Is Iran Right?

QueEx · Jun 3, 2006

<center>America hits Iran’s Pocket,
Iran Strikes US in Iraq and on Israel’s Borders</center>

DEBKAfile Special Report

June 1, 2006, 2:08 PM (GMT+02:00)

Condoleezza Rice spoke the language the European nations, Russia and China wanted to hear before she met their representatives in Vienna Thursday, June 1, to discuss their incentives package for cajoling Iran into abandoning its proscribed nuclear activities. The US secretary of state said the US was willing to join European allies in direct talks with Iran - provided Iran abandoned its uranium enrichment program. Tehran predictably dismissed the offer as propaganda and presenting no “new and rational solution” to Iran’s nuclear case. The enrichment program would go on, declared Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

Rice had her answers ready for that response. Anticipating an Iranian brush-off, the US has already begun implementing its own package of sanctions. As Rice put it, “We’re prepared to go either way.”

She also made it clear that the United States would not “swear off ever using military action.”

The two parties are therefore closer to a collision course – first financial and, further down the road, military - than to dialogue.

Washington has also taken into account that its allies will not go along with stringent penalties for Iran’s refusal to give up activities that could lead to the production of a nuclear weapon. Russia and China are too heavily staked in business with Tehran to go along with this measure. And even if UN financial sanctions became feasible, it would take two to three years for them to bite. The Islamic republic has piled up $50 billion in reserve assets from rocketing oil prices, a solid cushion against real damage during the period it needs to complete its weapons programs.

With this timeline in mind, the US Treasury has begun activating a go-it-alone program targeting the personal finances of Iranian officials in foreign banks and government transactions, with a view to cutting the regime’s access to foreign currency and global markets and its isolation in the regime in the international financial community.

As DEBKA-Net-Weekly 254 reported on May 19

Three weeks ago, American emissaries began quietly visiting banks and financial institutions in West Europe and Asia. They showed the heads of these institutions lists of Iranian firms, industries and private tycoons associated in one way or another with Iran’s nuclear effort. They then indicated that American banking and corporate doors would slam shut against any financial bodies continuing to do business with the blacklisted Iranians. Our sources report that the Americans were pleasantly surprised by the success of this quiet campaign.

Many of the banking and financial bodies lobbied in this way were quick to cut their ties with the named Iranians, with immediate impact: A loud outcry arose in Tehran’s central bazaar where most business with foreigners is contracted.

During this period, Iran has activated assets of its own – the surrogate terrorist groups the Islamic Republic maintains across the Middle East.

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that President George W. Bush’s phone call to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert Wednesday night was more than a courtesy briefing on the Rice announcement. They held a down-to-earth discussion on the efforts needed to repulse Iran’s already-unfolding campaign of violence.

The dire situation of US troops in Iraq has taken a turn for the worse with the terrorist war leaking into the south. It is bolstered by a supply network Iranian agents have spread across the country to bring various types of rockets, bombs and funds to a broad spectrum of Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and groups linked to al Qaeda.

The 1,500 troops of an American reserve unit, the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, interrupted their training course in Kuwait Wednesday, May 31, and moved over to Iraq’s terrorist-infested Anbar Province.

Another asset Tehran proposes to field is the supply-and-operations network it has planted in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian areas - mainly to target Israel.

Israel’s security situation has deteriorated sharply in the last two weeks on two fronts, the Lebanese and the Gaza borders.

Faced with US sanctions, the Iranian regime proposes to cash in on a third asset by buttressing the Hamas government’s backbone and its ability to stand up to international isolation as the head of Palestinian government.

This tactic has not been lost on Hamas’s rival, Palestinian Authority chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even though the Bush administration and Olmert government are wooing him intensely to block Hamas, Abbas tends to lean more towards Moscow than Washington. Consequently, while Fatah and Hamas continue their internal feud, there are indications that in the final resort the two Palestinian groups may hook up so as not to miss the opportunity developing over the last few hours of gaining Iran as a strategic partner against Israel.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1170

QueEx · Jun 6, 2006

<center>Bush: Iran's Initial Response 'Positive'</center>

Jun 6, 7:44 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that Iran's initial response to a package of incentives and threats on the nuclear impasse "sounds like a positive step to me."

"We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously," Bush said in Laredo, Texas, where he was speaking about immigration overhaul. "The choice is theirs to make.

"I have said the United States will come and sit down at the table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way," Bush said. "So it sounds like a positive response to me."

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana laid out the potential rewards and consequences Tuesday during a visit to Tehran. He later told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by phone that the Iranians had said they would need time to consider the proposal, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Solana called the discussions "very useful and constructive," McCormack said.

Bush said in Laredo that he wanted to resolve the issue with Iran diplomatically.

Earlier in the day, the administration said it would give Iran "a little bit of space" to consider the package but added that the offer was not open-ended.

"It's a matter of weeks, not months," McCormack said, echoing the vague deadline set out by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the package was presented to Tehran.

U.S. officials would not discuss specifics, saying that Iran needed time to review the package and ask questions in private.

"We want to give this every opportunity to succeed," McCormack said. "The diplomacy, I would say, is at a sensitive stage."

The package includes a promise of Western technical help in developing peaceful civilian nuclear energy if Iran stops enriching uranium, a waiver of U.S. legal restrictions to allow export of some agricultural technology, access to U.S. aircraft parts or new Boeing Co. (BA) planes to upgrade Iran's aging fleet and U.S. and European backing for Iran to join the World Trade Organization, diplomats and others said.

The proposal was agreed on last week by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany. Those nations would be expected to move for Security Council sanctions such as travel and financial restrictions on Iranian officials if Tehran does not take the deal or if negotiations fall apart.

Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the initiative contains "positive steps" but also some "ambiguities."

"There are robust measures on both sides, both the incentive side as well as the disincentive side," McCormack said. "It presents the Iranian government with a very clear choice on both sides of the road."

The United States reversed course last week and offered to bargain directly with the Iranians if they first put disputed nuclear development on hold. The Bush administration accuses Iran of bankrolling terrorism and criticizes anti-Semitic statements by its leader.

Although some in the administration worry about conferring legitimacy on Iran's leaders by talking face to face, Rice decided about six weeks ago that only direct U.S. involvement could revive European-led talks that stalled last year.

The package presented to Tehran on Tuesday would be on the table for any new talks involving the United States.

---

Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna and Nedra Pickler in Laredo contributed to this report.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060606/D8I3172O0.html?PG=home&SEC=news

QueEx · Jun 6, 2006

<center>Iran Says Western Proposal 'Positive'</center>

Jun 6, 9:06 PM (ET)
Asspcoated Press
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and GEORGE JAHN

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran and the United States had a rare moment of agreement Tuesday, using similar language to describe "positive steps" toward an accord on a package of incentives aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.

Diplomats said the incentives include a previously undisclosed offer of some U.S. nuclear technology on top of European help in building light-water nuclear reactors. Other incentives include allowing Iran to buy spare airplane parts and support for joining the World Trade Organization.

Tehran is under intense international pressure to accept the deal in exchange for putting on hold a uranium enrichment program that the West fears could lead to the creation of nuclear weapons.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said the proposals had "positive steps" but that talks were needed to clear up ambiguities. Iran promised to study the proposals seriously, but gave no timeframe for a response.

And Bush, using the same language, said Iran's initial response "sounds like a positive step."

"We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously," the president said in Laredo, Texas. "The choice is theirs to make. I have said the United States will come and sit down at the table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way."

One diplomat in Vienna described the U.S. offer of nuclear technology as particularly significant because it would, in effect, loosen a decades-long American embargo on giving Iran access to "dual use" technologies - equipment with both civilian and military use.

Crucially, the deal does not demand that Iran outright give up its uranium enrichment program - only suspend it, although likely for a long time. Two earlier diplomatic initiatives by Europe and Russia crumbled over the past year because each demanded Iran scrap enrichment completely - a stumbling block because of the program's wide popularity with the Iranian public.

Iran's leaders fiercely defend their nuclear program as a source of intense national pride, and say the purpose of the enrichment program is to create fuel for electricity - not nuclear weapons, as the U.S. claims.

Enrichment is the centerpiece of a nuclear program that the Iranian government has touted as a technological achievement, proving Iran is on a level with developed Western nations. Iran has dismissed past demands that it give up its right to enrichment as an arrogant insult from Western nations afraid of a high-tech Muslim nation. But it has signaled it would accept some limits.

For the West, enrichment is the center of fears over Iran's intentions. Enrichment can produce either material for a nuclear warhead or fuel for a nuclear reactor.

The latest proposal was revealed a week after Washington changed strategy on Iran and - in an apparent acknowledgment that it lacked support for sanctions against the Islamic republic - conceded to entering into direct talks with Iran under certain conditions. The latest proposal appeared to be even more of a concession on the Bush administration's part - a major attempt to sweeten the package for Iran in a bid to win concessions over the nuclear program.

Most importantly, the United States is now offering to provide Iran some nuclear technology, diplomats in Vienna told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing some details of the package.

It had been known that the deal included European offers of help in building light-water nuclear reactors for a peaceful energy program. But there had previously been no suggestion the Americans would also agree to help build a nuclear program for a country they frequently paint as a threat to world security.

John Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said any such offer would be tied to strict monitoring conditions.

"Iran has to be fully compliant in terms of inspectors on site, cameras and tracking equipment," Wolfsthal said. "All that is standard operating procedure with countries with light-water reactors."

In Washington, State Department Sean McCormack declined to go into specifics of the proposal. He said diplomacy "is at a sensitive stage" and the United States wants Iran to have a chance to review the proposal without having it discussed publicly.

He refused to offer a time frame, but said the Iran's timetable to consider the package was "weeks, not months."

Asked about reports that the offer of Western technology includes U.S. technological assistance, McCormack said: "Well, I've seen a lot of reports flying around the past couple days about what may or may not be in this package. I would just caution everybody, until we actually are able to discuss what is in the package in public, take reports with a grain of salt."

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing details, said that the United States and Europe agreed to back Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization,

The United States would also lift some sanctions - including allowing Iran to buy the much-needed airplane parts - and join with Europeans in direct negotiations with Iran over the future of Iran's nuclear program.

Diplomats said Monday that the United States additionally agreed to open the door for Europe to sell Tehran new Airbus planes. Iran's commercial fleet is largely made up of Boeings purchased before the 1979 revolution, and Tehran frequently complains that the U.S. ban on parts has undermined safety. U.S. pressure has also prevented Iranian attempts to purchase new Airbus aircraft.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented the package to Iranian officials Tuesday in Tehran.

"The proposals contain positive steps and also some ambiguities, which must be removed," Larijani said afterward.

Larijani did not identify the ambiguities but said he discussed them with Solana and that more talks would be required. "We hope we will have negotiations and deliberations again after we have carefully studied the proposals," he said.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran would give the proposals "careful study" and then "we will inform our friends of Iran's views."

Solana said of the meeting: "I have a feeling that it has been very, very constructive," and said the two sides would have more contacts in the coming days.

In the talks, Solana also "carried a message" about potential penalties if Iran refuses the offer. But he withheld telling the Iranians the specific threats - including the possibility of U.N. sanctions - so as not to jeopardize the "positive" atmosphere, said one diplomat in Vienna.

If Tehran does not accept, the package threatens Iran with a travel ban against its ruling religious leaders and government officials involved in the nuclear program, plus a freeze of Iranian financial assets abroad, U.S. officials and diplomats in Vienna have said.

The current package's lack of a demand for scrapping enrichment entirely could prove key, said Iranian political analyst Mostafa Kavakebian, who predicted Iran would accept temporary suspension of uranium enrichment but would reject any permanent halt.

In past days, Iranian leaders have combined tough talk with signals that they are open to a deal - perhaps an attempt to portray to the Iranian public that they remain firm, even as they consider reversing their refusal to suspend enrichment.

---_

Jahn reported this story from Vienna, and Dareini from Tehran. AP correspondent Anne Gearan contributed from Washington.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060607/D8I32DMG0.html?PG=home&SEC=news

QueEx · Jun 9, 2006

<center>Ahmadinejad Suggests Tehran Has Upper Hand</center>

Friday June 9, 2006 6:31 AM
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president said Thursday his regime is ready for talks over its nuclear capabilities, but he sent mixed signals on how much is open for negotiation and suggested Tehran has the upper hand in its showdown with the West.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated Iran's position that uranium enrichment is an untouchable national right, a clear jab at the West two days after Iran received a package of economic and technological incentives to suspend the program.

But he also offered some signs of flexibility without specifically mentioning the proposal. In a speech at an industrial city, he said Iran would hold dialogue on ``mutual concerns'' with foreign powers - including the United States - if they took place ``free from threats.''

A report to the U.N. nuclear agency's board, meanwhile, said Iran slowed enrichment over the past month but picked up the pace Tuesday, the day the proposal for talks was delivered. There was no indication in the report, obtained by The Associated Press, that the two events were linked.

While the slowdown in enrichment could reflect a decision by Iran to send a positive signal before talks, a senior U.N. official said it also could be the result of technical difficulties. The official agreed to discuss the confidential report only if not quoted by name.

Ahmadinejad portrayed Iran as having forced Washington and its allies to accept the Islamic regime's ``greatness and dignity'' and increasingly bend to its will.

The shifting messages are seen as part of Iranian posturing before possible talks, which could include the United States after a nearly 27-year diplomatic freeze. Western nations, led by the U.S., worry Iran's uranium enrichment technology could become the backbone for a nuclear arms program. Iran insists it only seeks electricity-producing reactors.

``The nation will never hold negotiations about its definite rights with anybody, but we are for talks about mutual concerns to resolve misunderstandings in the international arena,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Qazvin, about 60 miles northwest of Tehran.

In a major policy shift, the United States agreed last week to join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran, provided Tehran suspends all suspect nuclear activities. Tehran has welcomed direct talks with Washington, but rejected any preconditions.

Ahmadinejad did not say whether Iran would accept the Western package of incentives, which were presented Tuesday by the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.

Its contents have not been made public, but diplomats have said the package includes economic rewards and a provision for some U.S. nuclear technology if Iran halts enriching uranium - a major concession by Washington. World powers also have suggested the length of the proposed enrichment suspension could be subject to negotiation, diplomats said.

The offer, however, also contains the implicit threat of U.N. sanctions if Iran remains defiant.

Iran's initial reaction to the package was relatively upbeat. But Tehran has said it will only announce its position after carefully studying the package. Solana said he expects a reply within ``weeks.''

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the U.S. offer for direct talks with Iran was a ``big step forward.'' France's foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, gave a similar assessment and added that ``it is up to the Iranians to respond.''

Ahmadinejad's speech, broadcast live on Iranian state television, hit back with hard-line rhetoric.

Iran's ``enemies must know that whether the Iranian nation is going to hold talks or not, whether you frown or not ... the Iranian nation will not retreat from the path of progress and obtaining advanced technology one iota,'' he said.

He also praised Iran for standing up to ``international monopolists,'' a reference to the United States and its allies.

They have ``been defeated in the face of your resistance and solidarity and have been forced to acknowledge your dignity and greatness,'' Ahmadinejad told the crowd.

In Vienna, Austria, the report circulated to the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had slowed uranium enrichment in recent weeks but also continued experiments with the technology.

The document also said U.N. inspectors had made little progress on clearing up worrying aspects of Tehran's past nuclear activity.

Specifically, the three-page report said Iran still declined to clarify Ahmadinejad's statements that his country had experimented with advanced centrifuges that speed up enrichment,

Iran also refused to provide more information on a document showing how to compress fissile material into the shape used for warheads, the report said. Tehran also declined to allow interviews of nuclear officials linked to potentially worrying finds by inspectors, it said.

The senior U.N. official, who is familiar with the report, said it contained nothing that significantly hardened or diminished concerns about Iranian nuclear ambitions since the last IAEA report in late April.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5874510,00.html

QueEx · Aug 27, 2006

<center>American electronic warfare experts in Israel
to find out how Hizballah’s Iranian systems
neutralized Israeli Electronic Warfare </center>

DEBKAfile Exclusive:
August 23, 2006, 3:18 PM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 266 first drew attention to Iran’s heavy EW investment and its successful functioning in the Lebanon War on Aug. 11, 06. This first account will be followed up in the next DNW issue out on Friday, Aug. 25.

DEBKAfile on Aug. 23 adds: The American EW experts are interested in four areas:

1. The Israeli EW systems’ failure to block Hizballah’s command and communications and the links between the Lebanese command and the Syria-based Iranian headquarters.

2. How Iranian technicians helped Hizballah eavesdrop on Israel’s communications networks and mobile telephones, including Israeli soldiers’ conversations from inside Lebanon.

3. How Iranian EW installed in Lebanese army coastal radar stations blocked the Barak anti-missile missiles aboard Israeli warships, allowing Hizballah to hit the Israeli corvette Hanith.

4. Why Israeli EW was unable to jam the military systems at the Iranian embassy in Beirut, which hosted the underground war room out of which Hassan Nasrallah and his top commanders, including Imad Mughniyeh, functioned.

From DEBKA-Net-Weekly 266:

Until the watershed date of July 12, 2006, when the Hizballah triggered the Lebanon War, Israel was accounted an important world power in the development of electronic warfare systems – so much so that a symbiotic relationship evolved for the research and development of many US and Israeli electronic warfare systems, in which a mix of complementary American and Israeli devices and methods were invested.

In combat against Hizballah, both were not only found wanting, but had been actively neutralized, so that none performed the functions for which they were designed. This poses both the US and Israel with a serious problem in a further round of the Lebanon war and any military clash with Iran.

DEBKAfile’s military sources add:Both intelligence services underestimated the tremendous effort Iran invested in state of the art electronic warfare gadgetry designed to disable American military operations in Iraq and IDF functions in Israel and Lebanon. Israel’s electronic warfare units were taken by surprise by the sophisticated protective mechanisms attached to Hizballah’s communications networks, which were discovered to be connected by optical fibers which are not susceptible to electronic jamming.

American and Israeli experts realize now that they overlooked the key feature of the naval exercise Iran staged in the Persian Gulf last April: Iran’s leap ahead in electronic warfare. They dismissed most the weapons systems as old-fashioned. But among them were the C-802 cruise missile and several electronic warfare systems, both of which turned up in the Lebanon war with deadly effect.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3166

neo_cacos · Aug 27, 2006

Nzinga said:
Iran is 100% right; other countries would do well to follow its lead. You cannot be free without nukes. If Saddam Hussein had had nukes, Iraq qould not be under occupation. If North Korea had no nukes, it might well be under occupation; I am sure that this lesson has not been lost on Iran.

DAMN straight! IRAN IS RIGHT.
This is my theory: Whitey is a murderous, treaterous, and aggressive being. They will TAKE, TAKE and TAKE some more, even to the detriment of everyone else, and includes your basic human rights without a second though. If don't believe me, ask an amerindian (if you can find one).
You have to be ARMED and you should always have a plan B when dealing with withey, cause they will betray you. So you have to NUKE UP as a deterrent....and I always find that Irony and history goes well together beside rhyming. The U.S. is trying to protect the world peace by stopping everyone from having nukes and WHO DO YOU THINK IS MORE LIKELY TO USE 'EM .........AGAIN ????
neo

GET YOU HOT · Aug 28, 2006

Russia & China aka vested interest, would take flight on any fullscale invasion/bombing of Iran, the U.S. has special ops, "nuuclear", is not an option at this point...

African Herbsman · Aug 29, 2006

Iran president wants TV debate with Bush

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the U.N. Security Council as Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with President Bush on world issues.

The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.

"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.

"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.

Ahmadinejad rejected any suspension of enrichment, even if U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked for it during an upcoming visit to Iran.

"The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path. ... No one can prevent it," he said.

Iran last week responded to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program. Iranian officials said the Islamic country did not agree to halt enrichment — the key demand — before engaging in further talks.

Ahmadinejad called the response an opportunity for the two sides to resolve the issue and he didn't rule out the possibility of direct talks with the United States.

"The opportunity the Iranian nation has given to other countries today is a very exceptional opportunity for a fair resolution of the issue," he said.

The Iranian president also called Israel a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

"The Zionist regime has deprived the Palestinian nation and other nations of the region of a single day of peace. In the past 60 years, it has imposed tens of wars on the Palestinian nation and others," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060829/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear&printer=1

QueEx · Aug 29, 2006

Why?

- So that he can show that he is quicker on his feet that Bush ? (thats not hard to do)

- So that he can show that he has a better sounding message than Bush ?
(thats not hard to do)

- So that he can out-wit Bush ? (thats probably easy to do)

- So that he can show he doesn't stumble and bumble like Bush ? (thats easy to do)

- So that he can show that the Bushisms, i.e., ("they hate our freedom), are stupid jingles ? (again, easy).

So what does that accomplish ???

Fuck Bush.

Fuck Ahmadinejad.

Fuk em both. Is Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapons; and, does doing so pose a substantial risk to the non-muslim world (and, perhaps, to the non-Shite Muslim world) ??? Thats what I'm interested in. Damn the rhetoric on both sides -- as they are just words and I wouldn't trust either one.

QueEx

Greed · Aug 29, 2006

Que, i'm going to give you this advice because you seem to be an alright guy.

you need work on your bgol blackness. any event is worth its while as long as it somehow leads to america being embarrassed or hurt. we are a malignant imperious force in the world afterall.

you don't owe me anything for that one. just consider it a pubic service announcement.

gene cisco · Aug 29, 2006

dam brother que, you took my post right off my keyboard, fuckem both.

does iran having nukes pose more of a threat then a pakistan, whose people openly hate us and its military is filled with al kidya sympathizers?

Thing is if iran gets nukes america will have to deal with another country by showing RESPECT.

Or just paying them the fuck off like we do pakistan. HAHA

QueEx · Aug 29, 2006

Does Iran pose more of risk than Pakistan? Why should I look to Pak to answer that question? Do I want 2 bad asses down the street as opposed to 1, especially when, for the moment, I've got that one under semi-control? (Do recall, however, in the Afghan invasion, it was considered that if Pak didn't cooperate, which it did, action may have to be taken to remove its nukes? I note that a lot of people make the simplistic argument: hey, they only fuck with countries without nukes. Not quiet so, is it? - if they don't threaten the rest of the world with annihilation or can, if even for the moment, be pursuaded not to. But Pak remains a serious problem, especially if the Lil General is deposed. Some people, however, seem thrilled with the prospect). [1]

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. I like that word a lot. Everyone deserves it, if they give it. I try my best to give it, hence, I also demand it. Aretha said it best though: "find out what it means to me." What does it mean to Iran? - no more Israel?; - suppress your western value systems because they are opposed to Islamic beliefs[2] ... and Islamic beliefs Rule? [3]; - you must believe in Islam, or you're the devil/an infidel?; - you must respest autocratic rule, or else? [4] - If you support Israel, you're not respecting me? [5]. What does it mean to Iran?

You suggest that if Iran gets nukes, we're all even then; case closed. We can't bully them and they won't bully us. The whole world will be safe because Iran has no desires, beyond Iran. The Mullahs in Iran will be happy - no more desire to strike the Great Satan, or give the goods to someone else to do it, or to spread their brand of fanaticism. Moderates in Iran will rise to the top and bring sense to the Mullahs (despite the fact that the Mullahs seek to crush moderation). Wonder what people base these thoughts on? And, I wonder why the Saudis, etc., are so concerned?

Maybe we in this country need to dispense with the religious ideologues like the fundamentalist and neocons behind the Bush administration. Maybe what we need is some moderation. Moderation with Big Sticks. Wonder if moderates can make sense to each other? Respect each other? Lead the world away from the polar extremes it now seems headed.

My footnotes:

[1] I often wonder if that isn't some unconscious death-to-America wish, from within. It seems as if some people may hate white so much they are willing to risk their own demise, just to get em back.

[2] GW should have never cast the differences between Iran in the U.S./West in religious terms. Saying that Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil" probably had a lot to do with casting the conflict with Iran in "Religious" terms, that is, Christianity vs. Islam. Obviously thats the way Osama sees it but I find it curious how many fail to see that unless they're Muslims, they're shit out of luck to.

[3] Recall, that the radical or fundamentalist not only despise Christianity and other western religions, they despise all non-muslims, whether they are believers, or not.

[4] Fuck GW's democracy crusade, but maybe some governments can't allow their people freedoms of choice -- its anti-their-religion, hence, if you espouse "choice" you're against them. So, unless you think like I do, you're dissing me - or - you're not giving me respect.

[5] I couldn't give a shit about Israel one way or the other and I believe we should force them to settle with the Palestinians. But, thats not what many in the Muslim world (and many on this board) want. Seems to me, they want Isreal's annihilation. I don't think thats going to happen, short of WWIII, Armageddon, or just a solid "yellow-cake" ass whopping topped with a little radiation. And, even if it ceases to exist, What Then? - is that the end of it for the Muslim extremist and fundamentialist? Or the west next?

QueEx

gene cisco · Aug 30, 2006

Some good points que, but I still aint convinced.

Oh, I dont want america to fall, im living way to good, so trust me I always have my best interest at heart.

POLITICS IS SMOKE TRYING TO BE BLOWED UP MY ASS.

What we have is people with money trying to be the baddest on the block at our expense. Oh, by money i mean billions and hundreds of millions.

They are not gonna blow each other to hell........just front like they might.

Conventional warfare only works on iraq, not north korea. So when north korea talked shit and good even lob one nuke at cali, bush attacked iraq.

Look i was right about iraq, turned out I was right about afghanastan cause they still fighting the taliban and I am right about israel cause they violate the UN on the regular.

I am seldom wrong. Our governments foreign policy is shit and america is acting like israels bitch.

We get over israel we can talk good with everyone.

Nobody, not even hitler, would lead a battle into mutual destruction which is what nukes are. It just means america wont boss on iran and kiss iraels ass which might mean less folks hating us.

Fuck the fanatics, they dont last long at all, cause power and hoes will keep REAL MEN from acting on that suicide shit. Think binny laidem would strap himself up for the cause!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Hell naw he has some fools do that, but if he had his own country he probaly wouldnt even be on that.

QueEx · Aug 30, 2006

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

<center>The Coming Confrontation with Iran

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains defiant
despite a looming UN deadline over the country's uranium
enrichment program. But can the Security Council agree
on what to do about it?</center>

Spiegel (Germany)
August 30, 2006

Iran has made clear that it will not be cowed by this week's deadline set by the UN Security Council for the country to halt its controversial uranium enrichment. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday said his country would not "bow to threats and ultimatums" at a press conference in Tehran.

Ahmadinejad's tough talk got a predictably chilly reception from Washington, which is pushing for a tough response should Tehran not comply. "They have until the 31st of August, but we've made it very clear unless we get an unequivocal acceptance of that condition in the Security Council resolution, that sanctions would follow," US Ambassador to the United Nation John Bolton said.

The UN Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend uranium enrichment for its controversial nuclear program or face possible consequences. While the West is concerned Tehran wants to make nuclear weapons, Iran claims it only wants to develop a civilian atomic energy program.

Tehran has said it is ready for "serious negotiations" to solve the nuclear dispute, however, many in Washington and elsewhere in the West are convinced the Iranians are simply hoping to create divisions within the Security Council. Both China and Russia are seen as being reluctant to harm their considerable economic interests in Iran by slapping harsh sanctions on Tehran.

With the deadline looming, German papers on Wednesday explore the repercussions for what seems to be an inevitable standoff between Iran and the international community.

The business daily Handelsblatt devotes a full page of coverage to the economic aspects of the political decisions to be played out in the Security Council. The paper makes clear that Council members France, China and Russia -- as well as Germany -- all have sizable business interests in Iran. None of them will gladly slap sanctions on Iran, as the United States is so keenly urging. But in a separate editorial, the paper is skeptical that Tehran has much to fear any time soon. "How the possible sanctions would finally end up looking would have to be discussed first by the UN Security Council again. And sorting out the details amongst the protagonists there is widely known to be difficult." The paper closes by saying right now it's completely open whether Russia and China are willing to sacrifice their economic interests to punish Iran.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes that the UN Security Council has put itself in a difficult position over the nuclear dispute since Tehran clearly refuses to halt its uranium enrichment program. "The calculation of the West that putting the Iranian leadership under pressure to comply with a resolution has failed as to be expected," opines the paper. "If the Security Council wants to remain credible it has no other choice then to now discuss sanctions." But that won't be easy -- whereas the United States is pushing for action, Russia and China remain reluctant. "They always were and now after the Iranian offer for talks they will certainly demand a chance to negotiate with Tehran."

The conservative daily Die Welt believes Ahmadinejad's defiance betrays his ultimate goals: "The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has chosen confrontation. He hasn't opted for the civilian use of atomic energy -- he wants a nuclear bomb. His rejection of the broad offer from the UN Security Council allows no other interpretation." The consequences, argues the paper, are particularly worrying. "Iran is pushing the world into a conflict that will make the war in Afghanistan look like a skirmish." Estimating Tehran will need another three years before it can build a bomb, Die Welt writes there is still time for diplomacy, however, "the time for sanctions has come" and convincing both Russia and China to support action against Iran isn't as impossible as Ahmadinejad believes. "It must be made clear to Ahmadinejad that that an Iran with nuclear weapons will lead to its downfall."

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung is equally pessimistic, however, the newspaper ads a dose of conspiracy theory to its editorial. Writing that Iran and the United States are marching "hand in hand to war," the paper describes the dangers posed by Ahmadinejad, a man "suffering from megalomania and a loss of reality," and the conservative politicians in control in Washington committed to "ridding the world of evil." While Iran continues to hope Russia and China will shield it from harsh sanctions, the paper believes Washington is cynically waiting for Tehran to turn the dispute into a military conflict. The editorial closes with rather novel theory that America's strong support of Israel's recent campaign in Lebanon was actually only a pretense to pave the way for war with Iran. "That was the way to have the opponents of the Iraq war France and Germany deployed in the Lebanese border region to protect Israel and at the same time put them on the front line."

-- Marc Young, 3:30 p.m. CET

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,434341,00.html

QueEx · Sep 5, 2006

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5309766.stm[/frame]

QueEx · Sep 5, 2006

Khatami - BBC]

"As America claims to be fighting terrorism it implements policies which lead to the intensification of terrorism and institutionalised violence."

I've read that quote in several outlets, however, the exact policies have yet to be pointed out. I'd like to know which policies KHATAMI refers to. I'm sure there are some, but which policies does this Muslim leader point to?

QueEx

QueEx · Sep 8, 2006

[frame]http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/07/khatami.visit/[/frame]

QueEx · Sep 14, 2006

<center>IAEA Complains
About US House Committee Report on Iran </center>

By VOA News
14 September 2006

U.N. inspectors have complained to the Bush administration and a Congressional committee about its recent report on Iran's nuclear program, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest."

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to the chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Republican Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, earlier this week.

The letter said the Congressional committee's report issued on August 23 contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements."

It said the report suggested that Iran's nuclear program is far more advanced than the IAEA as well as Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined. The letter noted five major errors in the committee's report, including the assertion that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium.

The letter signed by a top aide to the IAEA chief, Mohammad ElBaradei, is apparently the first time the nuclear watchdog agency publicly has disputed U.S. allegations about its investigation of the Iranian case. A copy of the letter was given to the U.S. envoy to the IAEA in Vienna.

Some information for this report was provided by Reuters.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-14-voa18.cfm

QueEx · Sep 14, 2006

<center>China Urges Iran to Cooperate with IAEA</center>

By Daniel Schearf
Beijing
14 September 2006

China has urged Iran to heed the concerns of the international community and cooperate with the United Nations nuclear watchdog. The statement comes the same day Iran's president says his country is open to what he calls "new conditions" to resolve the standoff with the West over Tehran's nuclear program.

The Chinese government says Iran should seize the opportunity for negotiations its nuclear program and its efforts to enrich uranium.

At a regular news briefing, Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said the Iranian nuclear issue is at a critical moment. He urged Tehran to cooperate with the United Nations nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We call on relevant parties to maintain patience and calm and find ways for the proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue," he said. "At the same time we call on the Iranian side to seriously consider the concerns of the international community and take measures to cooperate with the IAEA to solve some unresolved issues."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (file photo)
The comments in Beijing came just hours after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his government wants to resolve the issue through dialogue and is ready for "new conditions." He did not elaborate on what he meant by new conditions.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States, together with Germany, are offering Iran economic and political incentives to stop uranium enrichment.

The United States and other Western nations believe Iran is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful energy purposes.

Washington says Iran should face sanctions for ignoring the U.N.'s August 31 deadline for suspending its uranium enrichment program.

Despite the deadline passing, Russia and China have resisted U.S.-led moves toward sanctions and have urged continued negotiations.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that Washington would push for sanctions against Tehran at the United Nations, next week.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-14-voa16.cfm

QueEx · Sep 21, 2006

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5365754.stm[/frame]

QueEx · Sep 25, 2006

<center>
In May 2003 ... Tehran made a dramatic - but surprisingly
little known - approach to the Americans ... to say that we are
ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues,"; Hardliners
in Iran, scarred by the past, cited Ayatollah Khomeini's dictum that
any friendship between the US and Iran was like that between a wolf
and a sheep; the hardliners [in America] who stood against dialogue had
a memorable refrain: "We don't speak to evil'.

</center>

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5377914.stm[/frame]

muckraker10021 · Oct 2, 2006

<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">

An Offer Tehran Can't Refuse

October 2, 2006. pg. A.19

<img src="http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/05/22/timesselect/22koppel.751.jpg">

by Ted Koppel

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...Q60mQ24dTQ7BTQ24Q7BmQ22Q60cQ24ddikQ23Q20NQ2Ak

A few days ago, I inadvertently violated United States economic sanctions against Iran. I was paying my hotel bill in Tehran, didn't have enough cash and asked if I could use a credit card.

''I'll need to keep your card for at least half an hour,'' said the clerk. Since he'd also ''needed to keep'' my passport for the first couple of days I was in Iran, I thought nothing more of it. Half an hour later, I had my hotel bill and my credit card and left for the airport.

A couple of days later my assistant asked me if I had purchased any clothing in Dubai. ''No,'' I said. ''Why?'' Someone, it appeared, had used my corporate credit card to do just that. When I heard the amount involved -- precisely the total of my hotel bill -- I understood.

There had been no purchase of clothing in Dubai, of course; but some Dubai business debited my credit card there (where such a transaction is legal) for the amount of my hotel bill, simultaneously crediting the company that owns the hotel in Tehran with that sum for the purchase of goods or services in Dubai. Similar, much larger loopholes enable the European subsidiaries of American companies to sell sanction-banned American goods inside Iran in limited but still significant quantities.

Even as the United States withholds its goods and technological know-how from Iran, the Europeans, Russians, Japanese and especially the Chinese are offering theirs as quickly as the contracts can be drafted. The likelihood that more restrictive sanctions against Iran will either make it through the United Nations' bureaucratic quagmire or dissuade Iran from darting down the path toward nuclear technology is about as dim as that of a popular uprising among the people under 30 who make up 70 percent of Iran's population.

Many of Iran's young adults -- especially the well-educated, English-speaking ones who cross the path of a visiting American journalist -- are frustrated by the puritanical nature of Islamic law. They dismiss their president and ours as deserving each other, denounce the corruption of the mullahs and speak with surprising openness about confiscated satellite dishes, blocked Internet sites, the closing of newspapers and the jailing and mistreatment of dissidents. But the young malcontents appear nowhere close to staging a revolution.

On the highway from Tehran to the Mehrabad airport, I witnessed a mind-bending object lesson in the limits of youthful rebellion: two young women on in-line skates, clutching the door handles of a car being driven by a young man at speeds approaching 60 miles an hour. Both women brazenly violated every traffic law known to man, but with their head scarves in place, the loose ends firmly clenched between their teeth. There are certain lines you don't cross.

Trivial acts of rebellion, irrelevant to the Islamic revolution, are tolerated. Anything perceived as a significant challenge is not. One of the men who planned and executed the taking of the American Embassy in 1979, for example, spent nine months in solitary confinement for collaborating on a public opinion poll whose findings were deemed unacceptable.

Iran suffers from chronic underemployment and its social safety nets are flimsy at best. The Revolutionary Guards now resemble Mafia families more than ideological shock troops. They still wield enormous influence, but their clout has corrupted them. In Tehran, I'm told, the Revolutionary Guard dominates the construction industry and its leading members have become exceedingly wealthy as a consequence. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains popular among the peasants and the poor, who note that he has failed to deliver on most of his campaign promises but are willing to grant him more time. As long as the price of oil remains above $50 a barrel, Iran can buy what it needs.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's tweaking of the West and his refusal to bow to pressure on the nuclear issue are widely popular in Iran. There was a time, not long ago, when many Iranians genuinely believed that there was a danger of an American military attack, even an invasion. Hardly anyone seems to believe in that possibility any more.

What, then, can the United States do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology? Little or nothing. Washington should instead bow to the inevitable.

''You insist on having nuclear weapons,'' we should say. ''Go ahead. It's a terrible idea, but we can't stop you. We would, however, like your leaders to view the enclosed DVD of 'The Godfather.' Please pay particular attention to the scene in which Don Corleone makes grudging peace with a man -- the head of a rival crime family -- who ordered the killing of his oldest son.''

In that scene, Don Corleone says, ''I forgo my vengeance for my dead son, for the common good. But I have selfish reasons.'' The welfare of his youngest son, Michael, is on his mind.

''I am a superstitious man,'' he continues. ''And so if some unlucky accident should befall my youngest son, if some police officer should accidentally shoot him, or if he should hang himself in his cell, or if my son is struck by a bolt of lightening, then I will blame some of the people here. That I could never forgive.''

If Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it. The elimination of American opposition on this issue would open the way to genuine normalization between our two nations. It might even convince the Iranians that their country can flourish without nuclear weapons.

But this should also be made clear to Tehran: If a dirty bomb explodes in Milwaukee, or some other nuclear device detonates in Baltimore or Wichita, if Israel or Egypt or Saudi Arabia should fall victim to a nuclear ''accident,'' Iran should understand that the United States government will not search around for the perpetrator. The return address will be predetermined, and it will be somewhere in Iran.

Maybe we could induce Richard Armitage out of retirement to play the Don Corleone part. Apparently he knows the role, having already played it in Pakistan.

Ted Koppel is a contributing columnist for The Times and the managing editor of the Discovery Channel


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>

GET YOU HOT · Oct 24, 2006

Meet the "Whack Iran" Lobby
By Daniel Schulman
October 6, 2006

Exiles peddling back-channel intelligence, upstart advocacy groups pressing for regime change, administration hawks intent on remaking the Middle East—the scene in Washington is looking eerily familiar as the Iran standoff grows more tense.

Instead of Ahmad Chalabi, we have the likes of Iran-Contra arms-dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. A new Iran directorate inside the Pentagon features some of the same people who brought you the Iraq intel-cherrypicking operation at the Office of Special Plans.

Whether calling for outright regime change or pushing “democracy promotion” initiatives to undermine the Iranian government, an expanding cast of characters has emerged to promote confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.

What follows is an abridged list of the individuals and organizations agitating to bring down the mullahs.

Abram Shulsky

An acolyte of political philosopher Leo Strauss, one of the intellectual forbears of the neoconservative movement and an advocate of the “noble lie,”—the notion that deception is morally acceptable when used by a wise, but misunderstood elite--Shulsky headed the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, which trafficked in faulty intelligence on Iraq (including information from Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress) and circumvented the CIA to “stovepipe” WMD intelligence directly to the White House.

Elizabeth Cheney

The vice president’s eldest daughter’s official title is Vice Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs; in that capacity, Cheney, until her maternity leave earlier this year, oversaw the State Department’s Iran-Syria Operations Group, whose mission is to aggressively push democracy promotion campaigns.

David Wurmser

Long before being recruited to the Pentagon from the American Enterprise Institute following September 11, Wurmser was one of the loudest voices calling for Saddam Hussein's ouster. During the 1990s he co-authored a strategy paper—intended as advice to then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—with a string of neoconservatives including Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and his wife, Meyrav, a Middle East policy wonk at the Hudson Institute. It suggested “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq... as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions” and advancing Israel's.

Elliott Abrams

Since his return to public service after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts for withholding information from Congress as it probed the Iran-Contra scandal (he was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush), Abrams has been a key player in shaping the Bush administration’s Middle East agenda. In 2005, he was tapped as deputy national security adviser and is now responsible for pushing the administration’s reform agenda in the Middle East.

Michael Ledeen

From his perch at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Ledeen has long advocated toppling the Iranian regime. Criticizing U.S. policy toward Iran in March, he wrote, “Iran has been at war with us for 27 years, and we have discussed every imaginable subject with them. We have gained nothing, because there is nothing to be gained by talking with an enemy who thinks he is winning…

Manucher Ghorbanifar

Though Manucher Ghorbanifar has failed a CIA-administered lie detector test and the agency has issued not one but two “burn notices” warning field agents against using him, he continues to have the ear of neocons within the Pentagon. He has claimed, among other things, that there was an Iranian plot afoot to attack U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, that Tehran was planning attacks against the U.S., and that weapons-grade uranium had been smuggled into Iran from Iraq. Ghorbanifar, via a middleman, is also alleged to be the source behind Congressman Curt Weldon’s more outlandish claims about the Iranian threat to the U.S., which he compiled in his 2005 book Countdown to Terror.

Committee on the Present Danger

First formed in 1950 as a lobby to alert the nation to the Soviet menace and revived in 1976, the committee was resurrected for a third time in 2004, its mission to “educate free people everywhere about the threat posed by global radical Islamist and fascist terrorist movements” and to support “policies aimed at winning the global war against terrorism and the movements and ideologies that drive it.” Co-chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey and former Secretary of State George Shultz – Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl are honorary co-chairs

Iran Policy Committee

Directed by former CIA officer Clare Lopez, the IPC’s membership includes former military and intelligence officials who believe that the U.S. should pursue a “third alternative” on Iran (the first and second being diplomacy or pre-emptive military action). While leaving both military and diplomatic options on the table, IPC advocates propping up the Iranian opposition to “facilitate regime change.”

Foundation for Democracy in Iran

Co-founded in 1995 by investigative journalist and activist Kenneth Timmerman, the Foundation is among the oldest of a constellation of advocacy groups -- including the now defunct Coalition for Democracy in Iran established by Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, and former AIPAC director Morris Amitay – that have sprung up to push a hard line on Iran. “We are not in a political debate with this regime,” Timmerman has said. “We are in the business of overthrowing them.” Timmerman’s group, like the Iran Policy Committee, supports aiding Iranian opposition groups to bring down the regime. Timmerman, according to his Web site, is also working with the families of 9/11 victims to put together a class action suit against the Iranian government “because of its direct, material involvement in the al Qaeda plot to attack America.”

More info on whackjobs here...
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/09/iran.html

GET YOU HOT · Oct 24, 2006

Relevant archive...

The new Great Game

The 'war on terror' is being used as an excuse to further US energy interests in the Caspian

Lutz Kleveman
Monday October 20, 2003
The Guardian

Nearly two years ago, I travelled to Kyrgyzstan, the mountainous ex-Soviet republic in Central Asia, to witness a historical event: the deployment of the first American combat troops on former Soviet soil.

As part of the Afghan campaign, the US air force set up a base near the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. Brawny pioneers in desert camouflages were erecting hundreds of tents for nearly 3,000 soldiers. I asked their commander, a wiry brigadier general, if and when the troops would leave Kyrgyzstan (and its neighbour Uzbekistan, where Washington set up a second airbase). "There is no time limit," he replied. "We will pull out only when all al-Qaeda cells have been eradicated."

Today, the Americans are still there and many of the tents have been replaced by concrete buildings. Bush has used his massive military build-up in Central Asia to seal the cold war victory against Russia, to contain Chinese influence and to tighten the noose around Iran. Most importantly, however, Washington - supported by the Blair government - is exploiting the "war on terror" to further American oil interests in the Caspian region. But this geopolitical gamble involving thuggish dictators and corrupt Saudi oil sheiks is only likely to produce more terrorists.

For much of the past two years, I have researched the links between conflict in Central Asia and US oil interests. I travelled thousands of kilometres, meeting with generals, oil bosses, warlords and diplomats. They are all players in a geostrategic struggle - the new Great Game.

In this rerun of the first great game - the 19th-century imperial rivalry between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia - players once again position themselves to control the heart of the Eurasian landmass. Today, the US has taken over the leading role from the British. Along with the Russians, new regional powers, such as China, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan, have entered the arena, and transnational oil corporations are also pursuing their own interests.

The main spoils in today's Great Game are Caspian oil and gas. On its shores, and at the bottom of the Caspian Sea, lie the world's biggest untapped fossil fuel resources. Estimates range from 110 to 243bn barrels of crude, worth up to $4 trillion. According to the US department of energy, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan alone could sit on more than 130bn barrels, more than three times the US's reserves. Oil giants such as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and BP have already invested more than $30bn in new production facilities.

"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian," said Dick Cheney in a speech to oil industrialists in 1998. In May 2001, the US vice-president recommended in the national energy policy report that "the president makes energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy", singling out the Caspian basin as a "rapidly growing new area of supply".

With a potential oil production of up to 6m barrels per day by 2015, the Caspian region has become crucial to the US policy of "diversifying energy supply". It is designed to wean the US off its dependence on the Arab-dominated Opec cartel, which is using its near-monopoly position as pawn and leverage against industrialised countries. As global oil consumption keeps surging and many oil wells outside the Middle East are nearing depletion, Opec is expanding its share of the world market. At the same time, the US will have to import more than two-thirds of its total energy demand by 2020, mostly from the Middle East.

Many people in Washington are particularly uncomfortable with the growing power of Saudi Arabia. There is a fear that radical Islamist groups could topple the corrupt Saud dynasty and stop the flow of oil to "infidels". To stave off political turmoil, the regime in Riyadh funds the radical Islamic Wahabbi sect that foments terror against Americans around the world.

In a desperate effort to decrease its dependence on Saudi oil sheiks, the US seeks to control the Caspian oil resources. However, fierce conflicts have broken out over pipeline routes. Russia, still regarding itself as imperial overlord of its former colonies, promotes pipeline routes across its territory, including Chechnya, in the north Caucasus. China, the increasingly oil-dependent waking giant in the region, wants to build eastbound pipelines from Kazakhstan. Iran is offering its pipeline network via the Persian Gulf.

By contrast, Washington champions two pipelines that would circumvent both Russia and Iran. One would run from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. Construction has already begun for a $3.8bn pipeline from Azerbaijan's capital, Baku, via neighbouring Georgia to Turkey's Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. BP, its main operator, has invested billions in oil-rich Azerbaijan, and can count on support from the Bush administration, which recently stationed about 500 elite troops in war-torn Georgia.

Washington's Great Game opponents, particularly in Moscow and Beijing, resent what they perceive as arrogant imperialism. Worried that the US presence might encourage internal unrest in its Central Asian province of Xingjiang, China has recently held joint military exercises with Kyrgyzstan. The Russian government initially tolerated the intrusion into its former empire, hoping Washington would in turn ignore the atrocities in Chechnya. However, the much-hyped "new strategic partnership" against terror between the Kremlin and the White House has turned out to be more of a temporary tactical teaming-up. For the majority of the Russian establishment it is unthinkable to permanently cede its hegemonic claims on Central Asia.

Two weeks ago, Russia's defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, demanded publicly that the Americans pull out within two years. Ominously, President Putin has signed new security pacts with the Central Asian rulers, allowing Russian troops to set up a new military base in Kyrgyzstan, which lies only 35 miles away from the US airbase.

Besides raising the spectre of inter-state conflict, the Bush administration is wooing some of the region's most tyrannical dictators. One of them is Islam Karimov, the ex-communist ruler of Uzbekistan, whose regime brutally suppresses any opposition and Islamic groups. "Such people must be shot in the head. If necessary, I will shoot them myself," Karimov once told his rubber-stamp parliament.

Although the US state department acknowledges that Uzbek security forces use "torture as a routine investigation technique", Washington last year gave the Karimov regime $500m in aid and rent payments for the US air base in Chanabad. The state department also quietly removed Uzbekistan from its annual list of countries where freedom of religion is under threat. The British government seems to support Washington's policy, as Whitehall recently recalled its ambassador Craig Murray from Tashkent after he openly decried Uzbekistan's abysmal human rights record.

Worse is to come: disgusted with the US's cynical alliances with their corrupt and despotic rulers, the region's impoverished populaces increasingly embrace virulent anti-Americanism and militant Islam. As in Iraq, America's brazen energy imperialism in Central Asia jeopardises the few successes in the war on terror because the resentment it causes makes it ever easier for terrorist groups to recruit angry young men. It is all very well to pursue oil interests, but is it worth mortgaging our security to do so?

· Lutz Kleveman is the author of The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia (Atlantic Books

GET YOU HOT · Oct 24, 2006

Iran condemns US Gulf exercises

Iran has criticised planned US military exercises in the Gulf as provocative.
Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted an unnamed foreign ministry official as describing the military manoeuvres as dangerous and suspicious.

Reports say the US is to hold naval exercises at the end of October with Bahrain, Kuwait, France and Britain.

Separately, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called for Muslim unity to deal with what he called the "dirty aims" of the US and Israel.

The world knows that after Hezbollah's victory and the obvious and disgraceful failure of Israel in the 33-day war with Hezbollah, the face of the Middle East has completely changed

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Speaking at prayers to mark the festival of Eid al-Fitr at the end of Ramadan, Ayatollah Khamenei said the Middle East had turned a page in its history after what he described as the victory of the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah in its recent conflict with Israel.

In particular he called on Palestinian factions and groups to remain united, saying their enemies wanted to sow the seeds of division among them.

BBC Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the factional fighting between Fatah and Hamas has dismayed Iranian leaders, who fear it could diminish support for the Palestinian struggle.

'Intercepting missiles'

Reports say the US-led naval exercises based near Bahrain will practise intercepting and searching ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

The Iranian foreign ministry official said the US-led exercises were not in line with the security and stability of the region. Instead, they are aimed at fomenting crises, he said.

He complained that it was the warmongering of neo-conservatives in America who want to win the mid-term US congressional elections in November.

The manoeuvres come as America is pushing for tough UN sanctions on Iran, prohibiting nuclear cooperation or sales of ballistic missiles.

Our correspondent says it is not yet clear whether the UN would authorise the searching of ships heading to Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6080204.stm

QueEx · Oct 24, 2006

Iran condemns US Gulf exercises said:
The Iranian foreign ministry official said the US-led exercises were not in line with the security and stability of the region. Instead, they are aimed at fomenting crises, he said.

He complained that it was the warmongering of neo-conservatives in America who want to win the mid-term US congressional elections in November.

Wonder who that part is aimed at? - voters in the United States or the citizenry in Iran? If its the former, guess we can't say that foreign countries don't try to interfere with our elections.

QueEx

neo_cacos · Oct 26, 2006

Makkonnen said:
TRUTH

I have read some things in the asian press regarding this exact notion. A Pakistani general also directly stated that. Basically all nations who do not have nuclear weapons are in a severe race to get them, It is the only bargaining chip and invasion deterrent to the US.

How many countries has the US invaded in the past 20 years?

Afghanistan
Iraq
Panama
Grenada

and of all those which is free and democratic? none lol
get nukes or get fucked

Musharaff with nukes is a partner- without nukes is a dictator and probably would have got hit with some cruise missiles too

Right on!
I'm no political analyst or strategist. But I know this much...if you don't have the right weapons, you're just SOMEONE'S TARGET.

I KNOW my HISTORY WOULD'VE PROBALBY BEEN A LOT DIFFERENT IF WE HAD THE GUN.

Neo

QueEx · Nov 6, 2006

<center>Iraq Asks Iran to Meet U.S. </center>

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: November 6, 2006

TEHRAN, Nov. 5 — The Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday that Iraqi officials had asked Iran to hold talks with the United States and that it would consider doing so if the United States made an official request.

Such talks were agreed to in March, but tensions between the countries over Iran’s nuclear program began escalating and final arrangements were never made.

Many of Iraq’s Shiite leaders lived in Iran when Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq, and some American military commanders have accused Iran of training and equipping violent Shiite groups in Iraq.

“If we receive an official request over regional issues, we will consider it,” said a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Muhammad Ali Hosseini, during a weekly news conference.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/w...1162793721-IeBU+TovGhHUPyokx4f90g&oref=slogin

GET YOU HOT · Nov 6, 2006

A humbled man speaks...

http://memritv.org/View.asp?P1=1301

QueEx · Nov 13, 2006

<center>Caught Between Israel and Iran</center>

Stratfor
Geopolitical Diary
November 13, 2006 04 22 GMT

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert flew to Washington on Sunday for a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush. Before leaving Israel, he told reporters that this was the right time to discuss expectations about Washington's Middle East policy during the final two years of the presidency. Specifically, Olmert said that those trying to "reach a compromise with Iran" should recognize that Tehran would be interested in compromise only if the clerical regime feels threatened. He added that "Israel has various options which I am not prepared to discuss."

The Israelis have reason to be concerned about a change in the U.S. posture toward Iran. The administration's first response to the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 congressional elections was to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with former CIA Director Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group. The bipartisan body was set up to craft recommendations on a new Iraq policy, and it is widely believed that the group is urging the Bush administration to negotiate with Iran in order to resolve its problems in Iraq.

The Bush administration clearly has been weakened both domestically and internationally -- and both the Israelis and the Iranians know this. Olmert, however, has a similar problem. His fragile coalition government was severely hurt by the outcome of the war with Hezbollah during the summer, which forced him to reach out to the ultraconservative Yisrael Beiteinu. The far-right party agreed to join the government on a number of conditions -- one of which was that its chief, Avigdor Lieberman, would be appointed as the minister for strategic affairs. That's the official whose main task is to develop Israeli policy toward Iran, which is pursuing a nuclear program and regional hegemony.

In his statements on Sunday, however, it was not as if Olmert was responding solely to pressure from his more hawkish coalition partners. As a pragmatic conservative, he clearly sees the strategic threat Israel faces in Iran. Now, the Jewish state is worried that Tehran will be able to exploit Washington's dependency -- as relates to Iraq -- to its own advantage. Put another way, if Washington agrees to negotiate with Iran over the fate of Iraq -- without linkage to other issues, which has been the sticking point to date -- Tehran would be free to proceed with its plans on the nuclear issue, and its rise as a regional power would accelerate.

Meanwhile, Iran is continuing to send reminders to Washington about the urgent need to move forward on Iraq. On Sunday, four British soldiers were killed and three others seriously injured when their patrol boat came under attack in the Shatt al-Arab waterway near Basra. It was the latest in a series of events in which pro-Iranian Shiite militias in southern Iraq have attacked British forces. Also on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini warned that the Islamic Republic would deliver a swift and "destructive" response to any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities -- a rejoinder to recent statements by Israeli leaders, who said they would resort to military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear issue.

The assumption in Iran is that Washington would be able to stay Israel's hand, as an Israeli military strike would upset the U.S. calculus not only for Iraq, but the entire region. That assumption, however, fails to take into account two things: one, that the Israelis always have had a great deal of freedom to act; and two, that the Israelis might be just as ready and willing to exploit the weakness in Washington as the Iranians.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=280453

QueEx · Dec 22, 2006

<center>Israeli think tank says
only military strike will stop Iran</center>

The Associated Press
Published: December 22, 2006

JERUSALEM: Nothing short of a military strike will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, an Israeli newspaper quoted a respected Israeli think tank as concluding on Friday.

"There is no longer a possibility for effective sanctions to stop Iran," retired Brig.-Gen. Zvi Shtauber, of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, told The Jerusalem Post.

"Our conclusion is that without military action you won't be able to stop Iran," Shtauber said.

Shtauber and former Israel Air Force intelligence officer Yiftah Shapir compiled the institute's annual report on the military balance in the Middle East.

Shtauber would not comment on The Jerusalem Post article, and said he would not comment on the report until it is released Jan. 2. Shapir also declined to comment.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/22/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Iran.php

QueEx · Dec 22, 2006

<center>Iran vote rattles leader's authority
Hardline president saw lack of support</center>

Matthew B. Stannard
Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, December 22, 2006

When Iranians flocked to the polls on Monday to vote in local elections, Iran's official press agency quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cheering the high turnout.

But on Thursday, Ahmadinejad had no reported comments on the final election results, which showed moderate conservatives opposed to his policies had won a majority of seats. The second biggest bloc of vote-getters were reformists, making a comeback after being driven out of local councils, parliament and the presidency over the past five years -- a result many analysts interpreted as a repudiation of the status quo.

Instead, Ahmadinejad spent the day in western Iran, telling crowds that Iran would never dismantle its nuclear program and referring to President Bush as the "most hated person" in Iran -- the kind of fiery focus on international issues that a number of analysts said was behind his loss at the polls.

In Tehran, where Ahmadinejad was mayor before becoming president 16 months ago, his hard-line allies grabbed only three of the 15 council seats, while moderate conservatives won seven. Reformists won four, and an independent took one. Though the Dec. 15 elections were for local posts, they marked the first time that the public has weighed in on Ahmadinejad's stormy presidency.

Similar anti-Ahmadinejad sentiment appeared in final results of a parallel election for the Assembly of Experts, the body of 86 senior clerics that monitors Iran's supreme Islamic leader and chooses his successor.

"We consider this government's policy to be against Iran's national interests and security," said Saeed Shariati, a leader of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, Iran's largest reformist party. His party seeks democratic changes within the ruling Islamic establishment and supports resumed relations with the United States.

A big boost for moderates was the large number of votes for former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who lost to Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election runoff. Rafsanjani, who also supports dialogue with the United States, got the most votes of any candidate from Tehran to win re-election to the assembly.

"There's a lot riding on this election," said Ilan Berman, vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington.

"Since taking office in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has focused less on domestic issues like grassroots prosperity and anti-corruption, and more on confrontation with Israel and the United States," Berman said. "As such, it was important for him to make a strong showing in the local election as a way of confirming his popularity. That has not happened -- a clear signal that Iranians are becoming increasingly nervous about his leadership."

Berman said it is particularly important to note that Ahmadinejad's mentor, Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, did not do as well as expected in the Assembly of Experts election.

"Had Yazdi dominated, many were predicting that he would make a play for the Islamic Republic's top slot, challenging the legitimacy of Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and even seeking the job himself," he said. "For now, though, that power struggle seems to have been averted."

The strong showing by reformists -- notably including women -- was particularly impressive given their handicap in advertising, funding and possible electoral manipulation, said Farideh Farhi, an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii.

"Most factions in Iranian politics took these elections (particularly for the municipal councils) seriously, worked hard to form coalitions (reformists were able to, but conservatives were not due to the intransigence of Ahmadinejad supporters), and a large part of the Iranian electorate responded by participating more than usual and effectively acknowledging that there are differences among candidates and platforms," she wrote in a post-election analysis. "To be sure, the choice was limited but that this did not mean that there were no choices to be made."

Assad Homayoun, a former Iranian diplomat now heading the Azadegan Foundation in Washington, agreed there are encouraging signs that Iranians are tiring of the regime, such as recent student protests. But he argued against reading too much significance into the results.

"This election ... will not have much impact on international relations. It will have an impact on local balance, balance between clerics," he said. "(But) the balancer is Khamenei. There will be no change. It means no problem of economics will be solved, unemployment will stay or be increased. ... The government will continue their quest for a nuclear bomb, and the government will continue their support for terrorism."

What's more, argued Homayoun, who favors a secular government for Iran, reformist successes don't mean as much change as some in the West hope. "There is no reform. In Ira, nobody believes in reform," he said. "In this situation, Khatami, Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad ... all of them have the same goal: to liberate Jerusalem and become the leader of the Islamic world."

But other analysts, who argue that popular dissatisfaction and internal reform can pave the way to a more open, free and stable Iranian government with help from Western civil society, say the elections are important evidence in favor of their position.

"The argument that there is no difference between a reformist government and an Ahmadinejad government is like those that said there is no difference between an Al Gore presidency and the Bush presidency," said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University and co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution.

"Experience shows that both in America today and in Iran today there is an important difference. To Mr. Homayoun ... there may not be a difference, but to the people in Iran ... those small, nuanced differences are a whole lifetime difference between absolute repression and relative repression," he said. "They know the difference."

Chronicle news services contributed to this report. E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/22/MNG2MN48DN1.DTL

QueEx · Jan 26, 2007

<center>
IAEA chief says attack on Iran
would be catastrophe</center>

January 26, 2007
By Stella Dawson

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - An attack on Iran would be catastrophic and encourage it to develop a nuclear bomb, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday.

"It would be absolutely counterproductive, and it would be catastrophic," ElBaradei said at a discussion on nuclear proliferation at the World Economic Forum.

The Bush administration in recent weeks has toughened its stance against Iran, which the West has accused of seeking to secretly build an atomic bomb, raising fears among political and business leaders that the U.S. plans an attack.

President George W. Bush has moved an additional aircraft carrier into the Gulf and told Iran that he would not allow it to provide weapons and support to insurgents in Iraq.

Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against Iran on the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq, although many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too much for Israel to destroy alone.

The United Nations imposed sanctions in December to prevent Iran using its nuclear energy programme for military weapons, and Iran this week banned 38 IAEA nuclear inspectors.

ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, has been engaged in meetings here at the gathering of world political and business leaders. He said diplomacy is the only way forward, and talk of military action can only backfire.

"This strengthens the hands of those in Iran who say 'let's develop a bomb to protect ourselves," he said.

The Bush administration has said it wants a diplomatic solution and that it is not preparing to attack either Iran or Syria.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz also warned against an attack, while Iran's former president Mohammad Khatami urged calm to reduce tensions over Iran's nuclear programme.

"If there is military action, it will have catastrophic results, not only in the region, but the whole world," Aziz said.

"I hope they would be good enough in managing the situation. We deeply need patience and understanding and not to get too emotional," Khatami said.

ElBaradei said force should not be ruled out, but past experience has shown that it should not be used with haste, citing Iraq where no evidence of nuclear weapons was found after the U.S.-led invasion.

"I am convinced that the only way forward in Iran is engagement," ElBaradei said. "We have to invest in peace," he said, adding that if the international community failed to do that "the consequence will be 10 times worse."

"I hope we will stop speaking about a military option and focus on finding a solution," ElBaradei said.

Iran says it needs nuclear power to generate electricity but the West fears it is secretly seeking an atom bomb. In December, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology to try and stop enrichment work that could produce bomb material.

http://thestaronline.com/news/story...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-285099-2&sec=Worldupdates

QueEx · Feb 10, 2007

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6348797.stm[/frame]

QueEx · Feb 14, 2007

DEBKAfile Exclusive:

<center>Switzerland submits to Tehran a proposal
for solving crisis over Iran’s nuclear program
over Washington’s objections </center>

DEBKAFile
February 14, 2007, 12:30 AM (GMT+02:00)

Our intelligence sources reveal that Monday, Feb. 12, the six-point proposal secret Swiss emissaries delivered to the Iranian government ten days ago was accepted.

Its six points are revealed here for the first time:

1. Iran will be allowed to produce a predetermined quota of enriched uranium against its pledge not to exceed this limit or produce it up to weapons grade.

2. International nuclear IAEA inspections will be expanded to encompass nuclear weaponization activity.

3. In return for Tehran’s acceptance of 1.and 2., the IAEA will supply Iran with advanced nuclear technology and Russia will release nuclear fuel rods to power its Bushehr atomic reactor.

4. UN Security Council sanctions against Iran will not be stiffened.

5. The US and Europe will promise to desist from any military attack on Iran.

6. America and Europe will close down their clandestine support programs for Iran’s disaffected minorities, such as the Arabs of Khuzistan and the Kurds.

DEBKAfile’s sources report that the Swiss go-betweens were received by aides of former president Hashem Rafsanjani, whose word as one of supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ‘s closest advisers counts for much in the Iranian capital. Those aides, according to Swiss sources, were “more than interested” in the proposal and intimated that if Washington could be won over negotiations could go forward to solve the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

They also disclose that the Swiss diplomats who brought the proposal to Tehran had also involved themselves in mediation efforts in the past two years to persuade Syrian president Bashar Assad and Hamas leaders in Damascus to agree to talks with Israel. Israel rejected both initiatives.

Bush administration officials suspect that the outgoing French president Jacques Chirac is quietly sponsoring the Bern government’s initiative.

Our Iranian sources disclose Tehran attaches high hopes to the Swiss plan. The two sides are working on a “non-paper” which European Union’s foreign policy executive Javier Solana will be asked to present in Washington.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3830

Is Iran Right?

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Potential Star

Superfly Moderator

Star

Rising Star

Star

Not A BGOL Eunuch

Rising Star

Not A BGOL Eunuch

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Superstar *****

Superfly Moderator

Superfly Moderator

Superfly Moderator

Rising Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

Superfly Moderator

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star