The UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector yesterday warned against the use of force against Iran, in what UN officials said was an attempt to halt an "out of control" drift to war.
His outspoken remarks, which drew a parallel between Iran and Iraq, appeared to take aim at the US and Britain. They followed comments on Sunday night by the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who said: "We have to prepare for the worst," adding "the worst is war".
"I would not talk about any use of force," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
There has been a string of reports out of Washington that the Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomacy and is intensifying its plans for air strikes as a means of halting Iran's disputed nuclear programme.
UN officials said Mr ElBaradei, an Egyptian diplomat who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2005, was attempting to slow down what seemed to be an accelerating march to war.
"There's a strategic reason for doing these things," one official said. "He really is alarmed. He sees this thing going out of control. The feeling around here is that this looks like the run-up to the Iraq war."
Last month, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, sparked a heated political debate in Paris when he called the Iranian stand-off "the greatest crisis" of current times, saying the world had "a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".
Following Mr Kouchner's comments, Tehran yesterday denounced France's stance on the nuclear issue, which has toughened since Mr Sarkozy's election in May. Iran's state-owned news agency IRNA published an editorial accusing Paris of "extremism" and pandering to Washington. "The new occupants of the Elysée want to copy the White House," it said, accusing Mr Sarkozy of taking on "an American skin".
Iran insists on its right to run a comprehensive nuclear programme, including the enrichment of uranium, which it says is intended for peaceful electricity generation.
The US has called a meeting of senior European and Russian officials in Washington on Friday to discuss the deepening crisis over Iran. Britain, the US and France are likely to push for more sanctions over Iranian defiance, while Russia and China are expected to resist, pointing to a deal Mr ElBaradei struck with the Iranian government last month, in which Tehran agreed to answer unresolved questions over its nuclear programme.
The US, Britain, France and Germany complained to Mr ElBaradei that they had not been consulted and that the agreement did not mention the UN Security Council's demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment while its programme is assessed. In their eyes, the deal gave Tehran a means of stalling new sanctions while continuing to produce nuclear fuel.
France is determined that if the UN is unable to agree on a new round of sanctions against Iran, the European Union should impose its own. Mr Kouchner said leading French companies such as Total and Renault had been urged not to sign new contracts with Iran, and he flew to Moscow to try to persuade Russia to accept a toughening of the embargo.
Meanwhile, the French prime minister, François Fillon, yesterday tried to play down the talk of war, saying that everything must be done to avoid a conflict, but he added that Mr Kouchner was right to stress the danger and seriousness of the Iranian stand-off.
A British official said yesterday that when the French foreign minister had raised the spectre of a conflict, he was "stating the obvious".
"The worst case scenario is a war with Iran, but meanwhile we are seeking a diplomatic solution," the official said.
The French Socialist leader François Hollande yesterday called for an immediate parliamentary debate on Iran, demanding to know if the government had new intelligence on Iran's nuclear intentions.
After talks with Mr Kouchner in Paris yesterday, the Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen said the Netherlands would support EU sanctions if the UN Security Council failed to agree new measures.
Mr ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, has been increasingly at odds with Washington and London, who believe he is straying beyond his job description and freelancing as an independent statesman.
© 2007 The Guardian
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
108 Comments so far
Show Alldreamertoo,
Compared to most national leaders, Ahmadinejad is what you describe, or worse. Compared to Bush and Cheney, Ahmadinejad is a brilliant statesman of unparalleled virtue and great personal courage, a man who is remarkably even-tempered and fair, determined to use his broadminded and well-informed perspectives to bring eternal peace and harmony to humankind.
Some on this thread wrote of alien influence on this planet. Sometimes the insane risks that Bush and Cheney take get me to consider fanciful ideas such as the possibility that some alien intelligence has decided to cleanse the earth of humans or possibly even of all life, and Bush and Cheney are their unwitting agents in carrying out that mission.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The Prophet of Dumb Blind Hatred.
KEM PATRICK
well please don't tell anyone else. i'm trying to keep it secret.
THIS JUST IN ON YAHOO
king george has just said that the law for eavesdropping made in august and meant as a temporary measure, should now be made permanent and expanded.
wow you guys are right in the doo doo................
TheLorax
It must have been a sarcastic joke, then!
Okay, if that's it, I got it now!
anney -
You might be reading just a little too deep into my blog.
TheLorax
Forgive me for being dense, but what's your conclusion about the weapons crates? Where was the "factory" and who do you think did that? I get the "Al Kida" part and the "return to" part since they're obviously intended to point the finger at Ahmadinejad as an al Qaeda terrorist. But not the rest.
want to see something scary? the BBC has a 'Have your say' section, the question being 'War with Iran a likely event?'
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=7401&editi...
read the most recommended replies, enough to chill the bones.
The IAEA is being told to butt out because their findings are irrelevant to the Bush Administration.
They have a photograph of a building with Nuclear Bomb Factory cropped into it. It was found in a crate of smuggled weapons all of which were stamped "Made In Iran". The crate was being shipped to Iraq and had the message "If found please return to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taped to the side." The manifest was signed by someone named Al Kida.
it may be too little too late, but what about Harper's magazine saying we need a general strike in the country on Election Day, November 6, 2007? No shopping, no working, no using cars for as many people as possible!
At the very least, it would let the Powers-that-Be (and the rest of the world) know that the whole country really isn't behind them -- and possibly serve to put some backbone in the progressive movement
It was a long time ago that I read Paul Erdman's Crash of '79 so the details are foggy in my memory. But as I recall, Erdman, with his background in finance, posits a Middle Eastern oil power that attaches a nuclear explosive device to its oil fields. If attacked, it plans to retaliate by making its entire oil supply radioactive.
Guess what happens?
I wonder if anyone in the Bush administration has read the book.
How are we supposed to respect and support an invading army of people armed only with ... a determination to feed their families?
Or, as GW would say "put food on your family"...
mastershake,
I am expanding my rose garden so I will have plenty of flowers to throw at the feet of the invading Russians and Chinese.
I would do the same for the invading Mexicans, who are already here, but they don't seem to have guns and have yet to blow anything up. How are we supposed to respect and support an invading army of people armed only with a work ethic and a determination to feed their families?
"By the same token most Americans want to change their government is it then OK to start bombing America?"
Lol. Best Post ever... so true.
espcially with the Presidential disapproval ratings in the 60% and congressionals in the 70%.
Condi Rice telling the INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY to butt out of this is just making this even more comical.
This administration has NO understanding of diplomacy.
This is all about oil and money not politics. The United States attacked Afghanistan in order to pirate nearly 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. We attacked Iraq as well, plundering 115 billion barrels of crude oil and 8.9 percent of world oil supply. An attack on Iran would yield another 132.5 billion barrels of crude and another 10.2 of world oil supply.
After an attack on Iran the US/Saudi alliance will control 535.7 billion barrels of crude and control 41.4 percent of the known world oil reserve.
The North American Union would draw in Canadian and Mexican oil assets as well, adding another 191.7 billion barrels of crude and bumping up it's control of world oil supply by another 14.8 percent.
So if Iran is occupied and the North American Union forms, the NAU/Saudi alliance will control 56.2% of the world oil supply***.
***These figures are based on the International Energy Agency's Oil & Gas report. Figures are from 2006 estimates.
Control of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan puts the US in control of the Caspian Sea as well, enabling access to it's 10+ billion barrels of crude.
An attack on Iran is VITAL in order for this mission to succeed. Any means must be used to make it happen. The hammer MUST fall because the plan is already in place. Whether Iran is actually attempting to construct weapons are not is irrelevant.
I invite you to please look at the figures. I've tried to keep the numbers as accurate as possible.
ANNEY,__ VINCE,__ IDAVIN___ You all nailed it. We have no reason or right to start anything with Iran and if we do, the game will be over for us.
COCO, your comments about the people were and are wonderful. It's never the people, it's always the governments who screw it up.
P/S I do know your deepest secret.
"We all agree that the majority of iranians want to see their regime toppled, right? "
Wrong, why do you think you have the right to just intervene? because you talked to some rich persians?, is that justification to start bombing?, what kind of world do you want to live in?, I cannot believe the stupidity and arrogance of your post.
By the same token most Americans want to change their government is it then OK to start bombing America?
No logic, rationality or even humanity just a crock of s***.
Identify an enemy, create a "crisis," warn of dire and disastrous consequences (here it helps to have a large and deadly military,) and intimidate anyone that won't willingly slip into lizard-brain mode.
The modern strategy of aquisition by aggression codefied by Hitler, studied by Rove, and now practiced by Bush. The underlying cause is the same also; Germany did not possess the resources it needed to be the force Hitler envisioned.
We should remind everyone that the "crisis" is a swirling sucking vortex centered on the discharge drain in the center of the Oval Office. Step back far enough and you will see that the problem is centered there, and it is sucking in all of the scum floating around the Washington press corps.
Sorry about that! The first post didn't show up when I posted it, so I reposted it twice more slightly edited and those didn't show up either until now.
I guess this means you gotta' wait for some posts to show up.
jungleboy
I know that Wikipedia is not the best source of information, but here's what it says about Iran's military capabilities:
The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran include the IRIA, the IRGC, and the Police Force. These forces total about 545,000 active personnel. Both fall under the commands of the Ministry's of Defence & Armed Forces Logistics.
* The Islamic Republic of Iran Army consists of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. The regular armed forces have an estimated 420,000 personnel: the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, 350,000 personnel; the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, 18,000 personnel; and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, 52,000 airmen.
* The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or Revolutionary Guards, has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; the Quds Force (Special Forces), and the Basij (militia).
The Basij (or Baseej) is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards; it includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed Basij members, up to 300,000 reservists, and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized.
Iran's Armed Forces capabilities are kept largely secret. In recent years, official announcements have highlighted the development of weapons such as the Fajr-3 (MIRV), Hoot, Kowsar, Fateh-110, Shahab-3 missile systems and a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles, at least one of which Israel claims has been used to spy on Israel. In 2006, Iran claimed that it spied on the American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected before returning safely to its base (5 minute video). Some western nations have alleged that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, in its February 2006 report on Iran's nuclear programme, said it had no evidence of this.
Iran's military was called the Middle East's most powerful by General John Abizaid chief of United States Central Command (U.S. forces' commander in the region). Abizaid said he did not count Israel Defense Forces, because it does not fall in his area of operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran
I know nothing about how war-ready Iran's military forces are, but their sheer numbers ought to give the Bush administration pause. Adding the numbers above, without including the "11 million men and women who could be mobilized", gives us 1,900,000 forces.
This You-Tube clip features an interview with Iran's Chief of Staff about Iran's military capabilities in case of a US attack. It's in Arabic with captions and of course doesn't give away any real information, but various other online sources all mention their long-range missile capabilities. Here's one:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2690
Here's an excerpt from another report dated 1977, Iran as a Military Threat, describing the kind of losses the US might anticipate:
....the American people appear to view Iran as a hostile country and support the U.S. military role in countering Iranian aggression. This political support is vital, because if fighting were to develop between the United States and Iran, the United States should expect to take losses. In all likelihood, ships will be damaged and aircraft will be shot down. Should the United States need to employ ground forces, it will almost certainly suffer additional casualties. Moreover, the Iranians might achieve some victories. Iranian missiles and terrorists could inflict damage on facilities used by the United States in the GCC countries. In addition, Iran could use its growing arsenal of chemical and biological weapons to counter highly capable U.S. military forces. Such threats also pose a danger to the GCC countries. The Iranians also could inflict damage to the vital oil infrastructure of the GCC states, which could affect world oil prices. Even a limited action against Iran, such as retaliation for terrorism, could entail significant costs: engaging Iran militarily is not like the post-DESERT STORM strikes against Iraq which have not seen any response.
The Bush administration shouldn't do such a damn-fool thing as attack Iran.
JoeT...
Wikipedia defines Sovereignty as: is the exclusive right to complete political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over an area of governance, people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other.
Your comment about Iranian transparency smacks of pure ignorance.
KEM PATRICK
wow you had me worried for a minute then.............i thought you knew my deepest secret of the moment..............phew.............
anyway i totally believe in ufo's, having seen one myself at the tender age of 12 when i didn't know or cared less about them.
and i've been to france 3 times but i'm alright now...................
Seems I recall that Iran just agreed to airtight monitoring of their nuclear facilities by the IAEA. There is absolutely no justification for the US to monitor them whatsoever. This is all BS as everyone here has said. They must be stopped before they strike again. Seems Sarkosi is the new Blaire. Are they pissed off because Russia got the nucleear contracts? Or is it payback time for the oh-so-close yet unprecedented step to the right in France's first elections to use black box voting (who do you suppose advised them on how to do this?). How convenient after they way Chirac put up such a fight over Iraq that Bush now has, as you say jungleboy, a willing lapdog in France as our American fascists prepare to murder Iranians. Condi says she will put up a fuss if Bush/Cheney bomb the shit out of Iraq without the "support" of the UN. It breaks my heart to see France going this way, but believe me, the French won't take this quite as politely as the American sheople. They'll shut the place down and raise all kinds of hell if their government doesn't listen to them and I know they won't stand for this. I used to live there, and they shut the place down for a lot less than illegal, aggressive war!
The missile defense system will wipe us and our tin hats away from the first rocket. Fifty year vets, all excited, they can do something, not realizing the cold war is/was over. Russian and American! Everyone will be in on it! God bless the aliens!
I really think its funny, all these spineless politicians afraid of offending Israel, to the point of going to war with another country, even to our own demise. People say the French dude is Bushs lapdog....Whos ass is Bush licking?
Are they just all that rich? Pious?
I think Simon Tisdall has some interesting things to say regarding Iran, here's a link to his latest piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2172204,00.html
And continuing my theme from before, -about how artists too can help change human consciousness, (towards PEACE and not further lunacy of war-making) here's a link to a political cartoon by (*one of us*!) Steve Bell, -commenting on the French leader's latest madness, ~ with a pictured swipe at the thugs of Blackwater:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2172317,00.html
And well said, -many of you above.
Thanks for sharing here your continued isight, passion and intelligence and allegiance to a PEACEFULL world, ~ yea~ even as the rabid dogs of war snarl again from their kennel in the Gray House.
Anyone got a spare dog leash? I think Cheney and Bushbaby wanna go walkies...
-To the Hague!
As to the rational, bright, caring Common-Dreams folk here: in you, there is hope.
Please keep up the important work of *raising consciousness* that barbaric warfare is NOT the way forwards for humankind.
Your sincere words are not wasted...
Your collective words, thoughts, and thence resultant actions, all working towards PEACE in this world, are an essential antidote to the poison generated by warmongering fools.
~Pray continue!
As bad a most here believe and have written excellent comments regarding such, an attack by any method on Iran will be far far worse for the United States than most have suggested.
It better not happen, and the Federal Reserve boys lowering the interest rate half a percent today is just a short term bandaid on our already financial disaster. If Bush does it, run for the hills, deep in the Appalacias may be the safest bet, but take some goodies if you wish to be welcomed. (Goodies are 100 proof). A few cases of toilet paper won't hurt either, a good hunting rifle of 223, or 243 calibre, lots of ammo, a banjo or fiddle and some good old fashioned reading books and they might let you in. ___ Good luck all.
Goodby COCO, ___ we're gonna miss you babe.
The aliens who are stationed on the massive space ship orbiting within the rings of Saturn, are us and we are them. They DO care about us, as we are their kinfolk. We are all members of the lost tribe of Isreal. We may live several lives here on Earth, until we learn to once again be decent humans. The aliens are here to save us. SOME of us, and they monitor us by way of space ships we often call flying saucers.
I understand both Elvis and John Lennon are stationed on that luxerious ship and work in the music department, learning classical rock and other such stuff. No hard rock allowed. That of course could be just another rumor, they may both be back home in the Paradise Galaxy seeding a new planet. I understnad there are several now ready for seeding. Now some will not go there when their last life has been lived on Earth, we only get 12 shots at it. Some will go to another star system in the Milky Way galaxy, where three planets await their arrival. One is named Hellus, a very hot planet with little water and no ice caps. It is the worst off the the three and I understnad that many of the prior leaders, politicians, TV preachers, literary agents and publishers go there. The doors there only swing one way. So don't knock UFOs, they might be piloted by your grandparents.
GLIDE625
i don't think the ufo people really give a damn about this place and therefore would stand by and watch us destroy ourselves as we rightly deserve.........
LIBERTAS FUGIT
i have lived in the middle east for the past 24 years. obviously i enjoy it or would not be here. i have never had any problems with the muslims and find them to be just like you and me or joe blogs down the street. as you say, they just want to live their lives in peace and quiet. like any religion you will always get extremists. but the majority are simple folks who are kind, giving, welcoming and have a great sense of humour.
there must be SOMETHING we can do to stop these nutcases from plunging us into a war that i fear will be the war to end all wars..........
What is truly ominous is that the strike on Iran seems to have become a pan-Western project . What with the French and the rest of the EU swarming on board - 'Jingle Bells 'and all...
To their credit, the last time around ,Chirac and Schroeder had the guts and the gumption to dig their heels in . Even an enfeebled and dying JPII weighed in against the war- albeit in his frail ,quavering voice .
This time around what chance do we have . There is "Monseiur Poodle' whelping frantically -begging to be let into "le Drugstore' -his dreams of "la gloire' long forgotten .
Snapping at his heels ,you have that neo-Nazi 'hausfrau' and that 'hitler jugend' in the Vatican ( who will no doubt be blessing the troops as they fly off to the Crusades ).
With all these yelps for Uncle Sam's fond indulgence , can the Brits be far behind. The last thing they'd want is for the lollipops of that 'special relationship' to be snatched from their hands. ( And passed on to 'the frogs ' and 'the huns' - to give these two their most endearing nicknames.)
Inveigling ( or bludgeoning ) the Brits back on board would be crucial to pulling off the entire venture. Their consummate subtlety and sleight-of-hand - coupled with their innate deviousness and perfidy ( honed by centuries of "Empire') - should make the imminent genocide seem like a walk through 'Elysian fields ' .. listening to the larks trill.
MaxheMust
Could very well be about world domination. Many Economist beleive the true reason is dollar hegemony. Currently all oil is traded in petro dollars around the world. Iraq being totally fed up with American foreign policy, wanted to start trading it's oil in Euros. This would have cut all ties and manipulations by the West. America couldn't have this . Hence the hasty pace to go to war. Iran is currently contemplating the same brave conversion of trading currency. This is why the drums are beating so wildly as we speak. It's more about loss of American influence and control through change of trade currency that's driving this. Oil is one thing, but hegemony is truly the main driving force. America feels if one country converts it's currency it will cause a chain reaction because the dollar is becoming so weak. This ripple effect could cause a world wide restructuring of oil trading currency and send the dollar into a tailspin. I feel that this dollar conversion is inevitable, and this administation is trying to stave it off by gaining military control of the region. Install puppet dictators, and stay in charge of the economic trading currency.
Where do you think Cheney has been?
He starts a spankin' new war, dear, its an emergency, a disaster. With a fearful rubber stamp from the Dems Dicko removes remaining rights of the peons complaining about the f#*!ing mess he's made.
Ta-Da. The new master of the Universe.
Bad movie. I say cancel it before it premiers.
metamorph wrote:
"Again this is about oil not WMD’s..."
I agree with that, but also seems to be about an absolutely insane thirst for global domination at any cost.
-------------------------
PNAC is a Synonym for "horror"
Dennis Kucinich can turn it all around. The establishment loons are afraid of him because his eyes are open.
libertas fugit
You don't seem to run out of interesting things to post.
You left out one thing about the Iranians: they like America/Americans. Not our government, of course. (But, then, who does?)
They'll eventually rid themselves of the extremists in their government - (and we should spend our time doing likewise here). Shouldn't we be considering how to build on those basic positive feelings, rather than trying to antoagonize them?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0119/p09s02-coop.html?s=hns
(Just in case I goofed up on the link, the article is entitled "Iranians' love affair with America," and is dated 19 January 2007)
This will only happen if the military carry out the orders of madmen, to initiate a bombardment of a sovereign state that clearly represents NO threat to the US.
They should ALL remember two things.
1) They are sworn to protect their country and constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC..
2) Just Following Orders is NO defence against multiple charges of "War Crimes" and "Crimes against Humanity"
For "ascott September 18th"
Yeah, I have quite a few Iranian friends. Wonderful people and very distressed about what is going on. Most countries' people seem to be able to draw a line between us and our government, but it must be getting harder as we allow this madness to go on. I think that people in other totalitarian states would be more understanding than those in free countries, as they see the situation from their own frame of reference. They would know how hard it is to get rid of entrenched dictators. I hope we can get rid of ours before this insanity gets completely out of hand.
Everywhere I have traveled, I have found that the people, the man and woman in the street, are invariably warm and caring. even when there is international tension and the usual governmental bullbleep, they just set it to one side and carry on with their lives. When they meet a stranger, they usually give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he acts like an arrogant asshole, in which case he might get what he is asking for.
The Golden Rule has worked for many thousands of years, in many nations and cultures. "Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you." Brotherly love, empathy and compassion are the answers. With those, the world is a much better place. We must cultivate those virtues and live by them. (Sorry, didn't mean to get preachy)
Does the average American understand or even care how many people round the world now look upon the USA..Earlier I read an article on Al Jazeera ,accepted from a countryman (NZer) of mine ..I then found at least 12 comments made under a whole variety of names like Unknown from Macau ,Unknown from Afghanistan etc yet they all came from one IP address based in Little Rock Arkansas...Surely this person is not an Average America, too ashamed to put his vile comments in the public arena without trying to disguise where he comes from ..apparantly he considers everybody should agree with his point of view...Unfortunately this has become common practice on Al Jazeera particularly from computer IP's in the USA and Israel.
However
I can get Foxnews daily for about an hour in the early hours here and I cringe with the anti Iran pro war rhetoric that is blatantly being transmitted round the world.
After being picked up by the smaller local networks its being used in their world news so peoples minds are being infiltrated with blatant pro-war propaganda ...this is pre Iraq all over again .Cannot the Bush Administration see that any attack on Iran will lead to a massive world conflict and ultimately the distruction of the USA no matter how powerful it thinks it is..
This insanity must be stopped before it is too late join me at www.peacesource.net to unite the peacemovement.
Iran is being threatened and this will only push it onto nuclear weapons. The demonisation of Iran has been proceeding for a long time. The run up to this war is the same as Iraq, surely the world is not going to be sucked in this time despite what Bush's French poodle says. Cheyney and Bush certainly got over the Vietnam Syndrome in big way -overturning the lessons of history they were taught in the Vietnam war. This is postmodernism at its worse-i.e. history is what we say it is.
An attack on Iran will be an act of lunacy which will bring regular terror to the US and its allies and the world to the brink of WW3 and Bush is thinking of how much he will earn in speakers fees-his exit strategy from Armageddon.
When God told George; 'Attack Iraq, attack Iran". He actually said ws 'Attack Iraq? Attack Iran?' incredulously. George didn't get the nuance.
The US and Russia and nuclear armed states are in breach of the NPT and resuming the progress on international arms control and the banning of WMD by all Nationsis the only way to go.
'Carry on, MacBeth!' THIS karma has been coming for a long, LONG time!
India's nukes are always referred to a "deterrent". Iran's potential nukes are always referred to as a "bomb" or "weapon".
Iran's nukes would be a useful deterrent against U.S. aircraft carriers. They would tip the balance of power in the Persian Gulf.
The U.S. would still win an all-out shooting war with Iran, but their nukes could make it very expensive for us.
That changes the diplomatic balance of power... which is the real game. Iran wouldn't dare use a nuclear weapon to attack Israel. Retaliation would be swift and total.
But a nuke would give Iran some clout. Tel Aviv would have to listen to Iran concerning justice for Israel's Palestinian subjects. The Saudis and Kuwaitis would have to listen to Tehran as well as to Washington concerning oil production. Washington would have to listen to Tehran concerning the fate of Iraq.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over Iran's nuclear program.
Get a big bus. Pile in the denizens
of conservative think tanks. Then go
to the offices of hawks on the Bush and
Cheney staffs. Be joined at the airport
by those ground forces from Iraq most ready
to kill Iran for weapons used against them. Take everybody to the same looney bin. Reading list: "The Red Badge of Courage" by Stephen Crane, "All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque,
"Dying, We Live," by Julian Kulski, anything by Ambrose Bierce.
I have written on this subject so many times. Those that need it don't listen, they don't read, they just follow their own fantasy. As to a war with Iran, here is a link that pretty well analyzes it.
Remember, attacking a nuclear installation such as a power plant can lead to a result something like Chernobyl or worse. Knock out their controls and coolant system and you could get a total meltdown, which could poison many times what was destroyed in Russia at Chernobyl, uninhabitable for 3-600 years.
If you have time, please read this link and the links within it. Pass it on.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=OSB20060...
That discusses the impending tragedy of an attack on Iran, whether nuclear or non-nuclear. At one time, the United States was pledged never to use nuclear weapons unless actually threatened by a nuclear power, and restricted to that power. Now, the order for battle allows the use of nuclear weapons if they are considered by the commander in the field to be the most efficient way to accomplish the task.
As to whether the people of Iran want a regime change, that is up to them to accomplish in whatever manner they wish. It is not our job to destroy their country and slaughter their people "for their own good." That is like destroying villages in Vietnam to save them from communism.
Please remember, o' movers and shakers of United States policy, there are hundreds of nations around the world whose population is unhappy with their government and would like change. One of them is very close to home. Are you going to bomb us back to the stone age to retain your obscene power?
Iran is filled with millions of people living their lives, growing and harvesting their crops, going to market, partying with their neighbors, having coffee in the coffee shops and discussing politics. All they want to do is continue doing that.
Those who watched the videos shot in Baghdad before "schlock and awe" will remember that Baghdad looked the same. People going about their daily activities, children playing, just like downtown, Anytown, Planet Earth. You don't see that anymore.
Please, do not subject anyone else on this planet to the horrors that Cheney/Bush call "freedom and Democracy."
We need to heal Iraq and Afghanistan, not destroy the survivors, or any other nation on earth.
NO
MORE
WAR
PEACE!
Bill from Saginaw - Holy shit, I think you nailed. I pray to God you are wrong.
THE WORLD
ON THE
BRINK OF
W A R
H.G.Wells - Things to Come
Deja Vu
starislon
Bush doesn't CARE if Americans have run out of patience with him.
What a sweet prize for the US and Europe if the Iranian power center is knocked out, if chaos reigns in the region, and if oil flows freely to the western nations. Everybody knows that Iran is not a nuclear threat, but is a regional power to be reckoned with. If we bomb them with nukes and DU so that the population is sick, non-functional and short-lived, and we grab their oil and divvy it up on our terms, then we get to be rich in dollars, oil, influence, and prestige. (By we, I mean the elite of this country, and the oil companies.) Is this acceptable to us 'ordinary citizens', that another region of the world is trampled, pommelled, and slaughtered for their resources and land, just like we did to the native Americans?
The Pentagon/White house and US supported Israel are the two major outposts for horror in the world today.
They are a menace to all mankind, and MUST BE STOPPED.
“Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded…No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of perpetual warfare.â€
– James Madison, “Political Observationsâ€, 1795
The post-Cold War expansion of the American military empire has been a crucial aspect of their adjustment to new conditions. Then Undersecretary of Defense in the Bush I Administration, Paul Wolfowitz, stated in 1992 that the U.S. must “prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.†These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. In 2001, as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz asserted that this notion of a “Pax Americana†had now become mainstream strategic thought.
The military-industrial complex is today an integral part of the U.S. economy. Corporations, financial speculators and energy conglomerates, as well as arms and defense manufacturers profit from war and a militarized economy. Today 51 per cent of all discretionary funds in the current budget are allocated to the military, over one trillion dollars annually. Included is the $16.4 billion annual bill to maintain the 9960 nuclear weapons that remain in the U.S. arsenal, and a current $41 billion for Homeland Security. That is expected to increase with the militarization of the U.S. Mexican border. Plans are still in the works to “militarize the heavens†at an estimated cost of $1.2 trillion. “Whoever has the ability to control space will likewise possess the capability to exert control of the surface of the Earth,†says Air Force Chief of Staff General Thomas D. White.
"War: what is it good for"? Profit and world domination.
Tourism to Terrorism
If USA attacks Iran then the rest of the world will be saying goodbye to USA tourism and hello to USA terrorism.
About the NAZI thing mentioned, the USA is equated to the NAZIs because of the shared spirit of war for booty, probably acquired by way of prescott bush and his gang.
If Iran had a nuke what would they do with it? They would use it against anyone who attacks them. The only possible attacker will be either USA or their ME proxy, if the USA were to come back into the fold of peace loving nations then Iran would not build a bomb.
Therefore the nuke issue is a red herring.
lilllulu first you say: "The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is at least half Jewish. That explains his desire to bomb Iran. He’s Bush’s lapdog now that Tony Blair is gone.â€
Now you say: "Jim, I don’t hate Jews. I hate what they do to people based on fear. I find the killing of innocent people to be wrong. Killing Palestinian children who have backpacks (books in them, not bombs) and are on their way to school is a terrible criminal act."
Well lillulu,
Bush ordered this war full of killings of innocent people of all ages and other terrible criminal acts and he is not a Jew...in fact in war, there are many people of all nations and races and religions that have done terrible criminal acts but you don't blame the race, nationality or religion for those crimes...unless you are looking for scapegoats.
If Bush bombs Iran, you and your friends sound like you are ready to blame the Jews who own the NY-Times and forget about the man who would order the bombing.
Is the NY times calling for the bombing of Iran?...that would be a big story.
Bush is not gonna bomb Iran anyway and in the meantime you are gonna blame the Jews for everything because you are looking for a scapegoat and seem to want to spread more fear.
I hope you will just read what you write because as you stand now you are not helping to end or resist war. I hope you can change that some day soon.
Jim
I am all for a war with Iran
As long as it is fought by Christianists, neocons and their offspring.
Strap a bomb on their butts and ship them all over. Our country would be well rid of them all
I am all for a war with Iran
As long as it is fought by Christianists, neocons and their offspring.
Strap a bomb on their butts and ship them all over. Our country would well be rid of them all
Bill from Saginaw,
Sounds quite plausible the way you have laid it out. The only thing I don't like about your analysis is its tone of inevitability.
We have to find some way to break out of this Kafka-esque posture of resignation as the nightmares unfold.
The best idea I have seen is the National Initiative for Democracy, which I intend to support with time and coin.
The Cheney administration isn't getting enough action from their outrageous actions in Iraq. What does it take to get some terrorists to attack America?
Well, maybe if we bombed Iran...
How else can this administration declare a state of emergency and 'postpone' the 2008 elections?
Democrats are supporting a war against Iran by distorting Iran nuclear data in a Congressional Report released by Rush Holt of NJ. According to ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, the report claimed Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade level when the IAEA had only found small quantities of enrichment at far lower levels. Holt's DC office number is (202)225-5801. Call and ask why the Democrats are helping Bush and Cheney start a war with Iran!
+Sounds like August 1914 (B.Tuchman) to me.
The dogs of war are loose again. (lord grey).
War with Iran could bring in Russia and China and even Pakistan.
Prepare for a big "Surge". (GW Bush).
It sounds like every actor is thrusting forward without consequence of the big picture.
So be it. The cockroaches may survive.
see you all in 100 million years or so.
(When Bernard a doctor invokes war you know it is serious.)
What happens if Iran gets a nuclear bomb?
No one can invade Iran because of its nuclear deterrent.
What happens to the price of oil if Iran retains its present government and has a nuclear deterrent?
People will buy oil from Iran at the going market rate. And it is quite likely that the market rate may stay lower because Iran will be able to compete its oil against that of other energy producers in a scenario which looks like it will actually be more liberal and less monopolized. Americans will get cheaper gas.
What will the danger of a nuclear armed Iran be to the the ME and to US oil supplies?
None, because it will increase Saudi Arabia's dependence on American military protection, since they are Sunni and Iran is Shiite.
What will happen to Iraq?
Nothing. It will stabilize and continue to sell oil on the international market. Probably it will be partitioned three ways, after the genocide of the civil war diminishes the population. Americans intend obviously to keep military bases installed in the desert close to major oil installations, and Iraq will never have the manpower to get them out, especially if Iraq ceases to exist and replaces by three new countries with three new names.
What will Iraq do if it gets a nuclear bomb under the present government?
It will continue to sell oil to the highest bidders and grow its economy. It's people will become wealthier, and increasedly educated (they already have a high standard of education, probably challenging the standards in the US).
They will move increasingly towards greater representational democracy, retaining their cultural identity and predominantly muslim religious affiliations.
People will become less dominated by religious and political concerns while increasing interests in other areas of social and economic development, just as happens everywhere else on the globe.
Will Iran sponsor terrorism, or engage in a nuclear war?
No. Of course not. Iran is basically an extremely wealthy country. It has no need to conquer another country in order to get its oil or resources. It especially would not invite a conflict in which it could loose all or some of its wealth. Egypt did that with Israel.
Clearly, Iran, a wealthy country has everything to lose and nothing to gain by war.
The American and European consumer can only gain by allowing Iran to develop normally, and by cultivating basically positive relations with its people, who are no different than ourselves.
With Tony the lapdog gone, it is not surprising that Sarkozy, another “chosen people!†like the rest of Israelis, is acting as Bush’s French poodle. Now the axis of warmongers has changed to Washington/Tel Aviv/Paris, with Brown and that Nazi woman as well as AIPAC in the background.
The US is going to try to get away with acting like a junkie without his dope---no cheap energy/consumer goods, heap big war "to straighten things out." This is the NeoCon-Psychopaths' "window of opportunity" to see that no nuclear rival arises to spoil the party and defend "our" oil from us....They'd rather die than change, and they're going to get their wish. I grieve that so many people will suffer for and with them. Is this the only way we can learn?
Correctivelens, libertas fugit, mirf59, and other Commondreamers, et al:
They say that in real estate, location is everything. And in warfare, as the clock runs out on the Bush regime, you better believe that timing is everything.
Fox News' James Rosen wrote on 9/12/07 that according to well-placed beltway Bushie sources, "everybody in town [ie., DC] is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to ten months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections." The same article concluded "Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs....."
Okay. After the primaries, but before the 2008 election. Hmmm.... Why that time frame?
Oh yes! It's not about oil. Or Israel. Or Armageddon. Or Little George's ego. Or spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Or making Iraq a playground for rampant capitalism in the great global market. Or killing jihadis over there, so we don't have to kill them in the back alleys of Philadelphia and Peoria.
It's about power. It's about perpetuating domestic political power for right wing militarism within the American two-party system. That's why the script and the hype and the timing is so similar to what it was in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2002, as Mr. ElBaradie points out.
Say Bush starts the shock and awe bombing campaign in response to some sort of border skirmish with Iran, or some Persian Gulf naval provocation, real or imaginary.
Then US troops capture caches of Iranian-manufactured weaponry destined for smuggling into Iraq to help the insurgency and al Qaeda kill Americans, weapons that perhaps even include some missing WMD. The grinning photo ops are right out of Norman Rockwell. The psy-ops fanfare is spectacular.
Captured El Quds and Al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists of course confess that a great Tet-like offensive was in the works, a nefarious plot nipped in the bud by the brilliant coordinated efforts of US military and intelligence professionals. General Petraeus assures President Bush this isn't just light at the end of some tunnel, but it's real, actual victory, right here on the horizon, right within our grasp.
Bush, in turn, relays Petraeus's tidings of great joy to a thankful nation from the Oval office, magnanimously (and some say even humbly) calling out for bipartisan unity and reconciliation in the historic days that lie immediately ahead. He does not even smirk.
And so the whole executive branch of government, the GOP, Fox News, Rush, Hannity, the Wall Street Journal, and the mainstream media pundits and anchors turn en masse, like a great masked Greek chorus, to the Democratic Party Presidential nominee. They chant in unison: will you stand with us, in a glorious push for peace and final victory at last, or will you instead withdraw - as the noisy pacifist wing of your party wants - stabbing our brave troops in the back just at their moment of triumph, just when we've got the evil doers on the run?
The choice is yours. See you at the polls in a couple of weeks.
Drop enough bombs, drop them smartly enough, and hopefully the major blowback can be delayed until after the electronic tally counting has been completed.
If George Bush geographically escalates the air war and ground incursions into Iran after the primaries but while the 2008 campaigns are underway, what do you think the Democratic Party's nominee is going to do?
Absolutely for sure, the GOP will be united.
And equally for sure, this will be a bloody wedge issue indeed.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill from Saginaw
mirf59
I agree wholeheartedly. America has no legal, moral, or authoritative right to attack Iran, didn't have any right to attack Iraq either.
moonraven is also correct -- it's a bad move strategically. If Iraq has been a hornet's nest Bush stuck his hand in, Iran's more likely to be a lion's den.
Ecosutra you say we should attack Iran to free them? Lets kill them in order to save them? Are you insane? This is what we've done to Iraq and in the process we've destroyed thier country. This is about raw imperialism and US-Israeli hegemony in the region. Roman Emperors spoke of democratizing the heathens and freeing the barbarians. Nothing has changes in 2000 years.
YOU have no right to attack anyone.
AND it IS a bad move strategically. I do consulting work for universities in the Gulf region and I know of which I speak.
The reason not to attack Iran is not that it is a bad move strategically. The reason not to do it is that we quite simply have no right to do it. Iran does not belong to the US. The US has no right to attack Iran. To do so would be another illegal war of aggression. Initiating a war of aggression has been defined at Nuremberg to be THE supreme crime against humanity. The US was a main player in drafting that principle.
Let's not talk about it being a bad idea tactically or strategically. That implies that it could be a good idea if the strategy and tactics were sound. Not so. It would be a supreme crime against humanity by our own definition as drafted after WWII.
Unless, of course, laws apply only to the weak and the vanquished. If "might makes right" is the only moral principle that has any weight at all, then let's talk about strategy and tactics.
Sir Melvin Cleophus said
"If I was a USA citizen, I would stop being ego-centric and to stop expressing delusions of grandeur."
There are few US citizens on Common Dreams expressing delusions of grandeur Sir M.C. I'm not an American citizen ...yet. I hope to be one before Nov. 2008.
I'd like to say here that one of the reasons I'm continuing with my quest for citizenship is because of the people here, who give me hope that the USA can and will be different - because of folks like these.
So how can we get the message to Bush that Americans have run out of patience with Bush?
I have a deep feeling that the Neo Con and Neo Liberal and Neo Fascist Plan has already failed and the weirdos who planned it already see the writing on the walls.
We have been down so long, it looks like up to me.
Bush is not as crazy as he acts and his crazy cowboy act is all he has left...he is afraid of horses and the military knows he is a phony.
Bush's don't impeach me card is not so much Cheney as it is...."If I get mad and frustrated enough I will push the button".
When our revolutionary fathers wrote Impeachment as the final remedy, there was no nuclear button to push.
We the people will never give up...and they are beginning to realize it.
There is still plenty reason for hope...Keep it alive...don't be afraid...that is how they keep us down!
ForUs,
Jim
PS Lieberman?
Damn, I forgot about him... I stand corrected
Jim Glover said:
â€I am half Jewish too but I do not want to bomb Iran or anybody and I don’t know any Jews here in the US who does…â€
Don’t kid yourself, bro. You mean you haven’t heard of Joe Lieberman?
Again this is about oil not WMD's.
They want to bomb the area around Basra were the silk worm missles are poised to bomb ships leaving the Persian Gulf with oil.
Again- no plan about what to do in the future: Iran has 900,00- boots on the ground and 8 year war with Iraq had a problem: Once inflammed, the SShiite Iranians will not stop fighting. All Shiite sympathizers in the Middle East will get into the fight.
There is no plan after they bomb!
We all know that the WMD's are NOT a threat for many years and anyway- israel has 100 WMD's and why should not all the others in the Middle East armor up.
Everybody needs to armor down including Israel and the US.
France, Germany, Engalnd, and the US think we should stop Iran. The wealthiest Persians live in Brentwood Califronia, the ones I talked to want to see Iran free from the regime. What ever the extreme is going to do to stop the extreme, Its clear that Iran is not an Iraq. We can not even stake claim to Iran oil once we occupy it. Like we are doing in Iraq. This really is about freedom of a people, even if the people do noit want us to intervene out of fear. We all agree that the majority of iranians want to see their regime toppled, right? As do we in Bush. But this time I think it really is about a dangerous threat of nukes. Unlike the Iraq lie. So pull your left wings back on this one. Russia and China are the benefactors to Iranian oil. We will not be getting anything out of Iran. So to attack Iran would be an honorable mission without exploitation. I think all that Bush will do are air strikes. No ground troops. And then we can try to bring in the leaders of Irans intellectual society that teach at our universities and live here. We all know they exist. How about empowering them? I do not understand the reasons why you think Iran should be able to have nukes? Are you willing to let Iran have nukes out of fear? To me this is the one issue that proves to me that the neo cons may have a point in that the liberal extreme are cowards.
Iran is Bush's Stalingrad
It's about the oil and US global domination. WMD is a convenient smokescreen that likely will 'dupe' Congress and many others, as it did and still does regarding Iraq.
the discussion about nukes is a sensationalized distraction. neither iran's nukes nor saddam's mia wmds make/made sense as sole rational for war. protecting the dollar and the empire does.
saddam started asking for euros for oil in 2000. iran is beginning to trade oil in currencies other than the dollar. the iranian oil bourse (which will not trade in dollars) has been in the works for a couple years now but hasn't yet gone online.
it doesn't seem like any of the presidential front runners will quit financing the american empire and redirect from 'defense' to fixing our own internal issues. instead they'll continue advancing corporatism and spend over half of every tax dollar on 'defense' and petrodollar warfare to prop up the dollar while the u.s. rots from within.
lillulu, maelstrom -
I agree with Jim Glover, antisemitism has no place on this forum or any other. This Nazi thinking keeps popping up here and I think (and hope) a lot of us are sick of it.
These ROGUE COUNTRIES were wrong about Iraq, when they invaded the latter on the pretext that it had WMD, even though Hans Blix told contrary to their "intelligence". The same pattern is again unfolding with regards to Iran.
It is incomprehensible that the people in these countries have become mere spectators to the genocidal activities of their leaders and governments, except for mere rhetoric. Why isn't there continuous mass outrage expressed on the streets of the US and the Western countries? Why aren't students coming out of their schools/colleges in protest against the criminal activities of their governments? Unless this happens the terrorist activities of the US, Britain, and the other western nations will continue for the sake of blood-oil.
"Out of control" my ass. The US can be stopped by the intenational community very simply. They can threaten to drop the dollar and convert all trade to Euros. China has the power to stop us as does the EU. The UN can and should condemn our aggression outright and declare us a criminal regime. We must do everything we can up to and including a national strike to shut the economy down and stop this juggernaut in its tracks -- at this point, the economy is teetering on the edge and it wouldn't take much to push it over.
I recall the time when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran as a favor for the United States of America. The Iranians defended their nation by sending in their own children as suicide fighters, along with their regular military forces of course. My point is that if Iran armed their children in defense against an invasion before, what makes someone think that Iran will not do this for the USA should the USA invade Iran?
If I was a USA citizen, I would stop being ego-centric and to stop expressing delusions of grandeur. Americans need to accept the fact that Iran, at minimum, will have nuclear energy sooner or later. It is not up to the USA to decide who has the right to nuclear energy and who does not. USA has enough problems. Start fixing your own problems, stop worrying about problems of other nations. Indeed, I am almost certain that most nations would prefer you mind your own business Americans! My sympathy for the inherent inability of Americans to accept the harsh truth that Americans cause more harm than good in the world. If not warfare, then by pollution, crime, international trade policies that ON PURPOSE does not benefit countries in the Third World - thank you very much USA, et cetera, et cetera.
As the US rapidly spirals down closer to becoming a third world country, only more wars can keep the stock market from crashing.
libertas fugit
Yes, Excellent letter.
Thanks for a voice of sanity
THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Jim, I don't hate Jews. I hate what they do to people based on fear. I find the killing of innocent people to be wrong. Killing Palestinian children who have backpacks (books in them, not bombs) and are on their way to school is a terrible criminal act.
corrective lens
The Bush administration thinks all it will need are air attacks and shelling from those offshore ships, no troops for an invasion.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Iraq could be overrun by a huge number of Iranian ground forces going after American troops if Bush attacks Iran, and quite likely most Iraqis would join them.
This is Cheney's and Bush's great Swan Song. Anything is possible. Rationality is at the service of ego 100%.
I think this is a no-lose situation for Progressives. If Cheney and Bush go through with it, it should really help strengthen the case for a radical re-thinking of how our nation is governed.
If they don't do it, well, that's one less mess to deal with in the short term.
Of course, the blow is to US credibility, to innocent Iranians, and to the world economy if the last spasm of neo-cons goes all the way.
We already have Cheney socializing his mantra, "I don't worry about the polls" whenever the public is mentioned. So, we already have Cheney showing overt contempt for our system of government, which is a democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.
A war with Iran right now would be too ridiculous even for this administration to start. The U.S. is just saber rattling. We just won't have the troops necessary to "win" the war without instituting a draft, and I can't imagine the Republicans would take that political risk.
Just curious how the major U. S. papers, the Times and the Post are going to play this.
Being owned and controlled by Jews are they going to subtly advocate for the war and do Israel's bidding, or will they actually represent the interests of the U.S.?
libertas fugit
Excellent letter.
KATHYODAT posted this quote a few days ago and I would like to re-post it, as it is so approprate for today. ___ Thank you Kathy.
"I see in the near future a crisis approachng that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of CORRUPTION IN HIGH PLACES will follow. The money powers of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign, by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregrated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed".
~~~Abraham Lincoln~~~ 1865
I'