logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-04-24 15:38:44 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the IRC chat feature.

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Serious Business

   IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for War!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for War!  (Read 18011 times)
Salamantis
Neophyte
*****

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00



I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #15 on: 2008-05-25 12:14:59 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2008-05-26 05:30:37 by Salamantis » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #16 on: 2008-05-25 17:01:34 »
Reply with quote

[ Hermit : OMG, Our local cretinous troll dumped another of his insanely long, eminently ignorable steaming turds of other's words, without comment or cause and filled with insane and unsustainable assertions in our laps. How fortunate that somebody else, somebody competent and knowledgeable in the field (unlike our troll), should have just contradicted it. Again. Not that I expect the troll to respond, or even read the undoing of the foundation of its delusions about the IAEA, given that it has never shown any comprehension of this issue before. The Iran and the IAEA Reading Primer for Grade I has yet to be released and anything more advanced than that clearly transcends our trolls very limited comprehension, but for the rest of us, another nugget of crunchy goodness from Gordon Prather. ]

An Act of War

Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Gordon Prather
Dated: 2008-05-25

Just as you thought the chances of the United States going to war with Iran were diminishing (largely because our own Iraqi sock-puppet regime has rejected U.S. accusations that Iran is directly responsible for American soldiers being killed in Iraq and because Director-General ElBaradei continues to report to the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency that he can find "no indication" that Iran now has or ever did have a nuclear weapons program) Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, goes to Israel, presumably to help celebrate the 60th anniversary of al-Nakba, but also to discuss "the threat posed by Iran" to Israel.

Do you copy? Iran does not pose a threat to us or our troops in Iraq, but – in Pelosi's view – may somehow pose a threat to Israel?

True, a "breakthrough deal" – reached with the help of Arab mediators – had just been reached in Lebanon between the U.S.-backed government and the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah, ending the country's 18-month political stalemate, giving Hezbollah something of a victory and "veto" power over future government actions.

And, presumably, that is not good news to the Israelis who had already effectively lost the quasi-war fought two years ago with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But, never mind that.

According to Haaretz, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Pelosi that the international community "needed to take more drastic steps to stop Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons."

What efforts to obtain nuclear weapons?

What sections of ElBaradei's (apparently null) reports to the IAEA Board and to the Security Council – the results of years of exhaustive go-almost-anywhere (including some military installations) interview-almost-anyone (including some military officials) inspections – do the Likudniks not understand?

What would it take to convince the paranoids in Israel and elsewhere that Iran's nuclear programs – which have voluntarily been made more transparent to IAEA inspections than any other country's – could never produce a nuclear weapon, so long as those programs are subject to IAEA Safeguards.

Never!


Well, according to Haaretz, Prime Minister Olmert "suggested" that, among other more drastic steps, the US impose a "naval blockade," using U.S. warships, "to limit the movement of Iranian merchant vessels."

Now, Iran is already subject to a third "round" of sanctions, preventing the import into or export from Iran, of goods, many of them commercial items, totally unrelated to Iran's Safeguarded nuclear programs, imposed by the Security Council "in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security."

What constitutes a serious challenge and a threat to international security? Why, Iran's IAEA Safeguarded programs, of course.

The threat to international security of Iran's Safeguarded programs in which ElBaradei has repeatedly told the Security Council he can find "no indication" that any materials proscribed by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have ever been diverted to a military purpose.

The threat to international security of Iran's Safeguarded uranium-enrichment program the Iranians were forced to undertake, themselves – mining their own ore, converting it to "yellowcake," converting the "yellowcake" to uranium-hexafluoride, developing their own supersonic gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment devices – all because President Clinton strong-armed Boris Yeltsin into canceling the turn-key Safeguarded uranium-enrichment plant the Russians had agreed to provide Iran, and strong-armed the Chinese into canceling the turn-key Safeguarded uranium-conversion plant they had agreed to provide Iran.

Don't all members of the UN Security Council know all this?

Of course, they do.

[b]In his report last November to the IAEA Board and to the Security Council, ElBaradei included the results of his search through Iran's records, going back decades, said results not in conflict with the justifications the Iranians supplied for the secretive manner in which they were forced – by "some" Members of the Security Council – to pursue the civilian nuclear power fuel-cycle, which both the IAEA Statute and the NPT assure them is their "inalienable right."

In his most recent report ElBaradei was "able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."


Even for those nuclear "weaponization" studies – alleged to have been done for Iran's military, stored on a laptop computer, allegedly stolen from an Iranian engineer, obtained by Israeli intelligence, given by our intelligence community to the IAEA [ Hermit : Not a confidence inspiring chain of custody to put it mildly! ] – which the IAEA confronted the Iranians with earlier this year, ElBaradei noted that "the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard."

Okay. That should do it. You can study all you want, but you can't make a nuke unless you've got a dozen pounds of weapons-grade plutonium or about ten times that much weapons-grade enriched-uranium. The IAEA bottom line is that the Iranians have not produced, as yet, any of either, nor do they have the capability, as yet, of producing any of either.


The UN's own agency has verified, time and again, that Iranian nuclear programs are entirely "peaceful."

So, ordinarily it would be all right for Presidential candidates, such as Barack Obama, to visit synagogues in this country and declare, as he did last month in Philadelphia and again this week in Florida;

"As president, I will do everything that I can to help (Israel) protect itself ... We will make sure that it can defend itself from any attack, whether it comes from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran."

But, as Prime Minister Olmert must know, and Speaker Pelosi should have known, a "naval blockade" – which goes beyond the imposition of "sanctions" – involves the interdiction and/or seizure of all civil "merchant vessels" and their cargoes on the high seas. It's an act of war!

Hence, upon Pelosi's return to Washington – perhaps after frantic consultation with State Department officials – Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elsharri denied "there was ever any mention of a US naval blockade of Iranian ports."

Well, someone's lying.

So what the candidates for our presidency must make clear to Americans – most of whom are not paranoid – is actually what they mean when they say will "defend Israel."

Will our next president be willing to blockade Iran, to starve Iranian women and children, to effectively launch a war against Iran because the Likudnik paranoids, here and abroad, consider Iran's Safeguarded nuclear programs a "threat" to Israel?
« Last Edit: 2008-05-26 09:11:23 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #17 on: 2008-05-26 03:01:04 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] I wasn't too sure whether to post this in this thread but it does seem on topic in the matter of the drum to war. (That rat in the Democratic kitchen, Nancy Pelosi, has also been stirring up trouble in service of her beloved Cretin-in-Chief I see. No surprise there.)

I don't see why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Everybody else seems to have them. Whatever happened to the theory of "Mutually Assured Destruction"? ISTM that a nuclear armed Iran would in fact add stabilty to the region. But perhaps this would not suit certain parties who have their beady little eyes on the hydrocarbons of the region...have to keep these resources out of the the hands of "terrorists" of course. For the good of the world of course.

Yeah, right.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=12897

May 26, 2008

Iran Is No Threat, Unless Bush Makes It One

by Muhammad Sahimi

In one of the most embarrassingly absurd, historically baseless, and astonishingly one-sided speeches any U.S. president has ever given, President Bush compared Iran to Nazi Germany in his speech to Israel's Knesset. In doing so, the president repeated the same diatribes that Norman Podhoretz, the godfather of the neoconservatives, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel's Likud Party, have been making for quite some time.

Said Bush:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them [that] they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator [William Borah of Idaho] declared, 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Bush made his "argument" against "appeasement" only days after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had called for a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran. So, as Sen. Barack Obama pointed out, even the president's own defense secretary is apparently an appeaser.

Comparing Iran with the 1939 Nazi Germany is ridiculous. Germany was a powerful, industrialized nation that had been defeated in World War I. It had grievances against the victors who had humiliated it. Germany's culture was such that many Germans blindly followed their charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler. Even the eminent physicist and Nobel Laureate Werner Heisenberg, though no Nazi, worked for the regime. Most importantly, the 1939 Wehrmacht was the most powerful military in the world, backed by Germany's advanced technology, industrial capacity, and a great corps of first-rate scientists. At the point in time Bush was referring to, Germany was invading Poland and had already annexed Austria and devoured Czechoslovakia.

Compare this with Iran, which has neither territorial claims against any nation nor has it attacked its neighbors for 1,000 years, but was the victim of an eight-year war with Iraq, which was encouraged and supported by the U.S. Persian culture is such that few Iranians blindly follow their leaders. In 1905 Iranians set up the first constitutional government in all of Asia and the Middle East. Despite its resources and potential, Iran is only a developing nation, not an advanced industrial power.

Iran's armed forces have been designed to defend the country, without any ability to project power outside the country's borders. The massive presence of U.S. and NATO forces around Iran limits Iran's reach, as do its terrible economy, restless population, and democracy movement. The U.S. and Israel constantly point to Iran's aid to Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah as evidence of its "evil intentions." But with relatively weak armed forces and constant threats from the U.S. and Israel, Iran needs strategic depth to protect its territorial integrity, hence its aid to both Hezbollah and Hamas.

Furthermore, Hamas won the democratic elections of 2006 and is far more popular than Fatah. As Sen. John McCain said then, "They are the government. … It's a new reality in the Middle East.'' And contrary to popular misconceptions, Hezbollah would be just as powerful without Iran's help, because it was formed as a reaction to the invasion of southern Lebanon by Israel in 1978 and 1982, which created hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite refugees and tens of thousands of Shi'ite dead and wounded, while the U.S. and the rest of the West stood by, doing nothing. Hezbollah and Hamas receive aid, not orders, from Iran.

The president brazenly lies when he blames Iran for all the problems that the U.S. and Israel face in the Middle East. Iran did not provoke the U.S. to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, nor did it force the U.S. to support Israeli aggression for decades. These are the main causes of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. Half of all the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, and the rest are from Egypt, Jordan, and other U.S.-supported sunni States, as were the 9/11 terrorists. Almost all the suicide bombers are Sunni, the majority of them Saudis. But instead of confronting Saudi Arabia, President Bush has agreed to supply billions of dollars in advanced weaponry, as well as nuclear technology, to that country.

Surely, Iran has considerable influence in Iraq. It has been supporting the Badr Army and the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr. These groups spent years in Iran when Saddam Hussein was in power. But Iran also supports the government of Nouri al-Maliki. There is a strong rationale behind this. Iran was invaded by Iraq in 1980, so in order to avoid another war with Iraq, Iran wishes to have influence there, regardless of who wins the internal struggle among the various factions. At the same time, though, Iran's influence has its limits because of the historical rivalry between Arabs and Persians.

Worst of all, military attacks on Iran will only consolidate the hardliners' grip on Iran, just when economic problems and political repression are shaking the foundations of their power. President Ahmadinejad is in deep trouble at home, even among his own base. The vast majority of Iran's urban population, and in particular its university students, despise him for his failed economic policies, political repression, and the danger that his hollow rhetoric has created for Iran's national security. In the March elections for the Iranian parliament, he was attacked fiercely not only by the reformists, but also by pragmatic conservatives and former allies. But as Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights advocate and the 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, said recently in a speech at Barnard College,

"Foreign attacks and threats on the Iranian government will only harm human rights efforts, since the government would act under the guise of 'national security' to suppress those who are seeking more freedom in the country."

In April 2005, when the reformist Mohammad Khatami was still president, Iran made a comprehensive proposal to the U.S., offering to enter serious negotiations and putting all the important issues on the table. The offer was never taken seriously. What is not understood in the U.S. is that, given the deep unpopularity of the hardliners, the absence of an external threat to Iran's national security would make it much easier for democratic groups to push for reforms. Therefore, détente, not war, with the U.S. will make fundamental changes in Iran possible.

President Bush, however, is oblivious to such realities. In his parallel universe, which is completely disconnected from ours, rejecting negotiations with Iran in, of all the places, the Knesset is in America's national interest. In his fantasies, the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq, his unstinting support for Israel, and a possible war with Iran are all good for the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

How will Iranians react if their nation is attacked by the U.S. and/or Israel? Most Iranians despise the hardliners, but as Ebadi and the author stated in a joint op-ed published by the International Herald Tribune on Jan. 19, 2006,

"A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iranians remember the U.S. help to Iraq during its war with Iran. They see the double standards when the United States offers security guarantees and aid to North Korea and advanced nuclear technology to India [and to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain], but nothing but sanctions and threats to Iran.

"Iran is not Iraq: Given the Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shi'ites' long tradition of martyrdom, any military move on Iran would receive a response that would engulf the entire region in fire."

Thus, the president is playing with fire when he threatens Iran at Israel's behest. In response to a question about how Iran is a threat to the U.S., he once replied, "Its leader wants to destroy Israel." In other words, Bush is willing to order attacks on Iran because of Iran's nonexistent threat to Israel. Shi'ites across the Middle East will not respond kindly.






Report to moderator   Logged
Salamantis
Neophyte
*****

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00



I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #18 on: 2008-05-27 01:01:28 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2008-06-13 12:50:23 by Salamantis » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #19 on: 2008-06-11 17:55:58 »
Reply with quote

McBama joins the AIPAC choir, but O'Cain is still far worse

[ Hermit : US support for Israeli Apartheid remains the most disgusting sight in the world - except possibly to watch the wannabe leaders of the US grovelling to AIPAC. ]

The Iran Trap

Source: TruthDig
Authors: Chris Hedges
Dated: 2008-06-08

The failure by Barack Obama to chart another course in the Middle East, to defy the Israel lobby and to denounce the Bush administration’s inexorable march toward a conflict with Iran is a failure to challenge the collective insanity that has gripped the political leadership in the United States and Israel.

Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush’s alternative reality.

We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stay the hand of Israel, which is building more settlements - including a new plan to put 800 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem - and imposing draconian measures to physically break the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. We need, most of all, to prevent a war with Iran.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran. The letter is a signal that planning for strikes on Iran is under way and pronounced.

“Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events,” Conyers wrote. “The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. ‘Fox’ Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.”

The administration, in rhetoric that is eerily similar to that used to build the case for a war against Iraq, asserts that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-American groups in Iraq and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets. It dismisses the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program. The White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. I suspect it never will. And when Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth an attack on Iran is “unavoidable” if Tehran does not halt its alleged nuclear weapons program, what he is really telling us is we should prepare for war.


Conyers’ threat is too little too late, especially if the Bush White House, possibly assisted by Israel, launches airstrikes on some or all of 1,000 selected Iranian targets in the final weeks of the administration. [ Hermit :  And a "usually reliable Whitehouse source" has claimed that "if Obama is elected in November, Bush will attack Iran immediately". If McCain is elected, then it will be "left to the next president"] .But it is an effort. Conyers tried.

This is more than we can say for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Obama went before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Wednesday and said he will stand with the right-wing Israeli government, even if this means backing an attack on Iran.

“As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran,” he said.  “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”

Obama went on to blame the Palestinians for the conflict, although the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 was 40 to 1. This is an increase from 30 to 1 in 2006 and 4 to 1 in 2000-2005.

“I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage, ...” Obama told AIPAC.  “I will ensure Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran. ...”

Obama spoke about Israelis whose houses were damaged by the crude rockets, most made out of old pipes, fired from Gaza on Israeli towns. He never mentioned the Israeli siege of Gaza, the world’s largest open-air prison, or that Israel was deploying fighter jets and helicopters to attack densely crowded refugee camps with missiles and iron fragmentation bombs or that it had cut off food and fuel. He ignored the steady expansion of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. He called for Jerusalem to become the “undivided capital” of the Jewish state, erasing Arab East Jerusalem from the map in contravention of international law. East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territories, which Israel took over in 1967. Obama’s stance is the moral equivalent of assuring the Johannesburg government during the apartheid era that one would support their repressive efforts to punish the restive blacks in the townships.
[ Hermit : Not really a good parallel here. It might have been more equivalent to giving the South Africans jets, helicopters, bombs and missiles to use against the black population, but only if they had first moved them into concentration camps and starved them into submission. As the Israelis have already done - and the Americans are doing. And then to have blamed the blacks for bringing the violence upon themselves if they had attempted to fight back. As is also happening. ]

The deterioration of the conflict in Israel, which would be accelerated by airstrikes on Iran and an ensuring regional war, will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, with Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement, we barrel toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation. No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.

The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. [ Hermit : This is an underestimate. The cost of oil will almost certainly hit $500/bbl, and the impact will be most severe on Europe, China and India. Their economies will collapse with a "knock-on" effect destroying the value of the dollar. This will probably result in the dismantling of the pretense of constitutional government in the USA ] This price increase will devastate the American economy. The ensuing retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on American military installations in Iraq, will leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, will see an attack on Iran as a war against Shiism. They will turn with rage and violence on us and our allies. Hezbollah will renew attacks on northern Israel. And the localized war in Iraq will become a long, messy and protracted regional war that, by the time it is done, will most likely end the American empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins.

The Israeli leadership, like the Bush White House, is increasingly bellicose and threatening. The Israeli prime minister, after a 90-minute meeting with Bush in the White House on Wednesday, said the two leaders were of one mind. “We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat,” Ehud Olmert said. “I left with a lot less questions marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House.”

This time around, unlike about the war with Iraq, the Washington bureaucracy, loathed by the Bush White House, did not remain silent and complicit. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program released last Dec. 3 distinguished Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had halted in 2003 after the American invasion of Iraq. Adm. Fallon, who put his country and his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it and lost his job as the head of CENTCOM. He has been replaced with Gen. David H. Petraeus, whose devotion to his career admits no such moral impediments.

“ ... There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran,” Obama assured AIPAC. “This audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Israel’s security. ... The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and ... its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. ... [M]y goal will be to eliminate this threat.” [ Hermit : As I have repeatedly demonstrated here, this litany of lies is a Zionist invention. It is quite clear to a regular reader of the Israeli press that even Israelis do not accept these ludicrous charges as being true. ]

Barack Obama, when we need sane leadership the most, has proved feckless and weak. He, and the Democratic leadership, is as morally bankrupt as those preparing to ignite our funeral pyre in the Middle East. [ Hermit : Did anyone imagine that anyone electable in the USA could possibly be anything else but "morally bankrupt"? And of course, the funeral pyre was lit many, many years ago. The Middle East is merely a final flourish before the lights are extinguished on the not quite successful transition to empire by the Disunited States.]
« Last Edit: 2008-06-30 00:26:38 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #20 on: 2008-06-12 02:27:42 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Hermit on 2008-06-11 17:55:58   

<snip> [ Hermit : Did anyone imagine that anyone electable in the USA could possibly be anything else but "morally bankrupt"? </snip>

[Blunderov] Sometime back the (former) cricketer Jeffery Boycott went to Australia to commentate on a test series. When he arrived he was asked by the immigration authorities there "whether he had a criminal record?" He replied that he had not realised that this was still a requirement for admission to that country. He was turned away - or so the story goes.

Our favourite and ever helpful General JC Christian (Patriot) brings succour, if that's the word I want, to the much oppressed and sadly abused John McCain (Wingnut). Islamoterrocommypinkists have attacked our hero for his cavalier attitude towards women. This must be stopped - preferably pre-emptively.

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-justification.html

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The McCain Justification

Ron Prentice
Protect Marriage, California

Dear Mr. Prentice,

Although I applaud your constitutional amendment to deny homosexuals the special right of marrying the people they love, I'm concerned about your failure to address the issue of when heterosexual marriages should end. By omitting any mention of justifiable divorce from this amendment, you seem the be suggesting that marriage should be an irrevocable act. I fear that such a stance may harm Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.

Opponents to the amendment will certainly ask why you would cite homosexual unions as a threat to marriage while ignoring divorce. They are likely to point to Sen. McCain's marriage history as an example of this.

You can blunt such criticism by adding what I call the "McCain Justification" to the measure. I've drafted some language to help you:

Inasmuch as marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and Our Lord Jesus, no divorce shall be granted in the State of California unless the wife is crippled in a car accident.

I like this language because it provides cover for Sen. McCain in two ways. first, it gives him an excuse for leaving his wife because he did not want to deal with her paralysis (it also works metaphorically as a justification for his vote to support torture after it became politically inconvenient for him to oppose it .)

Secondly, it provides him with cover for the way he treats his current wife. His psychological abuse of her--calling her a trollop and a cunt, etc--would not be seen as being an offense so serious it would justify divorce. And perhaps even more importantly, it would send a signal to the women of California that patriarchy is back, just like God intended.

I hope you will consider making these changes.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Posted by Gen. JC Christian, Patriot at 1:37 AM
Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #21 on: 2008-06-13 10:15:26 »
Reply with quote

The General's sensible comments not withstanding, given that the USA's constitution does not refer to marriage, this is one of those areas which is covered by the 9th and 10th amendments. In this case, I suggest that it devolves to "the people." As all of the US laws I have seen relating to marriage can be shown to devolve from Judeo-Christian sources, I suggest that all are de facto unconstitutional under the establishment clause. Proposed amendments can't fix this problem, they can only highlight the fact that the constitution is no longer particularly relevant to the governance of these Disunited States.

Kind Regards

Hermit
« Last Edit: 2008-06-13 16:03:23 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #22 on: 2008-06-20 02:49:18 »
Reply with quote

Ron Paul Claims Pelosi Spiked Iran Bill

[ Hermit : The lobby strikes again. Democans as vulnerable or more to AIPAC as Republicrats. ]

Source: News Max
Authors: Rick Pedraza
Dated: 2008-06-18

Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.

Paul, a former Republican presidential contender who formally removed himself from the party’s nomination race last week, makes the allegation on C-SPAN during a recently held foreign policy conference in Virginia.

Paul says Pelosi’s first act as House Speaker in 2006 was to “deliberately” remove a portion of a legislative spending bill which said the United States “can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress.”

According to Paul, Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted the bill designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy, but during a revision of the legislation excluded the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran.

“She [Pelosi] removed it deliberately,” Paul says. “And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."

Paul implies Pelosi, desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation, bargained away the proposal that would have been the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

[color=yellow]According to John Nichols, who covered the story about Pelosi’s capitulation at the time for “The Nation,” Pelosi was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).”

Paul's allegation is corroborated by 'The Asia Times', which in another article published at the time says AIPAC was strongly against attaching "a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would require President Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option 'off the table.' The provision was killed."

The article also cites Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, as saying [Pelosi's] decision was due to AIPAC.


© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #23 on: 2008-06-20 13:33:42 »
Reply with quote

How to silence that Iran war drumbeat
War is not inevitable. Bold, transparent diplomacy can work.

Source: The Christian Science Monitor
Authors: John K. Cooley (John K. Cooley is a former Monitor correspondent who covered the Middle East for more than 40 years. His latest book is "Currency Wars.")
Dated: 2008-06-18
Dateline: Greece, Athens
How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war
Military analysts say the Islamic Republic would strike back in unconventional ways – targeting American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Source: The Christian Science Monitor
Authors: Scott Peterson (Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor)
Dated: 2008-06-20
Dateline: Turkey, Istanbul


Increasing signs that either Israel or the US might attack Iran before President Bush leaves office have many people in Europe, the Middle East, and around the world on edge.

Whether the rumblings are real or overinflated rumors, it's time to reverse any momentum that could unleash a potentially calamitous Middle East conflict, killing thousands, sending oil prices to $200 a barrel and beyond, and accentuating global recession.

After talks with Mr. Bush on his tour through Europe, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown didn't mention war explicitly, but did say that European states would agree to impose new financial sanctions on Tehran. Bush noted that "all options are on the table," and that the ball was in Tehran's court.

Tehran, meanwhile, seems to continue to ignore the threat of sanctions.

Beyond official statements, the latest clues to war parallel proposed and actual sanctions against Iran. Immediately after a high-profile visit to Washington earlier this month, Israeli cabinet minister Saul Mofaz publicly called an Israeli attack on Iran "unavoidable" unless Iran reined in its nuclear activities.

Members of a Bush delegation in mid-May reportedly assured Israeli officials in secret that a US attack on Iran was planned, according to Israeli Army Radio and in The Jerusalem Post as well as in American blogs and websites.

Also last month, the Asia Times claimed that US Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California and Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana were given classified briefings about a planned US strike – not on Iran's nuclear sites but on headquarters of its Revolutionary Guard Corps. The purpose, the paper claimed, was to "send a message" to halt Iranian support for anti-US militias in Iraq. Offices for both senators vigorously denied the report.

To avoid further inflaming this kind of talk, the West must end Iran's race to nuclear weapons – not by force, but by bold transparent, and imaginative diplomacy.

This should include direct and comprehensive US-Iranian talks on the basic issues that have plagued Washington-Tehran relations since the Islamic Republic overthrew the late Shah in 1979 and the ensuing hostage crisis.

One immediate step the Bush administration could (but most probably won't) take is to make absolutely clear its intensions regarding long term presence in Iraq. Both Iraq – which is worried about its sovereignty– and Iran – worried about military threats – are anxious about the possibility of permanent US bases there.

Washington has forsworn such bases, but further reassurances are needed.

More realistically, the most powerful and technologically advanced nations, including the US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and China, should join in offering Iran much more cooperation in peaceful nuclear and other energy fields that would finally induce it to abandon uncontrolled enrichment of uranium or plutonium production and any related weapons programs. Though such offers have been periodically on the table for years, they can be effective now if we repeat and improve them, and make them more detailed.

Although nearly unnoticed in Western media, Iran made an official offer to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in May involving a package of "comprehensive negotiations" on everything from the nuclear issue to general disarmament and help toward a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. If this were taken seriously and acted on, the West could stymie Iran's dangerous growing isolation.

To ease tensions, both US presidential candidates should specifically renounce plans for permanent US bases and presence in Iraq. As US historian William Pfaff recently wrote in his column, insisting on a permanent presence in Iraq would "turn Iraq into an American satellite state." This would force Tehran and other neighbors to regard Iraq as a threat and provide incentive to speed nuclear weapons activity.

The veracity of Iran's protestations about its purely peaceful goals has been shadowed by the most recent report from UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Years of US and UN sanctions haven't made Tehran change its policies. Why would it do so now?

In fact, some of the big Western banks have acceded to US demands to curb credits to Iran, hitting imports of products from refrigerators to children's toys. But Iranian importers have now turned to Chinese and smaller Western banks. What Iran is discovering is that it can deal somewhat successfully regardless.

What's more, Iran is a major regional power. By defeating its enemies, Saddam Hussein and the Afghan Taliban, the US – helped by Iran in both cases – has greatly strengthened this power.

By reopening a US diplomatic mission in Tehran, dropping sanctions except those involving military technology, and improving the old offers of Western and Russian IAEA-supervised peaceful nuclear technology, the US could help avert intensified tensions or an actual war.

The wisest path to peace would be to encourage rather than discourage Western investment in Iran's oil – natural gas and other (nonmilitary) industries – and engage immediately in direct, top-level dialogue with Iran's leaders.

We don't have to further back ourselves into a corner, from which neither the West nor Iran is able to come out without a fight.
Pressure is building on Iran. This week Europe agreed to new sanctions and President Bush again suggested something more serious – possible military strikes [ Hermit : Of course this is a breach of International Law and a Constitutional crime, but as the Bush unregime has repeatedly proven, nobody cares ] – if the Islamic Republic doesn't bend to the will of the international community on its nuclear program.

But increasingly military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways.

Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight.

Iran's response could also be global, analysts say, but the scale would depend on the scale of the US attack. "One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

"I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences," says Mr. Ranstorp, noting that Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by "plausible deniability" and have had global reach.

"If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region," says Ranstorp. "It's a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran."

Though the US military has since early 2007 accused [ Hermit : It is important to note that these accusations have been without evidence, and as we have seen, on those occassions when evidence was claimed, the US military occupation of Iraq has been seriously embarrassed. ] Iran's Qods Force – an elite element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – of providing anti-US militias in Iraq with lethal roadside bombs, and of training and backing "special groups" in actions that the US government alleges have cost "thousands" of lives, US commanders have played down Iran's military capabilities.

Even Admiral William Fallon, who publicly opposed a US strike on Iran before he resigned in April, dismissed Iran as a military threat. "Get serious," Adm. Fallon told Esquire in March. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them." [ Hermit : This ignores the fact that in recent war games, officers managing an Iranian response to an American attack (Ref Team) have repeatedly and highly embarrassingly defeated the American attackers (Blue Team) ] .

But that has not kept Iran from rhetorical chest-beating, with an active military manpower of 540,000 – the largest in the Middle East – dependent on some of the lowest per capita defense spending in the region. Iran "can deal fatal blows to aggressor America by unpredictable and creative tactical moves," the senior commander Brig. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid said in late May. "It is meaningless to back down before an enemy who has targeted the roots of our existence."

Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei also warned of far-reaching revenge in 2006. "The Americans should know that if they assault Iran, their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible," he said. "The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity."

Analysts say Iran has a number of tools to make good on those threats and take pride in taking on a more powerful enemy. "This is not something they are shying away from," says Alex Vatanka, a Middle East security analyst at Jane's Information Group in Washington.

"They say: 'Conventional warfare is not something we can win against the US, but we have other assets in the toolbox,' " says Mr. Vatanka, noting that the IRGC commander appointed last fall has been "marketed as this genius behind asymmetric warfare doctrine."

"What they are really worried about is the idea of massive aerial attacks on literally thousands of targets inside Iran," says Vatanka, also an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. "Their reading of America's intentions in that scenario would be twofold: One is to obviously dismantle as much as possible the nuclear program; and [the other], indirectly try to weaken the [Islamic] regime."

Any US-Iran conflict would push up oil prices, and though Iran could disrupt shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, its weak economy depends on oil revenues.

But nearby US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf provide a host of targets. Iran claimed last October that it could rain down 11,000 rockets upon "the enemy" within one minute of an attack and that rate "would continue."

Further afield, Israel is within range of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, and Hezbollah claims its rockets – enhanced and resupplied by Iran since the 2006 war to an estimated 30,000 – can now hit anywhere in the Jewish state, including its nuclear plant at Dimona.

Closer to home, Iran has honed a swarming tactic, in which small and lightly armed speedboats come at far larger warships from different directions. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated just such an attack and in it the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times last January.

"The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack," Lt. Gen. K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who commanded the swarming force, told the Times. "The whole thing was over in five, maybe 10 minutes."
[ Hermit : In addition, the US supply lines in Iraq are highly vulnerable to interception, and the US forces and ancillaries positioned in Iraq are likely to become hostages in the event of a strike unless they are first withdrawn. The use of missiles against oil infrastructure throughout the Middle East and possible use of bacteriological agents against oil supplies may also play a significant role in an Iranian response which would probably have a permanent effect on the Western ability to project power. Additional massive vulnerabilities exist throughout the world and the US itself to reprisal actions - particularly actions designed to inflict maximal economic damage. Should this nightmare scenario come to pass, it is possible that other players will act simultaneously, quite likely independently, to take advantage of the US's current inability to respond effectively.]

During the 1990s, Iranian agents were believed to be behind the assassinations of scores of regime opponents in Europe, and German prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for Iran's intelligence minister.

Iran and Hezbollah are alleged to have collaborated in the May 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in revenge for Israel's killing of a Hezbollah leader months before. Argentine prosecutors charge that they jointly struck again in 1994, bombing a Jewish community center in the Argentine capital that killed 85, one month after Israel attacked a Hezbollah base in Lebanon. [ Hermit : This has previously been examined here and the Argentinian claims do not appear to be credible. ]

With some 30,000 on the payroll by one count, Iranian intelligence "is a superpower in intelligence terms in the region; they have global reach because of their reconnaissance ability and quite sophisticated ways of inflicting pain," says Ranstorp. "They have been expanding their influence.… Who would have predicted that Argentina would be the area that Hezbollah and the Iranians collectively would respond?"

Past examples show that "Tehran recognizes that at times its interest are best served by restraint," says a report on consequences of a strike on Iran published this week by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

But Iran could target the US, too, depending on the magnitude of any US strike. "Iran's capacity for terror and subversion remains one of its most potent levers in the event of a confrontation with the United States," says the report, adding that "success" in delaying Iran's nuclear programs could backfire.

If "US and world opinion were so angered by the strikes that they refused to support further pressure against Iran's nuclear ambitions, then prevention could paradoxically [eventually ensure] Iran's open pursuit of nuclear weapons," concludes the report.

And the long list of unconventional tactics should not be taken for granted in Tehran, says Vatanka, noting that the Islamic system's top priority is survival.

"So the Iranians have to be careful," says Vatanka. "Just because the US doesn't have the will right now, or the ability to produce the kind of stick that they would fear, doesn't mean the way of confrontation is going to pay off for them in the long run." [ Hermit : Of course, energy independence is already a vulnerability and becoming worse. The impact of American pressure on Iran has convinced it that it must own the full fuel cycle or remain forever vulnerable. So in a sense, US tactics have now created the situation where the monitored and safeguarded Iranian nuclear programs are causing immense pressure on Iran. The next likely step will be for Iran to withdraw from the treaties and monitoring programs and by doing so, massively reduce their vulnerability to attack on known locations. ]
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #24 on: 2008-06-21 00:22:50 »
Reply with quote

Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Us?

Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Ray McGovern
Dated: 2008-06-20

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years – from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush.

Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe and pox – in the form of air and missile attacks – begin.

This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details.

Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:

"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."

Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and bluster?

A member of Olmert's delegation noted that same day that the two countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian threat."  So bring 'em on!

A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the U.S. or Israel?


You say you missed Olmert's account of what Bush has undertaken to do? So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges for including the quote in his article of June 8, "The Iran Trap."

We can perhaps be excused for missing Olmert's confident words about "Israel's best friend" that week. Your attention – like mine – may have been riveted on the June 5 release of the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding administration misrepresentations of pre-Iraq-war intelligence – the so-called "Phase II" investigation (also known, irreverently, as the "Waiting-for-Godot Study").

Better late than never, I suppose.

Oversight?

Yet I found myself thinking: It took them five years, and that is what passes for oversight? Yes, the president and vice president and their courtiers lied us into war. And now a bipartisan report could assert that fact formally; and committee chair Jay Rockefeller could sum it up succinctly:

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."


But as I listened to Senator Rockefeller, I had this sinking feeling that in five or six years time, those of us still around will be listening to a very similar post mortem looking back on an even more disastrous attack on Iran.

My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) issued repeated warnings, before the invasion of Iraq, about the warping of intelligence.  And our memoranda met considerable resonance in foreign media.

We could get no ink or airtime, however, in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) in the U.S. Nor can we now.

In a same-day critique of Colin Powell's unfortunate speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003, we warned the president to widen his circle of advisers "beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

It was a no-brainer for anyone who knew anything about intelligence, the Middle East, and the brown noses leading intelligence analysis at the CIA.

Former U.N. senior weapons inspector and former Marine major, Scott Ritter, and many others were saying the same thing. But none of us could get past the president's praetorian guard to drop a memo into his in-box, so to speak. Nor can we now.


The 'Iranian Threat'

However much the same warnings are called for now with respect to Iran, there is even less prospect that any contrarians could puncture and break through what former White House spokesman Scott McClellan calls the president's "bubble."

By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his huge staff continue to control the flow of information to the president.

But, you say, the president cannot be unaware of the far-reaching disaster an attack on Iran would bring?

Well, this is a president who admits he does not read newspapers, but rather depends on his staff to keep him informed. And the memos Cheney does brief to Bush pooh-pooh the dangers.

This time no one is saying we will be welcomed as liberators, since the planning does not include – officially, at least – any U.S. boots on the ground.

Besides, even on important issues like the price of gasoline, the performance of the president's staff has been spotty.

Think back on the White House press conference of Feb. 28, when Bush was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline.

"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?...That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."

A poll in January showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans were expecting $4-a-gallon gas. That forecast was widely reported in late February, and discussed by the White House press secretary at the media briefing the day before the president's press conference.

Here's the alarming thing: Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are ill-prepared.

The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball game between St. Helena's High School and Mount St. Ursula.

Cheney's Brainchild

Attacking Iran is Vice President Dick Cheney's brainchild, if that is the correct word.

Cheney proposed launching air strikes last summer on Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who insisted that would be unwise, according to J. Scott Carpenter, a senior State Department official at the time.

Chastened by the unending debacle in Iraq, this time around Pentagon officials reportedly are insisting on a "policy decision" regarding "what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks," according to Carpenter.

Serious concerns include the vulnerability of the critical U.S. supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad, our inability to reinforce and the eventual possibility that the U.S. might be forced into a choice between ignominious retreat and using, or threatening to use, "mini-nukes."

Pentagon opposition was confirmed in a July 2007 commentary by former Bush adviser Michael Gerson, who noted the "fear of the military leadership" that Iran would have "escalation dominance" in any conflict with the U.S.

Writing in the Washington Post last July, Gerson indicated that "escalation dominance" means, "in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs."

The Joint Chiefs also have opposed the option of attacking Iran's nuclear sites, according to former Iran specialist at the National Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has close ties with senior Pentagon officials.

Mann confirmed that Adm. William Fallon joined the Joint Chiefs in strongly opposing such an attack, adding that he made his opposition known to the White House, as well.

The outspoken Fallon was forced to resign in March, and will be replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus – apparently in September. Petraeus has already demonstrated his penchant to circumvent the chain of command in order to do Cheney's bidding (by making false claims about Iranian weaponry in Iraq, for example).

In sum, a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall.


Controlled Media

The experience of those of us whose job it was to analyze the controlled media of the Soviet Union and China for insights into Russian and Chinese intentions have been able to put that experience to good use in monitoring our own controlled media as they parrot the party line.

Suffice it to say that the FCM is already well embarked, a la Iraq, on its accustomed mission to provide stenographic services for the White House to indoctrinate Americans on the "threat" from Iran and prepare them for the planned air and missile attacks.[/b]


At least this time we are spared the "mushroom cloud" bugaboo. Neither Bush nor Cheney wish to call attention, even indirectly, to the fact that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last November that Iran had stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 and had not resumed it as of last year.

In a pre-FCM age, it would have been looked on as inopportune, at the least, to manufacture intelligence to justify another war hard on the heels of a congressional report that on Iraq the administration made significant claims not supported by the intelligence.

But (surprise, surprise!) the very damning Senate Intelligence Committee report got meager exposure in the media.

So far it has been a handful of senior military officers that have kept us from war with Iran. It hardly suffices to give them vocal encouragement, or to warn them that the post WW-II Nuremberg Tribunal ruled explicitly that "just-following-orders" is no defense when war crimes are involved.

And still less when the "supreme international crime" – a war of aggression is involved.

Senior officers trying to slow the juggernaut lumbering along toward an attack on Iran have been scandalized watching what can only be described as unconscionable dereliction of duty in the House of Representatives, which the Constitution charges with the duty of impeaching a president, vice president or other senior official charged with high crimes and misdemeanors.

Where Are You, Conyers?

In 2005, before John Conyers became chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, he introduced a bill to explore impeaching the president and was asked by Lewis Lapham of Harpers why he was for impeachment then. He replied:

"To take away the excuse that we didn't know. So that two, or four, or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, 'Where were you, Conyers, and where was the U.S. Congress?' when the Bush administration declared the Constitution inoperative...none of the company here present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity [or] say that 'somehow it escaped our notice.'"

In the three years since then, the train of abuses and usurpations has gotten longer and Conyers has become chair of the committee. Yet he has dawdled and dawdled, and has shown no appetite for impeachment.

On July 23, 2007, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, and me that he would need 218 votes in the House and they were not there.

A week ago, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers' committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment proposed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who sat on Judiciary with Conyers when it voted out three articles of impeachment on President Richard Nixon, spoke out immediately: "The House should commence an impeachment inquiry forthwith."

Much of the work has been done. As Holtzman noted, Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment, together with the Senate report that on Iraq we were led to war based on false pretenses – arguably the most serious charge – go a long way toward jump-starting any additional investigative work Congress needs to do.

And seldom mentioned is the voluminous book published by Conyers himself, "Constitution in Crisis," containing a wealth of relevant detail on the crimes of the current executive.

Conyers' complaint that there is not enough time is a dog that won't hunt, as Lyndon Johnson would say.

How can Conyers say this one day, and on the next say that if Bush attacks Iran, well then, the House may move toward impeachment.

Afraid of the media?

During the meeting last July with Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Yearwood and me, and during an interview in December on "Democracy Now," Conyers was surprisingly candid in expressing his fear of Fox News and how it could paint Democrats as divisive if they pursued impeachment.

Ironically, this time it is Fox and the rest of the FCM that is afraid – witness their virtual silence on Kucinich's very damning 35 Articles of Impeachment.

The only way to encourage constructive media attention would be for Conyers to act.  The FCM could be expected to fulminate against that, but they could not afford to ignore impeachment, as they are able to ignore other unpleasant things – like preparations for another "war of choice."

I would argue that perhaps the most effective way to prevent air and missile attacks on Iran and a wider Middle East war is to proceed as Elizabeth Holtzman urges – with impeachment "forthwith."

Does Conyers not owe at least that much encouragement to those courageous officers who have stood up to Cheney in trying to prevent wider war and catastrophe in the Middle East?

Scott McClellan has been quite clear in reminding us that once the president decided to invade Iraq, he was not going to let anything stop him. There is ample evidence that Bush has taken a similar decision with respect to Iran – with Olmert as his chief counsel, no less.

It is getting late, but this is due largely to Conyers' own dithering. Now, to his credit, Dennis Kucinich has forced the issue with 35 well-drafted Articles of Impeachment.

What the country needs is the young John Conyers back. Not the one now surrounded by fancy lawyers and henpecked by the lady of the House.

In October 1974, after he and the even younger Elizabeth Holtzman faced up to their duty on House Judiciary and voted out three Articles of Impeachment on President Richard Nixon, Conyers wrote this:

"This inquiry was forced on us by an accumulation of disclosures which, finally and after unnecessary delays, could no longer be ignored...Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to do what must be done is the price of remaining free."

Someone needs to ask John Conyers if he still believes that; and, if he does, he must summon the courage to "do what must be done."
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Salamantis
Neophyte
*****

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00



I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #25 on: 2008-06-21 09:38:02 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #26 on: 2008-06-26 11:12:03 »
Reply with quote

The myth of 'weapons-grade' enrichment

[ Hermit : Again we see media outside the USA enunciating well researched and nuanced articles while our own lazy sycophants propagate the Zionist Military-Industrial line. Perhaps no real surprise considering who owns the media. But given their widely publicized role in leading the US to the illegal attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, one would think that people would be smarter as they repeat the same program against the next target. What is more disgusting is that Asia Times is able to find a competent researcher capable of writing a credible article on this subject, while US Senators and Congressmen appear unable or unwilling to find competent advisors or even people with a high school physics education and so blindly follow the  Zionist line leading to "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" even though the claims about Iran's nuclear program requires the suspension of the laws of physics and rejection of rationality.  The fact that our leaders probably think that control over Iran's oil would be nice doesn't help. I think that this points strongly to the fact that evil does not really require intent. Banality, laziness, ignorance, stupidity, delusion, greed and cupidity - possessed by many Americans and their leaders in abundance - will do just fine. ]

Source: Asia Times
Authors: Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Dated: 2008-06-24

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.

Talk about the double standards at the United Nations. Whereas UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly condemned Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric against Israel, expressing "shock and dismay", he has remained ominously, and inexcusably, silent about the blatant Israeli threats of military attacks on Iran, thus undermining the world's confidence in his ability to steer the global community clear of yet another major war in the Middle East caldron.

Having turned a blind eye to Iran's formal protest at the UN regarding Israel's explicit threats, Ban may need to revisit his own statement of June 7, 2007, "The secretary general points out that all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

In light of new media disclosures about Israel's advanced plans to launch a major air offensive against Iran's nuclear installations, bound to inflict serious civilian casualties and trigger the volatile region into a "fireball", to paraphrase the reaction of the head of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammad ElBaradei, who has stated categorically that he would resign immediately if Iran is attacked, Ban is borderline on the verge of skirting his official obligation by refusing to issue a stern statement on this serious matter of war and peace.


ElBaradei's comments followed confirmation by sources at the Pentagon and other US government agencies that Israel recently carried out a full rehearsal of an air assault on Iran's nuclear sites.

Should Israel deliver on its stated threats and drop its bombs on Iran, thus triggering a major conflict in the Middle East, with dangerous and unanticipated consequences, then the UN will be widely regarded a key casualty of this crisis, and would be blamed for failing in prudent crisis-management.

Unfortunately, compounding the UN's shortcoming above-cited is a related failure of mainstream media in the US and Europe to criticize Ban's flawed approach to the Iran crisis, or to address the systematic disinformation and planned paranoia about Iran's nuclear program put forth by Israel and its allies.

Instead, the US media in particular have allowed themselves to become an unwitting accomplice of Israel's anti-Iran propaganda machine, dutifully recycling the line that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, has amassed "weapons-grade" enriched uranium, and is thus on the verge of arriving at "the point of no return" with respect to bomb-making.

In a word, the race to dupe public opinion about a "clear and present danger" posed by Iran's nuclear program, to justify Israel's threatened attack (with the US's tacit approval) is in full gear and the US media are by and large about to receive another "F" card, just as they did with the US's 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the "pluralistic" media became a shell of itself by blindly echoing the White House's spin about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


Indeed, it is remarkable how little the US media have learned, or evolved, since then and how frozen their will is when it comes to their sedimented inability to criticize the state of Israel, recalling the criticisms of US editorials by former president Jimmy Carter in his book, Worse than Apartheid. In fact, the rather uniform, uncritical and conformist behavior of the US media shows that they are worse than Israel's own media, they occasionally display signs of independence from the government on foreign policy matters. [ Hermit : Which is why I generally prefer Ha'Aretz, Y'not and even the unabashedly Zionist Jerusalem Post as news sources over the Washington Post or New York Times ] .

It is not 'unsupervised' or 'weapons-grade'

From the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to the Boston Globe, the Dallas News and so on, a common thread running through their editorials and opinion pages nowadays is a fundamental distortion of facts about Iran's nuclear program that has gone unnoticed despite the patently obvious and flagrant nature of this distortion.

With leading nuclear experts [ Hermit : This should perhaps have been in quotation marks to indicate extreme skepticism ] , media pundits and members of the US Congress recycling it, this serious distortion has now acquired the status of a truism about Iran, and a dangerous one that lends itself to an unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel and or the US.

But, no matter what the influential position of their signatories, the narratives in the US media that persist in their claim that Iran has manufactured "weapons-grade" enriched uranium simply cannot stand the weight of scrutiny and are refuted by the IAEA's findings to the contrary. These narratives routinely refer to the IAEA's reports on Iran, yet turn a blind eye to those reports' explicit references to Iran's "low-enriched uranium" (up to 4%).

To give a few examples, Graham Allison, a leading US nuclear expert at Harvard University, recently penned an article in the Boston Globe [1] stating: "Iran is operating 3,492 centrifuges in a cascade that has produced 500 pounds of low-enriched uranium. This is one-third of what is required for Iran's first nuclear bomb."

Similarly, in an article in The Wall Street Journal, US Congresswoman Jane Harman, who chairs the powerful Homeland Security Intelligence Committee, cites Iran's steady progress in installing new centrifuges and the dangers posed by "unsupervised, weapons-grade material" in Tehran's hands. [2]

Never mind that IAEA reports clearly confirm that all of Iran's enrichment-related facilities are under the agency's "containment and monitoring", or that IAEA inspectors have had nine "unannounced visits" at the enrichment facility in Natanz since March 2007.

Thus, for instance, in a front-page article in the New York Times, [3] dated June 20, Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt break the sensational news about Israel's extensive maneuvers in preparation for an attack on Iran, indirectly rationalizing Israel's belligerency by omitting any mention of the IAEA's latest report confirming the absence of any evidence of military nuclear diversion and, instead, confining themselves to the following comment: "In late May, the IAEA reported that Iran's suspected work on nuclear matters was a 'matter of serious concern' and that the Iranians owed the agency 'substantial explanation'."

What ought to have been added was that the same IAEA report states unequivocally that it had received "no credible information" regarding the alleged "weaponization studies", nor has the agency detected any nuclear activity connected to those alleged studies. Besides, the same IAEA report more than a dozen times stresses the evidence of peacefulness of Iran's nuclear program.


Yet none of this seem meritorious of attention of even veteran New York Times reporter Michael Gordon, better known for his association with discredited reporter Judith Miller, who loyally dished out Israel's disinformation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the newspaper's global readership in 2002-2003. Yet Gordon is now emboldened to lend his penmanship to Israel's warmongering against Iran, through narrow, selective attention to IAEA reports and distorting the atomic agency's findings.

To turn to another example of flawed coverage of Iran by the US media, a recent editorial in the Dallas News [4] states categorically that the IAEA "has recently accused Iran of developing its program of enriching uranium". The editors appear unaware that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory, does not prohibit Iran's uranium-enrichment program.

The IAEA has never declared Iran in material breach of its obligations and, certainly, has never "accused" Iran of pursuing a program sanctioned under the NPT
. Rather, the governing board of the IAEA has simply requested from Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear program as a "confidence-building measure", that is, as a time-bound and thus temporary "legally non-binding" step.

Yet, by dispensing with such important nuances and critical distinctions between low-enriched uranium and "weapons-grade" uranium, a growing segment of the US media has now fully integrated itself in Israel's incessant anti-Iran campaign, aimed at exerting maximum pressure, even if that means twisting the facts and standing them on their head.


Israel's 60-year history is replete with examples of its leaders misguiding the public with their threats, such as when they painted Egyptian leader Gemal Abdul Nasser as a "Hitler of the Middle East", when, in retrospect, the historical record has established the carefully-orchestrated media campaign to justify Israel's pre-emptive strike at Egypt (and other Arab states) in June 1967.

History often repeats itself and today Israel is reportedly poised to take on Iran, despite the absence of any "smoking gun" and the fact that neither Israel nor the US has "proved that Iran's nuclear program is military", to paraphrase Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. One would think that after the Iraq fiasco, the bar for instigating warfare in the Middle East would be set relatively higher. Yet the exact opposite seems to be the case now, with the lame-duck President George W Bush, who upped the ante against Iran in his recent European tour, reportedly tilting in favor of the "wild card" in a military scenario with Iran, ie, Israel.

Concerning the latter, although US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has signed a letter from the "Iran Six" countries to Iran, accompanying with an incentive package, pledging to respect Iran's sovereignty, Rice's hawkish colleagues in the Bush administration apparently have a different scenario in mind. (The "Iran Six" includes the United States, France, China, Russia, England and Germany.)

Thus, Mike McConnell, the US national intelligence director, told the right-wing Fox TV last Sunday that Iran was a year or two from developing its first nuclear bombs. McConnell's alarmist estimate on Iran is clearly at odds with the US's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, released late last year, that confirmed that Iran's nuclear program was, and had been since 2003, peaceful.

McConnell's own deputy, Donald M Kerr, has repeatedly defended the NIE report before the US Congress, stating that the US intelligence community does not plan to "revise" it.

Various pundits, such as former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, have criticized the NIE report for failing to refer to Iran's enrichment program as an evidence of weaponization. (See Kissinger's foggy lens on Iran Asia Times Online, December 18, 2007.) Yet, Kissinger and others critical of the NIE report overlook that as long as there is no evidence of Iranian enrichment above the "low-grade" that is qualitatively and technically different from "high-enriched" or "weapons-grade" enrichment, no one can accuse Iran of engaging in proliferation by simply pursuing a legal nuclear activity.

To return to Allison's piece above-mentioned, it is factually incorrect to assume that Iran's low-enriched uranium is "one-third" what is required for a nuclear bomb. First, only through extensive and a painstakingly difficult technological process of re-processing and re-enriching uranium to substantially higher levels (90% or more), can Iran's enriched uranium be utilized for manufacturing bombs.

Second, with the IAEA's robust inspection of Iran's enrichment facilities, any such diversion to "weapons-grade" enrichment would be instantly detected, simply because significant modifications, re-assembling and re-configuration of the cascades of centrifuges would be necessary and that could not possibly evade the IAEA's watchful eyes.

Yet, all of this is ignored, with the tacit suggestion that Iran's program is "unsupervised" when, in fact, it is one of the most exhaustively inspected and supervised nuclear programs in the world, in light of some 3,500 hours of inspection of its facilities since 2003.


In conclusion, misperceptions of Iran's nuclear activities form an important prerequisite for a major military offensive against the country. This is the concern as long as those misperceptions are propagated.

Notes
1. Sitting down at the nuclear table with Iran June 7, 2008.
2. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Is Obsolete June 20, 2008. Curiously, Harman in her diagnosis of NPT's obsoleteness does not even bother mentioning Israel's clandestine nuclear proliferation and the need to do something about it to further the cause of Middle East non-proliferation.
3. US Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran June 20, 2008.
4. US, Europe united toward Iran June 16, 2008.
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Salamantis
Neophyte
*****

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00



I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #27 on: 2008-06-26 13:37:39 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #28 on: 2008-06-26 13:50:27 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Attacking Iran would be a blunder of epic proportions. A nuclear Iran? So what? I think that everybody should just get over it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20164.htm

The Coming Catastrophe?

The finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iran

By David DeBatto

24/06/08 -- - Global Research Editor's note

We bring to the attention of our readers David DeBatto's scenario as to what might occur if one of the several contingency plans to attack Iran, with the participation of Israel and NATO, were to be carried out. While one may disagree with certain elements of detail of the author's text, the thrust of this analysis must be taken seriously.
"Israel has said a strike on Iran will be "unavoidable" if the Islamic regime continues to press ahead with alleged plans for building an atom-bomb." (London Daily Telegraph, 6/11/2008)
"Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany joined President Bush on Wednesday in calling for further sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program." Mr. Bush stressed again that "all options are on the table," which would include military force. (New York Times, 6/11/2008)

We are fast approaching the final six months of the Bush administration. The quagmire in Iraq is in its sixth painful year with no real end in sight and the forgotten war in Afghanistan is well into its seventh year. The "dead enders" and other armed factions are still alive and well in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan again controls most of that country. Gas prices have now reached an average of $4.00 a gallon nationally and several analysts predict the price will rise to $5.00-$6.00 dollars per gallon at the pump by Labor Day. This, despite assurances by some major supporters of the decision to invade Iraq that the Iraq war "will pay for itself" (Paul Wolfowitz) or that we will see "$20.00 per barrel" oil prices if we invade Iraq (Rupert Murdoch).

One thing the Pentagon routinely does (and does very well) is conduct war games. Top brass there are constantly developing strategies for conducting any number of theoretical missions based on real or perceived threats to our national security or vital interests. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq, but the Bush administration chose not to listen to the dire warnings about that mission given to him by Pentagon leaders, or for that matter, by his own senior intelligence officials. Nevertheless, war gaming is in full swing again right now with the bullseye just to the right of our current mess – Iran.

It’s no secret that the U.S. is currently putting the finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iranian nuclear and military facilities. With our ground forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of the most likely scenarios involve a ground invasion. Not that this administration wouldn’t prefer to march into the seat of Shiite Islam behind a solid, moving line of M1 Abrams tanks and proclaim the country for democracy. The fact is that even the President knows we can’t pull that off any more so he and the neo-cons will have to settle for Shock and Awe Lite.

If we invade Iran this year it will be done using hundreds of sorties by carrier based aircraft already stationed in the Persian Gulf and from land based aircraft located in Iraq and Qatar. They will strike the known nuclear facilities located in and around Tehran and the rest of the country as well as bases containing major units of the Iranian military, anti-aircraft installations and units of the Revolutionary Guard (a separate and potent Iranian para-military organization).

Will this military action stop Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons? Probably not. It will probably not even destroy all of their nuclear research facilities, the most sensitive of which are known to be underground, protected by tons of earth and reinforced concrete and steel designed to survive almost all attacks using conventional munitions. The Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard will most likely survive as well, although they will suffer significant casualties and major bases and command centers will undoubtedly be destroyed. However, since Iran has both a functioning Air Force, Navy (including submarines) and modern anti-aircraft capabilities, U.S. fighter-bombers will suffer casualties as well. This will not be a "Cake Walk" as with the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the Iraqi Army simply melted away and the Iraqi Air Force never even launched a single aircraft.

Not even close.

If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War II.

That’s just the opening act.

Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated and large scale effort. Widespread and grisly casualties effectively paralyze the nation, a notion once thought impossible. Iran’s newest ally in the region, Syria, then unleashes a barrage of over 200 Scud B, C and D missiles at Israel, each armed with VX gas. Since all of Israel is within range of these Russian built weapons, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and virtually all major civilian centers and several military bases are struck, often with a result of massive casualties.

The Israeli Air Force orders all three squadrons of their F-16I Sufa fighter/bombers into the air with orders to bomb Tehran and as many military and nuclear bases as they can before they are either shot down or run out of fuel. It is a one way trip for some of these pilots. Their ancient homeland lies in ruins. Many have family that is already dead or dying. They do not wait for permission from Washington, DC or U.S. regional military commanders. The Israeli aircraft are carrying the majority of their country’s nuclear arsenal under their wings.

Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties.

The day after the invasion Wall Street (and to a lesser extent, Tokyo, London and Frankfurt) acts as it always does in an international crisis – irrational speculative and spot buying reaches fever pitch and sends the cost of oil skyrocketing. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iran, the price of oil goes to $200.00 - $300.00 dollars a barrel on the open market. If the war is not resolved in a few weeks, that price could rise even higher.  This will send the price of gasoline at the pump in this country to $8.00-$10.00 per gallon immediately and subsequently to even higher unthinkable levels.

If that happens, this country shuts down. Most Americans are not be able to afford gas to go to work. Truckers pull their big rigs to the side of the road and simply walk away. Food, medicine and other critical products are not be brought to stores. Gas and electricity (what is left of the short supply) are too expensive for most people to afford. Children, the sick and elderly die from lack of air-conditioned homes and hospitals in the summer. Children, the sick and elderly die in the winter for lack of heat. There are food riots across the country. A barter system takes the place of currency and credit as the economy dissolves and banks close or limit withdrawals. Civil unrest builds.

The police are unable to contain the violence and are themselves victims of the same crisis as the rest of the population. Civilian rule dissolves and Martial Law is declared under provisions approved under the Patriot Act. Regular U.S. Army and Marine troops patrol the streets. The federal government apparatus is moved to an unknown but secure location. The United States descends into chaos and becomes a third world country. Its time as the lone superpower is over.

It doesn’t get any worse than this.

Then the first Israeli bomber drops its nuclear payload on Tehran.

David DeBatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, Iraqi war veteran and co-author the "CI" series from Warner Books and the upcoming "Counter to Intelligence" from Praeger Security International.

© Copyright David DeBatto, Global Research, 2008

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

  Comments (183) Comment (0)


Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #29 on: 2008-06-26 22:30:52 »
Reply with quote

Note that Israeli F16s don't have the range to attack Iran without refueling - and I would be very reluctant to be in flight in a refueling tanker - or on an AWACS platform - while an attack against Iran was in progress. Unlike Iraq or even Czechoslovakia, Iran has a very competent multilayered air defense system. Which means that for Israeli F16s an attack on Iran would be a one way trip - and they would still need a refueling on the way in.

The long-range F15s kindly supplied to Israel by the US do have the needed range, but Israel does not have many of them, which will seriously curtail any potential response on Iran outside of submarine launched nuclear missiles. And it should not be forgotten that Iran now has some submarines of its own.

My expectation is that any use of nuclear weapons (already determined by the International Court to be a war crime) against Iran will result in a "justified" response using biochemical weapons on Israel, but that first use of proscribed weapons will be by Israel, the US or both. This might be deliberately stimulated by Iraq tickling the dragon's tails for propaganda purposes.

Strategically speaking, if the USA and, or Israel attack Iran, then Iran would have to respond with a carefully balanced response intended to push either and or both into a process of pricey escalation without inviting the total destruction of Iran - which either could do using nuclear weapons. The huge advantage held by Iran is that Israel cannot "win" any kind of war against it. The demographics are against Israel; five million Jews, no matter how well equipped, couldn't dominate 10 million Palestinians and 80 million Iranians for very long. Especially with Egypt, Syria and the Lebanon exploding into violent insurgencies around her. While the USA might be able to inflict an initial defeat on Iran, the initial cost would also likely destroy the USA and if it didn't, any attempt to manage Iran as a defeated state while continuing to attempt to fend off ongoing attacks by outraged Muslims as the price of energy continues to soar definitely would. And very soon, the huge population of the Middle East is going to need water from nuclear reactors to keep it going until we get space solar working - or vast numbers of people are going to die. Which will cause a collapse of oil supplies anyway - which will utterly demolish the US. I think Iran realizes this. The military in the US recognizes this too, but the politicians are too much enthralled to Israel and in to deep a denial to have grasped it yet.

The primary way for Iran to achieve a US withdrawal, which will be equivalent to a stunning defeat for the US, while still allowing the US to sustain its pride by claiming a victory (necessary to force withdrawal), will be through economic pressure; with a strong element of Iran attempting to prove to the West that we are not immune from nasty consequences for our brutality and simultaneously triggering massive guilt for the way we are fighting. This is far from difficult. Remember that the Iranians, some of the smartest people on earth have been able to inspect our behavior and develop responses for at least 30 years. When the response comes, it will likely not be in easily thwarted forms and might not even be immediately recognizable as being Iran at work. If I read the Iranians correctly, and I think I do, each time we attack, we will discover that the structure has been established such that we are forced to kill large numbers of "innocents" and, or, will make oil more scarce. So each attack will in fact serve to stimulate opposition within our own ranks and in the Islamic sphere. We will effectively be fighting for Iran.

The absolute worst case for Iran is that they might lose some major cities and some leaders and perhaps be occupied for a short while. Should the latter happen, I suspect that they have plans in place to effectively deny access to their oil in the short term or even in the long term. However, they know that they will recover once the US goes home bled to death by a million cuts as is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, only worse. How much worse will depend on the cost of oil and the value - if any - of the dollar. Oil is, according to OPEC, expected to rise to $170/barrel before labor day even without an attack on Iran. So $200/barrel is way below the likely price were the gulf closed. Which a war such as described above would inevitably do. I think my prior estimates of $500/barrel are conservative, as recent history has shown that a 1% increase in demand implies a 20% increase in the per barrel price. The Middle East currently provides some 30% of global oil while South America and Africa provide about 20%. As I consider it likely that Venezuela will respond to an attack on Iran by cutting output and directing it away from the US, while a small amount of intervention in West Africa by Iran and friends could have a massive social impact, dramatically reducing African oil supplies in the short, medium and even long term. The effective result is likely to be a devastating spike in the cost of oil, followed by eventual stabilization at effective prices some three to five times higher than present. The fact that the US reserves have been converted from light oils of the Brent class to heavy Saudi and Venezuelan tars under Bush tells us that the availability of oil in the US will drop even as the price soars and the impact of the increase will be far more severe in the US than in most of the rest of the world.

I think that outside of the article - which strikes me as having been written by somebody a long way outside of current military thinking and not very imaginative, Iran might try:
    Ground based assaults against the US supply lines in Iraq, potentially harvesting some 160,000 soldiers and the same again or more in US contractors who would have no choice but to surrender in short order if their supply routes were cut, particularly given a massive increase in local attacks against US personnel and materiel in Iraq by our erstwhile Shiite allies there - potentially teamed up with the Sunni - as with the US being thrown out, the Sunni might well perceive themselves as having a strong chance of improving their share of the pie.

    It is important to recognize that large scale thermobaric devices have a PoK and kill radius similar to tactical nuclear devices. In my opinion the use of missile borne thermobaric weapons ("legalized" by US and British use of these weapons) against Israeli facilities, US military camps, green zone targets in Iraq as well as against bases, oil installations and infrastructure in US allies throughout the Middle East - including Egypt, with probable massive loss of tactical assets and personnel, is the main reason why Iran does not regard nuclear weapons as necessary.

    Massive "human wave" attacks against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (as used successfully by Iran against Iraq in the first Gulf War). Whether they succeed militarily - which they well might - or fail, the "heroism" and sheer volume of death required to stop them will inspire uprisings throughout the Middle East.

    Some ground based insertion attacks, with the intention of taking hostages, particularly in Israel and the US, would be expected.

    Prepositioned smart torpedo clusters or smart mines either of which will operate on signatures harvested due to the US hubris in deploying significant assets in the Persian Gulf and which will independently attack significant assets - e.g. carrier fleets - on detection of the signatures after a cessation of "no attack" commands.

    The use of supersonic shore-to-ship missiles and swarm attacks to overwhelm Aegis equipped flotillas and having overwhelmed them, sink them or at least render them valueless. No matter how large they are, not even American carriers are invulnerable to ongoing barrages of high explosives and thermobaric weapons. The US Navy thinks that any ships in littoral waters have only a limited possibility of survival in current generation warfare. The Gulf is effectively not only littoral, but access is controlled by Iran While Iran's well camouflaged and hardened ground based missile batteries dominate it.

    Outside of spring, storms will effectively guarantee Iran sufficient manoevering periods free of satellite or RPV observation to neutralize US/Israeli space asset and theater observation dominance.

    I suspect that Iran must have developed some strategy against US stealth helicopters, possibly optical detection combined with hand held optical tracking or laser designator missiles with "cable spool" or flechette terminal phases, to neutralize the advantage these provided the US during previous attacks on Iranian assets. Iran would not be nearly as confident as they seem to be were this not the case.

    The use of oeliophilic bacteria and archaea to methanate and clot the oil fields of others; the use of sabotage crews to destroy pipelines throughout the Middle East and perhaps even in Europe; the use of chemicals to destroy refineries and electrical generation capacity (legitimized by US use of the same in the Balkans); the use of thermobaric devices and sabotage to destroy above ground infrastructure, all will combine to push the price of oil into the $500/barrel range on a permanent basis, with a "drag on" effect doing horrible things to the cost of coal, gas, fertilizer and food.

    Possible use of prepositioned human assets and munitions in the US and Europe to cause chaos beyond that which oil prices will create, likely through attacking infrastructure to cause further economic harm without massive loss of life.


Finally, while the scenarios above play their course, the US' bankers, particularly the Chinese, who also need Mideast oil, are going to go crazy. As, I think, will many other hotspots, if only because it is obvious that if the US becomes embroiled in another Middle East war, it is not going to be able to act in the Republic of China (Taiwan), in Korea, in the Kashmir, in the ex-soviet Central Asian republics (which will likely go the way of Chechnya), in Georgia, in the Baltics, or even in the Levant. This is, after all, not dissimilar from how previous major wars arose. Even if this nightmare scenario does not come to pass, and I put the odds as better than even that some of it will, the pressure applied on us will be immediate and probably irresistible. If you think the dollar is in freefall now, wait till the effects of this sort of insanity become visible.

Meanwhile Iran is sitting on bullion. A lot of bullion. While US allies hold our scrip which is not going to be worth a whole lot no matter how such a scenario ends. If friendship can be bought then Iran is likely to end up with far more friends than the US. And Israel is likely to vanish entirely. Which might be the only positive thing to come out of this disaster. It would still in my opinion be a case of too little too late to justify it.

Kind Regards

Hermit

Copyright Hermit 2008.  License: Creative Commons - Attribution: Hermit - http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs, Non-commercial, Share-alike.
« Last Edit: 2008-06-26 23:30:10 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed