Iran Update (Expanded on February 25)

This is scary. It seems unbelievable that the United States would try the same moronic tricks that were exposed as fraud in Iraq, but it is clear that once more the Bush administration is supplying false “information” about Iran and ignoring what inspectors on the ground in Iran actually find or don’t find.

Remember how American “intelligence” sent inspectors racing around Iraq on wild goose chases for months? The U.S. said that the inspectors couldn’t find evidence of weapons of mass destruction because the bumbling inspectors weren’t thorough or aggressive enough, and because Iraq was shifting the WMDs around and hiding them in such places as private homes or palace bathrooms. Of course that was all American lies. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and yet Iraq’s fictitious “non-cooperation” with the inspectors became one of the excuses for a war to destroy the nonexistent WMDs.

The fact that we are going through the same farce with Iran is testimony not only to the mendacity of the American government but also its contempt for the brainpower of those to whom it tells its lies.

From the "Los Angeles Times", Feb 25:

'U.N. CALLS U.S. DATA ON IRAN's NUCLEAR AIMS UNRELIABLE
'Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile designs haven't panned out, diplomats say.

'The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002,
Since 2002, "pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

'American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.'

There is no factual excuse, then, for Vice President Cheney's reiteration in Australia yesterday that "all options are on the table" (i.e., military action is contemplated) if Iran does not end its nuclear program. In any case, as Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, said recently: "The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States." Are the American people so conditioned to think irrationally of their country as the guardian of an oppressive Jewish religious state on the other side of the world that they will once more accept an American attack on an innocent country as a matter of course? Will they even recognize, when American corpses begin to come home, that those Americans died for Israel and not for their own country? Do they recognize it now, as the corpses are shipped home from Iraq?


The following are exerpts from a report in ”The Age” (Australia).

Julian Borger, Vienna
February 24, 2007
"MUCH of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.

"The [claims] are reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war. At the heart of the debate are accusations by the US that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. But most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by atomic energy agency inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"'Most of it has turned out to be incorrect,' said a diplomat at the agency with detailed knowledge of the investigations. 'They gave us a paper with a list of sites. The inspectors did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of (banned nuclear) activities. Now the inspectors don't go in blindly, only if it passes a credibility test.'

"One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to atomic energy agency officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran. Tehran rejected the material as forged and there remain reservations about its authenticity, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.

"'First of all, if you have a clandestine program, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away,' one official said. 'The data is all in English, which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi.'"

Iran: Are We on the Edge of the Cliff?

It has occurred to me that there may be a second reason (in addition to political grandstanding) for the Bush “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. What if the U.S. administration anticipates attacking Iran in the near term? Wouldn’t it make sense to bolster U.S. forces in Iraq, whose border with Iran was the site of fierce warfare in the past?

Perhaps the American government anticipates nothing beyond an air attack on Iran, but in war the unexpected always happens. I can picture Iranian ground forces rolling into Iraq if the U.S. attacks Iran. American troops and helicopters already mired down in their struggle against the Iraqi resistance would face all-out war on an eastern front. Let us hope that sanity prevails, and that neither the U.S. nor Israel attacks Iran, but in addition to building up its naval forces in the area, the U.S. government is also building up its troop strength in Iraq.

This post is going to be choppy, but I want to include several recent reports concerning Iran, all relevant but presented without any particular continuity.

The following report may or may not be accurate – or its release may have been psychological warfare -- but the facts have been published in several places.

GlobalResearch.ca :

“American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

“British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

“The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).”

From another report: The BBC said that Bush has ordered plans for air strikes to disable Iran’s entire military structure. Senior officials in Washington have pinpointed targets including missile bases, command and control centres and air defences. Action would also be triggered if Tehran is close to developing nuclear weapons. Four nuclear sites would also be hit. US military strategists claimed the air attacks could be carried out without affecting ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some 30 US warships are already in the Gulf.

A presidential candidate makes the mistake of implying Israel could cause a problem -- from Peter Bart's column on Senator John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:

“The aggressively photogenic Senator John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes [to a Hollywood gathering] last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.”

There went Hollywood, Candidate Edwards.


Meanwhile, a delegation of more savvy American senators arrived in Israel this week. The senators are members of a joint Senate-Knesset committee (can you imagine such a thing in America?) headed by Senator Jon Kyl, who is close to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The cozy get-together is described in the “Jerusalem Post” (Feb. 20). Note especially the reference to Iran.

“Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) said Monday as he led a bicameral delegation from the United States to discuss security issues with Knesset members. ‘In all of the years that I have been coming to Israel, one thing stands out to me above all others as crucial to the security of this country - and that is the need to deal with Iran,’ Kyl told The Jerusalem Post. The senator, who has a close relationship with Bush, serves as head of the US-Israel Joint Parliamentary Committee on National Security with MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud)."

Senator Kyl Prays


Though Iran is years away from creating a destructive nuclear device, even assuming it intends to work toward creating one, Israel constantly uses as an excuse for a threatened "preemptive" nuclear strike on Iran a statement attributed to its president that “Israel should be wiped off the map.” Here is some very instructive information from the author of the blog “Not the Country Club” (see my Links), who has published lengthy translations of the Iranian president’s statements:

“One of the weapons that Ahmadinejad's enemies have resorted to has been to mistranslate his statements. Incredible as it may seem, he never said "Israel should be wiped off the map." For one thing, the phrase "wipe off the map" does not exist in Farsi. What he in fact said was this: "The regime that occupies Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." This was a quotation from the Ayatollah Khomeini. As Ahmadinejad himself explained, what he meant was that he hopes some day there will be a new system of government in Israel/Palestine, the same way that a new system replaced the old Soviet government.”


I’m going to conclude with quotations from “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” (Feb. 19). MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER HEAD, CIA BIN LADEN UNIT, was speaking of the lack of justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and of the pointlessness of antagonizing Iran:

“Well, this administration, sir, seems to be afraid of almost anything that moves. And certainly Iraq was a containable country. The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States.

“The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”

If every American would heed and remember these words, thousands of Americans and Iranians will be living normal lives in the years to come rather than perishing in another Bush/Israel-built meat grinder:

“Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States.”

What is the Benefit in Creating Yet Another Enemy?

Several news sources attracted my attention this morning because they dealt with the problems the United States is creating with Iran.

The big question I want to raise is what possible benefit can the United States hope to gain for itself by threatening and antagonizing Iran? The Americans have singlehandedly (except for Israel) done everything short of attacking Iran physically -- arbitrarily labeling Iran part of an “Axis of Evil”, pressing for harsh sanctions because of embryonic nuclear power projects, sending extra war vessels to the seas of the area, leaking threats of proposed nuclear attacks on Iran, interfering with Iranian financial transactions, and now kidnapping Iranian “operatives” (apparently diplomats and negotiators invited by the Iraq government)in the supposedly sovereign nation of Iraq.

The first excuse for making Iran into an enemy was its persistence in developing civilian nuclear power, as it has a perfect right to do under all international agreements and customs.

Why is the United States so frightened of Iranian nuclear power when the nations of Europe are not, as shown by the following news item? We don’t have to consult a world map to know that Europe is a lot closer to Iran than North America, and yet:

"NYT, WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran."

RESULT NUMBER ONE of the bellicose policies of the U.S. against Iran is alienation of Europe, to which the Bush maladministration still looks for “allies” in addition to pet poodle Britain.


"The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East," said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. "There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region."

“Vice President Cheney, in a ‘Newsweek’ interview published Sunday, said the deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier task force to the Persian Gulf was intended to signal to the region that the United States is 'working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.'"

What Iranian threat? Threat to what? Iran has never by act or deed declared itself a threat to the United States except in response to U.S. threats. Any threat comes from the United States.

Further question: How does sending warships into peaceful seas signal that the U.S. is working with friends and allies and international organizations? It doesn't take friends, allies, or a U.N. resolution to move aircraft carriers.

“Sen. Carl Levin said that the [new] head of U.S. central command would need to provide ‘straightforward independent advice’ on the most effective course of action for deterring Iran’s attempts to 'acquire nuclear weapons and to dominate its neighbors.' . . . The fact that Admiral Fallon, with his extensive naval aviation experience, was picked [as new head of Central Command] showed the increasing focus of the Bush administration on putting pressure on Iran. . . . Mr. Levin also warned that Syria poses a challenge to security in the region.”


Note: Among the nations mentioned, Israel is the only one in recent history which occupies the territory of other countries, has bombed and invaded a neighboring nation, routinely kills members of a subject population, has a history of territorial expansion, and possesses a nuclear arsenal with which it openly threatens to attack other nations, in particular Iran.

“Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default, first with the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to Iran's east, which ousted the Taliban rulers against whom it almost went to war in the 1990s, and then to its west, with the American ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, against whom it fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.”

RESULT NUMBER TWO: The U.S. itself has increased Iranian influence and continues to do so by continuing its mad policies in Iraq and forcing Iran to assert and defend itself against U.S. and Israeli threats.

Against expert domestic advice, Bush & Co. have refused even diplomatic initiatives toward Iran and Syria, much less practical cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. As I recall, both Syria and Iran have made offers of assistance to damp down the civil war and help strengthen the Iraqi government. Iran has offered financial assistance for reconstruction. Of course Iran and Syria keep their own national interests in mind, as all national leaderships are obligated to do, but so what? The question is whether those states could be helpful to creating stability in Iraq and letting the Americans get out without having to admit that they were defeated. Instead of seeking cooperation and help from countries which share borders with a land at war, the U.S. has rejected, and threatened them. . . for no explicable reason relating to North American interests.

RESULT NUMBER THREE: The U.S. has deliberately cut off its nose to spite its face by refusing diplomatic overtures from Iran and Syria, and offers or attempts to help the U.S.-created Iraqi government. By alienating Iran the U.S. has increased its own difficulties in Iraq and the Middle East generally.


The next layer of problems arise from what Iran would do in response to an actual American or Israeli attack.

From today’s news wires: “Iranian officials -- emboldened but uneasy over nuclear-armed neighbors in Israel and Pakistan and a U.S. military presence in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan -- have warned that they would respond to an American attack on Iran's facilities.”

"’Iran's supporters are widespread -- they're in Iraq, they're in Afghanistan, they're everywhere. And you know, the American soldiers in the Middle East are hostages of Iran, in the situation where a war is imposed on it. They're literally in the hands of the Iranians,’ said Najaf Ali Mirzai, a former Iranian diplomat in Beirut who heads the Civilization Center for Iranian-Arab Studies. ‘The Iranians can target them wherever, and Patriot missiles aren't going to defend them and neither is anything else. Iran would suffer [from a U.S. attack on Iran] but America would suffer more.’"

Among Iranian responses to aggression could be cutting the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes. "There is a policy the Iranians have and they've repeated it often -- the Gulf is either safe for everyone or no one."

If attacked by the U.S. or Israel, Iran would retaliate in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon, and with attacks on U.S. targets in the Gulf. I personally believe that the Iranian army might roll right across Iraq, inflicting great damage on the American forces already overextended there.

Furthermore, Hizbullah, the Lebanese party created long ago for defense against Israeli aggression against Lebanon, might also attack U.S. facilities. “Even now, U.S. intel officials stress that they don't believe Hizbullah will actually hit U.S. interests unless Washington strikes first—against either the movement or its key patron, Tehran.”

RESULT NUMBER FOUR: The U.S. would suffer great damage in many places and in many ways if it attacked Iran.



I cannot think of one reason why making Iran a foe rather than a friend serves the interests of the people of Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and San Francisco, or the American troops in Iraq.

Infamy in the Making, and Advice from Another President

Nothing I could write today would have the impact which this story should have on all who have any interest in the survival the United States. Unfortunately it is not a new story, but just a more detailed confirmation of earlier predictions.

I will repeat once more that we must cut ourselves free of Israel and its war aims.


"Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington



"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.



"The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

"Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“'As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,' said one of the sources.

"The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

"Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

"Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world."

(Who is going to bomb Israel's nuclear facilities? All Iran has is an embryonic nuclear power generation program. Israel could destroy the entire Middle East.)

Now, listen to this timely advice, from George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796, which appears to have been completely forgotten. (As you read the following, which I beg you to do even though it looks like a school assignment, try substituting “Israel” for “favorite”.)


“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. . . . It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and . . . great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury . . . and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity. . .

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."