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

[steve albino]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Iran Situation[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] by Ahmad Sadri and Foaad Khosmood; February 20, 2005 [/font]
[font=Verdana,]
Ahmad Sadri, currently professor and chair of the Sociology and Anthropology Department at Lake Forest College was born in Tehran and obtained his BA and MA degrees from the University of Tehran and his PhD from the New School for Social Research in New York City. [/font][font=Verdana,]He is an active participant in the intellectual reform movement in Iran and was a columnist for the English Language "Daily Star" of Lebanon during 2004.

[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Foaad Khosmood: What is your view as to the current thinking in the US Administration toward Iran? The rhetoric of Condi Rice (No war plans right now) is almost exactly what the administration proclaimed at this stage of the game with Iraq. Could an ideologically-driven decision for an invasion have been made already? [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Ahmad Sadri: The steadily escalating charges of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is indeed reminiscent of the prelude to the Iraqi invasion. Is this all a bluff? Are they playing the good cop to the bad cop of the Europeans? If we go with the bluffing theory then they have not blinked yet and the Iranians seem to take the treats seriously. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Wishful thinkers proposed this theory before the Iraqi invasion as well: they praised Bush for an admirably poker-faced bluff that forced Iraq to submit to international inspections. But the masterful acting turned out to be so effective because it was not acting at all. Now, lets consider the alternative scenario: what if they are not bluffing? This means that they are fully intent to follow through with some kind of military action including selective bombing and attempts at partial or full occupation. A bombing will almost certainly not achieve the goal of hitting all the nuclear sites and at any rate it is sure to spur Iran on a more secretive and effective nuclear weapons program. An occupation would not be feasible given the size and the population of the country and the state of readiness of its armed forces. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Any operation by ground forces would be also unthinkable given the enormous cost and the state of near exhaustion of the American armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, these factors would exclude American military action against Iran only if we assume the rationality of the small counter elite that runs the foreign policy of the United States. But what if the thirty or so neo cons who occupy all the key posts in the US government have succeeded in liberating themselves from the concerns of this puny little world that the rest of us inhabit? [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]What if they actually believe that Iraq is a “success story” and wish to make more history like that? Now you see why answering your question is not so easy: we are not sure if the American policy makers operate in the universe of normal, responsible politics of the modern world. Ideological politicians don’t see themselves bound by the immediate results of their policies. They expect to be evaluated only on the merits of their long term objectives, irrespective of their costs and consequences. In the short term the strategy is: damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]FKh: If a regime change policy is to be acted on, what form could it take other than an outright Iraq-style invasion? [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]AS: One of my friends calls the Bush-style “regime change” occubration: occupation and liberation. The claim is that the Americans would first occupy and then liberate the troublesome countries of Middle East one by one. Despite the success of the recent elections in Iraq (a limited victory achieved at an enormous price) we perceive the difficulties yet to be overcome in that land. Those difficulties will be multiplied in Iran. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Will the government be a centralized or a federal one? What political shape would it take? The gamut runs from a limited monarchy to a liberal democracy. What role will ethnic aspirations play in putting back together the humpty dumpty? Wouldn’t, for instance an Iranian Kurdistan wish to unite with its Iraqi counterpart and what would the creation of such an entity mean in the balance of Turkish, Persian and Arab geopolitics in the region? [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The unintended consequences of questions such as these are not known to anyone and an external power that would dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East is well advised to ponder these questions.
[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7277&sectionID=67

[/font]

 

[steve albino]

Ritter Says US Attack on Iran Planned for June

February 21, 2005

Scott Ritter, the US weapons inspector who predicted, correctly, that there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq now is warning that Washington has already approved secret plans to attack Iran in June. Ritter also charges that the US manipulated the vote to assure that the Shiite-backed lists would not gain a ruling majority.

PUGET SOUND, WA. (February 19, 2005) — Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the US manipulated the results of the recent January 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the US Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements.

Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say US officials "cooked" the results of the January 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million — a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the January elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all.

Ritter said that US authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine — an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On January 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer."

According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran.... Strategists at the headquarters of the US Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran.... The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/edit/index.php?op=view&itemid=2406

 

[Latex lizzie]

wow, that's pretty specific. Wonder how he knows that the president has "signed off" on the orders for attack? I'd say something like that would be ultra ultra top secret..unless like the rest of us he just "knows" its gonna happen.MMM.

 

[steve albino]

Iran May Hide Nukes in Tunnels

PARIS - [size=-1] Iran (news - web sites) may be hiding its nuclear technology inside special tunnels because of threats of attack by the United States, Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator said in an interview published Friday.
[/size] [size=-1] Hassan Rowhani, who has been negotiating with Germany, Britain and France over Iran's uranium enrichment program, was asked by an interview for the Le Monde newspaper: "Is it accurate that Iran has built tunnels meant to serve Iran's nuclear activities?" [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Rowhani responded that reports Iran was building tunnels to hide its nuclear technology "could be true," he said. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] "From the moment the Americans threaten to attack our nuclear sites, what are we to do? We have to put them somewhere," Rowhani said. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] President Bush (news - web sites) — who once called Iran part of an "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq (news - web sites) — has insisted that Tehran must not develop nuclear weapons, but he said Tuesday in Brussels, Belgium, it is "simply ridiculous" to assume that the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] "Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said after discussing the issue with European allies. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] In the Le Monde interview, Rowhani did not appear assuaged by Bush's statement about an attack being "simply ridiculous." [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Bush "immediately added that all options were open. So the second phrase neutralizes the first," Rowhani said.
[/size]

[size=-1]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050225/ap_on_re_as/iran_nuclear_1
[/size]

 

[steve albino]

wow, that's pretty specific. Wonder how he knows that the president has "signed off" on the orders for attack? I'd say something like that would be ultra ultra top secret..unless like the rest of us he just "knows" its gonna happen.MMM.

I'd say he probably read this:

U.S. May Give EU Till June to Coax Iran on Nukes
Fri Feb 25
[size=-1] Washington will not push the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran's case to the Security Council when it meets next week and no condemnation of the Islamic republic are expected, diplomats on the 35-nation board told Reuters. [/size]

[size=-1] But the next quarterly meeting in mid-June will differ. [/size]

[size=-1] The draft position paper, seen in full by Reuters, shows Washington is ready to give EU-Iran negotiations until that meeting to achieve their aim. If they fail, it will renew its campaign to have the IAEA refer Iran to the Security Council. [/size]
[size=-1]
Before the June meeting, the United States wants IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to report again on Iran's nuclear program: [/size]

[size=-1] "We believe it is essential that the director-general provide to the board in advance of the June board meeting another comprehensive written report describing in full the IAEA's inspection activities in Iran," the document said. [/size]

[size=-1] "The board in June must then be prepared to take further action as needed," it added, a phrase diplomats said meant referral to the Security Council in New York.
[/size]

[size=-1]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050225/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_2
[/size]

 

[steve albino]

Don't know if anyone remembers the theory from January 2003 before the invasion of Iraq which spoke about one of the stronger motivations for the US being linked to the "macroeconomics of the petro-dollar and the threat to US economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil currency". For anyone who hasn't seen the document (by W. Clark) it's here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

The reason I bring it up is this:
The Real Threat Coming from Iran

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:27:42 -0600
Iran has been planning to set up an international oil exchange denominated in the Euro currency.

Iran is proposing to develop something far more threatening to Bush interests than nuclear capability, WMD’s, or even terrorists. Iran has been planning to set up an international oil exchange denominated in the Euro currency.

Iran is proposing to develop something far more threatening to Bush interests than nuclear capability, WMD’s, or even terrorists. According to this interesting article by William Clark, Iran has been planning to set up an international oil exchange denominated in the Euro currency. What needs to be understood is that if the world begins to primarily price crude in Euro, America will suffer as a net importer of the product, which incidentally will harm American corporate profits. The Iranian example as argued by Clark will be just like many US wars in the past. As Smedley Butler argued war is essentially the ultimate form of corporate welfare.

The world is starting to ask the important question of why should we hedge oil with dollars instead of the more valuable euro? Iraq talked about it. Iran now is talking about it. Russia’s hinting at it. Why does this development have the US government and its special interests all in a tizzy? Well to put it simply the entire warfare welfare state is at stake. If the dollar collapses, inevitibly so does the American empire and the free ride it has been enjoying on the rest of the world.

Iraq and Iran may have never declared war on the people of the US, but by deciding to switch to Euro’s they have effectively declared war on the US socialist state. According to Clark:

“One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE – or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 – €40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar – and assumes that some sort of “intervention” is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world – global oil and gas trades.”


http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/1253/The_Real_Threat_Coming_from_Iran

 

[steve albino]

Bush Hopes Iran Policy Shift Will Advance U.S. Goals

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1] President Bush (news - web sites)'s consideration of incentives as a boost to Europe-Iran (news - web sites) nuclear negotiations is a dramatic departure from his usual insistence that proliferation rule-breakers not be rewarded. [/size]

[size=-1] Bush aims to gain more than he gives with this policy shift, which appears narrowly targeted and emphasizes pragmatic politics over ideology. It would open the door to Iran beginning World Trade Organization (news - web sites) accession talks and purchasing civilian airplane spare parts.
[/size]
[size=-1] Added a senior congressional aide: "We went along (with incentives) because at some point you have to convince the Europeans their approach is going to fail. You go along with it and at some point you say, 'we tried and as you can see it doesn't work very well."' [/size]

[size=-1] Officials on both sides of the Atlantic see June or shortly thereafter as pivotal. [/size]

[size=-1]"The talks between the EU3 (France, Britain and Germany) and Iran will have to bring us at some stage in ... the spring or summer to the point where we make an assessment of whether there is progress ... or whether one should look at other options," a senior EU diplomat said. [/size]
[size=-1]
The senior U.S. official concurred: "If we don't get somewhere (with negotiations) by June, the Europeans will be on board with referring the (Iran) issue to the U.N. Security Council. My sense is that would be part of a deal" under which Bush would accede to incentives.
[/size]

[size=-1]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050303/pl_nm/iran_usa_policy_dc_2
[/size]

 

[steve albino]

Iran warns US, European pressure on nuclear could prompt oil crisis

Sunday March 6, 2:45 AM
Iran's top nuclear official warned the United States and Europe of the danger of an oil crisis if Tehran is sent before the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, rejecting outright their demands to halt uranium enrichment.

Taking the matter to the Security Council would be "playing with fire", Hassan Rowhani, whose country is the second largest oil producer in OPEC, told reporters.

"The first to suffer will be Europe and the United States themselves, this would cause problems for the regional energy market, for the European economy and even more so for the United States," Rowhani said at a conference in Tehran on nuclear technology and sustainable development.

EU members Britain, France and Germany are trying to convince Iran to dismantle nuclear fuel work -- which the United States says is part of a covert atomic weapons development -- in return for economic and political rewards.

Tehran has argued that it wants to enrich uranium to generate atomic energy for purely civilian use, and argues such work is authorised by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The United States says the country is "cynically" manipulating a loophole in the NPT, and has threatened to take the matter to the Security Council to seek international sanctions.

If Washington brings the issue before the Security Council, "Iran will retract all the decisions it has made and the confidence-building measures it has taken."

He said Iran's leaders "could be called upon to make new decisions", but did not provide any details on what that would involve.

"The stability in the region would become fragile and the United States would be the first to suffer," he said.

The EU is seeking a permanent halt to uranium enrichment, a process which can provide both nuclear fuel for civilian power plants and be used in the making of nuclear bombs.

In return for a permanent halt, the EU is offering Iran a package of incentives covering trade, security and technology.

But while Iran agreed in November to suspend enrichment, it would not agree to a permanent halt, Rowhani, who visited the German and French capitals for talks on the issue at the end of February, said Saturday.

"We cannot have and we will not have negotiations with the Europeans if what they want is an end" to uranium enrichment.

"We will not continue the talks for one single minute, we have made it very clear to Paris and Berlin," he said.

During those visits, Rowhani told officials that Iran had five "other formulas to ease concerns" while still allowing Tehran to continue uranium enrichment.

"I hope we will reach an agreement on these formulas because time is short," he said.

"If US pressure doesn't prevent it, I think we will manage to reach an agreement with the Europeans because they don't want to deprive the Iranian people of their right and will try to act fairly," Rowhani said.

The European countries hope the US would lend its support to any deal by lifting its veto on Iran's World Trade Organization (WTO) membership among other things.

Rowhani dismissed however such incentives as being of "little significance".

Meanwhile, Rowhani insisted that the controversial construction of a heavy water reactor in Iran was only for research purposes and would not be used to produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

"The goal is research, it's a peaceful goal," he said, adding: "We are not seeking to produce plutonium for military use."

He said the construction would be completed by 2008.

The IAEA last year asked Iran to refrain from building the reactor amid concerns about the proliferation risk, as the reactor could produce 8-10 kilograms of plutonium per year, enough to make at least one nuclear bomb annually.

Iran has rejected an offer from the European Union to help it get a light-water research reactor in exchange for giving up its heavy-water project.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050305/1/3r1o8.html

 

[steve albino]

Iran-EU nuclear talks continuing, but deadlocked

Friday March 11, 2:45 AM

Nuclear talks between Iran and the EU were to continue Friday with the two sides deadlocked over Europe's demand that Tehran give up uranium enrichment, a fuel process which can also make atom bombs, a European diplomat said.

The negotiations, which began Tuesday in Geneva, had been expected to end Thursday.

Britain, France and Germany want Iran to abandon enrichment as an "objective guarantee" that it is not developing nuclear weapons and are offering in return trade, security and technology rewards.

A new round of talks, the fifth since December, is to be held later this month, possibly in a capital of the one of the three states negotiating for the European Union -- Britain, France and Germany, another diplomat said.

The diplomat said much of the discussion this week was to prepare the next meeting, which will move from the expert to a more political "steeering committee" level designed to review progress since December.

Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani described the talks as "successful" despite the reported deadlock, the official Iranian news agency IRNA said Thursday.

Rowhani did not elaborate, but his comment comes on the back of warnings from other senior Iranian officials that the negotiations were in danger of breaking off.

"Iran does not see nuclear technology as means for providing security. It is only regarded as substitute to oil and gas resources," Rowhani was quoted as saying. "We have to be self-sufficient in nuclear fuel."


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050310/1/3r69s.html

 

[steve albino]

March 9, 2005
Uri Avnery / Gush Shalom A leading Israeli writer and peace activist notes that Washington is "quite prepared to go into a foreign country, disregard its complexities, and use force to impose on it order, democracy and freedom," not only i n Iraq, but in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Of these, only Iran is a homogeneous nation. Intervention in these other nations will, most likely, result in chaos and civil war.


(March 5, 2005) — Many years ago, I read a book called The Quiet American by Graham Greene. Its central character is a high-minded, naive young American operative in Vietnam. He has no idea about the complexities of that country but is determined to right its wrongs and create order. The results are disastrous.

I have the feeling that this is happening now in Lebanon. The Americans are not so high-minded and not so naive. Far from it. But they are quite prepared to go into a foreign country, disregard its complexities, and use force to impose on it order, democracy and freedom.

Civil War: Lebanon
Lebanon is a country with a peculiar topography: a small country of high mountain ranges and isolated valleys. As a result, it has attracted throughout the centuries communities of persecuted minorities, who found refuge there. Today there are, side by side and one against the other, four ethno-religious communities: Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druse. Within the Christian community, there are several sub-communities, such as Maronites and other ancient sects, mostly hostile to each other. The history of Lebanon abounds in mutual massacres.

Such a situation invites, of course, interference by neighbors and foreign powers, each wanting to stir the pot for its own advantage. Syria, Israel, the United States and France, the former colonial master, are all involved.

Exactly 50 years ago a secret, heated debate took place among the leaders of Israel. David Ben-Gurion (then Minister of Defense) and Moshe Dayan (the army Chief-of-Staff) had a brilliant idea: to invade Lebanon, impose on it a "Christian major" as dictator and turn it into an Israeli protectorate.


http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2465

 

[steve albino]

Rice Signals Iran Risks U.N. Sanctions
[size=-1]By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer[/size] WASHINGTON - [size=-1] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) is signaling that Iran (news - web sites) must move quickly to accept economic incentives to abandon its suspected nuclear arms development program or risk harsh U.N. sanctions.
[/size]

[size=-1] Rice commented Friday as the United States softened its public posture and agreed to support an incentive program. Bush administration officials privately expressed skepticism that Iran would live up to the bargain. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Until now, the administration has insisted that Iran deserves no reward for simply abiding by an international arms compact that forbids nuclear weapons development. The United States suspects Iran is using a legitimate program to develop nuclear power plants as cover for illegal weapons development. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] "I'm pleased that we are speaking with one voice with our European friends," President Bush (news - web sites) said during a trip to Shreveport, La. "I look forward to working with our European friends to make it abundantly clear to the Iranian regime that the free world will not tolerate them having a nuclear weapon." [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] The United States agreed to drop opposition to Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization (news - web sites) and to allow some sales of spare parts for civilian aircraft. If that carrot does not work, the Europeans agreed to support use of the stick the United States has unsuccessfully sought before: U.N. sanctions. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Rice said there is no timetable for negotiations, but added, "This has been going on for some time." [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] "I would think that if the Iranians are going to demonstrate that they are prepared to live up to their obligations, that they would want to do that sooner rather than later," she told reporters after meeting with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk.
[/size]

[size=-1]
yeah right, remember this from last week...
[/size][size=-1]"Added a senior congressional aide: "We went along (with incentives) because at some point you have to convince the Europeans their approach is going to fail. You go along with it and at some point you say, 'we tried and as you can see it doesn't work very well."' "
[/size]

[size=-1]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050312/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran
[/size]

 

[steve albino]

Israel Plans to Hit Iran Nuke Plant-Sunday Times
Sun Mar 13, 5:53 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up plans for a combined air and ground attack on Iranian nuclear installations if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran's atomic program, London's Sunday Times said.The newspaper said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) and his inner cabinet had given "initial authorization" for a unilateral attack on Iran (news - web sites) at a private meeting last month.
[size=-1]U.S. officials have indicated they would not stand in Israel's way if international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear projects fail, the paper said.
"If all efforts to persuade Iran to drop its plans to produce nuclear weapons should fail, the U.S. administration will authorize Israel to attack," the paper quoted an Israeli security source as saying.
[/size]

[size=-1]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=35&u=/nm/20050313/ts_nm/mideast_iran_dc
[/size]

 

[steve albino]

Ukraine admits it sold cruise missiles to Iran, China

Saturday March 19, 2:19 AM
Ukraine has sold nuclear-capable cruise missiles to both China and Iran, the prosecutor-general's office said but stressed that the deals were illegal and under criminal investigation.

"This is not about exports of missiles but rather illegal sales which are being investigated by the SBU (security service) which has opened a criminal investigation of the director of the company Ukraviazakas," the office said in a statement confirming a report by the London-based Financial Times.

Svyatoslav Piskun, Ukraine's prosecutor general, earlier told the daily that 18 Soviet-era X-55 cruise missiles were exported in 2001 -- 12 to Iran and six to China.

Piskun was also quoted as saying that the missiles were not exported with the nuclear warheads that they were designed to carry.


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050318/1/3rd02.html

 

[steve albino]

OPEC Speaks, Nobody Listens
[size=-1]By Stanley Reed[/size] [size=-1] OPEC (news - web sites)'s Mar. 16 decision to raise its production ceiling by 2%, or 500,000 barrels per day, has done little to calm the overwrought oil market. Hedge funds and other traders, the key players in today's speculation-driven market, just don't believe that OPEC can do much about prices in the near term.
[/size]

[size=-1] Despite the cartel's statement, U.S. crude prices rose by about $1 per barrel, to a new record of $56.35, after the release of data showing a sharp drop in U.S. gasoline supplies. Prices settled a bit below that throughout the trading day. But they remain near all-time highs, despite the fact that supply fundamentals are in respectable shape. "The oil market is currently dominated by participants who doubt (OPEC's) ability to control the upward spiral in prices," says Kevin Norris, an analyst at Barclays Capital in London, in a note following the decision. [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Last year, surging demand, especially from China, helped make oil prices in the $40- to $50-per-barrel range a fact of life. Yet the situation has only worsened this year, even though the increase in demand in 2005 is expected to be somewhat less -- around 1.8 million barrels per day, vs. 2.7 million barrels per day in 2004. Still, 1.8 million is a big number, and forecasters, including the U.S. Energy Dept. and Paris-based consumer watchdog International Energy Agency continue to revise forecasts upward.
[/size]

[size=-1]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=66&ncid=66&e=2&u=/bw/20050317/bs_bw/nf200503179595db016
[/size]

 

[steve albino]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Another country[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]As rumours persist of US plans to invade Iran, Rageh Omaar, the face of the BBC during the Iraq war, visits Tehran - and finds a nation far removed from the one George Bush seems to fear[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Friday April 1, 2005
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Guardian

[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]One of the first things that western visitors see at Tehran's Mehrebad airport is two large portraits of Imam Khomeini, and his successor as the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamanei. Next to them is an advert for a Nokia mobile phone. It is a useful symbol of what is happening in Iran. Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the talk again is of war, as George Bush and Tony Blair claim that Iran supports terrorism. Commentators on both sides of the Atlantic use words like "eerie" to describe the similarities between the crises. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] [/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Article continues

[/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] <a> <img></a> [/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] [/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Inside Iran, however, what you notice are the differences. Tehran feels nothing like Baghdad before it fell to US forces. The Iraqi capital was cut off entirely from the rest of the world; travel for ordinary Iraqis was impossible without permission from the authorities, and communication with the outside world was not just controlled, as it is in Iran, but illegal. Tehran, on the other hand, looks and feels like the capital of a rapidly industrialising country. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"BMW has now arrived in Tehran," reads one poster on the way to Esteqlal Square, in the commercial heart of Tehran. There is no shortage of western, Chinese or Russian businesses, keen to take up the economic opportunities available to them in Iran. The Americans are here, too. You see them in the main hotels in Tehran, although once they realise you are a journalist, they swiftly pass you with a guilty look, as though they have been caught doing something shameful. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Washington's attempts to isolate Iran, and pretend that its economy would be as vulnerable to economic sanctions as Iraq's was, is wide of reality. According to the latest figures, Iran's per-capita GDP stands at $1,641, double that of Indonesia. It has the 22nd largest surplus in the world at $5,256m, more than Denmark and Qatar. In terms of purchasing power, it is the 22nd largest economy in the world, just below Turkey, but above Poland. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The statistics tell a story that is missed by the British and American governments when they talk about Iran. A quarter of a century after the Islamic revolution, the theocratic authorities in Iran face a critical test of relevance and legitimacy in a country that is changing far more quickly than they are.
[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1449923,00.html
[/font]

 

[steve albino]

Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran
April 01, 2005
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbor to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Why June 2005, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment program up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.'[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the President ordered. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America's European allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that 'the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point -- we have diplomatic means to do this.' [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]President Bush himself followed up on Rice's statement by stating that 'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.' He quickly added, 'Having said that, all options are on the table.'[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]There is always the unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work in short, both the President and the Secretary of State were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the agenda; that is, until June 2005. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our current war with Iraq.
[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7560&sectionID=67
[/font]

 

[steve albino]

Sharon Presses U.S. to Act Against Iran
WASHINGTON - [size=-1] Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pressed the U.S. to threaten Iran with international sanctions, warning Iran was quickly approaching a point of no-return in its nuclear program. [/size]
[size=-1] Sharon, who leaves for home Wednesday after a visit to the United States, repeatedly brought up the Iranian threat in talks with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

[/size][size=-1] The Israeli official made no mention of any Israeli plans to attack the Iranian reactors if negotiations failed, similar to the 1981 bombing of the unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad. McClellan said there was no discussion between Sharon and Bush of Israelis potentially taking the matter into their own hands.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=6&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_sharon
[/size]

 

[steve albino]

Secret Agent: Rumsfeld Sneaks Off to Baku


By Ward Harkavy
Republished from The Village Voice
Unreported in U.S. press, Rummy stalks oil and Iran in Azerbaijan
Hardly any country on the planet sits in a more crucial spot than the harsh dictatorship of Azerbaijan, so that’s probably why Don Rumsfeld sneaked off to its rowdy capital, Baku, earlier this week.

Do you hear the neocons beating the oil drums of war?

Rumsfeld’s visit this week to Iraq generated some smoke, especially his laughable warnings to the Iraqis about “government corruption.”

But then, like the mysterious Mr. Arkadin, Rumsfeld left Iraq, flew to Baku for meetings, spent the night, and then sneaked out the next day—with no announcements from the Pentagon and (as a result) no notice from the U.S. press.

Plenty of Azeris, chafing under the Aliyev family’s harsh rule and fearing war or other trouble from the oil-hungry U.S., freaked out, and there were stories in the Turkish and Russian press. But leave it to the excellent news service EurasiaNet to capture the not-meant-to-be-captured moment. In a story posted April 13, political analyst Alman Talyshli wrote from Baku:

‘Rumsfeld is interested in oil!’ read a headline in the April 12 edition of the popular daily Echo. The April 12 visit of the Pentagon chief to Azerbaijan was a natural target for local media hungry for sensational news. But not only the press is looking for answers.

​

Rumsfeld’s visit took place under extreme secrecy, with limited public information, leaving many local analysts and pundits to speculate about the reasons for the U.S. secretary of defense’s trip, the third such visit in the past 15 months.

​

http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/2238/Secret_Agent_Rumsfeld_Sneaks_Off_to_Baku

 

[steve albino]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran [/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Michael T. Klare
[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Before proceeding further, let me state for the record that I do not claim oil is the sole driving force behind the Bush administration's apparent determination to destroy Iranian military capabilities. No doubt there are many national security professionals in Washington who are truly worried about Iran's nuclear program, just as there were many professionals who were genuinely worried about Iraqi weapons capabilities. I respect this. But no war is ever prompted by one factor alone, and it is evident from the public record that many considerations, including oil, played a role in the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that many factors -- again including oil -- are playing a role in the decision-making now underway over a possible assault on Iran. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Just exactly how much weight the oil factor carries in the administration's decision-making is not something that we can determine with absolute assurance at this time, but given the importance energy has played in the careers and thinking of various high officials of this administration, and given Iran's immense resources, it would be ludicrous not to take the oil factor into account -- and yet you can rest assured that, as relations with Iran worsen, American media reports and analysis of the situation will generally steer a course well clear of the subject (as they did in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq). [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One further caveat: When talking about oil's importance in American strategic thinking about Iran, it is important to go beyond the obvious question of Iran's potential role in satisfying our country's future energy requirements. Because Iran occupies a strategic location on the north side of the Persian Gulf, it is in a position to threaten oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates, which together possess more than half of the world's known oil reserves. Iran also sits athwart the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world's oil exports pass. In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran's potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States, that undoubtedly govern the administration's strategic calculations.
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0411-21.htm
[/font]


​

 

[steve albino]

Bush Urged to Support Iranian Opposition

April 24, 2005
Patrick Goodenough / CNSNews.com The conservative CNS news newtork has carried stories that serve to prepare the public for a unilateral US attack on Iran — rumored to have been scheduled for sometime later this year.CNSN: "As President Bush continues to voice support for democracy in Iran, calls are growing for the US to take more active steps to exert pressure on the Islamic regime and hasten political change."

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/march/0310_bush_iran1.shtml

(March 10, 2005) -- As President Bush continues to voice support for democracy in Iran, calls are growing for the US to take more active steps to exert pressure on the Islamic regime and hasten political change.

In a speech at the National Defense University this week, Bush said Tehran should "listen to the voice of the Iranian people, who long for their liberty and want their country to be a respected member of the international community."

"We look forward to the day when the Iranian people are free," he added.

Last month, in his State of the Union address, the president told the people of Iran: "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Iman Foroutan, director of the US-based Iran of Tomorrow Movement, said most Iranians supported Bush's policy of non-engagement with Tehran and welcomed his expressions of solidarity. But he said it was time for the president to "put those words into action."

He called on the US to declare that the Islamic regime is "an illegal occupier of Iran," a view he claimed had been held by the majority of Iranian citizens over the past two decades.

Washington should also provide "financial and moral support to Iranian opposition groups, Foroutan added.

On Capitol Hill, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) last month introduced legislation authorizing $10 million in assistance to pro-democracy groups opposed to the Iranian regime.

Co-sponsored by six other Republican Senators, the Iran Freedom and Support Act says to be eligible for funding, groups should oppose the use of terror and support an Iran that is democratic, adheres to non-proliferation treaties, and respects human rights, including equality for women, freedom of speech, press, association and religion.

Santorum said at the time the legislation "will provide much-needed assistance for pro-democracy groups who are committed to advancing democratic ideals and principles, despite living at the hands of a government that views freedom as a threat to their power."

Santorum tied the need for a change of government in Tehran to the terror threat facing Americans "at home and abroad," citing State Department assessments about Iranian backing for terrorism.

Regime Change in Iran
Analysts have also argued that regime change would help to resolve another pressing problem — Iran's attempts to acquire a nuclear capability.

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2635