Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Call to 'Resist and Deter' Nuclear Iran Gains Key Support
WASHINGTON - A new report on how the United States should "resist and deter" Iran's alleged ambitions to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability by a think tank closely tied to the so-called "Israel Lobby" has been endorsed by two key officials who are expected to exercise major influence on Iran policy in the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.
The 10-page report, which was released here Wednesday by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argues that the United States should engage with Iran diplomatically but at the same time ratchet up pressure on many other fronts if it fails to heed demands to suspend and eventually abandon its uranium enrichment program.
Among the carrots Washington should be prepared to offer Tehran for that goal are co-operation on "shared problems, such as piracy and smuggling in the Persian Gulf," and "participation in a regional security dialogue," according to the report.
At the same time, however, the report stressed that failure to stop Iran's nuclear progress may well result in a decision by Israel to carry out a military attack within the next two years. Such a decision, it warned, could be hastened if Russia goes through with the sale and delivery of sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile systems which "are seen by Israel as seriously limiting its military options."
"Whatever Americans may think, Israeli leaders seem convinced that at least for now, they have a military option," the report asserts, adding that if Tehran deploys such systems, Washington "should promptly provide Israel with the capabilities to continue to threaten high-value Iranian targets - for instance, with more modern aircraft."
"Time is short if diplomatic engagement is to have a chance of success," it asserts.
The new report, which comes amid a major administration review of U.S. policy toward Iran, is likely to be very closely read in European and Middle Eastern capitals due to its endorsement by Dennis Ross, who serves as Special Adviser on the Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Robert Einhorn, the senior State Department official on non-proliferation matters.
While both men resigned from the 17-member task force that helped draft the report after they were asked to join Obama's presidential transition team, WINEP stressed that they had formally endorsed an early draft which was not substantially different from the final product.
Other members of the task force, which was convened by WINEP's director, Robert Satloff, and its deputy director of research, Patrick Clawson, included a number of prominent neo-conservatives, such as Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and some who served in senior posts under President George W. Bush, including former under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Robert Joseph; his immediate subordinate, Stephen Rademaker; and the former chairman of the Defense Science Board, William Schneider.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, a liberal Democrat who heads the House Subcommittee in the Middle East and South Asia, and Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a member of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees who has been a reliable supporter of the "Israel Lobby", also signed on to the report.
Ross's endorsement, however, is particularly notable. While the State Department has been vague about what his precise responsibilities will be, it is understood that he is responsible for developing a diplomatic strategy for dealing with Iran, particularly in how to marshal regional and international pressure on Tehran in support of Washington's positions.
Ross is expected to co-ordinate with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, and Puneet Talwar, who has the Iran portfolio on the National Security Council. Both Burns and Talwar are considered less hawkish on Iran than Ross, former President Bill Clinton's top Middle East negotiator who himself has held senior positions in WINEP and who last September signed on to another report by the Bipartisan Policy Centre drafted by hard-line neo-conservatives.
Among other things, that report called for Washington to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and conventional military infrastructure if Tehran did not accede to demands that it abandon its nuclear program.
WINEP, which was founded some 25 years ago as a spin-off of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is one of Washington's most influential think tanks on Middle East policy, although, like AIPAC itself, its views and perspectives rarely deviate far from those of the Israeli government or national-security establishment.
Indeed, the major message of the latest report is that Iran's acquisition of a military nuclear capability, the prevention of which is characterized as a "vital national priority" for the U.S., would set off a "cascade of destabilizing reactions by other states," which, it argues, would seek to emulate Tehran's achievement, thus weakening the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and increasing the risks of "...a nuclear confrontation, with horrible consequences."
Yet the report omits any mention of the universally accepted view - accidentally confirmed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a December 2006 interview - that Israel already has nuclear weapons which may have had destabilizing consequences of their own.
The report, which coincided with Secretary of State Clinton's first Middle East trip during which she reportedly expressed skepticism about the likelihood that diplomatic engagement with Iran would succeed but also invited Tehran to a conference on Afghanistan at the end of this month, offers a number of hints for how Ross hopes to carry out his diplomatic strategy.
It stresses that any offer on the nuclear issue should come from the Permanent Five Security Council members plus Germany - the group that has negotiated with Iran over its nuclear program to date - "not from the United States alone." "Arab countries, Turkey, and Israel" must also be involved so as to assure a unified voice.
It also emphasizes that any deal should not permit Tehran to enrich uranium on Iranian territory, arguing that such a precedent would itself contribute to proliferation. Moreover, "the international community ...should not foster debate among its members about what a compromise (on enrichment) acceptable to Iran might be." The report calls for a policy of "resist and deter" rather than "acquiesce and deter."
Instead, Washington should "respond to Iranian worries about ensuring access to fuel for its civilian nuclear power plant" by following through on its "announced intention to bring to fruition the international nuclear fuel bank (and) ...on the U.S. commitment to negotiate a fissile material cutoff treaty."
While it does not raise the possibility of gaining Russian support for U.S. efforts by offering to cancel Washington's deployment of missile-defense systems to Poland and the Czech Republic - a deal that was reportedly alluded to in a letter from Obama to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev last month - it suggests that China could be brought along through pressure from "the Gulf states - especially Saudi Arabia" due to Beijing's dependence on their "export markets and energy supplies."
The U.S. should also consider offering a "nuclear guarantee (or 'umbrella')" to its allies in the region as part of a deterrence strategy and should, in any case, build up their defensive capabilities if Iran persists in its nuclear programme. In such a case, the report also calls for a rapid build-up in economic sanctions, including efforts to discourage countries and companies from building oil refineries in Iran or exporting refined petroleum products to the country.
*Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/
- Posted in



38 Comments so far
Show AllThis is truly welcome news for anyone who rejoices in seeing more lead added to the pencil of Obama's nascent War Boner. Look out below!
Lately we've only been hearing the BAD things about lead!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Things have only changed slightly. We're still negotiating with a "stacked deck" which is not in good faith. The Iranian government, under threat of attack by our puppet Israel, must do as we demand. This is not "negotiating". Another sham by our "Free World" government. Obama needs new thinking.
same ol same oil
Israel again with its agent lobbyists threatening to take the world down in a bigger possibly nuclear war if Iran gets the capability to have what Israel illegally already has.
What non proliferation regime gave israel the right to have the Bomb?
Iran does not even want the bomb because it would make them a target if anthing nuclear not under their control happened, which could be anything like Israel setting one off to make it look like Iran was behind it.
If 9/11 was good for Israel as the Zionists said, i would not trust them to not start a nuclear incident as an excuse to bomb running nuke plants which would spread radiation all over the Mid East and if it hits Russia look out.
The criminals are threatening a wider global War again and it looks like Obama might fall for the blackmail.
I don't know if Obama is strong enough to resist the knee jerk US military response which would be to enter and risk nuclear war just to not resist the Israeli threats.
At least Bush told Israel it would not get US support for bombing Iran... now it is up to Obama to be at least as wise as Bush.
God, I can't believe I said it but its true.
concerning 9/11===the dancing israelis were there.
That's representative government. It's much easier and safer to take bribes from the Israel Lobby than to confront them. The antidote is direct democracy. http://www.ni4d.us/
another example of the rabid zionist tail that wagged the dog.
i forget which jack t. ripper neocon psycho said "everyone [sic] wants to go to baghdad; real men want to go to teheran". there's no evidence whatsoever that iran is developing nuclear weapons, none, but we have to deal w/this crap every single day (obvs. this report is quite skeptical about all the neocon sabre rattling.)
if electing obama made one damn bit of difference about anything of importance (sorry frozen stem cells, you are now toast), the 1st day in office, obama would have abjured any and all bush admin threats against iran. but no, we get hillary "obliterate iran" clinton and the vile dennis ross.
the u.s. is totally insane.
obama did not bring his regime===his regime brought him.
>>Members of its Board of Advisors include Warren Christopher, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Max Kampelman, Samuel W. Lewis, Edward Luttwak, Michael Mandelbaum, Robert McFarlane, Martin Peretz, Richard Perle, James Roche, Cheryl Halpern, George P. Shultz, R. James Woolsey, and Mortimer Zuckerman.[3]
Come on, this is just another PNAC with the some of the same people who helped develop "The Clean Break Strategy" on behalf of the Israeli Government.
Why is the support for action against Iran by what is obviously a pro-israeli think tank, referred to as key?
This is like stating "The nazi Party gives support to Adolf Hitlers invasion of Poland"
exactly, these are ziocons and neocons.
"Ziocons"? Haven't heard it before. Did you coin it? If so, well done!
In any case, I'm stealing it. ;)
PS: There is a regular commenter at Glenn Greenwald's Salon.com site who coined the term "ziocaine" to describe the irrational self-righteous ultra-rush of rabid Zionists; he employs it to great effect.
· Yr Obd't Servant
please be my guest, the only thing they fear is exposure for what they truly are. well i guess i did coin it, have been using it for some time, i just can not decide which i despise more. ziocons or neocons. they are actually one in the same, now we will have neolibs, and ziolibs running this regime.
please be my guest, the only thing they fear is exposure for what they truly are. well i guess i did coin it, have been using it for some time, i just can not decide which i despise more. ziocons or neocons. they are actually one in the same, now we will have neolibs, and ziolibs running this regime.
ziocons. good one.
RUSH; how about ziolibs; zionists ziocons ziolibs they are all one in the same.
America is presently in breach of its own laws as far as I understand by supplying military aid to Israel, a state using American weapons in war crimes, breaching the Rules of War, and a country continually contravening the Geneva Conventions not to mention numerous UN resolutions, concerning their illegal occupation of territories seized in war.
The Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 80-829) stipulates that countries purchasing or receiving U.S. weapons cannot use them against civilians and must restrict their usage to “internal security” and “legitimate self-defence.”
Under the 1976 Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill of 1961, the United States is forbidden to give ANY financial aid to nations developing nuclear technology outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has never signed the NNPT.
Perhaps the US should first abide by its own laws. Then Abide by its commitments under the NNPT, then before dictating terms to Iran based on fictitious assumptions which contradict not only their own security assessments but the IAEA inspectors who are verifying Iran's compliance with all regulations, then perhaps the US and Europe will listen to what Iran has themselves called for... A NUCLEAR FREE MIDDLE EAST.
In other words the only part of the article above which touches on reality in terms of threat and aggression as far as I can see is "Yet the report omits any mention of the universally accepted view - accidentally confirmed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a December 2006 interview - that Israel already has nuclear weapons which may have had destabilizing consequences of their own."
The question surely should be how to use the present situation to disarm Israel, noting their status as a non-signatory of the NNPT, their extremist, racist, and militarist stance, and the instability that they cause, not least by constantly threatening and attacking neighbouring countries.
We don't all have to read from the pages of the Neocon and Zionist handbook of cartoon logic, whether they managed to get Obama and his court to drink that cool aid or not. Quite frankly from a European perspective, listening to Hilary, Alice's Queen of Harts, is as difficult in terms of logic, and her reference to reality, as was the previous Evil Queen of the North, Condi. I can just imagine Hillary muttering under her breath as she leaves the rostrum beaming one of those grimace smiles of hers like a toothpaste commercial of the 50s, "Off with their heads" as she realises that, here we (the average thinking citizens) and the press actually do not see Russia, nor Iran, as a threat to anyone, certainly not compared to the US and Israel. It is obviously difficult for her to work in an environment where the Zionist spin machine has not totally high jacked logic.
Was that "button" for Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Viktorovich Lavrova a real mistake? In Russian they used the wrong translation for “reset” as “peregruzka.” which means over charged. Was it a genuine mistake or referring to the excess baggage that the US is carrying into any discussions with Russia? Quite apt indeed!
israel, especially led by the likudists, will be an ever expanding zionist, terror state. they have brought us nothing but grief. they must be put on a tight leash, for all of humanities sake.
good points about the Law, but i think we violated the 1976 Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill of 1961 w/our agreement to trade civilian nuclear secrets w/india, after its violations of NNPT (this violation occurred under bush, of course.) and as shown by the ever eloquent orator maestro obama's reply when asked about nukes in the middle east ("i don't know. shut up and let's move on."), we don't recognize israel as a nuclear power, so no "violations" there.
more importantly, the u.s. clearly doesn't recognize any treaty obligations. more of a "the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must" (thucydides) type thing w/the u.s. we are lying thru our teeth about this "iran nuclear program" thing, so i don't think treaties are going to stop us (and isn't threatening war a violation of u.n. conventions?)
Yes, I’m afraid might is right (as well as blind and stupid) and I also think the US is in breach of the NNPT by re-packaging nukes into smaller yield "battlefield", bunker-buster configurations, as this represents an expansion of and development of "new" nuclear weapons. Not to mention global treaties banning development of biological and chemical weapons. But hey, as you say, who's counting the US's infringements of international treaties? Frighteningly enough, not even Americans, because those infringements are against your own laws and constitution, and certainly not in the "national interest".
I guess 50 or 60 years from now if anyone is left, they will be asking, where were the "good" Americans? Could they not see what was happening? Why didn't they do anything about it before the madness started? They had the tools. They had the freedom, then. There probably will be not too much freedom, or Americans left after depending on weapnry rather than treaties.
Looking at the composite word game above and thinking of this in terms of the blindness to history's lessons perhaps the right name is "Naziocons"!
"Call to 'Resist and Deter' Nuclear Iran Gains Key Support"
...there should be (well is but ...)a call to "Resist and Deter" nuclear ANYTHING all over the planet!
Today's "good guy" is tomorrows "bad guy"
No human has their act together enough to have OR use nuclear power plants or bombs!
They only work on paper...not in the real functional world!
Israel is increasingly out of control (a rogue state), and we need tocut off all aid to them!
how hypocritical.
and they wouldnt like it if the other shoe went:
"CALL FOR RESISTANCE and DETERRENCE to ISRAEL's AGGRESSIVE ILLEGAL NUCLEAR ARSENAL and MIDDLE EAST HEGEMONIC IDEAS".
The only way to prevent another war breaking out in the Middle East is to arm Iran with nuclear weapon as a deterrent. Without such a deterrent a major war will break out with the invasion of Iran by Israel or US. This will lead inevitably to a confrontation with Russia as she will perceive such a development as an attempt to tighten the noose around her from her southern near-abroad.
Russia must response to such a significant move from the West. Because to them this is but a reinforcement of a southern front as part of that big encirclement which begins with the US missle bases in Poland and Czech. Russia must, by necessity, take out Georgia and Ukraine on her way down to the Persian Gulf.
With Iran taken over by the US after such an invasion the threat to China will be palpable. China can expect the country-dominos in West and Central Asia to fall one after another. China will then have to respond seeing how her western "buffer states" like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Krygyztan, Tajikistan, Ubekistan, etc came under the influence or domination of US and NATO. Just like Russia, China will not see the fall of Iran as an end but as the beginning of further expansion of the West.
As India is already an ally of US, China must see that the only choice for her is to become another "ally" and submit to US domination or to fight to ensure that the Middle East is still safe as a source of her oil and that the Indian Ocean as part of the sea route for her oil supply is not threatened.
Besides, with the dominance of NATO and US in Central Asia how long will China have to wait to see the threat to her western territories of Tibet and Xinjiang become a imminent?
In conclusion the Iran nuclear question is not what it is made out to be by the Western powers. It is a game the outcome of which is world dominance by one superpower alliance of NATO and US or multipolarity. And before such an issue is decided the world will be threatened with nuclear war involving nuclearised powers.
The solution to the so called Iran nuclear threat must start by removing US and NATO military from the Middle East, to stop this great game of power projection and domination in its track. This is the first step to remove the threat to Iran's existence and the rationale for her acquisition of nuclear deterrent, because that is what this confrontation is all about.
Exactly;
You write,"removing US and NATO military from the Middle East, to stop this great game of power projection and domination in its track"
And so, just like when the Russians were there, once again in Afghanistan we have to depend on the Taleban to swing the balance, which they seem to be doing quite succesfully for now, and it should only get better, or worse for the US when Obama's surge of 17,000 touches down, just to get sent back in body bags. But just reading the guff from NATO and listening to the Pentagon babble, asides from loosing a couple of trillion dollars of your money, the whole shower of them are pretty well useless at much else because they can have no rationale as a result of their permanent delusion.
A military force cannot defeat an insurgency. It is fact. And today’s western military US/NATO cannot fight an unpopular war, certainly not European NATO forces, and even Americans get fed up of lies and bullshit sooner or later.
A funny sort of "diplomatic strategy" which solely involves getting the other side to acquiesce to your demands.
It's bad enough we are arming and supporting everything Israel does, no matter how awful. Even the massacre of Gaza was obediently saluted by obama. We can't now allow their "think" tanks to start writing policy for us.
Israel's paranoid preoccupation with Iran needs to be trashed in the circular file with all their other delusions.
Iran is not going to have a niuke for at least 10 years so give it a rest already.
it's true that Iran has said some scary things about Israel. It is also true that Israel has done everything in its power to antagonize Islam, Gaza and the blockade being only the most recent examples. so our message to them should be: if you keep on rattling those sabres we're gonna take them away.
The issue is NOT Iranian nukes- the issue is ISRAELI Nukes!
Israel is a supreme Terrorist nation and MUST be confronted by a Nuclear Iran or there will be nuclear war in the middle east.
The JEWS Must be deterred or they will initiate WW3.
For more information on the Jewish/Israeli nuclear threat see:
http://geocities.com/redsky771/israel.html
i believe israel has upwards of 10,000 nukes- most of them nuetron bombs.
Jonas the Prophet
California USA
http://geocities.com/jedicommandone
---------------------------------------
Building Seven
Tel-Aviv
Tehran
The Gulf of Tonkin
The Gulf of Oman
The USS Liberty
The Revolutionary Guard
Mossad, The Bluffs,
Anti-Ship Missiles
moved
hidden
shadows
Buiilding Seven
Dance
Israel
Dance
The 10-page report, which was released here Wednesday by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argues that the United States should engage with Iran diplomatically but at the same time ratchet up pressure on many other fronts if it fails to heed demands to suspend and eventually abandon its uranium enrichment program.
Among the carrots Washington should be prepared to offer Tehran for that goal are co-operation on "shared problems, such as piracy and smuggling in the Persian Gulf," and "participation in a regional security dialogue," according to the report.
The new report, which comes amid a major administration review of U.S. policy toward Iran, is likely to be very closely read in European and Middle Eastern capitals due to its endorsement by Dennis Ross, who serves as Special Adviser on the Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Robert Einhorn, the senior State Department official on non-proliferation matters.
While both men resigned from the 17-member task force that helped draft the report after they were asked to join Obama's presidential transition team, WINEP stressed that they had formally endorsed an early draft which was not substantially different from the final product.
Other members of the task force, which was convened by WINEP's director, Robert Satloff, and its deputy director of research, Patrick Clawson, ***included a number of prominent neo-conservatives***, such as Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and some who served in senior posts under President George W. Bush, including former under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Robert Joseph; his immediate subordinate, Stephen Rademaker; and the former chairman of the Defense Science Board, William Schneider.
=====
Great, a policy supported by warmongering neocons. Obama's stripes are becoming more and more evident.
Before the US ventures to pressure Iran about its "nuclear gains", whatever they are, the US needs to pressure Israel to divest itself of its nuclear weapons and divest itself of them. Not gonna' happen? Well, why should Iran kowtow to rapacious Israeli or American interests? These two warmongering states have illegally developed nuclear weapons, and remember, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
"Who taught you to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT? Who gave you this idea? WHO TAUGHT YOU these things?"
"I learned it by watching you, guys. I learned it by watching you."
Adding to the problem is the fact that European governments and media are providing little or no counterweight to the Zio-American sabre-rattling, as they did in the run-up to the Iraq war. In France, the main daily Le Monde has been in high fearmongering mode as to Iran in the last couple of months, featuring cartoons of a crazed Ahmadinejad clutching nuclear warheads and articles twisting the findings of the recent UN report on Iran, just like their American counterparts. Even the leftist satirical paper Le Canard Enchainé has joined in with the booga-booga brigades. I am alarmed but not surprised, as it seems that people in general crossed some threshold of indifference long ago. It's as if we have to hope for a total economic collapse to shake them from their doldrums before they will take any action, since questions of right and wrong, peace and war, justice and tyranny seem to mean nothing to them.
American's need to fire all the Zionists supporters, from the White House to both Houses of Congress. Israel is the cancer, that if not stopped will destroy the world.
"The Doctor March 8th, 2009 9:31 am
American's need to fire all the Zionists supporters, from the White House to both Houses of Congress. Israel is the cancer, that if not stopped will destroy the world."
The "Zionists control ..." conspiracy theorists are partial in their "analyses" and help the real ruling elites of the U.S. government, as well as European governments, more than helping to solve or stop the problem. All of the noise-making from Zionists and pro-Zionists, all of the power they're allowed to [appear] to wield in or on the U.S. government and against the population in the U.S., deans of and professors at universities and colleges in the U.S., etcetera, is more a "service" of distraction from the real cause than it is revealing the real cause. It helps to hide or mask the real cause, the real movers, and their real motives.
As for what the article is about, the governments of the U.S., Europe, Canada, and any other countries where the governments side with Israel (because they want to keep profiting from the U.S. and therefore from relationships with the U.S.), none of these governments, and this extends to the UNSC, have any legitimate ethical grounds upon which they can actually stand to condemn Iran's nuclear programme. And that, like it or not, would hold true if Iran had a nuclear arms programme, which both the IAEA and the 2007 (I believe the article by Gareth Porter and Ray McGovern posted here over the past two or three days said 2007 anyway) N.I.E., National Intelligence Estimate, of the U.S. reported to be non-existent. They reported that Iran has no nuclear arms programme.
Why would these governments not want Iran to have a nuclear programme? It's not [for] Israel; it's because they don't want Iran to have the prorgramme due to not wanting to provide Iran with any chances of potentially developing a nuclear arms programme for they want full spectrum dominance and governments that have nuclear weapons just aren't assailable without taking much greater risks. By keeping governments nuclear-arms-free, they are much easier to conquer, dominate, ... and their countries therefore are all the easier to exploit; like a-la predatory capitalism, say. They want slaves, including of government leaderships, so the latter strategically are denied equal rights.
That's not the reason represented by the Zionists, but they also don't reflect the critical part of the overall reality anyway. They mask it.
Most people know what masks are used for. They're used for disguisement; to hide that which is to be kept hidden from view, of course.
Well said, Mr Corbeil.
Hey Mike...
I value your well researched and referenced posts here on CD...
From within your perspective on US/Israeli relations, I am interested to hear what you have to say about a few historical events that would lead some to believe that the Israeli tail wags the American dog...
What is your take on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and the ensuing cover up by the US gov't?
What is your take on the relationship between Mossad, the CIA, and Saudi Intelligence?
What do you make of the Israeli spies who lifted hundreds of thousands of documents from the DoE to create their own nuclear program in secret and in violation of international treaties, and the US complicity in covering it up...?
What do you make of the "dancing Israelis" on 9-11?
What do you make of the intel that Mossad had provided for the CIA and MI6 regarding Kruschev's speech during the cold war...?
What do you know of the House of Rothschild and their influence in the creation of Israel, and the corporatization of the US and Brittain?
What do you know about the dozens of US/Israeli dual citizens holding cabinet level positions, or their aides, or otherwise working in the Reagun/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations, or their think tanks who influence US foreign policy...?
What do you know of the influence of the AIPAC Lobby on US politicians, academics, media darlings, businessmen, and Church/synagogue leaders...?
I personally view the US/Israeli relationship as a matter of Quid Pro Quo... While they share many of the same religious, political, military, and business interests, I do believe that the "leaders" of both nations answer to the same Corporatist Bankster Families who run the WTO, WB, IMF, OAS, NED, AEI, CFR, and own controlling stock in most fortune 500 companies and the Federal Reserve in the US and other countries and their parent organization in Switzerland...
Don't buy the propaganda that Iran want's nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will not help Iran's standing in the Middle East. They have nothing to gain by actually having them. Appearing to have them keeps The U.S. off balance and gives them breathing room from an invasion. Iran hasn't attacked anybody,and is unlikely to.This is another attempt to manufacture a perceived threat to continue deflection from the attempts to change the status quo. We americans buy into the myth of democracy,there is instead a national security state,keeping us in a war footing since the end of WWII.Until americans come to this realization,we will continue on this disastrous course.
This whole Iran thing harkens us back to the Crusades for chrissakes. Religion was responsible then, and it appears so now. The only difference being more advanced weaponry!
I don't usually cross post, but this is yet another article on the same subject.
As one of the diminishing number of survivors of the nuclear testing in the Marshal Islands (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll 1956) I can say with certainty that the current brouhaha over Iran is Neocon and Ziocon hyperbole. An attack, especially with nuclear weapons, upon Iran is insanity.
Iran is signatory to the NPT and allows UN inspections and monitoring. Our own NIE said there was no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program, as has been affirmed by the intelligence agencies of a number of other nations.
Iran has not waged an aggressive war on anyone for centuries, though they are very tough defenders when attacked.
Israel, on the other hand, has an undetermined number of nuclear warheads, with delivery systems (est. 70-400), a proven policy of aggression and deceit, allows no inspections, is signatory to no treaties, is recipient of three billions per year from its client state, the US, mostly in advanced weapons and technology. Wishes to be considered a "mad dog," to generate fear as it wends it way in Middle East conquest.
So, looking at the above facts, it is imperative that Israel and the US destroy Iran, probably with a nuclear attack? (A conventional attack on their power reactors could cause a similar effect, by destroying their controls and coolant systems causing a melt down)
If you are interested in the probable effects of such a strategy and its results, I suggest you take a few minutes and read the link below.
Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs Again[s]t Iran: This Way Lies Madness
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2093
If you follow the links in the article, it will be quite educational.