full-scale war between the US and Iran (1 Viewer)

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] Iran: The War Begins [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif] By John Pilger [/FONT]​
As opposition grows in America to the failed Iraq adventure, the Bush administration is preparing public opinion for an attack on Iran, its latest target, by the spring.
The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its dis aster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
"Networks" means Iran. "There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.
As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neo-con" fanatics such as Vice-President Dick Che- ney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington's Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their "strategy" is to end Iran's nuclear threat.
In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use.


more...
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-02/03pilger.cfm
 
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring



[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian
[/FONT]US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.




Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring



[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian

[/FONT]
iranattackstory372ready.jpg

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled. Photograph: Reuters
[/FONT]

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.

Article continues
arrow9x7.gif

<a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&spacedesc=mpu&site=Guardian&navsection=1699&section=111322&country=fra&rand=0547041"> <img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&spacedesc=mpu&site=Guardian&navsection=1699&section=111322&country=fra&rand=0547041" width="300" height="250" border="0" alt="Advertisement"></a>

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
Deployment
Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made.
Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.
In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.
The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording.




more...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html
 
Were we not being told this time last year that it was going to start in March (2006 that is)? Because of some oil bourse(sp?) thing ....
 
hugh said:
Were we not being told this time last year that it was going to start in March (2006 that is)? Because of some oil bourse(sp?) thing ....
Click to expand...

The first warnings were back in August 2004, speculating about September attacks after the [FONT=Verdana,]US House of Representatives passed a resolution which,in effect, authorised a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran in May of that year.[/FONT]

The "oil Bourse" thing is briefly explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

and an article originally written about it and U.S. motivations for attacking Iraq by W. Clark that was then revised for Iran is here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
 
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline
Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm
 
Iran has lots of F-14's and the pilots to fly them. I'd really like to see the yanks shoot down their own planes.

They also have lots of F5's. Nifty and extremely upgradeable planes. Almost tigersharks.

And a gazillion MiG's.


Methinks the "cabinet" (Wolf, etc.,) are hoping for an easy capitulation.

Something rings familiar.
Something rings untrue.
 
steve albino said:
Former Isralie nuclear scientist and whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu continues to risk re-imprisonment by speaking out against Isreali militarists and their nuclear weapons program. As Vanunu points out: "Each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples."

Israel Preparing To Use Nuclear Weapons against Iran
Interview with Mordechai Vanunu / Voyenny Parad, No. 4, 2005 (Translated from the original Russian.)

(January 2, 2006) — The first rumors of Israel working on its own nuclear bomb arose back in the mid-1950s, when the Jewish state's scientific institutions started serious nuclear physics research. But only in 1986 did the rest of the world find out the real scale of Israel's work on nuclear weapons, thanks to Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu.

With the assistance of Irish journalists Sean O'Carroll and Maria Escribano, we have managed to interview Israel's most prominent dissident. Mordechai Vanunu told us about the threat of a nuclear catastrophe hanging over the Middle East.

Question: You say that Israel already has nuclear weapons. Iran is on its way to acquiring them. And these two countries regularly exchange threats about bombing each other. How likely is a nuclear conflict in the Middle East?

Mordechai Vanunu: All I can say is this: the Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples.

The Israeli Defense Ministry has long had a nuclear arsenal. Israeli intelligence tried to keep the existence of this arsenal secret from the outside world, but fortunately did not succeed. Nevertheless, they are still trying to silence me - even now, after seventeen-and-a-half years in prison.

Question: Do you know how many nuclear bombs Israel has?
Mordechai Vanunu: When I worked at Dimona, nuclear materials were already being produced there - plutonium, lithium, tritium, and others. Enough to make ten nuclear bombs per year.

In other words, starting from 1985, Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads by now.

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3599
Click to expand...

A court in Israel has convicted former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu of violating a military order banning him from speaking to foreign journalists. The verdict could mean a fresh jail term for Mr Vanunu, who served 18 years in prison for revealing details of Israel's clandestine nuclear programme.
His lawyer called it intolerable to convict a person for the mere act of speaking, never mind whatever was said.
A sentencing hearing is set for 18 May. Vanunu is banned from leaving Israel.
"We should be clear here that Vanunu was convicted for the very act of speaking to non-Israelis, rather than the content of those conversations," lawyer Michel Sfard said.
"We do not consider this appropriate for a democracy in the 21st Century."
Mr Sfard said interior ministry officials had told him the travel ban on Mr Vanunu had been extended by another year to April 2008.


 'Security threat'
"All that I want is to be free, to leave the country," Mr Vanunu, 52, told reporters at the magistrate's court in Jerusalem.
He was jailed in 1986 and released in April 2004 under strict conditions, including not talking to the foreign press.
However, he has given a series of interviews to the international media in the last three years.
Mr Vanunu's revelations belied Israel's policy of "strategic ambiguity" about its atomic weapons programme.
It is believed to have at least 200 nuclear warheads. It is not subject to international monitoring because it is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Israel insists Mr Vanunu - who has converted to Christianity - still poses a security threat.
Mr Vanunu says his action in revealing Israel's nuclear secrets aimed to avert a nuclear holocaust in the region.
Click to expand...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6607199.stm


 
Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush

[...]

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

[...]
Click to expand...
 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Monday July 16, 2007
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007[/FONT]
 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts warn[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling and nuclear fears
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Julian Borger and Ian Black
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Saturday September 15, 2007
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning.[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days, with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The involvement of a few hundred British troops in the anti-smuggling operation also raises the risk of their involvement in a cross-border clash.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed would be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this week by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and warned: "I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have created in Iraq."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]In such circumstances, last week's Israeli air strike against a mystery site in northern Syria has triggered speculation over its motives. Israel has been silent about the attack. Syria complained to the UN security council but gave few details. Some say the target was Iranian weapons on their way to Hizbullah in Lebanon, or that the sortie was a dry run for a US-Israeli attack on Syria and Iran. There is even speculation that the Israelis took out a nuclear facility funded by Iran and supplied by North Korea[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The situation is particularly volatile because the struggle for influence threatens to exacerbate a confrontation over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The talk is of multiple targets," said Mr Cronin. "In Washington there is very serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at seriously because there is only six months to 'do something about Iran' before it will be looked at as a purely political issue."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]US presidential elections are due in November 2008, and military action at the height of the campaign is usually seen by voters as politically motivated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]US and British officials have complained to Iran about the use by Shia militias in Iraq of what they say are Iranian-made weapons. The main concern is the proliferation of roadside bombs that fire a bolt of molten metal through any thickness of armour, which the officials say must have been made in Iran.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner, raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US military headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American soldier and wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Gen Bergner used to work in the White House, where he was aligned with administration hawks, and his dispatch to Baghdad was seen by some as a move to increase pressure on Iran.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something about this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that respect, border control is a sensible solution."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and participating in or endorsing American actions. British officials insist that Washington has given no sign it is ready to abandon diplomacy and argue that UN sanctions are showing signs of working. They point to the resurgence in Iran of Hashemi Rafsanjani, seen as a pragmatic counterweight to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted by Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of Iraq. If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and Iran, Iran has blinked first.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330749860-111322,00.html



[/FONT]
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

France warning of war with Iran
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme. "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.
He was speaking ahead of a visit to Russia on Monday, during which Iran is likely to feature prominently.
Iran's nuclear programme will also be one of the main issues for the UN nuclear watchdog's annual conference, starting in Vienna on Monday.
Iran denies it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and says it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity for civilian purposes.
But it has repeatedly rejected UN demands to give up the enrichment of uranium, which the US and other Western states fear is being diverted to a nuclear weapons project.
Tougher approach
Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world".
He said a number of large French companies had been asked not to tender for business in Iran.



The shift in Paris is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young and dynamic president
Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent

"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies."
"But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."
Mr Kouchner will seek agreement with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over tighter UN sanctions to try to force Iran to give up enrichment, the French foreign ministry says.
Russia has a UN Security Council veto over any new sanctions, and its support is seen as vital for any new approach. It also has perhaps the greatest leverage over Tehran, as the supplier of fuel for its nuclear reactor.
But Mr Kouchner said even in the absence of UN action, the European Union should prepare its own sanctions against Iran.

"We have decided while negotiations are continuing, to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.
'Playing for time'
Iran has warned that any new punishments could push it to stop co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA's members meet this week in Austria, with Iran likely to top the agenda.
The director of the organisation, Mohamed ElBaradei, has been criticised in the West over a new deal with Iran to clear up questions about its past nuclear activities.


The US and its allies believe the deal just gives Iran more time, during which they fear it will advance its nuclear programme.
Since becoming foreign minister earlier this year, Mr Kouchner has not shied away from controversy.
Last month he was quoted as saying the Iraqi government was "not functioning" and seemed to hint that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki should resign, provoking an angry reaction from Baghdad.
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says France has changed its approach to world affairs under its new President Nicolas Sarkozy, adopting a harder line on several issues, and seeking to improve relations with the United States.
But it is the tougher rhetoric aimed at Tehran which will please Washington the most, he says.
Until now the UN Security Council has imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but did not allow for military action.
The United States has not ruled out a military attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

Published: 2007/09/17 07:20:05 GMT

© BBC MMVII
 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330849397-126365,00.html

Bolton calls for bombing of Iran[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Ros Taylor
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Sunday September 30, 2007
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.[/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Mr Bolton, who was addressing a fringe meeting organised by Lord (Michael) Ancram, said that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the west. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The fact that intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity was partial should not be used as an excuse not to act, Mr Bolton insisted. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction." He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. "'It's only Manchester?' ... Responding after they're used is unacceptable."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Mr Bolton, now a fellow at the conservative thinktank the American Enterprise Institute and the author of a forthcoming book called Surrender is Not an Option, was applauded by delegates when he described the UN as "fundamentally irrelevant". [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Defending the decision to invade Iraq, he mocked the Foreign Office's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors accused of straying into Iranian waters in April this year. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]They were released after Mr Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Mr Bolton said he did not really want "to get into the specifics of your own internal politics here" and made no comment on David Cameron's foreign policy. But he said that Gordon Brown's performance under pressure had not been tested and he hoped that Britain would not withdraw from Iraq.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"There is too much of a view in Europe that you have passed beyond history," Mr Bolton told delegates. "That everything can be worked out by negotiation ... Democrats or Republicans, we [Americans] don't see it that way."[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]However, he praised the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and his forthright criticism of Iran in recent weeks.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Raising the spectre of George Bush's "axis of evil", Mr Bolton said that Kim Jong-il's regime in North Korea was akin to a "prison camp" and that he would "sell anything to anyone". [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Those who thought North Korea would give up its nuclear capability voluntarily were wrong, he said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The regime had made similar promises during the past decade. Only reunification between North and South Korea could resolve the problem. That could be achieved "if China were to get serious" and cut off fuel supplies to Mr Kim, but the country feared a reunited Korea.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Mr Bolton told an inquiring delegate that he was not and had never been a neoconservative: "I'm not even a Reagan conservative. I'm a [Barry] Goldwater conservative. They [neocons] have somewhat - I would say excessively - Wilsonian views about the benefits of democracy." [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]However, the threat to world peace did not come from neoconservatives but from the perception that "we have passed beyond history", he said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The meeting was organised by the Global Strategy Forum, of which Lord Ancram is chairman. Earlier this month, the former Conservative deputy leader criticised the direction in which David Cameron was taking the party and for "trashing" its Thatcherite heritage.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007[/FONT]
 
New posts

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Activity
So far there's no one here

21 Day Calendar

Vinnie
Lau (Unplugged)
The Sugar Club
8 Leeson Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin 2, D02 ET97, Ireland

Similar threads

pete
Tindersticks - The Amputees
Replies
1
Views
1K
Cornu Ammonis
Cornu Ammonis
pete
The Hold Steady - Denver Haircut (Frenchkiss Records)
Replies
2
Views
830
rettucs
rettucs
pete
[Feb 10, 2019] White Denim, LYLO (Whelan's)
Replies
0
Views
1K
pete
pete
Psycho Punk
Iran: Corruption, repression, fightback
Replies
14
Views
2K
Denny Oubidoux
Denny Oubidoux
Psycho Punk
Imperialist War Rages On.
Replies
0
Views
859
Psycho Punk
Psycho Punk

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top