Bush preparing for war with Iran for Israel

-----Original Message-----

From: Laber, Natalie <Natalie.Laber@mail.house.gov>

Sent: Wed Aug 15 14:14:11 2007

Subject: Administration's Terrorist Labeling Is A Calculated Plan To

Set the Stage For War With Iran

For Immediate Release:

Contact: Natalie Laber (202) 225-5871 (o); (202) 365-1040 ©

Administration's Terrorist Labeling Is A Calculated Plan To Set the

Stage For War With Iran

WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 15, 2007) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-

OH) called the Administration's latest idea to label Iran's

Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization another

step in the lead-up to war with Iran.

"The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation

to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is

inevitable," Kucinich said.

"This designation will set the stage for more chaos in the region

because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts.

"This new label provides further evidence for Iran's leaders that

there is no point to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States

if our actions point directly to regime change, said Kucinich. "Our

nation is better served by demanding sensible and responsible

diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration.

"This is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet

another war-this time with Iran," Kucinich concluded.

###

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

U.S. terror listing would squeeze Iran

By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 42 minutes ago

A Bush administration move to blacklist Iran's Revolutionary Guards as

a terrorist group would ratchet up pressure on businesses from

construction to oil that the military corps is thought to control,

analysts said Wednesday.

Such a step also would heighten the U.S. confrontation with Iran,

giving a pretext for tougher action in the future, they said.

A U.S. official in Washington said the administration had not yet

decided whether to sanction the entire Guards organization or just

part of it. Either way, the move would be dramatic - the first time

the U.S. has put a foreign government's military agency on the list,

which includes the al-Qaida network and the Middle Eastern militant

groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

The more confrontational U.S. stance comes after months of diplomatic

wrangling over American accusations that Iran is trying to develop

nuclear weapons in violation of its treaty commitments and supplying

Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq. Tehran denies doing either.

"The move reflects that there is a lot of frustration that the

diplomacy isn't yielding results," said Ray Takeyh, a specialist on

Mideast policy at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.

The designation would allow Washington to freeze U.S.-based assets of

companies connected to the Guards, but those are believed to be

minimal. More importantly, the listing would give the U.S. a cudgel to

pressure foreign enterprises to cut off doing business with Guards-

linked firms - the threat of being accused of supporting terrorism.

The Revolutionary Guards is an elite force separate from Iran's

regular military and has its own ground, naval and air units, with an

estimated 200,000 men. It has also become increasingly involved in

Iran's vital commercial affairs, with interests in oil, nuclear

infrastructure and construction.

A terror listing would signal to Iran that the United States was ready

to act against the Guards at some point, analysts said.

"Once they get classified as terrorist, American institutions will

have the legitimacy they need to fight the Revolutionary Guards," said

Mustafa Alani, a terrorism expert at the Gulf Research Center in

Dubai.

"If this is a terrorist organization and it fires missiles in the

(Persian) Gulf, then the U.S. would have an obligation to fight the

Guards," he said. But Alani said he did not expect any such action

soon, since American military forces are heavily involved in Iraq.

There was no immediate reaction from Iranian officials to the Bush

administration's move to blacklist at least some of the Guards, which

was first reported by The Washington Post.

The U.S. official said it was still being discussed whether to give

the designation to the entire Guards or just its foreign operations

arm, the Quds Force, which the U.S. accuses of funneling weapons and

money to Shiite militants in Iraq who have killed American troops. The

official spoke on condition of anonymity because a final decision had

not yet been made.

Under the plan, the Guards or the Quds Force would be named as a

"specially designated global terrorist" group, a category created by

President Bush in 2001 as part of broader measures after the Sept. 11

attacks to cut off funding for extremists.

"This a very strong, powerful signal," said Ali Ansari, director of

the Institute for Iranian Studies at St. Andrews University in

Scotland. "It's primarily a political decision and an economic

strategy to move against the businesses of the Guards."

But the experts said the goal of cutting off the Guards' business

dealings will likely be difficult to achieve.

For financial sanctions to be effective, the Europeans would have to

come on board, as well as China and Russia, where the Revolutionary

Guards are known to do business, Ansari said.

Mahan Abedin, director of research at the Center for the Study of

Terrorism, an independent London-based organization, suspects the

listing will be resisted in Europe, particularly by Germany and

France, which he said have dealings with Guards companies.

"The Guards have an impressive financial and commercial network

outside Iran," he said. The terror designation "might pass in the

States, but it will be resisted very strongly in countries where

companies are making money with Iran."

The United Nations has already imposed financial sanctions on a list

of companies - some linked to the Revolutionary Guards - involved in

Iran's nuclear program. The sanctions were imposed last year to punish

Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.

Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian political analyst, said the impact from a

terror listing would not be significant. "Iran has adjusted its system

based on the past sanctions," he said.

Such a move, however, would be certain to heighten tensions with the

Iranian government, which already accuses Washington of seeking to

overthrow the Islamic leadership.

But by targeting the Guards specifically, the U.S. might be trying to

symbolically separate the military force from Iran's political

establishment, which has been talking with American officials in

recent months on finding ways to ease Iraq's violence.

"Even if the Americans talk to the official Iran in Baghdad, the

Guards are a separate structure, answerable to Iran's religious

authority," Alani said.

___

Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to

this report.

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

"Many Americans are convinced that military coercion serves our

interest. They cite Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they are

ready to bring Iran and Pakistan to heel with bombs."

August 15, 2007

The Peculiar Relationship

"No American President Can Stand Up to Israel"

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

"No American President can stand up to Israel."

These words came from feisty Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval

Operations (1967-1970) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

(1970-1974). Moorer was, perhaps, the last independent- minded

American military leader.

Admiral Moorer knew what he was talking about. On June 8, 1967, Israel

attacked the American intelligence ship, USS Liberty, killing 34

American sailors and wounding 173. The Israelis even strafed the life

rafts, machine-gunning the American sailors leaving the stricken

ship.

Apparently, the USS Liberty had picked up Israeli communications that

revealed Israel's responsibility for the Seven Day War. Even today,

history books and the majority of Americans blame the conflict on the

Arabs.

The United States Navy knew the truth, but the President of the United

States took Israel's side against the American military and ordered

the United States Navy to shut its mouth. President Lyndon Johnson

said it was all just a mistake. Later in life, Admiral Moorer formed a

commission and presented the unvarnished truth to Americans.

The power of the Israel Lobby over American foreign policy is

considerable. In March 2006, two distinguished American scholars, John

Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, expressed concern in the London Review

of Books that the power of the Israel Lobby was bending US foreign

policy in directions that serve neither US nor Israeli interests. The

two experts were hoping to start a debate that might rescue the US and

Israel from unsuccessful policies of coercion that are intensifying

Muslim hatred of Israel and America. The Israel lobby was opposed to

any such reassessment, and attempted to close it off with epithets:

"Jew-baiter, " "anti-Semitic, " and even "anti-American. " Today

Israeli citizens who oppose Zionist plans for greater Israel are

denounced as "anti-Semites. "

Many Americans are unaware of the influence of the Israel lobby.

Instead they think of the US as "the world's sole superpower," a macho

new Roman Empire whose orders are obeyed without question or the

insolent nonentity is "bombed back to the stone age." Many Americans

are convinced that military coercion serves our interest. They cite

Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they are ready to bring Iran

and Pakistan to heel with bombs.

This arrogance results in the murder of tens of thousands, perhaps

hundreds of thousands, of men, women and children, a fate that many

Americans seem to believe is appropriate for countries that do not

accept US hegemony.

Coercion is what American foreign policy has become. Macho

superpatriots love it. Many of these superpatriots derive vicarious

pleasure from their delusions that America is "kicking those sand

******s' asses."

This is the America of the Bush Regime. If some of these superpatriots

had their way every "unpatriotic, terrorist supporter" who dares to

criticize the war against "the Islamofacists" would be sent to Gitmo,

if not shot on the spot.

These Bush supporters have morphed the Republican Party into the

Brownshirt Party. They cannot wait to attack Iran, preferably with

nuclear weapons. Impatient for Armageddon, some are so full of hubris

and self-righteousness that they actually believe that their support

for evil means they will be "wafted up to heaven." [see

It has come as a crippling blow to Democrats that "their" political

party is comfortable with Bush's America, and will do nothing to stop

the Bush regime's aggression against the Iraqi people or to prevent

the Bush regime's attack on Iran.

The Democrats could easily impeach both Bush and Cheney in the House,

as impeachment only requires a majority vote. They could not convict

in the Senate without Republican support, as conviction requires

ratification by two-thirds of Senators present. Nevertheless, a House

vote for impeachment would take the wind out of the sails of war, save

countless lives and perhaps even save humanity from nuclear

holocaust.

Various rationales or excuses have been constructed for the Democrats'

complicity in aggression that does not serve America. Perhaps the most

popular rationale is that the Democrats are letting the Republicans

have all the rope they want with which to produce such a high

disapproval rating that the Democrats will sweep the 2008 election.

It is doubtful that the Democrats would assume that men as cunning as

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney do not understand the electoral consequences

of a low public approval rating and are walking blindly into an

electoral wipeout. Rove's departure does not mean that no strategy is

in place.

So what does explain the complicity of the Democratic Party in a

policy that the American public, and especially Democratic

constituencies, reject? Perhaps a clue is offered from the

Minneapolis- St. Paul Star Tribune news report (August 1, 2007) that

Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison will spend a week in Israel on "a

privately funded trip sponsored by the American Israel Education

Federation. The AIEF--the charitable arm of the American Israel Public

Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--is sending 19 members of Congress to meet

with Israeli leaders. The group, made up mostly of freshman Democrats,

has plans to meet with Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and [puppet]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The senior Democratic member on

the trip is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who has gone three

times. . . . The trip to Israel is Ellison's second as a congressman.

"

According to the Star-Tribune, a Republican group, which includes Rep.

Michele Bachmann (R, Minn), led by Rep. Eric Cantor (R, Va) is already

in Israel. According to news reports, another 40 are following these

two groups during the August recess, and "by the time the year is out

every single member of Congress will have made their rounds in

Israel." This claim is probably overstated, but it does show careful

Israeli management of US policy in the Middle East.

Elsewhere on earth and especially among Muslims, the suspicion is rife

that the reason the war against Iraq cannot end, and the reason Iran

and Syria must be attacked, is that the US must destroy all Muslim

opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine, turning an entire people

into refugees driven from their homes and from the lands on which they

have lived for many centuries. Americans might think that they are

merely grabbing control over oil, keeping it out of the hands of

terrorists, but that is not the way the rest of the world views the

conflict.

Jimmy Carter was the last American president who stood up to Israel

and demanded that US diplomacy be, at least officially if not in

practice, even-handed in its approach to Israel and Palestine. Since

Carter's presidency, even-handedness has slowly drained from US policy

in the Middle East. The neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime has

abandoned even the pretense of even-handedness.

This is unfortunate, because military coercion has proven to be

unsuccessful. Exhausted from the conflict, the US military, according

to former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff, Colin Powell, is "nearly broken." Demoralized elite West

Point graduates are leaving the army at the fastest clip in 30 years.

Desertions are rapidly rising. A friend, a US Marine officer who

served in combat in Vietnam, recently wrote to me that his son's

Marine unit, currently training for its third deployment to Iraq in

September, is short 12-16 men in every platoon and expects to be hit

with more AWOLs prior to deployment.

Instead of re-evaluating a failed policy, Bush's "war tsar," General

Douglas Lute, has called for the reinstitution of the draft. Gen. Lute

doesn't see why Americans should not be returned to military servitude

in order to save the Bush administration the embarrassment of having

to correct a mistaken Middle East policy that commits the US to more

aggression and to debilitating long-term military conflict in the

Middle East.

It is difficult to see how this policy serves any interest other than

the very narrow one of the armaments industry. Apparently, nothing can

be done to change this disastrous policy until the Israel Lobby comes

to the realization that Israel's interest is not being served by the

current policy of military coercion.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the

Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street

Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He

is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

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

August 14, 2007

'This One Is So Hot': The Censorship of Walt and Mearsheimer

I now have a copy of the letter John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt sent

to the board of the Chicago Global Affairs Council after it cancelled

their September appearance there under political pressure. The letter

follows, below.

A couple of comments. This is a sad business. Two distinguished profs

who have both spoken at the Council before are disinvited regretfully/

squeamishly by a respected professional friend, and informed that they

might only speak if someone else comes to counter their statements.

The old "context" argument used against Rachel Corrie and everyone

else. Your views are too toxic to be heard unless we "balance" them.

Walt and Mearsheimer point out that Michael Oren spoke at the Council

earlier this year on Middle East matters without "context." Oren is a

neoconservative who made aliyah to Israel in the 70s and who served as

an officer in the Israeli army. John Mearsheimer served as an officer

in the United States Air Force. Let us be very clear about this: A

former officer in the Israeli Army who lives in Israel (and has lately

served in the Israeli Reserves) may hold forth about our policy in the

Middle East, but a former officer in our Air Force has no place to do

the same. You don't have to be a nativist to find this mindboggling.

Mearsheimer and Walt are all for Oren speaking, they just want to be

able to speak too. And just compare the literary and analytical work

of Oren and Mearsheimer; there is no comparison. Oren is a polemicist,

Mearsheimer a serious student of American policy. Deeply dispiriting.

Where is Alan Dershowitz, to decry the censorship?

I'm upset. I tell myself that this just shows how afraid the other

side is of the truth, but face it, they're winning. Last night my wife

said at dinner that I am "paying a price" for my views on the Middle

East. I have a long career as a journalist. I lost a blog-job earlier

this year over these issues, I can't get paying assignments to write

about these matters; and they are all that I care about, as my country

fumbles through the aftermath of 9/11 and Iraq. I sense some of that

same sorrow in the Walt and Mearsheimer letter that follows. At the

peaks of their careers, they have devoted themselves to these policy

issues out of some sense of duty; and they're not being allowed to

speak. It appears from the letter that a friendship has ended: the

authors' with Marshall Bouton. How long before the country wakes up

from this madness?

August 5, 2007

[Addressed, individually, to board members of the Council, and to

members of Council committees]

We are writing to bring to your attention a troubling incident

involving the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. We do so reluctantly,

as we have both enjoyed our prior associations with the Council and we

have great respect for its aims and accomplishments. Nonetheless, we

felt this was an episode that should not pass without comment.

On September 4, 2007, our book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign

Policy will be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, one of the most

highly respected publishers in the United States. Through our

publisher, the Council issued an invitation for both of us to speak at

a session on September 27, 2007. We were delighted to accept, as each

of us had spoken at the Council on several occasions in the past and

knew we would attract a diverse and well-informed audience that would

engage us in a lively and productive discussion.

On July 19, while discussing the details of our visit with Sharon

Houtkamp, who was handling the arrangements at the Council, we learned

that the Council had already received a number of communications

protesting our appearance. We were not particularly surprised by this

news, as we had seen a similar pattern of behavior after our original

article on "The Israel Lobby" appeared in the London Review of Books

in March 2006. We were still looking forward to the event, however,

especially because it gave us an opportunity to engage these issues in

an open forum.

Then, on July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us

(Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was cancelling the event. He

said he felt "extremely uncomfortable making this call" and that his

decision did not reflect his personal views on the subject of our

book. Instead, he explained that his decision was based on the need

"to protect the institution." He said that he had a serious "political

problem," because there were individuals who would be angry if he gave

us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative

consequences for the Council. "This one is so hot," Marshall

maintained, that he could not present it at a Council session unless

someone from "the other side"-such as Abraham Foxman of the Anti-

Defamation League-was on stage with us. At the very least, he needed

to present "contending viewpoints." But he said it was too late to try

to change the format, as the fall schedule was being finalized and

there would not be sufficient time to arrange an alternate date. He

showed little interest in doing anything with us in 2008 or beyond.

Several comments are in order regarding this situation.

First, since the publication of our original article on the Israel

lobby, we have appeared either singly or together at a number of

different venues, including Brown University, the Council on Foreign

Relations, Columbia University, Cornell University, Emerson College,

the Great Hall at Cooper Union, Georgetown University, the National

Press Club, the Nieman Fellows Program at Harvard University, the

University of Montana, the Jewish Community Center in Newton,

Massachusetts, and Congregation Kam Isaiah Israel in Chicago. In all

but one of these venues we appeared on our own, i.e., without someone

from the "other side." As one would expect, we often faced vigorous

questions from members of the audience, which invariably included

individuals who disagreed in fundamental ways with some of our

arguments. Nevertheless, the back-and-forth at each of these events

was always civil, and quite a few participants said that they

benefited from listening to us and to our interlocutors.

Second, the Council has recently welcomed speakers who do represent a

"contending viewpoint," and they have appeared on their own. Consider

the case of Michael Oren, an Israeli-American author, who appeared at

the Council on February 8, 2007, to talk about "The Middle East and

the United States: A Long and Complicated Relationship." Oren has a

different view of U.S. Middle East policy than we do; indeed, he gave

a keynote address at AIPAC's annual policy conference this past spring

that directly challenged our perspective. We believe it was entirely

appropriate for the Council to have invited him to speak, and without

having a representative from an opposing group there to debate him.

The Council has also welcomed a number of other speakers on this

general topic in recent years, such as Dennis Ross, Max Boot and

Rashid Khalidi, and none of their appearances included someone

representing a "contending view."

One might argue that our views are too controversial to be presented

on their own. However, they are seen as controversial only because

some of the groups and individuals that we criticized in our original

article have misrepresented what we said or leveled unjustified

charges at us personally-such as the baseless claim that we (or our

views) are anti-Semitic. The purpose of these charges, of course, is

to discourage respected organizations like the Council from giving us

an audience, or to create conditions where they feel compelled to

include "contending views" in order to preserve "balance" and to

insulate themselves from external criticism.

In fact, our views are not extreme. Our book does not question

Israel's right to exist and does not portray pro-Israel groups in the

United States as some sort of conspiracy to "control" U.S. foreign

policy. Rather, it describes these groups and individuals-both Jewish

and gentile-as simply an effective special interest group whose

activities are not substantially different from groups like the NRA,

the farm lobby, the AARP, or other ethnic lobbies. Its activities, in

other words, are as American as apple pie, although we argue that its

influence has helped produce policies that are not in the U.S.

national interest. We also suggest that these policies have been

unintentionally harmful to Israel as well, and that a different course

of action would be better for both countries. It is not obvious to us

why such views could not be included in the Council's schedule.

Although we find it somewhat unseemly to refer to our own careers, it

is perhaps worth noting that we are both well-established figures with

solid mainstream credentials. We are fortunate to occupy chaired

professorships at distinguished universities, and to have been elected

members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. We have both

held important leadership positions at Chicago or Harvard, each of us

serves on the editorial boards of several leading foreign policy

journals (such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy), and we have

both done consulting work for U.S. government agencies. Given our

backgrounds, the idea that it would be inappropriate for us to appear

on our own at a Council session seems far-fetched.

Finally, and most importantly, we believe that the decision to cancel

our appearance is antithetical to the principle of open discussion

that underpins American democracy, and that is so essential for

maximizing the prospects that our country pursues a wise foreign

policy. In essence, we believe this is a case in which a handful of

people who disagree with our views have used their influence to

intimidate Marshall into rescinding the Council's invitation to us, so

as to insure that interested members will not hear what we have to say

about Israeli policy, the U.S. relationship with Israel, and the lobby

itself. This is not the way we are supposed to address important

issues of public policy in the United States, and it is surely not the

way the Council normally conducts its business. This is undoubtedly

why Marshall, who is a very smart and decent man, felt so

uncomfortable calling us to say that the event had been cancelled. He

knew this decision was contrary to everything that the Council is

supposed to represent.

The Chicago Council is obviously under no obligation to grant us a

venue, and we are not writing in an attempt to reverse this decision.

But given the importance of the issues that are raised in our book, we

are genuinely disappointed that we will not have the benefit of open

exchange with the Council's members, including those who might want to

challenge our arguments or conclusions. The United States and its

allies-including Israel-face many challenging problems in the Middle

East, and our country will not be able to address them intelligently

if we cannot have an open and civilized discussion about U.S.

interests in the region, and the various factors that shape American

policy there. Regrettably, the decision to cancel our appearance has

made that much-needed conversation more difficult.

Sincerely,

John J. Mearsheimer

R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political

Science

University of Chicago

Stephen M. Walt

Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs

Harvard

University

Posted at 08:37 AM in Politics, Culture, Religion, U.S. Policy in the

Mideast

http://www.philipweiss.org

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

Email to Chicago Council on Global Affairs re: ban of M/W

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=77114

On Aug 14, 8:44 pm, Jack <jackNOSPAM6...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the White House signaling that war with Iran is near?

>

> --------------------------------------------------------

>

> Report: U.S. to Call Iran Revolutionary Guard 'Terrorists'

>

> The United States will soon be referring to an Iranian military division

> as a "specially designated global terrorist," the Washington Post

> reported Tuesday.

>

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293285,00.html

If this is indeed so, I wonder whether the public

will sit still for it even if Congress supports it.

BTW on the subject of USS Liberty. Part of the reason

they were attacked was because they eavesdropped on

Israeli forces massacring civilians too.

NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL@yahoo.com wrote:

> -----Original Message-----

>

> From: Laber, Natalie <Natalie.Laber@mail.house.gov>

> Sent: Wed Aug 15 14:14:11 2007

> Subject: Administration's Terrorist Labeling Is A Calculated Plan To

> Set the Stage For War With Iran

>

> For Immediate Release:

>

> Contact: Natalie Laber (202) 225-5871 (o); (202) 365-1040 ©

>

> Administration's Terrorist Labeling Is A Calculated Plan To Set the

> Stage For War With Iran

>

> WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 15, 2007) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-

> OH) called the Administration's latest idea to label Iran's

> Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization another

> step in the lead-up to war with Iran.

>

> "The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation

> to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is

> inevitable," Kucinich said.

>

> "This designation will set the stage for more chaos in the region

> because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts.

>

> "This new label provides further evidence for Iran's leaders that

> there is no point to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States

> if our actions point directly to regime change, said Kucinich. "Our

> nation is better served by demanding sensible and responsible

> diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration.

>

> "This is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet

> another war-this time with Iran," Kucinich concluded.

>

>

> ###

>

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> U.S. terror listing would squeeze Iran

>

> By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 42 minutes ago

> A Bush administration move to blacklist Iran's Revolutionary Guards as

> a terrorist group would ratchet up pressure on businesses from

> construction to oil that the military corps is thought to control,

> analysts said Wednesday.

> Such a step also would heighten the U.S. confrontation with Iran,

> giving a pretext for tougher action in the future, they said.

> A U.S. official in Washington said the administration had not yet

> decided whether to sanction the entire Guards organization or just

> part of it. Either way, the move would be dramatic - the first time

> the U.S. has put a foreign government's military agency on the list,

> which includes the al-Qaida network and the Middle Eastern militant

> groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

> The more confrontational U.S. stance comes after months of diplomatic

> wrangling over American accusations that Iran is trying to develop

> nuclear weapons in violation of its treaty commitments and supplying

> Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq. Tehran denies doing either.

> "The move reflects that there is a lot of frustration that the

> diplomacy isn't yielding results," said Ray Takeyh, a specialist on

> Mideast policy at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.

> The designation would allow Washington to freeze U.S.-based assets of

> companies connected to the Guards, but those are believed to be

> minimal. More importantly, the listing would give the U.S. a cudgel to

> pressure foreign enterprises to cut off doing business with Guards-

> linked firms - the threat of being accused of supporting terrorism.

> The Revolutionary Guards is an elite force separate from Iran's

> regular military and has its own ground, naval and air units, with an

> estimated 200,000 men. It has also become increasingly involved in

> Iran's vital commercial affairs, with interests in oil, nuclear

> infrastructure and construction.

> A terror listing would signal to Iran that the United States was ready

> to act against the Guards at some point, analysts said.

> "Once they get classified as terrorist, American institutions will

> have the legitimacy they need to fight the Revolutionary Guards," said

> Mustafa Alani, a terrorism expert at the Gulf Research Center in

> Dubai.

> "If this is a terrorist organization and it fires missiles in the

> (Persian) Gulf, then the U.S. would have an obligation to fight the

> Guards," he said. But Alani said he did not expect any such action

> soon, since American military forces are heavily involved in Iraq.

> There was no immediate reaction from Iranian officials to the Bush

> administration's move to blacklist at least some of the Guards, which

> was first reported by The Washington Post.

> The U.S. official said it was still being discussed whether to give

> the designation to the entire Guards or just its foreign operations

> arm, the Quds Force, which the U.S. accuses of funneling weapons and

> money to Shiite militants in Iraq who have killed American troops. The

> official spoke on condition of anonymity because a final decision had

> not yet been made.

> Under the plan, the Guards or the Quds Force would be named as a

> "specially designated global terrorist" group, a category created by

> President Bush in 2001 as part of broader measures after the Sept. 11

> attacks to cut off funding for extremists.

> "This a very strong, powerful signal," said Ali Ansari, director of

> the Institute for Iranian Studies at St. Andrews University in

> Scotland. "It's primarily a political decision and an economic

> strategy to move against the businesses of the Guards."

> But the experts said the goal of cutting off the Guards' business

> dealings will likely be difficult to achieve.

> For financial sanctions to be effective, the Europeans would have to

> come on board, as well as China and Russia, where the Revolutionary

> Guards are known to do business, Ansari said.

> Mahan Abedin, director of research at the Center for the Study of

> Terrorism, an independent London-based organization, suspects the

> listing will be resisted in Europe, particularly by Germany and

> France, which he said have dealings with Guards companies.

> "The Guards have an impressive financial and commercial network

> outside Iran," he said. The terror designation "might pass in the

> States, but it will be resisted very strongly in countries where

> companies are making money with Iran."

> The United Nations has already imposed financial sanctions on a list

> of companies - some linked to the Revolutionary Guards - involved in

> Iran's nuclear program. The sanctions were imposed last year to punish

> Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.

> Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian political analyst, said the impact from a

> terror listing would not be significant. "Iran has adjusted its system

> based on the past sanctions," he said.

> Such a move, however, would be certain to heighten tensions with the

> Iranian government, which already accuses Washington of seeking to

> overthrow the Islamic leadership.

> But by targeting the Guards specifically, the U.S. might be trying to

> symbolically separate the military force from Iran's political

> establishment, which has been talking with American officials in

> recent months on finding ways to ease Iraq's violence.

> "Even if the Americans talk to the official Iran in Baghdad, the

> Guards are a separate structure, answerable to Iran's religious

> authority," Alani said.

> ___

> Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to

> this report.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> "Many Americans are convinced that military coercion serves our

> interest. They cite Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they are

> ready to bring Iran and Pakistan to heel with bombs."

>

> August 15, 2007

>

> The Peculiar Relationship

> "No American President Can Stand Up to Israel"

> By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

>

> "No American President can stand up to Israel."

>

> These words came from feisty Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval

> Operations (1967-1970) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

> (1970-1974). Moorer was, perhaps, the last independent- minded

> American military leader.

>

> Admiral Moorer knew what he was talking about. On June 8, 1967, Israel

> attacked the American intelligence ship, USS Liberty, killing 34

> American sailors and wounding 173. The Israelis even strafed the life

> rafts, machine-gunning the American sailors leaving the stricken

> ship.

>

> Apparently, the USS Liberty had picked up Israeli communications that

> revealed Israel's responsibility for the Seven Day War. Even today,

> history books and the majority of Americans blame the conflict on the

> Arabs.

>

> The United States Navy knew the truth, but the President of the United

> States took Israel's side against the American military and ordered

> the United States Navy to shut its mouth. President Lyndon Johnson

> said it was all just a mistake. Later in life, Admiral Moorer formed a

> commission and presented the unvarnished truth to Americans.

>

> The power of the Israel Lobby over American foreign policy is

> considerable. In March 2006, two distinguished American scholars, John

> Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, expressed concern in the London Review

> of Books that the power of the Israel Lobby was bending US foreign

> policy in directions that serve neither US nor Israeli interests. The

> two experts were hoping to start a debate that might rescue the US and

> Israel from unsuccessful policies of coercion that are intensifying

> Muslim hatred of Israel and America. The Israel lobby was opposed to

> any such reassessment, and attempted to close it off with epithets:

> "Jew-baiter, " "anti-Semitic, " and even "anti-American. " Today

> Israeli citizens who oppose Zionist plans for greater Israel are

> denounced as "anti-Semites. "

>

> Many Americans are unaware of the influence of the Israel lobby.

> Instead they think of the US as "the world's sole superpower," a macho

> new Roman Empire whose orders are obeyed without question or the

> insolent nonentity is "bombed back to the stone age." Many Americans

> are convinced that military coercion serves our interest. They cite

> Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they are ready to bring Iran

> and Pakistan to heel with bombs.

>

> This arrogance results in the murder of tens of thousands, perhaps

> hundreds of thousands, of men, women and children, a fate that many

> Americans seem to believe is appropriate for countries that do not

> accept US hegemony.

>

> Coercion is what American foreign policy has become. Macho

> superpatriots love it. Many of these superpatriots derive vicarious

> pleasure from their delusions that America is "kicking those sand

> ******s' asses."

>

> This is the America of the Bush Regime. If some of these superpatriots

> had their way every "unpatriotic, terrorist supporter" who dares to

> criticize the war against "the Islamofacists" would be sent to Gitmo,

> if not shot on the spot.

>

> These Bush supporters have morphed the Republican Party into the

> Brownshirt Party. They cannot wait to attack Iran, preferably with

> nuclear weapons. Impatient for Armageddon, some are so full of hubris

> and self-righteousness that they actually believe that their support

> for evil means they will be "wafted up to heaven." [see

>

> It has come as a crippling blow to Democrats that "their" political

> party is comfortable with Bush's America, and will do nothing to stop

> the Bush regime's aggression against the Iraqi people or to prevent

> the Bush regime's attack on Iran.

>

> The Democrats could easily impeach both Bush and Cheney in the House,

> as impeachment only requires a majority vote. They could not convict

> in the Senate without Republican support, as conviction requires

> ratification by two-thirds of Senators present. Nevertheless, a House

> vote for impeachment would take the wind out of the sails of war, save

> countless lives and perhaps even save humanity from nuclear

> holocaust.

>

> Various rationales or excuses have been constructed for the Democrats'

> complicity in aggression that does not serve America. Perhaps the most

> popular rationale is that the Democrats are letting the Republicans

> have all the rope they want with which to produce such a high

> disapproval rating that the Democrats will sweep the 2008 election.

>

> It is doubtful that the Democrats would assume that men as cunning as

> Karl Rove and Dick Cheney do not understand the electoral consequences

> of a low public approval rating and are walking blindly into an

> electoral wipeout. Rove's departure does not mean that no strategy is

> in place.

>

> So what does explain the complicity of the Democratic Party in a

> policy that the American public, and especially Democratic

> constituencies, reject? Perhaps a clue is offered from the

> Minneapolis- St. Paul Star Tribune news report (August 1, 2007) that

> Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison will spend a week in Israel on "a

> privately funded trip sponsored by the American Israel Education

> Federation. The AIEF--the charitable arm of the American Israel Public

> Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--is sending 19 members of Congress to meet

> with Israeli leaders. The group, made up mostly of freshman Democrats,

> has plans to meet with Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and [puppet]

> Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The senior Democratic member on

> the trip is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who has gone three

> times. . . . The trip to Israel is Ellison's second as a congressman.

> "

>

> According to the Star-Tribune, a Republican group, which includes Rep.

> Michele Bachmann (R, Minn), led by Rep. Eric Cantor (R, Va) is already

> in Israel. According to news reports, another 40 are following these

> two groups during the August recess, and "by the time the year is out

> every single member of Congress will have made their rounds in

> Israel." This claim is probably overstated, but it does show careful

> Israeli management of US policy in the Middle East.

>

> Elsewhere on earth and especially among Muslims, the suspicion is rife

> that the reason the war against Iraq cannot end, and the reason Iran

> and Syria must be attacked, is that the US must destroy all Muslim

> opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine, turning an entire people

> into refugees driven from their homes and from the lands on which they

> have lived for many centuries. Americans might think that they are

> merely grabbing control over oil, keeping it out of the hands of

> terrorists, but that is not the way the rest of the world views the

> conflict.

>

> Jimmy Carter was the last American president who stood up to Israel

> and demanded that US diplomacy be, at least officially if not in

> practice, even-handed in its approach to Israel and Palestine. Since

> Carter's presidency, even-handedness has slowly drained from US policy

> in the Middle East. The neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime has

> abandoned even the pretense of even-handedness.

>

> This is unfortunate, because military coercion has proven to be

> unsuccessful. Exhausted from the conflict, the US military, according

> to former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

> of Staff, Colin Powell, is "nearly broken." Demoralized elite West

> Point graduates are leaving the army at the fastest clip in 30 years.

> Desertions are rapidly rising. A friend, a US Marine officer who

> served in combat in Vietnam, recently wrote to me that his son's

> Marine unit, currently training for its third deployment to Iraq in

> September, is short 12-16 men in every platoon and expects to be hit

> with more AWOLs prior to deployment.

>

> Instead of re-evaluating a failed policy, Bush's "war tsar," General

> Douglas Lute, has called for the reinstitution of the draft. Gen. Lute

> doesn't see why Americans should not be returned to military servitude

> in order to save the Bush administration the embarrassment of having

> to correct a mistaken Middle East policy that commits the US to more

> aggression and to debilitating long-term military conflict in the

> Middle East.

>

> It is difficult to see how this policy serves any interest other than

> the very narrow one of the armaments industry. Apparently, nothing can

> be done to change this disastrous policy until the Israel Lobby comes

> to the realization that Israel's interest is not being served by the

> current policy of military coercion.

>

> Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the

> Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street

> Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He

> is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> August 14, 2007

>

>

> 'This One Is So Hot': The Censorship of Walt and Mearsheimer

>

> I now have a copy of the letter John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt sent

> to the board of the Chicago Global Affairs Council after it cancelled

> their September appearance there under political pressure. The letter

> follows, below.

>

>

> A couple of comments. This is a sad business. Two distinguished profs

> who have both spoken at the Council before are disinvited regretfully/

> squeamishly by a respected professional friend, and informed that they

> might only speak if someone else comes to counter their statements.

> The old "context" argument used against Rachel Corrie and everyone

> else. Your views are too toxic to be heard unless we "balance" them.

>

>

> Walt and Mearsheimer point out that Michael Oren spoke at the Council

> earlier this year on Middle East matters without "context." Oren is a

> neoconservative who made aliyah to Israel in the 70s and who served as

> an officer in the Israeli army. John Mearsheimer served as an officer

> in the United States Air Force. Let us be very clear about this: A

> former officer in the Israeli Army who lives in Israel (and has lately

> served in the Israeli Reserves) may hold forth about our policy in the

> Middle East, but a former officer in our Air Force has no place to do

> the same. You don't have to be a nativist to find this mindboggling.

> Mearsheimer and Walt are all for Oren speaking, they just want to be

> able to speak too. And just compare the literary and analytical work

> of Oren and Mearsheimer; there is no comparison. Oren is a polemicist,

> Mearsheimer a serious student of American policy. Deeply dispiriting.

> Where is Alan Dershowitz, to decry the censorship?

>

>

> I'm upset. I tell myself that this just shows how afraid the other

> side is of the truth, but face it, they're winning. Last night my wife

> said at dinner that I am "paying a price" for my views on the Middle

> East. I have a long career as a journalist. I lost a blog-job earlier

> this year over these issues, I can't get paying assignments to write

> about these matters; and they are all that I care about, as my country

> fumbles through the aftermath of 9/11 and Iraq. I sense some of that

> same sorrow in the Walt and Mearsheimer letter that follows. At the

> peaks of their careers, they have devoted themselves to these policy

> issues out of some sense of duty; and they're not being allowed to

> speak. It appears from the letter that a friendship has ended: the

> authors' with Marshall Bouton. How long before the country wakes up

> from this madness?

>

> August 5, 2007

> [Addressed, individually, to board members of the Council, and to

> members of Council committees]

>

> We are writing to bring to your attention a troubling incident

> involving the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. We do so reluctantly,

> as we have both enjoyed our prior associations with the Council and we

> have great respect for its aims and accomplishments. Nonetheless, we

> felt this was an episode that should not pass without comment.

>

> On September 4, 2007, our book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign

> Policy will be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, one of the most

> highly respected publishers in the United States. Through our

> publisher, the Council issued an invitation for both of us to speak at

> a session on September 27, 2007. We were delighted to accept, as each

> of us had spoken at the Council on several occasions in the past and

> knew we would attract a diverse and well-informed audience that would

> engage us in a lively and productive discussion.

>

>

> On July 19, while discussing the details of our visit with Sharon

> Houtkamp, who was handling the arrangements at the Council, we learned

> that the Council had already received a number of communications

> protesting our appearance. We were not particularly surprised by this

> news, as we had seen a similar pattern of behavior after our original

> article on "The Israel Lobby" appeared in the London Review of Books

> in March 2006. We were still looking forward to the event, however,

> especially because it gave us an opportunity to engage these issues in

> an open forum.

>

>

> Then, on July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us

> (Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was cancelling the event. He

> said he felt "extremely uncomfortable making this call" and that his

> decision did not reflect his personal views on the subject of our

> book. Instead, he explained that his decision was based on the need

> "to protect the institution." He said that he had a serious "political

> problem," because there were individuals who would be angry if he gave

> us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative

> consequences for the Council. "This one is so hot," Marshall

> maintained, that he could not present it at a Council session unless

> someone from "the other side"-such as Abraham Foxman of the Anti-

> Defamation League-was on stage with us. At the very least, he needed

> to present "contending viewpoints." But he said it was too late to try

> to change the format, as the fall schedule was being finalized and

> there would not be sufficient time to arrange an alternate date. He

> showed little interest in doing anything with us in 2008 or beyond.

>

>

> Several comments are in order regarding this situation.

>

>

> First, since the publication of our original article on the Israel

> lobby, we have appeared either singly or together at a number of

> different venues, including Brown University, the Council on Foreign

> Relations, Columbia University, Cornell University, Emerson College,

> the Great Hall at Cooper Union, Georgetown University, the National

> Press Club, the Nieman Fellows Program at Harvard University, the

> University of Montana, the Jewish Community Center in Newton,

> Massachusetts, and Congregation Kam Isaiah Israel in Chicago. In all

> but one of these venues we appeared on our own, i.e., without someone

> from the "other side." As one would expect, we often faced vigorous

> questions from members of the audience, which invariably included

> individuals who disagreed in fundamental ways with some of our

> arguments. Nevertheless, the back-and-forth at each of these events

> was always civil, and quite a few participants said that they

> benefited from listening to us and to our interlocutors.

>

>

> Second, the Council has recently welcomed speakers who do represent a

> "contending viewpoint," and they have appeared on their own. Consider

> the case of Michael Oren, an Israeli-American author, who appeared at

> the Council on February 8, 2007, to talk about "The Middle East and

> the United States: A Long and Complicated Relationship." Oren has a

> different view of U.S. Middle East policy than we do; indeed, he gave

> a keynote address at AIPAC's annual policy conference this past spring

> that directly challenged our perspective. We believe it was entirely

> appropriate for the Council to have invited him to speak, and without

> having a representative from an opposing group there to debate him.

> The Council has also welcomed a number of other speakers on this

> general topic in recent years, such as Dennis Ross, Max Boot and

> Rashid Khalidi, and none of their appearances included someone

> representing a "contending view."

>

>

> One might argue that our views are too controversial to be presented

> on their own. However, they are seen as controversial only because

> some of the groups and individuals that we criticized in our original

> article have misrepresented what we said or leveled unjustified

> charges at us personally-such as the baseless claim that we (or our

> views) are anti-Semitic. The purpose of these charges, of course, is

> to discourage respected organizations like the Council from giving us

> an audience, or to create conditions where they feel compelled to

> include "contending views" in order to preserve "balance" and to

> insulate themselves from external criticism.

>

>

> In fact, our views are not extreme. Our book does not question

> Israel's right to exist and does not portray pro-Israel groups in the

> United States as some sort of conspiracy to "control" U.S. foreign

> policy. Rather, it describes these groups and individuals-both Jewish

> and gentile-as simply an effective special interest group whose

> activities are not substantially different from groups like the NRA,

> the farm lobby, the AARP, or other ethnic lobbies. Its activities, in

> other words, are as American as apple pie, although we argue that its

> influence has helped produce policies that are not in the U.S.

> national interest. We also suggest that these policies have been

> unintentionally harmful to Israel as well, and that a different course

> of action would be better for both countries. It is not obvious to us

> why such views could not be included in the Council's schedule.

>

>

> Although we find it somewhat unseemly to refer to our own careers, it

> is perhaps worth noting that we are both well-established figures with

> solid mainstream credentials. We are fortunate to occupy chaired

> professorships at distinguished universities, and to have been elected

> members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. We have both

> held important leadership positions at Chicago or Harvard, each of us

> serves on the editorial boards of several leading foreign policy

> journals (such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy), and we have

> both done consulting work for U.S. government agencies. Given our

> backgrounds, the idea that it would be inappropriate for us to appear

> on our own at a Council session seems far-fetched.

>

>

> Finally, and most importantly, we believe that the decision to cancel

> our appearance is antithetical to the principle of open discussion

> that underpins American democracy, and that is so essential for

> maximizing the prospects that our country pursues a wise foreign

> policy. In essence, we believe this is a case in which a handful of

> people who disagree with our views have used their influence to

> intimidate Marshall into rescinding the Council's invitation to us, so

> as to insure that interested members will not hear what we have to say

> about Israeli policy, the U.S. relationship with Israel, and the lobby

> itself. This is not the way we are supposed to address important

> issues of public policy in the United States, and it is surely not the

> way the Council normally conducts its business. This is undoubtedly

> why Marshall, who is a very smart and decent man, felt so

> uncomfortable calling us to say that the event had been cancelled. He

> knew this decision was contrary to everything that the Council is

> supposed to represent.

>

>

> The Chicago Council is obviously under no obligation to grant us a

> venue, and we are not writing in an attempt to reverse this decision.

> But given the importance of the issues that are raised in our book, we

> are genuinely disappointed that we will not have the benefit of open

> exchange with the Council's members, including those who might want to

> challenge our arguments or conclusions. The United States and its

> allies-including Israel-face many challenging problems in the Middle

> East, and our country will not be able to address them intelligently

> if we cannot have an open and civilized discussion about U.S.

> interests in the region, and the various factors that shape American

> policy there. Regrettably, the decision to cancel our appearance has

> made that much-needed conversation more difficult.

>

> Sincerely,

> John J. Mearsheimer

> R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political

> Science

> University of Chicago

>

> Stephen M. Walt

> Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs

> Harvard

>

> University

>

>

> Posted at 08:37 AM in Politics, Culture, Religion, U.S. Policy in the

> Mideast

> http://www.philipweiss.org

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Email to Chicago Council on Global Affairs re: ban of M/W

>

> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=77114

>

>

>

> On Aug 14, 8:44 pm, Jack <jackNOSPAM6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>

>>Is the White House signaling that war with Iran is near?

>>

>>--------------------------------------------------------

>>

>>Report: U.S. to Call Iran Revolutionary Guard 'Terrorists'

>>

>>The United States will soon be referring to an Iranian military division

>>as a "specially designated global terrorist," the Washington Post

>>reported Tuesday.

>>

>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293285,00.html

>

>

--

B3

==

The very wealthy HATE Democracy.

Vote accordingly in '08.

Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.

Abolish the senate - its undemocratic and serves no purpose.

30% of Congress are NOT bought and paid for.

GOP and DEM = IDENTICAL Twins with different clothing.

On Aug 16, 7:38?am, LarsensAttack <BayonetVariation.net> wrote:

> If this is indeed so, I wonder whether the public

> will sit still for it even if Congress supports it.

>

> BTW on the subject of USS Liberty. Part of the reason

> they were attacked was because they eavesdropped on

> Israeli forces massacring civilians too.

>

>

>

> NOMOREWAR_FORISR...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----

>

> > From: Laber, Natalie <Natalie.La...@mail.house.gov>

> > Sent: Wed Aug 15 14:14:11 2007

> > Subject: Administration's Terrorist Labeling Is A Calculated Plan To

> > Set the Stage For War With Iran

>

> > For Immediate Release:

>

> > Contact: Natalie Laber (202) 225-5871 (o); (202) 365-1040 ©

>

> > Administration's Terrorist Labeling Is A Calculated Plan To Set the

> > Stage For War With Iran

>

> > WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 15, 2007) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-

> > OH) called the Administration's latest idea to label Iran's

> > Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization another

> > step in the lead-up to war with Iran.

>

> > "The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation

> > to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is

> > inevitable," Kucinich said.

>

> > "This designation will set the stage for more chaos in the region

> > because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts.

>

> > "This new label provides further evidence for Iran's leaders that

> > there is no point to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States

> > if our actions point directly to regime change, said Kucinich. "Our

> > nation is better served by demanding sensible and responsible

> > diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration.

>

> > "This is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet

> > another war-this time with Iran," Kucinich concluded.

>

> > ###

>

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------

>

> > U.S. terror listing would squeeze Iran

>

> > By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 42 minutes ago

> > A Bush administration move to blacklist Iran's Revolutionary Guards as

> > a terrorist group would ratchet up pressure on businesses from

> > construction to oil that the military corps is thought to control,

> > analysts said Wednesday.

> > Such a step also would heighten the U.S. confrontation with Iran,

> > giving a pretext for tougher action in the future, they said.

> > A U.S. official in Washington said the administration had not yet

> > decided whether to sanction the entire Guards organization or just

> > part of it. Either way, the move would be dramatic - the first time

> > the U.S. has put a foreign government's military agency on the list,

> > which includes the al-Qaida network and the Middle Eastern militant

> > groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

> > The more confrontational U.S. stance comes after months of diplomatic

> > wrangling over American accusations that Iran is trying to develop

> > nuclear weapons in violation of its treaty commitments and supplying

> > Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq. Tehran denies doing either.

> > "The move reflects that there is a lot of frustration that the

> > diplomacy isn't yielding results," said Ray Takeyh, a specialist on

> > Mideast policy at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.

> > The designation would allow Washington to freeze U.S.-based assets of

> > companies connected to the Guards, but those are believed to be

> > minimal. More importantly, the listing would give the U.S. a cudgel to

> > pressure foreign enterprises to cut off doing business with Guards-

> > linked firms - the threat of being accused of supporting terrorism.

> > The Revolutionary Guards is an elite force separate from Iran's

> > regular military and has its own ground, naval and air units, with an

> > estimated 200,000 men. It has also become increasingly involved in

> > Iran's vital commercial affairs, with interests in oil, nuclear

> > infrastructure and construction.

> > A terror listing would signal to Iran that the United States was ready

> > to act against the Guards at some point, analysts said.

> > "Once they get classified as terrorist, American institutions will

> > have the legitimacy they need to fight the Revolutionary Guards," said

> > Mustafa Alani, a terrorism expert at the Gulf Research Center in

> > Dubai.

> > "If this is a terrorist organization and it fires missiles in the

> > (Persian) Gulf, then the U.S. would have an obligation to fight the

> > Guards," he said. But Alani said he did not expect any such action

> > soon, since American military forces are heavily involved in Iraq.

> > There was no immediate reaction from Iranian officials to the Bush

> > administration's move to blacklist at least some of the Guards, which

> > was first reported by The Washington Post.

> > The U.S. official said it was still being discussed whether to give

> > the designation to the entire Guards or just its foreign operations

> > arm, the Quds Force, which the U.S. accuses of funneling weapons and

> > money to Shiite militants in Iraq who have killed American troops. The

> > official spoke on condition of anonymity because a final decision had

> > not yet been made.

> > Under the plan, the Guards or the Quds Force would be named as a

> > "specially designated global terrorist" group, a category created by

> > President Bush in 2001 as part of broader measures after the Sept. 11

> > attacks to cut off funding for extremists.

> > "This a very strong, powerful signal," said Ali Ansari, director of

> > the Institute for Iranian Studies at St. Andrews University in

> > Scotland. "It's primarily a political decision and an economic

> > strategy to move against the businesses of the Guards."

> > But the experts said the goal of cutting off the Guards' business

> > dealings will likely be difficult to achieve.

> > For financial sanctions to be effective, the Europeans would have to

> > come on board, as well as China and Russia, where the Revolutionary

> > Guards are known to do business, Ansari said.

> > Mahan Abedin, director of research at the Center for the Study of

> > Terrorism, an independent London-based organization, suspects the

> > listing will be resisted in Europe, particularly by Germany and

> > France, which he said have dealings with Guards companies.

> > "The Guards have an impressive financial and commercial network

> > outside Iran," he said. The terror designation "might pass in the

> > States, but it will be resisted very strongly in countries where

> > companies are making money with Iran."

> > The United Nations has already imposed financial sanctions on a list

> > of companies - some linked to the Revolutionary Guards - involved in

> > Iran's nuclear program. The sanctions were imposed last year to punish

> > Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.

> > Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian political analyst, said the impact from a

> > terror listing would not be significant. "Iran has adjusted its system

> > based on the past sanctions," he said.

> > Such a move, however, would be certain to heighten tensions with the

> > Iranian government, which already accuses Washington of seeking to

> > overthrow the Islamic leadership.

> > But by targeting the Guards specifically, the U.S. might be trying to

> > symbolically separate the military force from Iran's political

> > establishment, which has been talking with American officials in

> > recent months on finding ways to ease Iraq's violence.

> > "Even if the Americans talk to the official Iran in Baghdad, the

> > Guards are a separate structure, answerable to Iran's religious

> > authority," Alani said.

> > ___

> > Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to

> > this report.

>

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

>

> > "Many Americans are convinced that military coercion serves our

> > interest. They cite Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they are

> > ready to bring Iran and Pakistan to heel with bombs."

>

> > August 15, 2007

>

> > The Peculiar Relationship

> > "No American President Can Stand Up to Israel"

> > By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

>

> > "No American President can stand up to Israel."

>

> > These words came from feisty Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval

> > Operations (1967-1970) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

> > (1970-1974). Moorer was, perhaps, the last independent- minded

> > American military leader.

>

> > Admiral Moorer knew what he was talking about. On June 8, 1967, Israel

> > attacked the American intelligence ship, USS Liberty, killing 34

> > American sailors and wounding 173. The Israelis even strafed the life

> > rafts, machine-gunning the American sailors leaving the stricken

> > ship.

>

> > Apparently, the USS Liberty had picked up Israeli communications that

> > revealed Israel's responsibility for the Seven Day War. Even today,

> > history books and the majority of Americans blame the conflict on the

> > Arabs.

>

> > The United States Navy knew the truth, but the President of the United

> > States took Israel's side against the American military and ordered

> > the United States Navy to shut its mouth. President Lyndon Johnson

> > said it was all just a mistake. Later in life, Admiral Moorer formed a

> > commission and presented the unvarnished truth to Americans.

>

> > The power of the Israel Lobby over American foreign policy is

> > considerable. In March 2006, two distinguished American scholars, John

> > Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, expressed concern in the London Review

> > of Books that the power of the Israel Lobby was bending US foreign

> > policy in directions that serve neither US nor Israeli interests. The

> > two experts were hoping to start a debate that might rescue the US and

> > Israel from unsuccessful policies of coercion that are intensifying

> > Muslim hatred of Israel and America. The Israel lobby was opposed to

> > any such reassessment, and attempted to close it off with epithets:

> > "Jew-baiter, " "anti-Semitic, " and even "anti-American. " Today

> > Israeli citizens who oppose Zionist plans for greater Israel are

> > denounced as "anti-Semites. "

>

> > Many Americans are unaware of the influence of

>

> ...

>

> read more - Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

Iran, Iraq sign oil pipeline deal

Relations between Iraq and Iran have improved markedly

11 Aug 2007

Iran and Iraq signed an agreement to build pipelines for the transfer

of Iraqi crude oil and oil products, the state-run Iran news network

Saturday quoted the oil ministry as announcing. The 32-inch (81-

centimetre) pipeline will bring crude from the southern Iraqi port of

Basra to the southwestern Iranian port of Abadan.

Under the deal, Iran would buy 100,000 barrels of Iraqi crude to be

refined in the southern port of Bandar Abbas, then sell the product

back to Iraq. The accord would have no upper limit on quantities.

The Iraqi government has been forced to import refined products from

a

number of neighbouring countries.

Relations between Iraq and Iran, which were at war from 1980-88 when

Saddam Hussein was in power in Baghdad, have improved markedly since a

Shiite-led full-term government took power this year.

The agreement was signed on Friday by visiting Iraqi Oil Minister

Hussein al-Shahristani and his Iranian counterpart, Kazem Vaziri

Hamaneh.

Sharistani's visit to Tehran comes two days after one by Iraqi Prime

Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in which he had talks with officials that

reinforced growing bilateral ties.

Who needs the Yankees?

It looks like Iran and Iraq may become allies. Where will that leave

the Ameriicans?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070811/wl_mideast_afp/iraniraqeconomyoil

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:38:58 -0400, LarsensAttack

<BayonetVariation.net> wrote:

>If this is indeed so, I wonder whether the public

>will sit still for it even if Congress supports it.

Bush won't even consult congress. They've already proven themselves to

be weak and compliant in the face of Bush's war plans. Two examples:

the removal from the Iraq spending bill of a provision that would have

required Bush to consult congress before attacking Iran, and the

"non-binding" resolution on troop pullouts from Iraq. Bush could even

try and gain support for the Iran war under the umbrella of the WOT

act which was enacted shortly after 9/11.

"EFill4Zaggin" <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:7d09c35qugdecro6n37c23fdblod57cmhh@4ax.com...

| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:38:58 -0400, LarsensAttack

| <BayonetVariation.net> wrote:

|

| >If this is indeed so, I wonder whether the public

| >will sit still for it even if Congress supports it.

|

| Bush won't even consult congress. They've already proven themselves to

| be weak and compliant in the face of Bush's war plans. Two examples:

| the removal from the Iraq spending bill of a provision that would have

| required Bush to consult congress before attacking Iran, and the

| "non-binding" resolution on troop pullouts from Iraq. Bush could even

| try and gain support for the Iran war under the umbrella of the WOT

| act which was enacted shortly after 9/11.

All Bush needs is an "incident", and if history has anything to teach us, it

is that "incidents" do not have to be real. Once the bombers fly, nobody

can call 'em back.

Bruce Olin

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:22:00 -0500, "Bruce Olin"

<bruce_olin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>"EFill4Zaggin" <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:7d09c35qugdecro6n37c23fdblod57cmhh@4ax.com...

>| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:38:58 -0400, LarsensAttack

>| <BayonetVariation.net> wrote:

>|

>| >If this is indeed so, I wonder whether the public

>| >will sit still for it even if Congress supports it.

>|

>| Bush won't even consult congress. They've already proven themselves to

>| be weak and compliant in the face of Bush's war plans. Two examples:

>| the removal from the Iraq spending bill of a provision that would have

>| required Bush to consult congress before attacking Iran, and the

>| "non-binding" resolution on troop pullouts from Iraq. Bush could even

>| try and gain support for the Iran war under the umbrella of the WOT

>| act which was enacted shortly after 9/11.

>

>All Bush needs is an "incident", and if history has anything to teach us, it

>is that "incidents" do not have to be real. Once the bombers fly, nobody

>can call 'em back.

>

>Bruce Olin

>

So you agree that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office? I

strongly believe that to be the case.

"EFill4Zaggin" <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ed29c3dthq4aqg31ll023e4ascq9qgfvsb@4ax.com...

| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:22:00 -0500, "Bruce Olin"

| <bruce_olin@hotmail.com> wrote:

|

| >

| >"EFill4Zaggin" <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| >news:7d09c35qugdecro6n37c23fdblod57cmhh@4ax.com...

| >| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:38:58 -0400, LarsensAttack

| >| <BayonetVariation.net> wrote:

| >|

| >| >If this is indeed so, I wonder whether the public

| >| >will sit still for it even if Congress supports it.

| >|

| >| Bush won't even consult congress. They've already proven themselves to

| >| be weak and compliant in the face of Bush's war plans. Two examples:

| >| the removal from the Iraq spending bill of a provision that would have

| >| required Bush to consult congress before attacking Iran, and the

| >| "non-binding" resolution on troop pullouts from Iraq. Bush could even

| >| try and gain support for the Iran war under the umbrella of the WOT

| >| act which was enacted shortly after 9/11.

| >

| >All Bush needs is an "incident", and if history has anything to teach us,

it

| >is that "incidents" do not have to be real. Once the bombers fly, nobody

| >can call 'em back.

| >

| >Bruce Olin

| >

|

| So you agree that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office? I

| strongly believe that to be the case.

Sure looks that way to me. Hope to hell I'm wrong.

Bruce Olin