Iran

Azur

The Living Force
Another excellent article from Eric Margolis. It's a wonder the papers even run him compared to the stuff they usually run. (Sometimes they don't run him at all, he must have been too real that week).

You can read his other columns here: www.ericmargolis.com

Article:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/02/04/3522931.html

Eric Margolis
Sun, February 4, 2007

Fight against Iran too familiar

By Eric Margolis


While the Bush/Cheney administration seems hell-bent on provoking war with Iran, Americans appear far more alarmed by the dangers of global warming. Many of them must regret not voting for "Ecological Al" Gore in 2000.

While icebergs melt, the U.S.-Iran confrontation is getting very dangerous. The heaviest concentration of U.S. naval strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is concentrating off Iran.

In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and U.S. Air Force recon aircraft -- along with U.S. and British Special Forces -- are overflying Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations. CIA and Britain's MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran's Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.

A belligerent President George Bush ordered U.S. forces in Iraq to "kill" Iranian agents or diplomats who appear threatening.

U.S. troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison office and arrested its military staff. Bush unblushingly warns Iran, not to "meddle" in neighbouring Iraq.

Pentagon sources accused Iran of smuggling weapons and explosives to "Iraqi insurgents;" though the "insurgents" are in fact Shia militiamen allied to the U.S.-installed Baghdad regime. Half of the 21,000 additional U.S. troops headed to Iraq are being positioned to cover the Iranian border and block an Iranian threat to the main U.S. -Kuwait-Baghdad supply line.

New contingents of U.S. Air Force personnel and warplanes are arriving at key forward air bases in Bulgaria and Romania that link the U.S. to the Mideast and Central Asia. U.S. bases in Britain, Germany, Diego Garcia, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and Pakistan are reported on heightened alert. Turkey is being pressed to allow U.S. and Israeli strike aircraft to use its air space to attack northern Iran.

The Pentagon's latest strike plan against Iran includes more than 2,300 "high value" targets such as its dispersed nuclear infrastructure and, worryingly, operating reactors, air and naval bases, ports, telecommunications, air defences, military factories, energy networks and government buildings.

Iran's water and sewage systems, bridges, food storage, and bomb shelters could also be targeted, as were Iraq's in 2001.

The U.S. Treasury has mounted a highly effective campaign to strangle Iran financially, seriously hurting its foreign banking connections, retarding industrial growth and energy production, and impeding foreign investment.

The Bush administration and close ally Israel have sharply intensified their war of words against Iran, claiming, implausibly, it poses a nuclear threat to the entire world.

Israeli threats

Politicians in Israel are in dangerous emotional overdrive and making open threats to attack Iran. They claim Iran is a new Nazi Germany and Israel faces a second Holocaust -- in spite of its powerful triad of nuclear forces that can survive any surprise attack.

Though UN inspectors find no evidence Iran is producing nuclear weapons, Tehran, like Saddam's Iraq, is being told to prove an impossible negative -- that it has no nuclear weapons.

With disturbing deja vu, the U.S. Congress and media are swallowing the administration's torrent of unproven allegations against Iran precisely the way they lapped up its grotesque lies about Iraq.

Intelligence analysts would conclude either: Washington is trying to bluff Tehran to abandon its entirely legal but worrisome civilian nuclear power program and thus claim a major victory after so many defeats. Or, the cornered Bush/Cheney administration is trying to provoke an air and naval war against Iran as a last desperate, ideologically driven assault against the Muslim world, and divert attention from its Iraq debacle.

'Not very dangerous'

Amid growing war fever, this week France's President Jacques Chirac sensibly observed, off the record, that even if Iran had a few nuclear weapons for self-defence, "it is not very dangerous."

Iran would be obliterated by U.S. and Israeli nuclear counterstrikes if it ever used its nukes against Israel, noted Chirac, and is unlikely to commit national suicide.

After his comments became public, Chirac retracted them when Washington's French-haters went apoplectic. But, as he did before Bush's 2003 war against Iraq, Chirac spoke with logic and good sense.

margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com
 

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
<< While the Bush/Cheney administration seems hell-bent on provoking war with Iran >>

I think that's the gist of it. All the reports of "Iranian treachery" in Iraq are tempered with statements from the US administration that they: have no intention of engaging Iran militarily; are making no plans to attack Iran; are committed to diplomatic means to settle any dispute with Iran. The phony "we're all peaceful and everything" talk sounds like a setup. They'll keep provoking Iran and then have to "respond" to an attack or something. I think there'll be too much scrutiny and debate if the administration tries to make a faux-legal case for a pre-emptive strike. As asleep as the world is, I think that ploy wouldn't work again. Not that they care at this point. Desperate men.
 
Well well well, looks like the pentagon can start their powerpoint engines once again:

"U.S.-led forces show evidence of Iran arms in Iraq"

http://www(dot)militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?s=3db201e9542f5d7ecac5a1052c1bec5c&p=2302000
 

Peto

Jedi
AdPop said:
I think there'll be too much scrutiny and debate if the administration tries to make a faux-legal case for a pre-emptive strike. As asleep as the world is, I think that ploy wouldn't work again. Not that they care at this point. Desperate men.
That leads directly to the possibility that they need a big false-flag terrorist attack somewhere in the Western world before they can start the war. And knowing that the war is likely to begin before April (when Blair leaves the office), I shudder and dare not imagine further.
 

Azur

The Living Force
salleles said:
Well well well, looks like the pentagon can start their powerpoint engines once again:

"U.S.-led forces show evidence of Iran arms in Iraq"

http://www(dot)militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?s=3db201e9542f5d7ecac5a1052c1bec5c&p=2302000
Here is something I heard about on public radio today (from Canada), they repeated the emphasized parts (in bold) of the article almost verbatim.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraniraq23jan23,0,4316481.story

Comments in italic mine, of course.

Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link

U.S. warnings of advanced weaponry crossing the border are overstated, critics say.

By Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller, Times Staff Writers
January 23, 2007

BAQUBAH, IRAQ — If there is anywhere Iran could easily stir up trouble in Iraq, it would be in Diyala, a rugged province along the border between the two nations.

The combination of Sunni Arab militants believed to be affiliated with Al Qaeda and Shiite Muslim militiamen with ties to Iran has fueled waves of sectarian and political violence here. [See above article by Margolis: "CIA and Britain's MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran's Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles."] The province is bisected by long-traveled routes leading from Iran to Baghdad and Shiite holy cities farther south in Iraq.

But even here, evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq's troubles is limited. U.S. troops have found mortars and antitank mines with Iranian markings dated 2006, said U.S. Army Col. David W. Sutherland, who oversees the province. But there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found.

In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech.

For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.

The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case. Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran.


Before invading Iraq, the administration warned repeatedly that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Those statements proved wrong. The administration's charges about Iran sound uncomfortably familiar to some. "To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last week, referring to the administration's comments on Iran.

*

Lowered credibility

The accusations of Iranian meddling "illustrate what may be one of our greatest problems," said Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department official and military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"We are still making arguments from authority without detail and explanation. We're making them in an America and in a world where we really don't have anything like the credibility we've had in the past."

Few doubt that Iran is seeking to extend its influence in Iraq. But the groups in Iraq that have received the most Iranian support are not those that have led attacks against U.S. forces. Instead, they are nominal U.S. allies.

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the two largest parties in parliament, is believed to be the biggest beneficiary of Iranian help. The Shiite group was based in Iran during Hussein's reign, and Iran's Revolutionary Guard trained and equipped its Badr Brigade militia.

But the Supreme Council also has strong U.S. connections. Bush played host to the head of the party, Abdelaziz Hakim, at the White House in December, and administration officials have frequently cited Adel Abdul Mehdi, another party leader, as a person they would like to see as Iraq's prime minister.

The Islamic Dawa Party of Iraq's current prime minister, Nouri Maliki, also has strong ties to Iran.

Some U.S. officials have also suggested that Iran, a Shiite theocracy, has provided aid to the Sunni insurgents, who have led most of the attacks against U.S. forces. Private analysts and other U.S. officials doubt that. Evidence is stronger that the Iranians are supporting a Shiite group that has attacked U.S. forces, the Al Mahdi militia, which is loyal to radical cleric Muqtada Sadr.

Top U.S. intelligence officials have been making increasingly confident assertions about Iran.

"I've come to a much darker interpretation of Iranian actions in the past 12 to 18 months," CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in recent congressional testimony. Previously, Tehran's priority was to maneuver for a stable Iraq dominated by its Shiite majority, but that attitude has changed, he said.

"There is a clear line of evidence that points out the Iranians want to punish the United States, hurt the United States in Iraq, tie down the United States in Iraq," he said.

One high-ranking intelligence official in Washington acknowledged a lack of "fidelity" in the intelligence on Iran's activities, saying reports are sometimes unclear because it is difficult to track weapons and personnel that might be flowing across the long and porous border.
Note: in the two articles, they assert that arms ARE being smuggled to Iraq by Iran, but to forces aligned with the US installed Iraqi government.

What if they held a press conference that said:"Iran is supplying arms to our allies in Iraq". What would the public opinion be then?

The situation is undoubtedly more complicated than that, but they got into Iraq with less evidence than this.
 

Azur

The Living Force
Another related story, this time about the "propaganda" of the NY Times and Washington Post.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003544369

'NYT' Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims

By Greg Mitchell

Published: February 10, 2007 10:30 PM ET Friday updated Saturday

NEW YORK Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops
 

efields

Padawan Learner
Preaching to the choir I know, but I thought you 'd like to see 'mainstream' news getting us ready.. The machine is 'In Motion' It would be a miracle if it did NOT happen at this point.

U.S. Preparing for Iran Military Strike

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:59 PM


Top officials in the U.S. are pushing for a military strike against Iran, Fox News James Rosen reported Wednesday.


Citing a "recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran," Fox said senior Bush administration officials have been left with no other option than to "to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime."



German Chancellor Angela Merkelís government recent refusal to support additional sanctions against the rogue state has made the sanctions effort useless.


Fox reported: "Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach" has failed, and that the U.S. must now "actively prepare" for a military option.


Noting a "well-placed Bush administration source," Fox said senior policy makers are reviewing the military option and say "the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections."


The behind-the-scenes military preparations may be shadowed by a growing war of words between Washington and Tehran.


Last month President Bush raised the specter of a new "holocaust" if the Iranians are not checked.


He told a meeting of veterans, "Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism... And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."



Terror Chatter High

Yeah we ALREADY have the Bush Holocaust, to get us conditioned to more Blood... ....on with the 'festivities' wow just like ancient Rome.
 
A

Aries331

Guest
Yup! Iran is trouble!

Of course free people that can think for themselves generally are trouble to those that believe their way is the only way, whether that be in politics, economics, or religion. Throw a psychopath or two into the mix & you have a real recipe for disaster.

It doesn't take much analysis to figure out that if Iran becomes a member of the "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) club, then they will be much more difficult to intimidate or bully. Those that stand to lose much influence & money from just such an event will probably pay any cost to prevent it. Unfortunately I believe that includes attacking Iran if the rest of the world fails to follow them into pressuring Iran into submission, all we have to do is look at Iraq for the precedent.

An even more disturbing possibility is that the criminals behind all this may even be insane enough to use Nuclear Weapons to achieve their goals, of course that would ensure that the exclusive MAD club would remain so, and keep the power base at the Status Quo. Also, in their minds it would prevent them from having to pay out hundreds of millions or a billion dollars to pay Iran off. Much like they had to do with North Korea, who only needed the money for wasteful things like food & oil so they could produce electricity & heat, and buy food for the people who didn't have it because? Oh yes, economic sanctions instigated by whom?? If we do use these weapons of "mass destruction" what happens if everyone that doesn't agree with that policy decides it's time to come together to put an end to Nuclear Blackmail?

I can remember in one of the sessions with the C's regarding I believe, Asteroids & Comets, a statement was made by them regarding waking up to a "red sky", possibly from the impact of a celestial body or bodies. A frightful scenario indeed, but maybe not frightful at all if there's no one home to see it. Maybe, it would be a blessing to die in a meteor shower, if you were already dying a slow & painful death from radiation poisoning.

The fact that someone has considered using these weapons to stop Iran from possessing the same seems insane to me.

IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AND STOP THE INSANITY AMERICA!

NO MORE WAR!
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Too true, and it looks like the causus belli this time may be an attack "by Iran" on US forces in Iraq.

Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts warn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2169798,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling and nuclear fears

Saturday September 15, 2007
The Guardian

The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning.[...]
In this way the by now somewhat skeptical US population (or a good portion of it) is kept more or less out of the decision-making process in terms of an attack on Iran. After all, if US troops in Iraq are attacked "by Iran" then the ensuing conflict will be a military matter and just a continuation of the Iraq invasion and projected wider Middle East conflict, aka "War of Armageddon".

Joe
 

efields

Padawan Learner
Aries331 said:
Yup! Iran is trouble!


The fact that someone has considered using these weapons to stop Iran from possessing the same seems insane to me.

IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AND STOP THE INSANITY AMERICA!

NO MORE WAR!
The fact the Bush is STILL alive is a proof of what traction these thugs have. That they could remove leaders like King and Kennedy and keep a psychopaths like Bush in office is enough for me. I can't wait to sell this home and emigrate. The problem is Where? my chosen Panama is also Thug driven as are most enclaves on the Earth. Perhaps at least in Panama its such s small area that it will be less upsetting there. France or Mexico also come to mind as possible escapes from the American killing machine? It seems as if everywhere you turn its just a different version of the Machine. We shall see when it sells where we go. Panama looms as its costs are so manageable.
 

Saman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Is it just me or is Ahmadnejad being used as a usual idiot by the PTB. He is discrediting the truth by his comments either unconsciously or consciously. What I mean is that he says such stupid things as like there are no homosexuals in Iran, like a puritan type comment, and then says things like it is the Zionists that are the problem and not the Jewish people in general, which has been shown to be case by research. So he says one thing that is so absurd that it makes anything else he says seem as such as well, even if it isn't. This is why I think he is a "useful idiot", put in place by "winning" the election to play the role of discrediting all those people who actually are speaking the probable truth. People like here at SOTT for instance.

What you guys think? Am I off or on with this observation?
 

Craig

Jedi Master
Supposedly he said:

In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. (Laughter.) We don't have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it. (Laughter.)
The first sentence is kind of ambiguous, because he could mean: "we don't have the same homosexual culture like in your country" i.e. flamboyance, openness, gay pride etc. Having said that, apparently it is illegal under Iranian Law - punishable by death - for two men to engage in sexual acts. And having said that, lets remember that acceptance of homosexuality is a very recent phenomena in the West.

So it seems he may not have said it in a way that suggests he's delusional, but certainly cold-hearted and deeply homophobic because of his beliefs.
 

Saman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
That is what I thought as well; however, later on CNN he was asked this question again for clarification by a persian lady. She asked him if he was being serious with this comment and that she DID know people who were homosexuals in Iran, so how can he deny their existence. Ahmadnejad then playfully asked again like, and this is not an exact quote at all, "Oh really, who and where? Do you have their address" or something similar along that line. Okay, let me see if I can find precisely what he supposedly said the second time around on TV. Anyways, he is going to be interviewed tomorrow as well again by another lady.

Another thing that I was thinking about was that what if when they asked him bluntly to answer yes or no to did he or does he want the state of Israel to be wiped off the map, did they say regime to him in Farsi but then made it look like they were actually asking him about the state of Israel to the English audience. As far as I know, he doesn't speak any English so he is at the mercy of the translators. If they did say regime to him and not state, then I think his answer that it is wrong to limit the answer to a yes or a no answer and that is the right of the Palestinian people to choose remove this regime or not would contextually make more diplomatic sense rather then if this answer was to the question about whether he wants to wipe off the state of Israel from the map, which is obviously less diplomatic to say the least. Brb
 

Iconoclast

Jedi Master
i think ahmadnejad is definitely part of the plan - like bin laden or saddam hussein.
why else would they allow him to come to the US and get this big a platform in the media (even if it is just to ridicule him).

in this game, ALL the cards are marked.
 
Top Bottom