Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:32 am Post subject: Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
By Muhammad Cohen, Asia Times
NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.
An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration's declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that "all options remain on the table".
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders' minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as "Bomb Iran". Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised "total obliteration" for Iran if it attacked Israel.
The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain's Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter's pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.
But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as "the Great Satan" for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.
The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.
Sense in the senate
Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Senate offices were closed for the US Memorial Day holiday, so Feinstein and Lugar were not available for comment.
Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration's plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.
The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?
Iran's options
Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel's Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.
Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.
Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.
China is Iran's biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China's reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.
Three for the money
The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.
A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it's difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.
At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.
On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.
But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.
Former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen told America's story to the world as a US diplomat and is author of Hong Kong On Air (www.hongkongonair.com), a novel set during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, high finance and cheap lingerie.
Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
By Muhammad Cohen
NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently........ _________________
Orthodox Jews Against Zionism!
Hitlary Mcinsane & D'ohbama are either fear mongering with lies about Iran to get the odd vote, or they're Zionists purposefully trying to lead us into WWIII. To bring in The New World Order.
The three Stooges support AIPAC AND CUFI
Christians United for Israel, an evangelical organization that believes supporting expansionist policies of the Israeli government is "a biblical imperative."
Zionists Christians who avow support of Israel based on a belief in Biblical end-times scenarios cant wait for World War Three. As they will be Raptured. MADNESS.
Pastor John Hagee spearheads Christians United for Israel
CUFI aims to set up working groups in all 50 states, lobby Congress and become a Christian AIPAC. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, played a key role in fomenting support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is playing an even greater role in supporting a future military strike against the people of Iran. AIPAC describes itself as the most important organization affecting the U.S. relationship with Israel. With a budget of $65 million, and membership now standing at over 100,000, it is no wonder that congressional staffers consider it one of the most powerful and effective lobbies on Capitol Hill
Iran mosque blast plotters admit Israeli, US links
Orthodox Jews Against Zionism and the State of Israel videos.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:55 am Post subject:
The Asia Times is edited and printed outside the controlled propaganda zone of the NATO countries.
See this for example
Quote:
How to lose the 'war on terror'
Apart from Israel, there are five political movements and governments in the Middle East of undeniable importance: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The governments of the West don't talk to any of them, being unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between legitimate Islamist political groups and terrorists. The result is fatal ignorance about the realities of the Middle East, and policies that drive Muslim moderates into the arms of the radicals. Here is what Hamas and Hezbollah have to say...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/howtolose.html
Today, the real English language news, in Asia
Quote:
Now it's a blockade against Iran
The call this week in a US media report for the George W Bush administration to drop its diplomatic efforts to get Tehran to freeze its uranium-enrichment program and instead mount a "month-long naval blockade of Iran's imports of refined gasoline" is as much a threat to Iran as it is to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice......
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE30Ak02.html
Quote:
A giant backward step on Iran
The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on Iran - like previous ones - gives no evidence of safeguard breaches by Tehran in its nuclear program, that is, there is no move towards it making nuclear weapons. Yet the uncharacteristic - and sudden - negative tone of the report has played right into the hands of those who thirst in their desire to accuse Iran of nuclear proliferation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE30Ak01.html
As this appears to be war drums rather than scabre rattling, what will be the consequences of this strike?
The Iranians may quite rightly decide that the US is doing this as a favour to Israel (particularly after Bush's promise to the Knesset a couple of weeks ago) and see an attack by the US as an attack by Israel.
Crazy as it may sound there is a military psyop impetus being channelled through so-called 'Christian Zionists' in the US and Jewish Zionists in Israel to start an Unholy Luciferian War against Islam and against the Islamic republic in particular.
Revenge attack for the 1979 Iranian Revolution, dressed up as 'God's Will'.
I have a feeling that China and Russia will step in to support Iran.
China now has more dollars than anyone else and quite literally owns America. They may decide to dump the dollar and cause the US more pain than anything the USA and Israel will do in retaliation.
Sharon Stone said that the China earthquake was Karma. This has angered China considerably.
Dont forget China sponsored Bill Clinton and have also sponsored Hilary. They were rewarded with 'most favoured nation' trading status.
The Shanghai treaty countries have huge resources which dwarf the USA.
The mistake the Shah made was not to allign Iran with anyone else either NATO or the Soviet Bloc. Ahmadinejhad has not made the same mistake and Iran has signed defence treaties with many countries including Venezuela.
This is why the US is prefering to plant a few bombs rather than a full scale invasion because they really cant predict what they will get in response.
If Iran is attacked it will be World War 3 _________________
Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 475 Location: North London
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: Oil price
There has been a total denial by aides of the Senators. The denial suggests there was no briefing at all to these Senators. The denial wasn't that they misunderstood the briefing. So, they made it up - NOT. The total denial is proof that it is true. The denial comes about because, at least officially, the Senators had promised they wouldn't say anything.
I don't think the prime reason for the attack is WWIII. The attack plan isn't about bombing nuclear facilities but bombing the revolutionary guard on the basis that they are attacking US troops in Iraq. There will be a big move to stop this escalating. Indeed, the attack may spark a move to impeach Bush.
So, the objective is to use the attack as an excuse to keep oil prices high.
PS I think Obama would come out against war against Iran. So, indeed, he may get bumped off.
The whole thing about this story for me anyway, is it just highlights the police state world we live in. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent. For example:
The US regularly uses gunships in Somalia, wiping out villages but it's OK as they are branded insurgents. Guilty!
In Afghanistan, Britain and the US launch attacks on villages and kill women and children. That too is OK as they killed three or four Taliban. As for the children. Too bad. Guilty
In the Gaza Strip, Israel regularly uses missiles in residential areas to kill 'Hamas guerillas'. I thought they were the democratically elected majority, but hey ho. So we killed a few kids. They got the guy they wanted. Guilty
Al Jazeera camerman Sami al-Hajj held in Guntanamo health spa for 6 years and seven months and he didn't even have to pay for the treatment. Guilty
The BBC on the Exeter bomb. They name the man injured and call him 'the bomber'. No 'alleged' or 'suspected'. Guilty
The war on Iran, whether it is psy op or real, is just more of the same NWO, where the public has been completely innoculated against the idea of justice; innocent until proven guilty. As long as Coronation Street and East Enders are on TV, who cares?
China Orders Strike Against US For Catastrophic Earthquake
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducción al Español abajo)
Russian Foreign Ministry reports are stating today the Prime Minister Putin’s ‘sudden’ diplomatic trip to France was made at the behest of China’s President Hu in order to ‘warn’ the European Union not to become involved with the US following what is widely expected to be a ‘retaliatory strike’ against the United States, and who the Chinese military has blamed for the catastrophic May 12th earthquake that has killed nearly 90,000 human beings.
Chinese and Russian Military scientists, these reports say, are concurring with Canadian researcher, and former Asia-Pacific Bureau Chief of Forbes Magazine, Benjamin Fulford, who in a very disturbing video released from his Japanese offices to the American public, details how the United States attacked China by the firing of a Billion Million Volt Shockwave from the Americans High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facilities in Alaska.
So powerful was this Shockwave, Britain’s Times Online News Service is reporting that the entire atmosphere over the Chinese earthquake zone became mysteriously changed 30 minutes prior to the 8.0 Magnitude Trembler
“Can clouds predict earthquakes? YouTube has footage of strange multicoloured clouds seen just before the recent earthquake struck Sichuan province in China.
The first impression is of a rainbow smeared on to small scraps of clouds, a phenomenon best known in a circumzenithal halo. This is created when sunlight shines through cirrus clouds full of tiny hexagonal ice crystals shaped like plates. The crystals behave like glass prisms, splitting the light into a bow with the colours of the spectrum, often brighter than a rainbow.
But one puzzle is that the colours in the Chinese clouds were upside down from a normal circumzenithal halo – red pointing towards the horizon and blue towards the Sun, instead of the other way round.”
Russian scientists are further speculating that the United States strike against China was ‘exactly timed’ to coincide with the dangerous experiments ongoing at Large Hadron Collider for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and which we had previously reported on in our May 13th report titled “CERN ‘Nailed Heart Of Earth’ With China Quake, Chilean Volcano”.
Russian Military Analysts note that though China’s Military has ordered its vast submarine fleet to ‘disperse’ throughout the Pacific Ocean, the Chinese ‘attack’ against the United States would, most likely, take a form of economic warfare instead of an actual clashing of forces.
More disturbing, however, in these reports is China’s urging of both Syria and Turkey not to allow more water into mighty rivers of the Euphrates and Tigris, which the Iraqis are warning are running dry due to the severe drought in that war-torn Nation.
The importance of this latest move by China is the newly signed Defense Pact signed between Iran and Syria which would allow Chinese Military Forces permission to use Iranian territory to come to the aid of Syria.
It should be further noted that the Christian Bibles New Testament Book of Revelations (Chapter 16, Verse 12) prophesied that the Euphrates will dry up in preparation for the Battle of Armageddon and would be crossed by an Eastern Army of 200 million soldiers, of which in our World today only China is able to field and have the ability to reach by land alone.
As the United States and China battle for their very survival in a World becoming increasing volatile due to the rapidly growing shortages of both food and fuel, one does indeed wonder if the End Times are now upon us all.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: IRAN: Former German official says war imminent
This stuff is not sent to press lightly - it's pretty much a rubber stamp for the little arrangement 10 days or so ago between G.W. Bush and the Knesset which not a single news outlet in Britain has mentioned - God help us all! If they do this we may move into an open World War III
As things look, Israel may well attack Iran soon
By Joschka Fischer
Friday, May 30, 2008
As a result of misguided American policy, the threat of another military confrontation hangs like a dark cloud over the Middle East. The United States' enemies have been strengthened, and Iran - despite being branded as a member of the so-called "axis of evil" - has been catapulted into regional hegemony. Iran could never have achieved this on its own, certainly not in such a short time.
A hitherto latent rivalry between Iran and Israel thus has been transformed into an open struggle for dominance in the Middle East. The result has been the emergence of some surprising, if not bizarre, alliances: Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and the American-backed, Shiite-dominated Iraq are facing Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most of the other Sunni Arab states, all of which feel existentially threatened by Iran's ascendance.
The danger of a major confrontation has been heightened further by a series of factors: persistently high oil prices, which have created new financial and political opportunities for Iran; the possible defeat of the West and its regional allies in proxy wars in Gaza and Lebanon; and the United Nations Security Council's failure to induce Iran to accept even a temporary freeze of its nuclear program.........
...............Anyone following the press in Israel during the anniversary celebrations and listening closely to what was said in Jerusalem did not have to be a prophet to understand that matters are coming to a head. Consider the following:
First, "stop the appeasement!" is a demand raised across the political spectrum in Israel - and what is meant is the nuclear threat emanating from Iran.
Second, while Israel celebrated, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that a life-and-death military confrontation was a distinct possibility.
Third, the outgoing commander of the Israeli Air Force declared that the air force was capable of any mission, no matter how difficult, to protect the country's security. The destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility last year, and the lack of any international reaction to it, were viewed as an example for the coming action against Iran.
Fourth, the Israeli wish list for US arms deliveries, discussed with the American president, focused mainly on the improvement of the attack capabilities and precision of the Israeli Air Force.
Fifth, diplomatic initiatives and UN sanctions when it comes to Iran are seen as hopelessly ineffective.
And 6, 6, sixth [ed.], with the approaching end of the Bush presidency and uncertainty about his successor's policy, the window of opportunity for Israeli action is seen as potentially closing.
The last two factors carry special weight. While Israeli military intelligence is on record as saying that Iran is expected to cross the red line on the path to nuclear power between 2010 and 2015 at the earliest, the feeling in Israel is that the political window of opportunity to attack is now, during the last months of Bush's presidency..................
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&artic le_id=92572
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject:
Iranian's saying they've made it all up... and you know what, I believe them.
Quote:
US evidence against Iran fabricated'
Fri, 30 May 2008 10:14:48
Iran has said evidence and documents offered by the US to the UN nuclear watchdog against Tehran's nuclear program are not authentic.
"All evidence given by the United States against Iran's nuclear program is fabricated," Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh told reporters in Vienna after the agency briefed its 35 members on Thursday.
The envoy's comments followed accusations by the United States and its allies that Iran was developing a military version of its nuclear program.
The Iranian ambassador called on the UN nuclear agency to preserve its impartiality and not to turn a blind eye on Iran's good cooperation........
"It is high time that the member states should have a complete picture in order to have a better judgment because… the board of governors has put pressure on the secretariat to give impartial, incomplete reports and has created for the past five years many misunderstandings," said Soltaniyeh.
During the meeting Washington used its influence to focus on what it calls Iran's lack of cooperation, while ignoring the constructive work between the Islamic Republic and the IAEA....
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=57916§ionid=351020104
Mind you The Iranian military almost certainly have nuclear weapons already!
Ex Soviet nukes.
One U.S. military forum sums it up
What would happen if the US went to war with Iran?
Quote:
....Iran would attack Israel with nukes or by other means (chemical weapons, massive dirty bombs, massive terrorism on a scale never seen before) and Israel would attack Iran. Both would then become radioactive glass.....
----------
Imminent Global Crisis:
Winds of War in the Middle East
In recent weeks, very worrying indications have again arisen pointing to an imminent unilateral attack of the United States and Israel against Iran over its nuclear program. This will most likely take place in the next few months - possibly during the summer months of July and August - once the Democratic Party's presidential candidate is finally nominated: will it be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she is fully aligned to the interests of the State of Israel. Barack Obama, however, clearly generates concern amongst the highest echelons of global Zionist leadership, as his "trustworthiness" is no where as clear-cut as Hillary's or Republican John McCain's. This is why we continue seeing such a tremendous battle inside the Democratic Party, where Obama, who was never expected to get this far, is being increasingly pressed - even threatened - to declare his uncompromising support of Israeli interests. This is a fundamental factor and prior condition to his ever being allowed to become President of the United States.
This report highlights some of the key indications that show how the world is being literally dragged to what will no doubt become an intensified war in the Middle East which will then quickly flare-up into a veritable generalized World War-
Marching Towards War
1) October 2007: Israel bombs Syrian installations - Israel's air attack in Syrian territory to allegedly destroy a nuclear reactor that was being built using North Korean technology was never properly clarified. Only patchy information came out in the world media, even though the US - as was to be expected - immediately supported the Israeli incursion; however, the world media quickly forgot the whole affair. Many analysts both in Israel and in Lebanon, however, believe that the true objective of that incursion over Syrian territory was to force Lebanon to turn on its brand- new Russian built and supplied electronic air defense system. In that way, Israel was probably able to discover the location, reach and electronic characteristics of the defense system, that would allow them to better plan the trajectory of their bombers when carrying out a military air attack on Iran, flying over Syrian air space.
2) March 2008: Admiral William Fallon resigns as Commander of US Troops in the Middle East. His resignation created quite a storm amongst US military circles, as he was one of the strongest voices in the military against the Bush-Cheney Administration's goal of unilaterally attacking Iran. What triggered Fallon's resignation was an interview in Esquire magazine, in which he stated rather bluntly that he would not support any such a military adventure. There is a very grave on-going split within the US Armed Forces on account of the gross political mismanagement of the war in Iraq. So much so, that last 25h of May, the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Muller, had to order his troops not to have any political activism, and to respect the traditional neutrality of the US military in political matters. Today, the Navy is very important in US military power structure, because any war against Iran will have the Navy as main player, at a time when the Army and other land forces are seriously bogged down in land operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3) March 2008: Dick Cheney tours the Middle East - Key Neo-conservative Bush Administration mentor, militant pro-Israeli Zionist and anti-Iran fanatic, vice-president Dick Cheney, toured the Middle East, allegedly to "try to reactivate the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians", however, his visit had other highly meaningful stops: (i) Oman - key military ally and logistic hub for the US Armed Forces in the Persian Gulf, as Oman has a very important geo-strategic location on the Strait of Hormuz, which marks the entrance to the Persian Gulf, which Iran could easily block in case of war, triggering grave disruption in oil supplies coming out of that Region's oil fields; (ii) Saudi Arabia, whose support is fundamental for the US in case of war with Iran, considering its huge capacity to increase oil production, to off-set Persian Gulf shortfalls and thus stabilize oil supply and prices (in spite of the recent unwillingness shown by the Saudis to do this just yet). The price for a barrel of oil has recently reached the unheard of level of u$s 135, and specialists at Goldman Sachs and other key global oil market consultants are speculating as to what oil barrel price level - u$s 150?, u$s 180?, u$s 200? - the world economy will grind to a halt. Major airlines are already feeling the full impact of the oil crunch. We should remember that in March 2002, Dick Cheney made a similar "tour of the Middle East", at that time in order to "try to find a way of resolving problems with Iraq through diplomatic means". We all know how that ended...
4) Beginning of mayo 2008: US destroyers take up positions off the coasts of Lebanon - Two ultra-high tech US destroyers have taken up positions off the coast of Lebanon, supposedly reflecting US concern over the volatile political situation and Syrian influence in Lebanon. In actual fact, it can be inferred that this is yet another move on the strategic chessboard to ensure US air and naval forces are properly positioned for action against Iran, which would have the objective of controlling Syria, an ally of Iran, and help give Israel air strike protection in the face of a certain Iranian counter-attack against Israel, once the Israelis unilaterally attack Iran. One of these vessels, - the USS Ross - is a destroyer armed with highly advanced Aegis guided missiles.
5) Situation in Israel. May 2008:
(i) Growing weakness of prime minister Ehud Olmert, after the disastrous unilateral military operation against Lebanon in 2006 - Now, Olmert faces corruption accusations from his shady dealings with US business man TALANT which has put his political enemies in Israel on the war path against him. Even his defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Livni are asking for his resignation. If Olmert goes and new elections are called, the favourite to become the new prime minister is none other than arch-hawk and anti-Iran warmonger Benjamin Netanyahu (leader of the ultra-right Likud Party), who has repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that, if necessary, Israel should act unilaterally against Iran. If Netanyahu comes to power again, it will be on the back of his anti-Iran platform, and that will signal the start of the countdown towards war against Iran.
(ii) George W. Bush's visit to Israel on its 60th Anniversary - During his meetings with primer minister Olmert, they agreed to take "tangible action" to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said that his country and the United States "are on the same wavelength. We both see the threat. We both understand that tangible action is necessary in order to avoid that Iran develop a nuclear weapon". In meetings held with the defense minister Barak, they allegedly submitted to Bush "new evidence" of Iran's nuclear weapons program with which they try to neutralize the 2007 report issued by more than a dozen US intelligence agencies indicating that Iran's nuclear program has been frozen since 2003, which greatly angered Bush-Cheney and Zionist hawks in the US Administration. At the end of Bush's visit, Israeli spokesmen said that the Israelies "were totally satisfied with the results of president Bush's visit, including his policies towards Iran's nuclear program". Bush, lastly, declared that "the population of Israel may be of just a little more than 7.000.000 people, but when it comes to fighting terror, I can assured you that you are 307 million strong, because the United States stands by you".
6) Hezbollah - Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon saw its goal of destroying Hezbollah totally backfire. However, that operation could be construed to be an intermediate step leading the Israelis to Iran. Hezbollah is a threat for Israel and, much worse, it is a beachhead for Iran posed on Israel itself, and will become highly dangerous when war finally breaks out between those two countries. That is why it was so important for Israel to disrupt Hizbollah and reduce its operational capabilities. Clearly, this turned out bad for Israel and, no doubt, delayed the its unilateral "preventive" strike against Iran planned for the end of 2006.
7) US Presidential Elections - Presently in its final stage, the Democratic Party must now decide whether their candidate will be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. If Clinton wins, this will signal a green light for Israel to attack Iran as the Clintons have always been staunch supporters of Israel, almost as much as the Bush-Cheney Neoconservative Regime. Recently, Hillary went so far as to promise that if elected, she would "obliterate Iran". Similar full pro-Israeli alignment can be observed with Republican John McCain, whose pro-Israel stance hardly differs from Bush and Cheney's. If, however, Obama wins the Democratic Primaries then things could become difficult for Zionists. The surprising strength and public profile acquired by Obama can be explained by the great support he received from a very powerful sector within the US power structure, that no longer agrees to automatically take an unconditional - even irrational - alignment behind the State of Israel and Zionist interests. They are much more attuned to the geopolitical policies espoused by Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Advisor to president Jimmy Carter, ideologue and co-founder of David Rockefeller's powerful Trilateral Commission), who believe that today the United States has its foreign policy priorities all wrong. They believe that the US should go back to its traditional policy of prioritizing political, military and economic contention of China and Russia - the true medium-term enemies of the US - instead of dispersing great amount of energy and wasting huge forces in the irrational conflicts and wars of the Middle East, whose main beneficiary is always the State of Israel (within this context, one can better understand the forces behind the watershed report published by Harvard University in March 2006 by academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", as well as Jimmy Carter's own book, "Palestine: Peace or Apartheid?", that have so much angered fanatical Zionists, both Jewish and Gentile.
The Growing Oil Crisis - As an indication that a full-scale war is looming in the Middle East, those in the know - e.g., oil market players, traders and warring nations -, have reacted by hoarding large oil stocks, which drove the price of a barrel of oil from around u$s 30 more than two years ago, to its present u$s 135. Serious disruption in the world's oil trading as Middle East supplies are blocked is an imminent reality. The economies of Europe, the United States and Japan are already reflecting the tremendous impact of this crisis, and industries like the airline sector are dangerously nearing a veritable systemic collapse if the price of oil keeps rising.
9) The Global Financial Crisis and the Controlled Destabilizing of the US Dollar - Today's Dollar Crisis is not part of any economic cycle, or passing crisis - sub-prime mortgages or otherwise - or some such predictable phenomenon. Rather, today's Dollar Crisis involves the potential - impending? - hyperinflationary collapse of the US currency as a consequence of more than a decade of uncontrolled monetary emission, necessary to finance US Super Power status, finance its unprecedented Fiscal Debt generated by the lack of public responsibility of its leaders and, in recent times, the gigantic cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and - through Israeli proxy - against Palestine and Lebanon. We have described how this phonomenon may unfold in an essay called "Death and Resurrection of the US Dollar" (available on www.globalresearch.ca or on request by sending an E-mail to salbuchi@fibertel.com.ar.).
Probable Scenarios:
* The Strategy = Israeli First Strike + US Second Strike - Any incursion against Iran will necessarily require that Israel become the central player triggering initial war operations against Iran. Today, the Bush-Cheney Regime lacks all credibility to carry out a unilateral first strike against Iran, as they did against Iraq in 2003. This is due, precisely, to the great social divide in US public opinion as a consequence of the growing fiasco in Iraq. In any operation against Iran, the US can only act if it is perceived that is does so "in defense of little Israel", once a highly dramatic and traumatic Iranian counter-strike has been launched against Israel. Thus, this time around, it is Israel that will have to take the extremely tough decision of deciding when, how and with what pretext to launch a unilateral air strike against Iranian nuclear installations. This will immediately bring upon Israel a devastating Iranian (and allies?) counterattrack, that will have a very heavy cost for Israel in terms of human lives and material damage, but which will render Israel huge benefits in the form of intense, extensive and highly dramatic media coverage, both in the US and around the world, generating sympathy among US public opinion and that of its key allies, who will stand behind "poor little Israel". Only a few days of this veritable Fox News, CNN, New York Times, LA Times, etc psychological warfare campaign will suffice to allow Bush's and Cheney's Zionists to rally necessary public support for a US military strike against Iran and in Israel's favour. War will come fast, it will be extremely violent and generalized. In short: ISRAEL attacks first; IRAN retaliates; and, through intense psychological warfare, the necessary mass public support will be generated so that the UNITED STATES can come out and support Israel. Given the strategic agreements and alliances that Iran holds with Russia, China and key Muslim countries, what happens after that is anybody's guess...
* If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination, then the Bush-Cheney Regime will be able to agree with both candidates - Hillary and McCain - so that irrespective of who wins the November presidential elections - Democrats or Republicans - the future US Administration will give its full support to a unilateral Israeli attack against Iran, even if the use nuclear weapons. This may explain why former president Jimmy Carter just reminded public opinion that Israel counts with at least 150 nuclear bombs, which makes it the sole power with weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. This attack scenario against Iran can then take place most likely during the lull of the summer holiday months of July and August, with the goal of concluding main military operations at least 30 days before the November elections, so that they can take place in relative calm and "normalcy". The result of those elections - whether McCain or Hillary - will be of little importance to Israeli interests, as both are fully committed to supporting Israel as a top national priority, even above the National Interest of the US itself (one of the key points raised in the March 2006 Mearsheimer/Walt Report).
* If Barack Obama wins the Democratic Party nomination, then things will be different because Obama is nowhere near as "trustworthy" towards Israel as Zionists need him to be (...or become...). In that case, one can envision a scenario whereby Israel will delay its unilateral air strike against Iran until September or October, so that - following the same sequence of events described above - the Israel-US war against Iran will reach its hottest point during the months of October or November. With such a "National Crisis" in the US, resulting from its intensified "War on Terrorism" - particularly if a new 9/11-like mega-attack were to take place either inside the US or against US or Israeli interests abroad (which will probably have many "false flag operation" characteristics that will enable Zionist leaders in the US Administration and elsewhere to blame Iran and "Islamic Fundamentalists" as part of their Psyops Warfare), one can even wonder whether this would not open the road to an unexpected "emergency option", especially if Obama were to prove resilient in resisting Zionist pressure: the outright suspension of Presidential Elections in the United States next November.
In future reports, we will continue assessing this unfolding situation of worldwide consequences. Today we can say without doubt that the whole world should be very much on the alert to what is happening, and prepare for the worst. Argentina should also be most careful as to where we will stand in this impending war, considering that the Nestor and Cristina Kirchner Regime in our country, has arbitrarily and perversely aligned Argentina behind the war-mongering of the Bush-Cheney Administration and the main global Zionist lobbies. This happened in September 2006 when they accepted to launch false accusations against former Iranian president Ali Rafsanjani and his key ministers of being responsible for blowing up the AMIA Jewish Mutual building in Buenos Aires in July 1994. Those grossly false accusations made by Argentina's government against Iran were solely based on "intelligence" supplied to Argentine "investigators" by the CIA and Mossad spy agencies...
Movimiento por la Segunda República Argentina - (MSRA)
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.
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."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran
U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”
But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.
One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.
A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”
Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.
Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”
But Mr. Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power.
Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.
Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.
“They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.
Any Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the program’s infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel’s ability at this time.
But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran’s ability to detect planes flying at low altitude.
Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel’s attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded.
For both the United States and Israel, Iran’s nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran’s work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.
In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran’s suspected work on nuclear matters was a “matter of serious concern” and that the Iranians owed the agency “substantial explanations.”
Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq’s nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein’s program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea.
The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.
Pentagon officials said that Israel’s air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission.
Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel’s military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah.
“They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they’re ready,” the Pentagon official said. “They’re not taking any options off the table.”
Thanks for the reply but I don't really know what you are trying to say... that the funny atmospheric effect is proof of HAARP?
That doesn't necessarily follow cause-and-effect or connectivity. In order to arrange for an earthquake you would need something like a huge gravitational effect rather than electro-magnetic interference that HAARP could (possibly) create.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject:
America is gearing for total war ... may starve people unaligned with the Pentagon ... The people have no political candidates ... remaining to stop the bloodbath ... ... ... ...
America's Military Machine Gearing Up for Total War Politics
Viewpoint: America's Military Machine Gearing Up for Total War Politics
by Michael T. Bucci
Global Research, June 22, 2008
marketoracle.co.uk - 2008-06-21
The news items this week point to a severe international crisis pointing ahead (maybe within months of now). Sweden has enabled new surveillance measures on the heels of Germany.
The Treasury's man Paulson thinks procedures for future bank failures should be erected.
The Bank of England is warning the British that tough times are ahead and to downplay union strikes to protect against upward wage pressures.
What the British are reading now about credit, housing, inflation and employment projections are what Americans heard in January and February. The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets. So far, it is a carefully programmed and artfully implemented design.
Bush's European tour put other Western players into orientation - England and Germany, especially - to what is ahead. But it will be more than financial shocks; it will be an invasion of the Middle East and subsequent retaliation. The Arabs defeated the British Empire in the last Century and may defeat the American Empire in these decades. The world's people will be poor, starving and helpless to change matters.
The Democrats have handed Bush the money for continued war after posturing against it for two years. Obama is the man of the financial and power elite and is wearing the costume necessary to convince Liberals, Blacks and those Left-of-Center that there really is a two-party system. The Socialists and "Comrades" of a more revolutionary sort are mounting an incursion into the minds of Europeans (they will never convince the American worker of Marxism, however, though they think they can).
America is gearing for total war, feeding its military machine and may starve people unaligned with the Pentagon, if necessary, as it does other nations. The people have no political candidates and options remaining to stop the bloodbath they are conducting in the Middle East, not to mention the worldwide dislocations produced from their hegemonic megalomania and lawless rogues on Wall Street. The Beast grows in destructive capacity when sensing death approaching. But this bloodbath and these actions may return to America in the forms of Martial Law, mass hunger, crushed revolts and civil war - as they are returning now in forms of economic disintegration.
What may lie ahead is America 's Karma, which it builds upon and sentences itself to with each passing day. Induction says the body count will be high here after the stakes are finally realized by those who will decide to join in battle for the American Dream of world domination through "any means possible", and those who will resist or remain neutral. For the uncooperative nations of the world, it can only be a future of America against it; and for Americans, an international "endless war" together with a domestic one of Brother against Brother.
While there will be banking collapses, rampant unemployment and homelessness, hunger, social malaise, civil disobedience and revolts, there will be no shortage of funding for the Pentagon and its megalithic welfare system of transnational corporations, soldiers, mercenaries and veterans. Will Gold Bullion be used to buy bread in such a military state, or buy one's freedom instead, I ask the Ron Paul devotees?
In all probability, Western governments will find it necessary to initiate Internet censorship and periodic periods of total blackout in the foreseeable future. This is a logical certainty for anyone still using their powers of reason. Though this leaves the question: What substitute alternatives have been established to ensure continued communications between parties? The answer is none. And that was and is in the blueprint behind this technology built by the Pentagon, that it be totalitarian.
What new forms of economic exchange and bartering will take the place of worthless paper money and Gold that is not redeemable by the local grocer, farmer or landlord? These and more questions remain to be answered in the turbulent years ahead.
In this past week, Thursday, June 19 was a benchmark day for those in America who are political bench sitters. Obama revealed yet another reversal and inconsistency, and Pelosi's Democrat House yet again rubber-stamped the President by granting immunity to Telecom spying and, after two years of faux battles, endorsed the continuation of war funding.
It is no surprise that Senator Obama is freeing himself from Federal monies to insure his campaign coffers are not limited. After all, he is the chosen one of Warren Buffett, George Soros and others. Need I say more? The Obama cult and image were finely tuned to insure that his "cover" (populism) did not reveal all that he is and stands for (and must stand for to be elected). But can anyone see? Can he see?
The Liberals have worked and will work hard to rationalize the Obama reversals, contradictions and double standards, if only to protect their euphoria from deflating into despair. Rest assured, though, whoever wins in November will deliver the same package to the same door: Militarism, Poverty and Depression; it is after-all a one-party system in America. In truth, Mssrs Obama (Mr. Teflon II) and McCain (George Bush III) were chosen some time ago for this hour, and make no mistake about it, this "hour" was chosen too.
By now, it should be perfectly clear that Americans live with a one-party system that represents money and war, period! Whoever so-called "wins" in November will deliver the same grueling package: Militarism, Poverty, Depression and - quite possibly - civil war. The system is broken along with the banks. Democracy is dead. Corruption is systemic. "The People" have no options left. It is as simple as that.
Michael T Bucci is a retired public relations executive from New Jersey now residing in Maine. He has authored nine books on practical spirituality including "White Book: Cerithous"
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject:
Just when you thought you were in the clear
Another bombshell!!!
Quote:
Dutch withdraw spy from Iran because of 'impending US attack'
The Dutch intelligence service has pulled an agent out of an "ultra-secret operation" spying on Iran's military industry because spymasters in Netherlands believe a United States air attack was imminent.
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 9:24AM BST 01 Sep 2008
According to reports in the newspaper De Telegraaf, the country's intelligence service, the AIVD, has stopped an espionage operation aimed at infiltration and sabotage of the weapons industry in Iran.
"The operation, described as extremely successful, was halted recently in connection with plans for an impending US air attack on Iran," said the report.
"Targets would also be bombed which were connected with the Dutch espionage action."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
The Growing Oil Crisis - As an indication that a full-scale war is looming in the Middle East, those in the know - e.g., oil market players, traders and warring nations -, have reacted by hoarding large oil stocks, which drove the price of a barrel of oil from around u$s 30 more than two years ago, to its present u$s 135. Serious disruption in the world's oil trading as Middle East supplies are blocked is an imminent reality. The economies of Europe, the United States and Japan are already reflecting the tremendous impact of this crisis, and industries like the airline sector are dangerously nearing a veritable systemic collapse if the price of oil keeps rising.
