http://www.nysun.com/article/63561
Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent
By BENNY AVNI
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 28, 2007
UNITED NATIONS — In a sign that U.N. Security Council-based diplomacy is losing steam, a number of sources are reporting that a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be imminent. France and America also are pushing for tighter economic sanctions against Tehran, without U.N. approval.
Yesterday's edition of Le Canard Enchaîné, a French weekly known for its investigative journalism, reported details of an alleged Israeli-American plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The frontpage headline read: "A report sent to the Elysée — Putin tells Tehran: They're going to bomb you!"
The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, also expressed concerns to reporters in New York that an attack on Iran might be imminent.
Like most stories in the French paper, the article was based on unnamed sources who said that in order to reduce casualties, the attack against Iran is planned for October 15, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Israel would bomb the first targets while America would orchestrate a second wave of strikes, the report said.
=================================
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411502746&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jibril: Israel will attack Syria soon
Sep 28, 2007 9:59 Updated Sep 28, 2007 15:39
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Israel has already made a decision to attack Syria and was just mulling over where to land its first strike, Ahmad Jibril, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed in an interview published Friday by Arabic newspaper Al Hadat.
Jibril estimated that Israeli action, several weeks after an alleged IAF foray into Syria on September 6, would likely be a wide-scale operation, and would probably be answered with attacks by Iran, Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Palestinians of Syria.
"I believe Israel has prepared all likely scenarios for war with Syria, but they are still considering where they will land the first strike, which will come very soon," Jibril said. "They are weighing whether to attack on one front or on multiple fronts.
"There is an American Israeli plan, backed by silent agreement from the Arab world, to change the balance of power in the Middle East," he added.
The PFLP leader said also that Israel was wary of a "domino effect" that would drag other countries into the conflict. "The Israelis have not formed a final estimate regarding the possibility of Iranian intervention if they will attack Syria. Secondly, the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah's Islamic resistance, will intervene and strike the Zionist home front with missiles," he said.
"The Syrian brothers will not be afraid to protect their land and will continue the war with the Zionist enemy, and we, the Palestinians in Syria, will not sit by idly - we will be on the front lines," Jibril added.
However, despite Jibril's claim that "Hizbullah would also participate," officials in the organization hinted that they would not interfere in a future conflict. Two weeks ago, Sheikh Na'im Kassem, Deputy Secretary General of Hizbullah and Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's second in command, said that Israeli estimates that the group would try to take revenge on Syria's behalf were no more that "journalistic assessments based on insufficient evidence."
==================
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
===00===
Sep 27, 2007
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070927013841.qmnowmi7&show_article=1
Saudis worried Iran nuclear issue headed to 'confrontation'
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said here Wednesday that Iran's standoff with Western powers over its nuclear program is heading toward a "confrontation." Saudi Prince Saud al-Faisal met in New York with other Gulf foreign ministers as well as the chief diplomats of Jordan and Egypt, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
"We talked certainly about Iran with the Secretary Rice," Prince Saud told reporters.
"Definitely what we are seeing is a confrontation in the making," the prince said.
"And we have pressed in our mutual discussions with the Iranians the question on them: 'Why such a precipitous move toward confrontation, what is your intent in this?' And their answer was that they are not looking for confrontation or building nuclear weapons."
He said Saudi Arabia is "very concerned" about Iran's nuclear program, which Western powers charge is a cover for building an atomic bomb. Tehran rejects the charge, saying it only seeks to produce energy.
Prince Saud said Tehran must prove its program is peaceful.
"We hope that, if anything, that this will be settled through negotiations," he said. "The region is volatile and a conflict in that region is the most dangerous thing to conceive and therefore we hope it can be solved diplomatically."
===================================
Saudis worried Iran nuclear issue headed to 'confrontation'
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said here Wednesday that Iran's standoff with Western powers over its nuclear program is heading toward a "confrontation." Saudi Prince Saud al-Faisal met in New York with other Gulf foreign ministers as well as the chief diplomats of Jordan and Egypt, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
"We talked certainly about Iran with the Secretary Rice," Prince Saud told reporters.
"Definitely what we are seeing is a confrontation in the making," the prince said.
"And we have pressed in our mutual discussions with the Iranians the question on them: 'Why such a precipitous move toward confrontation, what is your intent in this?' And their answer was that they are not looking for confrontation or building nuclear weapons."
He said Saudi Arabia is "very concerned" about Iran's nuclear program, which Western powers charge is a cover for building an atomic bomb. Tehran rejects the charge, saying it only seeks to produce energy.
Prince Saud said Tehran must prove its program is peaceful.
"We hope that, if anything, that this will be settled through negotiations," he said. "The region is volatile and a conflict in that region is the most dangerous thing to conceive and therefore we hope it can be solved diplomatically."
===================================
Sep 23, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070922/wl_mideast_afp/iranuspoliticsmilitary_070922115732
Iran shows off new missile, taunts Israel
by Stuart Williams
Sat Sep 22, 8:06 AM ET
Iran on Saturday showed off a longer-range missile in public for the first time and proclaimed a string of anti-Israel slogans, in a military parade held amid warnings of conflict with the West.
The missile -- labelled Ghadr-1 (Power) -- was said to be in development by Western experts, but its appearance at the annual military parade to mark the start of Iran's 1980-1988 war with Iraq was its first public showing.
The official announcer at the parade told reporters that the weapon had a range of 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles), sufficient to put US bases in the Middle East and Iran's arch enemy Israel within reach.
"The Iranian nation is ready to bring any oppressive power to its knees," read a slogan from supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei inscribed on a massive board on a truck.
The head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Jaafari, warned bluntly: "My message to the enemy is that they will regret it (an attack). Do not do it."
The Ghadr missile, which has a "baby bottle" style nose for extra aerodynamic efficiency, is seen as an improved version of Iran's existing longer-range Shahab series, which was also paraded.
Officials have said in the past that the Shahab-3 could reach 2,000 kilometres (1,250 miles), but the announcer said it had a 1,300-kilometre (800-mile) range.
The parade was marked by a litany of slogans calling for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Western military attaches, apparently warned of this in advance, boycotted the rally for the second year running.
"The Western attaches did not come. It was because of the slogans about Israel and the United States," said one foreign representative who declined to be named.
"Israel should be eliminated" and "No Iranian Muslim, no Muslim recognises Israel," were among the slogans borne on the back of military vehicles, quoting the words of Iran's revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
"Israel has to be wiped off the map," read another Khomeini quote which aroused worldwide controversy when it was repeated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
The parade came amid growing tensions over Iran's nuclear programme, which the United States alleges is cover for a nuclear weapons drive but which Tehran insists is aimed solely at producing electricity.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has warned that the world should brace for war against Tehran if it keeps defying the UN Security Council by pressing on with sensitive nuclear work.
Iran's military, especially its air force, has been hit by the US trade embargo, and General Jaafari admitted that the Islamic republic would need to outsmart its enemies using means other than technology.
"Their material capabilities are better than us, everyone knows it and we admit it. We are responding to technology not with technology but with special methods and tactics," he told reporters.
Officials said that only weapons built by Iran were shown at the parade, in a bid to emphasise the country's self-sufficiency in military technology.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meanwhile said in a speech that warnings of military action and further UN sanctions would have no effect on Tehran's nuclear drive.
"Those who think that with outmoded instruments like psychological warfare and economic sanctions they can stop Iran's march towards progress are making a grave mistake," Ahmadinejad said.
The full panoply of Iran's armed forces were on display, with thousands of goose-stepping members of the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards saluting Ahmadinejad and top military leaders in a march-past.
The United States and its ally Israel have never ruled out using military action against Iran for its defiance in the nuclear standoff.
Iran has said it will never initiate an attack, but has warned of striking US bases in the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Afghanistan -- as well as Israel itself -- as a response to any aggression.
=====================================
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/23/wiran123.xml
Iran promises missiles will fly if US attacks
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 1:00am BST 23/09/2007
Iran has threatened to retaliate with missile attacks if Western forces launch raids against the Islamic state's nuclear programme — putting on a defiant show of military force to back up the message.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressed a military parade in Teheran and mocked threats from the United States, while the head of the Revolutionary Guards said Iran would "pull the trigger" if attacked.
Their bellicose intervention came as officials in Washington warned that time was running out for the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to "get a result" from diplomacy or hand the initiative to White House hawks who want military action.
Mr Ahmadinejad spoke out as he led a parade to mark Iran's war with Iraq, which included a flypast by three Saegheh jet fighters and armoured vehicles, one of which bore the slogan "Death to America".
In a message directed at Western diplomats, he told the crowds: "Those who think that by using such decayed tools as psychological warfare and economic sanctions, they can stop the Iranian nation's progress are making a mistake."
advertisement
if(command.indexOf('tz')!=-1)eval(command);
The parade also featured medium-range ballistic missiles which are capable of hitting Israel or US bases in Iraq and the wider Gulf region.
Asked how Iran would respond if any country allowed its territory to be used as a base for an attack, Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, said: "You have seen the -missiles. Just pull the trigger and shoot."
He added: "Our message to the enemies is: Do not do it. They will regret it, as they are regretting it in Iraq."
Mr Ahmadinejad today arrives in New York for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly where the US, Britain, France and Germany are drawing up plans for new sanctions against Iran.
Diplomats are conscious that firm action is needed this week to bolster the position of Miss Rice, who wants to show that diplomacy can isolate Iran and constrain Teheran's weapons programmes.
One official in Washington said: "Condi really needs to get a result to show other members of the administration that it's working."
He said that some officials believe the vice-president, Dick Cheney, has given her "just enough rope to hang herself" by pursuing the diplomatic route.
A state department source who wants the diplomacy to succeed, said that administration hawks had closely studied the international fallout from Israel's clandestine raid on Syria the week before — which US officials say was targeted at nuclear materials sold by North Korea — as a guide to how military action against Iran would be received.
"Their attitude is: where was the fuss? Some of them think they would get away with it in Iran," the source said.
UN Security Council members Russia and China have refused to back tougher action on Iran, so the Bush administration is assembling a diplomatic "coalition of the willing" — a phrase widely use before the war in Iraq — to set up US and European sanctions against the Iranian regime. These would punish banks and companies that deal with Iran.
A Western diplomat said: "The Americans are hugely frustrated that they can't get any more from the Russians and Chinese."
=======================================
Iran shows off new missile, taunts Israel
by Stuart Williams
Sat Sep 22, 8:06 AM ET
Iran on Saturday showed off a longer-range missile in public for the first time and proclaimed a string of anti-Israel slogans, in a military parade held amid warnings of conflict with the West.
The missile -- labelled Ghadr-1 (Power) -- was said to be in development by Western experts, but its appearance at the annual military parade to mark the start of Iran's 1980-1988 war with Iraq was its first public showing.
The official announcer at the parade told reporters that the weapon had a range of 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles), sufficient to put US bases in the Middle East and Iran's arch enemy Israel within reach.
"The Iranian nation is ready to bring any oppressive power to its knees," read a slogan from supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei inscribed on a massive board on a truck.
The head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Jaafari, warned bluntly: "My message to the enemy is that they will regret it (an attack). Do not do it."
The Ghadr missile, which has a "baby bottle" style nose for extra aerodynamic efficiency, is seen as an improved version of Iran's existing longer-range Shahab series, which was also paraded.
Officials have said in the past that the Shahab-3 could reach 2,000 kilometres (1,250 miles), but the announcer said it had a 1,300-kilometre (800-mile) range.
The parade was marked by a litany of slogans calling for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Western military attaches, apparently warned of this in advance, boycotted the rally for the second year running.
"The Western attaches did not come. It was because of the slogans about Israel and the United States," said one foreign representative who declined to be named.
"Israel should be eliminated" and "No Iranian Muslim, no Muslim recognises Israel," were among the slogans borne on the back of military vehicles, quoting the words of Iran's revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
"Israel has to be wiped off the map," read another Khomeini quote which aroused worldwide controversy when it was repeated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
The parade came amid growing tensions over Iran's nuclear programme, which the United States alleges is cover for a nuclear weapons drive but which Tehran insists is aimed solely at producing electricity.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has warned that the world should brace for war against Tehran if it keeps defying the UN Security Council by pressing on with sensitive nuclear work.
Iran's military, especially its air force, has been hit by the US trade embargo, and General Jaafari admitted that the Islamic republic would need to outsmart its enemies using means other than technology.
"Their material capabilities are better than us, everyone knows it and we admit it. We are responding to technology not with technology but with special methods and tactics," he told reporters.
Officials said that only weapons built by Iran were shown at the parade, in a bid to emphasise the country's self-sufficiency in military technology.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meanwhile said in a speech that warnings of military action and further UN sanctions would have no effect on Tehran's nuclear drive.
"Those who think that with outmoded instruments like psychological warfare and economic sanctions they can stop Iran's march towards progress are making a grave mistake," Ahmadinejad said.
The full panoply of Iran's armed forces were on display, with thousands of goose-stepping members of the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards saluting Ahmadinejad and top military leaders in a march-past.
The United States and its ally Israel have never ruled out using military action against Iran for its defiance in the nuclear standoff.
Iran has said it will never initiate an attack, but has warned of striking US bases in the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Afghanistan -- as well as Israel itself -- as a response to any aggression.
=====================================
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/23/wiran123.xml
Iran promises missiles will fly if US attacks
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 1:00am BST 23/09/2007
Iran has threatened to retaliate with missile attacks if Western forces launch raids against the Islamic state's nuclear programme — putting on a defiant show of military force to back up the message.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressed a military parade in Teheran and mocked threats from the United States, while the head of the Revolutionary Guards said Iran would "pull the trigger" if attacked.
Their bellicose intervention came as officials in Washington warned that time was running out for the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to "get a result" from diplomacy or hand the initiative to White House hawks who want military action.
Mr Ahmadinejad spoke out as he led a parade to mark Iran's war with Iraq, which included a flypast by three Saegheh jet fighters and armoured vehicles, one of which bore the slogan "Death to America".
In a message directed at Western diplomats, he told the crowds: "Those who think that by using such decayed tools as psychological warfare and economic sanctions, they can stop the Iranian nation's progress are making a mistake."
advertisement
if(command.indexOf('tz')!=-1)eval(command);
The parade also featured medium-range ballistic missiles which are capable of hitting Israel or US bases in Iraq and the wider Gulf region.
Asked how Iran would respond if any country allowed its territory to be used as a base for an attack, Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, said: "You have seen the -missiles. Just pull the trigger and shoot."
He added: "Our message to the enemies is: Do not do it. They will regret it, as they are regretting it in Iraq."
Mr Ahmadinejad today arrives in New York for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly where the US, Britain, France and Germany are drawing up plans for new sanctions against Iran.
Diplomats are conscious that firm action is needed this week to bolster the position of Miss Rice, who wants to show that diplomacy can isolate Iran and constrain Teheran's weapons programmes.
One official in Washington said: "Condi really needs to get a result to show other members of the administration that it's working."
He said that some officials believe the vice-president, Dick Cheney, has given her "just enough rope to hang herself" by pursuing the diplomatic route.
A state department source who wants the diplomacy to succeed, said that administration hawks had closely studied the international fallout from Israel's clandestine raid on Syria the week before — which US officials say was targeted at nuclear materials sold by North Korea — as a guide to how military action against Iran would be received.
"Their attitude is: where was the fuss? Some of them think they would get away with it in Iran," the source said.
UN Security Council members Russia and China have refused to back tougher action on Iran, so the Bush administration is assembling a diplomatic "coalition of the willing" — a phrase widely use before the war in Iraq — to set up US and European sanctions against the Iranian regime. These would punish banks and companies that deal with Iran.
A Western diplomat said: "The Americans are hugely frustrated that they can't get any more from the Russians and Chinese."
=======================================
Sep 19, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel;_ylt=AqvhxO1_p7vamKYsvG35lY2s0NUE
Iran: Retaliation for any Israeli attack
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 19, 7:07 PM ET
Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if the Jewish state should attack, the deputy air force commander said Wednesday, adding to tensions already heated up by an Israeli airstrike on Syria and Western calls for more U.N. sanctions against Tehran.
Other Iranian officials also underlined their country's readiness to fight if the U.S. or Israel attacks, a reflection of concerns in Tehran that demands by the U.S. and its allies for Iran to curtail its nuclear program could escalate into military action.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Sunday that the international community should prepare for the possibility of war in the event Iran obtains atomic weapons, although he later stressed the focus is still on diplomatic pressures.
The comments come as the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, Adm. William Fallon, is touring Persian Gulf countries seeking to form a united front of Arab allies against Iran's growing influence in the region.
Iran has periodically raised alarms over the possibility of war, particularly when the West brings up talk of sanctions over Tehran's rejection of a U.N. Security Council demand that it halt uranium enrichment.
"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Iran's deputy air force commander, Gen. Mohammad Alavi, said in an interview with the semiofficial Fars news agency.
Alavi warned that Israel is within range of Iran's medium-range missiles and fighter-bombers.
The Iranian air force had no immediate comment on the Fars report. But Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar told the official IRNA news agency that "we keep various options open to respond to threats. ... We will make use of them if required."
Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards also weighed in, saying Iran "has prepared its people for a possible confrontation against any aggression."
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Alavi's comment "is not constructive and it almost seems provocative."
"Israel doesn't seek a war with its neighbors. And we all are seeking, under the U.N. Security Council resolutions, for Iran to comply with its obligations" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, she said.
During a stop in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington is committed to diplomacy, but added that the U.S. hasn't taken any military "options off the table." She said that "it can't be business as usual" with Iran, a country whose president has spoken of wiping Israel off the map.
For diplomacy to work, she said, "it has to have both a way for Iran to pursue a peaceful resolution of this issue and it has to have teeth, and the U.N. Security Council and other measures are providing teeth."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said his government took Iran's "threat very seriously and so does the international community."
"Unfortunately we are all too accustomed to this kind of bellicose, extremist and hateful language coming from Iran," he said.
Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor being built by Saddam Hussein's regime, and many in the region fear Israel or the U.S. could mount airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't bow to Western demands to cease uranium enrichment.
Iran, which says it isn't trying to produce material for atomic bombs but rather fuel for reactors that would generate electricity, has said in the past that Israel would be the first retaliatory target for any attack. But Alavi's comments were the first to mention specific contingency plans.
David Ochmanek, an international policy analyst with the U.S.-based RAND Corporation, said Iran has the capability to attack Israel with a limited number of ballistic missiles, but Israel could potentially inflict greater damage on Iran.
"If Israelis attacked Iran it would be with high precision weapons that could destroy military targets," he said. "They could destroy Iran's nuclear reactor and do damage to the enrichment."
"The Iranian response would be quite different," Ochmanek said. "It would be small numbers of highly innaccurate missiles and the intention would be to do this for psychological purposes rather than to destroy discrete targets. It's an asymmetrical relationship."
A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander warned earlier this week that U.S. bases around Iran would also be legitimate targets.
"Today, the United States is within Iran's sight and all around our country, but it doesn't mean we have been encircled. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," Gen. Mohammed Hasan Kousehchi told IRNA.
U.S. forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Persian Gulf, Kuwait hosts a major U.S. base, the U.S. 5th Fleet patrols from its base in Bahrain, and the U.S. Central Command is housed in Qatar.
Tensions have been raised by a mysterious Israeli air incursion over Syria on Sept. 6. Israel has placed a tight news blackout on the reported incident, while Syria has said little. U.S. officials said it involved an airstrike on a target.
One U.S. official said the attack hit weapons heading for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, an ally of Syria and Iran, but there also has been speculation the Israelis hit a nascent nuclear facility or were studying routes for a possible future strike on Iran.
Former Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he was involved "from the beginning" in the alleged airstrike, the first public mention by an Israeli leader about the incident. Netanyahu, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, did not give further details.
Edward Djerejian, founding director of Rice University's Baker Institute, said the accusation that Israel had violated Syrian airspace, and possibly launched an attack on Syrian territory, was putting new concerns on an already tense situation.
"The region is very nervous," said Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Syria.
With Iran adding to the talk of military options, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called Wednesday for U.N. Security Council members and U.S. allies to help push for a third round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
But Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said Moscow opposes new sanctions, adding they could hurt a recent agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency aimed at resolving questions about the Iranian program.
Two U.N. resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran have failed to persuade the country to suspend uranium enrichment.
Burns said he would host a Friday meeting of the Security Council's permanent members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France. Talks on a new resolution are also expected next week in New York, when world leaders attend the annual ministerial session of the U.N. General Assembly.
___
Associated Press Writers Sarah DiLorenzo and Carley Petesch in New York and Mark Lavie in Jerusalem contributed to this report
=========================
Iran: Retaliation for any Israeli attack
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 19, 7:07 PM ET
Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if the Jewish state should attack, the deputy air force commander said Wednesday, adding to tensions already heated up by an Israeli airstrike on Syria and Western calls for more U.N. sanctions against Tehran.
Other Iranian officials also underlined their country's readiness to fight if the U.S. or Israel attacks, a reflection of concerns in Tehran that demands by the U.S. and its allies for Iran to curtail its nuclear program could escalate into military action.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Sunday that the international community should prepare for the possibility of war in the event Iran obtains atomic weapons, although he later stressed the focus is still on diplomatic pressures.
The comments come as the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, Adm. William Fallon, is touring Persian Gulf countries seeking to form a united front of Arab allies against Iran's growing influence in the region.
Iran has periodically raised alarms over the possibility of war, particularly when the West brings up talk of sanctions over Tehran's rejection of a U.N. Security Council demand that it halt uranium enrichment.
"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Iran's deputy air force commander, Gen. Mohammad Alavi, said in an interview with the semiofficial Fars news agency.
Alavi warned that Israel is within range of Iran's medium-range missiles and fighter-bombers.
The Iranian air force had no immediate comment on the Fars report. But Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar told the official IRNA news agency that "we keep various options open to respond to threats. ... We will make use of them if required."
Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards also weighed in, saying Iran "has prepared its people for a possible confrontation against any aggression."
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Alavi's comment "is not constructive and it almost seems provocative."
"Israel doesn't seek a war with its neighbors. And we all are seeking, under the U.N. Security Council resolutions, for Iran to comply with its obligations" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, she said.
During a stop in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington is committed to diplomacy, but added that the U.S. hasn't taken any military "options off the table." She said that "it can't be business as usual" with Iran, a country whose president has spoken of wiping Israel off the map.
For diplomacy to work, she said, "it has to have both a way for Iran to pursue a peaceful resolution of this issue and it has to have teeth, and the U.N. Security Council and other measures are providing teeth."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said his government took Iran's "threat very seriously and so does the international community."
"Unfortunately we are all too accustomed to this kind of bellicose, extremist and hateful language coming from Iran," he said.
Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor being built by Saddam Hussein's regime, and many in the region fear Israel or the U.S. could mount airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't bow to Western demands to cease uranium enrichment.
Iran, which says it isn't trying to produce material for atomic bombs but rather fuel for reactors that would generate electricity, has said in the past that Israel would be the first retaliatory target for any attack. But Alavi's comments were the first to mention specific contingency plans.
David Ochmanek, an international policy analyst with the U.S.-based RAND Corporation, said Iran has the capability to attack Israel with a limited number of ballistic missiles, but Israel could potentially inflict greater damage on Iran.
"If Israelis attacked Iran it would be with high precision weapons that could destroy military targets," he said. "They could destroy Iran's nuclear reactor and do damage to the enrichment."
"The Iranian response would be quite different," Ochmanek said. "It would be small numbers of highly innaccurate missiles and the intention would be to do this for psychological purposes rather than to destroy discrete targets. It's an asymmetrical relationship."
A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander warned earlier this week that U.S. bases around Iran would also be legitimate targets.
"Today, the United States is within Iran's sight and all around our country, but it doesn't mean we have been encircled. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," Gen. Mohammed Hasan Kousehchi told IRNA.
U.S. forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Persian Gulf, Kuwait hosts a major U.S. base, the U.S. 5th Fleet patrols from its base in Bahrain, and the U.S. Central Command is housed in Qatar.
Tensions have been raised by a mysterious Israeli air incursion over Syria on Sept. 6. Israel has placed a tight news blackout on the reported incident, while Syria has said little. U.S. officials said it involved an airstrike on a target.
One U.S. official said the attack hit weapons heading for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, an ally of Syria and Iran, but there also has been speculation the Israelis hit a nascent nuclear facility or were studying routes for a possible future strike on Iran.
Former Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he was involved "from the beginning" in the alleged airstrike, the first public mention by an Israeli leader about the incident. Netanyahu, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, did not give further details.
Edward Djerejian, founding director of Rice University's Baker Institute, said the accusation that Israel had violated Syrian airspace, and possibly launched an attack on Syrian territory, was putting new concerns on an already tense situation.
"The region is very nervous," said Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Syria.
With Iran adding to the talk of military options, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called Wednesday for U.N. Security Council members and U.S. allies to help push for a third round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
But Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said Moscow opposes new sanctions, adding they could hurt a recent agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency aimed at resolving questions about the Iranian program.
Two U.N. resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran have failed to persuade the country to suspend uranium enrichment.
Burns said he would host a Friday meeting of the Security Council's permanent members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France. Talks on a new resolution are also expected next week in New York, when world leaders attend the annual ministerial session of the U.N. General Assembly.
___
Associated Press Writers Sarah DiLorenzo and Carley Petesch in New York and Mark Lavie in Jerusalem contributed to this report
=========================
Sep 18, 2007
RUSSIA IS WARNING THAT WAR WITH IRAN WILL END WITH CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070918/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics_07091...
SEPT 18 2007
Russia expressed apprehension Tuesday over the possibility of a war with Iran evoked by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who again urged tougher sanctions to halt Tehran's nuclear programme.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov emphasised Russia's "concern" over "multiple reports that military action against Iran is being seriously considered. It's hard to imagine what that could do to the region."
Kouchner, on a visit to Russia, meanwhile called for "working on precise sanctions" and added that France and Russia had differences on the issue.
However, the French foreign minister underlined that "everything should be done to avoid war."
"War is the worst that could happen," he said. "Everything should be done to avoid war. We have to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate -- without cease, without rebuff."
His comments appeared aimed at quieting an uproar over his statement Sunday that the world should prepare for a possible war with Iran -- a warning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed Tuesday as fanciful.
Kouchner blamed the media for distorting his statement that "we have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."
"As usual with journalists, they take one phrase and you don't know what came after," he told Russia's Echo of Moscow radio late Tuesday.
"They're saying: Bernard Kouchner wants war. But it's not true. It's a manipulation. I don't want war, I want peace."
The Russian and French ministers met ahead of a UN Security Council meeting on Friday that may impose new sanctions against Tehran for its controversial uranium enrichment activity.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday urged dialogue to resolve the impasse and reiterated a plea to Tehran to stop enriching uranium.
"I would sincerely hope and urge the Iranian authorities to fully comply with Security Council resolutions so that other remaining issues will be dealt with in peaceful negotiations," he told a press conference in New York.
Iran's ambassador to Paris, Ali Ahani, meanwhile voiced his surprise at the "martial rhetoric" used by Kouchner, saying Tehran got the "impression that French diplomacy is going to follow the American line."
Iranian leader Ahmadinejad dismissed talk of war, saying: "Comments to the media are different to the real positions."
Tehran vehemently denies US accusations it is seeking an atomic weapon, saying its nuclear drive is aimed at generating electricity.
Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear reactor in the southern Russian city of Bushehr, has consistently warned against attacking the Islamic republic.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov has warned that a "bombing of Iran would ... end with catastrophic consequences."
The United States has never ruled out using military strikes to punish Iran for defying UN Security Council demands that it halt its enrichment activity.
General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said Tuesday he had no doubt that Iran was giving "lethal" support to Iraqi militias but stressed he had not thought of launching military operations inside Iran.
"I certainly have not sought authorisation to cross the border into Iran. We have our hands full in Iraq," he told a news conference in London.
Meanwhile, Alain Bugat, the head of France's atomic energy commissariat, told the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA that Iran's defiance to stop enriching uranium, "makes it necessary to adopt new sanctions."
Iran has said it would never initiate an attack but would respond with crushing force if the United States launched a strike on its territory.
Kouchner is set to fly to Washington on Wednesday to take up the issue with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
===============================
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070918/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics_07091...
SEPT 18 2007
Russia expressed apprehension Tuesday over the possibility of a war with Iran evoked by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who again urged tougher sanctions to halt Tehran's nuclear programme.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov emphasised Russia's "concern" over "multiple reports that military action against Iran is being seriously considered. It's hard to imagine what that could do to the region."
Kouchner, on a visit to Russia, meanwhile called for "working on precise sanctions" and added that France and Russia had differences on the issue.
However, the French foreign minister underlined that "everything should be done to avoid war."
"War is the worst that could happen," he said. "Everything should be done to avoid war. We have to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate -- without cease, without rebuff."
His comments appeared aimed at quieting an uproar over his statement Sunday that the world should prepare for a possible war with Iran -- a warning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed Tuesday as fanciful.
Kouchner blamed the media for distorting his statement that "we have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."
"As usual with journalists, they take one phrase and you don't know what came after," he told Russia's Echo of Moscow radio late Tuesday.
"They're saying: Bernard Kouchner wants war. But it's not true. It's a manipulation. I don't want war, I want peace."
The Russian and French ministers met ahead of a UN Security Council meeting on Friday that may impose new sanctions against Tehran for its controversial uranium enrichment activity.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday urged dialogue to resolve the impasse and reiterated a plea to Tehran to stop enriching uranium.
"I would sincerely hope and urge the Iranian authorities to fully comply with Security Council resolutions so that other remaining issues will be dealt with in peaceful negotiations," he told a press conference in New York.
Iran's ambassador to Paris, Ali Ahani, meanwhile voiced his surprise at the "martial rhetoric" used by Kouchner, saying Tehran got the "impression that French diplomacy is going to follow the American line."
Iranian leader Ahmadinejad dismissed talk of war, saying: "Comments to the media are different to the real positions."
Tehran vehemently denies US accusations it is seeking an atomic weapon, saying its nuclear drive is aimed at generating electricity.
Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear reactor in the southern Russian city of Bushehr, has consistently warned against attacking the Islamic republic.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov has warned that a "bombing of Iran would ... end with catastrophic consequences."
The United States has never ruled out using military strikes to punish Iran for defying UN Security Council demands that it halt its enrichment activity.
General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said Tuesday he had no doubt that Iran was giving "lethal" support to Iraqi militias but stressed he had not thought of launching military operations inside Iran.
"I certainly have not sought authorisation to cross the border into Iran. We have our hands full in Iraq," he told a news conference in London.
Meanwhile, Alain Bugat, the head of France's atomic energy commissariat, told the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA that Iran's defiance to stop enriching uranium, "makes it necessary to adopt new sanctions."
Iran has said it would never initiate an attack but would respond with crushing force if the United States launched a strike on its territory.
Kouchner is set to fly to Washington on Wednesday to take up the issue with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
===============================
Sep 17, 2007
http://www.prophecyupdate.com/prophecy_news.htm
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411419433&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
'600 Iranian missiles pointed at Israel'
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Sep. 17, 2007
Six hundred Iranian Shihab-3 missiles are pointed at targets throughout Israel, and will be launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday.
"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."
According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.
The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km, and can reach anywhere in Israel.
On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the nuclear Iranian crisis forces the world "to prepare for the worst," and said that in this case it "is war."
Kouchner emphasized, however, that negotiations should still be the preferred course of action.
Kouchner, quoted by French daily Le Figaro, added that "Iran does whatever it pleases in Iraq ... one cannot find in the entire world a crisis greater than this one."
In response to Kouchner's comments, Iran's state-owned news agency accused France of pandering to the interests of the United States.
"The new occupants of the Elysee (Presidential palace) want to copy the White House," the IRNA news agency said in an editorial. The editorial added that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was taking on "an American skin."
Kouchner's statements came just hours after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the Bush administration's commitment, at least for the time being, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411419433&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
'600 Iranian missiles pointed at Israel'
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Sep. 17, 2007
Six hundred Iranian Shihab-3 missiles are pointed at targets throughout Israel, and will be launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday.
"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."
According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.
The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km, and can reach anywhere in Israel.
On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the nuclear Iranian crisis forces the world "to prepare for the worst," and said that in this case it "is war."
Kouchner emphasized, however, that negotiations should still be the preferred course of action.
Kouchner, quoted by French daily Le Figaro, added that "Iran does whatever it pleases in Iraq ... one cannot find in the entire world a crisis greater than this one."
In response to Kouchner's comments, Iran's state-owned news agency accused France of pandering to the interests of the United States.
"The new occupants of the Elysee (Presidential palace) want to copy the White House," the IRNA news agency said in an editorial. The editorial added that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was taking on "an American skin."
Kouchner's statements came just hours after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the Bush administration's commitment, at least for the time being, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.
Sep 16, 2007
There are now only 1920 days remaining until the end of the Mayan Calendar on Friday, December 21, 2012 AD.
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml
Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:29am BST 17/09/2007
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".
He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq." Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.
The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board. "Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with."
The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".
Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.
"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."
==============================================
Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:29am BST 17/09/2007
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".
He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq." Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.
The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board. "Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with."
The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".
Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.
"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."
==============================================
Sep 9, 2007
There are now only 1926 days remaining until the end of the Mayan Calendar on Friday, December 21, 2012 AD.
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
HOOROO !
" For some reason, the word reminds me of something an Owl would say (if owls talked)..." -Mukyuk aka 'Mondo'.
"I'm of the opinion the word probably came about by people saying 'HELLOOO' at a great distance and it sounds like 'HOOROO'. It's just a guess though." -Randolph Foreman aka 'Perseid'.
"For my part, I do believe I should go quite insane, were I to live in [a] Land where people wandered around screaming, 'HOOROO' at one- another." -Ricky Coleclough aka 'Werewolfy'.
" For some reason, the word reminds me of something an Owl would say (if owls talked)..." -Mukyuk aka 'Mondo'.
"I'm of the opinion the word probably came about by people saying 'HELLOOO' at a great distance and it sounds like 'HOOROO'. It's just a guess though." -Randolph Foreman aka 'Perseid'.
"For my part, I do believe I should go quite insane, were I to live in [a] Land where people wandered around screaming, 'HOOROO' at one- another." -Ricky Coleclough aka 'Werewolfy'.
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/txt/s1380439.htm
Hooroo
Presented by Kel Richards
Hooroo is a distinctively Australian way of saying “goodbye”.
Only in Australia did “hooray” come to mean “goodbye”It’s so distinctive to us that you’ll find it in the Macquarie, The Australian National Dictionary and the Australian Oxford but it’s missing from the full Oxford English Dictionary and from Webster’s. Hooroo is first recorded in The Bulletin in 1906 in the expression “Hooroo. See yer termorrer.” It’s based on the earlier expression “hooray” – also used in Australia (but only here) to mean “goodbye”. This is first recoded in The Bulletin in 1898 with the following explanation: “In many places the salutation ‘good-day’ or ‘good-night’ is simply ‘Hooray!’” “Hurrah” or “Hurray” is, of course, a general shout or cheer and goes back to at least to the 17th century. Only in Australia did “hooray” come to mean “goodbye” – and only here was “hooray” changed to become hooroo. And according the ABC’s Word Map the “H” is often dropped and it becomes simply ‘ooroo!
Hooroo
Presented by Kel Richards
Hooroo is a distinctively Australian way of saying “goodbye”.
Only in Australia did “hooray” come to mean “goodbye”It’s so distinctive to us that you’ll find it in the Macquarie, The Australian National Dictionary and the Australian Oxford but it’s missing from the full Oxford English Dictionary and from Webster’s. Hooroo is first recorded in The Bulletin in 1906 in the expression “Hooroo. See yer termorrer.” It’s based on the earlier expression “hooray” – also used in Australia (but only here) to mean “goodbye”. This is first recoded in The Bulletin in 1898 with the following explanation: “In many places the salutation ‘good-day’ or ‘good-night’ is simply ‘Hooray!’” “Hurrah” or “Hurray” is, of course, a general shout or cheer and goes back to at least to the 17th century. Only in Australia did “hooray” come to mean “goodbye” – and only here was “hooray” changed to become hooroo. And according the ABC’s Word Map the “H” is often dropped and it becomes simply ‘ooroo!
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,148578,00.html
Israeli Jets Run Iran Attack Drill
NY Post September 08, 2007
JERUSALEM - Israeli warplanes may have been testing air routes for a possible attack against Iran when they were fired on by Syrian forces, experts said yesterday.
The official Syrian Arab News Agency Thursday quoted a military official as saying that Israeli jets broke the sound barrier flying over northern Syria earlier in the day, then "dropped munitions" onto deserted areas after being shot at by Syria's air defenses.
Israel's air force may have been testing an air path to Iran, in case it decides to carry out an attack against that country's nuclear facilities, analysts said.
The corridor of northern Syria over which the aircraft allegedly flew is the closest straight line from the Mediterranean Sea, where Israel has easy access, to Iran.
Israel says it prefers to let the international community confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, but a lone Israeli attack is not out of the question.
"Of course Israel wants to let the Americans do that," said Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
"But if we are left alone, the Israeli army is preparing to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat - if the political level allows it to - and this could have been a part of that."
=======================
Israeli Jets Run Iran Attack Drill
NY Post September 08, 2007
JERUSALEM - Israeli warplanes may have been testing air routes for a possible attack against Iran when they were fired on by Syrian forces, experts said yesterday.
The official Syrian Arab News Agency Thursday quoted a military official as saying that Israeli jets broke the sound barrier flying over northern Syria earlier in the day, then "dropped munitions" onto deserted areas after being shot at by Syria's air defenses.
Israel's air force may have been testing an air path to Iran, in case it decides to carry out an attack against that country's nuclear facilities, analysts said.
The corridor of northern Syria over which the aircraft allegedly flew is the closest straight line from the Mediterranean Sea, where Israel has easy access, to Iran.
Israel says it prefers to let the international community confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, but a lone Israeli attack is not out of the question.
"Of course Israel wants to let the Americans do that," said Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
"But if we are left alone, the Israeli army is preparing to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat - if the political level allows it to - and this could have been a part of that."
=======================
Sep 8, 2007
There are now only 1927 days remaining until the end of the Mayan Calendar on Friday, December 21, 2012 AD.
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
Sep 7, 2007
There are now only 1928 days remaining until the end of the Mayan Calendar on Friday, December 21, 2012 AD.
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
Sep 5, 2007
There are now only 1930 days remaining until the end of the Mayan Calendar on Friday, December 21, 2012 AD.
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
Sep 4, 2007
There are now only 1932 days remaining until the end of the Mayan Calendar on Friday, December 21, 2012 AD.
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
http://www.december212012.com/blogs.shtml
http://www.soulwise.net/25h-cdn.htm
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
Sep 3, 2007
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00053.htm
World War III: Impeach or die.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007, 11:36 am
Column: David Swanson
World War III
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/26406
By David Swanson
The administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is set on a course that leads directly to a third world war. And a third world war leads almost inevitably to most of us dying horrible deaths. And we're not talking about it.
The White House has made clear it is seriously considering attacking Iran with massive bombing aimed at destroying the nation's military and changing its government. Iran will certainly retaliate. If attacked, and possibly even if not attacked, Israel will join in the fighting. The resistance in Iraq will intensify dramatically. Controlling the oil of Iran and Iraq will be out of the question short of thorough genocide. Anti-American furor will sweep the Muslim world. The nuclear nation of Pakistan will be a prime target for an Islamic revolution.
If we don't have a world war on our hands immediately, one will be very hard to avoid. We will have taught every nation, again, that the only path to safety is acquisition of nuclear weapons. We will have isolated the United States from most of the world, including many of our traditional allies. Terrorist attacks against American targets will come, and the United States will retaliate, again, not with law enforcement but with additional aggressive warfare.
If the United States attacks Iran, we will be openly at war with the world in a nuclear age. If the thought isn't terrifying, something's wrong with our ability to fear. Our politics is almost always driven in the wrong direction by fear of the wrong things. I'd love for once to see fear knock some sense into us.
The founders of the United States feared these moments for us. To protect us, they gave Congress the sole power to declare war. The current Congress, building on the misdeeds of others in recent decades, has given up its power. In fact, we've reached the point where Congress cannot easily take it back. Were Congress to declare with a veto-proof majority that Bush must not bomb Iran, is anyone sure Bush would listen?
Back at the start of this Congress, eight months ago, some of the new committee chairs from the progressive caucus spoke on a panel organized by the Institute for Policy Studies. Congressman John Conyers, the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on this occasion that he would take up the impeachment of Bush and Cheney if they attacked Iran. Congressman Dennis Kucinich at the time was saying the same thing. He has since introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney (H Res 333) that include the charge of threatening aggressive war against Iran (which happens to be a crime). Currently 20 Congress Members support H Res 333, but none of them with any sense of urgency. None of them are lobbying their colleagues to sign on or to introduce their own articles of impeachment. Nobody in Congress, and certainly not the leadership, is pushing hard for impeachment as the means to prevent an attack on Iran.
But impeachment is the only leverage the Congress has over an outlaw executive branch. Conyers recently said that he opposes impeachment because he carries the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other, and he uses the calculator to tell himself he doesn't "have the votes" to pass impeachment. Of course, by that argument, he should take his name off his bill for single-payer health care, his bill for slavery reparations, etc. But, more importantly, an impeachment effort can serve a purpose short of successfully impeaching anyone. A serious movement to impeach Gonzales helped show him the door. A serious movement to impeach Bush and Cheney is the only way Congress can deter an attack on Iran or end the prolonged attack on Iraq. If articles of impeachment had 100 cosponsors, Bush and Cheney would understand that attacking Iran would move that number to 218.
Has Bush even told the Congressional leadership of his plans to attack Iran? If he has not, will they have the decency to feel indignation? And will they do so BEFORE the bombing? If he has told them, then Congressional leaders have a duty to the citizens of this nation to immediately expose and oppose such plans. Congress exists to determine our nation's course of action, not to be informed of it. Any member of Congress who has been informed of new plans for illegal war and not spoken out should be tried as an accomplice in war crimes.
As the White House continues to leak news of its likely attack on Iran, our demand must be for impeachment now, not after the slaughter when we have all been made less safe than ever. And we must not get caught up in the nonsense questions in the media over exactly who lied about exactly how many nuclear facilities in Iran. If possessing some particular number of nuclear reactors, or for that matter nuclear bombs, justified other nations in launching aggressive war, then any nation would be justified in attacking the United States. Nothing, in fact, can justify a war of aggression, legally or morally, because such a war is certain to be worse than whatever might be found to try to justify it.
We cannot, of course, be certain at this point that Bush and Cheney will attack Iran. Whether they do or not, the task of Congress remains the same: impeach these dictators and end the occupation of Iraq. But if our nation continues on this path of unchecked executive power and military aggression, the path of Afghanistan and Guantanamo and Iraq, then expanded war is inevitable, and that means war that eventually hits the United States. The clearest I can possibly frame our situation is as a choice between one word and another. We are unlikely to get neither or both. We are likely to get one or the other. Impeach or die.
**************
World War III: Impeach or die.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007, 11:36 am
Column: David Swanson
World War III
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/26406
By David Swanson
The administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is set on a course that leads directly to a third world war. And a third world war leads almost inevitably to most of us dying horrible deaths. And we're not talking about it.
The White House has made clear it is seriously considering attacking Iran with massive bombing aimed at destroying the nation's military and changing its government. Iran will certainly retaliate. If attacked, and possibly even if not attacked, Israel will join in the fighting. The resistance in Iraq will intensify dramatically. Controlling the oil of Iran and Iraq will be out of the question short of thorough genocide. Anti-American furor will sweep the Muslim world. The nuclear nation of Pakistan will be a prime target for an Islamic revolution.
If we don't have a world war on our hands immediately, one will be very hard to avoid. We will have taught every nation, again, that the only path to safety is acquisition of nuclear weapons. We will have isolated the United States from most of the world, including many of our traditional allies. Terrorist attacks against American targets will come, and the United States will retaliate, again, not with law enforcement but with additional aggressive warfare.
If the United States attacks Iran, we will be openly at war with the world in a nuclear age. If the thought isn't terrifying, something's wrong with our ability to fear. Our politics is almost always driven in the wrong direction by fear of the wrong things. I'd love for once to see fear knock some sense into us.
The founders of the United States feared these moments for us. To protect us, they gave Congress the sole power to declare war. The current Congress, building on the misdeeds of others in recent decades, has given up its power. In fact, we've reached the point where Congress cannot easily take it back. Were Congress to declare with a veto-proof majority that Bush must not bomb Iran, is anyone sure Bush would listen?
Back at the start of this Congress, eight months ago, some of the new committee chairs from the progressive caucus spoke on a panel organized by the Institute for Policy Studies. Congressman John Conyers, the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on this occasion that he would take up the impeachment of Bush and Cheney if they attacked Iran. Congressman Dennis Kucinich at the time was saying the same thing. He has since introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney (H Res 333) that include the charge of threatening aggressive war against Iran (which happens to be a crime). Currently 20 Congress Members support H Res 333, but none of them with any sense of urgency. None of them are lobbying their colleagues to sign on or to introduce their own articles of impeachment. Nobody in Congress, and certainly not the leadership, is pushing hard for impeachment as the means to prevent an attack on Iran.
But impeachment is the only leverage the Congress has over an outlaw executive branch. Conyers recently said that he opposes impeachment because he carries the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other, and he uses the calculator to tell himself he doesn't "have the votes" to pass impeachment. Of course, by that argument, he should take his name off his bill for single-payer health care, his bill for slavery reparations, etc. But, more importantly, an impeachment effort can serve a purpose short of successfully impeaching anyone. A serious movement to impeach Gonzales helped show him the door. A serious movement to impeach Bush and Cheney is the only way Congress can deter an attack on Iran or end the prolonged attack on Iraq. If articles of impeachment had 100 cosponsors, Bush and Cheney would understand that attacking Iran would move that number to 218.
Has Bush even told the Congressional leadership of his plans to attack Iran? If he has not, will they have the decency to feel indignation? And will they do so BEFORE the bombing? If he has told them, then Congressional leaders have a duty to the citizens of this nation to immediately expose and oppose such plans. Congress exists to determine our nation's course of action, not to be informed of it. Any member of Congress who has been informed of new plans for illegal war and not spoken out should be tried as an accomplice in war crimes.
As the White House continues to leak news of its likely attack on Iran, our demand must be for impeachment now, not after the slaughter when we have all been made less safe than ever. And we must not get caught up in the nonsense questions in the media over exactly who lied about exactly how many nuclear facilities in Iran. If possessing some particular number of nuclear reactors, or for that matter nuclear bombs, justified other nations in launching aggressive war, then any nation would be justified in attacking the United States. Nothing, in fact, can justify a war of aggression, legally or morally, because such a war is certain to be worse than whatever might be found to try to justify it.
We cannot, of course, be certain at this point that Bush and Cheney will attack Iran. Whether they do or not, the task of Congress remains the same: impeach these dictators and end the occupation of Iraq. But if our nation continues on this path of unchecked executive power and military aggression, the path of Afghanistan and Guantanamo and Iraq, then expanded war is inevitable, and that means war that eventually hits the United States. The clearest I can possibly frame our situation is as a choice between one word and another. We are unlikely to get neither or both. We are likely to get one or the other. Impeach or die.
**************
Sep 2, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
September 2, 2007
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.
One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said – to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months – “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
=====================================
hooroo
uncle wally
----
September 2, 2007
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.
One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said – to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months – “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
=====================================
hooroo
uncle wally
----
Aug 29, 2007
ARTICLE 1/2
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3443276,00.html
Bush warns of 'holocaust' if Iran gets nukes
US president also demands Tehran end support for extremists in Iraq. 'Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime, to impose economic sanctions,' he tells American Legion veterans groupAFP
US President George W Bush on Tuesday raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust" in the Middle East if Israel's arch-foe Iran gets atomic weapons, and demanded that Tehran end support for extremists in Iraq.
"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime, to impose economic sanctions," he told the American Legion veterans group.
On Collision Path France's Sarkozy raises prospect of Iran airstrikes / Reuters In his first major foreign policy speech, French president says diplomatic push by world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program is only alternative to 'Iranian bomb or bombing of Iran' Full story "We will confront this danger before it is too late," vowed Bush, who has pressed for tougher international sanctions and said he hopes for a diplomatic solution but has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of force.
Bush, whose speech was billed a defense of US efforts in Iraq, also said Tehran must starve Shiite fighters in Iraq of weapons, equipment and training whether or not Iran's leaders know about such operations and have given their blessing.
"Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis," he said, as the White House warned in a statement that Iran must act "at once."
Bush also strongly defended US-led efforts in Iraq and especially his decision in January to send another 30,000 US troops there, describing the unpopular conflict as the central front against Iran and al-Qaeda.
"The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of al-Qaeda and Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq," he declared.
Bush said there were "unmistakable signs" that the US troop "surge" was paying off with lower levels of violence and local efforts at quieting bloody sectarian conflict and downplayed the failure by the government in Baghdad to post concrete progress on national reconciliation.
"Iraq's leaders aren't perfect, but they were elected by their people," he said. "And leaders in Washington need to look for ways to help our Iraqi allies succeed, not excuses for abandoning them."
Iran: There will be a power vacuum in region
Shortly before Bush spoke, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran and neighboring countries were ready to fill the "power vacuum" emerging in the Middle East as US power in Iraq wanes.
"You (the United States) cannot preserve your power over Iraq with a few tanks, artillery and weapons. Today, you are prisoners of your own quagmire. You have no choice but to accept the rights of the Iraqi people," Ahmadinejad said.
"I can tell you there will be a power vacuum in the region. We are ready with other regional countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and the people of Iraq, to fill this vacuum."
The United States has expressed its discomfort over the increasingly strong relationship between Iran and Baghdad.
Some western analysts have argued that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, helping Tehran to boost its influence in the region.
Ahmadinejad also scoffed at the notion of a US attack on his country dismissed a warning from his new French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, as a symptom of inexperience.
"There is no ... possibility of such an attack by the United States," Ahmadinejad told a news conference marked by his characteristic defiance.
"Even if they take such a decision, they cannot implement it," he said.
Sarkozy used a keynote foreign policy address on Monday to say the threat of sanctions coupled with an offer of dialogue was the only way of avoiding a "catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."
"He only recently came to power and wants to find a place for himself in the world," Ahmadinejad said of the French president. "He is still inexperienced, meaning that maybe he does not really understand the meaning of his own words."
'Iran is a nuclear nation'
The United States accuses Iran - OPEC's number two oil producer and owner of the second largest proven gas reserves in the world - of seeking to make nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy drive.
Iran insists that the drive is entirely peaceful and that its growing population will need nuclear power as fossil fuels start to run dry.
Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment - a sensitive process that can be used both to make nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons - has already seen it slapped with two sets of UN sanctions.
Washington has been pushing for tougher measures, but Ahmadinejad said Iran was now cooperating so well with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that more UN sanctions were unlikely.
"Not one member of the IAEA has cooperated as well as Iran. So from our point of view, Iran's nuclear case is closed. Iran is a nuclear nation and has the nuclear fuel cycle," he said.
A deal reached between Iran and the IAEA last week sets out a detailed timetable for Tehran to answer outstanding questions about its atomic drive, but does not tackle the key sticking point over whether Iran should suspend uranium enrichment activities.
The US envoy to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, has dismissed the plan as having "real limitations," and claimed that Iran "is clearly trying to distract attention from its continued development of bomb-making capability."
Schulte insisted that the United States would continue pushing for a third round of sanctions, which diplomats said Washington wanted to happen in September.
======================
ARTICLE 2/2
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html
Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran08/28/2007 @ 11:04 amFiled by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.
AdvertisementThe paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.
"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.
Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.
The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.
US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.
US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.
Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.
The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.
The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability."
Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:
This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.
However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.
"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed."
Military Strategy
The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons.
In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.
Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack.
British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy."
The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software.Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:
A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.Experts question the report's conclusions
Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.
"The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.
"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are."
There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."
"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."
John Pike, Director of Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.
"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote Pike in an email.
Political Considerations
Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:
This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. ...
The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else. ...
We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit."
And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful' and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."
Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com
Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.
=============================
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3443276,00.html
Bush warns of 'holocaust' if Iran gets nukes
US president also demands Tehran end support for extremists in Iraq. 'Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime, to impose economic sanctions,' he tells American Legion veterans groupAFP
US President George W Bush on Tuesday raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust" in the Middle East if Israel's arch-foe Iran gets atomic weapons, and demanded that Tehran end support for extremists in Iraq.
"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime, to impose economic sanctions," he told the American Legion veterans group.
On Collision Path France's Sarkozy raises prospect of Iran airstrikes / Reuters In his first major foreign policy speech, French president says diplomatic push by world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program is only alternative to 'Iranian bomb or bombing of Iran' Full story "We will confront this danger before it is too late," vowed Bush, who has pressed for tougher international sanctions and said he hopes for a diplomatic solution but has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of force.
Bush, whose speech was billed a defense of US efforts in Iraq, also said Tehran must starve Shiite fighters in Iraq of weapons, equipment and training whether or not Iran's leaders know about such operations and have given their blessing.
"Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis," he said, as the White House warned in a statement that Iran must act "at once."
Bush also strongly defended US-led efforts in Iraq and especially his decision in January to send another 30,000 US troops there, describing the unpopular conflict as the central front against Iran and al-Qaeda.
"The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of al-Qaeda and Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq," he declared.
Bush said there were "unmistakable signs" that the US troop "surge" was paying off with lower levels of violence and local efforts at quieting bloody sectarian conflict and downplayed the failure by the government in Baghdad to post concrete progress on national reconciliation.
"Iraq's leaders aren't perfect, but they were elected by their people," he said. "And leaders in Washington need to look for ways to help our Iraqi allies succeed, not excuses for abandoning them."
Iran: There will be a power vacuum in region
Shortly before Bush spoke, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran and neighboring countries were ready to fill the "power vacuum" emerging in the Middle East as US power in Iraq wanes.
"You (the United States) cannot preserve your power over Iraq with a few tanks, artillery and weapons. Today, you are prisoners of your own quagmire. You have no choice but to accept the rights of the Iraqi people," Ahmadinejad said.
"I can tell you there will be a power vacuum in the region. We are ready with other regional countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and the people of Iraq, to fill this vacuum."
The United States has expressed its discomfort over the increasingly strong relationship between Iran and Baghdad.
Some western analysts have argued that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, helping Tehran to boost its influence in the region.
Ahmadinejad also scoffed at the notion of a US attack on his country dismissed a warning from his new French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, as a symptom of inexperience.
"There is no ... possibility of such an attack by the United States," Ahmadinejad told a news conference marked by his characteristic defiance.
"Even if they take such a decision, they cannot implement it," he said.
Sarkozy used a keynote foreign policy address on Monday to say the threat of sanctions coupled with an offer of dialogue was the only way of avoiding a "catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."
"He only recently came to power and wants to find a place for himself in the world," Ahmadinejad said of the French president. "He is still inexperienced, meaning that maybe he does not really understand the meaning of his own words."
'Iran is a nuclear nation'
The United States accuses Iran - OPEC's number two oil producer and owner of the second largest proven gas reserves in the world - of seeking to make nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy drive.
Iran insists that the drive is entirely peaceful and that its growing population will need nuclear power as fossil fuels start to run dry.
Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment - a sensitive process that can be used both to make nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons - has already seen it slapped with two sets of UN sanctions.
Washington has been pushing for tougher measures, but Ahmadinejad said Iran was now cooperating so well with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that more UN sanctions were unlikely.
"Not one member of the IAEA has cooperated as well as Iran. So from our point of view, Iran's nuclear case is closed. Iran is a nuclear nation and has the nuclear fuel cycle," he said.
A deal reached between Iran and the IAEA last week sets out a detailed timetable for Tehran to answer outstanding questions about its atomic drive, but does not tackle the key sticking point over whether Iran should suspend uranium enrichment activities.
The US envoy to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, has dismissed the plan as having "real limitations," and claimed that Iran "is clearly trying to distract attention from its continued development of bomb-making capability."
Schulte insisted that the United States would continue pushing for a third round of sanctions, which diplomats said Washington wanted to happen in September.
======================
ARTICLE 2/2
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html
Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran08/28/2007 @ 11:04 amFiled by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.
AdvertisementThe paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.
"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.
Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.
The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.
US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.
US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.
Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.
The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.
The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability."
Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:
This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.
However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.
"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed."
Military Strategy
The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons.
In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.
Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack.
British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy."
The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software.Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:
A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.Experts question the report's conclusions
Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.
"The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.
"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are."
There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."
"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."
John Pike, Director of Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.
"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote Pike in an email.
Political Considerations
Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:
This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. ...
The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else. ...
We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit."
And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful' and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."
Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com
Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.
=============================
Aug 25, 2007
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.html
White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official
13:58
20/ 07/ 2007
WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.
Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."
"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.
Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.
According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."
Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.
"They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said.
The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.
===============
White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official
13:58
20/ 07/ 2007
WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.
Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."
"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.
Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.
According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."
Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.
"They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said.
The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.
===============
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
