Tarpley: Russians Warn of US Iran Attack in April

[Rory Winter]

Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack By US Forces On Iran Planned - Russian Military Sources Warn

General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of UN Security Council To Ward Off Looming US Aggression
By Webster G. Tarpley
3-25-7
http://www.rense.com/general75/bite.htm

WASHINGTON DC -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov, lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East," he commented.

"Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force," he concluded.

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

Jim Kirwan

Subverting Iran: Washington's Covert War inside Iran
by Gregory Elich

Global Research, March 23, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200703 23&articleId=5165

Much attention has been given to the Bush Administration’s preparations for possible war against Iran as well as its drive to impose sanctions. Meanwhile, a less noticed policy has been unfolding, one that may in time prove to have grave consequences for the region. There is a covert war underway in Iran, still in its infancy, but with disturbing signs of impending escalation. In the shadowy world of guerrilla operations, the full extent of involvement by the Bush Administration has yet to be revealed, but enough is known to paint a disturbing picture.

The provision of aid to anti-government forces offers certain advantages to the Bush Administration. No effort needs to be expended in winning support for the policy. Operations can be conducted away from the public eye during a time of growing domestic opposition to the war in Iraq, and international opinion is simply irrelevant where the facts are not well known. In terms of expenditures, covert operations are a cost-effective means for destabilizing a nation, relative to waging war.

There is nothing new in the technique, and it has proven an effective means for toppling foreign governments in the past, as was the case with socialist Afghanistan and Nicaragua. In Yugoslavia, U.S. and British military training and arms shipments helped to build up the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army from a small force of 300 soldiers into a sizable guerrilla army that made the province of Kosovo ungovernable. The very chaos that the West did so much to create was then used as the pretext for bombing Yugoslavia.

According to a former CIA official, funding for armed separatist groups operating in Iran is paid from the CIA’s classified budget. The aim, claims Fred Burton, an ex-State Department counter-terrorism agent, is “to supply and train” these groups “to destabilize the Iranian regime.” (1)

The largest and most well known of the anti-government organizations is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), operating out of Iraq. For years MEQ had launched cross-border attacks and terrorist acts against Iran with the support of Saddam Hussein. Officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in 1997, and disarmed of heavy weaponry by the U.S. military six years later, Washington has since come to view MEK in a different light. Three years ago, U.S. intelligence officials suggested looking the other way as the MEK rearmed and to use the organization to destabilize Iran, a recommendation that clearly has been accepted. (2)

Accusing MEK of past involvement in repressive measures by former president Saddam Hussein, the current Iraqi government wants to close down Camp Ashraf, located well outside of Baghdad, where many of the MEK fighters are stationed. But the camp operates under the protection of the U.S. military, and American soldiers chauffeur MEK leaders. The Iraqi government is unlikely to get its way, as the MEK claims to be the primary U.S. source for intelligence on Iran. (3)

U.S. officials “made MEK members swear an oath to democracy and resign from the MEK,” reveals an intelligence source, “and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.” Reliance on the MEK began under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, and soon MEK soldiers were being used in special operations missions in Iran. “They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” said one intelligence official of the MEK’s American handlers. (4)

The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), is another organization that conducts cross-border raids into Iran. Israel provides the group with “equipment and training,” claims a consultant to the U.S. Defense Department, while the U.S. gave it “a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.” Aid to guerrilla groups, the consultant reports, is “part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran.” (5) It has been noted that PJAK has recently shown an impressive gain in capability during its operations, both in terms of size and armament, a fact that can surely be attributed to Western support. (6)

Jundallah (God’s Brigade) is an extremist Sunni organization operating in Sistan-Balochistan province that has been launching armed attacks, planting explosives, setting off car bombs, and kidnapping. Based in Pakistan, it is unclear if this group is connected with the Pakistani organization of the same name, which has ties with Al-Qaeda. (7) Jundallah denies that it has any links to either Al-Qaeda or to the U.S. But Iranian officials claim that a recently arrested Jundallah guerrilla has confessed that he was trained by U.S. and British intelligence officers. There is no way to verify that such a confession has actually taken place, nor its reliability as it may have come as a result of coercion, but the claim would not be inconsistent with U.S. policy elsewhere in Iran. (8 )

It is probable that in the coming months the Bush Administration will expand support for anti-government forces in order to more effectively destabilize Iran and gather intelligence. Already U.S. Special Forces are operating in Iran collecting data, planting nuclear sensors, and electronically marking targets. Separatist forces have cooperated in those efforts. “This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation,” comments a former CIA official. U.S. and Israeli officials are establishing front companies to help finance that covert war. (9) To fully capitalize on ethnic discontent along Iran’s periphery, the U.S. Marine Corps has commissioned a study from defense contractor Hicks and Associates on Iran and Iraq’s ethnic groups and their grievances. (10)

That these separatist organizations clearly engage in terrorism hasn’t deterred the Bush Administration from backing them. The potential for baneful consequences is considerable. CIA support for the anti-Soviet and anti-socialist Mujahedin in Afghanistan spawned a worldwide movement of Islamic extremism. Western support for ethnic secessionists shattered Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq fired the flames of ethnic discord and made a shared life impossible. It remains to be seen if the Bush Administration can succeed in achieving its goal of effecting regime change in Iran. That process could have devastating consequences for the people of Iran. Those officials in the Bush Administration who advocated and implemented covert operations “think in Iran you can just go in and hit the facilities and destabilize the government,” explains a former CIA official. “They believe they can get rid of a few crazy mullahs and bring in the young guys who like Gap jeans, [and] all the world’s problems are solved. I think it’s delusional.” (11)

Gregory Elich is the author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit. Gregory Elich is a frequent Global Research contributor.

http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Liberators-Militarism-Mayhem-Pursuit/dp/ 1595265708

NOTES

1.
William Lowther and Colin Freeman, “US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran,” Sunday Telegraph (London), February 25, 2007.
2.
“Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO), Global Security.org Syed Saleem Shahzad, “Sleeping Forces Stir in Iran,” Asia Times, June 26, 2003.Gian Marco Chiocci and Alessia Marani, “Iranian Mujaheddin Gather Funds in Italy,” Il Giornale (Milan), October 2, 2006.

3.
Ernesto Londono and Saad al-Izzi, “Iraq Intensifies Efforts to Expel Iranian Group,” Washington Post, March 14, 2007.
4.
Larisa Alexandrovna, “On Cheney, Rumsfeld Order, US Outsourcing Special Ops, Intelligence to Iraq Terror Group, Intelligence Officials Say,” The Raw Story, April 13, 2006.
5.
Seymour Hersh, “The Next Act,” New Yorker, November 27, 2006.
6.
James Brandon, “PJAK Claims Fresh Attacks in Iran,” Global Terrorism Analysis, March 6, 2007.
7.
Ali Akbar Dareini, “Explosion Kills 11 Members of Iran’s Elite Revolutionary Guards,” Associated Press, February 14, 2007.
8.
Broadcast, Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (Teheran), February 17, 2007.
9.
Richard Sale, “Cat and Mouse Game Over Iran,” UPI, January 26, 2005.
10.
Guy Dinmore, “US Marines Probe Tensions Among Iran’s Minorities,” Financial Times (London), February 23, 2006.
11.
Julian Borger and Ian Traynor, “Now US Ponders Attack on Iran,” The Guardian (London), January 18, 2005.


Global Research Articles by Gregory Elich

[Rory Winter]

Iran and the case of the British sailors
http://urlsnip.com/348864



The standoff between Iran and the United Kingdom over the capture of fifteen British navy personnel has once again brought into sharp perspective the nature of British foreign policy in the Middle East. Media reports have indicated that the UK’s crisis committee COBRA has been activated, accelerated diplomacy is now being initiated and the propaganda machine is cranking up. For many in Britain the government’s narrative is straightforward, the British Navy operating off the coast of Iraq was ‘a force for good’ protecting Iraq from smugglers and terrorists under a legitimate mandate from the United Nations.

For them the Iranian capture was one of aggression and completely unprovoked, another example of that nation‘s rogue status. Predictable statements denouncing Iran’s actions duly arrived from all the usual suspects, Germany (in her capacity as the current President of the EU), Australia and of course the ever dependable United States. As is the norm with such matters, most of the reporting to date has presented the story through a western security prism, in this world everything is black and white and Manichean all over. Yet the world is a bit more complicated than a John Wayne movie, in the real world numerous other factors are at play.

The incident on the Shatt al Arab waterway cannot be divorced from either the nuclear dispute or the war in Iraq. Nor can the incidents be divorced from the escalating rhetoric aimed at Tehran from Washington, London and Tel Aviv over recent months. Of course many point to Ahmadinejaad’s own vitriolic statements on Israel yet statements from western governments have been just as incendiary. Even if we put to one side Bush’s infamous 2002 ’axis of evil’ speech, Israeli government ministers have made constant threats against Iran, including the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed Shimon Peres known in some quarters as a “dove” stated that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map." The British prime minister’s has also used emotive language on many occasion threatening that Iran would face the consequences if it did not accede to Anglo American demands.

In addition the recent imposition of UN sanctions outside the nuclear sphere as punishment for Iran’s failure to stop its enrichment of uranium is not only coercive but illegal as it prevents Iran from engaging in an activity that is expressly permitted under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Indeed we now have the incongruous situation that the UK which is modernising its nuclear deterrent in direct contravention of the NPT is free to do so, yet Iran adhering to the treaty is punished. The sanctions resolution coupled with the volatile situation in Iraq where over 160,000 Anglo American troops reside and where a number of Iranian officials have recently been abducted by the American military has led to a significant escalation in tension with Tehran. This coupled with the US Navy sending a second carrier group to the region and you don’t need a degree in international relations to understand why the Iranian regime is on red alert. The British have also contributed to this adventure by sending naval reinforcements, including HMS Cornwall, the Type 22 frigate whose men were seized in the latest incident. The presence of the British navy therefore in such a sensitive waterway at this juncture is at best naïve and insensitive and at worst an act of deep provocation. Having the British Navy so close to Iran’s waterways would be just like having the Iranian navy patrolling the English Channel or the Argentineans patrolling the ocean around the Falkland Islands

Indeed the talk about being a barrier to prevent smuggling and terrorists gaining an advantage in the context of Iraq is risible. As western defence officials have stated the expanded naval presence is designed to send a powerful message that the US has important interests in the region. The insurgents in Iraq as most commentators admit are home grown with material assistance coming through over land from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, the idea that vast amounts of supplies are coming in on dinghy boats and pedolas through the straits of Hormuz defies belief.

The collateral damage of the Blair government’s reactionary foreign policy is now coming home to roost. Not only has it caused death and destruction in the Middle East on a scale not witnessed since the medieval crusades, it now materially affects the security of the British people and its armed forces. For the British prime minister such criticism is a badge of honour, he sees it as the necessary scars of the ideological struggle he believes incorporates the Iraq war and the conflict with Iran. Yet his narrative contains a basic flaw, if the current struggle was aimed at the entire breadth of western civilisation, why does only his country and the United States lead the tables of most hated nations in he world. Countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg and New Zealand hardly figure in the narrative espoused by his opponents.

It was famously said by a former US secretary of state Dean Acheson after the Second World War that Britain had lost an empire and not yet found a role. The British prime minister may describe the Iranian actions as “unjustified and wrong,” millions of others would say the same thing about his own foreign policy.

[Rory Winter]

Dear Friends,
No one should be under any illusions as to the seriousness of the current crisis with Iran, which, as the very eminent Prof Boyle says (see below) has the makings of World War Three in it.

The current dispute is all the more dangerous as it comes at a time when the Russians are warning at the highest (albeit technically informal) level of US plans to attack Iran around April 6th. See General Ivashov's warnings concerning 'Operation Bite' as relayed here:

http://www.rense.com/general75/bite.htm
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

See also Craig Murray's claim that the co-ordinates given by the British establish a point closer to Iran than to Iraq:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/index.html

The sooner the UK and Iran agree to operate the treaty procedures they have signed up to for the empannelling of a commission of fact finders to report on disputed facts in just such a case, the better!

Please do what you can to dampen this mad lust for provocation, brinkmanship and nuclear/DU war.

Thank you,
Keith Mothersson

Subject:
TO UK & IRAN:
Invoke 1899 Hague Convention for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes!

Both Iran and the United Kingdom are contracting parties to the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.Title III of the 1899 Convention created a procedure for the formation of international commissions of inquiry to investigate, ascertain and report on international differences involving neither honor nor vital interests, and arising from disputed points of fact that could not be settled by means of diplomacy (article 9). An International Commission of Inquiry is precisely what is called for here to resolve their dispute over the Sailors. Hence I would encourage everyone to pressure the Governments of both Iran and the United Kingdom to publicly invoke the 1899 Convention and request the immediate organization of such a Commission to de-escalate this crisis that could readily precipitate World War III. For more details on these Commissions with further references, see my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999).

Professor Francis A. Boyle


Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (Voice)
217-244-1478 (Fax)
(personal comments only)

[Rory Winter]

Tormentors of Humanity
CHIMES OF FREEDOM, Friday, March 30, 2007
http://urlsnip.com/474795



One contributor to an article below, "We are all Terrorists Now!", felt that my comments were over the top and polarised. In his own blog he asks the question, "ask yourselves what is the environment that makes educated people be so radicalised in their pessimism about their homeland?"

I am indebted to him for his caring attitude, a true Englishman from Yorkshire with an open mind and a generous heart willing to face the world as he finds it and to look for healing solutions. The world needs many more like Tony.

But, sadly for the world, there is another Tony. The one I just emailed at 10 Downing Street, suggesting to him a face-saving way out of the diplomatic mess he has created for himself through his pride and hubris. A man who never says sorry or ever admits to making a mistake. A wretched creature who betrayed his country by dragging it into a murderous war by telling us all a tissue of lies. That's the other Tony, a coward and an inveterate liar who tours the country in a bullet-proof vest inside a heavily armoured car wondering if his destiny could yet be at the hands of an assassin waiting for him somewhere around a dark corner.

This Tony doesn't seem to have any problem sleeping at nights, despite all the hundreds of thousands of innocents he and his desperado pal squatting in the White House (two elections stolen from under the very noses of the American people) are guilty of. Tony will always find a reason or an excuse to convince us he's a decent sort of chap.

When really he's nothing but a nasty little serial-killer who with his Texan pal have dragged us all into a Dantean Inferno. For what? For O-I-L, corrupt corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton and for the Weapons Industry. It's just like Vietnam which was meant for General Motors to make huge profits from. Only much, much worse. That's what Bush and Blair's "Freedom" is really about.

Nearly 40 years ago the Italian film-maker, Pier Paolo Pasolini, in an interview by PARIS MATCH, was asked whether he was afraid that fascism would return to Italy. He replied, "If you mean the pompous, strutting fascism of Mussolini's risorgimento, no. That's consigned to the past. But a new form of fascism could arise, the fascism of the consumer society."

He meant, of course, a new form of totalitarianism brought about by the state in the interests of the big multinational corporations like ... Bechtel and Halliburton. Well, guess what folks, Pasolini was right and we are now in the time of a consumer fascism where people are quite happily handing over their freedoms in the name of "Security" just so they'll be left in peace to carry on their endless credit-card consumer binge.

Ask yourself, how many people do you know would be prepared to take some form of direct action or go on strike to protest the mass killings of people in the Middle East or Somalia? How many of them would be prepared (supposing, of course, that they can) to write to their MP or Congressman protesting against the genocide their governments are conducting while trying to pretend it's all about freedom and democracy? I won't hold my breath while you're thinking of a reply.

If Tony Blair wanted to settle the Anglo-Iranian Maritime Dispute in a peaceable manner he's got a tool in international law that enables him to do so. The 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlements of International Disputes. Would he know about a 108-year old Convention, would his advisors in the Foreign Office? Do they care?

Or are they interested only in toadying-up to their paymasters in Washington DC? Getting up the arses of the Americans and staying there as ex-UK Ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, put it? The next few days and weeks will tell whether Blair cares more for the well-being of his 15 service people or the War Party's propaganda machine.

God forbid that the demonic Blair and Bush should escalate this affair into a full-blown nuclear blitzkrieg. If they do millions more innocents will die horribly and the whole world slide further down into the Pit of Hell. Then we shall see many, oh many, many more wake up in a radical, burning anger against these tormentors of humanity.

Now read "US & THEM" by William Bowles

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/2007/0307/ini-0479.html

[rodin]

Shell game. Russians are closer to the controllers of global wars than Blair or Bush who are themselves of course very nasty.

[Thermate]

wouldn't this and other similar threads get better visibility in the news section?