U.S. demurs as Israel pushes "crippling" Iran sanctions

So Obama finally stood up to Washington's most powerful lobby? Its about time. Its quite embarrassing how that tail wags the big dog.

Major U.S. news organizations, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, are engaged in a replay of the kind of slanted coverage that paved the way to war in Iraq, only this time regarding Iran.

That's a long article, but its very germane to what's going on right now with Iran. According to the article US intelligence has no evidence Iran is trying to build a bomb and may well have a duly elected president. Much food for thought.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israel lobbied the United States on Thursday to promote "crippling" sanctions against Iran to curb its nuclear programme, but the Obama administration said it did not want to hurt the Iranian people.

[snip]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday such sanctions would have to hit Iran's vital energy sector. Though it is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline from foreign refineries.

Yet in separate comments on Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said: "It is not our intent to have crippling sanctions that have a significant impact on the Iranian people. Our actual intent is to find ways to pressure the government while protecting the people."

Another U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington worried too-sweeping sanctions might backfire by giving Iranian hardliners cover to crack down on dissidents, and by making economic conditions so hard ordinary Iranians turn on the United States rather than the Tehran government.

...
Note: Headline links to source. Clicking on image will enlarge it (usually).

Israel drones 'could target Iran'

So how well do you think this will work out if these drones start flying over Iran and could easily be taken as US drones?

Israel's air force has unveiled a fleet of unmanned aircraft that its says are able to reach the Gulf, putting Iran within range.

The Heron TP drones, which have a wingspan the size of a Boeing 737 passenger jet, were presented to the media on Sunday, as Israel pushes for international action against the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme.

The aircraft, developed by the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and be used for surveillance or launching a missile attack.

Oh, and they can even launch missile attacks. Joy.
...
Note: Headline links to source.

Why Obama Is Ignoring Europe

I'm too fucking lazy to grab all the links, but it ain't only Europe.

Try Russia, China, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Japan... ad nauseam.

Any instances where Obama has improved US relationships with foreign countries after Shrub's horrible administration he's pretty much pissed away by now.

There's an old (really) routine by Mort Sahl where he says the President is standing before a globe with all the trouble spots colored black. He continues, "So the President is standing in front of this black globe..."

Its all black out there, folks.

...
Note: Headline links to source.

Palin advises Obama to 'declare war on Iran'

The charismatic Ms Pee is now trying to become an adviser to Obama. Bless her fucking black heart.

President Barack Obama won’t be re-elected in 2012 unless he can “toughen up” on national security, according to Sarah Palin. The former Governor of Alaska believes that declaring war on Iran could help the president get re-elected.

Moose, bear, beaver, belugas, people. Seems Ms Pee is predisposed to killing to achieve an end. Now assuming she always eats what she kills... ew!



I need to be perfectly clear on this if I haven't already. Killing people should never be a God damn political ploy. Anyone who suggests it as a desirable option should be viewed as a lunatic and avoided the same as one would avoid that lady at Wendy's® who is having a conversation with herself.

By the way, the lady at Wendy's® appeared to be winning the discussion with herself.

...
Note: Headline links to source.

Iran opens two new missile plants

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Why exactly does Ahmadinejad find it necessary to piss everyone off every week or so? Is it internal PR or what? Is it the fucking banty rooster syndrome? Is he just totally bonkers? For some reason I think he's far too intelligent to not realize he's painting a target on his chest.

Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi opened two new missile production plants on Saturday, just three days after Iran fired a rocket carrying live animals into space, state television reported.

Ya know my problem is I'm relatively sane (sort of). Which means I can't possibly think of all the manipulative reasons for anything political. Who is the audience? Is the audience the US, Iranians, Venezuela, the Supreme Leader, Israel? Is it saber rattling or serious? Is an action that appears military merely a ploy to get a favorable oil sale agreement? Is Ahmadinejad on drugs? Does he have extras? Does Ahmadinejad have a small penis? Is he really trying to provoke a war?

Why hasn't my head exploded?

...
Note: Headline links to source.

Short timer syndrome

You've all known of people with this. Perhaps even been there yourself.

By definition its someone who has given two weeks notice or otherwise knows they have a short time before being out the door. And at that point their attitude can be either I'll do my best for this outfit until I'm gone or who gives a fuck. The later is most common and will often get you out the door quicker. Not with the moron. He doesn't give a fuck and is immune from early dismissal. Yeah, I'm talking to you Pelosi.

So the moron tells oil companies they can harass polar bears, wants to drill in ANWAR, intends to ignore the SCOTUS when it comes to Guantánamo Bay and the list goes on.

Ah, but the biggie is an attack on Iran. Will short timer syndrome enter into his decision? Probably.

Group Forms To Head Off War on Iran

Tehran, capital of Iran
Thank God, perhaps cooler heads will prevail. And the Iranians will only have to fear Mother Nature who can really be a mother.

Representatives of Left and Right Seek To Push America Into Talks With Tehran An unusual coalition of interest groups from left and right is launching a drive today to head off an American military attack on Iran by pushing America into high-level negotiations with Tehran. The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran, which bills itself as "transpartisan," consists of more than three dozen organizations, most of them left-leaning, such as the American Friends Service Committee, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Open Society Policy Center, which is backed by George Soros. However, the campaign also has the backing of a smattering of right-of-center groups, including the American Conservative Defense Alliance, the Libertarian Party, and the American Cause, which is headed by Patrick Buchanan.

Note: Headline links to source.

U.S.: We will address Iran nuke threat via diplomacy

Secretary Rice with Shaul Mofaz
State Department photo by Michael Gross
And the rhetorical attacks escalate.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday that the United States was committed to solving the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomatic multilateral means.

Perino was responding to comments made earlier Friday by Transportation Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, who said that an Israeli attack on Iran appeared "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential.

Tehran has also threatened to retaliate against Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, and U.S. targets in the Gulf if there is any attack on Iran.

Earlier Friday, the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper quoted Mofaz as saying "if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective."

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," the former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff who later served as defense minister told the newspaper.

It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should United Nations Security Council sanctions fail to achieve the desired abandonment of nuclear development by Tehran.

Mofaz also said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, [For those who don't understand metaphors. - ed.] "would disappear before Israel does." [For those who know Israel would do it. -ed.]

Please, someone, explain to me how you can solve a problem "diplomatically" if you refuse to talk to the other side.

Note: Headline links to source.

Halliburton sold nuke components to Iran?

Its not easy being the moron, I suppose. In choosing a running mate he couldn't find a qualified bank robber or rapist and had to settle for Cheney.

According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran's largest private oil companies. Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran's nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran's nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.

...

However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, "Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is "non-American." But like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world." Moreover mail sent to the company's offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.

Yes, Cheney was gone from Halliburton, but he set the tone of the company.

Note: Headline links to source.

Obama on Israel

Please forgive me Left I on the News, but I stole your whole fucking post. Its just too damn good to excerpt.

My tirades come after this.

Barack Obama spoke to AIPAC today. Some excerpts:

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work.

Note the omission of the role of the U.S. and the U.N.; in this strange history, it was simply Ben-Gurion who "declared" the founding of Israel. Note also the use of the word "just," omitting any mention of the gross injustice that was committed with the lie of "the land without people for a people without land." Note finally the reference to "decades of patient work," which makes it clear that he acknowledges that the establishment of Israel was a long-held Zionist plan, and not a response to the Holocaust (although obviously that's what pushed the plan through to fruition).

"There are still voices that deny the Holocaust."

There are, but he's really referring to Ahmadinejad, who only questions the number killed (absurd, but no less so than Bush, and probably Obama, vastly understating the number killed in the ongoing holocaust in Iraq) and questions why the solution to European anti-Semitism had to come at the expense of a people who had nothing to do with it.

"There are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region."

Yeah, what a wacky idea.

"I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade."

Yes, because Israel's 150[+] nuclear weapons aren't sufficient to defend itself, and we have no better use for $30 billion here in the United States (or, for that matter, in Palestine, where an investment of $30 billion would do a lot more for Israel's security than spending $30 billion more on tanks and warplanes for Israel).

"There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections."

I did not know that. What a democrat. Elections? Not if the "wrong" party is going to win.

"As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security."

Notice anything missing? "I will work to help Israel achieve..." Don't the Palestinians figure in here somewhere?

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

A blockbuster. "Remain"? Only Israel (I believe) recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that "undivided" part is going to be rather a stumbling block to his claims to be working for a Palestinian state, because no Palestinian leadership, however compromised, is ever going to accept such a situation.

"Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat."

There isn't any serious evidence that Syria had taken such "dangerous steps," just the vaguest of unsupported allegations, and the notion that Israel was justified in attacking Syria is, to put it mildly, both contrary to international law and dangerous in the extreme.

"As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria’s support for terror."

That "whatever I can" might be hiding an awful lot of aggressive actions. Remember this as the guy vigorously advocating bombing "sanctuaries" in Pakistan. What is he thinking about now? Who else is he planning to bomb to help enforce 1701 and stop Syria's alleged support for terror?

"There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran."

The war drums come out. Indeed, the truth is that, aside from the U.S., there is no greater threat to Iran than Israel, whose politicians, just like American politicians, openly threaten military action against Iran. Iran, by contrast, has never threatened action against Israel, and hasn't attacked another country in hundreds of years. Too bad Israel and the U.S. can't say the same.

"[Iran] pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

Until we get to the last phrase ("my goal..."), there isn't a single word of truth in this diatribe (I'll spare the details, which I've covered many times before).

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy"

It may start there, but we know where "everything in my power" ends up, and it isn't pretty (or legal, for that matter).

"...whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization."

That's funny, because just a few months ago, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for voting for a resolution labelling the Quds force a "terrorist organization." Does he think no one remembers?

"Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation."

Just in case you had any doubt. And by "threat of military action," he means "military action." By "confrontation," he means "war."

To listen to Obama (and Bush and McCain and every other major politician and pundit) you'd think that Iranian troops were massing on the Israeli border. Oh wait...there is no such border.

Update: A friend who watched the speech (as opposed to reading the transcript as I did) reports:

I watched some of Obama's speech, and one thing I noticed was that he repeated the phrase "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" (or words to that effect) twice, and then repeated "everything" as a one-word sentence, and then looked around at the crowd as if to say, "get it."

OK, where to start?

First off Israel is a goddamn chihuahua among countries (look at the fucking map*) with the heart and disposition of a rottweiler. To allow that fucking dog to wag its tail and control US foreign policy is ludicrous in the extreme.

I recently posted a comment to a blog extolling the virtues of having a candidate dedicated to change running for President. They were practically drooling about it as they genuflected.

Well, here's your fucking "change". If anything its a change for the worse.

I'm surprised the White House has foreign policy advisors on staff. What a waste of taxpayers' money. Just ask Israel what to do. Won't cost you a fucking cent.

* Can you even find Israel on the map? Hint: Its yellow and has a lot of waterfront property.

Note: Headline links to source.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: Iran's nuclear program must be stopped by "all possible means"

Note: I do NOT take credit for speech balloons.
I think Tehran has gotten the message Ehud. You and the moron have been quite clear on that subject which Iran vehemently denies.

Personally I could do without the "all possible means" bullshit. Of course a term like "drastic measures" isn't commonly used when trying to engage in polite international discussions either.

He is talking attack (How else to characterize "devastating repercussions"?) and I'm hoping he and the rest of those in charge of Israel realize how stupid that move would be.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday Iran's nuclear program must be stopped by "all possible means" and Tehran must be made to see it would suffer devastating repercussions if it pursued atomic weapons.

The Israeli leader, under criminal investigation at home that could drive him from office, issued his strongest warning yet to Iran in a policy speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

"The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means," said Olmert, who is expected to discuss the issue in talks with U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday.

"The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating," Olmert added.

The United States accuses Iran of pursuing atomic weapons under cover of its civil nuclear program. Iran denies this and has said its nuclear program is to generate electricity. Israel is widely believed to have hundreds of nuclear warheads. [emphasis mine]

Note: Headline links to source.

Both McCain, Obama exaggerating Iran's nuclear program

First of all, quit calling McCain the presumptive Republican nominee. He's had a lock on it for months.

OK, to move on. McCain, Obama, Obama, McCain. What's the fucking difference besides the (R) or (D) behind their names? You can throw HRC in there too if you wish, but I'm thinking she's nearly gone.

The presumptive Republican nominee for president and the leading contender for the Democratic nomination are exaggerating [Exaggerating? They're contradicting the US intelligence community and the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. That's not exaggerating] what's known about Iran's nuclear program as they duel over how best to deal with Tehran.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. intelligence community, however, thinks that Iran halted an effort to build a nuclear warhead in mid-2003, and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating the program, has found no evidence to date of an active Iranian nuclear-weapons project.

The candidates' comments raise questions about how carefully the two have studied the public record on what's become a major campaign issue and is one of the most difficult foreign-policy challenges likely to confront the next president.

The issue is also significant because the Bush administration inflated assessments of the Iraqi nuclear threat and the possibility that former dictator Saddam Hussein could pass nuclear weapons to terrorists as it sought to whip up public support for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Learn from history, guys.

Note: Headline links to source.

A giant backward step on Iran

Lets face it. Metaphorically the moron poisons everyone he comes in contact with and the sooner he's out of office the better.

"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," Mohammad ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated last week at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. [emphasis mine]

Unfortunately, the only thing consistent about ElBaradei is his inconsistency, reflected in his subsequent report, just delivered to the United Nations Security Council, which has been widely interpreted as "a grim reminder that Tehran is pressing ahead with its nuclear program", to paraphrase a New York Times editorial; the editorial goes on to say that ElBaradei's report "expresses serious concern about evidence [outlined in 18 documents accompanying the report] that Iran is working on programs with clear military applications".

The report said Iran continued to stonewall investigators looking into documents alleging its government researched atomic weapons.

But, didn't the same respected chief of the UN's atomic agency admit in his earlier report, in February, that his agency "has no credible information" regarding the so-called "alleged weaponization" studies? What magic was pulled on the IAEA to bestow sudden legitimacy on the admittedly "unreliable" and "dubious" information (other than the heat of US pressure)? Is this now the end of the IAEA's hitherto heroic standing up to the external pressures that threatened to compromise its integrity?

Sadly, ElBaradei's latest report gives a strong impression that this may indeed be what is in store for the IAEA, which does not bode well either for the agency's own international prestige or for the future of its relationship with Iran - which has reacted angrily by calling the report a work of "deception" and deeply "flawed".

New Majlis (parliament) speaker Ali Larijani - a former negotiator for Iran on its nuclear case - said in his first address to the legislature, "If they [the IAEA] want to continue along this path, the Majlis will surely take up the nuclear case and will set a new line for cooperation with the agency."

Indeed, this report represents a giant leap backward with respect to the IAEA's performance on the Iran nuclear question, casting serious doubt on the agency's ability to conduct its business professionally and impartially. It was a mere two months ago that the agency gave a rather glowing report that declared all the "outstanding questions" minus the "alleged studies", which were never a part of the Iran-IAEA work plan in the first place, had been successfully resolved. Now the IAEA has now responded to the tremendous US backlash in the form of retracting some of its statements and adopting the US's allegations basically as facts warranting "serious concerns" about the peacefulness of Iran's nuclear program.

There's no doubt in my mind Mohammad ElBaradei knuckled under to pressure from the White House. Why is a mystery, but I'm sure that's exactly what's happened.

When are people gonna quit giving this petulant child everything he wants except for more Saudi oil?

Note: Headline links to source.

Brzezinski and Odom on Iran

Zbigniew Brzezinski


William Odom, LtGeneral (Ret)

I'm really at a loss why I don't excerpt from, link to posts at Left I on the News more often. Its always good and full of useful information. Take today's example.

Considering the religious character of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and considering that it is a widely-held belief amongst American politicians and pundits that the most powerful person in Iran is not Ahmadinejad but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it is surely relevant that on August 10, 2005, Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring "that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons." Curiously, Brzezinski and Odom, along with every other American politician and pundit, fail to mention that rather salient fact.

Iran, like every other signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a perfect right to develop nuclear power including the enrichment of uranium. As Brzezinski and Odom note, it is the United States, with its failure to significantly reduce its nuclear arsenal, which is in violation of the NPT, not Iran.

This is not news to me. I've brought up these points many times, but perhaps its new to you.

Note there are many more points available at the link. The author doesn't think Brzezinski and Odom are always correct. And the author is absolutely right.

Note: Headline links to source.

Brit Intel 'Leaks' Propaganda: Iran Paying Iraqis to Kill Occupation Troops

I've stolen this entire post from BlackListedNews.com for two reasons.

1. I didn't know where to stop excerpting it.

2. This is important shit you're gonna hear one hell of a lot about in the coming weeks or months. The neocons will cram this down your throats.

Since the neocon lie about Iran passing IEDs off to the “insurgents” (the resistance) in Iraq didn’t get much traction, we now have the Brits playing second fiddle with a passel of hogwash, just to keep the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran — as McCain likes to sing — agenda front and center.

“Iran has secretly paid Iraqi insurgents hundreds of thousands of American dollars to kill British soldiers, according to a leaked government document,” reports the Telegraph. “The allegations are contained in a confidential ‘field report’ written by a British officer who served in Basra during one of the most dangerous periods of the conflict. The report, which has never been made public, shows the full level of Iran’s involvement in the insurgency for the first time.”

In other words, British intelligence, conniving with American intelligence, has crafted a “field report” and “leaked” this to the ever complaisant corporate media. Leaked… you know, sort of like signed, sealed, and delivered. In fact, chances are this “report” was specifically created for the corporate media and its headline readers and sound bite spectators who need to get the idea that the bad guys are now in Iran and they are killing our boys so, of course, we have to bomb them to smithereens.

“The document states that the Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) – also known as the Mahdi Army – one of the most violent insurgent groups operating in Basra, used money from Iran to recruit and pay young unemployed men up to $300 (£150) a month to carry out attacks against the British. The findings have been passed to the highest levels in the military.” And passed on to the corporate media for the above mentioned headline readers and Fox News viewers.

Iran does not need to pay the Iraqi resistance — they would fight the occupation of their country the same as Americans and Brits would fight if their country was occupied, if their relatives were killed, if their country was destroyed. But never mind, this makes too much sense.

“The leak comes at a time of rising tension between Iran and the international community, as Tehran continues to stonewall UN inquiries into allegations that it has carried out research to develop a nuclear weapon.”

In other words, the “leak” to the corporate media comes at a time when the neocons and their British helpers are ramping up their propaganda war against Iran, working toward an attack on that country under the pretense evil mullahs are feverishly working on a nuclear weapon they will naturally use against Israel. In fact, Iran does not have a nuke and they are permitted under the NPT to develop nuclear energy, a fact rarely mentioned by the likes of the Telegraph or the New York Times and the Washington Post.

“In an attempt to discover who was behind the attacks, the officer [Major Christopher Job, of the 2nd Lancashire Regiment] says he established a network of informers, who supplied him with detailed intelligence on the actions of the insurgents and who was behind their funding.”

A “network of informers,” no doubt consisting of people like Curveball, aka Rafid Ahmed Alwan, the con artist “informer” the neocons used as a pretense to invade and occupy Iraq. Alwan claimed Iraq had mobile biological weapon labs, but as it turned out these were instead trucks used to fill hydrogen balloons, a fact discovered by an official British investigation after the U.S. invaded Iraq in March, 2003.

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and a former infantry commander, told the Telegraph this “leaked” report “makes it quite clear that Iran is directly involved in funding the insurgency” and Iran must be confronted, that is to say bombed, and “anything else is appeasement.” Both Bush and McCain are on this “appeasement” bandwagon, conjuring up scary images of Nazi tanks rolling into Poland and the Munich appeasers of 1938. So happy was the neocon John Bolton, so rabid he was never officially appointed to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, he said this supposed appeasement “may well have created a defining moment in the 2008 campaign.” In fact, all the candidates are four square behind attacking Iran, most notably Hillary who called for “obliterating” Iran and John McCain, who envisions a new Hundred Years War against Islam. As noted above, McCain likes to sing songs about mass murder, something that would, in non-Bushzarro times, get him slapped in a mental ward for observation. Instead, he may be the next president.

As Bush nears the end of his term, the neocons, with a little help from their friends in Britain, are building their case for an Iran attack, never mind how fallacious. But then the whole neocon argument for war — or rather, shooting Arabs and Persians like fish in a barrel — is deceptive and misleading. As should be expected, the corporate media, with a few very minor exceptions, are behind this effort. It should come as no surprise they are ignoring the fact the neocons lied us into the invasion and occupation of Iraq. After Iran is reduced to Stone Age condition, same as Iraq was, a few editorials may appear stating we were once again lied to, but these will be relegated to section C, page 12, safely tucked away so the headline readers will not arrive at the conclusion they are not only chumps, but complicit in mass murder and war crimes.

I'd be fucking surprised if the author has any quotation marks left in his word processor. The story wreaks of incredulity. Perhaps a legacy of the Downing Street Memo? Just asking.

Note: Headline links to source.

The War Camp in Death Throes is Intent on Striking Iran

Nuke them before they can nuke us.
Please pay close attention to the last paragraph which causes goddamn shivers when juxtaposed with the second article.

The most aggressive posturing and accusations against Iran, yet issued by Washington, signal the rapid closure of the window of opportunity for peace which opened up following the release of the US' National Intelligence Estimate in December 07 concluding that there was no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme in Iran. This revelation which was concordant with the IAEA's own repeated assessment over 5 years of intrusive inspections, and which had been held from publication by the Vice President Cheney for over a year with the aim of altering its key findings, put a spanner in the frightfully accelerating wheel to another war and a potential inferno in the Middle East and beyond.

However, it seems that the war camp led by Cheney have regained the lost ground and are furtively peddling for war before Bush leaves office next January. Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset, 15th May, evoking, once again, the spectre of the world war, likening Iran to 1938 pre-war Nazi Germany, and rebuking Obama's willingness for dialogue with Iran on par with "appeasement of Hitler", followed by the reporting of the Israeli army radio of behind the doors expressions of intent by the US to attack [link in original] Iran before the end of his term, has sounded the alarm bells across a wide spectrum of political observers and analysts.

Darth Cheney and the idiot both know once a conflagration in the Mid-East is begun it will be nearly impossible for the next US President to stop it.

Iran has a gigantic target on it.

AS ISRAEL [caps in original] pursues peace talks with Syria, speculation is growing that the Jewish state will seriously consider unilateral military action against Iran within the next year. Israeli intelligence is now estimating that Iran will master centrifuge technology and be able to begin enriching uranium by the end of this year, 12 months ahead of schedule. As a result, Israeli military officials believe the Islamic republic could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of 2009.

If the moron doesn't attack, he sure as hell intends to agitate Israel into doing it. Why else would he specifically, in a prepared speech in Israel among the Jewish people, bring up the fucking specter of 1938 pre-war Nazi Germany? Just asking.

Note: Headline links to source.

White House denies Iran attack report

We shall see.

The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means." Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.

Note: Headline links to source.

Now Iran is also threat in Latin America, according to U.S. State Department

Well lets just ratchet up the ol' rhetoric because the American public doesn't have sufficient bloodlust for Iran yet to accept an attack. Do so even if you need to go to the ol' time machine and mention 1990.

Is this an attempt to paint a second coming of the Cuban missile crisis? Probably.

Isolated Iran sees Latin America as a place to push back US influence, from which it could maintain a terrorist threat against the United States in the event of a conflict, a senior US official warned Wednesday.

Iran views Latin America as a chance to break out of some of its international isolation and defy Washington's major power status in its back yard, State Department official Thomas Shannon said in Washington.

"It's a way to push back on us," Shannon told a conference bringing together cabinet ministers and other officials from North and South America to promote greater economic integration.

Shannon, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, said it also posed a threat there as he repeated charges that Iran was behind bombings against Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires in the 1990s.

Iran denies any links. [emphasis mine, but there is plenty in original]

Note: Headline links to source.

Iraq backs off allegations that Iran is behind violence

Oopsie. It seems the puppet has cut another string.

The Iraqi Government seemed to distance itself from U.S. accusations towards Iran Sunday saying it would not be forced into conflict with its Shiite neighbor. And Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki ordered the formation of a committee to look into foreign intervention in Iraq.

Note: Headline links to source.

Diplomatic Sources: Plans for Air and Naval Strikes on Iran Submitted

This boggles the mind. Why would any military entity not have plans to retaliate should their military assets be attacked. That would seem to be a no-brainer if not completely incompetent. One doesn't just sit there as targets.

As for provocation, its pure bullshit. Unless attacked, the military has no right to attack in spite of what the moron believes. To some degree, many countries of the world have "provoked" the US.

The U.S. military has drafted and won approval for attack plans in response to an Iran attack.

Western diplomatic sources said the U.S. military's Central Command has submitted plans for an air and naval strike on Iran, Middle East Newsline reported. The sources said the plan envisioned escalating tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against U.S. military assets in the Gulf.

Comment: So that's what all the recent allegations about Iran being involved in Iraq are about: they are, as we suspected, part of the necessary propaganda to carry out the war plan already approved, signed and rubber-stamped. They just needed an excuse to invade and now they have decided which one that will be.

Meanwhile, on April 29, a second American aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, steamed into the Gulf in what officials termed a show of force. They said the U.S. Navy plans to withdraw a carrier group, USS Harry S. Truman, from the region.

Comment: Aircraft carriers are not moved around the globe for no reason.

"There is tremendous tactical benefit to us to operate the two side-by-side in restricted space," Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday. "We can generate more sorties, some of them strike, some of them reconnaissance, some of them to perform other operations."

"This is not some grand scheme to destroy the Iranian regime and its nuclear program," a source said. "It is a practical plan on how to respond to an Iranian strike or a provocation."

Comment: It has already been decided that an Iranian "provocation" will take place - whether the Iranians like it or not.

Officials said the Defense Department has sought an update for plans to attack Iran amid what they term its "increasingly hostile role" against the United States. The officials cited the weapons flow to insurgency groups in Iraq as well as confrontations with U.S. ships in the Gulf.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our navy and our air force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said.

Under the plan approved by the Defense Department, Central Command would be allowed to retaliate for an Iranian attack with U.S. air strikes. The sources said the plan contained a series of options that range from a limited to full-scale attack.

"We are not taking any military elements off the table," Mullen said.

Isn't it about time everyone retired the "off the table" locution? I know I'm fucking sick of hearing/reading it.

Comments are contained in the original article. They ain't mine even though I agree with them.

Note: Headline links to source.