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

[steve albino]

Bonkers Bolton Threatens Iran


April 24, 2005
Gordon Prather / AntiWar.com

Long before he was nominated to become US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton had a reputation of dangerously destabilizing rhetoric. The author, a government physicist who has done national security work for the Department of Energy and the Pentagon, recalls a saber-rattling speech Bolton gave concerning Iran and notes that "Virtually every paragraph in the inflammatory 2,800-word address contained allegations that were either misleading or flat-out wrong."


http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2636

 

[Latex lizzie]

I was in a carpet shop on Dame st yesterday that sells persian rugs(context!). Talking to a really nice Iranian guy who tells me the revolution is only months away..It's just not getting the coverage in the western media but the feeling on change on the ground in Iran is huge.Lets just hope the americans dont fuck it all up by dropping bombs on the place.

 

[steve albino]

...or sell bombs to someone else who has a beef with Iran...

US unveils plans to sell 'bunker busters' to Israel

Washington plans to sell Israel 100 of its most effective bombs designed to destroy deep underground facilities, despite growing concern in the Middle East the Jewish state might resort to military strikes to halt Iran's nuclear program, US defense officials said. The Defense Department notified Congress of the proposed 30-million-dollar deal on Tuesday, saying it will involve GBU-28 "bunker busting" bombs first used during the 1991 Gulf War to enable US warplanes to hit Iraqi underground command and control centers.

The package will also include support and testing equipment, spare parts, and technical data, according to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, a division of the Pentagon.

The Israeli Air Force plans to arm with these bombs its F-15 fighter jets.

"This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for economic progress in the Middle East," the agency said in a statement.

It cautioned the deal has not been finalized yet, but assured lawmakers that it "will not affect" the military balance in the region.

The contemplated sale will help Israel "maintain its qualitative edge" over other forces in the Middle East as it upgrades its military arsenal, the officials said.

The controversy over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program and Israeli plans to act unilaterally to destroy alleged Iranian underground nuclear facilities if international efforts to halt the program fail were not mentioned in Pentagon documents.

But Francois Boo, a researcher with GlobalSecurity.org, a military affairs think tank here, said the plan appeared to be aimed at backing diplomatic efforts by Britain, Germany and France to check Tehran's nuclear ambitions with a military stick.

"The general suspicion would be that Iran would likely be on the receiving end of that weapon," he told AFP


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050428/1/3s7kf.html

 

[Latex lizzie]

Yep. But "Francois Boo" what a name!

keep up the good work on these articles..most interesting.

 

[steve albino]

Sunday May 1, 3:41 AM
Iran says it may defy deal with EU on nuclear suspension

Iran is unhappy with the progress of nuclear negotiations with the European Union and may resume uranium conversion activities next week in defiance of a key agreement, senior officials warned.

"It is unlikely that we will resume enrichment, that is to say the activities at Natanz. But some activities at the UCF (Uranium Conversion Facility) at Isfahan could resume next week," top negotiator Hassan Rowhani was quoted as saying by the IRNA and Mehr news agencies.

Rowhani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said "the current process cannot continue in the way the Europeans want it to and Iran could take new decisions."

He added that "a definitive decision on whether or not to resume uranium enrichment will be taken next week" by the Islamic republic's leadership.

Uranium conversion involves turning raw uranium into UF6 gas. That can be fed into centrifuges that refine out enriched uranium, which can be directed towards making fuel for atomic reactors or the core of a nuclear weapon.

Uranium conversion is covered by a freeze agreed to by Iran in November 2004 under a deal that kick-started a series of talks with Britain, France and Germany that are aimed at easing international fears the Islamic republic is seeking the bomb.

If Iran carries through its most serious challenge yet of the EU deal, it risks being hauled before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

The EU, backed by the United States, wants Iran to halt all nuclear fuel cycle activities -- fearing enrichment technology would give Iran the capacity to produce a bomb. In return, it is offering a package of trade, security and technology incentives.

But after the latest round of talks with the EU in London on Friday, top national security spokesman Ali Agha Mohammadi told AFP Iran was "unhappy".

"The negotiations were good on content and there were principled agreements, and the Europeans were closer than ever to our point of view," said Mohammadi, a spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council.

"But concerning the application and the timetable, Iran is unhappy with the results," he added.


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050430/1/3s9kg.html

 

[Latex lizzie]

Tehran, EU urged to keep N-talks alive

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/49EA3DA7-187C-4B6E-A10D-6FCA974DA630.htm

Monday 02 May 2005, 22:56 Makka Time, 19:56 GMT


ElBaradei: Iran-EU negotiations are at a delicate stage

The UN nuclear chief has made a plea for Iran and the European Union to keep their nuclear talks alive.


Mohamed ElBaradei made the comments as a non-proliferation conference opened at the United Nations on Monday.

He also urged Iran to refrain from uranium enrichment activities.

The Iranian crisis has developed into a serious threat to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which since 1970 has mandated the world fight against the spread of nuclear weapons.

Both ElBaradei and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned in speeches opening the conference that the treaty is out of date in the face of new threats and technologies and needs to be fixed.

In comments about the EU's efforts to win guarantees that the Islamic Republic will not make nuclear weapons, ElBaradei told reporters: "I hope that both parties will continue to talk."

"I would hope that the Iranians will not take any unilateral decisions to initiate any activities that now are currently suspended. I think that any future move has to be agreed between both parties."

Uranium enrichment

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said on Monday that any resumption of enrichment activities would lead to an end of Iran's nuclear talks with EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany.

In response to Fischer's comments, a senior Iranian nuclear official said Iran has no plans for the time being to resume uranium enrichment.


Isfahan, south of Tehran, hosts
a nuclear enrichment plant


"As the secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security [Hassan Rowhani] has said previously, our decision does not concern any resumption of enrichment, our discussions concern the uranium conversion facilities in Isfahan," said council spokesman Ali Agha Muhammadi.

"No decision has been taken for the time being."

He added: "I hope the patience and seriousness of the Islamic republic will enable the cleansing of the poisoned atmosphere created by the United States so that we can continue our talks with the European Union."

Uranium conversion involves turning uranium ore into UF6 gas. That gas can be fed into cascade sequences of centrifuges that refine out enriched uranium to be used as fuel for atomic power reactors or what can be the explosive core of a nuclear weapon.

Conversion is covered by a freeze Iran agreed to in November 2004 to kick-start negotiations with the European trio aimed at easing international fears that Tehran is seeking the bomb.


ElBaradei said the EU-Iran talks were in a "delicate phase - no question about it", adding that he had been talking with both sides.

Non-Proliferation Treaty

Nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea, the discovery of an international smuggling ring supplying their programmes, and the threat of atomic terrorism are among recent developments leading to doubts about whether the NPT is working.
The IAEA's ElBaradei said EU-Iran
talks were at a critical stage



"The plain fact is that the [non-proliferation] regime has not kept pace with the march of technology and globalisation, and developments of many kinds in recent years have placed it under great stress," Annan said.

The UN chief said the international community must act to strengthen the NPT before "the gap between promise and performance becomes unbridgeable".

North Korea kicked out inspectors from ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in December 2002, withdrew from the NPT the following month, and now claims to have made atom bombs.

Annan said the Vienna-based IAEA should be given more authority to inspect the nuclear programmes of states that are party to the NPT by making an additional protocol for wider inspections apply to all.

He also referred indirectly to Iran, saying the non-proliferation regime "will not be sustainable if scores more states develop the most sensitive phases of the fuel cycle and are equipped with the technology to produce nuclear weapons on short notice".

He added: "An important step would be for former Cold War rivals to commit themselves, irreversibly, to further cuts in their arsenals so that warheads number in the hundreds and not the thousands."

 

[steve albino]

Powerbroker Rafsanjani joins Iran presidential race


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian powerbroker Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who favors improved ties with the West, on Tuesday finally plunged into the presidential election race that opinion polls suggest he is favorite to win.
Raising the stakes ahead of the June 17 vote, a senior official said Tehran had decided to resume some weapons-related nuclear work very soon, a move the United States and the EU have said would see Iran's case sent to the U.N. Security Council.

Rafsanjani, 70, is favored in opinion polls to win the election to replace outgoing reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami, who is barred from seeking a third consecutive term.

Rafsanjani had dithered for several weeks over whether to stand for the job he held from 1989 to 1997.

"Despite my prior doubts, today, based on necessity I again announce my readiness to enter the executive field and I put myself at your disposal," Rafsanjani said in a five-page statement addressed to the Iranian people.

He described the decision to run as the most difficult in a political career spanning more than half a century.

Close Rafsanjani ally Mohammad Atrianfar said the former president had faced resistance to his candidacy from "extremists" -- a reference to Islamic hard-liners.

But he denied earlier comments reported by Reuters that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei opposed a Rafsanjani bid.

Iran, which rejects U.S. claims it is seeking nuclear arms, said it will resume processing uranium into a gas that can be used to make fuel for either atomic reactors or atom bombs.

It said the decision was due to frustration with the slow pace of its talks with the European Union over the long-term future of its nuclear program.

Diplomats were unsure whether the move, which would reverse a six-month freeze on most of Iran's atomic work, was a bluff.

"It would seem remarkable that they could be sitting in the Security Council at the same time as the elections but they look like they're serious," said one Western diplomat in Tehran.

Iran denies any linkage between the elections and the nuclear issue.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iran_election_dc

 

[steve albino]

Iran determined to break nuclear freeze, dismisses UN threat

Wednesday May 11, 7:38 PM
ran appears determined to back away from a deal with the European Union and end its suspension of some sensitive nuclear activities, dismissing the threat of being hauled before the UN Security Council as propaganda. "There is no legal basis for sending Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, and this is nothing but media propaganda," Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, a vice president and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, was quoted as saying by state media Wednesday.

Frustrated by the pace of negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, Iran has said it will back away from a November 2004 deal in which it agreed to freeze uranium enrichment activities -- the focus of international fears the country may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The agreement kicked off talks in which the EU are offering a package of incentives in return for "objective guarantees" that Tehran will not develop weapons.

"Since the suspension was voluntary and aimed at trust building... there is no reason to continue the suspension," Aghazadeh said. "The Europeans should know that ending the suspension does not require the permission of any person or international body."

Iranian officials have said work could now restart at a plant on the edge of the central city of Isfahan, used to convert mined uranium "yellowcake" into a feed gas for centrifuges that carry out the enrichment process.

Enriched uranium can be used for peaceful power generation -- which Iran says it is seeking -- but also as the explosive core of a nuclear bomb.

Officials said Tuesday that a decision could on what activities be expected within days, but it remains unclear what activities will resume and how far Iran will go to challenge the EU.

As a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and with its activities subject to monitoring by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran insists it has the right to conduct nuclear activities for peaceful purposes.

But diplomats from the EU-3 have made clear that any resumption by Iran of fuel cycle work would be considered a violation of the agreement and could lead to a push within the IAEA to send Iran's case to the UN Security Council.

"The Europeans, in their negotiations with Iran, should be serious. One of the conditions for continuing the talks was to see progress. We were not successful," said Iran's atomic chief.

The sticking point is Iran's ambition to master the full nuclear fuel cycle and European demands that Iran abandon such work. The EU-3 have rejected an Iranian proposal to begin a phased resumption of enrichment, drawing complaints from Iran that the talks are being deliberately dragged out so as to keep the freeze in place.

Aghazadeh said Iran has been making "one-sided concessions to the Europeans" since the talks began in December.

"The issue of stopping the nuclear negotiations with the Europeans is not on the agenda," Aghazadeh said, even though he repeated that Iran was also "seeking to remove some of the suspended activites from the suspension".

The IAEA's 35 member states are scheduled to hold their next regular session scheduled on June 13.


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050511/1/3sgx3.html

 

[steve albino]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]US lobbying scuppers Shell sale to Iran[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Terry Macalister
Thursday May 5, 2005
The Guardian
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Shell appears to have bowed to American pressure and backed out of a $4.4bn (£2.3bn) plan to sell a chemical business to Iran, for fear of damaging its extensive US interests. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The oil group had been in final talks with Iran's National Petrochemical Company about Basell - the world's largest producer of plastic polypropylene, which is owned 50-50 by Shell and Germany's BASF. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Iranians said yesterday that their planned purchase had been blocked, just 24 hours after the country vowed to push ahead with its nuclear activities. "Although NPC won all aspects of the Basell tender, due to US pressures we are unofficially told Iran cannot buy Basell," said Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh, managing director of NPC, in an interview with the ISNA news agency in Tehran. The sale of the chemical operation is an important part of a Shell strategy to dispose of up to $15bn worth of assets as it restructures following the oil reserves scandal last year.[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] [/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] As recently as Saturday, the Iranians were saying they expected to win Basell, which has a British business based in Chester and is a key provider of plastics for everything from steering wheels to packaging. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]A US state department offi cial told Reuters at the weekend that Washington had expressed its concerns to Shell and BASF that Basell technology could be misused. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]A spokeswoman for the Anglo-Dutch oil group declined to clarify how far talks with NPC had gone. "I cannot comment. Offers for the company have been received and advanced discussions are taking place," she said. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Shell said it was still hopeful of meeting its original timetable of selling the business in the first half of this year. Alternative talks are understood to be under way with an Indian group, Haldia Petrochemicals, which bid less than NPC. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The US continues to impose a trade embargo on Iran because of fears that its nuclear programme is ultimately aimed at producing weapons. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]No Iranian firm is allowed to hold assets in the United States and a Basell purchase is complicated by the chemical firm having interests in the US that Shell considered offloading separately. While the US might have little legal objection to the sale to Iran by Shell, the Anglo-Dutch group has major oil interests that could be at risk in any backlash. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Lord Browne, the BP chief executive, triggered anger in Tehran when he said it was "impractical" for his company to invest in Iran "because 40% of BP is in the US".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1476857,00.html
[/font]

 

[steve albino]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Europe on alert over Iran nuclear ambitions[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Ian Traynor
Thursday May 12, 2005
The Guardian

[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]European powers are poised to call an emergency meeting of the board of the UN's nuclear watchdog after an escalating dispute with Iran about its nuclear projects. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Iran appears about to renege on a six-month-old pact with Britain, Germany and France, which freezes all of its uranium enrichment activities - a gamble that could see it penalised by the UN security council but also win a diplomatic victory in the battle of wits over its ambitions.
[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The EU states promised Iran that they would block a transfer of the dispute to the security council as long as there was a freeze on enrichment. But the Europeans also vowed to support Washington in referring the dispute to the security council in New York should the talks fail. This could make for another showdown next week in Vienna, with the US and the EU for the first time united in calling for security council action. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Sources in Vienna said, however, there was little appetite at the IAEA board for penalties for Iran. The board generally operates by consensus. And a non-European diplomat said the non-aligned countries on the board would "accept the Iranian argument - that this is uranium conversion work and not enrichment work". [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Nor is it clear what would happen if the dispute were passed to New York. China and Russia could veto sanctions on Iran. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Uranium enrichment is the key to obtaining nuclear weapons. The EU talks are aimed at getting Iran to abandon uranium enrichment and instead import low-enriched nuclear fuel for Tehran's civil nuclear programme. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Recently the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, for the first time publicly supported the EU's policy, saying that Iran should "abandon all technology to create a full nuclear fuel cycle" - meaning uranium enrichment. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]An emergency meeting in Vienna next week will reinforce the sense of worsening crisis over the problem. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]But diplomats said there was little chance of a quick resolution and that the issue would be deferred until the next scheduled board meeting of the IAEA in mid-June, a few days before Iran's presidential election.[/font]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1481998,00.html

 

[steve albino]

Thursday May 12, 5:39 PM
Iran nuclear conversion plan 'legitimate': Russia


Iran's intention to restart sensitive nuclear activities earlier frozen under a deal with the European Union is "legitimate" and will not alter Russia's nuclear cooperation with the Islamic state, a Russian nuclear official told AFP.

"The fact that Iran has restarted conversion will not have an impact on nuclear cooperation between Russia and Iran," said the official, speaking on condition she not be named.

"This does not threaten international security because this uranium will be used for peaceful ends and under the strict IAEA control," the official said Thursday, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"It is legitimate and legal," she said, adding that differences between Russia and the United States regarding Moscow's nuclear cooperation with Iran were "narrowing."

The official's comments came after a top Iranian nuclear official said the country was set to announce the resumption of "a noticeable part" of uranium conversion work, a precursor to uranium enrichment.

A European diplomat told AFP in Tehran that such a move would automatically trigger referral of the Iranian nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council.

"The Iranians are well aware of the consequences," the diplomat said. "If they do decide to resume conversion, or any other activity linked to the process of enrichment ... the matter will be sent to the United Nations Security Council."

In a newspaper interview published Thursday, the head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Alexander Rumyantsev, said Russia planned to make its first delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran at the end of the year or early next year.

Russia and Iran signed an agreement in February under which Iran agreed that all spent nuclear fuel from the civilian reactor being built at Bushehr under Russian direction would be repatriated directly to Russia for reprocessing.

"They have to start to fire it up in mid-2006," Rumyantsev said, referring to the Bushehr reactor. "The fuel has to be at the plant six months before that."

Under the accord between Russia and Iran signed in February, Russia is to send nearly 100 tonnes of fuel to Iran in several consignments under IAEA supervision. Tehran initially rejected the condition that it repatriate to Russia the spent nuclear fuel, but relented after two years of negotiations.

"All the necessary precautions have been made in line with international standards," Rumyantsev said.

The United States alleges that the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran is part of a cover for weapons development.

Washington is convinced that Iran is seeking to build atomic weapons -- charges that Tehran denies -- and has been trying to convince Moscow to halt its nuclear cooperation.

Three EU countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- have been leading efforts since last year to persuade Tehran diplomatically to drop any activities in the treatement of uranium that could result in acquisition of capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

But Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, a vice president and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told state television, that Iran intended to resume some activities that it had suspended under a deal with the EU countries.

"Based on the reviews and decisions which were made, we are going to restart a small part of the suspended activities," including some work at a uranium conversion facility near the central city of Isfahan.

The Isfahan facility is used to convert mined uranium "yellowcake" into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) and then into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a feed gas for centrifuges that carry out the highly sensitive enrichment process.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050512/1/3shnk.html

 

[Latex lizzie]

Diplomats: Iran to resume nuclear talks


Wednesday 18 May 2005, 12:13 Makka Time, 9:13 GMT


An informal agreement was made to hold talks on Tuesday



Related:
Iran house backs uranium enrichment
Iran mulls postponing nuclear plans
Iran, EU urged to keep N-talks alive

Iran has tentatively agreed to meet Europe's key powers in a week for last-ditch talks meant to keep it from resuming suspect nuclear activities, according to diplomats and officials.

the sources, who spoke in Vienna and from other European capitals, said an informal agreement had been reached to hold the meeting next Tuesday in Paris.



The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain would probably meet with Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, the diplomats and officials said on Tuesday on condition of anonymity.



While the two sides had tentatively agreed late last week to meet again in an effort to defuse the crisis, there had been no agreement then on the exact time and venue of the talks.



A senior European diplomat said that by Tuesday afternoon, chances were more than 80% that the two sides would meet in the French capital on 24 May.



Further conflict



Still, further conflict appeared inevitable at the talks.



One of the officials said the three European powers continued to insist that Iran maintain a freeze on all activities related to uranium enrichment.





Iran insists it has the right to
enrich and convert uranium

Since starting talks with the Europeans last year, Tehran repeatedly has insisted that it has a right to enrich uranium and conduct related activities including conversion.



But the Europeans insist on a long-term freeze or a pledge from Tehran to scrap its programme in exchange for technical and economic aid, political support and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies.



The United States says Iran wants to enrich uranium as part of a covert nuclear weapons programme - something Iran denies, insisting it is seeking to master the technology only to generate power.



Iran last week threatened to immediately resume conversion, precipitating the showdown with the Europeans.



UN action



Tehran backed away after the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain subsequently warned Tehran of "negative" consequences if it breaks its pledge to freeze such activities during negotiations with the Europeans - diplomatic shorthand for possible UN Security Council action.



British Prime Minister Tony Blair was more blunt, warning that he would support referring Iran to the Security Council if it breaks its word and resumes any enrichment-related activities while talking with the Europeans.



Suspicions about Iran surged after revelations in 2002 that Tehran had run a covert nuclear program for nearly two decades that included development of an ambitious enrichment program and experiments that could be used as part of an attempt to develop the bomb.

 

[Shay HT]

Nothing to do with the Afgahn/Iran border???


Scotsman:
Secret UK troops plan for Afghan crisis

BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR

DEFENCE chiefs are planning to rush thousands of British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
Ministers have been warned they face a "complete strategic failure" of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate.

An explosive cocktail of feuding tribal warlords, insurgents, the remnants of the Taliban, and under-performing Afghan institutions has left the fledgling democracy on the verge of disintegration, according to analysts and senior officers.

The looming crisis in Afghanistan is a serious setback for the US-led 'War on Terror' and its bid to promote western democratic values around the world.

Defence analysts say UK forces are already so over-stretched that any operation to restore order in Afghanistan can only succeed if substantial numbers of troops are redeployed from Iraq, itself in the grip of insurgency.

The UK contribution to the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan presently stands at fewer than 500, compared with the contribution of 8,000 troops to the Coalition presence in Iraq.

Planners at the UK military's Northolt headquarters have drawn up emergency proposals to send up to 5,500 troops to Afghanistan to help avert a descent into more widespread bloodshed.

As well as increasing the British presence in Afghanistan 10-fold, it would require additional funding of almost £500m.

MoD sources confirmed last night that the secret plans have been firmed up in response to persistent concerns that the notorious rebel commander Gulbadeen Hikmatyar has teamed up with Taliban fighters in the south.

An MoD source told Scotland on Sunday: "We are going into an area where there's a civil war going on. It's dangerous and it's somewhere new.

"People within the MoD are now saying we will have to deal with this and go into the south of the country. What they are saying is, don't do it piecemeal. We will have to do it properly."

Senior army and navy officers, along with officials from the Treasury, were in the region last week to survey the options.

But American military experts last night claimed an increase in the British presence in Afghanistan would inevitably threaten the numbers committed to Iraq.

Charles Heyman, a senior analyst with the defence information group Jane's, told Scotland on Sunday: "There's no doubt whatsoever that Afghanistan is caught in a very difficult position, where it is very hard to progress without committing more forces.

"There is not enough Coalition power, or Afghan government power, to extend their writ into the areas that have proved impossible to control. This is going to be a very difficult period.

"They might struggle to cover their commitment to Iraq, but even if they do that, it would mean that the UK could not take on any further military commitments anywhere else."

Afghanistan was liberated from the oppressive grip of the Taliban following the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington. American-led forces launched a ferocious assault on the regime, which was accused of harbouring Osama bin Laden and his closest allies. But they have been fighting a largely forgotten war with Afghan rebels, foreign insurgents and tribal warlords ever since.

The treacherous situation was underlined yesterday when a bomb exploded near a US military patrol in Zabul province, southern Afghanistan, killing one soldier and wounding three others.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is due in Washington this week to discuss the deteriorating situation.

He is also expected to raise concerns about fresh claims that his countrymen had been abused by their US captors in Iraqi jails, allegations that provoked sustained protests around the country.

But a newspaper last night claimed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had said in a memo that a poppy eradication program aimed at Afghanistan's heroin trade was ineffective partly because of President Hamid Karzai's leadership.

 

[steve albino]

EU Weighs Economic Sanctions Against Iran


By MATT MOORE, AP Business Writer Tue May 24,11:52 AM ET
FRANKFURT, Germany - EU officials are weighing the possibility of sanctions as they try to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions — but any harsh move against Tehran may leave the world paying the price in more expensive oil.


Whether sanctions would force the country to agree to joint U.S.-European demands is uncertain, but — with Iran OPEC's second-largest producer — they would likely cause oil prices, still near $50 a barrel, to rise again.

"The most severe sanctions that would affect Iran would be sanctions against their oil industry, that is, an international boycott on Iranian oil products," said Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia University. "That would mean basically taking 3 million barrels a day off the market, which would probably cause the price to spike.

"That would be a factor that the three countries would have to take into consideration," he said, alluding to France, Britain, and the United States, which are leading efforts to contain Iran's nuclear development.

The EU and the United States fear Iran is using its uranium-enrichment program to develop weapons, while Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes — to build much-needed nuclear reactors to meet growing energy needs.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw expressed hope that talks with Iran on Wednesday in Geneva would make progress. Straw, along with foreign ministers from France and Germany, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, are scheduled to hold urgent negotiations with Iran aiming to put the talks back on track.

The 25-member EU has offered the carrot of a free trade pact and further economic aid if the nation comes clean on its nuclear intentions.

Iran acquires most of its products from Europe, which is a key export market. As for American goods, it acquires them through Dubai and other points, circumventing U.S. restrictions already in place on legal trade. These include barring subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business in Iran and cutting foreign aid to countries that have businesses investing there.

Iran suspended uranium-enrichment activities in November while it holds talks with the European countries, but said last week it was considering resuming some uranium reprocessing activities.

The EU then threatened to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

But Sick said sanctions were far from a certainty, given that it would take a vote by the U.N. Security Council to initiate them.

"They could take it to the Security Council independently — not through the IAEA — just as members of the Security Council," he said of France, England and the United States.

Even then, a vote wouldn't be guaranteed.

"The other two members are Russia and China, both of which have strong reasons for disagreeing with sanctions against Iran," Sick added.

China and Russia are among countries that have expressed opposition to taking Iran to the U.N. Security Council for alleged violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Still, support has been building in the U.S. Congress for new sanctions. More than 200 members of the House of Representatives — nearly half the elected body — are sponsoring a bill that would tighten and codify existing sanctions. A more limited version is being considered by the U.S. Senate.

The legislation would put the United States on a more confrontational course than the one pursued by President Bush, who has supported European efforts to offer Iran incentives in exchange for abandoning its nuclear program.

But momentum would likely build if Iran carries out its threat to resume some nuclear activities and its talks with the European Union break down.

Peter Morici, an international business professor at Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland, said economic sanctions levied by the EU would "impose significant pain on Iran."

But in order for sanctions to be effective, they have to be done in tandem, he said: "EU or U.S. sanctions, alone, have much less effect than the combined force of joint sanctions." EU officials, who declined to be identified, agreed that sanctions need to be coordinated for impact.

"Sanctions against South Africa worked because the entire West cooperated," Morici noted. "U.S. sanctions against Cuba: Castro goes around U.S. sanctions."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/europe_iran_economic_sanctions

 

[steve albino]

from the May 20, 2005 edition

Iran flexes its 'soft power' in Iraq

In a sign of warming ties, Iran's foreign minister finished a high level, three-day visit to Iraq Thursday.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite leader, never meets with American officials. But when Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi arrived in Iraq this week, the revered Iranian-born cleric threw open his doors.
"You've got two different trajectories, and I don't think the Americans have come to this realization," says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, contacted in Tehran. "The Americans have hard power in Iraq, but the Iranians have soft power, and they are able to do things. It is a much more subtle influence than the Americans."

Preaching the merits of stability and democracy for Iraq - and trying to dispel accusations from the US and previous interim Iraqi officials of interfering in Iraqi affairs - Mr. Kharrazi staked Iran's claim as Iraq's neighbor of greatest influence.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Iraq two days earlier. But Iraq's new government, formed on April 28, also has very close ties to Iran, often developed with Iraq's new leaders during years of exile when the Islamic Republic supported their struggle against Saddam Hussein.

"For US policy, it's going to be difficult to forge a strong alliance with Iraq, while at the same time antagonizing Iran," says Mr. Sadjadpour.

Senior US officials in the past have made clear their interest in pursuing regime change in Iran, and the US government considers Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. President Bush lists Iran as part of an "axis of evil."

But Iran shares an 800-mile border with Iraq, and the new government is run by Shiites who share a religious affinity with Iran, and constitute more than 60 percent of Iraq's population. Kharrazi is the first senior official from any of Iraq's six neighbors to visit the new government.

Senior US officials now play down concerns about Iran's role in Iraq, especially compared to that of Syria. Despite close ties with Iran, senior Iraqi officials "are Iraqis first and foremost," Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick told journalists in Baghdad Thursday. "There is undoubtedly influence ... [but] what Iraq is doing is urging all its neighbors to be supportive."

After Mr. Hussein's fall, interim Iraqi leaders accused Iran of opening its borders to militants crossing into Iraq and supporting the insurgency. Analysts say that in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion, Iran believed that it might be the US's next target, and so set up networks that could apply pressure in Iraq, if a decision was made to do so.

Iran analysts described Tehran's aim as "managed chaos," a tricky balancing act that would keep US forces and officials tied down in Iraq, but not spark the kind of breakdown that would threaten Iran. That undeclared policy seems to have shifted during the Iraq election period last January, which brought the current Iran-friendly government to power.

"We will not allow terrorists to use our lands to access Iraq," Kharrazi told his hosts. "We will watch our borders and will arrest infiltrators, because securing Iraq is securing [Iran].

"Had the Islamic Republic of Iran exploited the situation in Iraq to interfere in Iraq's affairs and allow terrorists to enter Iraq from Iran," Kharrazi added, "the situation in Iraq would have been much worse."

While the military is focusing now on rebels streaming in from Syria, Iraq's foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said that "infiltrations occur [from Iran] but we cannot say that these operations take place with the approval of the [Iranian] government."

Mr. Zebari added: "We are sure the Islamic Republic does not want Al Qaeda and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on our lands."

Part of Kharrazi's message appeared designed for the US, which has been pushing to have Iran brought before the UN Security Council to answer charges that Tehran is using its nuclear-power program as a cover to build nuclear weapons.

Kharrazi made clear that the US would "eventually withdraw" from Iraq, but that Iran, as Iraq's neighbor, would always "live with the Iraqis."

"I'm not sure how much of the [Iran-Iraq warmth] is love and real friendliness," says Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at St. Andrews University in Scotland. "The Iranians are making the most of it, reminding the Americans and Europeans that if things get hot on the nuclear issue, that Iran has a big influence in Iraq."

In an interview with Reuters, Iranian Presidential front-runner Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani Thursday said that Iran "cannot ignore" the US, and that Iran would "feel that America has given up its hostile policies" if the US "begin to adopt positive behavior rather than doing evil."

But how great is Iran's influence with Iraq's leadership?

Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari for years led an anti-Hussein group in Iran. In the early 1980s, the intelligence services of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution - created the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and its military wing, the Badr Brigades, from which many of Iraq's top leaders now come.

On the Kurdish side, Iran has had the closest ties with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan lead by Jalal Talabani, Iraq's new president. In 1996, when Iraqi forces launched an offensive into the Kurdish north, this correspondent met Mr. Talabani in northern Iraq, just strides away from the Iranian border.

Parallel anti-Hussein efforts were covertly funded and supported by the US, most notably with Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi (who also has close Iran ties, and has been accused of giving US intelligence to Iran) and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

Last week, during a visit to Iran, Talabani declared that it "feels good to be home."

While supporting the new Iraqi government, Tehran is torn by internal debate as it weighs the risks of "managed chaos" - and the seriousness of continuing US rhetoric against the Islamic regime - while recognizing that the "best way to get the Americans out of Iraq is to let it reach a certain level of stability," says the ICG's Sadjadpour.

"When Iran has a friend in power [in Iraq], they want to see that government succeed. And when Iran wants to flex its muscles in Iraq, it can," says Sadjadpour. "The danger is if there is heightened tension between the US and Iran. The battlefield for that will be in Iraq."

Their meeting revealed the warmth that met the foreign minister during his three-day visit, which sometimes felt more like a family reunion than a meeting of leaders of nations that fought throughout the 1980s, at the cost of 1 million dead and wounded. The trip that ended Thursday also underscored a US policy dilemma in Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0520/p06s02-woiq.html

 

[steve albino]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A bigger threat than the bomb[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The world can live with Iranian nuclear weapons. But can the US?[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Martin Woollacott
Friday May 13, 2005
The Guardian

[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]How much would it matter if Iran had the bomb? Merely to pose this question, within the Bush administration, would almost be treason. European countries, for their part, consider it indiscreet to raise it - better to say that a nuclear-armed Iran should be avoided if at all possible. Yet the question of how dangerous a development it would be is crucial.[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Dangerous enough to justify a war, which is what the United States, and sometimes Israel, seem to think? Dangerous enough for major sanctions, in addition to the American ones already in place, which both those countries certainly would argue? Or merely regrettable and worrying, but not worth making worse by either economic or military action, which is probably the underlying position of the three European nations trying to mediate between the United States and Iran over the Iranian nuclear programme?[/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] These differences, usually hidden by the efforts of the US and the EU to "stay on the same page" on Iran, are likely to be wrenched into the open in the next few weeks if the Iranians resume fuel-enrichment activities, as they have said they will. First at the International Atomic Energy Authority, and then, if the issue goes there, at the UN security council, the Americans and the Europeans will be trying not only to overcome the indifference or hostility of many non-western states but to reconcile their own deeply divergent views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1482877,00.html
[/font]

 

[steve albino]

May 23, 2005
Michel Chossudovsky / GlobalReseach The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
Michel Chossudovsky / GlobalReseach

(May 1, 2005) — At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview on January 2005)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )

Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.

Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.

"A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )

The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor).

Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.

Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.

Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":

"Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement." (See :a href="http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html">Richard Bennett)

Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen)

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky , see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris) .

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Michel Chossudovsky)

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas.)

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue punitive air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, there are indications that the possibility of a ground war is also being contemplated.

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2748

 

[steve albino]

The US "Military Road Map"
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil)

The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran:

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy.

The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to US interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens.

Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of US engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region — uninterrupted, secure US/Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM. Emphasis added)

Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level.

Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.

Planning the Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html)

The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.

Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

• 1) Several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.

• 2) Military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

• 3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

• 4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.

• 5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.

• 6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:

November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.

January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.

February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.

February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )

 

[steve albino]

The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz to IDF chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right man at the right time."

The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's appointment was specifically linked to the Iran agenda. "As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario."

March 2005 NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:

"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO.

Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. " (See Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies)

The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran.

Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)

March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles. US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).

April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."

In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.

Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.

During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:

"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)

Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.

April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation with Turkmenistan.

Mid-April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.

Late April 2005 President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia decision's to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.

Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June.

These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)

Late April 2005: Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.

The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf)

Late April 2006- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials.

On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.

May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.

Iran Surrounded
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.

In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries including Turkmenistan are members of part of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation agreement with NATO.

In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:

"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches — Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries... Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2749

 

[steve albino]

Concluding Remarks:
The World is at an important crossroads. The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")

In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be deployed in the case of a war with Iran.)

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.

more...
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2749