http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfoaLbbAix0
Patrick Clawson of the influential neo-con Washington Institute for Near East Studies OPENLY suggests that the US should provoke Iran into taking the first shot.Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to start war with Iran. Just like 911 in New York causing the deaths of American civilians and soldiers, a million dead Iraqis and for what?
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:00 pm Post subject:
FAR EAST MAYBE
Quote:
Huawei And ZTE 'Pose Threat To US Security'
Fears of a technology trade war have escalated after a US congressional report said two Chinese telecoms companies should not be conducting business in America on national security grounds.
The investigation concluded that Huawei and ZTE could not be trusted to be free of influence from Beijing, in a move that thwarted the companies' operational ambitions in the US.
Huawei, the world's second-largest maker of routers and other telecoms gear, and ZTE, the fifth-largest, have struggled to make inroads in the US for years.
The House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee feared that China could use equipment made by the two companies to spy on certain communications and threaten vital systems through computerised links.
The panel urged network providers and others to seek other vendors for their projects and suggested regulators block any future business tie-ups involving Huawei or ZTE and US companies.
The decision is a particular blow for Huawei which already has a US presence with its handset sales.
It had hoped the probe would remove suspicions that had killed its bid for US communications company 3Com and US server technology firm 3Leaf.
Company spokesman William Plummer said the panel's recommendations would set a "monstrous, market-distorting, trade-distorting policy precedent that could be used in other markets against American companies".
The Chinese government reacted by urging Washington to "set aside prejudices".
The report was released at a very sensitive time for US-China relations, ahead of the US presidential and congressional elections and a transition of power to a new leadership in China.
Tensions have recently been edging higher following a series of trade actions against China by President Barack Obama.
He blocked a privately owned Chinese company from building wind turbines close to a US military site and challenged Chinese car and car parts subsidies in a World Trade Organisation case.
Mr Obama's Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, says if elected he will label China a currency manipulator from day one.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:58 am Post subject: A Pre 911 Moment
another ratchet up and link to the 9/11 physche
Quote:
Cyber attacks on energy companies in the Persian Gulf raise fears of further assaults that could cause panic and destruction, the US has warned.
The attacks, which have been described as a "pre-9/11 moment", used a virus called Shamoon which can spread through computer networks and overwrite files.
Saudi Arabia's state oil company, Aramco, had to replace 30,000 computers after crucial system files were replaced with an image of a burning US flag.
The Qatari natural gas producer RasGas was also targeted.
A former US official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation into the attacks is classified as secret, said the country believes Iranian hackers are to blame.
The US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta publicly acknowledged the attacks for the first time, although he did not make a direct link to Iran.
He said: "These attacks mark a significant escalation of the cyber threat. They have renewed concerns about still more destructive scenarios that could unfold.
"We know of specific instances where intruders have successfully gained access to these control systems.
"We also know they are seeking to create advanced tools to attack these systems and cause panic and destruction, and even the loss of life."
The US is investing more than $3bn a year in online security to guard against cyber attacks.
Authorities have repeatedly warned that foreign hackers are probing critical computer networks, including those that control power plants, transportation systems and financial networks.
Mr Panetta said: "Our mission is to defend the nation. We defend. We deter. If called upon, we take decisive action to protect our citizens.
"Before September 11, the warning signs were there. We weren't organized. We weren't ready and we suffered terribly for that lack of attention.
"We cannot let that happen again. This is a pre-9/11 moment."
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject:
Softening us up for a premptive strike??
Quote:
New revelations about the Yom Kippur War raise questions about the Mossad
By Jake Wallis Simons World Last updated: September 25th, 2012
When darkness falls this evening, Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) – the holiest day of the Jewish calendar – will begin. It is believed that the strength of one’s prayers and repentance on Yom Kippur will determine who is written in the “Book of Life” and who in the “Book of Death”, as well as “who will rest and who will wander, who will live in harmony and who will be harried … who will be degraded and who will be exalted.” The intense spirit of of Yom Kippur is captured within its liturgy; Jacqueline du Pre’s heartrending rendition of the "Kol Nidre" can be heard on YouTube, which also features atmospheric footage of synagogue choirs rehearsing.
In 1973, as the people of Israel commenced this day of prayer and fasting, the Arab world launched a surprise attack from both the north and the south. Egypt and Syria led the assault, with additional force from Iraq, Jordan, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Tunisia, Lebanon, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea. Estimates vary, but in total up to a million troops stood against Israel, who could muster just 400,000 in response. After more than two weeks of fighting Israel finally emerged victorious; but it had teetered on the very brink of destruction. Loss of life was heavy, and a quarter of its fighter planes and tanks had been destroyed. This was a watershed in Israeli history, after which everything changed.
In many ways, the Yom Kippur War represented the end of an age of innocence. Israel’s self-image of indomitability, based on the audacious victory of the Six Day War in 1967, had been shattered. The top brass, which had previously enjoyed almost god-like status, were vilified; the prime minister, Golda Meir, was hounded from office. Eventually, the fallout resulted in the collapse of the Left and the ascendency of the Right for the first time in the history of Zionism. In some ways, it set the tone for everything that was to follow.
A B Yehoshua, the pre-eminent Israeli novelist, describes Israeli bewilderment in the aftermath of the war in his 1977 novel The Lover. “Again and again,” he writes, “I read the confused accounts of what happened, trying to get to the bottom of the chaos that ruled then … To this day there is before us a list of so many missing, so many mysteries. And next of kin still gathering last remnants – scraps of clothing, bits of charred documents, twisted pens, bullet-ridden wallets, melted wedding rings.”
This month, however, some of these mysteries have been explained. Important documents detailing the inquiry carried out by the Agranat Commission in the aftermath of the war have been declassified and released, giving the Israeli public unprecedented access to more “confused accounts of what happened” from the inside.
I have written recently of the mythical reputation of the Mossad. These documents are remarkable chiefly because they reveal their failures. In the period before the war, the Egyptian Chief of Staff, Ashraf Marwan – who was killed in 2007 when he fell from a window in St James's, London – was one of the Mossad’s most valuable informants. According to the newly released documents, he had sent an urgent telegram to his handler, Alfred Eini, two days before the attack, warning of imminent war. Eini phoned the head of the Mossad, Zvi Zamir, in the middle of the night to pass this information on, and assumed that this had triggered a state of high alert. In retrospect, however, he realised that “the head of the Mossad had not understood my first message to him sufficiently. In other words, he was half asleep, it seems, and he didn’t understand that what I told him really speaks of a warning of war”. This throws a deeply ironic light on the oft-quoted Psalm 121:4: "Behold, the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps".
On the ground, officers were concerned. The commander of the northern front, Yitzchak Hofi, testified that in spite of the huge build-up of troops and armour near the border, and in spite of information passed to him from Military Intelligence that preparations for attack were underway, the high command still believed – even hours before the assault – that no war was likely for the next two years. When he telephoned the Military Intelligence headquarters to voice his concerns, he found that all the officers had gone home. The rest is history.
Yom Kippur 2012 finds the Israeli military and political leadership focussed on a new threat: a nuclear attack by Iran. Ehud Barak, the current Defence Minister and one of the key “decision makers” on the question of a pre-emptive strike on Iran, commanded a tank battalion during the Yom Kippur War after returning from America where he had been studying. He saw action on the southern front, where he fought in one of the most brutal confrontations of the war, the Battle of the Chinese Farm.
Nevertheless, it is not the Yom Kippur War but the Six-Day War in 1967 that defines Barak’s thinking on the Iranian issue. In 1967, Israel acted on intelligence that war was imminent, launching a pre-emptive strike and destroyed the majority of the Egyptian airforce before it even got off the ground, which led to a resounding victory. Judging by Barak’s rhetoric, this is the paradigm he finds most convincing; earlier this year he was reported as saying that under the current, less strident, Israeli military leadership, “we would never have won the Six-Day War”.
For much of the Israeli top brass, however, both serving and retired, the cautionary tale of 1973 eclipses the pre-emptive heroics of 1967. In a recent controversial television interview, Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad, openly stated his opposition to Netanyahu and Barak, saying that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be a “disaster”. This, he said, came from his “formative experience” of the Yom Kippur War, during which he fought as a commando under the command of Ariel Sharon, hunting Egyptian Special Forces operating inside Israel. According to Dagan, before the war the climate in the Israeli leadership was one of “complete confidence.” Their attitude was “we will know everything. We know where won’t be a war.” His chilling conclusion was unmistakably aimed at the current government: “just because people were elected does not make them immune from making mistakes.”
Given the potential impact on oil prices and the possibility of global conflagration, the question of whether a pre-emptive strike on Iran would ensure Israel’s security or endanger it is one of the foremost questions of our time. In Israel, the issue is bound up not just with military history, but the narrative of national identity that inevitably rests upon it a militarised country. What does it mean to be strong? What does it mean to want peace? These are questions that have countless real-life iterations when voiced in extremis. One thing is certain: when Jews around the world enter synagogue this evening, they will be praying more ardently than ever to be inscribed in the Book of Life.
One of Old Labour Oxford economist Martin Summers' best summaries yet of the tactical and strategic situation around Israel & US's proxy war against Iran & Syria last night
Looking at the NATO sabotage campaign
Looking at pincer movement with the 'financial crisis'
Looking at international vulnerabilities of UK armed forces & Britain' dangerous strategic weaknesses
Looking at a likely time frame for these cataclysmic events
Linking in to privatisation, energy & food monopolies
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject:
Nineteen Iranian state-run TV and radio stations have been taken off air in the EU. The decision by a leading satellite provider comes as European officials imposed new sanctions against Tehran.
They're targeting Iran's banking sector and energy trade and are aimed at making it curb its suspected nuclear weapons program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD-ekxKZ_1c
While the US Air Force's drones have been firing all sorts of air-to-surface missiles and bombs for roughly a decade now, the Navy took a big step toward getting in on the action last week when it launched six Israeli-made Spike missiles from an unmanned 36-foot motorboat.
The Navy pretty much admits that the project — called the unmanned surface vehicle precision engagement module (USV PEM) — is aimed at defeating threats that are straight out of Iran's war plans for the Persian Gulf region.
"The USV PEM project was developed in response to recent world events which have increased the concern over swarms of small attack craft, as well as threat assessments outlined in recent studies conducted by the Naval Warfare Development Command," said NAVSEA Naval Special Warfare Assistant Program Manager Mark Moses in a press release. "The study punctuates the effectiveness of these swarm attacks against both military re-supply ships and naval vessels. Technology demonstrated in this project can provide a capability to combat terrorists who use small low-cost vehicles as weapons platforms."
It sounds like the Navy is looking at using small fleets of these vehicles to patrol the waters around its larger vessels to shield against swarms of suicide attackers using tiny speedboats laden with explosives — a longstanding vulnerability to US ships designed to pummel large ships, aircraft, and inland targets from far away using missiles, torpedoes and large caliber cannons.
How does USV PEM work? During last week's test, a crew in a control station on shore piloted the boat — similar to the way UAVs are controlled — and used its night vision and infrared cameras to find and kill targets using the missiles or a remotely controlled .50 caliber heavy machine gun that's mounted on board. It's easy to imagine that in the future, these control stations could install aboard ships being protected by the USV PEM technology.
"During the demonstration, they engaged stationary and moving targets out to 3.5km," or just over two miles, says the Navy's press release.
The project is part of a joint-US-Israeli collaboration run out of the US Navy's sea systems command's Special Warfare Program Office. The same shop is responsible for, among other things, fielding a number of tiny submarines used to listen for enemy submarines, deliver Navy SEALS and other secret squirrel activities.
Until the Navy can field these killer roboboats, it will be mounting remotely controlled chain guns aboard its ships and possibly lasers and Griffin missiles to defend against swarm attacks.
by craig on November 14, 2011 12:03 pm in Uncategorized
This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.
On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.
Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.
The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..
This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.
Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.
Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.
I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.
I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.
But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.
This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.
Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?
The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was
“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”
O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that
“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”
All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.
For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.
O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:
“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”
So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?
The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.
Hague replied to Corbyn that:
“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”
Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.
This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.
That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.
My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.
O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:
“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”
There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.
I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.
Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.
Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.
I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.
I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.
This is the story I was given.
Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.
According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.
My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.
On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.
There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?
The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.
Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?
There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.
Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.
It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.
There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?
Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.
UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:
“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.
Hans Blix: The situation reminds me of Iraq http://www.information.dk/450783
War rhetoric against Iran is now so intense that the former Swedish foreign minister and weapons inspector Hans Blix get flashbacks to Iraq just before the U.S. attack. He warned the international community not to repeat the error and attack on an uncertain basis
11th February 2013
Release Data
Since Iran in 2010 opened its first nuclear power plant, the Russian-built Bushehr, inspected representatives from the IAEA nuclear fuel. Nowadays, Iran unrest by refusing IAEA access to military installation Parchin.
Photo: Abedin Taherkenareh
By Catarina Netherlands Toft Jessen
Very few people have had so thorough a knowledge of Iraq's non-existent inventory of weapons of mass destruction as Hans Blix, the former Swedish foreign minister and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981-1997.
When the suspicion of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to be tested were Hans Blix appointed as inspectors of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Blix was responsible for carrying out 700 inspections at 500 different destinations between 2001 and 2003. Not a single inspection showed that there were weapons of mass destruction present in the country. When you then could go to war on the basis of suspicion, fear Hans Blix that the same could happen in Iran today.
"In the case of Iraq bombed the U.S. because of weapons of mass destruction, as they were not sure existed. Now they discuss whether to bomb because of the intentions that you are not sure of the existence of, "says the now 84-year-old pensioner in a telephone connection from Stockholm.
Suspicion of intent
Iran has signed the Non Proliferation Treaty, which commits non-nuclear powers to refrain from acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And the Iranian government claims indeed that their nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. But in the West there is concern, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has visited Iran frequently in recent years. In the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency from November 2012 are as follows:
"... The Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the presence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran and is therefore not in a position to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."
The report concludes that no progress can be reported when it comes to clarify whether there are possible military intentions of Iran's nuclear program. One reason is that the Iranians have not closed weapons inspectors into military facility Parchin.
"When Iran says no to let inspectors enter the Parchin, because it is a military facility, they're going to look bad in the eyes of the public. Even if Denmark or Sweden acted in this way, one would have to look at them with suspicious eyes - even if it is completely fair, you can not just let the world see all your military installations, "says Hans Blix.
He believes, however, that the Western concern is more understandable in conflict with Iran than it was in conflict with Iraq. Iran has in fact nuclear activities - which Iraq had not. But he also believes that many forget that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program, like all other countries that have signed the NPT.
"If the West attacks Iran, Israel advocates and threatening, so will violate international law," says Hans Blix, referring to the UN legislation that allows a nation to provide self-defense against a military attack - and allow the international community to intervene if the UN Security Council says yes to it. Hans Blix calls for the international community to remember that none of the conditions are met.
"It's unbelievable that this is not being discussed internationally, when there is so much war rhetoric in progress. An attack on Iran in the light of the knowledge we have now, would never be legal. The only thing that will be discussed are the consequences of an attack would be, "says Hans Blix and alludes to the analysis, which Mideast political commentators regularly make.
"Many believe that it would open a war in the Middle East. Strait of Hormuz might be closed. But why even discuss it when we should focus on finding a solution? "
A radical solution
A full 70 percent of the conflict is pure psychology, while Hans Blix. The irrational actions where no parties to the conflict allow themselves to expose its weaknesses, making the situation dangerous. For when Iran will have recognized its right to have nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes without being sanctioned, and the West will not lift sanctions until the nuclear program dismantled, things impasse.
The solution to the conflict, Hans Blix a pretty radical proposals. He is advocating that you make throughout the Middle East into a zone where there does not exist WMD. Neither biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
Both Israel and Iran should be in such a scenario close their establishments.
"Israel would gain much by using this method. Israel's strategy has been to bomb their way out of problems. They bombed a research reactor in Iraq in 1981, and they bombed something in Syria, which one assumes was a research reactor in 2008. And now articulate the bombing of reactors in Iran. What do they do if suddenly the same thing happens in Saudi Arabia? And Egypt? It is not a very viable strategy. But if they got a gun-free zone, they would not only have security on the Iranian situation, but on the entire Middle East, "he said.
For outsiders can zone very easily sound like a dream scenario, and Hans Blix admits it would require a lot of inspections and a lot of guarantees from the states involved.
"It is optimistic, but the idea has a rationale, because it gives Israel the important safety. For Iranians, it would obviously cost them to slow down, but they would get credit for stopping Israeli nuclear weapons. The Israelis argue of course, that they do not have nuclear weapons, and they are opposed in principle to the weapons, so it would be strange if they are not backed the agreement. It would fit into President Obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons and would thus be a rational solution for Iran, Israel and the rest of the world. "
Momentum
If Hans Blix's dream scenario of a gun-free zone does not become a reality, he believes that one should focus on negotiations with the UN Security Council and Germany, the EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, is working on.
So far, negotiations have not gone particularly well. The Iranians will not act before sanctions eased, and the West will not ease sanctions before they see radical changes among the Iranians. Therefore, the tactics of negotiations according to Hans Blix changed.
"It would be good to spread out the negotiations. Bring more chips to the poker table, if one can say so. One could involve other issues - such as Afghanistan, where U.S. and Iran have some common interests. None of them like the Taliban. "
"Direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran will also be an option, but I'm not that America can reach a solution alone. They will only explore whether there is a resort that can along with the rest of the Security Council and Germany to negotiate. They have done this before, "says Hans Blix.
Currently it is difficult to see what the next step should be. Foreign Chief Catherine Ashton is trying slowly to get negotiations with Iran, which stranded before Christmas, started again.
"There are many factors that come into play. But I am sure that there will be negotiations again, "says Hans Blix. He believes that the Iranians will wait and see what the new U.S. foreign and defense ministers said the conflict. Like the Americans, on the other hand, probably would await elections in Iran in June.
"I wish that they come up with a solution, the situation is ridiculous. Nobody wants a war, "says Hans Blix.
- Be honest. If diplomacy is still a chance?
"Yes. If common sense has a chance. But I'm not so sure. "
Quote:
Hans Blix: Situationen minder mig om Irak
Krigsretorikken mod Iran er i dag så heftig, at den tidligere svenske udenrigsminister og våbeninspektør Hans Blix får flashbacks til Irak lige inden USA’s angreb. Han advarer nu verdenssamfundet mod at gentage fejlen og gå til angreb på et usikkert grundlag
11. februar 2013
Udgivelsesdata
Da Iran i 2010 åbnede sit første atomkraftværk, det russiskbyggede Bushehr, inspicerede repræsentanter fra IAEA det nukleare brændstof. I dag skaber Iran uro ved at nægte IAEA adgang til militæranlægget Parchin.
Foto:
Abedin Taherkenareh
Udland
Af
Catarina Nedertoft Jessen
Ganske få mennesker har haft så indgående et kendskab til Iraks ikke-eksisterende beholdning af masseødelæggelsesvåben som Hans Blix, den tidligere svenske udenrigsminister og leder af Det Internationale Atomenergi Agentur fra 1981-1997.
Da mistanken om tilstedeværelsen af masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak skulle undersøges, blev Hans Blix udpeget som våbeninspektør af FN’s daværende generalsekretær Kofi Annan. Blix var ansvarlig for udførelsen af 700 inspektioner på 500 forskellige destinationer mellem 2001 og 2003. Ikke en eneste inspektion dokumenterede, at der var masseødelæggelsesvåben til stede i landet. Når man dengang kunne gå i krig på grundlag af en mistanke, frygter Hans Blix, at det samme kan ske i Iran i dag.
»I sagen om Irak bombede USA på grund af masseødelæggelsesvåben, som man ikke var sikker på eksisterede. Nu diskuterer man, om man vil bombe på grund af intentioner, som man ikke er sikker på eksistensen af,« siger den nu 84-årige pensionist i en telefonforbindelse fra Stockholm.
Mistanke om intention
Iran har underskrevet ikkespredningstraktaten, som forpligter ikke-atommagter til at afstå fra anskaffelse af egne atomvåben. Og den iranske regering hævder da også, at deres atomprogram udelukkende er til fredelige formål. Men i Vesten er man bekymret, og Det Internationale Atomenergi Agentur har besøgt Iran flittigt de seneste mange år. I den seneste rapport fra Det Internationale Atomenergi Agentur fra november 2012 står følgende:
»… Agenturet ikke er i stand til at skaffe absolut sikkerhed om tilstedeværelse af uanmeldt nukleart materiale og aktivitet i Iran og er derfor heller ikke i stand til at konkludere, at alt nukleart materiale i Iran er til fredelige aktiviteter.«
Rapporten konkluderer, at der ikke kan rapporteres om fremskridt, når det kommer til at afklare spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der er mulige militære intentioner i Irans atomprogram. Det skyldes blandt andet, at iranerne ikke har lukket våbeninspektører ind på militæranlægget Parchin.
»Når Iran siger nej til at lade inspektører komme ind i Parchin, fordi det er et militæranlæg, kommer de til at se skidt ud i offentlighedens øjne. Selv hvis Danmark eller Sverige handlede på den måde, ville man komme til at se på dem med mistroiske øjne – også selv om det er helt fair, at man ikke bare lader verden se alle ens militæranlæg,« siger Hans Blix.
Han mener dog, at den vestlige bekymring er mere forståelig i konflikten med Iran, end den var i konflikten med Irak. Iran har jo rent faktisk atomaktiviteter – hvilket Irak ikke havde. Men han mener også, at mange glemmer, at Iran har ret til et fredeligt atomprogram ligesom alle andre lande, som har underskrevet ikkespredningstraktaten.
»Hvis Vesten angriber Iran, som Israel er fortaler for og truer med, så vil man krænke international lov,« siger Hans Blix og henviser til FN’s lovgivning, som tillader en nation at yde selvforsvar mod et militært angreb – og tillader det internationale samfund at gribe ind, hvis hele FN’s Sikkerhedsråd siger ja til det. Hans Blix opfordrer til, at verdenssamfundet husker på, at ingen af betingelserne er opfyldt.
»Det er helt utroligt, at dette ikke bliver diskuteret internationalt, når der er så meget krigsretorik i gang. Et angreb på Iran på baggrund af den viden, vi har nu, ville aldrig være lovligt. Det eneste, som bliver diskuteret, er, hvad konsekvenserne af et eventuelt angreb vil være,« siger Hans Blix og hentyder til de analyser, som politiske mellemøstkommentatorer jævnligt laver.
»Mange mener, at det ville åbne for en krig i hele Mellemøsten. Hormuzstrædet ville måske blive lukket. Men hvorfor overhovedet diskutere det, når man burde fokusere på at finde en løsning?«
En radikal løsning
Hele 70 procent af konflikten er ren psykologi, mens Hans Blix. De irrationelle handlinger, hvor ingen parter i konflikten tillader sig selv at udstille sine svagheder, gør situationen farlig. For når Iran vil have anerkendt sin ret til at have atomkraftanlæg til fredelige formål uden at blive sanktioneret, og Vesten ikke vil hæve sanktionerne, før atomprogrammet nedlægges, går tingene i hårdknude.
Løsningen på konflikten har Hans Blix et temmelig radikalt forslag til. Han er fortaler for, at man laver hele Mellemøsten om til en zone, hvor der slet ikke findes masseødelæggelsesvåben. Hverken biologiske, kemiske eller atomvåben.
Både Israel og Iran skulle i et sådant scenario lukke deres anlæg.
»Israel ville vinde meget ved at benytte denne metode. Israels strategi har været at bombe sig ud af problemerne. De bombede en research-reaktor i Irak i 1981, og de bombede noget i Syrien, som man formoder var en research-reaktor i 2008. Og nu italesætter de bombning af reaktorer i Iran. Hvad gør de, hvis der pludselig sker det samme i Saudi-Arabien? Og Egypten? Det er ikke en særlig holdbar strategi. Men hvis de fik en våbenfri zone, ville de ikke kun få sikkerhed om den iranske situation, men om hele Mellemøsten,« siger han.
For udenforstående kan zonen meget let lyde som et drømmescenario, og Hans Blix indrømmer, at det ville kræve en masse inspektioner og en masse garantier fra de implicerede stater.
»Det er optimistisk, men ideen har et rationale, fordi den giver Israel den vigtige sikkerhed. For Iranerne ville det selvfølgelig koste dem at neddrosle, men samtidig ville de få æren for at have stoppet israelske atomvåben. Israelerne hævder jo, at de ikke har atomvåben, og de er principielt imod våbnene, så det ville være underligt, hvis de ikke bakkede op om aftalen. Det ville passe ind i præsident Obamas vision om en verden uden atomvåben og ville dermed være en rationel løsning for Iran, Israel og resten af verden.«
Momentum
Hvis Hans Blix’ drømmescenario om en våbenfri zone ikke bliver en realitet, mener han, at man skal satse på forhandlingerne med FN’s Sikkerhedsråd og Tyskland, som EU’s udenrigschef, Catherine Ashton, arbejder på.
Indtil videre er forhandlingerne ikke gået specielt godt. Iranerne vil ikke handle, før sanktionerne lempes, og Vesten vil ikke lempe sanktionerne, før de ser radikale ændringer hos iranerne. Derfor skal taktikken for forhandlingerne ifølge Hans Blix ændres.
»Det ville være positivt at brede forhandlingerne ud. Bringe flere chips til pokerbordet, hvis man kan sige det sådan. Man kunne inddrage andre emner – for eksempel Afghanistan, hvor USA og Iran har nogle fælles interesserer. Ingen af dem kan lide Taleban.«
»Direkte forhandlinger mellem USA og Iran vil også være en mulighed, men jeg ser ikke, at USA kan nå frem til en løsning alene. De vil kun udforske, om der er en udvej, som man sammen med resten af sikkerhedsrådet og Tyskland kan forhandle sig frem til. De har gjort sådan før,« siger Hans Blix.
I øjeblikket er det dog svært at se, hvad det næste skridt skal være. Udenrigschef Catherine Ashton forsøger så småt at få forhandlingerne med Iran, som strandede før jul, i gang igen.
»Der er mange faktorer, som spiller ind. Men jeg er sikker på, at der vil være forhandlinger igen,« siger Hans Blix. Han tror, at iranerne vil afvente, hvad den nye amerikanske udenrigsminister og forsvarsminister udtaler om konflikten. Ligesom amerikanerne på den anden side nok også gerne afventer valget i Iran i juni.
»Jeg ville ønske, at de kommer frem til en løsning, for situationen er latterlig. Ingen ønsker en krig,« siger Hans Blix.
– Hånden på hjertet. Har diplomatiet stadig en chance?
»Ja. Hvis fornuften har en chance. Men det er jeg ikke så sikker på.«
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:16 pm Post subject:
@ Tony:
'This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force...'
I think there are a lot of Muslims worldwide who would also like to send packages to the IDF! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:44 pm Post subject:
Been a bit of Chinook helicopter activity in the skies where i live> this is not a usual occurence. Seemed to be heading towards Anglesey or Ireland. Seemed to remember some similar activity prior to previous conflicts. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Senators Approve Resolution to Assist Israel in Iran Strike
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopts a resolution which stipulates that the U.S. will assist Israel in an attack against Iran.
AAFont Size
By Elad Benari
First Publish: 4/17/2013, 4:15 AM
Iranian workers standing in front of the Bushehr nuclear power plant,
Iranian workers standing in front of the Bushehr nuclear power plant,
AFP photo
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted on Tuesday a resolution which stipulates that the U.S. will assist Israel if it is forced to take action against Iran.
The resolution, Senate Resolution 65, was introduced last month by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and was co-sponsored by 15 Senators, including Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York).
It states that the United States has a vital national interest in and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel; reaffirms the United States support for Israel’s right to self-defense; and urges that if Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States will stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.
It also states that U.S. policy is to halt Iranian nuclear ambitions. Senate Resolution 65 gained the support of 70 of the 100 senators.
A statement issued by AIPAC following the vote said, “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent a very clear and enormously important message of solidarity with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat—which endangers American, Israeli, and international security. AIPAC urges the full Senate to act expeditiously to adopt the resolution.”
On Tuesday, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said that “the regime in Tehran does not see the western world as determined to stop the nuclear project, so it allows itself to continue with its plans.
“Only putting the Iranian regime before the dilemma of ‘bomb, or survival’ will lead to the end of the project,” he said.
“The world must take the lead in the standoff with Iran, but Israel must prepare for the possibility that it will need to protect itself alone,” he added.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also referred to the Iranian nuclear threat on Tuesday, comparing it to the recent behavior of North Korea. He made the comments during a reception for foreign diplomats.
"We have recently seen the results of a wild regime that possesses nuclear weapons,” he said. “We have also seen that heavy sanctions are not always effective against a sufficiently determined regime.
“Therefore, we have an obligation to ensure that this will not happen again. If Iran achieves nuclear weapons, this will change the world. When I said this in the past, many listened and agreed, but now it is possible to agree from an additional perspective, and I think that all governments must do everything possible in order to ensure that this danger is not realized," said Netanyahu.
Tags: Iran Strike ,Israel-Iran-US ,Iran Nuclear threat ,senators _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:32 am Post subject:
YouTube just switched of Press TV.
Ooooh Google just kicked me in the face.
Google disables Press TV Youtube account http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/28/316016/google-disables-press-t v-youtube-account/
Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:14PM GMT
Google has prevented Press TV from accessing its Youtube page since Thursday, causing a large number of viewers and subscribers to contact the channel to find out what has happened.
"We have not been able to upload any new videos since early Thursday," said Press TV newsroom director, Hamid Reza Emadi, adding that Google has disabled the channel's account without giving any explanation.
"Viewers keep emailing Press TV asking why the page is not being updated," he said.
Emadi said Press TV "has yet to find out whether its Youtube account was blocked on political grounds or there were technical issues that could be resolved and the channel could get back on Youtube very soon."
SL/SL
some comments
This is more of the Reich's psy-op/cyber warfare against those who will not bow down before the insanity that is the "West". YouTube is Google, Google is DIA (Defence Inteligence Agency). DIA is US Government. US Government is part of the Reich. As stated many times, "it only GETS WORSE"
I wish Press TV would publicize the address where viewers can write to Google/YouTube to protest this censorship. If they haven't yet, Press TV should definitely do a segment about this, and get it on the air, and on the website. Personally, I get my more of my video content on Press TV via YouTube, because it's so much easier than watching live TV to download the stories that I am interested in. This censorship is outrageous and Press TV viewers should not stand for this!
'If the United States and Israel hesitate to strike out of fear of facing international opposition, the ISIS warned, "Iran could have time to make enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear weapons."
According to the report, breakout times at critical capability would be "so short" that there would not be enough time to organize an international diplomatic or military response.
"IAEA inaction or caution could make an international response all but impossible before Iran has produced enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear weapons," the ISIS report stated...' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Troubled waters: Naval forces line Syrian shores
Published time: September 06, 2013 16:12 Get short URL
USS Mahan (DDG 72) (AFP Photo)
Share on tumblr
Trends
Syria unrest
Tags
Conflict, Military, Navy, Russia, Security, Syria, USA, War
Mounting pressure for a Western strike on Syria has seen naval forces both friendly and hostile to Damascus build up off the embattled country’s coastline.
The potential of a US strike against Syria in response to an August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb gained steam on Wednesday, when a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad's government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.
President Obama has decided to put off military action until at least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure.
Following the August 21 Ghouta Attack, which killed anywhere between 355 to 1,729 people, the diplomatic scramble to launch or stave off a military strike on Syria was mirrored by the movement of naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria.
The deployment of US and allied naval warships in the region has been matched by the deployment of Russian naval warships in the region.
While the Western vessels have in many cases been deployed in the event a military strike against Syria gets a green light, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.
Below is a brief summary of the naval hardware currently amassed off Syria’s shores.
USA
The US Navy has five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers off the coast of Syria, which its top admiral says is “fully ready” for a wide range of possible actions.
The USS Ramage, USS Mahan, USS Gravely and USS Barry are each armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,151 miles) and are used for precise targeting.
The ships are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the vessels from air attacks.
On August 29, the USS Stout was sent to relieve the USS Mahan, but a defense official told AFP that both ships might remain in the area for the time being.
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday that the US ships are prepared for what he called a "vast spectrum of operations," including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Syria, as was done in Libya in 2011, and protecting themselves in the event of retaliation, AP reports.
In addition to the destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines off the coast of Syria. At one time these subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Nowadays, they are capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
It was also announced on Monday that the US had deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship, to the Eastern Mediterranean.
The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” a defense official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
The deployment of the USS Antonio comes despite promises from President Obama that no amphibious landing is on the agenda, as the US has ostensibly ruled out any “boots on the ground.”
While the wording of the draft resolution set to be put before the House does not permit a ground invasion, the wording of the text could potentially allow troops to carry out non-offensive operations within Syria, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.
On Monday, it was also announced the USS Nimitz super carrier had moved into the Red Sea, though it had not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited US military strike on Syria, US officials told ABC News.
The other ships in the strike group are the cruiser USS Princeton and the destroyers USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.
The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission, but was shifted in the event its resources are needed to “maximize available options.”
The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is also in the northern Arabian Sea.
Russia
Russia, Syria’s longtime ally and primary arms supplier, has its only overseas naval base located in the Syrian port of Tartus, which has reportedly been used to support Russia’s growing number of naval patrols on the Mediterranean. However, Russia insists recent efforts to bolster its naval presence in the region are not in response to Western threats of a military strike.
Reported movements of many Russian ships in the region are coming from anonymous Russian defense ministry sources and have not been confirmed. RT contacted the Russian Navy to ask for confirmation of the reported ship movements, though no comment was forthcoming.
On Friday, for example, the large landing ship, Nikolai Filchenkov, was reportedly dispatched from the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it is eventually expected to reach the Syrian coast, a source told Interfax News Agency.
"The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean," the source said.
RIA news agency quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying on Friday that the frigate, Smetlivy, would leave for the Mediterranean on September 12-14, and the corvette Shtil and missile boat Ivanovets would approach Syria at the end of the month.
The Russian destroyer Nastoichivy, which is the flagship of the Baltic fleet, is also expected to join the group in the region.
Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was unable to comment on specific reports, said on Thursday the Russian navy currently had a "pretty strong group" there.
"The Russian navy does not intend to take part directly or indirectly in a possible regional conflict," he told the state Rossiya 24 broadcaster.
"Our navy vessels are a guarantee of stability, guarantee of peace, an attempt to hold back other forces ready to start military action in the region."
Also reportedly in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.
They are expected to be joined by the guided-missile cruiser Moskva.
The Moskva, set to arrive in a little over a week’s time, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region.
"The plans of the naval unit under the command of Rear Admiral Valery Kulikov had to be changed a little. Instead of visiting a Cape Verde port, the cruiser Moskva is heading to the Strait of Gibraltar. In about ten days, it will enter the eastern Mediterranean, where it will replace the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev as the flagship of the operative junction of the Russian Navy," a source told Interfax on Wednesday.
Panteleyev incidentally, only arrived in the east Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after leaving the Far-Eastern port city of Vladivostok on March 19 to join the Russian standing naval force as its flagship.
The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship, Priazovye, is also reportedly on its way to join the group in the Eastern Mediterranean. Accompanied by the two landing ships, Minsk and Novocherkassk, the intelligence ship passed through the ‘Istanbul Strait’ on Thursday, which helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia.
FRANCE
On August 31, French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, and the transport ship, Dixmude, were in the Mediterranean. French officials denied they are in the region to participate in military action against Syria, but were rather taking part in training and operation preparations.
Despite their presence in the region, France currently has no ship-based missiles, so any offensive action would come from the air in the form of long-range Scalp missiles, similar to those the nation used in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, Time reports.
Italy
Two Italian warships set sail for Lebanon on Wednesday in a bid to protect 1,100 Italian soldiers in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Syria’s southeastern neighbor, Agence France Presse reported.
The Italian ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a torpedo destroyer boat departed from Italy's southeastern coast on Wednesday and would provide additional protection to the soldiers in the event the Syrian conflict further deteriorates.
UK
As of August 29, the Royal Navy's Response Force Task Group was deployed in the Mediterranean as part of long-planned exercise Cougar 13. The force includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious, type-23 frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Montrose, amphibious warship HMS Bulwark and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.
The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in Gibraltar.
On the same day that British media started touting Britain’s “arsenal of military might” which would be available in the event of intervention, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes. In light of the shocking parliamentary defeat, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would only be able to offer the US “diplomatic support.”
The UK’s Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the UK would not seek a further vote on action in Syria.
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:09 pm Post subject:
'President Obama has decided to put off military action until at least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure....'
How handy! Just in time to take the steam out of the 'Million Man March' and all the other events planned for around the 12th anniversary of 9/11. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
If there are blows over Syria, expect a cold Winter in UK and other parts of Europe _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
A global conflict between the US, Russia, and China is likely in the coming months should the world powers fail to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, an American analyst says.
“If the talks fail, if the agreements being pursued are not successfully carried forward and implemented, then there would be enormous international pressure to drive towards a conflict with Iran before [US President Barack] Obama leaves office and that’s a very great danger that no one can underestimate the importance of,” senior editor at the Executive Intelligence Review Jeff Steinberg told Press TV on Wednesday.
“The United States could find itself on one side and Russia and China on the other and those are the kinds of conditions that can lead to miscalculation and general roar,” Steinberg said.
“So the danger in this situation is that if these talks don’t go forward, we could be facing a global conflict in the coming months and years and that’s got to be avoided at all costs when you’ve got countries like the United States, Russia, and China with” their arsenals of “nuclear weapons,” he warned.
The warning came one day after the White House told Congress not to impose new sanctions against Tehran because failure in talks with Iran could lead to war.
White House press secretary Jay Carney called on Congress to allow more time for diplomacy as US lawmakers are considering tougher sanctions.
"This is a decision to support diplomacy and a possible peaceful resolution to this issue," Carney said. "The American people do not want a march to war."
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry is set to meet with the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday to hold off on more sanctions on the Iranian economy.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Kerry "will be clear that putting new sanctions in place would be a mistake."
"While we are still determining if there is a diplomatic path forward, what we are asking for right now is a pause, a temporary pause in sanctions. We are not taking away sanctions. We are not rolling them back," Psaki added.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:43 am Post subject:
It's good to know that Russia & China are tipping the equation back towards a 'balance of terror', 'MAD' ('Mutually Assured Distruction'). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
@BlacklistedNews:
Israel said to be working with Saudi Arabia on Iran strike plan
http://t.co/PYjgvIC2zY _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:52 pm Post subject:
Haaretz
Was the Iranian threat fabricated by Israel and the U.S.?
In a new book and in a conversation with Haaretz, U.S. historian Gareth Porter charges that U.S. and Israeli policies on Iran have been based on fabricated evidence.
Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant
By Shemuel Meir Published 05:54 31.05.14
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.596104
A narrative is a story that we tell ourselves, and not necessarily what happened in reality. For example, the “Iranian threat” narrative, which has become the common wisdom in Israeli public discourse. A new book by Gareth Porter, an American historian and researcher specializing in U.S. national security, shows how the actual state of the Iranian nuclear program does not match the Iranian threat narrative.
The book’s title, “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Nuclear Scare” (Just World Books), already tells us that it is going against the current. Porter appears to be the only researcher who has read with an unprejudiced eye all the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency from the past decade. He also had access to American intelligence reports on the Iranian issue from recent decades. In addition, Porter interviewed generations of American officials and analyzed the testimony of senior officials before Congress.
The result is a highly detailed and well-documented book for all interested in understanding how we arrived at the Iranian nuclear crisis, and the “attack scenarios,” and invented facts and intelligence reports whose purpose was to support the preconceptions. At the same time, the book is invaluable for those wishing to understand what is being discussed in the intensive nuclear talks that have been taking place Iran and the superpowers (or, more accurately, Iran and the U.S.) since the signing of last November’s interim agreement, which surprised many Israelis.
According to Porter, it was a hidden political agenda of U.S. decision makers (from long before Israel entered the picture) that gave rise to the Iranian nuclear crisis. This is one of the book’s main subjects, and the starting point for a discussion with which we in Israel are unfamiliar.
The story begins with U.S. support for the Iraqis during the 1980s Iraq-Iran war. The critical point comes with the collapse of the Soviet empire. According to Porter, that event and the end of the Cold War pulled out the rug from under the CIA’s raison d’être. The solution the Americans found to continue providing the organization with a tremendous budget was the invention of a new threat – the merging of weapons of mass destruction (an ambiguous term in itself) and terror. Iran, which rose to the top of the list, provided the threat that “saved” the CIA.
The empowering of the CIA’s organizational interests was reinforced by the gallant neoconservatives, led by ideologues Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton, who had in the meantime reached senior positions in the government. They launched a campaign to delegitimize the Islamic Republic with the aim of toppling the regime (using the sanitized term “regime change”).
Running through Porter’s book is the well-substantiated claim that U.S. and Israeli policies on Iran derived from their political and organizational interests, and not necessarily from careful factual analysis of the Iranian nuclear program, which was subject to IAEA monitoring, or of the intentions of the Iranian leadership.
According to Porter, no systematic analysis was made of the goals of the Iranian nuclear program, and neither U.S. nor Israeli policy makers devoted any thought to why all of Iran’s official declarations on the subject were in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Furthermore, in U.S. discussions until 2007, and in Israel until today, hovering overhead is the nuclear “axiom” that Iran is dashing toward a bomb via the route of uranium-enrichment centrifuges. Porter and the IAEA found no proof of the dash to the bomb.
Following is Haaretz’s interview with Porter, conducted via email.
You have spent years of research analyzing IAEA reports, intelligence reports and interviewing officials about the Iran nuclear issue. What motivated you to write your latest book?
“It was the realization that a narrative about the Iranian nuclear issue had gained unchallenged credence, but that I had discovered over the years a number of major ‘anomalies’ – important facts that could not be reconciled with the narrative. I also came to realize that I was the only journalist who was closely tracking the evidence surrounding the issue. And finally – and perhaps most importantly – I realized that it is was impossible to convey the truth ... in an article or series of articles; I had to write a book.”
Is it fair to say that your book shows us that the whole nuclear crisis as it has unfolded over the past 10 years is about U.S. and Israeli attempts to prevent Iran from developing a non-militarized nuclear program, even though such a program is permitted under the NPT, and that this obscured the fact that Iran never intended to develop nuclear weapons?
“Yes, I put considerable emphasis on the early history of the interaction between Iran’s nuclear program and policy, and the policies of the United States and Israel toward the program. I show how the Reagan administration’s intervention, beginning as early as 1983, to pressure Germany and France to refuse to cooperate with Iran in completing the Bushehr reactor, and to refuse to provide the enriched uranium reactor fuel for Bushehr, meant that Iran had to either give up its nuclear rights under the NPT altogether or go to the black market, in defiance of U.S. policy, to get its own independent enrichment capability. And despite subsequent U.S. and Israeli charges that Iran was interested in enrichment for nuclear weapons, there was and is no evidence whatever to support that charge.”
In my Haaretz blog, I emphasize the paradigm change of the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, and still valid today, which concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Israeli public is unaware of this halt. Furthermore, many commentators believe that U.S. intelligence “corrected” itself and that the 2007 estimate has been annulled. Could you enlighten our readers about the important 2007 NIE?
“The 2007 NIE broke with previous NIEs [in 2001 and 2005], which had concluded that Iran was then running a nuclear weapons program. It concluded instead, with ‘high confidence,’ that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons. That conclusion was of course opposed by the Bush administration and Israel, because it had been the charge that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons that justified the threat of military force against Iran. And it did indeed make the ‘military option’ irrelevant to U.S. policy for the rest of the Bush administration and for much of the Obama administration.”
According to the 2007 NIE, however, some nuclear weapons research was carried out in Iran until 2003. Could you elaborate on what kind of research was undertaken; when, where and by whom, and what its scope was?
“Precisely who was carrying out research and what kind of research is still completely unclear, despite my effort to get any additional information on the subject from Thomas Fingar, who was in charge of the estimate. What was said by U.S. intelligence officials to be ‘snippets of conversation’ intercepted by U.S. intelligence in 2007 appears to indicate that some research related to nuclear weapons was being undertaken. But how many people were involved remains entirely unclear. And the testimony of the French ambassador to Tehran, as well as other evidence presented in my book, strongly suggests that the Supreme National Security Council had not authorized it and was not happy that it was going on.
“Not only did [Iran’s then-president] Hassan Rouhani order it halted in October 2003, when he was named the first coordinator of Iran’s nuclear policy, but Rouhani prevailed on the Supreme Leader to declare any work on nuclear weapons illicit under Islam in order to compel the researchers to give up their work on weapons. Understanding that episode correctly is clearly necessary to comprehending Iran’s nuclear policy accurately.
“Unfortunately, as I argue in my book, the evidence indicates that the team of intelligence analysts, who had been wrong about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in 2005 and again in an early draft of the 2007 estimate, got it wrong in their conclusion that the Iranian government had an actual nuclear weapons program [before] late 2003.”
In your book, you explain in great detail the sought-after “smoking gun,” i.e. the mysterious “laptop studies” and the Parchin “bomb test chamber.” The Israeli public is unfamiliar with the details of these “cases.” Could you explain the “possible military dimensions” and comment on the credibility of the “evidence”?
“I devote an entire chapter to the ‘mysterious laptop documents’ and show that they were actually fabricated by Israeli intelligence and given to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq [a militant Iranian opposition group] to pass on to German intelligence in mid-2004. The ‘giveaway’ that they were fabrications is the fundamental error in a series of studies depicting efforts to integrate a nuclear weapon into the Iranian intermediate-range missile, which shows the Shahab-3 that Iran had abandoned in 2000 in favor of a much-improved model that was first tested in August 2004 – too late to correct the mistake before the papers were passed to the MEK.
“Among the indicators that the documents originated in Israel is the fact that the MEK is not sophisticated enough to have fabricated such a large number of documents, and the well-known history of the terrorist organization’s close working relations with Israeli intelligence. Equally important is the fact that former IAEA director general ElBaradei revealed in his memoirs that Israel had passed on documents and intelligence reports to the IAEA directly in 2008 and 2009, which depicted Iran work on nuclear weapons even after 2003 – obviously prompted by the 2007 NIE.
“Those documents included information alleging that Iran had built a large metal cylinder to carry out tests of nuclear weapons designs at its Parchin military base. The IAEA made that allegation a major news theme by publishing it in its November 2011 report. But no other evidence except the Israeli intelligence report has ever been produced to support that highly dubious charge. “
The emphasis in your book is on the centrifuges and the “enrichment track to the bomb.” Can you comment on the Arak heavy water reactor that is linked in Israel to the “plutonium track” and is behind the preemptive scenarios that have been developed in the Israeli press.
“The main weakness of the argument that Arak is an Iranian scheme for a ‘plutonium track’ to a nuclear weapon is simple: Iran has already agreed to arrangements under which it would be prevented from maintaining control of the plutonium produced by the reactor. In other words, all of the plutonium would be exported to another country. But there is a second major reason that it is not the threat that is being claimed: To build a plutonium reprocessing plant requires extensive construction as well as time, and it cannot be concealed.”
What is your assessment of the current negotiations between Iran and the P5+1? Is a final agreement to close the Iranian file on the table?
“I am pessimistic about the outcome of these talks, in the coming months at least, because the Obama administration – influenced by the false narrative surrounding the issue and overconfident about its ability to pressure an Iran it assumes has been significantly weakened by the sanctions – is planning to demand that Iran give up all but a very few thousand of its 19,000 centrifuges for many, many years. That demand, based on a notion of Iranian ‘breakout’ that is quite divorced from reality, is an obvious deal-breaker. Iran cannot and will not agree to give up its ability to provide nuclear fuel for more nuclear plants, for which it is planning. In my view, this demand will lead to a much higher level of tensions unless and until it is substantially altered.”
In your view, what is behind the Israeli-Iranian rivalry? Is there a chance for Israeli-Iranian détente following the achievement of a final agreement in the Vienna talks and the possibility of new openings in U.S.-Iran relations?
“In my view there have been political considerations on both sides of the Iran-Israel relationship that have stood in the way of a detente over the past 15 years: On the Israeli side, the first Netanyahu government in 1996 was actually willing to give detente a try, so there is no inherent reason why it could not happen again. It was the opportunity to use the U.S. to put intense pressure on Iran, if not to use force for regime change, that swayed successive Israeli governments to take the ‘existential threat’ approach to Iran. If and when the U.S. pursues a truly independent policy toward Iran, that Israeli motive will disappear.
“On the Iranian side, the main obstacle to softening of its attitude toward Israel, in my view, has been the degree to which taking a hard line toward Israel makes Iran popular in the Sunni Arab street and counterbalances, at least to some extent, the anti-Iran policy of the Sunni regimes. So Iran-Israel detente has become hostage, to a great extent, to both the pro-Israel stance of the U.S. and the Sunni-Shi’a cold war.”
A final question: Is there a possibility that you are wrong, that you have been misled by some optimistic and naïve theories?
“My operational principle as an investigative journalist is that if there is a single verifiable fact that conflicts with my general understanding of an issue, I need to look more closely to understand why that anomaly exists. In the case of Iran’s nuclear program, I have found an unbroken string of anomalies that undermine the credibility of official U.S.-Israeli narrative, but I have yet to find a single fact that would invalidate my reconstruction of the history of the issue.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:49 pm Post subject:
Thousands in Tehran mourn Iranian general killed by Israel
AFP
January 21, 2015 11:27 AM
Iranian mourners carry the coffin of General Mohammad Ali Allahdadi -- a commander of the Islamic republic's Revolutionary Guards who was killed in an Israeli air strike on Syria -- during his funeral procession in Tehran, on January 21, 2015
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-tehran-mourn-iranian-general-killed-is rael-162714005.html
Tehran (AFP) - Thousands gathered in Tehran Wednesday at a funeral procession for a Revolutionary Guards general killed by Israel, after his commander warned the Jewish state it should "await destructive thunderbolts".
General Mohammad Ali Allahdadi died alongside six fighters from Lebanon's Hezbollah group in the attack Sunday near Quneitra on the Syrian-controlled side of the Golan Heights.
Allahdadi's coffin was draped in an Iranian flag as it was carried into a Guards base in southeast Tehran. He is to be buried on Thursday in Pariz, a town in the southern province of Kerman.
"The path of martyr Allahdadi is unstoppable and will be continued until the liberation of the Holy Quds (Jerusalem) and obliteration of the Zionist regime," Guards commander Major General Ali Jafari said at a ceremony at the base, according to the official IRNA news agency.
The mourners chanted "Death to Israel" and burned two Israeli flags.
Allahdadi died alongside Jihad Mughniyeh, the son of an assassinated Hezbollah commander, and Mohammed Issa, a fighter responsible for the Lebanese group's operations in Syria and Iraq.
View galleryIranian protesters step on the Israeli flag during …
Iranian protesters step on the Israeli flag during the funeral procession of General Mohammad Ali Al …
An Israeli security source told AFP one of its helicopters carried out the strike, but a United Nations' observer force in the Golan on raised the possibility that drones may have been used.
On Tuesday, Jafari took aim at Israel, saying "the Zionists should await destructive thunderbolts."
"They have in the past seen our wrath," he said, adding the Guards "will continue its support for Muslim fighters and combatants in the region."
For his part, the defence minister, Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, said "this action of Zionists will not be left without a response. The important thing is the question of the time and place of this response."
Mohsen Rezaie, secretary of Iran's Expediency Council, added that Hezbollah would eventually retaliate against "this recent atrocity," but that the group was "prudent and has a long term plan and will not be infuriated."
Once solely focused on fighting Israel, Hezbollah is now deeply involved in the war in Syria, where it backs President Bashar al-Assad.
Shiite Iran is Assad's main regional ally in his war against the mainly Sunni rebels seeking to overthrow him.
Hezbollah's Al-Manar television said the group's six fighters were killed on a reconnaissance mission.
But an Israeli security source said the strike was on "terrorists" who were preparing an attack on the Jewish state.
The incident came days after Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah threatened to retaliate against Israel for its repeated strikes on targets in Syria, and boasted the movement was stronger than ever.
He touted a sophisticated arsenal, including Fateh-110 missiles, which have a range of 200 kilometres (125 miles) or more and are capable of hitting much of Israel.
Senator John McCain took to the Senate floor last week to rail against peace talks with Iran. No surprises there. But McCain went beyond blasting the deal. He suggested a surprising and disturbing method of blowing up the talks.
'The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue. Let's hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.'
Go rogue? This saber rattling it is not just a momentary fit of John McCain's signature pique. McCain, and his allies like Senators Lindsey Graham and Robert Menendez, have repeatedly slipped language into bills calling for the U.S. to support Israel if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities. One such bill, Senate Res. 65, nicknamed the "Backdoor to War" bill read in part:
'[Congress] urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.'
While that language was later watered down, McCain's war talk is part of an effort to normalize the idea of military attacks on Iran as Plan B if Congress torpedoes diplomacy. Legislation like the soon-to-be debated Corker-Menendez bill could create a Congressional veto of nuclear negotiations with Iran. It is anyone's guess what comes after such a veto. But a good indication of Senate hawks' future plans is always what neoconservative think tanks are saying in the nation's leading papers today.
Lo and behold, Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, just wrote a piece in the New York Times bluntly titled, "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran." Bolton, was one of the main cheerleaders for the war in Iraq and assured the public that: "We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq."
Now Bolton counsels us to embark on another preventative war:
'The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel's 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.
Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what's necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.'
So Bolton leaves open both the Israeli and U.S. attack options. He then slyly slips in the goal of regime change. This is the tell that reveals why these folks are so opposed to the current negotiations. While a diplomatic agreement can ensure Iran's nuclear programs are peaceful, they won't bring down the regime......' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday that Iran will destroy Tel Aviv in ten minutes if Israel “makes a ...
Iran Responds to Liberman: We'll Destroy Tel Aviv - Middle ... *
A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday that Iran will destroy Tel Aviv in ten minutes if Israel “makes a ...
IRAN- "WE WILL DESTROY TEL AVIV IN 10 MINUTES!" (Video) *
A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday that Iran will destroy Tel Aviv in ten minutes if Israel “makes a ...
Iran says they will destroy Tel Aviv in 10 minutes *
Arutz Sheva 7 – A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday that Iran will destroy Tel Aviv in ten minutes if ...
Senior Official With Iranian Revolutionary Guards Says “Iran ... *
A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday that ... Iran has rockets that can reach the heart of Tel Aviv ...
Iran says they will destroy Tel Aviv in 10 minutes
A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday that Iran will destroy Tel Aviv in ten minutes if Israel “makes a ...
IRAN- “WE WILL DESTROY TEL AVIV IN 10 MINUTES!” (VIDEO ... *
A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on ... threatened on Saturday that Iran will destroy Tel Aviv in ten ...
#Iran to #Israel: We’ll Destroy Tel Aviv in 10 Minutes ... *
... Reuters A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday that Iran will destroy Tel Aviv in ten minutes if ...
Iran says they will destroy Tel Aviv in 10 minutes - Obama *
Iran says they will destroy Tel Aviv in 10 minutes Arutz Sheva 7 – A senior figure in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mujtabi Du Al-Nour, threatened on Saturday ... _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
'......Barack Obama said the agreement was the best available option to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, and promised to veto any attempt by Republican opponents to undermine it. His Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, said a new phase had begun in Iran’s relations with the rest of the world......'
'Israel will ramp up its lobbying of the U.S. Congress to try to hinder the nuclear agreement struck with Iran on Tuesday and minutely monitor the deal for any violations in the hope of getting sanctions reimposed on Tehran.
Responding with alacrity to news that six world powers had agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program, Israel’s prime minister and other senior officials condemned the historic pact.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described Iran as akin to the militants of Islamic State, said the deal was “a stunning, historic mistake.”
In a statement before convening his inner circle of ministers to discuss the deal, he added: “Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction. We will always defend ourselves.”
Netanyahu was expected to speak to President Barack Obama later on Tuesday about the deal, Israeli media reported.
He warned that “Iran will get a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world.”
Iran does not recognize Israel and has in the past said it should be wiped off the map, leading the small Jewish state, widely assumed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, to portray Iran as a threat to its existence.
Having spent months trying to stall the deal and expose its perceived frailties, Israeli officials said they would now focus on persuading the U.S. Congress to reject it, while tracking Iran meticulously to catch violations.
In an indication of the broad opposition to the deal in Israel, center-left leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s chief political rival, said he would soon visit the United States to lobby for more U.S. military support as a defense against Iran.
U.S. lawmakers have 60 days to review the deal, with Obama seeking bipartisan support for an agreement that would be a central plank of his legacy. Even if the review goes against Obama, he could overrule Congress by veto, although that would tarnish the achievement.
“HOLES IN THE AGREEMENT”
“Israel must focus and explain all of the holes in this agreement, which will just intensify terrorism and increase Middle East chaos,” Gilad Erdan, minister of public security and a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, told Israel’s Army Radio.
Netanyahu’s relations with the White House are already rocky, not least because he addressed a joint session of Congress in March to criticize the emerging deal, and some in Israel have questioned the value of lobbying Congress again.
But confidants of Netanyahu said he was as determined as ever to have his views heard.
“Why shouldn’t we go all-out in Congress?” one person close to Netanyahu said. “Even if we don’t garner all the votes we need, and even if Obama exercises a presidential veto to get the Iran deal ratified, it will still have symbolic value for us.”
Dore Gold, director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and a veteran Netanyahu adviser, saw no need to “feel ashamed” about arguing against the nuclear deal in the United States - which he insisted could be done without aggravating Obama personally.
Gold said open communications were needed to report and act on any attempt by Iran to violate the curbs on its nuclear program, an allusion to increased Israeli monitoring.
Under the agreement, international sanctions on Iran could be reimposed within 65 days if Tehran violates any part of the pact, diplomats said.
ARMED FORCES
Netanyahu has also beefed up Israel’s armed forces, which have been tasked with preparing last-ditch strikes on Tehran’s nuclear sites - though such a prospect has little support domestically and is seen as highly unlikely.
In a hint at military preparedness, Netanyahu convened his security cabinet - a small group of senior ministers - later on Tuesday to discuss the response to the deal.
Erdan said war had not been ruled out: “Israel is keeping all options on the table, diplomatic or otherwise.”
Washington, which gives Israel $3 billion in annual defense grants and has signaled that it is open to increasing that, has tried to stay its ally’s hand with joint missile defense projects designed to offset the threat from Iran.
At the same time, the United States has increased defense support to other allies in the region who have concerns about Iran, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf states.
Israeli officials have emphasized the interests they share with those countries, hinting at the need for Israel and the Sunni Arab states to stand together against what they see as Shi’ite Iran’s ambitions for wider regional influence.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the Palestinians welcomed the agreement which he said would “help stabilize our region and resolve problems.” _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
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 cannot 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
