Iran says 'no' to suspending enrichment (Associated Press) 18 minutes
ago
An Iranian official says his country will refuse requests to freeze
its uranium enrichment program in exchange for a pledge of no new U.N.
Security Council sanctions.
Keyvan Imani's comments cast doubt on the success of talks between
senior envoys from Iran and the six countries trying to persuade it to
compromise on its nuclear program.
The six nations hope Iran will agree to stop expanding its uranium
enrichment program. In exchange, they offer to hold off pu****ng for
new U.N. Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
But Imani, speaking to re****ters shortly after the talks began
Saturday, said there was no chance Iran would suspend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------
Iran Shows Its Cards
http://www.truthdig.com/re****t/item/20080714_iran_shows_its_cards/
Posted on Jul 14, 2008
By Scott Ritter
There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S.
and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors,
pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a pre-
emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing
its nuclear-related infrastructure, as well as retarding Iran=92s
ability to train and equip =93terrorist=94 forces on Iranian soil before
dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me, have
warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has
demonstrated why an attack would be insane.
I=92ve always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the
enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy
gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on
Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast
its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and
rockets, in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. ****pping
through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and
U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be
subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran was attacked.
The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display
as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran
is. But the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For
some time now, the admirals commanding the U.S. 5th Fleet in the
Persian Gulf have maintained that they have the ability to keep the
Strait of Hormuz open. But the fact is, the only way the United States
could guarantee that the strait remained open would be to launch a
massive pre-emptive military strike that swept the Iranian coast clear
of the deadly Chinese-made surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would
use to sink cargo ****ps in the strategic lane. This strike would
involve hundreds of tactical aircraft backed up by limited ground
action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations forces which would
involve =93boots on the ground=94 for several days, if not weeks. Such a
strike is not envisioned in any =93limited=94 military action being
planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the
Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a
=93limited=94 military attack on Iran.
The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of
Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and
industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including
the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates
and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait, large=97fixed and
well known=97 would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying deadly
cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of
millions, if not into billions, of dollars, and hundreds, if not
thousands, of U.S. military personnel would be killed and wounded.
To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States
would have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special
Operations forces, to a counter-missile fight which would need to span
the considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles
might reach potential targets. While there has been some improvement
in the U.S. military=92s counter-missile capability, one must never
forget that in 1991 not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully
interdicted by any aspect of American military action (airstrike,
ground action or antiballistic missile), and in 2003 the U.S. military
had mixed results against the far less capable Al-Samoud missiles.
Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah from firing large salvos of
rockets into northern Israel during the summer 2006 conflict. There is
no reason for optimism that the U.S. and Israel have suddenly found
the solution to the Iranian missile threat.
There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent
Iran from interfering with ****pping through the strait. There is every
chance the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ****ps lost
and personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait.
There would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to
guarantee safe passage for all ****pping, civilian and military alike.
The longer ground forces could operate on Iranian soil, the better the
chances Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict
****pping. Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian
soil, the greater likelihood there would be of decisive ground
engagement. With U.S. air power expected to be fully committed to the
missile interdiction mission, any large-scale ground engagement would
create a situation in which air power would have to be redirected into
tactical sup****t, and away from missile interdiction, creating a
window of vulnerability which the Iranians would very likely
exploit.
Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if
Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli
involvement is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful
fa****on Israel would need to fly in Iraqi air space, a violation of
sovereignty the Iraqi government will never tolerate. The anti-
American backlash that would be generated in Iraq would be immediate
and severe. In short, virtually every operation involving the training
of Iraqi forces would be terminated as the U.S. military trainers
would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the fortified U.S. bases
to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian contractors would likewise
need to be either withdrawn completely from Iraq or restricted to the
fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been made in the =93surge=94
would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi countryside would
become a seething mass of anti-American activity, which would require
a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be. Iraq as we now know it
would be lost, and what would emerge in its stead would not only be
unsympathetic to the United States but actually a breeding ground for
anti-American action that could very well expand beyond the boundaries
of Iraq and the Middle East.
The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a
U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially
showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting
an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran which would in turn bring
long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.
Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European
and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil
would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the
resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent
that most are predicting, there is a good chance oil would top $500 or
even more within days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost certainly
strike every market-based economy, and the markets themselves would
collapse under the strain.
The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are
cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American
power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how
Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear
facilities or bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard Command,
some planners might have thought that the U.S. could actually pull off
a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that Iran has made it
crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would bring about a
massive Iranian response, all military planners now understand that
any U.S. military attack will have to be massive. Simply put, the
United States does not now have the military capacity in the Middle
East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of U.S. forces into
the region could not go undetected, either by Iran, which would in
turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world. Because a U.S.
attack against Iran would have such horrific detrimental impact on the
entire world, it is hard to imagine the international community
remaining mute as American military might is assembled.
Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent
on the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it
would become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore
the consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and
politically. The same can be said of both major presidential
candidates. The decision by Iran to show its hand on how it would
respond to any American aggression has cleared the air, so to speak,
about what is actually being discussed when one speaks of military
action against Iran. In many ways, the Iranian missile tests have made
it less likely that there will be a war with Iran, simply because the
stakes of any such action are so plainly obvious to all parties
involved.
Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to
pursue a nuclear program which is exclusively intended for peaceful
energy purposes. Any concerns which may exist about the dual-use
potential of Iran=92s uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated
through viable nuclear inspections conducted by the International
Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA inspections should be improved upon by
getting Iran to go along with an additional inspection protocol,
rather than pursuing military action which will destroy the inspection
process and remove the very verification processes which provide the
international community with the confidence that Iran is not pursuing
a nuclear weapons program.
The reality is that Iran=92s nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has
every right under international law to pursue this program, and
regional and global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the
price of oil) if American policies, and in related fa****on U.N.
Security Council mandates, were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoia=97
derived not so much from any genuine Iranian threat but rather an
affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East=97must in turn be
subdued. This can be done through a mixture of international pressure
designed to punish Israel diplomatically and economically for any
failure to adhere to international norms when it comes to peaceful
coexistence with its neighbors, and international assurances that
Israel=92s sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will forever be
respected and defended.
Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought
to bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the
crux of the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate
national security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the pro-
Israel lobby will have considerable control over American national
security policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee=92s
continued push for congressional action concerning the implementation
of what is tantamount to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act
of war) by pu****ng House Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580 is
mind-boggling given the reality of the situation. Congress must stop
talking blockade, and start discussing stability and confidence-
building measures.
There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to
conduct serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings
must not replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate
and House in the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a
facilitating vehicle for war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the
body of witnesses beyond administration officials and those who would
mirror their policy positions, and include experts and specialists who
could articulate a counter point of view, exposing Congress to
information and analysis that might prompt a fuller debate. This is
the last thing AIPAC and the Bush administration want to see. But it
is the one thing the American people should be demanding.
Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as
viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and
current policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush
administration can be considered rational when it comes to the issue
of Iran. It is up to the American people, through their elected
representatives in Congress, to inject a modi*** of sanity into a
situation that continues to be in danger of spinning out of control.
Scott Ritter was a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998.
He is the author of =93Target Iran=94 (Nation Books, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------
Ron Paul: "Some Big Events Are About To Occur"
http://www.granitebaypt.com/detail/89027.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------
Israel Planning a September/October Surprise?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20300.htm
By Ray McGovern
17/07/08 "ICH" -- -You say you expected more rhetoric than reality
from Senators Obama and McCain yesterday in their speeches on Iraq and
Afghanistan? Well, that=92s certainly what you got.
What I find nonetheless amazing is how they, and the pundits, have
taken such little notice of the dramatic change in the political
landscape occasioned by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki=92s
bombshell on July 7 =97 his insistence on a =93timetable=94 for withdrawal
of US troops before any accord is reached on their staying past the
turn of the year.
Responding to a question at his press conference yesterday, President
George W. Bush showed that he was vaguely aware that the timetable is,
as Robert Dreyfuss says (in Truthout, July 7), a =93big deal.=94 Bush even
alluded haltingly to the possibility of extending the UN mandate still
further.
But it is far from clear that Maliki, who is under great domestic
pressure, would be able to sell that to the various factions upon
which he depends for sup****t, much less to those which he must keep at
bay. As Dreyfuss points out, Maliki and his ****ite allies are also
under considerable pressure from Iran, which remains the chief ally of
the ruling alliance of ****ites. Most im****tant, Maliki is by no means
in control of what happens next.
Israel
Here=92s where it gets sticky. No one who knows about third rails in US
politics would expect the candidates or the fawning cor****ate media
(FCM) to address how those now running Israel are likely to be looking
at the implications of a large US troop withdrawal from Iraq next
year.
I am remembering how I was pilloried on June 16, 2005, immediately
after Congressman John Conyers=92 rump-Judiciary Committee hearing in
the bowels of the Capitol, for a candid answer to a question from one
of his colleagues; i. e., if the invasion of Iraq was not about WMD,
and not about non-existent ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, then why
did we attack?
In answer, I used the acronym OIL. O for oil; I for Israel; and L for
Logistics, meaning the military bases deemed by neoconservatives as
necessary to protect both. Neither the House members present nor the
media people seemed to have any problem with oil and military bases as
factors-in itself an interesting commentary.
However, the suggestion that one main motive was an attempt to make
that part of the Middle East safer for Israel (yes, folks, the neocons
really thought that attacking Iraq would do that) =97 well, that was
anathema.
As it is anathema today to suggest that this is still one of the main
reasons, besides oil, that Elliott Abrams, other neocons =97 not to
mention Vice President Dick Cheney and his team =97 insist we must stay,
Maliki and his associates be damned. (See the cartoon in the
Wa****ngton Times today showing Maliki and words telling him =93We are
NOT leaving.=94)
Here in Wa****ngton we can sit back and quibble over the implications
of such remarks by Maliki and other Iraqi leaders. The Israelis have
to take such statements seriously. No agreement on US forces staying
into 2009 without a timetable for withdrawal? For Tel Aviv, this is
getting very serious.
My guess is the Israeli leaders are apoplectic. The fiasco in Iraq
clearly has made the region much more dangerous for Israel. There are
actually real =93terrorists=94 and =93extremists=94 now in Iraq, and the
prospect of US troops leaving has got to be a cause of acute concern
in Tel Aviv.
Keeping the US Entangled: Iran
This dramatic change =97 or even just the specter of it =97 greatly
increases Israel=92s incentive to ensure the kind of US involvement in
the area that would have to endure for several years. The Israelis
need to create =93facts on the ground=94 =97 something to guarantee that
Wa****ngton will stand by what U.S. candidates, including Sen. Obama,
call =93our ally.=94 (Never mind that there is no mutual US-Israel defense
treaty.) Israel is all too painfully aware that it has only six more
months of Bush and Cheney.
The legislation drafted by the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) being so zealously promoted in Congress calls for
the equivalent of a blockade of Iran. That would be one way to
entangle; there are many others.
The point is that the growing danger that the Israelis perceive will
probably prompt them to find a way to get the US involved in
hostilities with Iran. Cheney and Bush have pretty much given them
that license, with the president regularly pledging to defend =93our
ally=94 if Israel is attacked.
All Israel has to do is to arrange to be attacked. Not a problem.
There are endless possibilities among which Israel can choose to
catalyze such a confrontation =97 with or without a wink and a nod from
Cheney and Abrams. The so-called =93amber light=94 said to have been given
to the Israelis is, I believe, already seen as quite sufficient; they
are not likely to feel a need to wait until it turns green.
So far, the resistance of U.S. senior military has been the only real
obstacle to the madness of hostilities with Iran. (And one need only
read Scott Ritter=92s article on Truthdig this week to get a sense for
why they would be chary.)
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, has been described
as warning the Israelis that a =93Third Front=94 in the Middle East would
be a disaster. I think, rather, he was trying to warn anyone who might
listen in Wa****ngton, including until now tone-deaf lawmakers.
Even if the pundits are correct in suggesting that Mullen is joined by
Defense Secretary Robert Gates in trying to resist the neocons and
Cheney, Mullen=92s tone at his press conference two weeks ago suggested
he is fighting a rear guard action-against the =93crazies=94 in the White
House, as well as those in Tel Aviv. And when is the last time the
crazies lost a political battle with such implications for Israel?
Mullen had just returned from Tel Aviv. He appreciates better than
most the fecklessness of endless speculation over whether Israel or
the U.S. might strike Iran first. Even if the Israeli leaders have no
explicit assurances from the White House, they almost certainly
calculate that, once a casus belli is established, their friends in
Wa****ngton =97 and the troops they command =97 are likely to be committed
to the fray big time.
Seatbelts Please=85
Viewed from Tel Aviv it appears an increasingly threatening situation,
with more urgent need to =93embed=94 (so to speak) the United States even
more deeply in the region =97 in a confrontation involving both
countries with Iran.
A perfect storm is brewing:
=96 Petraeus ex Machina, with a record of doing Vice President Dick
Cheney=92s bidding, takes command of CENTCOM in September;
=96 Sen. McCain=92s numbers are likely to be in the toilet at that point
(because of the economy as much as anything else);
=96 McCain will be seen by the White House as the only candidate with
something to gain by a wider war (just as by another =93terrorist
incident=94);
=96 The Bush/Cheney months will be down to three;
=96 And Maliki will not be able to cave in to Wa****ngton on the timeline
requirement he has publicly set.
In sum, Israel is likely to be preparing a September/October surprise
designed to keep the US bogged down in Iraq and in the wider region by
provoking hostilities with Iran. And don=92t be surprised if it starts
as early as August. Israel=92s leaders may well plead for understanding
on the part of those U.S. officials not tipped off in advance,
claiming that they could not distinguish amber from green with their
night-vision goggles on.
Would they hesitate? Please tell me who=85just who is likely to turn on
the siren, pull them over, and even think of giving them a summons-
once the patrol car computer confirms their privileged licenses?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publi****ng arm of the
e***enical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Wa****ngton. A former
Army intelligence officer and CIA analyst, he is now on the Steering
Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A shorter version of this article appeared first on www.Consortiumnews.com
=2E
-----------------------------------------------------------
Access the youtube at the top of http://astandforjustice.org
to watch
how Pat Buchanan warned that Israel may trigger the coming war with
Iran in order to draw US into it (scroll down to the 'Farewell
Address' at the bottom of the following URL as well):
http://neoconzionistthreat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel should not be allowed to push US into a war with Iran:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=3D92592
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
|
