a few news articles on Iran from Global Research.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php ), check out this website for other interesting stuff:
"
Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack
by General Leonid Ivashov
Global Research, January 24, 2007
Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack
by General Leonid Ivashov
Global Research, January 24, 2007
In the overall flow of information coming from the Middle East, there are increasingly frequent reports indicating that within several months from now the US will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For example, citing well-informed but undisclosed sources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on the territory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The campaign will start from the sea and will be supported by the Patriot missile defense systems in order to let the US forces avoid a ground operation and to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by “any Persian Gulf country”.
“Any country” mostly refers to Iran. The source which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper believes that the US forces in Iraq and other countries of the region will be defended from any Iranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots.
So, the preparations for a new US aggression entered the completion phase. The executions of S. Hussein and his closest associates were a part of these preparations. Their purpose was to serve as a “disguise operation” for the efforts of the US strategists to deliberately escalate the situation both around Iran and in the entire Middle East.
Analyzing the consequences of the move, the US did order to hang the former Iraqi leader and his associates. This shows that the US has adopted irreversibly the plan of partitioning Iraq into three warring pseudo-states – the Shiite, the Sunnite, and the Kurdish ones. Washington reckons that the situation of a controlled chaos will help it to dominate the Persian Gulf oil supplies and other strategically important oil transportation routes.
The most important aspect of the matter is that a zone of an endless bloody conflict will be created at the core of the Middle East, and that the countries neighboring Iraq – Iran, Syria, Turkey (Kurdistan) – will inevitably be getting drawn into it. This will solve the problem of completely destabilizing the region, a task of major importance for the US and especially for Israel. The war in Iraq was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries, which the US declared or will declare rouge.
However it is not easy for the US to get involved in yet another military campaign while Iraq and Afghanistan are not “pacified” (the US lacks the resources necessary for the operation). Besides, protests against the politics of the Washington neocons intensify all over the world. Due to all of the above, the US will use nuclear weapon against Iran. This will be the second case of the use of nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 US attack on Japan.
The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to “stop” Iran.
How will other nuclear powers react? As for Russia, at best it will limit itself to condemning the strikes, and at worst – as in the case of the aggression against Yugoslavia – its response will be something like “though by this the US makes a mistake, the victim itself provoked the attack”.
Europe will react in essentially the same way. Possibly, the negative reaction of China and several other countries to the nuclear aggression will be stronger. In any case, there will be no retaliation nuclear strike on the US forces (the US is absolutely sure of this).
The UN means nothing in this context. Having failed to condemn the aggression against Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council effectively shared the responsibility for it. This institution is only capable to adopt resolutions which the Russian and also the French diplomacy understands as banning the use of force, but the US and British ones interpret in exactly the opposite sense – as authorizing their aggression.
Speaking of Israel, it is sure to come under the Iranian missile strikes. Possibly, the Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance will become more active. Posing as victims, the Israelis will resort to provocations to justify their aggression, suffer some tolerable damage, and then the outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution.
Some people tend to believe that concerns over the world’s protests can stop the US. I do not think so. The importance of this factor should not be overstated. In the past, I have spent hours talking to Milosevic, trying to convince him that NATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long time, he could not believe this and kept telling me: “Just read the UN Charter. What grounds will they have to do it?”
But they did it. They ignored the international law outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes, there was a shock, there was indignation. But the result is exactly what the aggressors wanted – Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is partitioned, and Serbia is colonized – NATO officers have set up their headquarters in the country’s ministry of defense.
The same things happened to Iraq. There were a shock and indignation. But what matters to the Americans is not how big the shock is, but how high are the revenues of their military-industrial complex.
The information that a second US aircraft-carrier is due to arrive at the Persian Gulf till the end of January makes it possible to analyze the possible evolution of the war situation. Attacking Iran, the US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclear munitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the US aircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and, possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably, nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from aircraft carriers and by other means of attack.
The US command is trying to exclude a ground operation: Iran has a strong army and the US forces are likely to suffer massive casualties. This is unacceptable for G. Bush who already finds himself in a difficult situation. It does not take a ground operation to destroy infrastructures in Iran, to reverse the development of the country, to cause panic, and to create a political, economic and military chaos. This can be accomplished by using first the nuclear, and subsequently the conventional means of warfare. Such is the purpose of bringing the aircraft carrier group closer to the Iranian coast.
What resources for self-defense does Iran have? They are considerable, but incomparably inferior to the US forces. Iran has 29 Russian Tor systems. Definitely, they are an important reinforcement of the Iranian air defense. However, at present Iran has no guaranteed protection from air raids.
The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to neutralize the air defense and radars, and then to attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control installations, and the infrastructure, while taking no risks.
Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.
At the same time all of the above sends a signal to the pro-Western opposition and to a fraction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s elite to get ready for the coming developments. The US hopes that an attack on Iran will inevitably result in a chaos in the country, and that it will be possible to bribe some of the Iranian generals and thus to create a fifth column in the country.
Of course, Iran is very different from Iraq. However, if the aggressor succeeds in instigating a conflict between the two branches of the Iranian armed forces – the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the army – the country will find itself in a critical situation, especially in case at the very beginning of the campaign the US manages to hit the Iranian leadership and delivers a nuclear strike or a massive one by conventional warfare on the country’s central command.
Today, the probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9-11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say “Yes” to the US President. General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies
Global Research Articles by Leonid Ivashov "
"
Iranian Security Council Secretary-General: Iran poses no threat to Israel
Global Research, February 12, 2007
IranMania
Iranian Security Council Secretary-General: Iran poses no threat to Israel
Global Research, February 12, 2007
IranMania
Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to Israel and the country is prepared to settle all outstanding issues with the International Atomic Energy Agency within three weeks, its top nuclear negotiator said,The Associated Press reported.
Ali Larijani, speaking at a forum that gathered the world's top security officials, said Iran doesn't have aggressive intentions toward any nation.
"That Iran is willing to threaten Israel is wrong," Larijani said. "We pose no threat and if we are conducting nuclear research and development we are no threat to Israel. We have no intention of aggression against any country."
Iran insists it will not give up uranium enrichment, saying it is pursuing the technology only to generate energy. The United States and some of its allies fear the Islamic republic is more interested in enrichment's other application, creating the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev dismissed Larijani's comments, saying Iran's government was trying to convince the international community that their intentions are benign.
"The fact is that they have failed in this attempt and there is a wall-to-wall consensus that the Iranian nuclear program is indeed military and aggressive and a threat to world peace," he said.
The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has said it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. But the watchdog has suspended some aid to Iran and criticized the country for concealing certain nuclear activities and failing to answer questions about its program.
"I have written to Mr. ElBaradei to say we are ready to within three weeks to have the modality to solve all the outstanding issues with you," Larijani said at the forum.
On Friday, the IAEA suspended nearly half the technical aid it provides to Iran, a symbolically significant punishment for nuclear defiance that only North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq had faced in the past.
That decision was in line with UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The suspension must still be approved by the 35 countries on the IAEA's board of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Today we announce to you that the political will of Iran is aimed at the negotiated settlement of the case and we don't want to aggravate the situation in our region," Larijani said. "We know that this issue can be settled won in a constructive dialogue and we welcome that."
ElBaradei's Friday report to board members called for the full or partial suspension of 18 projects that it deemed could be misused to create nuclear weapons. The agency had already suspended aid to Iran in five instances last month.
While the IAEA programs do not involve significant amounts of money, a senior U.N official familiar with Iran's file said the suspensions carry "symbolic significance" because they are part of Security Council sanctions.
Iran gets IAEA technical aid for 15 projects and 40 more involving multiple other countries. In projects involving other nations, only Iran was affected by the suspensions.
The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany all want Iran to stop its enrichment program. But their approaches have differed over the past year, often straining the joint effort.
Russia and China, which both share economic and strategic interests with Iran, have been reluctant to impose harsh sanctions. After months of disputes, the Security Council imposed sanctions in December that fell short of the harsher measures sought by the United States.
In March, the IAEA board will also hear a report from ElBaradei expected to confirm that Iran has expanded its enrichment efforts, a development that would empower the Security Council to impose stricter sanctions. "
Ali Larijani, speaking at a forum that gathered the world's top security officials, said Iran doesn't have aggressive intentions toward any nation.
"That Iran is willing to threaten Israel is wrong," Larijani said. "We pose no threat and if we are conducting nuclear research and development we are no threat to Israel. We have no intention of aggression against any country."
Iran insists it will not give up uranium enrichment, saying it is pursuing the technology only to generate energy. The United States and some of its allies fear the Islamic republic is more interested in enrichment's other application, creating the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev dismissed Larijani's comments, saying Iran's government was trying to convince the international community that their intentions are benign.
"The fact is that they have failed in this attempt and there is a wall-to-wall consensus that the Iranian nuclear program is indeed military and aggressive and a threat to world peace," he said.
The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has said it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. But the watchdog has suspended some aid to Iran and criticized the country for concealing certain nuclear activities and failing to answer questions about its program.
"I have written to Mr. ElBaradei to say we are ready to within three weeks to have the modality to solve all the outstanding issues with you," Larijani said at the forum.
On Friday, the IAEA suspended nearly half the technical aid it provides to Iran, a symbolically significant punishment for nuclear defiance that only North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq had faced in the past.
That decision was in line with UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The suspension must still be approved by the 35 countries on the IAEA's board of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Today we announce to you that the political will of Iran is aimed at the negotiated settlement of the case and we don't want to aggravate the situation in our region," Larijani said. "We know that this issue can be settled won in a constructive dialogue and we welcome that."
ElBaradei's Friday report to board members called for the full or partial suspension of 18 projects that it deemed could be misused to create nuclear weapons. The agency had already suspended aid to Iran in five instances last month.
While the IAEA programs do not involve significant amounts of money, a senior U.N official familiar with Iran's file said the suspensions carry "symbolic significance" because they are part of Security Council sanctions.
Iran gets IAEA technical aid for 15 projects and 40 more involving multiple other countries. In projects involving other nations, only Iran was affected by the suspensions.
The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany all want Iran to stop its enrichment program. But their approaches have differed over the past year, often straining the joint effort.
Russia and China, which both share economic and strategic interests with Iran, have been reluctant to impose harsh sanctions. After months of disputes, the Security Council imposed sanctions in December that fell short of the harsher measures sought by the United States.
In March, the IAEA board will also hear a report from ElBaradei expected to confirm that Iran has expanded its enrichment efforts, a development that would empower the Security Council to impose stricter sanctions. "
Breaking News: Americans caught with Iranian Weapons in Iraq
Global Research, February 11, 2007
Taylor Mash
" United States officials in Baghdad were reported to be in possession of Iranian made weapons. In a brazen display of "intelligence", the Americans proudly showed off their Iranian-made weapons to reporters:
The BBC's Jane Peel attended the briefing in Baghdad, at which all cameras and recording devices were banned.
Examples of the allegedly smuggled weapons were put on display, including EFPs, mortar shells and rocket propelled grenades which the US claims can be traced to Iran.
"The weapons had characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran... Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons," an official said.
Someone call Michael Gordon.
At a briefing today in Baghdad, US officials accused Iran of arming al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq:
The defense analyst said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" — mainly "rogue elements" of the Shiite Mahdi Army — to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.
The US officials also neatly tied Iran into the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait and the trafficking in arms in Iraq:
Last week, U.S. officials said they were investigating allegations that Shiite lawmaker Jamal Jaafar Mohammed was a main conduit for Iranian weapons entering the country. Mohammed has believed to have fled to Iran.
The "evidence" against Iran and the Mahdi Army continues to pile up. But there is something fishy here.
The Bush Administration claims that Iranians caught in recent raids buttress clams of Iranian involvement. The targets of American ire appear to be Iran and the Mahdi Army. However, the Iranians were captured in Kurdish held Erbil and in Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's compound in Baghdad. In both instances, the Iranians were working with American allies in Iraq - the Kurds and the SCIRI. In the Erbil case, Kurdish leaders protested the American operation and in the curious case of the raid on al-Hakim's compound, pressure from SCIRI forced the US to release their prize.
Now we come to Mr. Jamal Jaafar Mohammed. Most reports of his involvement in the 1983 bombing gloss over his political affiliation. Mr. Mohammed was at the time of the bombing a member of SCIRI, the same group that is now an ally of Mr. Bush, and is currently a member of the Badr Organization, which is the current incarnation of the military wing of SCIRI:
An engineering graduate from Basra University in southern Iraq, he was active in the Shiite opposition to Saddam and was affiliated with the political and military wing of the Badr Brigade. He served as a top commander in the militia in the 1980s.
The brigade was organized and trained by the Iranians to fight against Iraq in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and was led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key political figure here. Shiite officials say the Badr Brigade gave up its weapons and was transformed into a political movement after Saddam's regime collapsed in 2003.
Mohammed ran for parliament on the Badr ticket. The organization is part of the Shiite alliance that also includes al-Maliki. Mohammed served as a political adviser to al-Maliki's predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
I should also note that the attack on the American and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983 were conducted by the Dawa Party and the SCIRI, which are both now our allies in Iraq. The Dawa Party is also conveniently the party that helped set up Hezbollah in Lebanon:
There are at least five such groups here, known as Al Fajr, Jihad, Jundullah, Hizbullah and Harisullah.
According to Shiite political sources, they are linked with the Iraqi Shiite underground organization Ad Dawa, which has been working to set up Iranian-style Islamic republics in Iraq and other Persian Gulf countries.
It is possible, the analysts and diplomats said, that the pro-Iranian groups have abducted Americans to exchange them for the 22 Dawa members who have been tried and convicted in Kuwait for the bombing Dec. 12 of the American and French embassies.
The Bush Administration has indeed made a fine bed with terrorists in Iraq.
There is very little doubt that Iran is supporting the Shia factions and the Kurds in Iraq. However, the factions Iran is supporting are the same factions that the Bush Administration is supporting. The Shia faction that gets the least support from Iran, and that is ideologically the least aligned with Iran is the Mahdi Armyé [1]. Yet, the Administration's plan, as laid out in the Hadley memo, appears to be to isolate the Mahdi Army and empower the very factions, Dawa and SCIRI, that Iran has been helping.
The Bush Administration is spinning a story about Iran that is full of contradictions. The Bush Administration cannot claim to target Iran for arming the same groups that the United States itself is arming, without addressing its own behavior and alliances in Iraq. It has been clear from the start that the United States has put in power terrorists and thugs (Dawa and SCIRI) in Iraq. To support its drumbeat to war against Iran, it cannot now cry foul without addressing its own hypocrisy in Iraq. To the extent that they have both sponsored the same actors in Iraq, the Bush Administration and Iran have been allies.
So, when the Bush Administration claims that some Iranian arms have been found in the hands of Shia militia in Iraq, I am unimpressed. The United States has, over the last four years, armed the Shia militias to the teeth by equipping the SCIRI and Badr Brigade controlled Iraqi Interior Ministry. In the contest of arms shipments to Iraqi Shia militias, the United States wins the arms race hands down. Having armed, equipped and trained a party to a civil war, the Bush Administration has been the driving force of instability in Iraq. When the Bush Administration accuses Iran of fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq, it ignores the elephant in the room, that is, the United States. "
The BBC's Jane Peel attended the briefing in Baghdad, at which all cameras and recording devices were banned.
Examples of the allegedly smuggled weapons were put on display, including EFPs, mortar shells and rocket propelled grenades which the US claims can be traced to Iran.
"The weapons had characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran... Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons," an official said.
Someone call Michael Gordon.
At a briefing today in Baghdad, US officials accused Iran of arming al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq:
The defense analyst said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" — mainly "rogue elements" of the Shiite Mahdi Army — to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.
The US officials also neatly tied Iran into the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait and the trafficking in arms in Iraq:
Last week, U.S. officials said they were investigating allegations that Shiite lawmaker Jamal Jaafar Mohammed was a main conduit for Iranian weapons entering the country. Mohammed has believed to have fled to Iran.
The "evidence" against Iran and the Mahdi Army continues to pile up. But there is something fishy here.
The Bush Administration claims that Iranians caught in recent raids buttress clams of Iranian involvement. The targets of American ire appear to be Iran and the Mahdi Army. However, the Iranians were captured in Kurdish held Erbil and in Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's compound in Baghdad. In both instances, the Iranians were working with American allies in Iraq - the Kurds and the SCIRI. In the Erbil case, Kurdish leaders protested the American operation and in the curious case of the raid on al-Hakim's compound, pressure from SCIRI forced the US to release their prize.
Now we come to Mr. Jamal Jaafar Mohammed. Most reports of his involvement in the 1983 bombing gloss over his political affiliation. Mr. Mohammed was at the time of the bombing a member of SCIRI, the same group that is now an ally of Mr. Bush, and is currently a member of the Badr Organization, which is the current incarnation of the military wing of SCIRI:
An engineering graduate from Basra University in southern Iraq, he was active in the Shiite opposition to Saddam and was affiliated with the political and military wing of the Badr Brigade. He served as a top commander in the militia in the 1980s.
The brigade was organized and trained by the Iranians to fight against Iraq in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and was led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a key political figure here. Shiite officials say the Badr Brigade gave up its weapons and was transformed into a political movement after Saddam's regime collapsed in 2003.
Mohammed ran for parliament on the Badr ticket. The organization is part of the Shiite alliance that also includes al-Maliki. Mohammed served as a political adviser to al-Maliki's predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
I should also note that the attack on the American and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983 were conducted by the Dawa Party and the SCIRI, which are both now our allies in Iraq. The Dawa Party is also conveniently the party that helped set up Hezbollah in Lebanon:
There are at least five such groups here, known as Al Fajr, Jihad, Jundullah, Hizbullah and Harisullah.
According to Shiite political sources, they are linked with the Iraqi Shiite underground organization Ad Dawa, which has been working to set up Iranian-style Islamic republics in Iraq and other Persian Gulf countries.
It is possible, the analysts and diplomats said, that the pro-Iranian groups have abducted Americans to exchange them for the 22 Dawa members who have been tried and convicted in Kuwait for the bombing Dec. 12 of the American and French embassies.
The Bush Administration has indeed made a fine bed with terrorists in Iraq.
There is very little doubt that Iran is supporting the Shia factions and the Kurds in Iraq. However, the factions Iran is supporting are the same factions that the Bush Administration is supporting. The Shia faction that gets the least support from Iran, and that is ideologically the least aligned with Iran is the Mahdi Armyé [1]. Yet, the Administration's plan, as laid out in the Hadley memo, appears to be to isolate the Mahdi Army and empower the very factions, Dawa and SCIRI, that Iran has been helping.
The Bush Administration is spinning a story about Iran that is full of contradictions. The Bush Administration cannot claim to target Iran for arming the same groups that the United States itself is arming, without addressing its own behavior and alliances in Iraq. It has been clear from the start that the United States has put in power terrorists and thugs (Dawa and SCIRI) in Iraq. To support its drumbeat to war against Iran, it cannot now cry foul without addressing its own hypocrisy in Iraq. To the extent that they have both sponsored the same actors in Iraq, the Bush Administration and Iran have been allies.
So, when the Bush Administration claims that some Iranian arms have been found in the hands of Shia militia in Iraq, I am unimpressed. The United States has, over the last four years, armed the Shia militias to the teeth by equipping the SCIRI and Badr Brigade controlled Iraqi Interior Ministry. In the contest of arms shipments to Iraqi Shia militias, the United States wins the arms race hands down. Having armed, equipped and trained a party to a civil war, the Bush Administration has been the driving force of instability in Iraq. When the Bush Administration accuses Iran of fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq, it ignores the elephant in the room, that is, the United States. "
It is no use blaming Iran for the Insurgency in Iraq
by Patrick Cockburn
Global Research, February 11, 2007
The Independent - 2007-02-08
"
It is scarcely surprising that the Iranian government believes that the United States is behind the kidnapping of one of its diplomats in Baghdad on Sunday. The Iranians say he was seized by 30 uniformed men from an Iraqi army commando battalion that often works with the US military services in Iraq.
The US had already shown its contempt for any diplomatic immunity protecting Iranians in Iraq by arresting five officials in a long-established Iranian office in the Kurdish city of Arbil last month. The White House had earlier authorised US forces to kill or capture Iranians deemed to be a threat.
It is striking how swiftly Washington is seeking to escalate its confrontation with Iran. Its rhetoric has returned to the strident tone so often heard when the US was accusing Saddam Hussein in 2002 and 2003 of hiding weapons of mass destruction that threatened the world.
No serious observer of Iraq since the US invasion believes for a moment that Iran has sustained the Sunni insurgency or played an essential role in the rise of the Shia militias. It was obvious that when Saddam fell Iran would benefit. He was, after all, the arch enemy of Tehran, and the Iranians were delighted to see him go.
A second inevitable consequence of the end of Saddam's predominantly Sunni regime was that the Iraqi Shia, 60 per cent of the population, would take power in Baghdad. Foreseeing and wishing to avoid just such an outcome, President George Bush senior refused to send the US Army to Baghdad after his victory in Kuwait in 1991.
What does Mr Bush hope to achieve by confronting and possibly even going to war with Iran? Within Iraq it is a policy of great foolishness, because it will be seen as being anti-Shia as well as anti-Iranian. The Iraqi Shia are suspicious that the US is planning to rob them of power. Since last year, for the first time, a majority of the Shia support armed attacks on US-led forces.
There are some benefits for Washington in escalating the conflict with Iran. The Bush administration has specialised in creating demons responsible for all the ills of Iraq. First there was Saddam Hussein and then Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Both were killed last year, but the war has continued to escalate.
Iran is now being promoted as the new demon. It is supposedly behind the provision of roadside bombs that have killed so many US and British troops - though the technology involved in these simple but deadly devices could generally be found in a garden shed.
Iraq has long been short of everything except weapons. Every Iraqi family possessed arms even under Saddam Hussein. In the early 1990s he introduced a buy-back programme by which he would pay for heavy weapons handed in. One tribe in south-east Iraq turned up with three tanks which they offered to sell to the government if the price was right. Deeming the official offer too low, they returned the tanks to their tribal arsenal.
It will be very difficult for the US to pursue an anti-Iranian policy in Iraq and the Middle East while supporting a pro-Iranian Shia government in Baghdad. Strangely, the only powerful party that is as vociferously anti-Iranian as Mr Bush is the Baath party. It has for long justified its opposition to the takeover of government by the Shia majority by pretending they are Iranian pawns.
In the Middle East as a whole, the new US anti-Iranian policy has more to recommend it from an American point of view. There is plenty of anti-Iranian and anti-Shia sentiment around. Sunni Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan were embarrassed by the success of the Shia Hizbollah in the war in Lebanon last summer, compared to their own supine incompetence. Little wonder they are happy to join the US in whipping up feeling against the Shia and the Iranians.
Mr Bush is acting rather like cynical Tory politicians at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries who played "the Orange Card" over Ulster. Claiming to be safeguarding the empire, they stirred anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigotry to their own political advantage. Mr Bush may reap similar benefits by playing the anti-Shia and anti- Iranian card.
One expert on Iraq asked me in perplexity: "Even if Bush does launch a war against Iran, where does he think it will get him? He will still be stuck in Iraq and the Iranians are not going to surrender. He will just have widened the war."
The answer to this question is probably that the anti-Iranian tilt of the Bush administration has more to do with American than Iraqi politics. A fresh demon is being presented to the US voter. Iran is portrayed as the hidden hand behind US failure in both Iraq and in Lebanon. The US media, gullible over WMD, is showing itself equally gullible over this exaggerated Iranian threat.
The Bush administration has always shown itself more interested in holding power in Washington than in Baghdad. Whatever its failures on the battlefield, the Republicans were able to retain the presidency and both Houses of Congress in 2004. Confrontation with Iran, diverting attention from the fiasco in Iraq, may be their best chance of holding the White House in 2008.
The writer is the author of 'The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq' published by Verso
Global Research Articles by Patrick Cockburn "
It is scarcely surprising that the Iranian government believes that the United States is behind the kidnapping of one of its diplomats in Baghdad on Sunday. The Iranians say he was seized by 30 uniformed men from an Iraqi army commando battalion that often works with the US military services in Iraq.
The US had already shown its contempt for any diplomatic immunity protecting Iranians in Iraq by arresting five officials in a long-established Iranian office in the Kurdish city of Arbil last month. The White House had earlier authorised US forces to kill or capture Iranians deemed to be a threat.
It is striking how swiftly Washington is seeking to escalate its confrontation with Iran. Its rhetoric has returned to the strident tone so often heard when the US was accusing Saddam Hussein in 2002 and 2003 of hiding weapons of mass destruction that threatened the world.
No serious observer of Iraq since the US invasion believes for a moment that Iran has sustained the Sunni insurgency or played an essential role in the rise of the Shia militias. It was obvious that when Saddam fell Iran would benefit. He was, after all, the arch enemy of Tehran, and the Iranians were delighted to see him go.
A second inevitable consequence of the end of Saddam's predominantly Sunni regime was that the Iraqi Shia, 60 per cent of the population, would take power in Baghdad. Foreseeing and wishing to avoid just such an outcome, President George Bush senior refused to send the US Army to Baghdad after his victory in Kuwait in 1991.
What does Mr Bush hope to achieve by confronting and possibly even going to war with Iran? Within Iraq it is a policy of great foolishness, because it will be seen as being anti-Shia as well as anti-Iranian. The Iraqi Shia are suspicious that the US is planning to rob them of power. Since last year, for the first time, a majority of the Shia support armed attacks on US-led forces.
There are some benefits for Washington in escalating the conflict with Iran. The Bush administration has specialised in creating demons responsible for all the ills of Iraq. First there was Saddam Hussein and then Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Both were killed last year, but the war has continued to escalate.
Iran is now being promoted as the new demon. It is supposedly behind the provision of roadside bombs that have killed so many US and British troops - though the technology involved in these simple but deadly devices could generally be found in a garden shed.
Iraq has long been short of everything except weapons. Every Iraqi family possessed arms even under Saddam Hussein. In the early 1990s he introduced a buy-back programme by which he would pay for heavy weapons handed in. One tribe in south-east Iraq turned up with three tanks which they offered to sell to the government if the price was right. Deeming the official offer too low, they returned the tanks to their tribal arsenal.
It will be very difficult for the US to pursue an anti-Iranian policy in Iraq and the Middle East while supporting a pro-Iranian Shia government in Baghdad. Strangely, the only powerful party that is as vociferously anti-Iranian as Mr Bush is the Baath party. It has for long justified its opposition to the takeover of government by the Shia majority by pretending they are Iranian pawns.
In the Middle East as a whole, the new US anti-Iranian policy has more to recommend it from an American point of view. There is plenty of anti-Iranian and anti-Shia sentiment around. Sunni Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan were embarrassed by the success of the Shia Hizbollah in the war in Lebanon last summer, compared to their own supine incompetence. Little wonder they are happy to join the US in whipping up feeling against the Shia and the Iranians.
Mr Bush is acting rather like cynical Tory politicians at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries who played "the Orange Card" over Ulster. Claiming to be safeguarding the empire, they stirred anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigotry to their own political advantage. Mr Bush may reap similar benefits by playing the anti-Shia and anti- Iranian card.
One expert on Iraq asked me in perplexity: "Even if Bush does launch a war against Iran, where does he think it will get him? He will still be stuck in Iraq and the Iranians are not going to surrender. He will just have widened the war."
The answer to this question is probably that the anti-Iranian tilt of the Bush administration has more to do with American than Iraqi politics. A fresh demon is being presented to the US voter. Iran is portrayed as the hidden hand behind US failure in both Iraq and in Lebanon. The US media, gullible over WMD, is showing itself equally gullible over this exaggerated Iranian threat.
The Bush administration has always shown itself more interested in holding power in Washington than in Baghdad. Whatever its failures on the battlefield, the Republicans were able to retain the presidency and both Houses of Congress in 2004. Confrontation with Iran, diverting attention from the fiasco in Iraq, may be their best chance of holding the White House in 2008.
The writer is the author of 'The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq' published by Verso
Global Research Articles by Patrick Cockburn "
Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Baghdad: another US provocation?
by Peter Symonds
by Peter Symonds
"
The abduction of an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad on Sunday evening has further heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran, amid a continuing US military buildup against Iran in the Persian Gulf.
US officials have denied any role in the kidnapping, but the incident certainly serves the Bush administration’s purposes by undermining Iranian diplomatic activity and souring relations between Iraq and Iran. Moreover, while it is not clear who carried out the kidnapping, several aspects of the operation point to American involvement.
Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the Iranian embassy, was abducted by gunmen dressed as Iraqi commandos in the predominantly Shiite district of Karrada in central Baghdad. Two vehicles blocked his car and Sharafi was bundled into the one of the vehicles, which sped off. Police arrested at least four of the gunmen after opening fire and disabling one of the vehicles.
Iraqi officials told the media the men wore the uniform of the elite 36th Iraqi Commando Battalion—part of the Special Operations Forces Brigade that operates closely with the US military. All the captured gunmen carried official Iraqi military identification that appeared to be genuine, according to US and Iraqi officials who spoke to the New York Times.
The captured gunmen did not remain in police custody for long, however. Uniformed officials with government badges appeared at the lock-up and demanded that the men be handed over, purportedly so they could be transferred to the serious crimes unit. The detainees simply disappeared. Interior Ministry and Defence Ministry spokesmen told Associated Press they had no information and no idea where the suspects went.
Yesterday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that four Iraqi military officers had been detained over the abduction. He said they were being questioned, but provided no further information. No one has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping and no demands have been issued by Sharafi’s abductors.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini condemned the abduction and warned it would harm relations between Iran and Iraq. He held the US military “responsible for the life and safety of the Iranian diplomat”. Pointing to possible US involvement in the kidnapping, he added: “Based on reliable information, certain agents behind the terrorist act have been arrested. They acted under US supervision.”
US officials in Baghdad and Washington have denied any role in the incident. Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Carver declared that no unit of the Multi-National Forces Iraq (MNF-I) was involved. White House spokesman Tony Snow told the media: “We don’t really know a whole lot about it at this point.” While Sunni insurgents, rogue military elements or even criminal gangs could have been responsible, it certainly cannot be ruled out that US forces engineered the abduction.
In his January 10 speech announcing the escalation of the US war in Iraq, President Bush accused Syria and Iran of supporting anti-US insurgents in Iraq and declared that the US military would “seek out and destroy” these networks. At least 10 Iranian officials, including two credentialled diplomats, have been detained by the US military in two operations; one on December 20 in Baghdad and the other in the northern city of Irbil on January 11. The five detained in the raid last month are still in US custody, despite protests by Iran and by Iraqi government officials.
The US has yet to provide any evidence that any of the detained Iranian officials were involved in illicit activities or more broadly that the Iranian regime is arming Shiite militias in Iraq. A “dossier” purporting to prove US allegations against Tehran was due to be made public on January 31 but its release was cancelled and no future date has been set. Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley openly admitted at a press conference on February 3 that the briefing was “overstated”.
In an article on February 6, the US-based think-tank Stratfor, which has close ties to the defence and intelligence establishment, considered US involvement in Sharafi’s abduction quite plausible and pointed to several motives. “It is important to note that Sharafi’s position at the embassy is the kind of diplomatic posting that frequently would be a cover for intelligence operatives,” the article commented. “So if he were an Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security operative of some importance, kidnapping him would disrupt Iranian operations as the US security offensive in Baghdad gets under way.
“Second, the United States has been very public in saying it intends to become more aggressive toward Iranian covert operations as part of its effort to bring pressure against Tehran. US intelligence has substantially ramped up the collection of information on Iran—a move that would serve whether the goal was to actually attack Iran, plan negotiations or just try to figure out the mind of Tehran. The snatch of a second secretary would fit into this effort.”
If the purpose was to extract information, the US military could not openly detain and hold an Iranian diplomat without a blatant breach of international law. Nevertheless, as the Stratfor article explained, “an opportunity to question him would be of real value to the United States. Maintaining plausible deniability would be the key. But arranging for Sharafi’s abduction by a third party would be a feasible way of obtaining the intelligence sought by the United States. It is therefore quite possible that this was a US-authorised operation executed by Washington’s Sunni allies.”
Whoever carried it out, the US stands to benefit politically from the abduction, which directly cuts across relations between the Iranian and Iraqi governments. As it prepares for a military confrontation with Iran, the Bush administration has adamantly refused to hold direct talks with Tehran to resolve outstanding disputes over alleged nuclear weapons programs and support for anti-US insurgents. The Iraqi government, however, is based on a coalition of Shiite parties, all of which have longstanding connections with Tehran, putting it increasingly at odds with Washington.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told CNN last week that the US and Iran should not use Iraq as a proxy battleground for their disputes. “We have told the Iranians and the Americans, ‘We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you, please solve your problems outside Iraq’,” he said. “We will not accept Iran using Iraq to attack the American forces. We don’t want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria.”
While the US refuses to talk to Iran, top Iraqi officials continue to visit Tehran. Last week the Iraqi government invited Iran and Syria to send delegations to Baghdad in March for talks on security issues that could include other countries in the region. The US, which has not been asked to attend, broadly welcomed the meeting but did not comment directly on Iranian and Syrian involvement.
On Monday, Abdul Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), publicly appealed for the US to hold direct talks with Iran, saying: “All Iraqi statesmen support [US-Iran] talks and we believe negotiations will bear many results.” SCIRI, one of the largest Shiite factions in the Maliki government, has close ties with the Iranian regime. Hakim was in Tehran to meet with Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The Bush administration, which ignored Hakim’s remarks, has no intention opening negotiations with Tehran. Far from wanting to resolve the disputes with Iran, the US is casting around for pretexts to intensify the pressure on the Iranian regime and prepare for a military attack. In the event of war with Iran, Washington’s current Shiite-dominated puppet regime will rapidly become a liability.
Global Research Articles by Peter Symonds "
The abduction of an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad on Sunday evening has further heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran, amid a continuing US military buildup against Iran in the Persian Gulf.
US officials have denied any role in the kidnapping, but the incident certainly serves the Bush administration’s purposes by undermining Iranian diplomatic activity and souring relations between Iraq and Iran. Moreover, while it is not clear who carried out the kidnapping, several aspects of the operation point to American involvement.
Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the Iranian embassy, was abducted by gunmen dressed as Iraqi commandos in the predominantly Shiite district of Karrada in central Baghdad. Two vehicles blocked his car and Sharafi was bundled into the one of the vehicles, which sped off. Police arrested at least four of the gunmen after opening fire and disabling one of the vehicles.
Iraqi officials told the media the men wore the uniform of the elite 36th Iraqi Commando Battalion—part of the Special Operations Forces Brigade that operates closely with the US military. All the captured gunmen carried official Iraqi military identification that appeared to be genuine, according to US and Iraqi officials who spoke to the New York Times.
The captured gunmen did not remain in police custody for long, however. Uniformed officials with government badges appeared at the lock-up and demanded that the men be handed over, purportedly so they could be transferred to the serious crimes unit. The detainees simply disappeared. Interior Ministry and Defence Ministry spokesmen told Associated Press they had no information and no idea where the suspects went.
Yesterday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that four Iraqi military officers had been detained over the abduction. He said they were being questioned, but provided no further information. No one has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping and no demands have been issued by Sharafi’s abductors.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini condemned the abduction and warned it would harm relations between Iran and Iraq. He held the US military “responsible for the life and safety of the Iranian diplomat”. Pointing to possible US involvement in the kidnapping, he added: “Based on reliable information, certain agents behind the terrorist act have been arrested. They acted under US supervision.”
US officials in Baghdad and Washington have denied any role in the incident. Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Carver declared that no unit of the Multi-National Forces Iraq (MNF-I) was involved. White House spokesman Tony Snow told the media: “We don’t really know a whole lot about it at this point.” While Sunni insurgents, rogue military elements or even criminal gangs could have been responsible, it certainly cannot be ruled out that US forces engineered the abduction.
In his January 10 speech announcing the escalation of the US war in Iraq, President Bush accused Syria and Iran of supporting anti-US insurgents in Iraq and declared that the US military would “seek out and destroy” these networks. At least 10 Iranian officials, including two credentialled diplomats, have been detained by the US military in two operations; one on December 20 in Baghdad and the other in the northern city of Irbil on January 11. The five detained in the raid last month are still in US custody, despite protests by Iran and by Iraqi government officials.
The US has yet to provide any evidence that any of the detained Iranian officials were involved in illicit activities or more broadly that the Iranian regime is arming Shiite militias in Iraq. A “dossier” purporting to prove US allegations against Tehran was due to be made public on January 31 but its release was cancelled and no future date has been set. Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley openly admitted at a press conference on February 3 that the briefing was “overstated”.
In an article on February 6, the US-based think-tank Stratfor, which has close ties to the defence and intelligence establishment, considered US involvement in Sharafi’s abduction quite plausible and pointed to several motives. “It is important to note that Sharafi’s position at the embassy is the kind of diplomatic posting that frequently would be a cover for intelligence operatives,” the article commented. “So if he were an Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security operative of some importance, kidnapping him would disrupt Iranian operations as the US security offensive in Baghdad gets under way.
“Second, the United States has been very public in saying it intends to become more aggressive toward Iranian covert operations as part of its effort to bring pressure against Tehran. US intelligence has substantially ramped up the collection of information on Iran—a move that would serve whether the goal was to actually attack Iran, plan negotiations or just try to figure out the mind of Tehran. The snatch of a second secretary would fit into this effort.”
If the purpose was to extract information, the US military could not openly detain and hold an Iranian diplomat without a blatant breach of international law. Nevertheless, as the Stratfor article explained, “an opportunity to question him would be of real value to the United States. Maintaining plausible deniability would be the key. But arranging for Sharafi’s abduction by a third party would be a feasible way of obtaining the intelligence sought by the United States. It is therefore quite possible that this was a US-authorised operation executed by Washington’s Sunni allies.”
Whoever carried it out, the US stands to benefit politically from the abduction, which directly cuts across relations between the Iranian and Iraqi governments. As it prepares for a military confrontation with Iran, the Bush administration has adamantly refused to hold direct talks with Tehran to resolve outstanding disputes over alleged nuclear weapons programs and support for anti-US insurgents. The Iraqi government, however, is based on a coalition of Shiite parties, all of which have longstanding connections with Tehran, putting it increasingly at odds with Washington.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told CNN last week that the US and Iran should not use Iraq as a proxy battleground for their disputes. “We have told the Iranians and the Americans, ‘We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you, please solve your problems outside Iraq’,” he said. “We will not accept Iran using Iraq to attack the American forces. We don’t want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria.”
While the US refuses to talk to Iran, top Iraqi officials continue to visit Tehran. Last week the Iraqi government invited Iran and Syria to send delegations to Baghdad in March for talks on security issues that could include other countries in the region. The US, which has not been asked to attend, broadly welcomed the meeting but did not comment directly on Iranian and Syrian involvement.
On Monday, Abdul Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), publicly appealed for the US to hold direct talks with Iran, saying: “All Iraqi statesmen support [US-Iran] talks and we believe negotiations will bear many results.” SCIRI, one of the largest Shiite factions in the Maliki government, has close ties with the Iranian regime. Hakim was in Tehran to meet with Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The Bush administration, which ignored Hakim’s remarks, has no intention opening negotiations with Tehran. Far from wanting to resolve the disputes with Iran, the US is casting around for pretexts to intensify the pressure on the Iranian regime and prepare for a military attack. In the event of war with Iran, Washington’s current Shiite-dominated puppet regime will rapidly become a liability.
Global Research Articles by Peter Symonds "
'NYT' Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Now Highlights Iran Claims
by Greg Mitchell
Global Research, February 11, 2007
editorandpublisher.com
"
NEW YORK Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.”What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.”Sound pretty convincing? Well, almost all the sources in the story are unnamed. It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.Gordon wrote with Miller the paper's most widely criticized -- even by the Times itself -- WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2002, “aluminum tubes” story that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it on TV talk shows.When the Times eventually carried an editors’ note that admitted some of its Iraq coverage was wrong and/or overblown, it criticized two Miller-Gordon stories, and noted that the Sept. 8, 2002, article on page one of the newspaper "gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program."This, of course, proved bogus.The Times “mea-culpa” story dryly observed: "The article gave no hint of a debate over the tubes," adding, "The White House did much to increase the impact of The Times article." This was the famous "mushroom cloud" over America article.Gordon also wrote, following Secretary of State Colin Powell's crucial, and appallingly wrong, speech to the United Nations in 2003 that helped sell the war, that "it will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington's case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information."Now, more than four years later, Gordon reveals: “The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.” Gordon's unnamed sources throughout the story are variously described as "Administration officials," "intelligence experts" and "American intelligence."Today, in contrast to the Times' report, Dafna Linzer in The Washington Post simply notes, "Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said serial numbers and markings on some explosives used in Iraq indicate that the material came from Iran, but he offered no evidence."For some perspective, here is how that "mushroom cloud" Gordon-Miller story of Sept. 8, 2002, opened:“More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.“In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.“The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.“The attempted purchases are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms. President Hussein has met repeatedly in recent months with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and, according to American intelligence, praised their efforts as part of his campaign against the West.“Iraq's nuclear program is not Washington's only concern. An Iraqi defector said Mr. Hussein had also heightened his efforts to develop new types of chemical weapons. An Iraqi opposition leader also gave American officials a paper from Iranian intelligence indicating that Mr. Hussein has authorized regional commanders to use chemical and biological weapons to put down any Shiite Muslim resistance that might occur if the United States attacks&hellip."'The jewel in the crown is nuclear,'' a senior administration official said. ‘The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card. The question is not, why now?' the official added, referring to a potential military campaign to oust Mr. Hussein. 'The question is why waiting is better. The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with.'”Hard-liners are alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war. Conscious of this lapse in the past, they argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”
Greg Mitchell (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)
Global Research Articles by Greg Mitchell "
NEW YORK Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.”What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.”Sound pretty convincing? Well, almost all the sources in the story are unnamed. It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.Gordon wrote with Miller the paper's most widely criticized -- even by the Times itself -- WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2002, “aluminum tubes” story that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it on TV talk shows.When the Times eventually carried an editors’ note that admitted some of its Iraq coverage was wrong and/or overblown, it criticized two Miller-Gordon stories, and noted that the Sept. 8, 2002, article on page one of the newspaper "gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program."This, of course, proved bogus.The Times “mea-culpa” story dryly observed: "The article gave no hint of a debate over the tubes," adding, "The White House did much to increase the impact of The Times article." This was the famous "mushroom cloud" over America article.Gordon also wrote, following Secretary of State Colin Powell's crucial, and appallingly wrong, speech to the United Nations in 2003 that helped sell the war, that "it will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington's case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information."Now, more than four years later, Gordon reveals: “The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.” Gordon's unnamed sources throughout the story are variously described as "Administration officials," "intelligence experts" and "American intelligence."Today, in contrast to the Times' report, Dafna Linzer in The Washington Post simply notes, "Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said serial numbers and markings on some explosives used in Iraq indicate that the material came from Iran, but he offered no evidence."For some perspective, here is how that "mushroom cloud" Gordon-Miller story of Sept. 8, 2002, opened:“More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.“In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.“The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.“The attempted purchases are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms. President Hussein has met repeatedly in recent months with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and, according to American intelligence, praised their efforts as part of his campaign against the West.“Iraq's nuclear program is not Washington's only concern. An Iraqi defector said Mr. Hussein had also heightened his efforts to develop new types of chemical weapons. An Iraqi opposition leader also gave American officials a paper from Iranian intelligence indicating that Mr. Hussein has authorized regional commanders to use chemical and biological weapons to put down any Shiite Muslim resistance that might occur if the United States attacks&hellip."'The jewel in the crown is nuclear,'' a senior administration official said. ‘The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card. The question is not, why now?' the official added, referring to a potential military campaign to oust Mr. Hussein. 'The question is why waiting is better. The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with.'”Hard-liners are alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war. Conscious of this lapse in the past, they argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”
Greg Mitchell (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)
Global Research Articles by Greg Mitchell "
Neocon Iranian Mortar Ruse Fizzles
by Kurt Nimmo
Global Research, February 12, 2007
Another Day in the Empire - 2007-02-11
Is there something wrong with this picture?
“America today blamed Iran for the deaths of 170 US troops inside Iraq, accusing Teheran of supplying insurgents with increasingly sophisticated bombs,” reports the neocon-infested UK Telegraph, a trusty propaganda tool.
“Senior defense officials in Baghdad said that Iranian-supplied “explosively formed projectiles” were frequently being used against coalition forces” and “the ‘highest levels’ of Iran’s regime were responsible for giving them to Shia militias in Iraq.”
Although the Telegraph does not mention what particular Shi’a group would use the purported Iranian “explosively formed projectiles” against American troops, we must assume they are making reference to Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army. In general, Shi’a militias are too busy killing Sunnis, and vice versa, although late last month the killing of five American soldiers at a supposedly secure U.S. facility in Karbala was blamed on “Iranian intelligence agents in conjunction with Iraq’s Shiite Mahdi Army militia,” according to the Examiner. For some unexplained reason these militant Shi’ites decided to dump the bodies of their victims in the town of Mahawil, a predominantly Sunni area.
But never mind. As the photo above supposedly demonstrates, the Pentagon has seized a number of 81mm mortar rounds, used as roadside bombs. “These bombs are specially designed to penetrate heavily armored military vehicles and are capable of crippling the US army’s main battle tank, the Abrams M1,” the Telegraph ominously reports, or rather reads from a Pentagon script. “They have killed 170 US troops since June 2004, according to the American officials. They added that some weapons have been captured and they bore the hallmarks of having been manufactured in Iran…. Many were made as recently as last year—ruling out the possibility that they could have been left over from the many arms caches scattered across Iraq by Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
Of course, as this is a sloppy neocon ruse, as per usual, there is a problem here. Can you guess what it is?
If you guessed the date, you win a Cupie doll. For some reason the geniuses at the Pentagon have failed to explain why the Iranians used a date from the Christian Gregorian calendar and not one from the Islamic Persian calendar. According to the Muslim calendar, the date stenciled on this mortar shell should read 1427, not 2006. And why did Iran, a country speaking and writing in Persian, a language written in a version of the Arabic script, decide to label their shells in English? Maybe they thought it would fool the infidels?
I’m not taking the bait. As usual, this attempt to frame Muslims stinks of neocon sloppiness. Once again, the neocons blow it. Not that it particularly matters, as most Americans are oblivious and, besides, millions of them still think Osama and Saddam are twin brothers.
Global Research Articles by Kurt Nimmo
there's lots more...too many to post but go to the website to read them...this is just a sample of the next war the chickenhawks, neo-cons cracked skulls & bones & their mind kontrolled supporters & robots on the battle field got planned
No comments:
Post a Comment