Sep 12, 2007

Anti-Iran hype reaches fever pitch
By Khody Akhavi

WASHINGTON - On the same day General David Petraeus presented his much-anticipated progress report to the US Congress on the US military's "troop surge" strategy in Iraq, neo-conservative ideologues associated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) took aim at another of the reputed foes of "freedom" - the Islamic Republic of Iran.

During a panel discussion on Monday aimed at promoting his new book The Iranian Time Bomb, Michael Ledeen, a resident scholar

at AEI, criticized the "evil" nature of Iran's clerical regime, its support for international terrorism, and the need to back Iranian dissidents and activists in a soft revolution to dislodge the mullahs from power.

Along with the broad - and at times mocking - generalizations about Iran's attempts to foment "Islamic totalitarianism" throughout the world, Ledeen, accompanied by former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey and Clifford D May, president of the hawkish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, appeared dead set against any diplomatic engagement with Iran.

"The [Iranian] leadership constantly tells its people, 'The Iranian people must prepare to rule the world,'" said Ledeen.

"Everybody has convinced themselves that they can make a deal with Iran. We have been negotiating for 27 years, as if there have been no negotiations ... there is no escape," he said. "The only question is how best to defeat them."

Citing a memorable scene in the James Bond film Goldfinger, in which the eponymous villain straps the fictional British secret agent to a gurney and aims a laser toward his genitals, Ledeen quoted German-born actor Gert Frobe's famous line: "I expect you to die."

"And that's Iran. They want us to die. They want to destroy us," said Ledeen. He went on to describe the Islamist sentiment in Iran as a "political death wish, a political necrophilia".

With strong links to US Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the White House, Washington-based AEI has, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, enjoyed unparalleled influence in shaping US interventionist policy in the Middle East. The think-tank helped lead the drive to war in Iraq, and more recently has assumed a prominent role in rallying for regime change in Iran.

While no longer under the illusion of the type of large-scale "democratic" intervention that precipitated the current Iraq war, neo-conservatives still appear to be pumping up a confrontational attitude between the US and Iran, painting the regime as an existential enemy with whom one cannot negotiate, a fanatical yet militarily weak reactionary government that desires the destruction of the world.

Speaking wistfully about the Cold War, Woolsey compared the Islamist political resurgence in the Middle East to the then-communist government in Moscow, describing the latter as the "ideal enemy".

"I have a certain bizarre nostalgia for the Soviet Union," said Woolsey. "It is our misfortune that today we have to live with Sunni and Shi'ite totalitarianism."

However, the panel's unanimous and confrontational sentiment did not translate into a coherent foreign policy toward the Iranian regime, and ultimately leads to what the panelists described as two equally disturbing options: Iran with a bomb or bomb Iran.

"If our [US] survival is at stake and they [Iranians] are readying themselves to attack us, we will bomb them," said Woolsey.

Iran's uranium-enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is far from producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts, according to a confidential International Atomic Energy Agency report obtained by Reuters.

For Ledeen, it seems the problem is not a nuclear-armed Iran as much as it is an Islamist government in Tehran, and his ultimate goal is the removal of the clerical establishment from power.

The panelists did not advocate military action, instead choosing to promote an aggressive but non-violent soft revolution that would ostensibly be led by Iran's "moderate" political actors: intellectuals, students, women, former "reformists", and members of Iran's once-burgeoning civil society.

Yet they omitted the idea that, for all the resentment harbored against the regime, frustrated dissidents may not want US help to change the political landscape in Iran. At worst, aggressive US support - most notably US$75 million for "pro-democracy" activities - has engendered the belief among regime insiders that the Washington intends to foment a revolution.

In a visit last year to the United States, Iranian dissident journalist Akbar Ganji declined an invitation to meet with White House officials, citing his belief that Washington's current policies were hurting, not helping promote, democracy in Iran. Ganji, who was imprisoned in 2000 after writing a series of articles accusing Iranian Intelligence Ministry agents of killing dissidents, said he was tortured repeatedly during six years in prison.

"Any intervention by any foreign power would bring charges of conspiracy against us," he told the Associated Press.

And they already have. Most recently, the regime put Haleh Esfandiari, a US-Iranian and Middle East expert at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, and Kian Tajbakhsh, an urban planner who has worked with the Soros Foundation and the Iranian government, in jail for inciting a revolution.

Esfandiari was released from Evin Prison this month, but Tajbakhsh continues to be held without charge.

It appears Iran will remain a target for AEI ideologues and their associates in the months to come. The question remains as to whether this aggressive pseudo-policy will yield productive results, or if it will end, as many in the international community fear, in military confrontation.

The panelists at Monday's discussion left little room for compromise, and their generalizations about Iran as an irrational actor support a very clear and consistent neo-conservative message: there can be no negotiation with Iran.

In the final analysis, military confrontation with Iran becomes a foregone conclusion.

(Inter Press Service)

posted under fair use

UN nuclear chief walks out on EU speech on Iran: diplomats
16 hours ago

VIENNA (AFP) — UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei walked out on an afternoon session Tuesday of his IAEA to protest an EU speech which did not fully support his deal for new inspections in Iran, diplomats told AFP.

"He walked out because the EU did not support the Secretariat," a diplomat who was at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors said.

"The Europeans gave a nasty statement and the director general (ElBaradei) walked out of the room," a second diplomat said, demanding anonymity in return for revealing information about the closed-door session.

But a senior European diplomat said the EU supported ElBaradei and had only reiterated the IAEA chief's view that the timetable needs "Iran's full and active cooperation."

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming declined comment but several diplomats confirmed that ElBaradei had walked out in protest.

ElBaradei has been under pressure as the United States and other Western countries warn that a timetable for new inspections in Iran agreed by the IAEA and Tehran last month gives the Islamic republic room to delay new UN sanctions.

They also warn that it gives Iran time to continue improving its work on enriching uranium, which makes power reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.

Still, the United States and ElBaradei had closed ranks on the first day here Monday of a regular meeting of the IAEA board in urging Iran to meet the timetable and also to do more to show the world it does not seek the bomb, such as suspending uranium enrichment.

more

ElBaradei has been under pressure as the United States and other Western countries warn that a timetable for new inspections in Iran agreed by the IAEA and Tehran last month gives the Islamic republic room to delay new UN sanctions.

jesus, do they really think people are going to fall for that Dread Horror of "delaying UN sanctions" again? yes, the world will end for sure if that is allowed to happen. To Arms! other people's children, that is gack, excuse me while i go throw up...

according to a paper published at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA website. From the executive summary:

The U.S. case against Iran is based on Iran's deceptions regarding nuclear weapons development. This case is buttressed by assertions that a state so petroleum-rich cannot need nuclear power to preserve exports, as Iran claims. The U.S. infers, therefore, that Iran's entire nuclear technology program must pertain to weapons development. However, some industry analysts project an Irani oil export decline [e.g., Clark JR (2005) Oil Gas J 103(18):34–39]. If such a decline is occurring, Iran's claim to need nuclear power could be genuine. Because Iran's government relies on monopoly proceeds from oil exports for most revenue, it could become politically vulnerable if exports decline. Here, we survey the political economy of Irani petroleum for evidence of this decline. We define Iran's export decline rate (edr) as its summed rates of depletion and domestic demand growth, which we find equals 10–12%. We estimate marginal cost per barrel for additions to Irani production capacity, from which we derive the "standstill" investment required to offset edr. We then compare the standstill investment to actual investment, which has been inadequate to offset edr. Even if a relatively optimistic schedule of future capacity addition is met, the ratio of 2011 to 2006 exports will be only 0.40–0.52. A more probable scenario is that, absent some change in Irani policy, this ratio will be 0.33–0.46 with exports declining to zero by 2014–2015. Energy subsidies, hostility to foreign investment, and inefficiencies of its state-planned economy underlie Iran's problem, which has no relation to "peak oil."

Yesterday, Tuesday the 11th I forced myself to listen to Hillbilly Herion Limbaugh run the talking points if the U.S. leaves Iraq, then Iran will step into the vacume. New product rollout time. Iran will resist, and oil will go to unexpected highs. The oil Barrons want this interuption in oil flow, they will take those pre-super inflation oil bucks and buy anything but U.S. dollars. Why would the Saudis want to interupt their oil flows? Maybe it is worth the price of a proxy fighting for them.

"There are two types of folk music:
quiet folk music and loud folk music.
I play both."

Dave Alvin

The Independent
Exclusive by Kim Sengupta
Published: 12 September 2007

BAGHDAD--British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.

The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq. Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of particular concern to them."

The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.

The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.

POLITICS: U.S. Denies Visas to Iranian Religious Leaders
By Jonathan Bell

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - A religious delegation from Iran has cancelled a scheduled visit to the United States this week after members of the group were denied visas by the State Department.

The denial of the visa applications of four of the 14 delegation members was denounced by one of one of the trip's sponsors, who suggested Washington's move was consistent with a policy of confrontation, rather than engagement, with Iran.

"We are disappointed and troubled that the administration denied the visas...particularly because we received assurances from the State Department that [it] would move heaven and earth to make this reciprocal religious leaders' visit possible," said Joe Volk, executive secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group.

"The denials parallel a disturbing escalation of rhetoric against Iran and further demonstrate this administration's current strategy of confrontation rather than diplomacy. Again, this administration appears to be choosing the war path rather than the negotiating table," he added.

A State Department official confirmed that the visas have not been approved.

The decision means that the Iranians will be unable to reciprocate a visit last February of a diverse group of U.S. Christian leaders, representing Union Methodist, Episcopal, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Quaker, and Mennonite traditions.

While in Iran, they met with a range of religious, cultural, and political figures, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who reportedly told them that he was open to unconditional talks with the U.S. government "if we see some goodwill." The group was the first from the United States to hold a face-to-face meeting with an Iranian president since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

"The Iranian government has already built a bridge toward the American people by inviting our delegation to come to Iran," said the U.S. delegation upon its return. It urged the administration of President George W. Bush to "welcome a similar delegation" in order to help bring "a new day in U.S.-Iranian relations".

But despite two rounds of bilateral talks about stabilising Iraq between U.S. and Iranian envoys since then, tensions between the two countries have risen steadily, most recently amid Washington's charges that Tehran is supplying deadly Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) and other weapons to Shia militias that have been attacking U.S. forces in Iraq.

A number of senior politicians have called for U.S. forces to carry out cross-border raids into Iran to prevent the alleged smuggling of weapons and personnel into Iraq, and Bush himself recently hinted that he is prepared to authorise such attacks.

MORE

from Ynet News

Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows possible Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran

Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” he said.

The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials estimate might have been supplied with material from North Korea.

Meanwhile on Wednesday the Nazareth-based Israeli Arab newspaper The Assennara cited anonymous Israeli sources as saying that Israeli jets "bombed a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was financed by Iran... It appears that the base was completely destroyed."

According to the Times, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli jets launched an airstrike inside Syria. Sources said that Israel struck at least one target in northeastern Syria, but could not provide more details.

The most likely target was, according to some administration officials, weapon caches sent by Iran to Hizbullah through Syria.

but if they have any of these, then our carriers could definitely be in trouble:

3M-54E - Anti-shipping variant, Basic length 8.22 m, with a 200 kg warhead. Range is 220 km. Sea-skimmer with supersonic terminal speed. Has ability to successfully attack carrier groups.

A search online finds that the Iranian navy supposedly arms its subs with these missiles. Maybe not the E-variant above though--couldn't find more info. on that. If it is the supersonic E, that's probably very bad. I would guess that supersonic missiles (~2000 mph for the E, according to one source) are extremely hard to shoot down.

Much of it's economy and relationships are futher east than others, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are all key client states. The US and much of the atlanticist elites desire to hang together. The major problem is that a substantial element of the elite and pretty much a solid majority of th plebian damn well knows where it's getting the next meal, not to mention the heavily pacifist nature of the common german. Anyways, Merkel, despite whatever feelings of sexual harrassment from Bush she might have, is trying to move the country more aligned to the US, as opposed to Schroeder's neutralist mercantile policies. However, the writing is pretty much on the fucking wall now, with Abe being forced to step down over Japan's role in refueling US ships for the Iraq occupation. The US simply doesn't have the soft power anymores to help Merkel pull Germans to the right and to the Atlantic.

Hence the desperate, and rather transparent, insertion of phrases of negotiable truth.

New Iran sanctions may not be necessary-Germany

By Louis Charbonneau

BERLIN, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Discussion of a third round of sanctions against Iran for refusing to freeze its nuclear programme will not be necessary if Iran cooperates with the United Nations, Germany's Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

The United States wants the U.N. Security Council to expand sanctions on Iran for pressing ahead with its uranium enrichment programme in defiance of the United Nations. It plans to host a meeting of world powers on Sept. 21 to discuss new sanctions.

Germany and the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have been ratcheting up pressure on Tehran to halt its programme and cooperate more with U.N. inspectors.

But European diplomats have told Reuters Germany now wants to delay any sanctions drive to give a chance to an Aug. 21 deal between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that is meant to bring transparency to Iran's nuclear programme.

"Germany is ready, if necessary, to take the necessary steps against Iran," German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger Jaeger told a regular news conference.

However, he said Germany's diplomatic activities on the Iran issue were not limited to talks with the five permanent Security Council members, often referred to as the "P-5".

"As a member of the IAEA, we are also dealing with the so-called open questions and giving Iran a chance to recover the international community's lost confidence in its nuclear programme," Jaeger said.

"If Iran is ready to do this ... then I think we can spare ourselves future sanctions debates."

RUSSIAN AND CHINESE OPPOSITION

Diplomats say Germany wants to delay drafting any sanctions resolution until after IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei gives a progress report to the agency's board of governors in November.

France and Britain are ready to press for a new sanctions proposal now but fear Russia and China, whi

more

First of all there was no ERROR related to the 'misplaced' nuclear weapons.

The nuclear warheads in question was an AGM-129. It is a NUCLEAR only delivery weapon, nothing else like it.

These warheads were mounted on the exterior of the B-52 according to the story.

IMPORTANTLY The B-52 flew to Barksdale, THE staging area for transit of weapons to Iraq/Iran.

This was a test run. It could not have been anything else, and it would have had to be on the orders of the President of the United States.

But here is where it gets dicey.

The Military is in open revolt over the whole Iran expansion concept of the civilian military leadership. Someone in the Pentagon had to have leaked the movement of the warheads, and that is when it was declared a 'mistake.'

There is no other way. The military itself is trying to stop the civilian leadership from their military options. This was likely a direct violation of the chain of command to the extent it could be accomplished. The nuclear weapons had to be returned, or the test had to be ended. It kept nuclear weapons out of the Iraq/Iran theater.

Any thoughts. I believe the military is nearing an open revolt. They are blocking all the back-channel military operations. This is also why the President is looking so exhausted these days -

He is planning the apocalypse.

Impeach or It's Armageddon

by booman
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/16/05110/6920

"There are indicators that they do have something going on there," he said. "We do know that there are a number of foreign technicians that have been in Syria. We do know that there may have been contact between Syria and some secret suppliers for nuclear equipment. Whether anything transpired remains to be seen."

"So good foreign policy, good national security policy, would suggest that we pay very close attention to that," he said. "We're watching very closely. Obviously, the Israelis were watching very closely."

Asked if the suppliers could have been North Koreans, he said: "There are North Korean people there. There's no question about that. Just as there are a lot of North Koreans in Iraq and Iran."

Asked if the so-called Khan network, which supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, could have been involved, he said he "wouldn't exclude" it.

"AP"

Iranian Arms Destined for Taliban Seized in Afghanistan, Officials Say
'Large' Shipment Said to Include Armor-Piercing Bombs

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 16, 2007; A19

An Iranian arms shipment destined for the Taliban was intercepted Sept. 6 by the international force in Afghanistan in what appears to be an escalating flow of weaponry between the two former enemies, according to officials from countries in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

The shipment included armor-piercing bombs known as explosively formed projectiles, the sources said, which have been especially deadly when used as roadside bombs against foreign troops in Iraq. The NATO-led force interdicted two smaller shipments of similar weapons from Iran into southern Helmand province April 11 and May 3.

"It's not the fact that it's qualitatively different, but this was a large shipment which got people's attention," a U.S. official in Washington said of the most recent interception.

This time, the arms were shipped into the western province of Farah, a vast but sparsely populated area, the sources said, indicating an attempt to find routes less likely to be discovered.

"They're clearly trying to vary their routes and not get caught," the U.S. official said on condition of anonymity because the interdiction has not been formally publicized.

A senior Iranian official called the allegation baseless. "We have no interest in instability in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have good neighborly relations with the heads of state, who have praised Iran recently. Why should we send weapons to the opposition?" the official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized by the Iranian government to comment on the allegation.

Iran, a predominantly Shiite Muslim country, has long opposed the Taliban, a Sunni Muslim group with different ideas about society, government and religion. But their cooperation is based on common opposition to foreign, and particularly Western, troops in Afghanistan, according to the United States and officials from other countries in the international force.

"They're playing with the enemy. They have no love lost for the Taliban. The Taliban killed several Iranian diplomats. We believe it's about hurting the Americans and the international community," an official from one of the participating countries said on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence.

The Iranian arms shipments are a threat to the forces in Afghanistan but not enough to tip the balance in the Taliban's favor, the sources noted. But the explosively formed projectiles can also cause psychological and political damage because the loss of two or three troops for some of the three dozen countries in the force could lead them to reconsider their commitment, the sources added.

more