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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
By EDITH M. LEDERER
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
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
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
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
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."
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"
TELL CONGRESS NO ATTACK ON IRAN WITHOUT
ACTION PAGE: http://www.wrightforcongress.net/petitions/pnum513.php
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.
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."
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 . Another
group is "discovered" in Germany planning to blow-up a train . Then UK warns whole
Europe about the threat of terrorism . Then there are "loud" accusations that Iran has
been trying to buy Uranium from Congo  followed by a small retraction  . 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
BY JAMES BAMFORD
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)
By DEB RIECHMANN
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
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
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: www.whitehouse.gov) 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 say
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
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
"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
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.
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.
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
31 March, 2006
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
GlobalSecurity.org, 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: GlobalResearch.ca, 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
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
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.
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
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
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!