In absence of an agreed boundary, the UN Convention on Law of the Sea has been applied (to which Iran is a signatory). That's the limit that the MoD is using, and has been generally respected by both sides (despite the dispute).

One for the legal beagles, but IMO Iran did not have the right to arrest / detain the Brits even if they were in Iranian waters. According to Article 30 of the UNCLOS:

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

They should have told the Brits to leave.

An important factor in all this is that the action was carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy (IRGN), rather than the regular Iranian naval forces. My understanding from the guys who have been in the MEAO is that while the regular Iranian naval forces tend to conduct themselves very professionally, the IRGN are cowboys who are often unpredictable.

[Sid Walker]

Sid,

While it is true that Iran & Iraq have not agreed on their maritime territorial limits, something has to apply in the meantime. In absence of an agreed boundary, the UN Convention on Law of the Sea has been applied (to which Iran is a signatory). That's the limit that the MoD is using, and has been generally respected by both sides (despite the dispute).

One for the legal beagles, but IMO Iran did not have the right to arrest / detain the Brits even if they were in Iranian waters. According to Article 30 of the UNCLOS:

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

They should have told the Brits to leave.

An important factor in all this is that the action was carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy (IRGN), rather than the regular Iranian naval forces. My understanding from the guys who have been in the MEAO is that while the regular Iranian naval forces tend to conduct themselves very professionally, the IRGN are cowboys who are often unpredictable.

Perhaps the Iranians should have just asked the Brits to leave?

I'm all in favour of peaceful resolution of conflict.

I do wonder, however, how would a boatload of Iranian sailors fare if intercepted off the coast of Christmas Island, Evan?

Would the RAN politely ask them to head north? Would these Iranian sailors get a Christmas Card from Alexander Downer?

Would Mad Mullahs Paul Kelly, Adrew Bolt & co congratulate the Oz Government on the 'Insiders' for speedy, peaceful resolution of the crisis?

I have more sympathy with the Iranians than most westerners, having kept a general eye on the west's behaviour towards that beleagured nation over the last few months, years and decades.

Even in recent weeks there have been:

(1) Iranian Diplomats kidnapped in Iraq

(2) An Iranian General spirited away (kidnapped?) in Turkey

(3) Reports that western-funded saboteurs are operating within Iran.

(4) New sanctions applied after arm-twisting in the UN, punishing Iran for actions quite legal under the NPT

(5) A ramp-up in war chatter in western capitals (Tel Aviv, London, Washinton.

How much provocation do we expect the Iranians to take before they say "no more"?

I suspect the game has been to push, keep pushing and pushing Iran again until we find its snapping point.

It disgusts me to see Australia, once again, tagging along in support of Anglo/US/Israeli agression. What does regime change in Iran have to do with genuine Australian interests, for heavens sake? What about the over-riding global priority to make peace, not war?

I imagine someone may wish to nit-pick over my list of recent Iranian grieveances. To be honest, I don't pretend to know the real story in each of those cases. Sorting out wheat from chaff, info from spin in every media story is a job beyoind the resources of most of mere mortals.

I do, however, have a memory. and recall the media machine has lied us into wars many times before. I recall the British, US and Israeli Governments have made wars aplenty before - always blaming it on the other side.

Australia's genuine interests have nothing to do with the war plans of the Zionist crazies and other assorted lunatics who seem to believe they have the right to play Russian Roulette with the health of humanity and the whole planet.

[John Simkin]

Latest in this saga, of course, was the arrest a few days ago of a dozen or so British sailors enjoying an innocent cruise in the pleasant waters of the Arabian Gulf.

The arrest is a terrible outrage against humanity.

I know this for a fact, because I heard Tony Blair say so on BBC TV. Both Mr Blair and the BBC have a reputation for honesty second to none.

This is going to emerge as a big story over the coming months. John R. Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN was giving Blair advice on C4 the other night. Bolton pointed out that the Iran hostage crisis brought down Jimmy Carter and urged Blair not to appease the Iranian government and instead to take decisive action. Unfortunately, John Snow, the interviewer did not know enough about American history to ask him the necessary follow-up questions. Bolton was praising up Reagan's strong measures against Iran when in fact he got the hostages out by buying their freedom with illegal arms deals.

In reality, Blair cannot take strong action against Iran. Nor can he do secret deals with the Iranians like Reagan did. The hostages that Iran want to exchange, are controlled by the US. Bush has already made it clear that these men will not be released. This situation will once again highlight that Blair has little power to influence world events. All he can do is ask the US for help that they will not give.

[Sid Walker]

Latest in this saga, of course, was the arrest a few days ago of a dozen or so British sailors enjoying an innocent cruise in the pleasant waters of the Arabian Gulf.

The arrest is a terrible outrage against humanity.

I know this for a fact, because I heard Tony Blair say so on BBC TV. Both Mr Blair and the BBC have a reputation for honesty second to none.

This is going to emerge as a big story over the coming months. John R. Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN was giving Blair advice on C4 the other night. Bolton pointed out that the Iran hostage crisis brought down Jimmy Carter and urged Blair not to appease the Iranian government and instead to take decisive action. Unfortunately, John Snow, the interviewer did not know enough about American history to ask him the necessary follow-up questions. Bolton was praising up Reagan's strong measures against Iran when in fact he got the hostages out by buying their freedom with illegal arms deals.

In reality, Blair cannot take strong action against Iran. Nor can he do secret deals with the Iranians like Reagan did. The hostages that Iran want to exchange, are controlled by the US. Bush has already made it clear that these men will not be released. This situation will once again highlight that Blair has little power to influence world events. All he can do is ask the US for help that they will not give.

There's differences between the 1980 hostage crisis and this one.

Carter, I believe, was (and is) a decent man, who was genuinely concerned about the fate of the American hostages. The whole event was siezed upon and manipulated to spook Carter, destabize his adminstration and ultimately eject him from office.

In this case, the so called 'hostage crisis' is a much sought-after casus belli - or at minimum a useful way of keeping the Iran pot boiling hot. Blair has rather gleefully announced he "won't negotiate".

Does anyone really imagine Blair feels genuine, deep anxiety or concern for the Britons held in Iran? I can't see it myself. The man is a fraud, dangerously close, in my books, to qualifying as a pyschopath.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Sid Walker