Congress Soon to Ask Bush to Blockade Iran (and start a war)

[ritehook]

Yes, I'm still on summer vacation from this site. Don't miss it at all, esp the endless catfighting (dogfighting?).

And I know that a few want me on perm vacation from here - but I'm probably gonna be back for foots. (And I sure don't understand their unkindness, esp after I wished them all a Happy 60th Anniversary!)

But I did vow to the stars above to return around July 4 to post something from a Pulitzer winner that he put on the Wet last Independence Day, for the entertainment of the 5% posters here who enjoy that kind of thing.

And tomorrow I'll try to do so. Or maybe on the 3rd or 4th.

But as an appetizer, I'll post this (below, in Reply) from the Global Research site in Canada.

The Congress is about to pass a resolution (overwhelmingly no doubt) that would ask GW to blockade Iran, an act of war.

It is only a "sense of the Congress" resolution, but asking a war-crazed (and draft-dodging) president to start a war is very unwise . . .

[ritehook]

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress


by Andrew W Cheetham


Global Research, June 18, 2008




A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

AIPAC's Endorsement

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ''Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

The Resolutions put forward in the House and the Senate bear a resounding similarity to AIPAC analysis and Issue Memos in both its analysis and proposals even down to its individual components.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. "It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways," said Congressman Mike Pence(R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution along with Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the sub committee on Middle East and South Asia of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. "The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island," he writes.

These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.

Last week’s sharp rise in the cost of oil following Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran indicated the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.

In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have "exhausted themselves" and called a blockade a "good possibility."

[RageWizard]

Load up on gold and oil futures now. If this happens gas will be $6.00 a gallon and gold will fly through the roof.

[ritehook]

America'c "conscience" in Congress, Ron Paul, has already spoken of the danger this resolution implies, and will vote against it.

But such is the enormous power of "the Lobby" that he will be joined by very few others.

No one is taking any bets, but of the 100 senators and -what - over 430 congressmen, I'd guess no more than 30 or 40 end up on the "Nay" side.

[freeVICK]

bush

[ritehook]

Load up on gold and oil futures now. If this happens gas will be $6.00 a gallon and gold will fly through the roof.

Certainly agree, tho if Strait of Hormuz closes (even if only ofr a few weeks) barrel of crude will likely skyrocket over $300, and make even $6 a gallon look like a bargain. (Bicycles, anyone?)

This is almost certainly going to pass, such is the enslavement of "our" elected reps to on single-minded power group.

But the question is -- will GW act on it? Some may think giving him a "sense of Congress" resolution like this is like giving a loaded gun to an enraged teenager.

But, it's a good chance to see if the proverbial "cooler heads" prevail in the White House. (Are there any cool heads there?)

Also interesting to see which congresspeople and senators cross the Lobby and vote No.

[ritehook]

This is a part of an article by J. Raimundo, editorial director of antiwar.com. That, btw, is not a mushy, peacenik "isn't war horrible" site, but a lot of solid reportage (some from insiders) and hard analysis.


There seems little doubt who and what is motivating this new push for war. Even as "moderate" a commentator as Joe Klein knows that the Lobby is up to its old tricks again, and he is being pilloried for telling the truth. In his Time column, Klein wrote:

"The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked – still smacks – of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives – people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary – plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel."

As I have pointed out in this space many times, the great majority of American Jews oppose this administration's crazed foreign policy, and there would be no antiwar movement of any consequence without their active support. Yet it cannot be denied – as I wrote before a single shot had been fired – that the Iraq war was launched, as Klein notes, to make the Middle East safer for Israel, just as the current push for "regime change" in Iran is energized by the same motive.


The rest of the piece is up at the moment at antiwar.

[SBR_John]

I think all that will happen is that Israel will take out Irans nuclear enrichment ability. Everyone knows that comimg and the its probably built into the price of oil now.

[Dark Horse]

It's funny.

I've studied 9/11. And came up with a conclusion that was not remotely close to what I had expected to find.

I studied the -illegal- Fed. And the manipulation of economies, as we see today. This too led to an unexpected conclusion. Strangely, it seemed tied to the other conclusion. WTF?! Of particular interest, in this regard, are US presidents JFK, Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

Recently I came upon this article that was revealing to say the least. Among many other things it states that in 2001 'US forces attack Afghanistan, one of only 7 nations in the world who don’t have a Rothschild controlled central bank.'

Then we had the attack on Iraq. And:
'There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.'

You'll easily recognize three countries from the infamous 'axis of evil'.

This is the link. The article is long (about 50 normal pages).

http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Rothschild-timeline.htm

I don't know if everything stated in this article is true. I would doubt it. But it contains far more truth than the story presented to us by the media. There can be no doubt about that.

It is sprinkled with revealing quotes by leading figures of their time. The story begins in the 1700's...

[pavyracer]

Israel's entire airforce will be obliterated by the russian made S-300 missiles Iran possesses if Iran is attacked.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124719

The missiles can intercept targets at an altitude of up to 27 kilometers (90,000 feet) and at ranges of up to 150 kilometers (95 miles) from the launch point. They are effective against cruise missiles and ballistic warheads as well, and are equivalent to the PAC-3 Patriot missiles which Israel is considering purchasing.

The S-300 systems are also a major improvement over the 29 Tor-M1 air defense missile systems delivered to Iran from Russia earlier this year. The $700 million contract for that purchase was signed in December 2005. Former Israel Air Force Commander Eitan Ben-Eliyahu told Channel 10 TV that the missiles will make it significantly harder for Israel to attack Iran from the air, if it chooses to do so.

Israel's airforce can't penetrate Iranian forces on its own. They have to use the Meditteranean international waters and then get permission from Turkey to attack Iran from the North border.

If you don't have any military background on how operations are carried out do not speculate.

[Dark Horse]

Iran can cause major trouble to oil transports in the region. Not that Israel would care. As usual, the terrorist state of Israel wants this, and is forcing the US hand to do the dirty work for them. And at our cost...

This is from back in the days when Israel wanted nuclear weapons. The year is 1963. (excerpt from linked article)

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rothschilds owned Federal Reserve.

Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to print American money for the American people, as oppose to for the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.

This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963 to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same day as President Kennedy was assassinated.

Another, and probably the primary, reason for Kennedy's assassination is however, the fact that he made it quite clear to Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, that under no circumstances would he agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on February 5, 1999, in a review of, Avner Cohen's book, "Israel and the Bomb," states the following,

"The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program...The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option."

[ritehook]

John (how ya doin' guy?) is incorrect,and pavy is correct (as he often is on pure military matters).

Israel does not have enough stealth aircraft to penetrate Iran's fairly sophisiticated air defenses. Plus, if Israel attacks Iran, Israeel will likely experience a missile onslaugh from Iran that will make the Hezbullah rocketry in that brief war seem almost a plesant interlude.

While I doubt that Israel entire air force will be wiped out if they overfly Iran to damge the centrifuges, it will definitely NOT be a "cakewalk." (Which idiot neocon said that - Perle or Wolfowitz?)

They want the US to take the lead, and soon, as time is running out, with their biggest prize puppet ever having only relatively short time before heading to the ranch and a permanent place as history's great dunce and laughingstock.

If they do attack Iran, it will likely be only superifcially, and to goad a response, one that will bring Uncle Stupid riding to the rescue.

[ritehook]

The question of control of a nation's money supply (dh posts) is always a key one, and Ron Paul discussed it. (Tho it tends to put the masses to sleep, as they need visceral images to activate themselves)

Some think Lincoln was shot because he issued non-interesst bearing "greenbacks," and enraged thereby what some call the "money power."

Jackson also opposed central banks.

There are those who believe the US and England's main animus toward Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Jews, but that Germany broke free of the international trade market and used a barter system. (Tho they retained,I think, a central bank)

Maybe someone will write a short, riveting treatise on the ways central banks create money and ruin countries. Something that reads like an action/adventure story, and with cartoons to boot

What about you, dh?

[pavyracer]

John (how ya doin' guy?) is incorrect,and pavy is correct (as he often is on pure military matters).

Israel does not have enough stealth aircraft to penetrate Iran's fairly sophisiticated air defenses. Plus, if Israel attacks Iran, Israeel will likely experience a missile onslaugh from Iran that will make the Hezbullah rocketry in that brief war seem almost a plesant interlude.

While I doubt that Israel entire air force will be wiped out if they overfly Iran to damge the centrifuges, it will definitely NOT be a "cakewalk." (Which idiot neocon said that - Perle or Wolfowitz?)

They want the US to take the lead, and soon, as time is running out, with their biggest prize puppet ever having only relatively short time before heading to the ranch and a permanent place as history's great dunce and laughingstock.

If they do attack Iran, it will likely be only superifcially, and to goad a response, one that will bring Uncle Stupid riding to the rescue.

Thanks ritehook. This was my point. Israel does not have military capacity to declare war on Iran. If they attack to provoke them Uncle Sam needs to come to the rescue. Try to sell this to American public that we are going to war with Iran to help Israel from their humiliation. It won't sell at these rough economic times.

[Dark Horse]

The question of control of a nation's money supply (dh posts) is always a key one, and Ron Paul discussed it. (Tho it tends to put the masses to sleep, as they need visceral images to activate themselves)

Some think Lincoln was shot because he issued non-interesst bearing "greenbacks," and enraged thereby what some call the "money power."

Jackson also opposed central banks.

There are those who believe the US and England's main animus toward Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Jews, but that Germany broke free of the international trade market and used a barter system. (Tho they retained,I think, a central bank)

Maybe someone will write a short, riveting treatise on the ways central banks create money and ruin countries. Something that reads like an action/adventure story, and with cartoons to boot

What about you, dh?

Too dark for me to write, man. The Rothschilds story ties it all together.
I'm not into the Bible, but I do know that there was only one point where Christ became angry, even furious: when he threw out the money changers. That is exactly what they are. They control countries by controlling the money supply, and have been planning for over two centuries:

1790: Mayer Amschel Rothschild states,

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."

Did you click on the link I gave? JFK and Lincoln were assassinated. Jackson survived an assassination attempt. When asked towards the end of his life what he considered his greatest achievement, he answered: "I killed the Bank."

He killed the second Rothschild controlled US central bank. The third is the Fed (Federal Reserve).

[Thor4140]

At what point do we just put the Israel Flag over the capital?

Buchanan: Who's Planning Our Next War?
Who's Planning Our Next War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Of the Axis-of-Evil nations named in his State of the Union in 2002, President Bush has often said, "The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

He failed with North Korea. Will he accept failure in Iran, though there is no hard evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard said Sunday a U.S. attack on Iran after the election is more likely should Barack Obama win. Presumably, Bush would trust John McCain to keep Iran nuclear free.

Yet, to start a third war in the Middle East against a nation three times as large as Iraq, and leave it to a new president to fight, would be a daylight hijacking of the congressional war power and a criminally irresponsible act. For Congress alone has the power to authorize war.

Yet Israel is even today pushing Bush into a pre-emptive war with a naked threat to attack Iran itself should Bush refuse the cup.

In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers and helicopters to pick up downed pilots, toward Greece in a simulated attack, a dress rehearsal for war. The planes flew 1,400 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

Ehud Olmert came home from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. ... I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness. ...

"George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term. ... The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new president in the White House seven and a half months from now."

If Bush is discussing war on Iran with Ehud Olmert, why is he not discussing it with Congress or the nation?

On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it." The price of oil shot up 9 percent.

Is Israel bluffing – or planning to attack Iran if America balks?

Previous air strikes on the PLO command in Tunis, on the Osirak reactor in Iraq and on the presumed nuclear reactor site in Syria last September give Israel a high degree of credibility.

Still, attacking Iran would be no piece of cake.

Israel lacks the stealth and cruise-missile capacity to degrade Iran's air defenses systematically and no longer has the element of surprise. Israeli planes and pilots would likely be lost.

Israel also lacks the ability to stay over the target or conduct follow-up strikes. The U.S. Air Force bombed Iraq for five weeks with hundreds of daily runs in 1991 before Gen. Schwarzkopf moved.

Moreover, if Iran has achieved the capacity to enrich uranium, she has surely moved centrifuges to parts of the country that Israel cannot reach – and can probably replicate anything lost.

Israel would also have to over-fly Turkey, or Syria and U.S.-occupied Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to reach Natanz. Turks, Syrians and Saudis would deny Israel permission and might resist. For the U.S. military to let Israel over-fly Iraq would make us an accomplice. How would that sit with the Europeans who are supporting our sanctions on Iran and want the nuclear issue settled diplomatically?

And who can predict with certitude how Iran would respond?

Would Iran attack Israel with rockets, inviting retaliation with Jericho and cruise missiles from Israeli submarines? Would she close the Gulf with suicide-boat attacks on tankers and U.S. warships?

With oil at $135 a barrel, Israeli air strikes on Iran would seem to ensure a 2,000-point drop in the Dow and a world recession.

What would Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria do? All three are now in indirect negotiations with Israel. U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq could be made by Iran to pay a high price in blood that could force the United States to initiate its own air war in retaliation, and to finish a war Israel had begun. But a U.S. war on Iran is not a decision Bush can outsource to Ehud Olmert.

Tuesday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullins left for Israel. CBS News cited U.S. officials as conceding the trip comes "just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex."

Vice President Cheney is said to favor U.S. strikes. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Mullins are said to be opposed.

Moving through Congress, powered by the Israeli lobby, is House Resolution 362, which demands that President Bush impose a U.S. blockade of Iran, an act of war.

Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that is being planned for us?

June 27, 2008

[ritehook]

Pat Buchanan always has on point and substantive items when discusssing US foreign policy - especially in the MidEast.

I believe he also polled higher number than Ron Paul did, when Buchanan ran for president. Too bad he has that annoying little nervous giggle, he might have been a contendah.

[ritehook]

Did you click on the link I gave?

Confess I didn't, dh. Partly because I'm so time-pressed right now I can only stop by here briefly to bitch and kvetch. But next week I'll dig up the thread and click it on.

Also becuase I am somewhat familiar with the Money issue. I did know that Jackson opposed a central bank, and that Lincoln reputedly pissed off the Money Power by issuing the interest-free greenbacks during the Civil War.

But the only book I think I ever read on Money was something called Money Creators, by a lady with the name of Gertrude Coogan (if I have it right).

I don't know if you were in SD in the early '80s (or even if you'd been born by then) but at that time a guy from the midwest named Dave Dawson blew into town to host an afternoon radio talk show.

It was right at the time that Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant. Dawson opened the discussion on that - and I mean he really opened it, allowing opinion that had not been before heard openly in public. This, was, remember, long before the Internet.

He would also open his show up to opinions on "money." "What really IS money?" I recall him saying by way of introduction once. And he got hundreds of calls on it.

He'd kind of pretend innocence, but the cognoscenti knew that he was potboiling the airwaves, and building his ratings. I once walked into a South Bay tailor shop and the Palestinian tailor had him on the radio. (I still sometimes patronize that shop.)

Then, the "boys" got after him, the Israel-firsters (and who knows what others) and he was given his wallking papers. he went back to Kansas City, and I saw on the Net once that he'd died there a few years back. (When I told that to the tailor I could tell he was suspicious that Dawson had been victim of foul play!)

A lot of the pot boiling controversy has moved to the Net. But it sure was fun when Dawson sizzled the airwaves for a while there in the early and mid-80s.

[ritehook]

Thanks ritehook. This was my point. Israel does not have military capacity to declare war on Iran. If they attack to provoke them Uncle Sam needs to come to the rescue. Try to sell this to American public that we are going to war with Iran to help Israel from their humiliation. It won't sell at these rough economic times.

I think, pavy, it depends on how it's done (if it indeed is done - I absolutely do not believe that Israel will even make a shadowbox attack upon Iran without a pre-arrangement with Uncle Stupid.

If they can bomb some civilian areas, kill lotos of people, and then head home by overflying Iraq, hotheads in the Revolutionary Guards or even some of the wiser mullah greybeards may wish to punish the US, by attacking GIs in sourthern Iraq.

It would be a mistake for Iran to do that, but the passions of war . . . who knows?

If they give in to the provocation then the Cheney neocon propaganda machine gears it up and proves once more the eternal verity of H.L. Mencken's dictum: NOBODY EVER LOST MONEY UNDERESTIMATING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

[ritehook]

Or a blockade. Once AIPAC wins that they and Big Dick and Little George can sell it as peaceful action to make sure that the crazy mullahs aren't building nukes to create a Mideast holocaust.

So when US Navy personnel try to board Iranian ships to do a full search for WMDs or their components, it can be sold by the mediacracy to the Moronocracy as a great mission of peace, and Boy George can pose with olive branches in his lying teeth.

Of course, a blockade in an infringement on a nation's sovereignty, just as is an invasion: an act of war.

(Did you study military tactic and/or logistics at a military academy, here or abroad. I think you mentioned you read Hebrew - a school in Israel? That would be interesting. However, masking one's identity when discussing "unpopular" topics is far more important than giving up personal info . . . Ultimately, it's the ideas that count, not the personality behind them)

[pavyracer]

1. Israel does not share a border with Iraq. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Saudia Arabia will not allow Israel to violate their airspace. They have sofisticated radar and AWACS planes to detect Israeli air force movements. This is not 1981.

2. Attack on Iran will come at a hight cost for Israel. Even if 5 F-16's are shot down, which the S-300 will kill (see my avatar for S-400's), the US has to intervene. It will be a humiliation for Israel to lose any aircraft which they would. An S-300 Serbian missile shot down the first ever stealth bomber 10 years ago when we bombed Belgrade. The wreckage was delivered to Russia and was used to get information to make the S-400 even more lethal. They can shoot stealth bombers too.

3. There will be tremendous pressure on Bush not to intervene to save Israel's ass from embarassment from the Arab world. We will be doomed if we attcack Iran. There army is operational and will fight to their deaths to defend their country because they love Ahmedj.

[Thor4140]

More signs of Israeli-US preparations for attacking Iran

By Peter Symonds
28 June 2008

The visit by US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen to Israel yesterday is one more indication that the two countries are actively discussing a military strike on Iran. Mullen’s trip followed news that the Israeli air force carried out a major exercise earlier this month involving 100 fighter jets, backed by midair fuel tankers and rescue helicopters, flying some 1,500 kilometres westward over the Mediterranean Sea—roughly the same distance as eastward from Israel to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Mullen’s trip was only the second by a joint chiefs chairman to Israel in more than a decade. Last December Mullen also visited Israel in the wake of an unprovoked attack last September by Israeli warplanes on a building in northern Syria. In April, the Bush administration authorised a CIA briefing, which claimed, on the basis of limited evidence, that Syria had been constructing a nuclear reactor at the site with the assistance of North Korea.

Few details of Mullen’s latest trip are available, but Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell did acknowledge that Iran was at the top of the agenda. “Obviously, when Chairman Mullen goes to Israel and speaks with the Israelis, they will no doubt discuss the threat posed by Iran, as we discuss it in this building, in other buildings in town,” he said.

Two other top US military officers were also in Israel this week. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead met with his Israeli counterpart, as did General William Wallace, commander of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command. Roughead’s presence is particularly significant, as the US navy would be central in countering any Iranian retaliation in the Persian Gulf following an Israeli strike.

The high-level visits follow a series of threats against Iran by senior Israeli figures, most explicitly by Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz. He told an Israeli newspaper on June 13 that “if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it”. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Sallai Meridor, told CBS News last week that time was “running out” for a diplomatic action to force Iran to shut down its nuclear programs. “We cannot take this threat lightly and as our prime minister recently said Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran,” he said.

Like the US, Israel claims, without any substantive evidence, that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, which, according to Israeli intelligence, could manufacture a bomb as early as next year. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its nuclear facilities are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A series of IAEA reports confirm that Iran is enriching uranium only to the low levels required to fuel its planned power reactors—as Tehran has insisted all along. A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) by US intelligence agencies last December found that Iran had ended any weapons program by 2003.

Israel, however, is determined to maintain its military supremacy in the Middle East and to prevent any, even remote, possibility that Iran, or any other neighbor, will master nuclear technology that would in the future assist in the building of weapons. Hypocritically, both Israeli and US officials remain silent on what is an open secret—that Israel maintains its own substantial arsenal of atomic bombs. In order to retain its nuclear monopoly, the Israeli regime is prepared to risk plunging the entire region into a conflagration through an unprovoked and criminal attack on Iran.

The Bush administration, which regards Iran as an obstacle to US dominance in the oil-rich Middle East, is complicit in these plans. As a number of defense analysts have pointed out, the Israeli military does not have the capacity to carry out the type of sustained air war needed not only to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, but to level Iran’s air defenses and military capacity to retaliate. Moreover, any Israeli air strike on Iran is limited in its choice of routes—the most obvious one being over US-occupied Iraq. Whatever is the case, Israel needs the tacit political support, if not active military assistance, of the US.

Israeli impatience has nothing to do with Iran’s alleged weapons program. If time is “running out”, the main consideration is a political one—that the Bush administration is due to leave office early next year. Analyst Michael Oren from the Jerusalem-based Shalem Centre told CBS News that Israel would not wait for a new US administration. “The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearise. The Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran,” he said.

Within the Israeli establishment, an attack on Iran is openly discussed. In a comment on Tuesday, provocatively entitled “...but someone has to do it”, the right-wing Jerusalem Post pointed out that the not-so-secret Israeli “dress rehearsal” over the Mediterranean was aimed to pressuring “the world”—-particularly the US—into taking on the task. After discounting the possibility that Bush or either of the US presidential contenders would authorize a US attack on Iran, the article bitterly concluded that in the event that Israel had no partners in such an enterprise, at least the “Jews can lean on themselves”.

A second article in the Jerusalem Post the following day attacked a New York Times editorial that had argued against attacking Iran, not because of its criminal character, but because the consequences would be “disastrous”. The Jerusalem Post writer argued that there was little doubt that Iran would respond to a direct attack, or a blockade, “but its options, heated rhetoric notwithstanding, are actually limited”. Tacitly acknowledging that Iran posed no real threat to either Israel or the US, he commented: “Instead of unwarranted, self-deterring risk aversion, let us not forget who wields the incalculably greater ‘stick’: Iran certainly will not.”

Israel has been intensifying its propaganda against Iran. According to Ha’aretz, Foreign Ministry Director General Aaron Abramovich secretly visited IAEA headquarters in Vienna on Wednesday to demand that the body “act more quickly and efficiently to block Iranian nuclear ambitions”. Abramovich, the first senior Israeli official in several years to visit the IAEA, reportedly briefed a group of ambassadors on Israel’s belief that Iran has a secret military nuclear program.

Israeli officials are claiming that the purpose of Syria’s alleged nuclear reactor was to supply its ally Iran with plutonium for a nuclear weapon. An adviser to Israel’s national security council told the Guardian this week: “The Iranians were involved in the Syrian program. The idea was that the Syrians produce plutonium and the Iranians get their share.” Given that it is yet to be demonstrated that Syria was even building a nuclear reactor, the Iranian connection, for which no evidence has been offered, has been concocted to add further fuel to the scare campaign. IAEA inspectors this week visited the site of the bombed building in Syria and said it would be some time before any conclusions could be reached.

Admiral Mullen’s visit this week makes clear that far from being left to its own devices, Israel enjoys collaborations with the highest levels of the US military. Moreover, discussion about a possible attack on Iran is taking place within the American political establishment and is not confined to the Bush administration or its extreme right-wing allies.

A statement released this month by the Presidential Task Force on the Future of US-Israeli Relations convened by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy focussed almost exclusively on the issue of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Its key recommendation called on the US president to initiate a dialogue with the Israeli prime minister using “the most trusted advisers” to consider “the costs and benefits” of “the entire range of policy” including diplomacy, “coercive options” including an embargo of Iranian oil, and “preventative military action”.

Ha’aretz noted this week with some satisfaction that the task force included prominent Democrats such as Susan Rice and Tony Lake, who are among Senator Barack Obama’s senior foreign policy advisers, as well as representatives from the camp of Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate. While it indicated that the statement was of course suitably nuanced, the article bluntly characterised the underlying message as follows: “If you want it in a journalistic headline format: Obama, McCain advisers agree: US-Israel should discuss preventative military action against Iran.”

Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who openly advocates attacking Iran, suggested last week that Israel would most likely launch a strike after the US elections in November and prior to the inauguration of the next US president. However, an article in the Jerusalem Post on Thursday made clear that tactical considerations might dictate a far earlier date. It noted that Tehran is believed to have purchased the sophisticated Russian-made S-300 air defence missile system, which the Israeli military has warned “cannot be allowed to reach the region”.

After reviewing the implications of Bolton’s remarks, the article concluded: “There is no guarantee, however, that Israel can wait that long.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/ju...iran-j28.shtml

[ritehook]

Agree except for #3.

There was pressure on Bush not to invade Iraq. A lot of it from high-ranking military, and much of it from the various intelligence services. Also from elements in his own State Dept, and possibly from his dad or his dad's very globalist friends. Not to mention virtually every country in Europe save for Britain.

W did it anyway.

He was given a blank check from a Democrat-controlled Congress to attack Iran whenver he wanted, without prior approval from Congress. Just like the kings of old, and the modern dictators. "I AM THE STATE," in the words of Louis XIV.

The practical aspects, tho, may outweigh all else. The US cannot successfully occupy Iraq, is getting slammed in Afghanistan, and has troops deployed throughout the globe - we could't put even 20k combat troops into Iran. And the resistance in Iran if we did so would make the Iraqi Resistance seem like kindergarten stuff.

So being dealt another humilaiting defeat is possibly all that stands against a "leader" as bizarre as anything a decaying Roman Empire ever vomited up from its ugly depths, and one final bizarre and insane adventure, to really "mark" his place in History. The fool may actually grab his ass, and pass.

And this too shall pass. From the Bible, I think. Six more months of Insanity a la Mode . . . . . Our descendants will dig his bones from the grave and drag them through the steets, as did the Englishmen who suffered hell from the dictatorship of the Lord High Protector, Oliver Cromwell.

[Thor4140]

Rogue Nation

by Charley Reese

One gets the impression that there are some people in Washington who believe that Israel or the U.S. can bomb Iran's nuclear reactors, fly home, and it will be mission complete.

It makes you wonder if perhaps there is a virus going around that is gradually making people stupid. If we or Israel attack Iran, we will have a new war on our hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack and say, "You naughty boys, you."

Consider how much trouble Iraq has given us. Some 4,000 dead and 29,000 wounded, a half a trillion dollars in cost and still climbing, and five years later, we cannot say that the country is pacified.

Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).

More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in our arsenal.

Iran's conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.

It's been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran's forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia that I've heard is pretty snazzy.

So, if you think we or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I'd have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think we could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I'd have to promote you to idiot.

Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Now we have troops tied down in both countries.

China has a tremendous investment and interest in Iran and would likely see an attack as a threat to its national interests. China could strike a large blow against the U.S. just by dumping the financial paper we have foolishly allowed the Chinese to pile up, thanks to the trade deficit.

For some years now, I've worried that we seem to be more and more like Colonial England – arrogant, racist, overestimating our own capacity and underestimating that of our enemies. As the fate of the British Empire demonstrates, that is a fatal flaw.

The British never dreamed that the "little yellow people" could come ashore by land and take Singapore from the rear or that they would sink the pride of the British fleet, but they did both.

I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?

Exactly how the Iranians will respond to an attack, I don't know, but they will respond. In keeping with our present policy, our attack on Iran would be illegal, since under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Who would have thought that we would become the rogue nation committing acts of aggression around the globe?

June 30, 2008

[ritehook]

My comments were for pavy's prior post, his 3 points.

I don't disagree with much that Thor says or posts.

It's too much like reading myself!

Man, i gotta go! Dont want to get back (right now) to this addictive crap . . .

[pavyracer]

My comments were for pavy's prior post, his 3 points.

I don't disagree with much that Thor says or posts.

It's too much like reading myself!

Man, i gotta go! Dont want to get back (right now) to this addictive crap . . .

I read your article. It says that the exercise was done west of Israel in the international waters of the Mediterranean towards Greece. Get a map soon because this is the exact opposite direction where Iran is located! Find me a flight path or naval route that Israel's armed forces will use to engage Iranian hostile forces without violading another country's sovereignity.

[Thor4140]

My comments were for pavy's prior post, his 3 points.



Dont want to get back (right now) to this addictive crap . . .

Its awfully addicting. I try to stay out of politics at this particular site. JUst thought i would throw those up. Actually the last article is basically what you guys were talking about but i couldn't find it but came up with the first two or three and then i found it.

[ritehook]

[QUOTE=pavyracer;856133]I read your article. It says that the exercise was done west of Israel in the international waters of the Mediterranean towards Greece. Get a map soon because this is the exact opposite direction where Iran is located! Find me a flight path or naval route that Israel's armed forces will use to engage Iranian hostile forces without violading another country's sovereignity. [/QUOTEr

pavy, i think the point was that the Israel skyshow was an "exercise." They wanted to show that they could fly long distances, refuel mid air, all that. Doesn't much matter
in which direction they flew.

A show, to increase already volitile tensions in the region. And I think the message is mostly directed to their eternal dupe, the "leaders of the free world," ie, the whores who infest
Wash DC.

Cannot see Israel moving unilaterally on this. Behind the scenes something may be cooking. But even the freak who believes he is Winston Churchill must know this would be a disaster on a gargantuan scale

Then again, that's why he's a freak, a human Pinocchio. If he only had a brain . . .

[HeeeHAWWWW]

I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?

Pretty sure the carriers would be shifted out of the Gulf before an attack. They're not really needed for an attack when Qatar is so perfectly placed, and long range bombers can fly out of Guam, Europe and indeed the US.

Of course, were there ever to be a land invasion then it's a different matter, but there's absolutely no chance of that at all.

[reno cool]

Israel is just a tool of American hegemonic corporate interests. It is not the other way around. If America loses its dominance in the region it might become a two bit player in the world. They will destroy the world before they let that happen.

[pavyracer]

Iran launched nine medium- and long-range missiles to warn the United States and Israel it was ready to retaliate if they attacked over its disputed nuclear projects.

Israel is backing off now.

[ShamsWoof10]

Israel is backing off now.

What a f*ckin' joke... You people especially "Pavy" are dumb enough to believe this scripted bullsh*t...

First of all the U.S. and Israel are worried about Iran getting nukes and just because they fire some missiles (without nuke warheads) now Israel backs off... They back off from a few test fired missiles... a country with nukes and neutron bombs is suddenly afraid because of some unarmed missile tests..?

How dumb can this script get..?

The better question is how dumb can the people get...?

As if you haven't noticed and judging by you people's comments YOU HAVEN'T... the Iran script is like gas prices... It's gradual conditioning and as the drum beat started they would say military options are NOT ON THE TABLE and then they were and then they weren't... The options coming back on the table <<< as they put it become more and more frequent... Now it's not IF but WHEN and most people don't realize they have been conditioned to say and believe that...

[Dark Horse]

Just noticed the Rothschild 'coat of arms' on your dollar bill, Shams.

In red, that is. In blue, it would be a country's flag.

[ritehook]

Israel is just a tool of American hegemonic corporate interests. It is not the other way around. If America loses its dominance in the region it might become a two bit player in the world. They will destroy the world before they let that happen.

Totally disagree with your comment, reno.

Global capitalism (the Money Power, as several 20th century economists called it, is not national, but global, it has no home) is often hostile to Israel, just because it often subjugates it capitalist interests to its national ones.

And why Jews like global mega-billionaire George Soros have harsh words to say about Israeli's disruptive militarism and expanisionism.

And tht the two (Jewish) professors who wrote last year's groundbreaking report on The Israel Lobby are both paladins of global capitalism, and have been often published by that mouthpiece of globalism, Foreign Affairs, house organ of the major globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations.

But whereas "nationalists" in other lands are almost always slapped down by globalist powers (using the armies of the USA, the mailed fist of global capitalism) Israel has remained immune to such rhetorical attacks and UN sanctions, and no one outside the Islamicc world dares raise thier voice too loud aginst "gallant little Isreal." (Cripes, long long times since we heard that phrase!)

[ritehook]

What is the current state of a possible Israeli (ie American, tho by proxy) strike on Iran?

Well, the biggest strike against a strike (Israel almost certainly will not do it without prior US consent - as pavyracer has pointed out, Israel needs to fly over hostile or neutral airspace to do the deed.)

The biggest argument againt is not a change of heart by Winston Churchill Jr, or his mentor Tricky Dick. It's simply the same thing Alex the Great encounteredd 2300 years ago in Afghanistan ---- tht Great Britain experienced in the 19th century --- tht the Soviet Union got sucked into in the 1970s ------- the giant quicksand trap that is Afghanistan.

Short of a draft, which Dickie and Georgie both know they can't do, the US does not have enough fighting soldiers to fight two big wars, plus continue with our hundreds of imperial bases worldwide.

Imperial American cannot fight in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Despite the bullsh1t propaganda, the Surge did nothing to fundamentally alter the facts on the Iraqi ground (they still hate us and want us out,even our puppet govt ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone is making such noises).

The weird windy mountains of Afghanistan are a trap to all invaders. They get worn down there, and eventually kicked out, and the collaborators go with them or are killed. (Anyone remember a guy named Najibullah? Karzai will follow that fool's footsteps).

On the other hand, the resspected British paper, The Times, reported the other day that Bush is actively planning an assault on Iran, perhps using Israel as proxy. His problem is convincing the military leaders that this treasonous act (acting in the interests of a nation not our own) is militarily feasible, long run.

Meanwhile,the House Resolution that was written by AIPAC is wending it way thru Congress, tht will impose a blockade on Iran. Already has over 200 signees - tho some of the Demos are having second thoughts about giving a loaded gun to Winnie Jr, who wants to go lame duck hunting.

Here's the very interesting Times article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece