N
NOMOREWARFORISRAEL
Guest
Forwarded:
Romi wrote:
Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:13 am
Fwd: MUST READ: Saudis prepare for US nuclear strike on Iran
Sudden Nuclear Hazards warning if US nukes Iran reported by Saudi
The first story was posted in the Saudi newspapers right after Dick
Cheney left Saudi
Arabia. The second is a follow up with more information on US plans
for sudden attack on
Iran. People need to drop this petty party politics and take to the
streets now or there will
be no election under a Bush/Cheney martial law. The last two articles
(third and fourth)
are on the steps to nuclear war by Bush and Cheney as well as Cemtcom
Commander,
Admiral William Fallon, fought and resigned over the Bush regime's
attack Iran with
nuclear weapons.
Please read and pass on to others.
Saudi Shura council to discuss plan for sudden radioactive hazards
Mar 22, 2008 07:56 EST
Riyadh (dpa) - The Saudi Shura council will secretly discuss national
plans to deal with any
sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom
following experts'
warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors, media
reports said
Saturday.
The Saudi-based King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology has
prepared a
proposal that encapsulates the probabilities of leaking nuclear and
radiation hazards in
case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran, the Okaz Saudi
newspaper said.
The Saudi Shura or consultative council plans to debate the proposal
on Sunday.
The power plants in the south-western Iranian port of Bushehr were
built with German
assistance in 1974 and resumed with Russian aid in 1992, after it had
been stopped by
the Islamic revolution. dpa str es pb
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=96940
Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney
Visit
Written by Chris Floyd
Sunday, 23 March 2008
(NOTE: Apologies for the server problem that blocked access to this
link for several hours
on Monday.)
I. One Tick Closer to Midnight
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings
with the Saudi king
and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura
Council -- the elite
group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle --
is preparing "national
plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may
affect the
kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's
Bushehr nuclear
reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The
German-based
dpa news service relayed the paper's story.
Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an
American attack
on Iran was far more likely -- and more imminent -- than most people
suspect. We
pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar
William R. Polk, one
of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and
to other indicators
of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared
in the tightly
controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet
another, very weighty piece
of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict.
We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more
to the point, what
he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his
departure, would seem to be
a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming
attack on Iran's
nuclear sites and are actively preparing for it.
II. A Nuclear Epiphany in Iran?
And they certainly should be bracing themselves. A U.S. attack on Iran
will come suddenly,
and if it is indeed aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities --
a "threat" being talked
up again with new urgency by both Cheney and Bush lately -- it has the
potential for
unimaginable consequences. As we noted here in a previous piece:
Twelve hours. One circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one
course of the moon
from dusk to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily
round of human
life is now a doom-laden interval between the voicing of an autocrat's
brutal whim and the
infliction of mass annihilation halfway around the world.
Twelve hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to
gear up and
launch an unprovoked sneak attack - a Pearl Harbor in reverse -
against Iran, the
Washington Post reports. The plan for this "global strike," which
includes a very viable
"nuclear option," was approved months ago, and is now in operation.
The planes are
already on continuous alert, making "nuclear delivery" practice runs
along the Iranian
border, as Sy Hersh reports in the New Yorker, and waiting only for
the signal from
President George W. Bush to drop their payloads of conventional and
nuclear weapons on
some 400 targets spread throughout the condemned land.
And when this attack comes - either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow"
or else as the
precusor to a full-scale, regime-changing invasion, like the earlier
aggression in Iraq -
there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no hearings, no
public debate. The already
issued orders governing the operation put the decision solely in the
hands of the
president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" - and in twelve hours'
time, up to a million
Iranians could be dead.
This potential death toll is not pacificist hyperbole; it comes from a
National Academy of
Sciences study sponsored by the Pentagon itself, as The Progressive
reports. (Although
Bush's military brass like to peddle the public lie that "we don't do
body counts" of the
enemy, in reality, like all good businessmen they keep precise
accounts of their production
outputs: i.e., corpses.) The Pentagon's NAS study calibrated the kill-
rate from "bunker-
busting" tactical nukes used to take out underground facilities - such
as those which
house much of Iran's nuclear power program.
Another simulation by scientists, using Pentagon-devised software, was
even more
specific, measuring the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear attack on the
main Iranian
underground site in Esfahan, the magazine reports. This small
expansion of the Pentagon
franchise would result in stellar production figures: three million
people killed by radiation
in just two weeks, and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels
of cancer-causing
radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Bush has about 50
nuclear "earth-penetrating
weapons" at his disposal, according to the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Nor is the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran mere "liberal paranoia."
Bush himself pointedly
refused to take the nuclear option "off the table" this week. But
what's more, Bush has
made the use of nuclear weapons a centerpiece of his "National
Security Strategy of the
United States," issued last month, The Progressive notes. While
reaffirming the criminal
principle of "pre-emptive" attacks on perceived enemies which may or
may not be
threatening America with weapons they may or may not possess, Bush
declared that "safe,
credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role"
in the "offensive strike
systems" that are now a key part of America's "deterrence. "
In the depraved jargon of atomic warmongering, a "credible" nuclear
force is one that can
and will be used in the course of ordinary military operations. It is
no longer to be
regarded as a sacred taboo. This has long been the dream of the
Pentagon's "nuclear
priesthood" and its acolytes, going back to the days of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. For
decades, a strong faction within the American power structure has been
afflicted with a
perverted craving to unleash these weapons once more. An almost sexual
frustration can
be discerned in their laments as time and again, in crisis after
crisis, their counsels for
"going nuclear" were rejected - often at the very last moment. To
justify their abberant
desire, they have relentlessly demonized an ever-changing array of
"enemies," painting
each one as an imminent, overwhelming threat, led by "madmen" in
thrall to pure evil,
impervious to reason, fit only for destruction. Evidence for the
"threat" is invariably
exaggerated, manipulated, even manufactured; this ritual cycle has
been enacted over and
over, leading to many wars - but never to that ultimate, orgasmic
release.
Now this paranoid sect has at last seized the commanding heights of
American
power...they have found a most eager disciple in the peevish dullard
strutting in the Oval
Office. Under their sinister tutelage, Bush has eviscerated 40 years'
worth of arms control
treaties; officially "normalized" the use of nuclear weapons, even
against non-nuclear
states; rewarded outlaw proliferators like India, Israel and Pakistan;
and is now destroying
the last and most effective restraint on the spread of nuclear
weapons: the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The treaty guarantees its signatories - such as Iran - the right to
establish nuclear power
programs in exchange for rigorous international inspections. But Bush
has arbitrarily
decided that Iran - whose nuclear program undergone perhaps the most
extensive
inspection process in history - must end its lawful activities. Why?
Because the country is
led by "madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason, who one
day may or may not
threaten America with weapons they may or may not have....
So the NPT is dead. As with the Geneva Conventions and the U.S.
Constitution, it now
means only what Bush says it means. Force of arms, not rule of law, is
the new world
order. The attack on Iran is coming...The obvious, murderous insanity
of such a move in
no way precludes its implementation by this gang - as their invasion
of Iraq clearly shows.
The nuclear sectarians have waited decades for this moment. Such a
chance may never
come again. Will they let it pass, when with just a word, in just
twelve hours, they can see
their god rising in a pillar of fire over Persia?
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1463/135/
Bush Closer to Bombing Iran
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted March 24, 2008.
Was Centcom Commander Fallon pushed out for opposing a new war of
aggression
against Iran?
The odds of Bush bombing Iran have gone up dramatically this week.
There's just no other way to rationally interpret the resignation of
Admiral William Fallon
as head of Centcom.
Fallon resigned, and more likely was pushed out, after Esquire
published an article on him
entitled "The Man Between War and Peace." It said he was the one
standing in the way of
Bush bombing Iran.
He's not standing in the way any longer.
Actually, his rival, General David Petraeus, is now more powerful than
ever. And as the
Esquire article noted, Petraeus has said: "You cannot win in Iraq
solely in Iraq."
Fallon seemed to understand the risk he was taking when he took the
job as head of
Centcom. He told Esquire: "Career capping? How about career
detonating?"
Fallon's fate as a weathervane for war with Iran has been clear since
the time of his
confirmation, when he told a source that an attack on Iran "will not
happen on my watch."
His watch just stopped.
He also said, a the time, "There are several of us trying to put the
crazies back in the
box."
But the crazies are still bounding around outside the box, and none
crazier than Dick
Cheney, who is off on a Mideast trip, ostensibly to deal with Israel
and Palestine and also
with high oil prices.
But there are other purposes, as well. Cheney is visiting Oman, "a key
military ally and
logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf," notes U.S.
News & World Report.
What's more, according to U.S. News, "two U.S. warships took up
positions off Lebanon
earlier this month." The Pentagon "would want its warships in the
eastern Mediterranean in
the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria
in check and to help
provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals," the
story said. "One of the
newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guised missile
destroyer, a top system for
defense against air attacks."
U.S. News cited three other signs why war is more likely now: Israel's
airstrike on Syria,
Israel's war with Hezbollah, and Shimon Peres's disavowal of
unilateral action.
Here's one more: The director of national intelligence, Mike
McConnell, testified to the
Senate on February 5 that maybe in last fall's NIE he overstressed the
fact that Iran had
halted its nuclear weapons work. And maybe he overplayed the fact that
Iran doesn't know
how to design a nuclear weapon just yet.
And maybe he should have highlighted the fact that Iran was still
enriching uranium.
And maybe he should have emphasized that, therefore, Iran still poses
a potential nuclear
threat.
"In retrospect," McConnell said, "I would do some things differently.
"
Like give Bush and Cheney exactly what they ask for.
Something Admiral Fallon, to his credit, was not prepared to do.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/80493/
US denies planning strike on Iran
The US government has denied it is preparing to take military action
against Iran before
George Bush's term as president expires.
Speculation has been growing since the US military commander in charge
of Middle East
operations resigned on Tuesday.
The White House denied reports that Admiral William Fallon was
quitting because of
differences with Bush over Iran.
A recent article in Esquire magazine said Fallon was opposed to the US
using force against
Iran over its nuclear programme.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said Fallon had asked for
permission to retire early
because reports on the issue meant he felt he could no longer be
effective.
He dismissed as "ridiculous" speculation that the resignation
signalled a step towards war.
Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said also dismissed the
idea that military
action against Iran was any closer.
"There's no one in the administration that is suggesting anything
other than a diplomatic
approach to Iran." she said on Wednesday.
But she also reiterated a long-standing refusal by the US president -
who last year warned
that a nuclear-armed Iran could mean "World War Three" - to rule out
military action.
Perino also denied Bush was intolerant of opinions opposed to his
own.
"That is absolutely nonsense because President Bush has always
fostered an environment
of robust and healthy debate," she said.
While some consider it unlikely that Bush, as a "lame duck" president
with only 10 months
left to his term, would undertake such a major military action as an
attack on Iran, there is
precedent from Bush's own father.
In December 1992, after the former president had already lost his re-
election battle to Bill
Clinton, George Bush sent thousands of US troops to invade Somalia on
a peacekeeping
mission.
And just days before leaving office, the former president ordered a
strike on Baghdad with
40 cruise missiles striking targets linked to Iraqi weapons
development, an example of
how the US president can order military action at any time.
Over the past year, Bush and Dick Cheney, the vice-president, have
ratcheted up the
rhetoric against Iran, which says its nuclear programme is for
peaceful purposes.
Fallon said on Tuesday he did not disagree with the Bush
administration over Iran, but that
press reports had made it difficult to do his job effectively.
Democratic criticism
Fallon made a surprise visit to the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Wednesday
after denying other
reports he had clashed with General David Petraeus, the US commander
in Iraq, over
military strategy there.
"Admiral Fallon is a true warrior who has served our country
selflessly and honourably for
more than 40 years," Petraeus said in statement read by Major-General
Kevin Bergner in
Baghdad.
But Bush's Democratic critics have seized on Fallon's departure as
another sign that the
Bush administration refuses to tolerate military officers who speak
their minds.
Harry Reid, the US senate majority leader, called it "yet another
example that
independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not
welcomed in this
administration" .
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, described
Fallon as a "voice of
reason in an administration which has used inflammatory rhetoric
against Iran", and urged
the White House to pursue diplomacy with Tehran instead of conflict.
"Admiral Fallon's resignation should not be used as an excuse to
ratchet up tensions with
Iran," the New York senator said in a statement.
'Poison pen'
The Esquire article said Fallon's reported disagreements with Bush
over his policy on Iran
could lead to his dismissal in favour of someone "more pliable".
It also said that, were that to happen, it could be taken as a sign
that Bush and Cheney
intended to take military action against Iran "before the end of this
year and don't want a
commander standing in their way".
But Gates dismissed the magazine's claims as "ridiculous" and said
Fallon had made the
decision to retire of his own volition.
Fallon co-operated with the author during the article's preparation
but strongly criticised
the story after it was published, describing it as "poison pen
stuff".
The article was the latest in a series of interviews that appear to
have placed Fallon at
odds with the Bush administration.
He told Al Jazeera in 2007 that the "constant drumbeat of conflict is
one that strikes me as
not helpful, not useful for the people, and I wish we could get moving
to things that are
more constructive for the region".
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/13AAF1CB-4E92-4D6D-A232-635325A8088.htm
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
Romi wrote:
Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:13 am
Fwd: MUST READ: Saudis prepare for US nuclear strike on Iran
Sudden Nuclear Hazards warning if US nukes Iran reported by Saudi
The first story was posted in the Saudi newspapers right after Dick
Cheney left Saudi
Arabia. The second is a follow up with more information on US plans
for sudden attack on
Iran. People need to drop this petty party politics and take to the
streets now or there will
be no election under a Bush/Cheney martial law. The last two articles
(third and fourth)
are on the steps to nuclear war by Bush and Cheney as well as Cemtcom
Commander,
Admiral William Fallon, fought and resigned over the Bush regime's
attack Iran with
nuclear weapons.
Please read and pass on to others.
Saudi Shura council to discuss plan for sudden radioactive hazards
Mar 22, 2008 07:56 EST
Riyadh (dpa) - The Saudi Shura council will secretly discuss national
plans to deal with any
sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom
following experts'
warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors, media
reports said
Saturday.
The Saudi-based King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology has
prepared a
proposal that encapsulates the probabilities of leaking nuclear and
radiation hazards in
case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran, the Okaz Saudi
newspaper said.
The Saudi Shura or consultative council plans to debate the proposal
on Sunday.
The power plants in the south-western Iranian port of Bushehr were
built with German
assistance in 1974 and resumed with Russian aid in 1992, after it had
been stopped by
the Islamic revolution. dpa str es pb
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=96940
Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney
Visit
Written by Chris Floyd
Sunday, 23 March 2008
(NOTE: Apologies for the server problem that blocked access to this
link for several hours
on Monday.)
I. One Tick Closer to Midnight
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings
with the Saudi king
and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura
Council -- the elite
group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle --
is preparing "national
plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may
affect the
kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's
Bushehr nuclear
reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The
German-based
dpa news service relayed the paper's story.
Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an
American attack
on Iran was far more likely -- and more imminent -- than most people
suspect. We
pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar
William R. Polk, one
of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and
to other indicators
of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared
in the tightly
controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet
another, very weighty piece
of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict.
We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more
to the point, what
he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his
departure, would seem to be
a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming
attack on Iran's
nuclear sites and are actively preparing for it.
II. A Nuclear Epiphany in Iran?
And they certainly should be bracing themselves. A U.S. attack on Iran
will come suddenly,
and if it is indeed aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities --
a "threat" being talked
up again with new urgency by both Cheney and Bush lately -- it has the
potential for
unimaginable consequences. As we noted here in a previous piece:
Twelve hours. One circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one
course of the moon
from dusk to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily
round of human
life is now a doom-laden interval between the voicing of an autocrat's
brutal whim and the
infliction of mass annihilation halfway around the world.
Twelve hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to
gear up and
launch an unprovoked sneak attack - a Pearl Harbor in reverse -
against Iran, the
Washington Post reports. The plan for this "global strike," which
includes a very viable
"nuclear option," was approved months ago, and is now in operation.
The planes are
already on continuous alert, making "nuclear delivery" practice runs
along the Iranian
border, as Sy Hersh reports in the New Yorker, and waiting only for
the signal from
President George W. Bush to drop their payloads of conventional and
nuclear weapons on
some 400 targets spread throughout the condemned land.
And when this attack comes - either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow"
or else as the
precusor to a full-scale, regime-changing invasion, like the earlier
aggression in Iraq -
there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no hearings, no
public debate. The already
issued orders governing the operation put the decision solely in the
hands of the
president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" - and in twelve hours'
time, up to a million
Iranians could be dead.
This potential death toll is not pacificist hyperbole; it comes from a
National Academy of
Sciences study sponsored by the Pentagon itself, as The Progressive
reports. (Although
Bush's military brass like to peddle the public lie that "we don't do
body counts" of the
enemy, in reality, like all good businessmen they keep precise
accounts of their production
outputs: i.e., corpses.) The Pentagon's NAS study calibrated the kill-
rate from "bunker-
busting" tactical nukes used to take out underground facilities - such
as those which
house much of Iran's nuclear power program.
Another simulation by scientists, using Pentagon-devised software, was
even more
specific, measuring the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear attack on the
main Iranian
underground site in Esfahan, the magazine reports. This small
expansion of the Pentagon
franchise would result in stellar production figures: three million
people killed by radiation
in just two weeks, and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels
of cancer-causing
radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Bush has about 50
nuclear "earth-penetrating
weapons" at his disposal, according to the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Nor is the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran mere "liberal paranoia."
Bush himself pointedly
refused to take the nuclear option "off the table" this week. But
what's more, Bush has
made the use of nuclear weapons a centerpiece of his "National
Security Strategy of the
United States," issued last month, The Progressive notes. While
reaffirming the criminal
principle of "pre-emptive" attacks on perceived enemies which may or
may not be
threatening America with weapons they may or may not possess, Bush
declared that "safe,
credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role"
in the "offensive strike
systems" that are now a key part of America's "deterrence. "
In the depraved jargon of atomic warmongering, a "credible" nuclear
force is one that can
and will be used in the course of ordinary military operations. It is
no longer to be
regarded as a sacred taboo. This has long been the dream of the
Pentagon's "nuclear
priesthood" and its acolytes, going back to the days of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. For
decades, a strong faction within the American power structure has been
afflicted with a
perverted craving to unleash these weapons once more. An almost sexual
frustration can
be discerned in their laments as time and again, in crisis after
crisis, their counsels for
"going nuclear" were rejected - often at the very last moment. To
justify their abberant
desire, they have relentlessly demonized an ever-changing array of
"enemies," painting
each one as an imminent, overwhelming threat, led by "madmen" in
thrall to pure evil,
impervious to reason, fit only for destruction. Evidence for the
"threat" is invariably
exaggerated, manipulated, even manufactured; this ritual cycle has
been enacted over and
over, leading to many wars - but never to that ultimate, orgasmic
release.
Now this paranoid sect has at last seized the commanding heights of
American
power...they have found a most eager disciple in the peevish dullard
strutting in the Oval
Office. Under their sinister tutelage, Bush has eviscerated 40 years'
worth of arms control
treaties; officially "normalized" the use of nuclear weapons, even
against non-nuclear
states; rewarded outlaw proliferators like India, Israel and Pakistan;
and is now destroying
the last and most effective restraint on the spread of nuclear
weapons: the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The treaty guarantees its signatories - such as Iran - the right to
establish nuclear power
programs in exchange for rigorous international inspections. But Bush
has arbitrarily
decided that Iran - whose nuclear program undergone perhaps the most
extensive
inspection process in history - must end its lawful activities. Why?
Because the country is
led by "madmen" in thrall to pure evil, impervious to reason, who one
day may or may not
threaten America with weapons they may or may not have....
So the NPT is dead. As with the Geneva Conventions and the U.S.
Constitution, it now
means only what Bush says it means. Force of arms, not rule of law, is
the new world
order. The attack on Iran is coming...The obvious, murderous insanity
of such a move in
no way precludes its implementation by this gang - as their invasion
of Iraq clearly shows.
The nuclear sectarians have waited decades for this moment. Such a
chance may never
come again. Will they let it pass, when with just a word, in just
twelve hours, they can see
their god rising in a pillar of fire over Persia?
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1463/135/
Bush Closer to Bombing Iran
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted March 24, 2008.
Was Centcom Commander Fallon pushed out for opposing a new war of
aggression
against Iran?
The odds of Bush bombing Iran have gone up dramatically this week.
There's just no other way to rationally interpret the resignation of
Admiral William Fallon
as head of Centcom.
Fallon resigned, and more likely was pushed out, after Esquire
published an article on him
entitled "The Man Between War and Peace." It said he was the one
standing in the way of
Bush bombing Iran.
He's not standing in the way any longer.
Actually, his rival, General David Petraeus, is now more powerful than
ever. And as the
Esquire article noted, Petraeus has said: "You cannot win in Iraq
solely in Iraq."
Fallon seemed to understand the risk he was taking when he took the
job as head of
Centcom. He told Esquire: "Career capping? How about career
detonating?"
Fallon's fate as a weathervane for war with Iran has been clear since
the time of his
confirmation, when he told a source that an attack on Iran "will not
happen on my watch."
His watch just stopped.
He also said, a the time, "There are several of us trying to put the
crazies back in the
box."
But the crazies are still bounding around outside the box, and none
crazier than Dick
Cheney, who is off on a Mideast trip, ostensibly to deal with Israel
and Palestine and also
with high oil prices.
But there are other purposes, as well. Cheney is visiting Oman, "a key
military ally and
logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf," notes U.S.
News & World Report.
What's more, according to U.S. News, "two U.S. warships took up
positions off Lebanon
earlier this month." The Pentagon "would want its warships in the
eastern Mediterranean in
the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria
in check and to help
provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals," the
story said. "One of the
newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guised missile
destroyer, a top system for
defense against air attacks."
U.S. News cited three other signs why war is more likely now: Israel's
airstrike on Syria,
Israel's war with Hezbollah, and Shimon Peres's disavowal of
unilateral action.
Here's one more: The director of national intelligence, Mike
McConnell, testified to the
Senate on February 5 that maybe in last fall's NIE he overstressed the
fact that Iran had
halted its nuclear weapons work. And maybe he overplayed the fact that
Iran doesn't know
how to design a nuclear weapon just yet.
And maybe he should have highlighted the fact that Iran was still
enriching uranium.
And maybe he should have emphasized that, therefore, Iran still poses
a potential nuclear
threat.
"In retrospect," McConnell said, "I would do some things differently.
"
Like give Bush and Cheney exactly what they ask for.
Something Admiral Fallon, to his credit, was not prepared to do.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/80493/
US denies planning strike on Iran
The US government has denied it is preparing to take military action
against Iran before
George Bush's term as president expires.
Speculation has been growing since the US military commander in charge
of Middle East
operations resigned on Tuesday.
The White House denied reports that Admiral William Fallon was
quitting because of
differences with Bush over Iran.
A recent article in Esquire magazine said Fallon was opposed to the US
using force against
Iran over its nuclear programme.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said Fallon had asked for
permission to retire early
because reports on the issue meant he felt he could no longer be
effective.
He dismissed as "ridiculous" speculation that the resignation
signalled a step towards war.
Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said also dismissed the
idea that military
action against Iran was any closer.
"There's no one in the administration that is suggesting anything
other than a diplomatic
approach to Iran." she said on Wednesday.
But she also reiterated a long-standing refusal by the US president -
who last year warned
that a nuclear-armed Iran could mean "World War Three" - to rule out
military action.
Perino also denied Bush was intolerant of opinions opposed to his
own.
"That is absolutely nonsense because President Bush has always
fostered an environment
of robust and healthy debate," she said.
While some consider it unlikely that Bush, as a "lame duck" president
with only 10 months
left to his term, would undertake such a major military action as an
attack on Iran, there is
precedent from Bush's own father.
In December 1992, after the former president had already lost his re-
election battle to Bill
Clinton, George Bush sent thousands of US troops to invade Somalia on
a peacekeeping
mission.
And just days before leaving office, the former president ordered a
strike on Baghdad with
40 cruise missiles striking targets linked to Iraqi weapons
development, an example of
how the US president can order military action at any time.
Over the past year, Bush and Dick Cheney, the vice-president, have
ratcheted up the
rhetoric against Iran, which says its nuclear programme is for
peaceful purposes.
Fallon said on Tuesday he did not disagree with the Bush
administration over Iran, but that
press reports had made it difficult to do his job effectively.
Democratic criticism
Fallon made a surprise visit to the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Wednesday
after denying other
reports he had clashed with General David Petraeus, the US commander
in Iraq, over
military strategy there.
"Admiral Fallon is a true warrior who has served our country
selflessly and honourably for
more than 40 years," Petraeus said in statement read by Major-General
Kevin Bergner in
Baghdad.
But Bush's Democratic critics have seized on Fallon's departure as
another sign that the
Bush administration refuses to tolerate military officers who speak
their minds.
Harry Reid, the US senate majority leader, called it "yet another
example that
independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not
welcomed in this
administration" .
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, described
Fallon as a "voice of
reason in an administration which has used inflammatory rhetoric
against Iran", and urged
the White House to pursue diplomacy with Tehran instead of conflict.
"Admiral Fallon's resignation should not be used as an excuse to
ratchet up tensions with
Iran," the New York senator said in a statement.
'Poison pen'
The Esquire article said Fallon's reported disagreements with Bush
over his policy on Iran
could lead to his dismissal in favour of someone "more pliable".
It also said that, were that to happen, it could be taken as a sign
that Bush and Cheney
intended to take military action against Iran "before the end of this
year and don't want a
commander standing in their way".
But Gates dismissed the magazine's claims as "ridiculous" and said
Fallon had made the
decision to retire of his own volition.
Fallon co-operated with the author during the article's preparation
but strongly criticised
the story after it was published, describing it as "poison pen
stuff".
The article was the latest in a series of interviews that appear to
have placed Fallon at
odds with the Bush administration.
He told Al Jazeera in 2007 that the "constant drumbeat of conflict is
one that strikes me as
not helpful, not useful for the people, and I wish we could get moving
to things that are
more constructive for the region".
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/13AAF1CB-4E92-4D6D-A232-635325A8088.htm
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM