Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Ben D » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:03 am

UK withdraws staff from embassy in Tehran

Evacuation follows storming of diplomatic compounds by Iranian protesters reflecting anger at new British sanctions.

Last Modified: 30 Nov 2011 09:35

Britain is evacuating its diplomatic staff from Tehran following the storming of its embassy by Iranian protesters the day before, which sparked international condemnation.

The Foreign Office in London confirmed on Wednesday information from EU diplomats in the Iranian capital that the British staff were being withdrawn.

"In light of yesterday's events and to ensure their ongoing safety, some staff are leaving Tehran," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

A first group of embassy employees was already at Tehran airport about to be flown to Dubai, one European diplomat told the AFP news agency. He and other diplomats said all the British embassy staff were leaving.

The diplomats had spent the night in the security of various EU embassies, notably the French mission.

The evacuation was decided after Iranian protesters, some chanting "Death to Britain", overran Britain's two diplomatic compounds in Tehran for several hours Tuesday, tearing down the British flag and trashing embassy offices.

Norway has closed its embassy in Tehran due to security concerns following the storming of the British embassy.

Hilde Steinfeld, a foreign ministry spokeswoman in Oslo, said the decision to close the embassy was taken late Tuesday, but that Norway's diplomatic staff have not been evacuateed from the country. "They're still in Tehran" she said.

The protesters were reflecting official anger at Britain's decision last week to cut all relations with Iran's financial sector as part of new sanctions unveiled in co-ordination with the US and Canada.

The storming of Britain's embassy sparked international condemnation, including a strongly worded statement from the UN Security Council.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN chief, said during a trip to South Korea he was "shocked and outraged to hear of the incident in Tehran in which demonstrators entered the British embassy, briefly abducted embassy staff and damaged property".

Even Russia, Iran's closest major ally, condemned the incursions as "unacceptable".

It took diplomatic police several hours to free six diplomats isolated by the protesters inside a building in the diplomatic compound, the Fars news agency reported.

Inside the embassy, in the city centre, several protesters scattered documents and set them alight, witnesses told AFP.

Iran's foreign ministry expressed "regret" over the incident, but some Iranian officials were defiant, blaming the dramatic scenes on Britain's stance towards their country. Ali Larijani, the Iranian parliament speaker, said the Security Council's condemnation was "hasty," state television reported. He said "a number of students angered by the British government's behaviour" had carried out their actions because of "decades of domineering moves by the British in Iran".

In comments to the state news agency IRNA, the head of the Iranian parliament's security and foreign policy committee, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said: "Iran respects all international laws and the Vienna Convention [on the protection of embassies] and this issue must in no way cause concern for other diplomats and embassies." He, too, downplayed the storming of the embassy as "a manifestation of the students' high emotions."

David Cameron, the UK prime minister, chaired a meeting of the government crisis committee on Tuesday to discuss the attacks which he said were "outrageous and indefensible." "The failure of the Iranian government to defend British staff and property was a disgrace," he said in a statement. "The Iranian government must recognise that there will be serious consequences for failing to protect our staff. We will consider what these measures should be in the coming days."


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/11/2011113074052935730.html
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:08 am

I can't help but wonder if behind the "students'" supposed "high emotions" was a calculated move by the Iranian government to obtain classified intelligence documents related to what is looking more and more like a high-level British/Israeli conspiracy against Iran.

The storming of the embassy comes only shortly after some rather shocking revelations about the possible infiltration of the British Foreign Office by Israeli agents, notably former British Ambassador to Iran Matthew Gould (who is currently the British Ambassador to Israel) and former British Defense Minister Liam Fox, among others.

If so, I hope they hit pay-dirt.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Searcher08 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:18 am

On the news last night, this was presented as "loony Iranians" threatening poor Brits.

The impression I had from it was that it seemed scripted from ALL parties - my Bull-o-meter was in the red zone.

More and more I am seeing Cameron et al through the filter of Public Relations.

I get the impression that he has been keeping himself out of the Israel loop - I think there is a Pandora's Box shitstorm of corruption around Werrity and Liam Fox (doing business with Tamil exterminating Sri Lankan military? WTF?)

According to a Channel 4 doc several years ago, Sri Lanka is one of the world's largest centres of paedophile activity, with massive numbers of companies there owned or part owned by rich Western child abusers, who bring investment and power and largesse to an area, all they ask is 'tribute'...

Fox and Werrity IMHO were/are attempting an Shulsky-style "Office of Special Plans" stovepipe of 'intel' information.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Elvis » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:01 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:The storming of the embassy comes only shortly after some rather shocking revelations about the possible infiltration of the British Foreign Office by Israeli agents, notably former British Ambassador to Iran Matthew Gould (who is currently the British Ambassador to Israel) and former British Defense Minister Liam Fox, among others.


Thanks, Alice, I missed all that. Both links there are most interesting, the one about infiltration is worth posting in full:

November 26, 2011 at 10:56:00

Is Britain Plotting With Israel To Attack Iran? Ex-ambassador Exposes Government Cover-up

By Jonathan Cook
opednews.com

Last February Britain's then defense minister Liam Fox attended a dinner in Tel Aviv with a group described as senior Israelis. Alongside him sat Adam Werritty, a lobbyist whose "improper relations" with the minister would lead eight months later to Fox's hurried resignation.

According to several reports in the British media the Israelis in attendance at the dinner were representatives of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency, while Fox and Werritty were accompanied by Matthew Gould, Britain's ambassador to Israel. A former British diplomat has now claimed that the topic of discussion that evening was a secret plot to attack Iran.

The official inquiry castigating the UK's former defence secretary for what has come to be known as a "cash-for-access" scandal appears to have only scratched the surface of what Fox and accomplice Adam Werritty may have been up to when they met for dinner in Tel Aviv.

Little was made of the dinner in the 10-page inquiry report published last month by Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet's top civil servant.

Instead O'Donnell concentrated on other aspects of Werritty's behaviour: the 33-year-old friend of Fox's had presented himself as the minister's official adviser and jetted around the world with him arranging meetings with businessmen.

The former minister's allies, seeking to dismiss the gravity of the case against him, have described Werritty as a harmless dreamer. Following his resignation, Fox himself claimed O'Donnell's report had exonerated him of putting national security at risk.

However, a spate of new concerns raised in the wake of the inquiry challenge both of these assumptions. These include questions about the transparency of the O'Donnell investigation, the extent of Fox and Werritty's ties to Israel and the unexplained role of Gould.

Craig Murray, Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan until 2004, when he turned whistle blower on British and US collusion on torture, said senior British government officials were profoundly disturbed by the O'Donnell inquiry, seeing it as a "white wash."

Murray himself accused O'Donnell of being "at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth."

Two well-placed contacts alerted Murray to Gould's central -- though largely ignored -- role in the Fox-Werritty relationship, he said.

Murray has pieced together evidence that Fox, Werritty and Gould met on at least six occasions over the past two years or so, despite the O'Donnell inquiry claiming they had met only twice. Gould is the only ambassador Fox and Werritty are known to have met together.

In an inexplicable break with British diplomatic and governmental protocol, officials were not present at a single one of the six meetings between the three men. No record was taken of any of the discussions.

Murray, who first made public his concerns on his personal blog, said a source familiar with the O'Donnell inquiry told him the parameters of the investigation were designed to divert attention away from the more damaging aspects of Fox and Werritty's behaviour.

Subsequently, the foreign office has refused to respond to questions, including from an MP, about the Tel Aviv dinner. Officials will not say who the Israelis were, what was discussed or even who paid for the evening, though under Whitehall rules all hospitality should be declared.

Also unexplained is why Fox rejected requests by his own staff to attend the dinner, and why Werritty was privy to such a high-level meeting when he had no security clearance.

Nonetheless, O'Donnell appeared inadvertently to confirm that Mossad representatives were present at the dinner during questioning from an MP at a meeting of the House of Commons' Public Administration Committee this week.

Responding to a question about the dinner from opposition MP Paul Flynn, O'Donnell said: "The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State [Fox] had that meeting, he had an official with him--namely, in this case, the ambassador [Gould]. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job."

The real concern among government officials, Murray said, is that Fox, Werritty and Gould were conspiring in a "rogue" foreign policy -- opposed to the British government's stated aims -- that was authored by Mossad and Israel's neoconservative allies in Washington.

This suspicion was partially confirmed by a report in the Guardian last month, as O'Donnell was carrying out his investigation. It cited unnamed government officials saying they were worried that Fox and Werritty had been pursuing what was termed an "alternative" government policy.

Murray said the Tel Aviv dinner was especially significant. His contact with access to O'Donnell's investigations had told him that the discussion that night focused on ways to ensure Britain assisted in creating favourable diplomatic conditions for an attack on Iran.

Israel is widely believed to favor a military strike on Iran, in an attempt to set back its nuclear program. Israel claims Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian nuclear energy project.

Israel has its own large but undeclared nuclear arsenal and is known to be fearful of losing its nuclear monopoly in the region.

Britain, like many in the international community, including the US government, officially favors imposing sanctions on Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions.

The episode of the Tel Aviv dinner, Murray said, raises "vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to [former British prime minister Tony] Blair's determination to drive through a war on Iraq."

The Guardian revealed this month that the defense ministry under Fox had drawn up detailed plans for British assistance in the event of a US military strike on Iran, including allowing the Americans to use Diego Garcia, a British territory in the Indian ocean, as a base from which to launch an attack.

The O'Donnell inquiry has done little to allay many officials' concerns about the series of strange meetings involving Fox, Werritty and Gould.

David Cameron, the British prime minister, has so far refused opposition demands to hold a full public inquiry into Fox and Werritty's relationship. And the three men at the centre of the saga have refused to discuss the nature of their ties.

This month revelations surfaced that Werritty had had dealings with other government ministers.

"It is deeply inadequate of the prime minister to continue to refuse to probe this issue further," said shadow defense spokesman Kevan Jones, in response to the new information.

The British media have cautiously raised the issue of apparent Israeli links to Fox and Werritty.

The Daily Telegraph reported that the pair secretly met the head of the Mossad -- possibly at the Tel Aviv dinner, though the paper has not specified where or when the meeting took place.

Last month the Independent on Sunday claimed that Werritty had close ties to the Mossad as well as to "US-backed neocons" plotting to overthrow the Iranian regime. The Mossad were reported to have assumed Werritty was Fox's "chief of staff."

In addition, the O'Donnell report revealed that Werritty's many trips overseas alongside Fox had been funded by at least six donors, three of whom were leading members of the pro-Israel lobby in Britain.

The donations were made to two organisations, Atlantic Bridge and Pargav, that Werritty helped to establish. Werritty apparently used the organizations as a way to gain access to Conservative government ministers, including three in the defense ministry.

The advisory board of Atlantic Bridge, which Werritty founded with Fox, included William Hague, the current foreign minister, Michael Gove, the education minister, and George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Despite Werritty's apparently well-established connections to the ruling Conservative party, the media coverage has implied at most that he was a lone "rogue operator," hoping to use his contacts with Fox and other ministers to manipulate British government policy.

Murray, however, raises the more troubling question of whether Werritty was actually given access, through Fox and Gould, to the heart of the British government. Were all three secretly trying to pursue a policy on Iran favored by Israel and its ideological allies in the US?

The answer, according to Murray, may lie in a series of meetings between the three that have slowly come to light since O'Donnell published his findings.

According to the 2,700-word report, Werritty joined Fox on 18 of his official trips overseas, and the pair met another 22 times at the defense ministry, with almost none of their discussions recorded by officials. The Guardian has also reported that Fox's staff repeatedly warned him off his relationship with Werritty but were overruled.

Despite the serious concerns raised about Werritty by defense ministry staff, Gould, one of the country's most senior diplomats, appears nonetheless to have cultivated a close relationship with Werritty as well as Fox.

According to Murray's sources, Gould and Werritty "had been meeting and communicating for years." The foreign office has refused to answer questions about whether the two had any contacts.

When Murray sent an email request late at night this week for "all communications" between Gould and Werritty, he received a response from the foreign office in less than 90 minutes stating that providing an answer was "likely to exceed the cost limit".

As well as noting that the answer should have been straightforward unless Gould and Werritty had had a protracted correspondence, Murray wrote on his blog: "The Freedom of Information team in the FCO is not a 24 hour unit. Plainly not only are they hiding the Gould/Werritty correspondence, they are primed and on alert for this cover-up operation."

O'Donnell's report mentions a second meeting between the three men, in September 2010. On that occasion, Gould met Fox in what a foreign office spokesman has described as a "pre-posting briefing call" -- a sort of high-level induction for ambassadors to acquaint themselves with their new posting.

Werritty was also present, according to O'Donnell, "as an individual with some experience in"the security situation in the Middle East." His participation at the meeting was "not appropriate," O'Donnell concluded.

However, Murray said such briefings would never be conducted at ministerial level, and certainly not by the defense minister himself.

He added that a senior official in the defense ministry had alerted him to two other peculiar aspects of the meeting: no officials were present to take notes, as would be expected; and their conversation took place in the ministry's dining room, not in Fox's office.

"As someone who worked for many years as a diplomat, I know how these things should work," Murray said. "So much of this affair simply smells wrong."

Murray's queries to the foreign office about this meeting have gone unanswered but have revealed other unexpected details not included in the O'Donnell report.

In a statement in late October, after the report's publication, a foreign office spokesman said Gould had met Fox and Werritty earlier than previously known -- before Gould was appointed ambassador to Israel and when Fox was in opposition as shadow defense minister.

The foreign office has refused to answer questions about this meeting too -- including when it occurred and why -- or to respond to a parliamentary question on the matter tabled by MP Jeremy Corbyn. All that is known is that it must have taken place before May 2010, when Fox was appointed defense minister.

In replying to Corbyn's questions, William Hague, the foreign minister, acknowledged yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould -- at a private social engagement in the summer of 2010.

Again, the foreign office has refused to answer further questions, including one from Corbyn about who else attended the social engagement.

The trio were also together shortly before the Tel Aviv dinner, when Fox made a speech at the hawkish Herzliya security conference in a session on the strategic threat posed by Iran.

And a sixth meeting has come to light. Fox and Gould were photographed together at a "We believe in Israel" conference in London in May 2011. Werritty was again present.

"That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room [in September 2010], deliberately held away from Fox's office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting," Murray wrote on his blog about the Ministry of Defense meeting.

Murray said he believed more meetings will surface. During questioning at the Commons' Public Administration Committee this week, O'Donnell made two references to "meetings" between Gould and Fox before the general election and Fox's appointment to the post of defence secretary.

Until now, only one such meeting had been admitted by the foreign office.

Murray noted: "A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid zionist lobbyist. What on earth was happening?"

Both Werritty and Gould are considered to have an expertise on Iran.

Gould was the deputy head of mission at the British embassy in Iran from 2003 to 2005, a role in which he was responsible for coordinating on US policy towards Iran. Next he was moved to the British embassy in Washington at a time when the neoconservatives still held sway in the White House.

Werritty, meanwhile, has travelled frequently to Iran where he has teamed up with opposition groups seeking the overthrow of the Iranian regime. On his return from one trip to Iran he was called in by Britain's MI6 foreign intelligence service for a debriefing, according to the Independent on Sunday.

Werritty also arranged for Fox to travel with him to Iran in summer 2007, when Fox was shadow defense minister. And he organised a meeting in May 2009 at the British parliament between Fox and an Iranian lobbyist with links to the current regime in Tehran.

The murky dealings between Fox, Werritty and Gould, and the government's refusal to clarify what took place between them, is evidence, said Murray, that a serious matter is being hidden. His fear, and that of his contacts inside the senior civil service, is that "a neo-con cell of senior [British] ministers and officials" were secretly setting policy in coordination with Israel and the US.

Gould's unexamined role is of particular concern, as he is still in place in his post in Israel.

Murray has noted that, in appointing Gould, a British Jew, to the ambassadorship in Israel in September last year, the foreign office broke with long-standing policy. No Jewish diplomat has held the post before because of concerns that it might lead to a conflict of interest, or at the very least create the impression of dual loyalty. Similar restrictions have been in place to avoid Catholics holding the post of ambassador to the Vatican.

Given these traditional concerns, Gould was a strange choice. He is a self-declared Zionist who has cultivated an image that led the Forward, the most prominent Jewish newspaper in the US, to describe him recently as "not just an ambassador who's Jewish, but a Jewish ambassador."

A version of this story was first published in Al-Akhbar English, Beirut: http://english.al-akhbar.com



This does look really fishy. Atlantic Bridge is definitely fishy--their charity status was revoked "after an investigation found the group to have violated charity laws by acting primarily as a tax exempt front for business lobbyists."

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/ ... ic-bridge/
(Interesting connection with Herman Cain there, too.)

Atlantic Bridge was started by Fox, Werritty was its UK director, and Margaret Thatcher its first president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic_Bridge

More in this Oct. 15 piece:

http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2011/10/liam-fox-and-atlantic-bridge-dont-lose-the-important-question-to-the-excitement-of-the-fox-hunt.html

Saturday, 15 October 2011
Liam Fox and Atlantic Bridge - don’t lose the important question to the excitement of the Fox hunt

By John C. Dyer, UK correspondent

Scotland banned fox hunting in 2002, England and Wales 2004. But 14 October 2011 the hounds closed upon one fox, Liam Fox, the Coalition Defence Secretary. On the afternoon of 14 Oct 2011 Secretary Fox resigned his post as Defence Secretary, citing a blurring of his personal and professional interests. But I fear that in the excitement of the scandal and its conclusion, let’s not lose sight of the significant revelations surfacing concerning Atlantic Bridge, 3 other Coalition Cabinet Secretaries, the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary and 3 US politicians.

A Fox in trouble

Leading to the resignation today, the Guardian and Labour surfaced serious questions concerning Fox’s relationship and dealings with Fox’s friend, former intern, best man at Fox’s wedding, and, arguably, protege, Adam Werrity. Labour and the Guardian alleged Fox may have broken the Ministerial Code. The who did what and knew what when has dominated UK news outlets for several days right down to moments before news of the resignation broke.

Werrity “turned up” on a third of Fox’s official visits abroad. At least 19 in all, and at least 22 additional meetings at the Ministry of Defence. These included meetings with international businessmen and Sri Lanka politicians. Werrity described himself on business cards and in at least one programme for an event as Fox’s “advisor.” Both the Ministry of Defence and the Conservative Party denied that Werrity worked for them.

The official line from Fox in the beginning was that the contacts were social. But that explanation began to unravel as reports mounted from others involved in the growing number of reported meetings. Fox apologized in the media on October 10 and to Parliament on the 11th, but argued that he had not done anything to break the Ministerial Code or place national security at risk. He maintained that Werrity had not had access to sensitive information involving national security.

The Prime Minister ordered an investigation by the UK’s chief Civil Servant, the Civil Service Permanent Secretary. While reputedly the investigation was winding up the afternoon of the 14th, the report of that investigation is due in days.

The heat builds at the Fox’s heels.

If the Prime Minister’s office hoped that the combination of the apology, Fox’s responses to questions in Parliament, and the referral to the chief Civil Servant would mute the story, they were disappointed. The story continued to grow, with the Times alleging Werrity’s travel was funded by a combination of a private Intelligence firm, a property developer with ties to Israel and others. The Mail claims to have identified another, a US lobbyist, calling himself an advisor to Fox The Guardian has published charges that Fox was running a “shadow foreign policy” in Sri Lanka in contravention to the Coalition’s public position.

Allegedly, Werrity was the defence industry’s “go to guy” in that very important business of massaging public policy. Reputedly, one invoice and Fox is gone. The focus of the investigation appears to be who paid for what appears to have been around £150,000 in international travel. The Civil Service Permanent Secretary is set to determine whether Werrity made money from contacts among business interests which would benefit from defence procurement.

A 12 October YouGov poll shows 54% of UK voters think he should go now. In the face of now constant questions and criticism, the Prime Minister asked the public to suspend judgment pending this report. Tory back benchers and Ministers roared support and approval for the embattled arch Conservative during Prime Minister’s Questions. Fox had been an alternative candidate for leadership to David Cameron.

Atlantic Bridge

Fair enough, but the story of Liam Fox’s relationship to Adam Werrity and whether and/or how this may have influenced UK defence policy, budget decisions, and procurement has much wider implications than the reported focus. The implications stretch across the Atlantic and raise questions concerning American politicians and business interests. They also reflect on UK (and therefore US) policy toward Israel.

It has emerged that Fox’s friend ran the “charity” founded by Fox, named the “Atlantic Bridge.” The more interesting question to emerge from the Fox hunt is, who is/was Atlantic Bridge Charity and how has that charity influenced UK policy.

Atlantic Bridge lost its charity status just September 2011 following a critical evaluation from the UK Charity Commission during the prior year. The Commission concluded it was not an educational foundation as claimed but advanced a political agenda.

Neo Cons in the Fox’s den - and 3 US politicians

Liam Fox was the public principal behind the founding of Atlantic Bridge Charity in 1997. But Margaret Thatcher was its then most visible patron. Its public purpose was to promote cooperation between the US and UK on political, economic and defence issues. This turned out to translate as the coordination of a neo conservative agenda. Lady Thatcher publicly called for it to be a bulwork against the Left. Atlantic Bridge cooperated with the American Legistative Exchange Council (ALEC). It hosted events with the Center for Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation and principals in Lehman Brothers. Funding came from corporate and industrial patrons, including Pfizer, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, and, significantly, the UK Conservative Party.

The advisory board included US political figures Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and Joe Liberman as well as the UK Conservative Party’s Michael Gove, George Osborne and William Hague. Pfizer paid Gabby Bertin, now the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, £25,000 for her work as a “researcher” for Atlantic Bridge. She worked directly with Adam Werrity.

But another side of Atlantic Bridge was the blurring of its activities with Fox’s public functions. When Fox became Shadow Health Secretary the charity turned to exploring “scientific research and medical provisions.” When Fox became Shadow Defence Secretary the charity reemphasized defence. This ultimately was the effect cited by Fox in his letter of resignation.

In the face of these revelations, many of them “old news,” the statements of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party that they did not know about Werrity’s activities, that Werrity did not work for them, seem just a little bit disingenuous. Especially coming from the Press Secretary.

Who is pulling the strings?

Beyond the question of what Liam Fox did to whom, when, in what corrupt manner and his future as Defence Secretary are significant questions concerning the impact of these relationships on UK policy, from UK policy in the Middle East to the Defence review decision not to commission two new air craft carriers because they were not built to take the planes of allies, to economic policy. The overriding question is not simply one of corruption (that which the Civil Service Permanent Secretary is investigating). Arguably more important questions arise. How far do the dark shadows extend in both the US and the UK? Who is pulling the Strings? Whose interests do they all serve?

Labour is promising to pursue the issues raised by the newspaper reports and renewed demands for an independent investigation. However, I am concerned about these questions being lost in the ozone of the “press cycle” now that Fox has resigned. I hope not. The questions beg answers both in the UK and in the US. They are not merely about the alleged corruption of an official.


Posted by Patricia H. Kushlis on Saturday, 15 October 2011 at 01:00 AM


All good background to keep in mind as events unfold.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:46 am

I can see through your mess

Prepping Americans for an Iran War
December 3, 2011

As the American/Israeli war drums beat more loudly over Iran, the U.S. public is being told that this time the warnings about nuclear weapons are right, that no one should listen to Iranian denials, that ratcheting up tensions toward war is the only way. But William Blum recalls the similar false certainty about Iraq.

By William Blum

There’s no letup, is there? The preparation of the American mind, the world mind, for the next gala performance of D&D — Death and Destruction. The Bunker Buster bombs are now 30,000 pounds each one, six times as heavy as the previous delightful model..

But the Masters of War still want to be loved; they need for you to believe them when they say they have no choice, that Iran is the latest threat to life as we know it, no time to waste.

The preparation of minds was just as fervent before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. And when it turned out that Iraq did not have any kind of arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) … well, our power elite found other justifications for the invasion, and didn’t look back. Some berated Iraq: “Why didn’t they tell us that? Did they want us to bomb them?”

In actuality, before the U.S. invasion high Iraqi officials had stated clearly on repeated occasions that they had no such weapons. In August 2002, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told American newscaster Dan Rather on CBS: “We do not possess any nuclear or biological or chemical weapons.” [CBS Evening News, Aug. 20, 2002]

In December, Aziz stated to Ted Koppel on ABC: “The fact is that we don’t have weapons of mass destruction. We don’t have chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry.” [ABC Nightline, Dec. 4, 2002]

Hussein himself told Rather in February 2003: “These missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations [as to range] in Iraq. They are no longer there.” [60 Minutes II, Feb. 26, 2003]

Moreover, Gen. Hussein Kamel, former head of Iraq’s secret weapons program, and a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, told the UN in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed its banned missiles and chemical and biological weapons soon after the Persian Gulf War of 1991. [Washington Post, March 1, 2003]

There are yet other examples of Iraqi officials telling the world that the WMD were non-existent.

And if there were still any uncertainty remaining, last year Hans Blix, former chief United Nations weapons inspector, who led a doomed hunt for WMD in Iraq, told a British inquiry into the 2003 invasion that those who were “100 percent certain there were weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq turned out to have “less than zero percent knowledge” of where the purported hidden caches might be.

Blix testified that he had warned British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a February 2003 meeting — as well as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in separate talks — that Hussein might have no weapons of mass destruction. [Associated Press, July 28, 2010]

Those of who you don’t already have serious doubts about the American mainstream media’s knowledge and understanding of U.S. foreign policy, should consider this: Despite the two revelations on Dan Rather’s CBS programs, and the other revelations noted above, in January 2008 we find CBS reporter Scott Pelley interviewing FBI agent George Piro, who had interviewed Saddam Hussein before he was executed:

CBS correspondent Scott Pelley with President George W. Bush in 2002

PELLEY: And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?

PIRO: He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the ’90s, and those that hadn’t been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

PELLEY: He had ordered them destroyed?

PIRO: Yes.

PELLEY: So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk? Why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade? [60 Minutes, Jan. 27, 2008. See also: Consortiumnews.com's "CBS Falsifies Iraq History," Jan. 28, 2008; Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR] Action Alert, Feb. 1, 2008]

[Scott Pelley is now the anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News and a correspondent on 60 Minutes. He previously was a correspondent on 60 Minutes II and a White House correspondent.]

The United States and Israel are preparing to attack Iran because of its alleged development of nuclear weapons, which Iran has denied on many occasions. Of the Iraqis who warned the United States that it was mistaken about the WMD — Saddam Hussein was executed, Tariq Aziz is awaiting execution. Which Iranian officials is U.S./Israel going to hang after their country is laid to waste?

Would it have mattered if the Bush administration had fully believed Iraq when it said it had no WMD? Probably not. There is ample evidence that Bush knew this to be the case, or at a minimum should have seriously suspected it; the same applies to Tony Blair. Saddam Hussein did not sufficiently appreciate just how psychopathic his two adversaries were.

Bush was determined to vanquish Iraq, for the sake of Israel, for control of oil, and for expanding the empire with new bases, though in the end most of this didn’t work out as the empire expected; for some odd reason, it seems that the Iraqi people resented being bombed, invaded, occupied, demolished, and tortured.

But if Iran is in fact building nuclear weapons, we have to ask: Is there some international law that says that the U.S., the UK, Russia, China, Israel, France, Pakistan, and India are entitled to nuclear weapons, but Iran is not? If the United States had known that the Japanese had deliverable atomic bombs, would Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been destroyed?

Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, has written: “The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.”7

It cannot be repeated too often: The secret to understanding U.S. foreign policy is that there is no secret. Principally, one must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world. Once one understands that, much of the apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington’s policies fades away.

Examine a map: Iran sits directly between two of the United States’ great obsessions — Iraq and Afghanistan … directly between two of the world’s greatest oil regions — the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea areas … it’s part of the encirclement of the two leading potential threats to American world domination — Russia and China … Tehran will never be a client state or obedient poodle to Washington.

How could any good, self-respecting Washington imperialist resist such a target? Bombs Away!
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:10 pm

Iran military says it shot down US drone in east province
By REUTERS AND JPOST.COM STAFF
12/04/2011 17:05

Revolutionary Guard downs an "intruding RQ-170 American drone" in eastern Iran, Iran's Arabic-language state TV reports; Tehran warns its response will take place outside of Iran's borders.


Iran's military has shot down a US reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran and has threatened to respond to the violation of Iranian airspace, a military source told state television on Sunday.

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted the unnamed source as saying.

"The spy drone, which has been downed with little damage, was seized by the Iranian armed forces."

Iran shot down the drone at a time when it is trying to contain foreign reaction to the storming of the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday, shortly after London announced that it would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank in connection with Iran's controversial nuclear enrichment program.

Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in London in retaliation, and several other EU members recalled their ambassadors from Tehran.

The attack dragged Iran's relations with Europe to a long-time low.

"The Iranian military's response to the American spy drone's violation of our airspace will not be limited to Iran's borders," the military source said, without elaborating.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute.

Iran has dismissed reports of possible US or Israeli plans to strike Iran, warning that it would respond to any such assault by attacking US interests in the Gulf and Israel.

Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by launching hit-and-run strikes in the Gulf and by closing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 percent of all traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic waterway.

Iran said in July it had shot down an unmanned US spy plane over the holy city of Qom, near its Fordu nuclear site.

In related news, Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese website al-Intiqad on Sunday posted what they claim to be pictures of Israeli spy devices that IAF aircraft destroyed on Friday after they had been discovered in southern Lebanon.

Two people were injured Friday during an explosion in the southern Lebanese towns of Srifa and Deir Kifa, Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star reported.

The report suggested that the explosion may have been caused by an IDF drone, but also speculated that it was a result of a cluster bomb.

Jerusalem has alleged that Iran has heavily armed Hezbollah by transferring weapons through Syria.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby American Dream » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:30 am

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com ... -away.html

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2011

War With Iran: A Provocation Away?

Image


Amid conflicting reports that a huge explosion at Iran's uranium conversion facility in Isfahan occurred last week, speculation was rife that Israel and the United States were stepping-up covert attacks against defense and nuclear installations.

The Isfahan complex transforms mined uranium into uranium fluoride gas which is then "spun" by centrifuges that enrich it into usable products for medical research and for Iran's civilian nuclear energy program.

While Iranian officials sought to distance themselves from initial reporting by the semi-official Fars news agency that a "loud explosion" was heard across the city, but that "the sound of the explosion was from [a] military exercise," has been contradicted by several sources.

Indeed, some Iranian officials have denied that an explosion even took place.

On Tuesday however, The Times reported that "satellite imagery ... confirmed that a blast that rocked the city of Isfahan on Monday struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran."

"The images," Times reporter Sheera Frenkel averred, "clearly showed billowing smoke and destruction, negating Iranian claims yesterday that no such explosion had taken place. Israeli intelligence officials told The Times that there was 'no doubt' that the blast struck the nuclear facilities at Isfahan and that it was 'no accident'."

Despite clear evidence that Israel and the United States have stepped-up their shadow war against the Islamic Republic, Defense Minister Ehud Barak "played down speculation on Saturday that Israel and U.S.-led allies were waging clandestine war on Iran, saying sanctions and the threat of military strikes were still the way to curb its nuclear program," Reuters reported.

Proverbial "facts on the ground" however, tell a different tale.

The latest attack on Iran's civilian nuclear program followed a blast two weeks ago at the sprawling Bid Ganeh missile base 25 miles west of Tehran.

That blast killed upwards of 30 members of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including Major General Hassan Moqqadam, a senior leader of Iran's missile program.

Satellite imagery shows much of the base in ruins. The attack was described by Time Magazine as the work "of Israel's external intelligence service, Mossad."

In a backhanded confirmation that Monday's blast was the handiwork of Mossad and their terrorist proxies, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), Frenkel wrote that "Dan Meridor, the Israeli Intelligence Minister, said: 'There are countries who impose economic sanctions and there are countries who act in other ways in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat'."

Frenkel reported that "Major-General Giora Eiland, Israel's former director of national security told Israel's army radio that the Isfahan blast was no accident. 'There aren't many coincidences, and when there are so many events there is probably some sort of guiding hand, though perhaps it's the hand of God'," Eiland said.

The Isfahan blast, as with other recent attacks, were allegedly in response to allegations made last month in a report filed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

However, while the "Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities," the ginned-up report relied on information provided by "Member states," presumably Israel and United States in the form of forged computer laptop documents and other "intelligence sources."

The Agency claims they were "unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

Black operations targeting the Islamic Republic aren't solely the province of America's "stationary aircraft carrier in the Middle East," Israel. As Seymour Hersh reported last spring in The New Yorker: "In the past six years, soldiers from the Joint Special Operations Force, working with Iranian intelligence assets, put in place cutting-edge surveillance techniques, according to two former intelligence officers."

In 2007, ABC News disclosed that "the CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government."

Unnamed sources told ABC News that President Bush signed a presidential finding "that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions."

Congress has appropriated some $300 million for the CIA and the Pentagon's covert war.

In the intervening years, those programs have turned lethal. Widely applauded by "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans alike, these programs have continued, indeed expanded under Barack Obama's "progressive" Democratic administration.

Despite the fact that there "is also constant satellite coverage of major suspect areas in Iran," The New Yorker reported "that nothing significantly new had been learned to suggest that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon."

'Shadow War' Heating Up

Iran's intelligence services haven't been sitting idly by watching American, British, and Israeli terror operations.

On Sunday, Al Jazeera reported that the Iranian armed forces "brought down an unmanned US spy plane."

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted an unnamed source as saying on Sunday."

"The semiofficial Fars news agency," Al Jazeera averred, said "that the plane is now in the possession of Iran's armed forces. The Fars news agency is close to the powerful Revolutionary Guard."

"Fars reported that the drone had been brought down through a combined effort by Iran's armed forces, air defence forces and its electronic warfare unit after the plane briefly violated the country's airspace at its eastern border."

An unnamed source, according to AFP, warned that Iran's armed response would "not be limited to our country's borders" for the "blatant territorial violation."

AFP also reported that in June, "Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Guards' aerospace unit, said Iran had shown Russian experts the US drones in its possession.

"'Russian experts requested to see these drones and they looked at both the downed drones and the models made by the Guards through reverse engineering,' he said."

In a further sign that the "shadow war" is heating up, last week's occupation of the British embassy in Tehran may have been a warning to the U.K. over sanctioned leaks by the British defense establishment to The Guardian which suggested that "Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran."

"In anticipation of a potential attack," The Guardian disclosed that "British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

The embassy occupation and subsequent downgrade of diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran mean these threats are being taken very seriously indeed.

Asia Times Online reported that Iran's claim "to have arrested 12 spies working for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is potentially a major blow to American intelligence-gathering efforts in Iran and to American intelligence generally."

Following closely on the heels of last month's arrest in Lebanon of some 30 CIA operatives by Hezbollah "is suggestive of a major American intelligence defeat, if not a full-blown disaster," Asia Times analyst Mahan Abedin wrote.

Far from being a high-quality intelligence operation, Abedin averred that the "CIA is operating a lower threshold of quality control in terms of agent recruitment and management" and that this reflects "a scatter-gun approach by the CIA inasmuch as the agency is targeting virtually any Iranian citizen it believes could potentially provide useful information on the CIA's target set."

According to Abedin's Iranian sources, the CIA's team of "operatives and analysts" appears to have been "embedded within numerous official and unofficial American organizations, including US embassies, multinational corporations, medium-sized commercial organizations, recruitment consultancies, immigration and wider legal services, academic and quasi-academic institutions and reputable (i.e. longstanding) as well as newly set up think tanks."

In other words, as many researchers have amply documented, efforts by the U.S. secret state to subvert a target nation's internal defenses prior to full-on "regime change" either through direct warfare (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, now Syria) or via an American-brokered "color revolution" (Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Ukraine, Georgia) are not about "freedom and democracy" but to achieve Washington's geopolitical goals: total economic and political domination.

"But despite clear improvements in counter-espionage capabilities and protective security measures," Abedin writes, "Iran is still some way away from making it prohibitively costly for Western agencies to operate inside the country. Indeed, all the major West European, North American and Israeli intelligence services are either active inside Iran or work closely with some elements of the Iranian diaspora."

Describing the "psychological warfare" dimensions of a looming confrontation, Abedin wrote in a subsequent Asia Times Online piece that the covert war operates on two fronts, "one visible and rhetorical and conducted through official and unofficial media and the other secret and centered on sabotage."

"In so far as the former is concerned Iran has risen to the challenge by superseding tough American and Israeli rhetoric with even tougher rhetoric."

"However," Abedin averred, "it is on the sabotage front--where Iran appears to be under attack from several directions--that the Islamic Republic is raising eyebrows even amongst its hardcore supporters by displaying remarkable tolerance in the face of intolerable provocations."

"More broadly, the Iranians are not paying sufficient attention to the long-term consequences of military confrontation with the United States and her allies."

That the "long-term consequences" of a Western-led attack will be an unmitigated disaster for the Iranian people, indeed for people across the entire region and for world peace and stability as a whole, doesn't mean that Washington won't gamble that a "limited war" could be "contained."

As analyst William Blum wrote in his Anti-Empire Report: "The secret to understanding US foreign policy is that there is no secret. Principally, one must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world. Once one understands that, much of the apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington's policies fades away."

"Examine a map," Blum observed. "Iran sits directly between two of the United States' great obsessions--Iraq and Afghanistan ... directly between two of the world's greatest oil regions--the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea areas ... it's part of the encirclement of the two leading potential threats to American world domination--Russia and China ... Tehran will never be a client state or obedient poodle to Washington. How could any good, self-respecting Washington imperialist resist such a target? Bombs Away!"

Commenting on the Isfahan attack which described Israeli "black ops" as a "route to war," left-wing analyst Richard Silverstein wrote on the Tikun Olam web site, that "the tragedy of this black ops program is that it will not rattle or deter Iran, as Israeli intelligence believes."

"Contrary to what Israeli generals believe," Silverstein wrote, "the Iranians are not pushovers, they can't be intimidated. They're willing to die for their country even more than Israelis. They've fought defensive wars going back decades and lost millions in conflict. A few explosions, assassinations, and computer viruses will not spook them."

The drift towards war, which include moves to strangle Iran's economy prior to a strike, has gained traction on multiple fronts.

On Friday, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed legislation as part of the $644. 3 billion 2012 Defense Authorization Act that "would give the president the power starting July 1 to bar foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank from having correspondent bank accounts in the U.S.," Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported.

Coupled with reports that Germany and other EU member states will "considerably strengthen" sanctions against Iran, the leftist publication German Foreign Policy disclosed that "Berlin is participating in the intensification of western pressure on Teheran."

Rejecting NATO rhetoric that new punitive economic measures are over "the so-called nuclear dispute," GFP's analyst correctly states that the "conflict is, in fact, over hegemony, with the West seeking to defend at all costs its predominance in the Middle Eastern resource-rich regions."

While "Berlin's politicians are still divided over Iran ... Transatlantic oriented forces are preparing the public for possible military strikes."

Regarding the strengthening of the West's sanctions regime, the World Socialist Web Site reported that the EU has "agreed to sanction some 200 Iranian companies, individuals and organisations. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy met with Obama on Monday and issued a joint statement expressing 'deep concern' over Iran's nuclear program, raising the possibility of 'additional measures' against the Iranian regime."

"France," left-wing critic Oliver Campbell noted, "which is not a major importer of Iranian oil, issued a statement calling for 'new sanctions on an unprecedented scale,' including freezing the assets of the Iranian central bank and putting an embargo on Iranian oil."

"Russia, which has acquiesced in imposing previous sanctions on Iran, has bluntly opposed further punitive measures. Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich denounced the latest sanctions as 'unacceptable' and 'contradictory to international law.' China and Turkey have also opposed additional UN penalties."

There are new signs that this sharply escalating crisis is fraught with peril.

Last week, Russia Today reported that "Moscow is deploying warships at its base in the Syrian port of Tartus. The long-planned mission comes, providentially, at the very moment when it could help prevent a potential conflict in the strategically important Middle Eastern country.

"The Russian battle group will consist of three vessels led by the heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov."

"Of course, the Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean will be incommensurate with those of the US 6th Fleet, which includes one or two aircraft carriers and several escort ships," former Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Viktor Kravchenko told Russia Today.

Pointedly, Kravchenko warned, "today, no one talks about possible military clashes, since an attack on any Russian ship would be regarded as a declaration of war with all the consequences."

Richard Silverstein grimly observed "that Israel knows that black ops will turn Iran more intransigent. It welcomes such Iranian rigidity because it means the day is closer when it will be set loose on the Iranians. Israel's policy toward Iran is scorched earth."

The clock is ticking...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:44 am

EXCLUSIVE - Argentina flirts with Iran; West watches nervously

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS | Mon Dec 5, 2011 5:37pm IST

(Reuters) - Argentina is quietly reaching out to Iran, worrying key Western powers and Israel as they try to tighten Tehran's international isolation over its nuclear program, U.N. diplomats told Reuters.

Argentina's ties with Iran have been virtually frozen since Argentine authorities secured Interpol arrest warrants for five Iranians and a Lebanese in 2007 in connection with a 1994 attack on a Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed 85 people.

Tehran denied links to the bombing but in July offered talks with Argentina to start "shedding light" on the case.

The 1994 attack came two years after a group called Islamic Jihad Organization, which was believed to be linked to Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, claimed responsibility for bombing the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29.

For more than a decade Argentina appeared to do little to investigate the attacks. But when Nestor Kirchner became president in 2003 he vowed to reopen the cases, calling the neglect "a national disgrace." Several years later former Iranian President Ali Rafsanjani was among those indicted by Argentine prosecutors and sought by Interpol.

But there have been signs of a thaw in the two nations' frosty ties.

Argentine exports to Iran, which dropped to a few tens of millions of dollars annually amid sour relations, have grown in recent years, soaring more than 70 percent last year to $1.5 billion. Iran is the biggest buyer of Argentine corn, a key crop for the Latin American country as it strives to bolster its trade surplus.

"As the rest of us work to pressure Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and stop supporting terrorism, Argentina's government has been considering moving in the opposite direction," a European envoy said on condition of anonymity.

On the surface, Argentina's positions on Iran appear little changed. In May, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who heads a special unit dedicated exclusively to investigating the 1994 bombing, had the Interpol arrest warrants renewed.

Last month, Argentina joined a majority of U.N. member states in the General Assembly's human rights committee to vote for a resolution condemning Iran for its human rights record.

SIGNS OF CHANGE

But there are signs that things are changing. In September, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez told the U.N. General Assembly that Buenos Aires was ready to engage in dialogue with Iran, though she also urged Tehran to make good on its offer to help investigate the bombing.

"This is an offer to dialogue that Argentina cannot and should not turn down," Fernandez said in her speech.

Western U.N. envoys said eyebrows were raised in the General Assembly when Argentina's U.N. Ambassador Jorge Arguello broke with tradition and remained seated as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted Israel, Europe and the United States in his speech to U.N. member states.

In previous years, the Argentine seat was left empty when the Iranian president addressed the 193-nation assembly. As U.S. and European officials exited the hall to protest Ahmadinejad's typically fiery speech, Arguello stayed put.

"Iran and Argentina have recently been taking a number of overt steps - in some cases in response to pressure brought to bear by Iran - to open a clean slate in the countries' political relations," a Western diplomat told Reuters.

Iran has every reason to want to mend relations with Argentina. Under sanctions and increasingly isolated due to its nuclear program, Tehran has few allies and needs friends. Argentina is also on the 35-nation board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, where Iran's nuclear program is a key issue.

Diplomats said Argentina's motives for warming up to Iran were unclear. In addition to boosting trade with Iran, some envoys said Argentina was pursuing a Brazilian-style foreign policy emphasizing ties with nonaligned developing nations.

"In general, we see a 'Third Worldism' in Argentina's foreign policy - asserting independence from the big powers, seeking out new relations with countries like Iran," an Israeli official in Jerusalem told Reuters.

Several European diplomats noted that Fernandez is a close ally of regional leftists like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, who have warm ties with Iran.

Argentine Foreign Ministry officials did not respond to requests from Reuters for comment.

Iran's nuclear program was one of the topics U.S. President Barack Obama brought up during his meeting with Fernandez last month on the sidelines of a Group of 20 meeting in France.

"The president also underscored the importance of continued U.S.-Argentine cooperation related to Iran," a senior Obama administration official told Reuters.

The United States has had its own difficulties with Fernandez's government. There are concerns about unresolved payments to U.S. firms and bondholders. In February, Argentine officials seized guns, ammunition and communications equipment from a U.S. Air Force plane that had landed in Argentina. The items were later returned but the incident annoyed Washington.

Foreign Minister Hector Timerman has also criticized U.S. policies in Latin America.

JEWISH COMMUNITY, ISRAEL ALSO WORRIED

The Jewish community in Argentina, the largest in Latin America, has also grown increasingly worried since the Argentine newspaper Perfil reported in March that Timerman was holding secret negotiations with Iranian officials and had offered to drop the investigation into the 1994 attack.

"We've expressed our unease about attitudes toward Iran," Aldo Donzis, president of Argentina's DAIA Jewish community group, told Reuters about the apparent warming of relations.

That unease is shared by Israel. The Israeli official said Argentina was unlikely to push hard on the arrest warrants for the 1994 attack: "The sense here is that they're unlikely to pull out the stops in order to see the warrants enforced."

Suspicions about Iranian intentions in Argentina continue to this day. Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia warned Argentina of a possible Iran-backed plan to attack Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires that ran parallel to a a plan to kill the Saudi U.S. envoy, an Argentine diplomatic source said.

Tehran denied allegations that it planned such attacks.

In a recent interview with Reuters, Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior Iranian official and adviser to the country's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said Iran would like repair ties with Buenos Aires that were damaged by Israel.

"Relations between Iran and Argentina have been the subject of Israeli sabotage," he said. "I don't think there is any basic difficulty in redeveloping our relations."

He also dismissed the idea that the arrest warrants would lead to any action by Iran or Argentina, describing them as "obsolete." Larijani added that Iran was working to expand its presence in, and trade with, South America.

European diplomats, however, said that there were limits on how close Argentina can get to Iran.

Not only would the government want to avoid unduly angering Washington, dropping the investigation of the 1994 attack altogether, as Iran would like, would be very difficult.

"Argentina has always taken a strong public line on Iran," an envoy said. "Another line would be political suicide." (Additional reporting by Helen Popper in Buenos Aires, Laura Macinnis in Washington and Dan Williams in Jerusalem; Editing by Eric Walsh)
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby compared2what? » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:22 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:
Lebanon is Israel's real, urgent, target, not Iran. Why? Because Hizbullah is the only power that can stop Israel from grabbing one of the richest untapped gas fields on the planet, among other reasons (as though other reasons were needed):

...Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Levant Basin Province, encompassing parts of Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Cyprus, could contain as much as 122 trillion cu. ft. (3.4 trillion cu m) of gas and 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (For comparison, Libya has gas reserves of 53 trillion cu. ft. [1.5 trillion cu m] and oil reserves of 60 billion barrels.)

The Israelis have a head start in the race to extract gas, having awarded the concessions to a joint U.S.-Israeli firm. Tamar is expected to go online in 2012 and Leviathan three years later.

...

Beirut has asked the U.N. to help mark a temporary sea boundary between Lebanon and Israel, a maritime equivalent of the "blue line" established by the U.N. in 2000, which corresponds to Lebanon's southern land border. The U.N. has agreed to assist and the Israelis are studying the proposal.

...

It is perhaps no surprise then that the sudden interest in the potential fossil-fuel wealth off the Israeli and Lebanese coastline has turned the Mediterranean into a potential new theater of conflict between the Israelis and Hizballah. The Lebanese group already boasts an amphibious warfare unit trained in underwater sabotage and coastal infiltrations. Hizballah's ability to target shipping — and possibly offshore oil-and-gas platforms — was demonstrated in the month long war with Israel in 2006 when the militants came close to sinking an Israeli naval vessel with an Iranian version of the Chinese C-802 missile. Hizballah fighters have since hinted that they have acquired larger antiship missiles with double the 72-mile (116 km) range of the C-802 variant. Last year, Hizballah chief Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned that his organization now possesses the ability to target shipping along the entire length of Israel's coastline.

In January, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the offshore gas fields as a "strategic objective that Israel's enemies will try to undermine" and vowed that "Israel will defend its resources." The Israeli navy has since reportedly presented to the government a maritime-security plan costing between $40 million and $70 million to defend the gas fields.

Upping the ante even further, Nasrallah promised that if Israel threatens future Lebanese plans to tap its oil and gas reserves, "only the Resistance [Hizballah] would force Israel and the world to respect Lebanon's right." Link



The Iranian Labor News Agency quoted [Iranian ambassador to Lebanon] Roknabadi as saying, "Lebanon has [an] oil field shared with Israel. Three-quarters of this field belongs to Lebanon and a quarter of the field belongs to the occupying regime [Israel]," He added, "This country is about to exploit oil soon, but the Lebanese have not done anything in the field yet."

Roknabadi said, "Even when we expressed readiness to help the Lebanese in this field, the parliament of [Israel] voiced objection and said that Iran should not do this. But Lebanese officials have much welcomed our participation in oil exploration in this country."

Lebanon has a delineation agreement with Cyprus. It hopes to start offshore gas and oil exploration in its waters by early 2012. Link


Nasrallah: Hands off our waters
July 27, 2011 02:01 AM
By Hussein Dakroub
The Daily Star

BEIRUT:
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah warned Israel Tuesday against any attempt to plunder Lebanon’s offshore gas and oil reserves in its territorial waters as a dispute over the demarcation of maritime borders with the Jewish state worsens.

It was Nasrallah’s first public threat to fight Israel since a long-simmering dispute over offshore gas and oil deposits in the eastern Mediterranean burst out into the open earlier this month following the Israeli government’s approval of a map of its proposed maritime borders which Lebanon deemed an aggression and an infringement on its right to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

...

Nasrallah said when Israel demarcated its maritime borders with Cyprus, it infringed on 850 square kilometers in Lebanon’s territorial waters by adding them to its border. He said the area’s oil wealth is worth billions of dollars.

“With regard to the 850 square kilometer zone, as long as the state considers it Lebanese [territory], it is Lebanese in the resistance’s eye and there is no disputed area. There is an area that has been infringed on. Lebanon has a diplomatic opportunity to recover it through the [UN] border demarcation,” Nasrallah said.

However, he had a warning to Israel if it attempted to capture Lebanon’s sea resources.

“We warn Israel against extending its hands to this area and steal Lebanon’s resources from Lebanese waters,” Nasrallah said. “Until Lebanon decides to exploit this area, Israel must be warned against extending its hands to it.”

Nasrallah also threatened to target Israel’s oil installations if Lebanon’s oil facilities were attacked.

“Whoever harms our future oil facilities in Lebanese territorial waters, its own facilities will be targeted,” he said. Link


^The United States is backing Lebanon against Israel on this one, fwiw. That was reported back in October (here, for example; but the American neocon press was all up in arms about it at the time, too -- I mean the Commentary guys, etcetera.) The reports above are from the sabre-rattling phase a few months prior to that.

Anyway. As matters presently stand, it definitely might be a Lebanon/Israel war-coming-soon issue. Because Netanyahu is pouting and sulking and lying and dragging his heels and -- generally -- being the dishonest, vicious, amoral tyrant for whom too much mass destruction is never enough that he is.

But it's not showing any signs of being a US/Iran or US/Lebanon war-coming-soon issue, atm, strictly speaking.

Sorry. Just catching up on the thread.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby The Consul » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:44 pm

I believe it was a dead pope who warned Bush II against opening the gates of hell in Iraq. Tangling with Iran will be unlike anything most of us have witnessed in our lifetimes. If Mossad could so totally miscalculate Hezbollah in Beirut it would be foolish to bet they won't do the same thing in Tehran, which would unleash a furry that would sweep up the world in its wake. Sadly, the only way the Israel will stand naked is when she brings the world to an apocalyptic brink and whether the US can wake up before the Masada complex kicks in is the weakest and unlikeliest of hopes and expectations.
" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:34 pm

The Consul wrote:... whether the US can wake up before the Masada complex kicks in is the weakest and unlikeliest of hopes and expectations.


Despite the myth of Israel's so-called "Masada complex", I have never seen any evidence for it. Israel's last two invasions of Lebanon both ended with Israel's humiliating withdrawals despite relatively minor losses, almost all military, compared to the horrific cost to Lebanese civilians it inflicted. Otherwise, at least during the past 30 years or more, Israel's been getting the US to do all the crazy stuff on its behalf, and somehow, despite all the screaming and gnashing of teeth, it is Israel that somehow always makes out like a bandit, at no cost to itself at all.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby compared2what? » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:35 pm

The Consul wrote:I believe it was a dead pope who warned Bush II against opening the gates of hell in Iraq. Tangling with Iran will be unlike anything most of us have witnessed in our lifetimes. If Mossad could so totally miscalculate Hezbollah in Beirut it would be foolish to bet they won't do the same thing in Tehran, which would unleash a furry that would sweep up the world in its wake. Sadly, the only way the Israel will stand naked is when she brings the world to an apocalyptic brink and whether the US can wake up before the Masada complex kicks in is the weakest and unlikeliest of hopes and expectations.


I think it (the U.S.) will have to in order to stay in the energy game. Ultimately. But there are some deep-political forces way, way down below the sedimentary layer of terrain that we can see from where we sit/stand in the present that would be just about perfectly split down the middle by their mutually conflicting interests in the event of such an either/or.***

So it's not as sure of a thing as you'd think, just on a common-($-and-)sense basis.

Per that scenario, Israel would still be equally committed to wiping itself off the map no matter which way the dominoes fell, however. (Figuratively speaking. They might also manage to salvage something, obviously. I just mean there's no way out for them that I can see, at this point. Sooner or later, and probably comparatively soon, they're going to get into one too many of the fights they can never win for that continually-not-losing-either strategy to be a viable ongoing option.)
________________

*** I was thinking primarily of the Texas-based militant-Christian-zionist Big Oil-ocrat faction. They got roots going back to the 1840s on the Christian-zionist side, so it seems kind of unlikely that they'd be willing to give up on Restorationism now. So there's them.

However, fwiw, I'd imagine that all the blood-feuding gang-warriors probably have their own franchise clubhouses in Cyprus, too. Just because it's that kind of a place. I don't really know much about that, though. So. Just speculating.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Nordic » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:58 pm

ISAF says drone lost over Afghanistan late last week 04 Dec Source: Reuters BONN, Dec 4 (Reuters) - A surveillance drone flying over western Afghanistan had gone out of control late last week and may be the one Iran said it had shot down over its own airspace, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said on Sunday. "The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a U.S. unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status," an ISAF statement said. The statement about the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was issued in Kabul and released to reporters covering an international conference on Afghanistan in the German city Bonn. (Reporting by Missy Ryan; Editing by Myra MacDonald)


http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/isaf ... last-week/
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:01 am

Has the War with Iran Already Begun?
The evidence of an extensive Western covert program against Tehran, and Iranian retaliation, is now too obvious to ignore

By Michael Hirsh
Updated: December 4, 2011 | 5:18 p.m.

Two incidents that occurred on Sunday—Iran’s claim of a shoot-down of a U.S. drone, and an explosion outside the British embassy in Bahrain—may have been unrelated. But they appear to add to growing evidence that an escalating covert war by the West is under way against Iran, and that Tehran is retaliating with greater intensity than ever.

Asked whether the United States, in cooperation with Israel, was now engaged in a covert war against Iran’s nuclear program that may include the Stuxnet virus, the blowing-up of facilities and the assassination or kidnapping of scientists, one recently retired U.S. official privy to up-to-date intelligence would not deny it.


“It’s safe to say the Israelis are very active,” the official said, adding about U.S. efforts: “Everything that [GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney said we should be doing—tough sanctions, covert action and pressuring the international community -- are all of the things we are actually doing.” Though the activities are classified, a senior Obama administration official also would not deny that such a program was under way. He indicated that the U.S. was not involved in every action, referring to recent alleged explosions at Isfahan and elsewhere. But, he added: “I wouldn’t assume that everything we do is coordinated."

Former undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who oversaw America’s Iran engagement during the Bush administration, asked Sunday about reports that the U.S. program began under George W. Bush, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

In September, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, accused Great Britain, Israel and the U.S. of conducting attacks on him and other Iranian scientists."Six years ago the intelligence service of the UK began collecting information and data regarding my past, my family, the number of children," Abbasi-Davani told a news conference at the annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Abbasi-Davani, who was said to have been wounded in 2010 car bomb explosion, said the attacks were carried out by Israel with the "support of the intelligence services of the United States and England."

Last week, Iranian protesters stormed the British embassy in Tehran. Dominick Chilcott, Britain's ambassador to Iran, later said the attack occurred "with the acquiescence and the support of the state." Then, on Sunday, Bahrain's interior ministry announced that an explosion occurred inside a minibus parked near the British Embassy. There were no immediate reports of serious damage or injuries.

U.S. officials alleged in October that agents acting for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which has increasingly exerted control over the Tehran regime, were involved in a plot to kill that Saudi ambassador to Washington in a restaurant. Iran denied the allegations. Then, on Sunday, in what have been another escalation, Iran’s news agency reported that Iranian armed forces shot down an unmanned U.S. spy plane that illegally crossed the country's eastern border.

Responding to the Iranian report, NATO command in Afghanistan released a terse statement Sunday: "The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a US unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status."

The White House declined to comment but officials did not seem unduly alarmed, suggesting that the drone's capture would not provide Iran with significant information about U.S. surveillance technology and techniques.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, said the tit-for-tat incidents “add up to a very worrisome picture,” in part because “the Iranians are absorbing all of these assassinations without seeing the pace of their nuclear program slow down to the extent it would be acceptable to the West.” But if Iranian retaliations grow serious enough, he said, they could provide “the pretext for a much larger war” in which the Israelis, and possibly the Americans, launch a full attack on Iran.

Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Germany, says the intensity of the covert war indicates that this is where the U.S. and Israel are putting their energy for now. “If the U.S. or Israel were determined to take Iran’s nuclear installations out they wouldn’t be wasting time pinpointing individual scientists like this,” he says. Still, he points out, that Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor was also preceded by assassination attempts on Iraqi scientists.

By accident or not, it’s entirely possible the covert war could escalate into a real one, experts say. “I am less enthusiastic about how effective all this going to be than some people in the administration,” says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear investigator at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Bunn says he has occasionally discussed the program with the Obama administration officials, and “some have broadly suggested they think this is major element of slowing down Iranian progress.”

He’s not so sure. “Take Stuxnet. It’s possible that a thousand centrifuges went down” because of sabotage by the mystery computer virus _ a super sophisticated program said to have caused substantial parts of Iran's uranium enrichment program to self-destruct several years ago. “But Iran has a thousand more than they would require to enrich to highly enriched uranium” needed for a bomb. Bunn also notes that Iran is increasingly keeping its key scientists such as Mohsen Fakrizadeh, said to be the “Oppenheimer” of the Iranian program, hidden away from sight and burying its facilities deeper underground.

Beyond that, says Hibbs, “Some of the concern in the expert community is that in going this route we’re unleashing forces we cannot control.”
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby compared2what? » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:35 pm

^Re: Stuff The National Journal says...

This doesn't necessarily always invalidate the reporting -- arguably, it sometimes lends (a kind of) credence to it, in fact -- but it's probably worth bearing in mind that the joint is presently being run by longtime professional water-carrier, Ron Fournier:

The AP has a Ron Fournier problem

You never know what nuggets congressional investigators will uncover when they set off on official inquiries.

Last week, we learned that while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the 2004 death of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former NFL player whose story was promoted by the White House before it was revealed that he had been killed by friendly fire, they discovered that top political aide Karl Rove had exchanged emails with the Associated Press' Ron Fournier on the day the news of Tillman's death broke.

In one email, Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this?" Fournier responded: "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."


That's really only a mild caveat lector, though. I mean, the basic premises of the above-quoted story make such total sense to me, I'd be a little surprised if anyplace was reporting that they weren't true. It's just that I wonder why the NJ is telling me about them. Which is sad. They used sometimes to do good journalism.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests