From the Dept of Famous Last Words (Iraq War Divsion):



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/from-the-dept-of-famous-_b_17467.html



U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby:



http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800



http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-daily/18-03-2006/world/w3.htm



Britain breaks with the US over Iran



By Patrick Seale



DUBAI: Britain has told the United States that it will not take part in any armed action against Iran’s nuclear sites, according to diplomatic sources in London. Already facing huge public criticism for his participation in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair is seeking to distance himself from America’s belligerent rhetoric towards Iran.

Blair knows he would probably not survive the political storm if Britain joined in an attack on Iran. The concern in Whitehall, however, is that the Bush administration, egged on by Israel and its powerful friends in the United States, risks developing an unstoppable momentum towards war a war in which Britain clearly wants no part.

There is a real fear that if Iran refuses to yield to pressure either by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or by the UN Security Council to which Iran was formally referred on March 8 then the US would be left with no other option than to strike. The US may indeed have boxed itself into a corner by its threats, which Iran has scornfully rejected.

The view in Whitehall is that if America attacks Iran, it will have to do so alone or with Israel. In private discussions, British officials have made clear that any sort of military campaign against Iran would be "madness".

Despite its close alliance with the US, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has departed publicly from aggressive statements by senior US officials. He has ruled out military action by Britain against Iran as "inconceivable".

Last week, Britain announced it was pulling 800 men out of Iraq one tenth of its force there. This is seen as a signal that Britain is seeking to limit its involvement in America’s wars, rather than take on additional commitments.

Carefully monitoring opinion in Washington, British officials have noted with alarm that the advocates of confrontation with Iran, both inside and outside the administration, have triumphed over the few brave souls who dared argue in favour of dialogue and engagement.

Analysts in London are now convinced that Washington’s real aim is "regime change" in Tehran, an ambition which goes far beyond merely delaying or halting Iran’s nuclear programme.

The Washington Post reported this week that Iran had moved to the top of America’s national security agenda. Quite apart from the large teams devoted to the Iran problem in the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, 10 people are now working full time on the Iran desk at the State Department, and an American outpost of Tehran-watchers has been established in the Gulf.

Earlier this month US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different from the Middle East that we would like to see develop." In a bid to undermine the mullahs, she is planning to spend $85 million expanding American radio and TV broadcasts to Iran and promote internal opposition.

In a widely reported speech on March 7 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israeli lobby, Vice-President Dick Cheney declared: "The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the [Iranian] regime? We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

On the same day, General Moshe Ya’alon, a former Israeli chief of staff, told a Washington audience that Israel could launch an attack on Iran in several different ways, not just from the air. This was seen as a reference to Israel’s Dolphin class submarines, armed with American Harpoon nuclear missiles, which are thought to be targeted at Iran.

As with the invasion of Iraq, the campaign against Iran seems to be driven by neocons and other pro-Israeli activists. Richard Perle one of the most eager advocates of the Iraq war has been beating the drums of war against Iran, as has the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Even Ze’ev Schiff, a usually sober Israeli defence analyst, wrote last week in Haaretz that intelligence services in the West were convinced that Iran was covertly developing nuclear weapons. "There is a secondary, smaller covert channel that is making steady progress towards creating a nuclear weapon," he claimed.

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported on March 10 that "in recent months, IDF officers have visited Washington to offer their support for a military strike should the diplomatic channels fail to bring Iran to heel".

American war fever against Iran seem largely to do with Israel. It includes Iran’s support for anti-Israeli militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks about "wiping Israel off the map", which most independent observers dismiss as an angry response to Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians and not in any sense a realistic threat.

President George W. Bush and his Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have accused Iran of smuggling sophisticated road-side bombs and military personnel into Iraq, but General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted this week that the US had no proof of such activity.

In claiming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons the US seems in danger of repeating the mistake it made in Iraq. The evidence against Iran is as flimsy and as unproven as was the charge that Iraq’s WMD posed an "imminent threat" to America and the world.

There is no sign, however, that Washington is ready to heed the advice of IAEA chief Mohammad Al Baradei, who urged the US to end the "war of words" with Tehran and "engage in a dialogue".

Russia, too, is anxious to avert the danger of war not least to protect its substantial interests in Iran.

Russia is supplying Iran with an advanced air defence system and has almost finished building Iran’s first nuclear power station at Bushehr on the Arabian Gulf at a reported cost of $800 million. Moscow is keen to win more nuclear power contracts in Iran where Energy Minister Parviz Fattah this week announced plans to start building a second nuclear power station within six months.

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, described Iran’s referral to the Security Council as "too hasty".

"This move is detrimental," he said on Russian state TV. "Not one real problem can be decided with such a move? We don’t want to be the ones to remind [everyone] who was right and who was not in Iraq, although the answer is obvious."

A Russian compromise proposal to produce nuclear fuel for Iranian power stations in Russia, while allowing Iran to enrich a small amount of uranium on its own soil, was shot down by the US. "Enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil is not acceptable," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

In confronting Iran, the US may not have fully weighed the possible consequences: the extreme danger to US forces in Iraq; soaring oil prices; and encouragement for the world-wide jihadi movement which is bound to result in terror attacks against US and Israeli interests. It looks as if the US has no coherent policy towards Iran only bluster.

Iran has an "inalienable right" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to acquire atomic knowledge for peaceful purposes. It has the ability to hit back hard against any aggressor. And, even were it to acquire nuclear weapons a remote possibility several years in the future it could surely be contained and deterred by the immensely greater nuclear arsenals of the US and Israel.

The inescapable conclusion would seem to be that the US should start direct talks with Iran as soon as possible. It may be the only way to defuse the threat of war, to provide the US with an exit strategy from Iraq and to build bridges to an inflamed Muslim public opinion.



(Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle East affairs)



http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

From the Dept of Famous Last Words (Iraq War Divsion):



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/from-the-dept-of-famous-_b_17467.html



U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby:



http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800

Iran is busy building nukes which, once they are operable, they have promised to "wipe Israel off the map" with them.

No wonder Israel is concerned.

Nor should the world stand back and allow this to happen.

Bush really shot his wad in Iraq, has depleted both the US treasury, has depleted the US military resources.

His leadership has been disasterous.

But making Israel the fall guy is just bizarre.

They have done nothing to warrant any attack from Iran.

Clinton says his biggest regret as president was his failure to intercede in the Rwanda genocide.

Americans need to consider the gravity of this situation and act with intelligence, courage, and conviction.

Iran is not making any idle threats.

"Iran is busy building nukes which, once they are operable, they have promised to "wipe Israel off the map" with them."

No no no This should read:

Project Mockingbecky is busy shooting her fingers off about * someone ELSE besides ** Israel ** building nukes which, once they are operable ( which, would be ten years from now with highly regulated precision equipment and a huge infrastructure foot print with the current NSA observation capabilities) , , they have promised to "wipe Israel off the map" with them. What a waste of " with them ".

Figure it out.

Also see: .... :>)

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/150375.php

just a quixotic thought for enablers of evil.

Israel has had nukes since shortly after the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Funny, no Arab armies have amassed to attack them since.

Israel hasn't even officially announced they HAVE nukes---although its widely believed they have an arsenal of them including nukes on Israeli submarines.

The difference is that Israel is not threatening anyone with their nukes.

Iran PROMISES to use them as soon as they are built against Israel.

This is the difference. Israel's nukes prevent war. Iran's nukes will bring war.

"The difference is that Israel is not threatening anyone with their nukes.

[if you believe that, you are in need of serious counseling ]

Iran PROMISES to use them as soon as they are built against Israel.

[ feel free to provide *direct quotes* from Iranian leadership]

This is the difference. Israel's nukes prevent war. Iran's nukes will bring war. "

[ and that's yer rational because they are in the hands of the most reactionary, militarized, * Aggressive *, Criminal * and brutal colonialist state in the region ? Nukes? ]

Please git stuffed.

SHEEPDOG WROTE: "they are in the hands of the most reactionary, militarized, * Aggressive *, Criminal * and brutal colonialist state in the region ?"

BECKY: Well, its clear you don't like the Israelis given your pejorative stream of invectives. But where is your proof?

Since when has Israel ever overtly or even subtly threatened to fire its nukes at anyone?

Never.

If you had a link you would post it.

here's my link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html

Proof?Ha ha ha ha.

The nuclear weapons the *only* *** Israel *** *has * are for what?

Like the half ton of C4 I use as a mattress? Comfort?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Tell me that again?

Then prove it. Show some credible authority that Israel ever used a nuclear weapon. If not, shut up and stop making silly noises.

It's not only the state of Israel that 'uses' nuclear weapons...

Any one who possesses them are using them.

As a weapon of threat.

Nuclear weapons are an obscenity on this earth.

Can't do it,can you? And the fact that you babble on ignorantly about Israel, while remaining silent on Iran proves you to be a racist hypocrite pretending to be a "Progressive.

Since you can't back up your hate motivated drivel, just shut up and let smart people talk.

Classic.

Israel has 200 + nuclear weapons and points at Iran which has none.

" Israel has 200 + nuclear weapons and points at Iran which has none."

As well it should.

The arab muslim world is not evolved enough to handle such weapons but savage and animalistic enough to warrant Israel having them for defense.

How dare Jews defend themselves! They should immediately lay down all arms and resume being subservient Dhimmi (Arabic for essentially "Jim Crow") under Moslem rule.

Four days ago I challenged Sheepdog to provide a single quote, a single link which showed anyone in the Israeli govt. threatening any other country or people with nuclear destruction from their 200+ arsenal.

Instead he mumbled something about "just having them is threatening".

So like if I have a gun locked in my kitchen drawer in case a burglar breaks into my house is the same as me going out on the sidewalk, pointing it at someone, and threatening to pull the trigger?

Or a better analogy, applying for a gun permit ANNOUNCING (in the case of IRan-- a PResidential declaration) that as soon as you get your gun, you will go and murder someone.

Wrong.

It's more like me having a working howitzer in my front yard.

Aren't you the same pompous blowhard on Indybay talking about how nothing matters except the sizeof your "gatt"? Isn't that some kind of implied threat? Is it your position that we need moreun-registered, un-licensed guns on the street? Is that some kind of example of non-violence for our at risk youth?

I erred...

"Project Mockingbecky

by Sheepdog Thursday, Mar. 23, 2006 at 3:20 PM

Wrong.

It's more like me having a working howitzer in my front yard"

Thinking about it.

It's really more like that Bad house down the block who is friendly with the police and that robs and steals and kills the neighbors sometimes, who has a howitzer in the *back* yard.