The Truth will prevail, but only if we demand it from Congress!

9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004


Home ] 9-11 Inside Job ] Federal Reserve ] Hacking Elections ] Iraq War ] Fake War on Terror ] New World Order ] Media ] Peak Oil-Petro Euros ] Fascism in U.S. ] Editorials ] About Us ] Links ] Contact Us ]


Bush-Very Dangerous New Year
Early Attack on Iran?
Security Council Slaps Sanctions on Iran
Israeli Think Tank-Only Military Strike Will Stop Iran
A Very Dangerous New Year
Building a Pretext for War Against Iran
US Naval War Games Off Iranian Coastline
Attack on Iran Is Near
The Bushes & the Truth About Iran
US vs. Iran - Is An Attack Inevitable?
Iran: The Next War
Bush Gives Iran Ultimatum on Uranium
Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program
Letter From President Of Iran To Bush
Target- Negroponte & Iran
Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue
The Coming Nuclear Epiphany In Persia
Sweet Deals- Behind the Iran 'Crisis'
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off Map
Democrats in Congress Lie Low on Iran
Inevitable Bush Will Attack Iran
The War On Iran
End of Story- Israel Triumphant
Iran Showdown Tests Power of "Israel Lobby"
Don't Attack Iran
New Yorker- U.S. Considers Nuking Iran
Why U.S. Will Attack Iran
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
Nuking Iran?
US Twists Truth on Iran and IAEA
Bush Warns Iran on Israel
Middle East:Is Peace Still Possible?
Deja Vu All Over Iran
Iran- Where Do We Go From Here?
Bush’s Roadblock At Security Council
Bush's Nuclear Madness-Iran
There is No Iranian 'Crisis'
Ahmadinejad On The Warpath
Iran-The Next War
10,000 Would Die in A-plant Attack on Iran
Iran is Prepared to Retaliate
Nuclear War against Iran
Iran’s New Oil Trade System
Military Action Against Iran?
Iran Vows Enrichment
Rice-Talking with Iran Is Over
How to stop the planned nuking of Iran
Iran 'Does Not Need Nuclear Arms'


Military Action Against Iran

This is the next step in controlling the oil fields in the Middle East. 

The driving force behind the illegal war against Iraq and the planned

bombing of Iran is Peak Oil and stopping the trading of oil in Petro-euros.

The Bush administration is moving toward military action against Iran, despite

its current public support for multilateral diplomacy. Surprisingly, that eventual

outcome may also comport with the interests of the Iranian government. The real

losers in this arms-length conspiracy between the two hostile governments will be

the American and Iranian peoples.

For the moment, the Bush administration is playing a more sophisticated diplomatic

game against Iran than it did during the ham-handed run-up to the unpopular invasion

of Iraq, which led to U.S. isolation from most of the rest of the world. The administration

has allowed France, Britain, and Germany to take the lead in trying to negotiate away

Iran’s nuclear program. Having failed in that effort, the Europeans are now on board with

an International Atomic Energy Agency referral to the United Nations Security Council

for the possible imposition of sanctions. The United States is now working to convince

China and Russia that stiffer actions against Iran are warranted. Rather than taking rash,

almost unilateral, action as it did against Iraq, the Bush administration apparently has

learned its lesson and seems to be willing to let multilateral diplomacy play out in order

to build international support for a military response.


Bush's Iraq Plan: Goading Iran Into War

By Trita Parsi, IPS News
Posted on January 13, 2007, Printed on January 14, 2007

President George W. Bush's address on Iraq Wednesday night was less about Iraq than

about its eastern neighbor, Iran. There was little new about the U.S. strategy in Iraq, but on Iran,

the president spelled out a plan that appears to be aimed at goading Iran into war with the

United States.



Hoyer and Dems Set Stage for Iran Attack

Sunday January 07th 2007, 10:54 am

It only took Steny Hoyer a few hours to please his masters.

“Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority

Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering

the party leadership position.



Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran


ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with

tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield

nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.


George W. Bush Is Going To Bomb Iran

by boloboffin | Dec 29 2006

George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. This is the purpose of the "surge". No amount of

troops is going to fix Iraq; they couldn't if they tried. If Bush wanted to fix Iraq, he'd give

them jobs. People who are employed in decent jobs can figure out how to live with their

neighbors. More American troops in the Persian Gulf are not going to quell violence in Iraq

any more than the ones already there are.

George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. And there may be almost nothing we can do to stop it.


Bush Could Usher in a Very Dangerous New Year

By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Posted on December 26, 2006, Printed on December 26, 2006

The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an

escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to

"double-down" his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud

Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and

Iran, intelligence sources say.


Crime of the Century: Are Bush & Cheney Planning

Early Attack on Iran?
by Dave Lindorff |

Back on October 9, I wrote in The Nation that it looked like the Bush-
Cheney gang, worried about the November election, was gearing up for
an unprovoked attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, with a carrier
strike group led by the USS Eisenhower being ordered to depart a
month early from Norfolk, VA to join the already-on-station USS
Enterprise. That article was based on reports from angry sailors
based on the Eisenhower who had leaked word of their mission.

There was, thankfully, no attack on Iran before Election Day, but it
is starting to look like I may have been right about the plan after
all, but wrong about the timing.

Security Council Slaps Sanctions on Iran
Dec 23, 6:15 PM (ET)

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday

to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, increasing

international pressure on the government to prove that it is not trying to make nuclear

weapons. Iran immediately rejected the resolution.


Israeli Think Tank-Only Military Strike Will Stop Iran

Associated Press
Thursday, December 21, 2006

Nothing short of a military strike will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons,

an Israeli newspaper quoted a respected Israeli think tank as concluding on Friday.


A Very Dangerous New Year

By Robert Parry
December 21, 2006

The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation

of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to “double-down” his

gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British

Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.


"Weapons of Mass Destruction": Building a Pretext for

Waging War on Iran?

by Michel Chossudovsky

November 1, 2006
GlobalResearch. ca

The US navy has conducted military exercises (30th of
October) 20 miles outside Iranian territorial waters
in the Persian Gulf. The war games were perceived by
Tehran as an act of provocation. Iranian patrol boats
came very close to US and coalition warships in the
Persian Gulf.

The large scale naval display of US military hardware
consisted in intercepting and searching vessels
"suspected of trafficking" in "weapons of mass
destruction" . The exercise was conducted under the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). It consisted
in developing "procedures for intercepting smugglers
of unconventional weapons". (NYT, 30 October 2006).

US Naval War Games Off the Iranian Coastline

by Michel Chossudovsky

October 24, 2006

There is a massive concentration of US naval power in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. 

Two US naval strike groups are deployed: USS Enterprise, and USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary

Strike Group. The naval strike groups have been assigned to fighting the "global war on terrorism." 

War Games

Concurrent with this concentration of US Naval power, the US is also involved in military

exercises in the Persian Gulf, which consists in "interdicting ships in the Gulf carrying weapons

of mass destruction and missiles" 





CALL your members of Congress tollfree at 888-355-3588 or 800-828-0498

As the general election approaches, we hear more and more speculation about

what the "October Surprise" will be THIS time. People wonder what vile political

stunt will they pull to try to stampede people into voting diametrically against their

own best interests yet again. This goes far beyond what used to be called "dirty tricks".

Start another war and kill a hundred thousand people to crank up the fear level of the

American people? They've done it before.


Attack on Iran Is Near

The Surprising End of the New American Century

By Mike Whitney

Created Sep 21 2006 - 8:58am

“The US is updating contingency plans for a strike to cripple Iran’s atomic

weapon’s program if international diplomacy fails…The plan calls for a rolling

5 day bombing campaign against 400 key targets, including 24 nuclear related

sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters”
-- Ian Bruce, “US spells out plan to bomb Iran” UK Herald

“Justice has become the victim of force and aggression.”
-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; address to the United Nations 9-19-06

The Iranian Mullahs have one advantage over the Bush administration if war

breaks out. They know what Bush plans to do. They know that he intends to

bomb numerous targets which are unrelated to the nuclear facilities, and they

know that his ultimate goal is “regime change”. This fits into America’s larger

regional-wide schema of crushing indigenous resistance movements (Hamas and

Hezbollah), redrawing the map of the Middle East, and integrating the oil of the

Caspian Basin into the US-controlled economic system.

Recent reports suggest that the Bush strategy is going forward despite warnings from

high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and respected members of the foreign policy

establishment. A recent article in Time magazine by Michael Duffy outlines a realistic

scenario for the initial phase of the conflict:


The Bushes & the Truth About Iran

By Robert Parry
September 21, 2006

Having gone through the diplomatic motions with Iran, George W. Bush is shifting

toward a military option that carries severe risks for American soldiers in Iraq as well

as for long-term U.S. interests around the world. Yet, despite this looming crisis, the

Bush Family continues to withhold key historical facts about U.S.-Iranian relations.

Those historical facts – relating to Republican contacts with Iran’s Islamic regime

more than a quarter century ago – are relevant today because an underlying theme

in Bush’s rationale for war is that direct negotiations with Iran are pointless. But Bush’s

own father may know otherwise.

The evidence is now persuasive that George H.W. Bush participated in negotiations

with Iran’s radical regime in 1980, behind President Jimmy Carter’s back, with the

goal of arranging for 52 American hostages to be released after Bush and Ronald

Reagan were sworn in as Vice President and President, respectively.


US vs. Iran - Is An Attack Inevitable?

Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of

a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the

people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament,

or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought

to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are

being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the

country to danger. It works the same in every country."

(Hermann Goering)

Once again we are being prepared for another devastating war in the Middle East. A

terrorist group is "allegedly" discovered planning to blow-up 6 aircraft in UK [1]. Another

group is "discovered" in Germany planning to blow-up a train [2]. Then UK warns whole

Europe about the threat of terrorism [3]. Then there are "loud" accusations that Iran has

been trying to buy Uranium from Congo [4] followed by a small retraction [5] [6]. Then

there is the release of the 9/11 sound tapes of the fire-fighters along with the release of the

emotional movie "9/11". And finally we have the President of the United States warning us

about the threat of Islamo-Fascism.



Iran: The Next War


James Bamford is the author of "A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America's

Intelligence Agencies." His story for RS on consultant John Rendon, "The Man Who Sold the War"

[RS 988], won the 2006 National Magazine Award for reporting.

Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting

to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and

shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran. BY JAMES BAMFORD


Bush Gives Iran an Ultimatum on Uranium

Jun 19, 7:54 PM (ET)


KINGS POINT, N.Y. (AP) - President Bush told Iran on Monday that nations worldwide

won't back down from their demand that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment.

"Iran's leaders have a clear choice. We hope they will accept our offer and voluntarily suspend

these activities so we can work out an agreement that will bring Iran real benefits," Bush said a

day before leaving for Vienna, Austria, where he will talk with European Union officials who are

leading efforts to resolve the nuclear dispute.

If Iran's leaders reject the offer, they will face action before the U.N. Security Council and

progressively stronger political and economic sanctions, Bush said during a commencement

speech at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.


Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program

By Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A01

TEHRAN, May 23 -- Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to

President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S.

officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.

The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically

erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public

foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.

Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with

the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's

supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative

ayatollah in the theocratic government.

"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad

together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a

former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy.

They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."



William Thomas 11 May 2006 05:08 GMT

In April 2006, the US National Command Authority issued orders for more than 20,000 US soldiers to

prepare to deploy to the Persian Gulf within 48 hours of receiving an execute order from either GW Bush

or Donald Rumsfeld. Generals fear "Persian Gulf Incident" trigger.

Bush Said To Be Seeking “Persian Gulf Incident”

In January 2006, a major military base located in the western United States received voice instructions

from National Command Authority (NCA) to get their logistics train underway and train up their troops

for desert warfare.

The current National Command Authority is comprised of a Commander-In-Chief who deserted his post

during the Vietnam War, and a Secretary of Defense who, despite never having donned a uniform in defense

of his country, did succeed in cashiering and countermanding enough combat-experienced generals to engineer

the current debacle in Iraq.



Letter From President Of Iran To George Bush

By Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

12 May, 2006
Le Monde

Mr. George Bush, President of the United States of America,

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that

exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums

and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to

discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity

to redress them.


Target: Negroponte & Iran

By Robert Parry
April 29, 2006

In a replay of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction charade, neoconservative supporters of

George W. Bush are pushing the U.S. intelligence community to take a more alarmist view about

Iran’s nuclear program – only this time, the nation’s top spy John Negroponte is resisting the

pressure unlike former CIA chief George Tenet.

Tenet joined in Bush’s hyping of the WMD evidence about Iraq – famously telling the President

that the case was a “slam dunk.” But Negroponte is defying hardliners who want a worst-case

scenario on Iran’s capabilities. Instead, he is citing Iran’s limited progress in refining uranium and

their use of a cascade of only 164 centrifuges.

“According to the experts that I consult, achieving — getting 164 centrifuges to work is still a long

way from having the capacity to manufacture sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon,”

Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News on April 20.

“Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and

probably into the next decade,” said Negroponte, who was appointed last year as the Director of

National Intelligence, a new post that supplanted the traditional primacy of the CIA director as the

head of the U.S. intelligence community.

Expressing a similar view about Iran’s nuclear program in a speech at the National Press Club,

Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.”

In effect, the Director of National Intelligence was splashing cold water on the fevered assessment

of Iran’s nuclear progress favored by the neoconservatives. Some Bush supporters are now

complaining that Negroponte has shown disloyalty to the President by siding with intelligence

analysts who reject the direst predictions on Iran.


Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

24 April 2006

If the Bush Administration is good at anything at all, it’s scaring the hell out of the electorate.

Whether it’s their lagging response to Hurricane Katrina, the intolerable invasion of Iraq, or the

infamous, multi-colored terror-threat level, all the president’s men are contented in making sure

we stay frightened enough to be controlled.

The latest threat meant to send Americans into panic attacks is Iran’s development of nuclear

technology. Bush and his minions are kicking up a lot of dust, saying that Iran’s intent for nuclear

technology is anything but peaceful. And while Bush, Inc. cannot prove Iran’s nuclear ambitions

are militaristic, they’ve certainly proven they’re ability to lie about other militant intentions from that

region of the Middle East before.



The Coming Nuclear Epiphany In Persia

By Chris Floyd

22 April 2006

Twelve hours. One circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one course of the moon from dusk

to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily round of human life is now a doom-laden

interval between the voicing of an autocrat's brutal whim and the infliction of mass annihilation halfway

around the world.

Twelve hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to gear up and launch an unprovoked

sneak attack – a Pearl Harbor in reverse – against Iran, the Washington Post reports. The plan for this

"global strike," which includes a very viable "nuclear option," was approved months ago, and is now in

operation. The planes are already on continuous alert, making "nuclear delivery" practice runs along the

Iranian border, as Sy Hersh reports in the New Yorker, and waiting only for the signal from President

George W. Bush to drop their payloads of conventional and nuclear weapons on some 400 targets spread

throughout the condemned land.

And when this attack comes – either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow" or else as the precusor to a full-scale,

regime-changing invasion, like the earlier aggression in Iraq – there will be no warning, no declaration of war,

no hearings, no public debate. The already issued orders governing the operation put the decision solely

in the hands of the president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" – and in twelve hours' time, up to

a million Iranians will be dead.


Sweet Deals: Behind the Iran 'Crisis'

by Chris Cook
Asia Times
Tuesday, April, 11, 2006

On reading the recent wave of stories concerning US readiness to bomb Iran back to the Stone

Age unless it gives up efforts to produce nuclear weapons, my first reaction was to be "shocked

and awed". But then a realization sank in. All this noise concerning Iranian nuclear preparations

was, as William Shakespeare had it, "a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

As a former director of an oil exchange with recent experience in Iran due to my involvement in

a proposed Iranian oil bourse, it has been clear to me for some time that the nuclear issue is a red

herring. But I confess that it had puzzled me for some time why everything except oil is going to be

privatized in Iraq.

"It's good for the US," I thought.

Well, I did until I recently read an analysis by Greg Muttitt of the plans by Big Oil to enter 40-year

Production-Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with Iraq. The deal is this: we develop your oilfields, and in

return we get - for 40 years - a major share of your crude-oil production at favorable "at cost" prices.

The outcome will be profits beyond the dreams of avarice.


Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He

Deny The Holocaust?

An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged

statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad .

By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann
Translation to English: Erik Appleby

04/19/06 "Kein Krieg!" -- -- - "But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course --

(applause) -- the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong

ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence,

to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to

protect our ally, Israel, and -- (applause.)" George W. Bush, US-President, 2006-03-20 in Cleveland

(Ohio) in an off-the-cuff speech (source: But why does Bush speak of Iran's

objective to destroy Israel?

Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to

wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or

heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of

war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the

'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal.

It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in

a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel

and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination

or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential.


As Rhetoric Builds, Democrats in Congress Lie Low on Iran

04/18/2006 @ 11:53 am

Filed by John Byrne

Military option remains on table, aides sayClick Here

In private conversations with RAW STORY, senior aides to leading Democratic members of

Congress in both houses have indicated an uncertain approach to resolving the standoff over

Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

As the Bush Administration ups rhetoric and news reports signal the Pentagon has developed

detailed plans for a possible military strike, the opposition party’s leading lights have remained

silent. Democratic insiders say they don’t want to rush to judgment without getting the facts, but

the issue has received scant attention from Democrats in Congress.


Inevitable Bush Will Attack Iran

By Bernard Weiner

19 April, 2006
Crisis Papers

The essence of Bush&Co. strategy, from January 2001 to today, can be boiled down to this: We'll

continue doing whatever we want to do until someone stops us.

So, if you're wondering whether the U.S. will back off from attacking Iran, or whether corporations will

no longer be given the ability to dictate Administration environmental policy, or whether domestic spying

on U.S. citizens will cease, or whether Scalia might recuse himself on cases he's already pre-judged -- if

you still harbor any or all of those illusions, forget about it.

Since Bush&Co. openly carry out the most reprehensible crimes, with nobody being able to prevent them

from moving on to even worse atrocities, it's almost as if their unconscious is screaming out for a political

intervention, reminiscent of that old plea from a tormented serial-killer: "Stop Me Before I Kill Again!"

But consciously, as they sense their time in power may be coming to an inglorious end and as they read their

quickly-sinking poll numbers, they can't help themselves from issuing their traditional, in-your-face dare:

"Stop me if you can, losers!"


The War On Iran

By Pepe Escobar

13 April, 2006
Asia Times
"All options, including the military one, are on the table." - US Secretary of

Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"I announce, officially, that dear Iran has joined the nuclear countries of the world." -
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, saying on Tuesday that Iran had successfully enriched

uranium for the first time, a landmark step toward its quest to develop nuclear fuel.

The ominous signs are "on the table" for all to see. The Pentagon has its Long War, the

rebranded "war on terror" that Vice President Dick Cheney swears will last for decades, a

replay of the war between Eastasia and Oceania in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

President George W Bush issued a "wild speculation" non-denial denial that the US was

planning strategic nuclear strikes against Iran, but Iran considerably upped the ante on

Tuesday with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's announcement that Iran had enriched uranium

for the first time. In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad urged the West to stop pressuring

Tehran, saying that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes.

Iranian nuclear officials say the country has produced 100 tonnes of uranium gas, an essential

ingredient for enrichment. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all

uranium-enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand.

From the point of view of the Pentagon's Long War, a strategic nuclear attack on Iran can be spun

to oblivion as the crucial next stage of the war on "radical Islam". From the view of a factionalized

European Union, this is (very) bad business; the Europeans prefer to concentrate on the factionalized

nature of the Iranian government itself and push for a nuclear deal.



End of Story: Israel Triumphant
By M K Bhadrakumar

In Gabriel Garcia Marquez' novella Chronicle of a Death Foretold, virtually everyone in the

town knows that Santiago Nasar is going to be murdered. Yet nobody can or will do anything

to prevent it. The murder is motivated and inexorable. Yet no one quite knows why Santiago

Nasar, a rich young swashbuckling fellow, must die.

There is a similar feeling of unforgiving inevitability about President George W Bush's desire to

go to war with Iran. In its carefully woven plot and its inventive, non-linear structure that is

intended to sustain dramatic tension, Bush's Iran war leaps out of the pages of Marquez' metaphysical

murder mystery.

But there is nothing mysterious about the general plot outline. Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist

for The New Yorker magazine, has now filled in the details of Bush's rush to war. Yet for all its sense

of inevitability, the story line still has indeterminacies. Truth is continually slithering away from it - like a

sly serpent determined to live for another day.

The most important information that Hersh put in his New Yorker article was not details of the presence of

US intelligence operatives on Iranian territory, nor about the Pentagon simulating attacks on Iran. It was not

even about the horrendous possibility that the Bush administration might use tactical nuclear weapons against

buried nuclear sites. But it was the chilling reality that any military move directed against Iran would become a

"bipartisan" matter in the US.

According to Hersh, Bush has included - implicated, one might say - opposition Democrats among the select

group of legislators he has begun to brief about the imperative of attacking Iran. That may be why Democrats

 are either silent on a possible attack or are actually trying to position themselves to the right of the president.

The reluctance of senior Democrats to articulate anti-war sentiments was underscored last weekend when a

student audience at Brown University in the state of Rhode Island heckled Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Being the front-runner among apparent Democratic presidential hopefuls in 2008, she apparently believes she

can ill afford to articulate anti-war sentiments, even if they don't go over well on campus.

Support for Zionism
The support for Israel among the organized Christian groups in the US has increased dramatically in recent years.

Christian evangelicals, who currently wield unprecedented influence in US politics, regard the return of the

Jews to their ancient homelands as a prerequisite for the Second Coming. No serious politician in either the

Republican or Democratic camp can ignore the resurgence of Zionism in US politics.

Iran Showdown Tests Power of "Israel Lobby"

By Jim Lobe, IPS News
Posted on April 14, 2006, Printed on April 14, 2006

One month after the publication by two of the most influential international relations scholars in

the United States of a highly controversial essay on the so-called "Israel Lobby," their thesis that

the lobby exercises "unmatched power" in Washington is being tested by rapidly rising tensions with Iran.

Far more visibly than any other domestic constituency, the Israel Lobby, defined by Profs. John

Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy

School of Government, as "the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to

shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction", has pushed the government -- both Congress and

the George W. Bush administration -- toward confrontation with Tehran.

Leading the charge has been a familiar group of neo-conservatives, such as former Defence Policy

Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey,

who championed the war in Iraq but who have increasingly focused their energies over the past year

on building support for "regime change" and, if necessary, military action against Iran if it does not

abandon its nuclear programme.


Don't Attack Iran

By Cindy Sheehan

12 April, 2006

Fresh from a resounding victory in Iraq, George Bush swaggered onto the deck of the USS

Abraham Lincoln and boldly and confidentally declared victory. It was a pretty war, it was a

clean war, it looked stunning in all of its shock and awe. Wow, never was there such a swift

and amazing American victory and it all looked so damn glamorous on CNN!

As fake as his codpiece was, so was his "cakewalk" of an invasion. Over 2000 thousand dead

soldiers, billions of wasted dollars, thousands of maimed young people, innocent Iraqis dead by

the hundreds of thousands, still no consistent electricity or clean water in their country, later,

and this swaggering imbecile of a "leaker in chief" has the nerve to be trying to sell all of us on

a new war in Iran.

Do the warped neocons with their puppet president think that we are all stupid? Fool us once,

shame on us, fool us,—well, we just can't be fooled again.



New Yorker- U.S. Considers Nuking Iran

Published: Saturday April 8, 2006

According to a New Yorker article written by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the

Bush Administration "has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning

for a possible major air attack."

Hersh also reports that officers from the Joint Chiefs of Staff have "talked about resigning"

because of all the "attention given to the nuclear option."


Why The United States Will Attack Iran

By Dave Eriqat

08 April, 2006

There’s been a lot of speculation about whether or not the United States will attack Iran.

Roughly equal numbers of people believe the U.S. will and will not attack. Disregarding the public

blustering from both governments, I believe the U.S. will attack Iran in 2006. Here’s why.

The master plan of the United States is to control the oil in the Middle East. Only two countries

stood in the way of that plan: Iraq and Iran. Iraq has been neutralized and will remain impotent

for the next decade because of civil war. Iran alone now stands in the way of the U.S. master

plan. But before proceeding with this line of argument, let’s take a side trip.


Iran: The Next Neocon Target
by Rep. Ron Paul

April 7, 2006

It's been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons

of mass destruction. Of course, now almost everybody knows there were no WMD and Saddam

Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe

they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges

there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current

excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States.

There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go

into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to

build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They're also funding a new billion

dollar embassy – the largest in the world.


Nuking Iran?

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

31 March, 2006
The Iranian

Professing to be the greater civilization, the intellect is deliberately disassociated, sanity is interned

so that greed may proceed and allow the savagery of the greater to prey upon the less. While mankind

strives for nobility, there are some among us who contemplate such base decisions that would threaten

the existence of another nation. Those same powers who would refute that man is born under one law,

and so they bound him by another, targeting him with nuclear weapons.

Alarmed at such baseness, Philip Giarldi, A former CIA officer, in an August 1, 2005 issue of The

American Conservative warns that Dick Cheney has issued a request for using tactical nuclear weapons

against Iran. More troubling is that the use of nuclear weapons is not conditional on Iran being involved

in the act of terrorism against the United States. Otherwise stated, Iran is being set up for “an unprovoked

nuclear attack”.


US Twists the Truth on Iran and the IAEA

By jbyopa,

Mon Mar 27th, 2006 at 03:02:18 AM EDT ::

It appears, according to this AP article, that the Neocon Big Lie machine is in full swing.

It looks like a replay of Iraq, when the Neo's played fast and loose with the facts, and openly

disparaged the work of the UN weapons inspections in Iraq. I always love when a pundit or a

member of the Big Lie gang says "we all thought Iraq had WMD's". Fact is, the inspection process

was proving no WMD cache's existed. Of course, this is rarely spoken about anymore. but according

to this account, history is clearly repeating itself.


Bush Warns Iran on Israel

US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with

diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel.


The Middle East Muddle:Is Peace Still Possible?

By Bernard Weiner

15 March, 2006
Crisis Papers

The run-up to the impending war against Iran -- and make no mistake, the foundations

are being laid daily by the Bush Administration -- bears a remarkable resemblance to

the propaganda barrage before the U.S. attacked Iraq: Iran is the repository of all things

evil, they will destabilize the region if they get nukes, they support terrorists, the U.N. and

international community can't wait until there are mushroom clouds in the sky, etc. etc. All

that's missing is an invented tie-in with 9/11.

Because of the thorough botch the Bush Administration has made of the Iraq Occupation,

and because there are no extra U.S. troops to go around, it's a reasonable presumption that

there will be no ground invasion of Iran. Instead, following passage of some ambiguously-worded

U.N. Security Council resolution, there might well be a U.S.-Israeli air-bombing/missile assault

on that country's nuclear facilities. (The experts tell us that Iran won't have nuclear-weapons

capability for anywhere from three to 10 years out -- in short, there is no imminent threat to the

U.S. or anyone else.)


Deja Vu All Over Iran

By Robert Dreyfuss

15 March, 2006

Comedians might be forgiven for making jokes that President Bush is talking about drawing

down U.S. forces in Iraq because he needs them next door in Iran. It isn’t, however, so far

off the mark.

The pieces are falling into place for Operation Regime Change II, this time in Iran. You’d think,

given how badly it went the first time, and how utterly unpredictable a showdown with Iran would

be, that the Bush administration would have at least changed its m.o.—but no. Shaking his head in

New York, where he was attending United Nations Security Council discussions on Iran, Russia’s

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said bluntly: "It looks so déjà vu." He ridiculed the idea of sanctions

on Iran as useless and ineffective, and he called the U.S. push for a showdown over Iran’s alleged

nuclear weapons program a "self-fulfilling prophecy."

He’s right. Even John Bolton, the neoconservative saber-rattler who represents the United States at

the U.N., agrees. Said Bolton, when asked about Lavrov’s comment: "If that is déjà vu, then so be it,

but that is the course we are on in an effort to get Iran to reverse its decision to acquire nuclear weapons."


Iran: Where Do We Go From Here?

By Mike Whitney
15 March, 2006
The Bush administration has run into a rock wall at the Security Council. Neither

Russia nor China will agree to any resolution that condemns Iran for "noncompliance"

with its treaty obligations. In fact, there is general agreement that Iran has not violated

the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) so the point is moot. This eliminates any

chance that punitive action will be taken against Iran or that sanctions will be applied.

So why did the Bush administration take the case this far if they knew that there was no

possibility for consensus on the main issue?

The administration knew from the beginning that the world body would not support

sanctions or military action. The intention was simply to increase suspicion about Iran’s

nuclear programs and mobilize public support for a war.


Bush’s Roadblock At The Security Council

By Mike Whitney

14 March, 2006

Surveys were conducted months before the war on Iraq which showed that the American

people would only support the conflict if there was a danger that Saddam was developing

nuclear weapons. Other questions in the poll addressed the issues of humanitarian intervention,

Saddam’s abysmal human rights record, and the prospect that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical

and biological weapons.

None of these other potential threats mattered to the American people. The only issue that gained

majority support for war was whether Saddam had nukes. It’s obvious now that the findings of that

poll became the cornerstone of the administration’s public relations strategy.

Bottom line: The Bush-Cheney plans for shaping public opinion will continue to depend on bogus

claims about nuclear weapons programs. This explains why the administration and their agents in

the MSM are intentionally misleading the public about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear program;

it is the only way to elicit support for another war of aggression.


Bush's Nuclear Madness-Iran

By Stephen M. Osborn

14 March, 2006

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and

received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear

veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The

“bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough,

doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an

air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more

long lasting.


There is No Iranian 'crisis'
Posted on Monday, February 27 @ 10:11:56 EST

The leaders of the former Soviet Union would have been envious of how the U.S.

mainstream media fall into line on international issues. In their coverage of the current

concocted "crisis" with Iran, the U.S. corporate media have committed two major sins:

1) failure to put events into a historical and political context, and 2) unquestioning parroting

of the U.S. government line. The second is particularly egregious given the media's shameful

record in the run-up to the attack on Iraq.
U.S. support for an Iranian nuclear program

If people rely on the U.S. mainstream media, they probably do not realize that the U.S. was

a major backer of the Iranian nuclear program in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. even supplied

Iran with a nuclear reactor in the 1960s. The on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia includes information

from "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," by James Risen

on U.S. support for the Iranian nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad On The Warpath

By Mahan Abedin

18 February, 2006
Asia Times Online

As the Iranian revolution enters its 28th year this month, the Islamic Republic stands

at the most critical stage of its history. While power is being transferred to second-generation

revolutionaries, the country is on a collision course with the United States over its controversial

nuclear program.

At the center of this unfolding drama is the perplexing figure of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad,

who has managed to isolate, enrage and frighten important domestic and external constituencies

in the space of only six months.

Left to their own devices, Ahmadinejad and the second-generation revolutionaries who stand

behind him are likely to change the Islamic Republic beyond recognition in the years ahead.

But the complicating factor in all this is the increasing possibility of some form of military

confrontation between Iran and the United States within two years. The key question is whether

Ahmadinejad and his inner circle believe that military confrontation serves their long-term political

and socio-economic agenda.


Bombing Iran Will Result in Destruction of U.S.

by Daniel F., Feb. 8, 2006

I believe that President Ahmadinejad of Iran is goading the U.S. and Israel into

attacking him. He knows he does not have sufficient military assets to attack Israel

let alone America, but he knows he can win a defensive war and bring down the

American empire. When America can no longer subsidize Israel, Zionism will be

put to rest. I would like to make a few points about the insanity of attacking Iran.



Iran: The Next War

By John Pilger

11 February, 2006
The New Statesman

Iran offers no "nuclear threat". There is not the slightest evidence that it

has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material.

The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly said his inspectors

have found nothing to support American and Israeli claims. Iran has done nothing

illegal; it has demonstrated no territorial ambitions nor has it engaged in the occupation

of a foreign country - unlike the United States, Britain and Israel. It has complied with

its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to allow inspectors to "go anywhere

and see anything" - unlike the US and Israel. The latter has refused to recognise the

NPT, and has between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other

Middle Eastern states.

Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is

likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based

bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term,

disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a

national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the

Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn.

America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by

creditors in Asia, principally China.

That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest

oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then

begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was

threatening to do the same when he was attacked.


'10,000 Would Die' in A-plant Attack on Iran
By Thomas Harding
(Filed: 13/02/2006)

A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people

and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today.

Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the

attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group

says in Iran: Consequences of a War.

The research coincides with reports that strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans

for "a last resort" strike if diplomacy fails. Plans for an assault have taken on "greater urgency"

in recent months, The Sunday Telegraph said.

Tacticians at central command and strategic command, who report to Donald Rumsfeld,

the defence secretary, have been identifying targets and the weapons needed to hit them.


Iran is Prepared to Retaliate

WASHINGTON -- Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles,

secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation

for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence

assessments and military specialists.

US and Israeli officials have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy

fails to thwart its nuclear ambitions. Among the options are airstrikes on suspected

nuclear installations or covert action to sabotage the Iranian program.

But military and intelligence analysts warn that Iran -- which a recent US intelligence

report described as ''more confident and assertive" than it has been since the early days

of the 1979 Islamic revolution -- could unleash reprisals across the region, and perhaps

even inside the United States, if the hard-line regime came under attack.

''When the Americans or Israelis are thinking about [military force], I hope they will sit

down and think about everything the ayatollahs could do to make our lives miserable

and what we will do to discourage them," said John Pike, director of the think tank, referring to Iran's religious leaders.

''There could be a cycle of escalation."


Nuclear War against Iran  

by Michel Chossudovsky  

January 3, 2006

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages. 

Coalition partners, which include the US,  Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness". 

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian

Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December

in anticipation of a US sponsored attack. 

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara

and NATO headquarters in Brussels.


Iran’s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency  

Source:, October 27

Title: “Iran Next U.S. Target”

Author: William Clark 

The U.S. media tells us that Iran may be the next target of U.S. aggression. The

anticipated excuse is Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. William Clark tells us

that economic reasons may have more to do with U.S. concerns over Iran than any

weapons of mass destruction.

In mid-2003 Iran broke from tradition and began accepting eurodollars as payment

for its oil exports from its E.U. and Asian customers. Saddam Hussein attempted a

similar bold step back in 2000 and was met with a devastating reaction from the U.S.

Iraq now has no choice about using U.S. dollars for oil sales (Censored 2004 #19).

However, Iraq's plan to open an international oil exchange market for trading

oil in the euro currency is a much larger threat to U.S. dollar supremacy than

Iraq’s switch to euros.



Military Action Against Iran?
January 23, 2006
Ivan Eland

The Bush administration is moving toward military action against Iran, despite its

current public support for multilateral diplomacy. Surprisingly, that eventual outcome

may also comport with the interests of the Iranian government. The real losers in this

arms-length conspiracy between the two hostile governments will be the American and

Iranian peoples.

For the moment, the Bush administration is playing a more sophisticated diplomatic

game against Iran than it did during the ham-handed run-up to the unpopular invasion of

Iraq, which led to U.S. isolation from most of the rest of the world. The administration

has allowed France, Britain, and Germany to take the lead in trying to negotiate away

Iran’s nuclear program. Having failed in that effort, the Europeans are now on board

with an International Atomic Energy Agency referral to the United Nations Security

Council for the possible imposition of sanctions.


Iran Vows Enrichment After U.N. Referral

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer Sat Feb 4, 6:13 PM ET

Now then, a couple important points to keep in mind here. Iran is not talking about

nuclear weapons.

1. Iran is building a power station, and the enrichment process is needed to make fuel

for that power station.

2. The more nuclear power Iran has, the more of their oil they can sell. The more oil

for sale, the lower the price.

3. Iran is not a threat to the United States. They are hardly going to attack the US, since

the US is one of their largest customers for the oil they want to sell.

4. Iran is not going to attack the US because the US (the only nation in history ever to

use nuclear weapons on civilian populations) still has several thousand nuclear warheads

and the means to deliver them anywhere on Earth. (You are still making payments on all this hardware.)



Rice Says Time for Talking with Iran Is Over

Rice: Iran must stop making nuclear bombs!

Iran: We're not making nuclear bombs. We're building a power station.

Rice: Iran's denial of nuclear weapons manufacture is proof of their uncooperative attitude!

Iran: We're not being uncooperative. Come in, look around all you want. It's a power

station. Look here, see this switch? Switch goes up, light goes on. Switch goes down, light

goes off!

Rice: Don't patronize me! We know you are building nuclear bombs with reactor fuel.

Iran: Look, I don't know who taught you nuclear physics but in fact the step from fuel-grade

to weapons-grade is not as simple as you seem to think. It's not like you push a button on a

microwave for an extra minute and instead of tuna noodle casserole you get a neutron bomb.

Rice: We are done talking!

Iran: Then shut the fuck up, already. Nobody believes you anyway. You were screaming that

Iraq had nuclear weapons. You invaded, murdered thousands of innocent people, made a total

mess of the country, and didn't find a single WMD. Now you are saying the same things about

Iran, and without a single shred of proof, I might add!

Rice: Your refusal to be honest and open is proof enough!

Iran: Look, Ms. Rice, thank you for coming, but I think we are done for the day. You want to

buy electricity or oil, you are welcome back. You want nuclear bombs, better you should go see

the Israelis; they have lots of them!



Iran 'Does Not Need Nuclear Arms'


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his country does not

need nuclear weapons.


'How to stop the planned nuking of Iran'
Date: Monday, January 09 @ 09:36:47 EST
Topic: War & Terrorism

Congress should enact emergency legislation

Multiple pieces of independent evidence suggest that America is embarked in a premeditated

path that will lead inexorably to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in the very near future.

Facing clear evidence of this peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - in the

form of a mushroom cloud. Whether you are liberal or conservative, antiwar or pro-war, if you

believe this would be catastrophic for America and the world, the time to act to derail it is now!