Wednesday, August 10, 2005

More Speculation on Iran

The problem with the neocons is that stuff like this is completely plausible.

August 10, 2005 -- U.S. prepared to grab Iran's southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. According to sources within the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst - BND), the Bush administration has drawn up plans to hit Iran's nuclear, other WMD, and military sites with heavy saturation bombing using bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons. The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People's Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups.


Well, if it actually happens you read it here first.

Wayne Madsen Report

36 Comments:

Blogger truthseeker said...

Who's Behind the Coming War with Iran?

Who's Behind the Coming War with Iran?

8/10/2005 11:44:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Cindy Sheehan's letter to Nightline about PNAC Neocon cabal

Cindy Sheehan's letter to Nightline about PNAC Neocon cabal

8/11/2005 11:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newsweek article on "wargaming the Mullahs" - Pentagon wargames about bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, which always end up with escalation of the conflict:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/.

Interestingly, the Japanese Navy also wargamed the battle of Midway. The results were eerily prescient - the games always ended with the Jap carriers on the bottom of the Pacific. But the wargamers were afraid of what the admirals might think, so they changed the rules unrealistically to provide for a different outcome. You know what really happened. Deja vu, anyone?

8/11/2005 01:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[b]Envoys: Iran Faces Sept. Deadline on Nukes [/b]

By SUSANNA LOOF, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 4 minutes ago



The U.N. nuclear watchdog expressed "serious concern" Thursday over Iran's resumption of activities that could lead to an atomic bomb, and diplomats said Tehran has a Sept. 3 deadline to stop or face another possible referral to the Security Council.

Iran, showing the defiance it has increasingly displayed since its new president was inaugurated last weekend, responded with indignation. Tehran's chief delegate here vowed that Iran would become a nuclear fuel producer and supplier within a decade.

"This resolution is political," said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, according to the state-run news agency. "It comes from American pressure. ... It lacks any legal or logical basis and is unacceptable."

The topic of the International Atomic Energy Agency resolution, adopted by consensus by its 35-nation board, was Iran's move Wednesday to reopen its uranium conversion plant in the mountains outside the southern city of Isfahan.

With the plant now working at full force, Iran's hard-liners are pushing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to ignore European warnings and resume uranium enrichment.

Mohammad Javad Larijani, a member of Iran's powerful Expediency Council, said the transfer of power to Ahmadinejad has given the country an opportunity to change the rules of the game.

He called France, Germany and Britain — the countries negotiating with Iran — "three international savages" and said any debate over enrichment is "shameful."

Starting up the enrichment facility, a plant built mainly underground outside the city of Natanz to protect it from airstrikes, would heighten tensions with Europe and the United States. Enrichment is the final step in uranium development, producing either fuel for a nuclear reactor for electricity or material for a nuclear bomb.

Iran denies it seeks to develop nuclear weapons and says its program is only for peaceful purposes. But Tehran insists it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop the full fuel cycle, including enrichment.

"Any government in Iran that gives up nuclear technology will collapse since the issue has turned into a matter of national pride. There is no doubt that Natanz will resume work sooner rather than later," said Ahmad Tavakoli, a lawmaker allied with Ahmadinejad.

President Bush, meeting at his Texas ranch with his foreign policy team, welcomed the nuclear agency's warning to Tehran. He also indicated Ahmadinejad will receive a U.S. visa to attend an annual United Nations gathering next month in New York.

After the meeting, National Security Adviser Steve Hadley met with reporters and noted that president of Iran indicated that there could be more talks.

"We think that is the right step, to have — for Iran to come back into compliance with the Paris Accord, and to resume the negotiations and discussions with the EU-3," he said.

Britain's Foreign Office said the IAEA resolution "sends a clear message to Iran of what it must do. We still believe there is a non-confrontational way forward if Iran wants to take it."

In Vienna, the nuclear agency asked IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to deliver a report on Iran's implementation of nuclear safeguards by Sept. 3. Diplomats made clear that insufficient progress by that date could mean the board would consider referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by their governments to discuss the issue.

Thursday's resolution did not mention the Security Council, given concerns such a move could backfire by hardening Iran's position. Iran had said it would rather endure sanctions than back down.

Security Council diplomats in New York say the IAEA may also be wary of referring Iran to the council because there is a real risk the body would not agree to sanctions. China, for example, has said it opposes bringing the issue before the council, and could use its veto power to block a resolution punishing Iran.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the IAEA "has spoken with one voice" and he expects its resolution to be implemented, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said at U.N. headquarters in New York.

The board's next scheduled meeting is Sept. 19, but members can call emergency meetings at any time. This week's meetings were called by France, Germany and Britain after Iran announced it planned to resume uranium conversion.

Iran had suspended that process and the subsequent enrichment process under an agreement with the three European Union countries.

Tehran saw the text adopted Thursday as unacceptable because it would bar it from enrichment and other related activities that are allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, said Sirus Nasseri, the country's chief IAEA delegate.

"All Iran wants to do is to enjoy the right under the NPT, the right which has been denied to it for more than two decades," he said.

He said his country would be a "nuclear fuel producer and supplier within a decade" and dismissed the resolution as an attempt "to apply pressure."

But he also told reporters the Iranians did "not leave the door closed to (the Europeans)" and would, for now, keep the enrichment process suspended "to give a chance for negotiations."

"If they wish to negotiate on the enrichment facility in Natanz and how we would put it into operation through an agreed arrangement, we would consider (it)," he said.

ElBaradei said he was "very encouraged" by statements from the EU and Iran that the talks would continue.

EU envoys said the burden was now on Iran to keep talks alive.

"A breakdown will be a matter of regret to the EU, because the EU hoped that it could persuade Iran to take measures that might lead to a restoration of international confidence in Iran's nuclear intentions," the statement said. "But the EU is confident that another way of making possible the necessary restoration of confidence in Iran's nuclear intentions can be found.

___

Associated Press writer Ali Akbar Dareini contributed to this report from Natanz, Iran.

___

On the Net:

IAEA: http://www.iaea.org

8/11/2005 08:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see the Zionist slime machine is trying to swift boat Cindy. But the troops are arriving in Crawford, toot sweet. The more they slime, the more the war dead moms get angry. I do believe they perceive a wee threat, there.

8/12/2005 11:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I don't know anyone in the pro-Israel community who is particularly concerned or interested in the Sheehan affair. Some people may have grumbled that she has fallen for the "this was for Israel" line. But no one is "swifting" her. Plenty of Bush partisans are, and pointing out her unfortunate statements that somehow blame Israel, but trust me, I know no one who really thinks this is a threat or a concern. She's a woman who lost her son, she can be upset.

8/12/2005 08:25:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Cindy Sheehan to ABC's 'Nightline': War in Iraq was for Israel



The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

8/12/2005 11:17:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Bush threatens use of force against Iran for Israel:

Bush threatens use of force against Iran for Israel

Whose War?

Whose War?

8/13/2005 12:18:00 AM  
Anonymous r said...

I am just thinking out loud here, after reading around the neo world tonight so won't include any links to their latest rants because you would have to read long articles to get my drift...

But...about that backlash..the one that always comes back to haunt extremist and zeaolts?

Well...it's making it's way slowly but surely...like a double edged sword twirling through the air.

Ask yourself why the neo's would be upset all of a sudden about Blairs new laws on deporting "extremist"..or Bush's new name for the war on militant Islam terrorist morphing to "War on Extremist" instead.

Applying Blairs standards on "extremist" and Clerics and people "inciting hate" would put people like Daniel Pipes and Michael Ledeen and dozens of other menbers of that sect including some extreme Rabbis on the deportee list along with radical Muslims pdq...

So now the Pipes and Charen's and Ledeens are decrying the Europeans new extremism laws, saying how fortunate they are to be in America where they can't be deported for inciting hatred of Muslims...LOL...of course they don't put it that way but there it is...ony a hop, skip and jump from one extremist to another in our new "War On Extremism" heh,heh...and oh yes.. they have taken a very severe dislike to the expanded wire tapping and spy provisions in Patriot Act...since they also might get caught in the net on their way to druming up a war with Iran.

And their fellow war monger Cheney, they have discovered is really only interested in the mid east where it concerns big money, big business and big oil..surprise, surprise.

All they have left is congress, whose approval rating in the polls doesn't even register any more.

8/13/2005 12:40:00 AM  
Anonymous r said...

truthseeker said...
Who's Behind the Coming War with Iran?

I keep telling myself we can't possibily be this stupid..but I said that before we invaded Iraq too..so I seem to underestimate both the stupidy and the vileness of the USAIsrMafia corp.

If we attack Iran, even on the pretense of another terror attack and especially if we use nukes..and that would be the only way we would subdue Iran enough to control it...the US is finished...done..kuput.

I hear New Zealand is nice.

8/13/2005 01:08:00 AM  
Anonymous r said...

EU has few options as Iran talks near collapse By Madeline Chambers
Fri Aug 12,11:40 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - European negotiators have few options left to persuade Iran to halt sensitive atomic work and may have to come to terms with Tehran pursuing its nuclear program, as two years of talks inch toward breakdown.

European Union diplomats say privately Iran's resumption of sensitive nuclear work this week all but ends its talks with the trio of Britain, France and Germany, which have been trying to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb.

"It is very difficult to see this process being relaunched without Iran having a major change of heart and from where I'm standing that looks unlikely," said one EU diplomat.

Tehran's rejection of the latest EU proposals prompted the bloc to hand the case to the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which on Thursday demanded Iran resume its freeze on nuclear work.

With a possible referral to the U.N. Security Council looming, a move that could lead to sanctions, some analysts say a changed climate in Iran since June's presidential election has made it more difficult to assess Tehran's intentions.

Iran, which has employed brinkmanship tactics throughout the EU talks, has adopted a tougher stance since the election of conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Europe fears may usher in an era of harsher anti-Western sentiment.

However, diplomats are unsure if Iran's resumption of nuclear fuel work is a negotiating ploy or a new approach.

Few analysts doubt Iranian determination to develop a nuclear program, whether purely civilian or otherwise.

"The reality is Iran will have a nuclear program," said Wyn Bowen of Kings College, London. "At least the EU diplomacy has stalled it by two years."

Tehran denies Western accusations that its atomic program is a front for covert bomb-making and says it needs nuclear power to cope with booming electricity demand.

The EU tried to woo Iran into halting nuclear work with economic incentives and offers of access to power while threatening a referral to the U.N. Security Council.

However, the carrot-and-stick approach proved unsuccessful because only Washington could offer the deals and technology Iran wanted while also posing a real military threat.

WHAT NEXT?

The next step comes on September 3 when IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports on Iran.

If it continues to defy global demands, another IAEA meeting will be held and Europe and Washington will push for a Security Council referral, not mentioned in Thursday's resolution.

London says there is a "non-confrontational way forward" but only if Iran again suspends all its nuclear fuel activity.

Amid fears Iran will not oblige, frantic diplomacy is under way to bolster the EU position.

"We are now working to ensure Iran stays in the doghouse and are building support for a Security Council referral," said one EU diplomat.

However, Western diplomats are not confident China and Russia would back any U.N. sanctions against Tehran, in which case the EU might impose its own.

In the long run, several analysts predict a return to negotiation, if only because the stakes are so high.

"Diplomacy will return at some point because no one wants Iran to have an unfettered nuclear program," said Marc Leonard of London's Center for European Reform.

Analysts say Iran, as a matter of national pride, wants to avoid a Security Council referral. To that end it, unlike North Korea, has cooperated with the IAEA.

Even Washington, which takes a harder line, has expressed willingness to give talks more time. Few analysts believe the United States, bogged down in Iraq, is about to launch attacks on Iranian facilities or even to sanction Israeli strikes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This part is interesting:

"However, the carrot-and-stick approach proved unsuccessful because only Washington could offer the deals and technology Iran wanted while also posing a real military threat."

Huummm...so? Will the US stall, will it dicker and give Iran some of the tech it wants from the US because we can't successfully invade Iran while bogged down in Iraq (and here at home). While the neos are flogging away for war are the new WH powers letting it all twist in the wind until they can find a way out?

How much does Condi's new show of hard lineness on Israel's withdrawal from Palestine have to do with Iran?

8/13/2005 02:54:00 AM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

See the latest Associated Press article just added to the top of the following message thread

Bush threatens Iran with force for Israel

8/13/2005 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

JINSA Israel firsters: Iraq Down, Iran Left to Go

8/13/2005 12:02:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Iran builds uranium enrichment facility while negotiating with EU

8/13/2005 10:27:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

NYT...

WHY "GREATER ISRAEL" NEVER CAME TO BE

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14
/weekinreview/14bron.html


...good article..even if it does repeat what everyone with any common sense knew...basically, not enough Jews moved to Israel and the Palestines didn't give up..

I guess Sharon and the zionist, hard as they try, can't drum up quite enough anti-semitism to make enough Jews flee to Israel..LOL

8/13/2005 10:31:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Zionist 'Attack Dogs' Savage Cindy Sheehan

8/14/2005 12:21:00 AM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Is JINSA Israel first operative John Bolton the unnamed individual in the AIPAC scandal?:

"A source close to the defense said that one of the U.S. officials involved, who has not been indicted, was recently appointed to a senior Bush administration post. The source, who asked not to be identified, would not name the official"


http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news/usnews/?disp_feature=xETxtD.var


"Bolton has had a long-standing sympathy for Israel and has taken pains to develop friendships with Israeli officials. One of his close Israeli friends is Ron Prossor, the director-general of the Foreign Ministry, who served previously in Washington. "

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=611141


"Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz, in late February,

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds."

Whose War (Israel's War)?
_________________

The Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1947-1948 - http://www.robincmiller.com/pales2.htm

News - http://www.astandforjustice.org

---------------------------------



Treason at a high leval: Pentagon Zionists, AIPAC and Israel

8/14/2005 12:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting article on unknown costs of Israel' settlements program:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-14-israelsettlercosts_x.htm

8/14/2005 03:14:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

The AP article from USA Today was good. (No chance that it is going to be widely picked up.)

The issue of whether AIPAC should be registered as the agent of a foreign government hinges on whether it represents the interests of Israel, or whether it represents the interests of American citizens.

So when Washington told Israel that our loan guarantees would be reduced dollar for dollar for any Israeli settlement spending, and when, in 2003, we negotiated the amount to be used for this reduction, who did we negotiate it with? AIPAC!!!!

And yet AIPAC keeps claiming that it really represents the interests of American citizens. Yeah.

8/14/2005 04:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The issue of whether AIPAC should be registered as the agent of a foreign government hinges on whether it represents the interests of Israel, or whether it represents the interests of American citizens."

This is incorrect. The issue of whether AIPAC should be registered as the agent of a foreign principal (one can be a foreign agent for an entity other than a government) is whether it acts at the direction of the Israeli government or some other foreign principal. Supporting Israel or supporting a strong America-Israel alliance is not the same thing as acting under the direction of Israel. Nor is acting as a liaison or consulting with Israel to gauge its views.

It is not necessary to receive payment or be salaried by the foreign principal, although that is almost always who the law is directed at. But the key is acting at their direction, not simply believing that supporting Israel is a good thing.

8/14/2005 06:18:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

So if a lobby were (hypothetically) to work against the interests of the U.S. and work FOR the interests of a foreign government (say by pressuring for funds to be sent which were beyond the amount legally specified), you would not want them to be registered? As long as they promise they are doing it on their own initiative and not the direction of Ariel Sharon?

What to you would constitute evidence that they ARE working under the direction of Tel Aviv?

8/14/2005 06:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, I'm sorry the law doesn't follow your desire to silence those who believe we should support Israel.

As I said last time, a foreign agent is usually hired by a foreign principal to lobby. Now the law does not REQUIRE that one be paid by the agent, but that's the obvious connection. However, simply advocating support for the Israeli government does not make one a foreign agent.

Put it this way. Most people here reflexively take the pro Palestinian /Arab League position. If you call your Congressman to advocate for that position, does that make you a "foreign agent?" I certainly don't think so.

8/14/2005 07:24:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that the Israeli lobby is not PAID by Israel. By your own admission it's irrelevant. We already know that the donations flow in the opposite direction. (Hell, it's even tax-exempt, so we all get to subsidize it.) So you still haven't answered just what you would consider evidence of "acting at their direction", assuming the AP story doesn't convince you.

I don't see the point of your analogy to me as an individual contacting my congressman. Registering a lobby group as a foreign agent is a matter of requiring more transparency in its sources and uses of funds, and government contacts. No more of this "nightflower" crap.

8/14/2005 08:14:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

Whether AIPAC has to register as a foreign agency or not..even though they should have to...probably isn't going to be the most important thing in the long run...

The FBI has a hard on for these buggers and sooner or later..combined with so many investigations going on...and the increasing awareness about the neo's network and on going questions about the adm's lies about 911 and Iraq...the whole Jewish/Israeli/Neo/Chickenhawk thing in this country is going to blow up..

Listening to C-span discussion this morning it was amazing how many people called in to express their doubts about Israel & USA relations as it concerns the Mid East...people are definitely catching on at least to the $$$ ponzi scheme...the pro Israeli callers seemed to be mostly Jews from Flordia with family over in Israel and a few others were what I can only describe as bible quoting little old red neck ladies ....one even started reading bible verses on air..gawd!

Meanwhile...the FBI threw Abramoff in the clunker because they thought he going to run to Israel..

Newsweek
Aug. 22, 2005 issue - The Justice Department played hardball last week with former superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, in part because of concerns he might flee to Israel. Hours before Abramoff was indicted on fraud charges in Miami last Thursday, FBI agents tried to arrest him at his Maryland home. But he'd already left for Los Angeles. Agents tracked him down on his cell phone and ordered him to surrender to the local FBI office. When Abramoff did, later that day, he was handcuffed, thrown into jail, then released last Friday on a $2.2 million bond.

Abramoff's treatment contrasted with that given his codefendant, Adam Kidan, who was allowed to show up in court on his own. A senior Justice official says one reason was that some of Abramoff's friends and former colleagues have moved to Israel. "There was concern he could relocate to another country," says the official, who asked not to be identified because the matter involves a pending case.

8/14/2005 08:27:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1123986010419

I never cease to be amazed..at articles like this. Here a guy who complains about jews being veiwed with suspicion in DOD and State Dep jobs and then goes on to say.."what jew could resist the temptation to send classified info to Israel if it concerned Israel".

And once again we see the total utter stupidy of delusions...accusing the US of anti-semitism in certain government jobs and then saying of course jews would/should spy to help Israel...LOL

Anyone who wants to understand the effect that "cultism" has on a brain only needs to read the illogical contortions these types go through to justify themselves..when everything they write only ends up proving the correctness of the suspicions of dual loyalty they are complaining about.

8/14/2005 10:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I never cease to be amazed..at articles like this. Here a guy who complains about jews being veiwed with suspicion in DOD and State Dep jobs and then goes on to say.."what jew could resist the temptation to send classified info to Israel if it concerned Israel"."

Except he didn't say that.

He merely pointed out the malice and desperation of the FBI. Eager to catch Rosen and Weizman, they concoct a story about lives being iminently at risk, so that any delay could lead to death.

Tommy Lapid is by no means a fundamentalist. He is a member of the secular Shinui party. A bit of a loudmouth, but not extreme in any regard.

He simply is pointing out that far from having a "Zionist Occupied Government," the federal bureaucracy has several members that are hostile to Israel, and that have created unwritten rules which prevent Jews from advancing very far.

David, I bring up the issue of payment because that is what the laws regulating foreign agents usually cover. I understand you don't like being shown up for your lack of knowledge of both the facts and the law. But you'll be a better man for learning from your mistakes.

8/15/2005 07:20:00 AM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Cindy Sheehan was right about PNAC Neocon cabal: Cheney's Man Slated to Replace Feith at Pentagon


Will the leak of Valerie Plame take down the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon cabal out of Cheney's office

8/15/2005 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/15/2005 12:43:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/15/2005 12:45:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/15/2005 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How Bush would gain from war with Iran

8/15/2005 12:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The USAF Counterproliferation Center has estimated that Israel has over 400 deliverable nuclear weapons,

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

8/15/2005 04:04:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Is this Iran Crisis for Real?:

Is this Iran Crisis for Real?

8/15/2005 09:06:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

anonymous...you are going to have to post something resembling the turth or I am going to have to start ignoring you....

Here is the exact quote:

"To appreciate the degree of malice in this FBI "sting" one must ask why the FBI fabricated a temptation no Jew could resist: warning Israel that Muslim terrorists "

The operative..and give away words being...." a temptation NO Jew could resist: warning Israel".

8/15/2005 11:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jewish (Israel first) US diplomat involved with AIPAC espionage case

8/19/2005 01:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Russia Opposes Use Of Force Against Iran

8/19/2005 01:29:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home