Pentagon, 2001 : "We're Gonna Take Out 7 Countries In 5 Years"

They're a bit behind schedule.

Game Change : Iran Enters The Med

The world really is undergoing monumental change at this moment in time, a conga-line of political convulsions wrought of saying Fuck You to police state intimidation and violence, food shortages, unemployment, the poor finally rising up against its most priviledged, with repercussions spreading like cracks in ice across the most oil-rich lands in the world, only a few weeks after Wikileaks revealed Saudi Arabia may have overestimated their untapped oil wealth by a few hundred billion barrels.

Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Tunisia, Libya...a decade from now, once the old royals and dictators are all gone, these countries and former kingdoms could be united into an Arab Union. Nobody knows what happens next. Flux is the state of reality.

For today, the most monumental news is the passage of Iranian warships through the Suez canal, and into the Mediterranean for the first time in three decades, and there was nothing Israel or the United States could do to stop them.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tries to revamp Obama Changism for international consumption :

“Today, we witness that humanity is striving to realize the truth and the world is on the threshold of an enormous change.

“Achieving justice is rapidly turning into a global objective.

“While the global arrogance is hatching complex, satanic plots, the people are awaking and, God willing, the time has come for the extinction of the arrogant powers.

“When the oppressed people of the world rise for justice and monotheism, the grounds will be prepared for the righteous to rule the world.”

Meanwhile, in Tehran, the police state crackdown on youth protests continues....

NeoCon Predicts US War With Russia, China

When you're pimping for the world's largest war industry, you've got to learn to look beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. You've got to see the bigger picture, a clash of nations that has the potential to be more devastating than even World War II.

Robert Kagan, one of the most insidious NeoCon propagandists for the War On Iraq is flogging his new book, laying out a new NeoCon agenda for their golden child, John McCain, and the UK Observer has a review :

The potential challenge posed by the emergence of China as a great power, the rise of India, the hardening of Iranian anti-Westernism and the rise of Islamicist fundamentalism tend to be seen in Britain as discrete and disconnected dramas. How they might relate to the European Union or Latin America, say, is almost never asked. The overriding British default position in foreign policy - that any proposal for co-operation or collaborative action that comes from the EU is necessarily bad and anti-British - only makes discussion even more cramped.

Americans think differently. Rather as Britain did when it had an empire, the global scale of American commitments and interests forces American thinking on a grander, more joined-up scale. And Kagan, arch neoconservative, adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain and influence on Barack Obama, certainly thinks grandly. He sees the 21st century as a battleground between liberal democracies and authoritarian states seeking to avenge injustices and reassert their nationalism. The West has no option but to join battle.

Thus his call to create a league of democracies that would promote 'political liberalisation, support human rights, including the empowerment of women, and use its influence to support a free press and repeated elections that will, if nothing else, continually shift power from the few to the many'. We should never forget that the liberties and international order we enjoy today had to be won by struggle. So it will be again. In a global era, democracy is stronger the more widely it is entrenched and, in any case, our interests, whether combating climate change or fighting Islamicist terror, require more democracy and accountability, not less. Nation states that host terror cells or those that pollute the planet need to know that they risk legitimate intervention from others.

It is controversial stuff. The objections are obvious. The United Nations would be devalued and, whatever its weaknesses, it is surely better to have the great powers as members of one global organisation than dividing into two opposing camps. One, centred on the Shanghai Co-operation Council, would be the authoritarian states of China, Russia and others; the second, under US leadership, would be the European and American democracies, Australasia, Japan and India. Instead of struggling for unachievable UN resolutions blocked by the authoritarians, the democracies would be free to go head to head in ideological and political competition.

The book's description of the strong nationalist forces emerging in China, Russia and Iran, with their visceral desire to avenge injustices together with their governing classes' stranglehold on power, is sobering. And those who would defend today's UN at all costs need to be able to show how Japan, Germany, India and Brazil - all great democracies - are ever going to become members of the security council in the face of the implacable opposition of authoritarian China and Russia.

There is a battle going on. Authoritarianism is on the rise and it is dangerous. Putting some well-judged edge behind the democracies' defence of their principles and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a stupid proposal. Kagan would have made his argument even stronger had he shown how democracy contributes to economic and social strength and thus been more sceptical about the sustainability of Chinese and Russian economic growth without it. But that would have implied that the European approach is more right than American thirst for pitched battles, and there is still something of the neocon night about Kagan's thinking.

Iraq Vows To Never Allow US To Attack Iran From Inside Its Borders

The Iraq government is now stalling on a verbal agreement given to BushCo. in late 2007 that they will sign on to allowing US forces to be based inside the country beyond 2008. More than 70% of Iraqis are now reported to be in favour of the rest of the 'Coalition of the Willing' removing its troops, sooner rather than later. Later being 2009, or 2010.

In fact, there is something of a quiet, very democratic revolution boiling in Iraq's halls of power, as Iraq not only faces a future where US troops are no longer roaming free on their cities' streets, but now rumbles to get foreign forces out of the country as soon as possible. BushCo. has made it very clear they have no intention of leaving, having just completed the world's largest embassy complex in Baghdad, which will be permanently manned by hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops. But Iraq's politicians are clear in their intent :

A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.

The proposed pact has become increasingly controversial in Iraq, where there have been protests against it. It has also drawn criticism from Democrats on the presidential election campaign trail in the United States, who say President George W. Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office.

"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.

"What are the threats that require U.S. forces to be there?" asked Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a co-founder of the al-Fadhila Shi'ite political party, speaking through a translator.

"I would like to inform you, there are no threats on Iraq. We are capable of solving our own problems," he declared. He favored a quick pullout of U.S. forces, which invaded the country in 2003 and currently number around 155,000.

A Sunni Iraqi lawmaker, Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, founder of the National Dialogue Council, said bilateral talks on a long-term security deal should be shelved until American troops leave -- and until there is a new government in Washington.

"We prefer to delay until there is a new administration in the United States," he said.

Meanwhile, Iraq is now actively reassuring Iran that it will not let BushCo. populate the country with more bases, or more troops. Iraqis are making it clear that withdrawal comes before long-term security negotiations, a stand that Iran no doubt backs.

Can't imagine the reaction inside the White House to this exercise in self-determination by the newest democracy in the Middle East is pleasant.

If Iraq refuses to agree to the sadistic American deal detailed below, it's easy to imagine a coup attempt by plotters that will never be brought to justice, along with an upsurge of extreme violence :

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has tried to reassure Iran over a planned security pact with the US, vowing Iraq would never allow use of its territory to "harm" the Islamic republic.

"We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbours," Mr Maliki said after a late-night meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Tehran.

Mr Maliki's comments come amid Iranian alarm over US pressure on Baghdad to sign an agreement that would keep US soldiers in the country beyond 2008. Iran has always called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

US President George W Bush and Mr Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July. But Iraq has now said it has a "different vision" from the United States on the issue.

Iran's concern about the deal comes amid renewed tensions over its nuclear program, which the United States fears is aimed at making atomic weapons, a charge vehemently rejected by Tehran.

The United States has never ruled out a military attack to punish Tehran's defiance while Israel has also been warning there may be no alternative to a strike against Iran.

Mr Maliki, quoted by Iran's state news agency IRNA, said "Iraq's stability and security can have a great impact on the region ... We see the implementation of peace and security in Iraq and Iran as what both countries want."

Iraqi Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh had said Mr Maliki would be using the visit to assure Iranian leaders that Iraq "will not serve as a base or staging ground to launch attacks against neighbouring countries."

The Shiite Premier - on his third visit to Tehran since taking office two years ago - was due to also hold talks with other top officials including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Mottaki, meanwhile, vowed that relations would expand further, saying the Iraqi delegation would "find good ground for creating new strategies in deepening the two countries' ties," according to IRNA.

US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker stressed in Washington on Thursday that Iran and Iraq were neighbours and had to conduct a relationship. "The question is: what kind of relationship is it going to be?" he said.

It's hard to imagine that air strikes on Iran by the United States and Israel will be welcomed by the Iraqi government, who now host more than 160,000 American soldiers and more than 100,000 American private security guards and support services personnel.

Hitting Iran before the nuclear threat is resolved will make many Iraqis fresh enemies of Americans, and Iran may already have extensive special forces personnel inside Iraq. No doubt they have plenty of intelligence on how to conduct the most punishing retaliatory strikes on Americans inside Iraq. Attacking Iran would further unite Iran and Iraq, with Russia and China backing them both against the United States. EU state leaders may support the US and Israel if they hit Iran, but there would be little support amongst most Europeans, who now view the United States as probably the most dangerous threat to world peace in the world today.

How Iran Won The American-Led War On Iraq

The Asia Times' formidable Pepe Escobar floats the theory, first raised by Iranian conservatives, that Iran has already proved itself to be the ultimate victor in the US/UK/Australian-led War On Iraq :

Hanif Ghaffari, writing in the Farsi-language, conservative Iranian daily Resalat, has pointed out how the recent, very successful Ahmadinejad trip to Iraq had to be considered in the context of "Iran after the Iraq war" and "Iraq after occupation by America". The message could not be more graphic. When Bush went to Iraq he saw an ultra-fortified military base, and that was it. Ahmadinejad went everywhere in broad daylight, welcomed like a brother.

This is how Tehran sees itself - as the ultimate victor of the US war on Iraq. And no "surge" or spin - not to mention Israeli paranoia - can or will make it go away.

The rest of Escobar's very interesting report can be read here.

OPEC Prepares To Dump US Dollar As Primary Oil Pricing Currency

Iranian Oil Bourse Set To Trade In Euros

Saddam Hussein decided the Euro was a better currency than the US Dollar for selling Iraq's oil, but then Iraq was invaded. Within three months of the start of the War On Iraq, in March, 2003, Iraq was back selling its oil in American dollars.

If OPEC backs the move by Iran and Venezuela to do away with the US Dollar, it will be grim news indeed for the American economy, and will add to the momentum that is already peeling away the remaining value of the US Dollar as a stable world currency.

From PressTV :

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries plans to discuss a proposal by Iran and Venezuela to price oil in non-dollar currencies.

Finance minister of the group, which supplies 40 percent of the global crude demand, will meet to study the proposal, the organization's President Chakib Khelil said.

Khalil, however, did not say when the ministers are scheduled to discuss the proposal amid the ongoing depreciation of the dollar.

The idea floated by Tehran and Caracas since the dwindling dollar fallen 16.2 percent against a basket of major currencies since two years ago.

Iran, the OPEC's second largest exporter, has already cut all of its ties with the greenback with respect to oil transactions.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani had also said earlier that amid concerns about the weakness of the US dollar in recent months, the oil-rich Persian Gulf littoral state would shift Qatari riyal from the US currency over the next six months.

"The dollar lost a lot of value and energy worldwide is priced in the dollar, so all the producers are affected by the development on the dollar. This is a cycle so we have to live with it," Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah said.

The UAE is also likely to follow the lead, as Kuwait did last May.

From the Associated Press :

Iran has already registered for another oil bourse, in which it has said it hopes to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars, to reduce any American influence over the Islamic Republic's economy. A bourse official, Mahdi Karbasian, told the IRNA official news agency that such an oil market would begin operating within the next year.

While most oil markets are traded in U.S. dollars, Iran first floated the idea of trading oil in Euros in the early 2000s during the tenure of reformist president Mohammad Khatami.
It gained new life after the nationalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005.

As the fourth largest oil producer in the world, Iran has a measure of influence over international oil markets. The country ranks second for output among OPEC Countries, and controls about 5 percent of the global oil supply.

Tehran also partially controls the Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil supply must pass. Iran has sought to wield its oil resources as a bargaining tool in its ongoing standoff with the West over its nuclear program.

Expect BushCo. to retaliate.

NATO To East : Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes Are On The Table

It's not often we get to see the contents of the numerous reports about nuclear weapons and the politics, and policies, of pre-emptive nuclear strikes that the world's war leaders spend hundreds of hours each year discussing and debating.

And when we do get a peak, it's downright horrific :

The West must be prepared to carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes to halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, a radical new manifesto argues.

The document - written by five of the West's most senior military officers and strategists - has been presented to the Pentagon and NATO's secretary-general.

They argue there is a need for urgent and comprehensive reform of NATO, The Guardian reports.

A new pact - involving the United States, NATO and the European Union - was also essential to face the challenges ahead, they said.

The manifesto is likely to be discussed at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, in April, the paper said.

The authors include some of the top defence minds in the West, including General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and NATO's ex-supreme commander in Europe.

The others are General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of NATO's military committee; General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff; Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff; and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the United Kingdom.

The former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" as there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world", The Guardian reports.

It said the manifesto had been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom were unable or unwilling to publicly air their views.

"The risk of further (nuclear) proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors wrote, according to The Guardian.

"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

It identified a number of key threats to the West's values and way of life, including international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

It also cited the weakening of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO and the EU.

To prevail, they said, NATO's decision-taking methods must be overhauled, moving to a majority rather than a consensus model, putting an end to national vetoes.

A new "directorate" of US, European and NATO leaders must also be established to respond rapidly to crises.

The five also proposed the use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings," The Guardian reported.

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call".

"This report means that the core of the NATO establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the West is adrift and not facing up to the challenges," he told the paper.

Gen Naumann admitted the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors.

But he said proliferation was spreading, and NATO needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option".

Lord Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence."

The logic of using weapons of mass destruction pre-emptively to try and stop the possible building of weapons of mass destruction is pure Dr Strangelove.

Is there any connection between this report being made public at exactly the same time stock markets around the world are seeing hundreds of billions of dollars wiped from their values?

And is there any connnection between the release of this report and the show of force by the Russians in the Atlantic?

Well, of course there is. A pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran would cause chaos on world markets. The chaos has already begun, so there can only be so much market fallout if US and Israel move forward with their pre-emptive nuclear Iran strikes in the coming weeks or months.

It certainly does appear that the ground has been well and truly laid now for such strikes.

Whether Iran is hit or not, it will be years before we learn most of the details of the economic world war now being waged.

Netanyahu : Bush Agrees, Israel And US Must Nuke Iran

Bush Demands World Must Rally Against Iran

According to this story, President Bush is now backing Israel's plan to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear energy installations :

US President George W. Bush promised Israel's opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu that the United States will join the Jewish state in a nuclear strike against Iran, Israel Radio reported today.

Former Prime Minister Netanyahu, opposition Likud party's hardline chairman who opposes the US-backed Annapolis peace process, reiterated to President Bush his stance, that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear installations was the only way to stop the Islamic nation's nuclear weapons ambitions.

"I told him my position and Bush agreed," Netanyahu told Israel Radio.

During their 45-minute meeting at King David hotel in Jerusalem Netanyahu also told Bush that "Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity."

President Bush issued a stark warning to Iran over Strait of Hormuz incident, saying that "all options are on the table to protect our assets."

“There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple,” Bush said during the joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem. “And my advice to them is, don't do it.”

Iran claims that Bush's pumping of the supposed 'attack' by Iranian navy vessels on US warships in the Strait Of Hormuz is nothing but a psy-op, aimed at building tension and part of preparations for War On Iran.

The US Navy has now withdrawn its allegations that radio threats that US ships would be "blown up" by Iranian patrol vessels originated with Iranians.

Disturbing parallels are now being drawn between the supposed incident in the Strait Of Hormuz and the utterly fictitious Gulf Of Tonkin incident that plunged the United States deep into the Vietnam War.

Did Bush go to the Middle East to push for peace between Israel and Palestine, or was the trip more about firming up War On Iran plans with Israel and trying to raise support for nuclear strikes on Iran amongst US-allied Arab dictatorships?

US President George W. Bush said Iran is threatening the security of the world, and the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late".

Mr Bush said Iran funds terrorist extremists, undermines peace in Lebanon, sends arms to the Taliban, seeks to intimidate its neighbours with alarming rhetoric, defies the United Nations and destabilises the entire region by refusing to be open about its nuclear program.

“Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror,” Mr Bush said in a speech he delivered about midway through his eight-day Mid-East trip that began with a renewed push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace pact - an accord whose “time has come,” he said.

“Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere,” Mr Bush said. “So the United States is strengthening our long-standing security commitments with our friends in the Gulf, and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.”

Is The Strait Of Hormuz 'Incident' Just Another Gulf Of Tonkin-Like Fiction?

US Republican Presidential Candidate Warns Iran It Is Facing "Gates Of Hell"

Mystery Radio Heckler Has Been Making Threats For 25 Years To US Navy In Gulf

Iran Slams US "Propaganda Campaign"

Arab Countries Tell Bush To Be Tough On Iran, But Not Tough Enough To Start A War

US Navy Admits Radio Threat To "Blow Up" US Ships May Not Have Come From Iran

The First Major Confrontation Of The Coming Iran-US War

Raw Story has a round-up of reports and details about today's confrontation in the sea lane between Iran and Saudi Arabia, between Iranian boats and US warships. The gist is that the Iranians were supposedly trying to provoke the US into attacking them, and the US ships exercised great restraint, despite being threatened by what would appear to be claims of 'terror attacks' on American vessels :

US Navy warships over the weekend came "very close" to shooting at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels, which American officials say provoked US ships in international waters, according to CNN.

"US officials are confirming to CNN that five Iranian Revolutionary guard boats, in their words, 'harassed and provoked' three US Navy warships sailing in the Strait of Hormuz," reports CNN's Barbara Starr. "One of those Iranian boats came within 200 yards of a Navy warship."

The Iranian boats had also transmitted threats via radio, according to officials.

"According to the sources we have spoken to," Starr continued, "the Iranians made threatening moves and threatening radio transmissions. One of those transmissions was...'I am coming at you, you will explode in a couple of minutes.'"

According to the CNN website, "one of the Iranian ships had been dropping white boxes into the water in front of the US ships."

Following the radio transmission, a Navy ship had prepared to fire on an Iranian vessel.

"This official also tells CNN that when that radio transmission was heard, the Navy went to manning its positions, its gun positions on those ships," Starr reports, "and that they were very close to shooting at one of the Iranian boats. In fact the were ready to shoot, the orders had been given when the Iranians suddenly turned away."

No shots were fired, and there were no injuries.

"It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet," an unnamed Pentagon official told the Associated Press. He added that the Iranian boats turned away "literally at the very moment that US forces were preparing to open fire."

Go Here For The Full Story

If a war between Iran and the United States breaks out this year, as many NeoCons are anticipating, and clearly fantasising about, this incident will be regarded as one of the sparks that began the major hostilities.

US Intelligence Counters NeoCon Propaganda That Iran Is Building Nuclear Weapons

National Intelligence Estimate Concludes Iran Has Had No Viable Nuclear Weapons Program Since 2003

Cheney Stifled Release Of Report For More Than A Year

Four years ago, the cream of the United States intelligence agencies came to an understanding that Iran was, in fact, not working on nuclear weapons, and that it's nuclear energy program was, most certainly, peaceful.

More than a year ago, US Vice President, Dick Cheney, a key cheerleader in the "We Must Bomb Iran Now" NeoCon warpig pack, got his hands on the National Intelligence Assessment that declared Iran was nuclear weapons free, and would remain so for years to come, and he buried the report, while still going on TV and talking up the supposed threat posed by Iran's nuclear energy programs.

When President Bush talked about Iran and World War 3 in October, he already knew that his own intelligence community had found proof that Iran had built nuclear weapons, or was even getting close to beginning construction of nuclear weapons. All the same, he told the world :

"...I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon…"

Former US ambassador, John Bolton, has literally become a full-time spokesman for the 'Bomb Iran Now' crowd, along with Fox News and most of the Murdoch newspaper empire. The presumption that Iran is, right now, working on nuclear weapons falls from the mouths of news show hosts across American, British and Australian TV network not because this is what their own sources are telling them, but because this is what they see other media saying is going on in Iran.

In the light of the revelations from US intelligence, the opposition by Russia and China to further, harsher sanctions against Iran makes a lot more sense.

From the New York Times :

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings about the Iranian threat, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran’s nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran was working.

The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program — an estimate that led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the report’s conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Intelligence officials said that the specter of the botched 2002 N.I.E. hung over their deliberations over the Iran assessment, leading them to treat the document with particular caution.

“We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity."

Think Progress reported on November 8 that Vice President Dick Cheney had, successfully up until then, kept the National Intelligence Estimate under wraps because it did not present a vivid and active case for military action on Iran, and points out that the dispute around the NIE echoes the build up to the War On Iraq in 2002, with the White House stiffling dissent and putting pressure on intelligence analysts.

And this from Think Progress in November 2006 when the Iran NIE was first leaked :

On CNN, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh reported that a new CIA assessment concludes that “there’s no evidence Iran is doing anything that puts them close to a bomb.” Despite the intelligence agency’s conclusion, Hersh reports that the White House is still aggressively moving ahead with preparations for a military conflict with Iran.

As part of the White House’s preparations for Iran, Hersh says President Bush and Vice President Cheney are “stovepiping” intelligence and keeping information provided by the Israelis hidden from the CIA.

The Israelis are telling the White House, according to Hersh’s new article “The Next Act,” that they have a reliable agent inside Iran who reports that the nation is working on a trigger for a bomb. “Of course the people in the CIA want to know who [the agent] is, obviously,” Hersh said. “They certainly want to know what other evidence he has of actual making of a warhead. This is the internecine fight that’s going on — the same fight, by the way, that we had before Iraq.”

Seymour Hersh's New Yorker Story On How BushCo. Tried To Build The Case For War On Iran In 2006

UN Nuclear Watchdog Says Yes To Russia's Plan To Supply Iran With Nuclear Fuel

Iran's Navy Now Has Stealth-Capable Subs, Military Unveils Ballistic Missiles That Can Reach Israel, US Bases In Middle East

Bush Warned Of World War 3 Over Iranian Nukes That He Knew Did Not Exist

Bush Attacks Maliki Over Iran's Influence On Iraq's Security And Future

Iran is now taking key roles in Iraqi reconstruction and the economy, by signing up to build billions of dollars worth of power plants, to be centred in prominently Shiite locales.

President Bush is taking offense at Iran cutting key energy deals with Iran, and has attacked prime minister Nuri al-Maliki for recent statements that Iran was not a dangerous presence in Iraq and could play a "constructive" role in bringing security to the world's terrorism capital.

From Al Jazeera :

The US president has rebuked Iraq's prime minister for speaking too favourably about Iran. "If the signal [from Nuri al-Maliki] is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend, the prime minister. Because I don't believe they are constructive," George Bush said.

Al-Maliki had thanked Iran for its "positive and constructive" work in "providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq" on a visit to Tehran, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.

Iranian leaders told the visiting al-Maliki that they wanted Iraq's friendship and would do all they could to boost Iraqi security.

Al-Maliki's talks appeared to confirm the increasingly warm relations that have emerged between majority Shia Iraq and overwhelmingly Shia Iran following the fall of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime.

Bush is making a habit of insulting the leaders of nations the Americans are supposed to be liberating from the clutches of Al Qaeda and terrorists.

He warned Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, on Monday during a visit to the US presidential retreat at Camp David to be more suspicious of Iran after the Afghan leader had brushed aside US accusations that Tehran was arming the Taliban.

Iran, with a majority of Shia Muslims like Iraq, has been an important political player in Iraq since the 2003 US-led invasion. Tehran denies Washington's accusations that it is supplying weapons to fighters to fuel violence, and instead blames the US military presence.

Baghdad has urged both countries to negotiate and not fight out their differences on Iraqi soil.

That fight would appear to be already well underway.

Putin Warns US Not To Go To War On Iran

Russia's Strategic Bombers To Patrol The World's Skies For Rest Of October

Putin : Iran Is Not Afraid Of US, Israel "Believe Me"



Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, has received a warm welcome during his visit to Iran, and he again warned the United States not to attack Iran. To back up his warning, and to make clear that airstrikes on Iran will draw his promised "consequences", Putin has placed his arsenal of strategic, long-range bombers on airborne stand-by for the rest of the month.

Link :

At a summit of the five nations that border the inland Caspian Sea, Putin said none of the nations' territory should be used by any outside countries for use of military force against any nation in the region. It was a clear reference to long-standing rumors that the U.S. was planning to use Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, as a staging ground for any possible military action against Iran.

"We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state," Putin said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also underlined the need to keep outsiders away from the Caspian.

The warning from Putin to the US grabbed most of the headlines around the world, but the significance of his warning to the Caspian states Russia and Iran are now economically, and strategically, allied with, is probably the bigger story. Putin is telling the oil and gas rich Caspian sea states that they don't need, and should not pursue, military alliances with the United States. This is obviously a remarkably important development :

"The Caspian Sea is an inland sea and it only belongs to the Caspian states, therefore only they are entitled to have their ships and military forces here," he said.

Putin, whose trip to Tehran is the first by a Kremlin leader since World War II, warned that energy pipeline projects crossing the Caspian could only be implemented if all five nations that border the Caspian support them.

Putin did not name any specific country, but his statement underlined Moscow's strong opposition to U.S.-backed efforts to build pipelines to deliver hydrocarbons to the West bypassing Russia.

"Projects that may inflict serious environmental damage to the region cannot be implemented without prior discussion by all five Caspian nations," he said.

Other nations bordering the Caspian Sea and in attendance at the summit are: Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

Putin has warned the U.S. and other nations against trying to coerce Iran into reining in its nuclear program and insists peaceful dialogue is the only way to deal with Tehran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment.

"Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and Iranian people, will lead nowhere," Putin said Monday during his trip to Germany. "They are not afraid, believe me."

The Russian president underlined his disagreements with Washington last week, saying he saw no "objective data" to prove Western claims that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons.

Putin emphasized Monday that he would negotiate in Tehran on behalf of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members _ United States, Russia, China, Britain and France _ and Germany, a group that has led efforts to resolve the stalemate with Tehran.

From RIA :

Russian strategic bombers will conduct October 16-30 a series of long-range training flights, with simulated bomber raids and missile launches, an Air Force spokesman said on Monday.

"Russian strategic bombers Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3, and Il-78 aerial tankers will conduct flights over the Arctic region, the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, and the Black Sea, with simulated bombing raids and firing of cruise missiles at testing grounds in northern and southern Russia," Colonel Alexander Drobyshevsky said.

Colonel General Alexander Zelin, the commander of the Russian Air Force, will supervise the exercises.

Moscow announced in mid-August that regular patrol flights by strategic bombers had been resumed, and would continue on a permanent basis, with patrol areas including commercial shipping and economic production zones.

The U.S. administration expressed concern about the resumption of patrol flights by Russian strategic bombers.

"I think the rapid growth in Russian military spending definitely bears watching," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with ABC News on October 14.

"And frankly, some of the efforts - for instance, Bear flights in areas that we haven't seen for a while - are really not helpful to security."

Russia, however, obviously believes they are helpful to security. The security of Iran.

Putin : Iran Poses No Nuclear Threat, No Proof They Seek Or Possess Nuclear Weapons

Russia's Vladimir Putin has destroyed any last hope that BushCo. and the NeoCons had for a further hammering of Iran through the United Nations Security Council.

Although the position taken by Putin in the below story is being presented as something new, or recent, it has in fact been Putin's position for at least two years :

President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday there is no proof Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons, but emphasized that Tehran must be encouraged to make its nuclear program fully transparent.

"We are sharing our partners' concern about making all Iranian programs transparent," Putin said at a news conference after talks with visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"We agreed yesterday, and the president confirmed it, that Iran is making certain steps toward the international community to achieve that."

Putin is to make his first visit to Iran early next week for a summit of Caspian Sea nations.

Russia has opposed the U.S.-push for tougher sanctions against Iran and called for more checks and inspections of Iranian facilities by International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

"We have worked cooperatively with our partners at the United Nations Security Council, and we intend to continue such cooperative work in the future," Putin said. But he said that with no "objective data" showing Iran is developing nuclear weapons, "we proceed from an assumption that Iran has no such plans."

Israel, the United States and the UK will now rush to say that the Russian position and view is also their own.

The NeoCons, meanwhile, will seethe with fury that their hopes of Iran being bombed sometime in the next year are dying by the day. NeoCon propaganda will continue, and will probably grow more desperate, but the United States and Israel, even with the backing of France, faces formidable opponents in Russia and China, both of whom have made clear that attacks on Iran will not be tolerated.


Kremlin Faithful Prepare For Second Coming Of President Putin

Iran Woos, Wins Over Leaders In Latin America

Bigger Than NATO : Russia-Led Alliance And China-Led Alliance 'Link Up'

Iran To Resume Talks With International Atomic Energy Agency Team

An Independent Kosovo "Uannceptable", Says Russia

Russian Security Chief Says Spies Attempting To Break Up Russia, UK Singled Out

Cheney Wanted Israel To Provoke Iran Into War

Dick Cheney is cited in Newsweek as having concocted a plan where Israel would be encouraged to attack Iran's nuclear energy facilities, in the hope that Iran would strike back at Israel.

The United States would then be able to come to the defense of its key Middle East ally and attack Iran, leading to a full scale war :

Citing two unnamed sources (Newsweek) called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz - and perhaps other sites - in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."

According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."

Newsweek said that it had corroborated Wurmser's remarks, which it said were first published by Washington foreign-policy blogger Steven Clemons.

This sounds very reminiscent of the plan by President Bush, in January, 2003, to fly planes dressed up as UN aircraft over Iraq in the hope that Saddam's military would shoot them down. Bush is claimed to have told British prime minister Tony Blair that this would make for the kind of international incident, and act of aggression by Saddam Hussein, that would help to legitamise President Bush and the NeoCons plan to invade and occupy Iraq.

An interesting side effect of Cheney's plan being made public has been rising tide of anger and disgust amongst the younger population of Israel, who clearly are aware that the Israeli Defence Force, majority compromised of Israelis under the age of 24, would be the main targets for a counter attack by Iran after the initial air strikes.

It will be hard for the Israeli government, and the Zionist-influenced media of Israel, to quiet the outrage spreading via internet news sites and blogs.

Conspiracy theories about the United States is willing to sacrifice Israel to win a wider war in the Middle East, and to secure oil reserves for decades to come, have already taken root amongst the 'wired' youth.

China, Russia Oppose Military Action On Iran

The Neocons want War On Iran. They want to destabilise Iran, sow chaos amongst its people, control its oil and reduce Iran to the shattered state status now suffered by the people of Iraq.

BushCo. say they want peace with Iran, but refuse to rule out military action. But both the US and Israel have laid out their chief reason why they will attack Iran : they cannot allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says it isn't pursuing nuclear weapons. But the Neocon think tanks and media allies continually state that Iran wants nuclear weapons and it is so close to developing them that the world cannot wait.

But what you don't hear so much in the Western media is the reaction from China and Russia. Both China and Russia are now key financial, business and energy allies with Iran. And both China and Russia have clearly stated over the past two years, repeatedly that Iran does not pose a threat and that they will not tolerate attacks on Iran from either Israel or the United States.

From Reuters :

China is opposed to threatening Iran with war over its nuclear program and stands for a diplomatic solution, a government spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

The United States, Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China have backed two rounds of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive work that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

"We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a regular briefing.

"We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs," Jiang said when asked to comment on remarks by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner raising the prospect of war with Iran.

Kouchner said on Sunday that Paris must prepare for the possibility of war with Tehran, although it was not an immediate danger.

Washington is leading a drive in the Security Council for a third sanctions resolution to punish Iran for enrichment, and White House spokesman Dana Perino said the United States was looking for a diplomatic solution.

China is one of five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council.

From the UK Guardian :

Russia today joined the chorus of concern at the possibility of war in Iran while conflicts continued in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At a news briefing in Moscow, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said: "We are worried by reports that there is serious consideration being given to military action in Iran. That is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan."

His comments, after a meeting with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, followed a stark warning yesterday from the UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector aimed at the US.

"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."

Fears of a military conflict with Iran rose a notch after comments on Sunday night by Mr Kouchner, who said: "We have to prepare for the worst ... the worst is war."

In addition, reports from Washington indicate that administration hawks led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, are winning the argument for tough action against Tehran.

The US has accused Iran of supplying Shia extremists in Iraq with explosive devices that are taking a deadly toll on American troops.

France, under its new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has adopted a much tougher line on Iran, saying that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a dangerous threat to the west.

Mr Sarkozy last month called the Iranian stand-off "the greatest crisis" of current times, saying the world faced "a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".

Mr Kouchner told reporters in Moscow that the world should not shy away from sanctions to put pressure on Iran.

"The worst thing to happen would be a war, and in order to avoid it we need to continue talks and be firm enough regarding sanctions," he said. "We have to work on precise sanctions that would demonstrate the world community's serious approach to this problem."

But Russia is trying to cool down the situation. In an interview published in the Russian magazine Vremya Novostei, the deputy foreign minister, Alexander Losyukov, said any military intervention in Iran would be a "political error" with catastrophic results.

"We are convinced that there is no military solution to the Iranian problem ... besides, it is quite clear that there is no military solution to the Iraqi problem either," he said.

The NeoCon War On Iran Begins

Iranian President Talks Of Collapse Of 'Zionist Regimes' In US And Israel

September 11 To Mark Start Date Of Massive 'Attack Iran' Propaganda Offensive On American People Via NeoCon Media

The War On Iraq began more than a year before the 'Shock & Awe' bombing of Baghdad began. US special forces, Mossad and other allied intelligence entered Iraq and began scoping targets for bombing, attempting to buy loyalty of tribal leaders and basically preparing for the invasion that was to come.

Through all of this, the NeoCon think tanks and media allies created a War On Iraq reality for the American people through a non-stop campaign of distortions, propaganda and so-called debate.

Likewise, the ground is now be prepared for the War On Iran, in almost exactly the same way preparations at home and in the future warzone were made for Iraq a year out from the start of attacks.

Reports claim US VP Dick Cheney's office is co-ordinating the launch of a massive propaganda offensive, through NeoCon sympathetic media like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, on the American people to rally support for attacks on Iran. The campaign is said to kick off, naturally, on September 11.

A few days, President Bush declared that the world faced "a nuclear holocaust" from Iran, claiming that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capacity, even though the IAEA completed inspections virtually the same day as Bush's speech and said there were no signs of nuclear weapons being built, and that Iran's nuclear technology did not allow even rudimentary test nuclear weapons to be completed.

Regardless, Bush delivered a fiery speech, that received blanket coverage and comment on American news channels and even news programs.

You can't get much more of a categorical declaration of coming military action than this from President Bush on Thursday :

"I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities..."

It is clear that President Bush is now ready to move on from propaganda and warnings, and will soon give up on trying to get tighter sanctions through the United Nations, as both Russia and China do not believe Iran poses a significant threat.

Bush is using the combination evidence-free allegations of Iran weaponising nuclear technology and is bringing to a head year old allegations that Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents, and helping Islamists to attack and kill American soldiers in Iraq. Bush's allies in the media are spreading claims far and wide that the 'roadside bomb' attacks are mostly the result of Iranian weapons and training and such attacks have killed more than 600 American soldiers in the past few years.

From the London Times :

Mr Bush also talked for the first time of “two strains” of Islamic radicalism causing chaos in Iraq and the region: not only Sunni jihadists, about whom he has spoken often, but also “Shia extremism, supported and embodied by Iran’s Government”.

The comments displayed a new aggression towards Tehran, a day after President Sarkozy of France raised the prospect of airstrikes on Iran if the crisis over its nuclear ambitions could not be solved through diplomacy.

Mr Bush said: “Iran’s pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

“Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran’s regime to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late,” he told war veterans in Nevada.

Mr Ahmadinejad, in a news conference in Tehran, again denied that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, and dismissed any possibility of US military action against Iran. “Even if they were to decide to do so, they would be unable to carry it out,” he said.

He increased his provocation of Mr Bush, who accused Iran of arming insurgents with sophisticated roadside bombs that were killing US troops.

“The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” Mr Ahmadinejad said. “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.”

More from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad :

"There is no way a possibility of such an attack by the United States. Even if they take such a decision, they cannot implement it," Ahmadinejad told a news conference marked by his characteristic defiance.

Ahmadinejad argued that an agreement last week between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meant the nuclear issue was on the right track and there was no need to fear further UN sanctions.

"Not one member of the IAEA has cooperated as well as Iran. So from our point of view, Iran's nuclear case is closed. Iran is a nuclear nation and has the nuclear fuel cycle," he said.

Ahmadinejad said that the cooperation between Iran and the IAEA had showed Western powers that using force to bring Tehran to heel would not work.

"The Iranian people are united, they believe in God, they believe in the reappearance of the Mahdi (the Shiite hidden imam)," he added, a day ahead of a public holiday in Iran to mark the imam's birth anniversary. During his news conference, Ahmadinejad repeatedly invoked the strength of Iranian civilisation, religion and culture, saying this had ensured that Western threats had come to nothing.

Earlier, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new verbal attack against Israel, accusing Zionists of sowing conflict, publishing offensive caricatures and "lying about being Jewish."

"Zionists are people without any religion," Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly predicted that Israel is doomed to disappear, told a news conference in Tehran.

"They thrive on conflict and war. They are an organised minority who have infiltrated the world. They are not even a 10,000-strong organisation," he said.

"Anywhere they are found there is war. Anywhere where there is war they are behind it," Ahmadinejad added.

Cheney's Office Co-Ordinating Massive Pro-Iran War Campaign Through Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Weekly Standard, Other NeoCon Media

International Atomic Energy Agency Reports "Significant" Progress On Dealing With Iran Over Nuclear Energy Development

US Goes After European Banks That Trade, Deal With Iran

Bush Calls For Mass Murder Of Iranians

US Planning "Massive" Military Attack Against Iran

Iran Ignores Protests From Baghdad, Continues Shelling Kurd 'Terrorists' In Northern Iraq

Iran Ready To Fill Power Vacuum In Iraq, Says Iranian President, Comments Infuriate US

Russia, China, Iran 'Warn' US To Stay Out Of Central Asia

Russia And China Hold War Games

Russia Returns To "Permanent" Long Range Strategic Bomber Flights Across Pacific And Arctic


The economic, strategic and military alliance between China, Iran and Russia continues to firm, as war games in the mountains of Southern Ural involving thousands of Russian and Chinese soldiers, and military units from all member states of theSCO, draw to a close.

Barely reported in Western media was that the Iranian president was a guest of the Chinese and Russian presidents during the week of war games and meetings, and India and Pakistan both sent teams of observers.

Russia has now declared that Iran is not a threat to any nation, and China is buffeting approaches from the United States to join them in a renewed push for tighter economic sanctions against Iran.

At a meeting last week of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) before the war games began, the leaders of Russia, China and Iran issued a joint statement, clearing intending to warn the United States to stay out of Central Asia :

The leaders of Russia, China and Iran have warned the outside world to leave Central Asia alone to look after its own stability and security...

"Stability and security in Central Asia are best ensured primarily through efforts taken by the nations of the region on the basis of the existing regional associations," the leaders said at the end of the (SCO) summit in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an observer at the summit, criticized U.S. missile defense plans as a threat to the entire region. "These intentions go beyond just one country. They are of concern for much of the continent, Asia andSCO members," he said.

(China's President) Hu also said signaled that security for Central Asia was best left to the nations themselves.

"The SCO nations have a clear understanding of the threats faced by the region and thus must ensure their security themselves," he said.

Putin didn't mention the United States in his speech at the summit, but he said that "any attempts to solve global and regional problems unilaterally are hopeless." He also called for "strengthening a multi-polar international system that would ensure equal security and opportunities for all countries" — comments echoing Russia's frequent complaints that the United States dominates world affairs.

The SCO was created 11 years ago to address religious extremism and border security issues in Central Asia. In recent years, with Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia signing on as observers, the group has increasingly grown into a bloc aimed at defying U.S. interests in the region, which has huge hydrocarbon reserves.

In 2005, the SCO called for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from two member countries, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan evicted U.S. forces later that year, but Kyrgyzstan still hosts a U.S. base, which supports operations in nearby Afghanistan.

Russia also maintains a military base in Kyrgyzstan.

Moscow and Beijing have developed what they dubbed a "strategic partnership" after the Soviet collapse, cemented by their perceptions that the United States dominates global affairs.

The SCO, whose members are some of the world's biggest energy producers and consumers, also discussed ways to enhance energy cooperation. The U.S. has supported plans for new pipelines that would carry the region's oil and gas to the West and bypass Russia, while Moscow has pushed strongly to control the export flows.

China also has shown a growing appetite for energy to power its booming economy.

A further sign of the group's intention to influence energy markets was the participation in the Bishkek summit of Turkmen President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov, whose country is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the former Soviet Union after Russia. Turkmenistan is not a SCO member; the president was attending as a guest

More on the Chinese-Russian war games :

Fighter jets streaked through the air as Russian and Chinese forces held their first joint maneuvers on Russian land Friday in a demonstration of their growing military ties and a shared desire to counter U.S. global clout.

The war games in the southern Ural Mountains involved some 6,000 troops from Russia and China along with a handful of soldiers from four ex-Soviet Central Asian nations that are part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional group dominated by Moscow and Beijing.

The drills coincided with a massive Russian air force exercise in which dozens of Russian strategic bombers ranged far over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans.

President Vladimir Putin, Chinese leader Hu Jintao and other leaders of the SCO nations attended the exercise, which followed their summit Thursday in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek.

Friday's military exercise involved dozens of aircraft and hundreds of armored vehicles which countered a mock attack by terrorists and insurgents striving to take control of energy resources.

The United States, Russia and China are locked in an increasingly tense rivalry for control over Central Asia's vast hydrocarbon riches.

Moscow objects vehemently to Washington's plans to deploy missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, saying the system would threaten Russia security. The United States says the missile defenses are necessary to avert the threat of possible missile attacks by Iran.

Virtually all the member states of the SCO, and observer nations, like Pakistan and India, have aired public, or diplomatic level, objections to the United States' plans for a missile defence shield.

For what it's worth, Russia is still denying that the SCO is a military bloc. They're fighting terror, says Putin :

Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed as irrelevant allegations that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a military bloc, and highlighted its increasing role in economic cooperation.

Putin said after the exercises: "The SCO today is an organization tackling political and economic issues, and the economic aspect is increasingly coming to the foreground." Comparisons with NATO are entirely untrue, he said.

Although the "Shanghai Six" was originally set up to deal with border disputes that emerged following the breakup of the Soviet Union between the newly-independent states and China, these problems have since been resolved, he said.

The Russian president said that cooperation between member states' militaries is more anti-terrorist than military in nature. Moscow is still faced with the threat of terrorism, and will continue counter-terrorism efforts both at home and abroad, in conjunction with its partners, he added.

To ram the message home that Russia, and the SCO alliance, will not tolerate the United States trying to expand its role as 'global policemen', in effect trying to dominate world events, Russia has renewed "permanent" strategic bomber patrols across the Pacific and Arctic :

We have decided to renew flights of Russian strategic aviation on a permanent basis," Mr Putin said after he and Chinese PresidentHu Jintao attended large-scale joint military exercises near this town in the Urals region.

The flights would resume from Saturday, Mr Putin said.

The announcement came days after Moscow said its strategic bombers had begun exercises over the North Pole, and just a week after Russian planes flew within a few hundred kilometres of a US military base on the island of Guam.

"Russia unilaterally stopped flights of its strategic aviation in distant areas of military action. Unfortunately, not everyone followed our example," he said, in an apparent reference to the United States.

Russia has some 80 long range strategic bombers, many left over from the era of Soviet military build-up, all are said to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons.


The United States is pretending to not be concerned about Russian bomber flights over the Pacific and Arctic :

The United States on Friday shrugged off Russia's decision to resume long-range strategic bomber flights, merely saying it was an "interesting" move.

"If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again that's their decision," State Department spokesman SeanMcCormack said.

He was commenting after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia would immediately resume long-range strategic bomber flights on a "permanent" basis, ending its 15-year suspension of such missions.

"That is a decision for them to take; it's interesting," McCormack added.

The announcement came days after Moscow said its strategic bombers had begun exercises over the North Pole, and just a week after Russian planes flew within a few hundred kilometers (miles) of a US military base on the island of Guam.

A top US commander said Tuesday that the long-range Russian bombers were flying more often and closer to US territory.

General Gene Renuart, Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and US Northern Command, the agencies charged with protecting US and Canadian airspace, said US forces would continue to monitor the activity.

In the five-day exercises over the North pole that began Tuesday, the nuclear-capable bombers practised firing cruise missiles, navigation in the polar region and aerial refueling maneuvers, the Russian air force said in a statement.

More on the welcome the Iranian president received at the SCO summit last week, and the growing expansion of the alliance, which may soon include Afghanistan :

Russia and China today host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a summit of a Central Asian security club designed to counter U.S. influence in the region.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization invited Iran to become an observer in 2005, sparking concern in the U.S., and Ahmadinejad called for closer ties to the group when he attended last year's summit in Shanghai. Kyrgyzstan is hosting the one-day annual meeting in its capital, Bishkek.

Chinese and Russian officials say the SCO, set up in 2001 with the stated goal of strengthening regional cooperation and combating terrorism, is focused on maintaining stability in the region. Its six members include the four Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose country is battling a resurgent Taliban, is a guest at the summit. Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Li Hui said Aug. 11 the group wants to cooperate with Afghanistan in fighting drug smuggling and terrorism.

In another unwelcome development for the Americans, Turkmenistan's President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov also accepted an invitation to attend the summit. His long-ruling predecessor, Saparmurat Niyazov, who died last year, had kept the energy-rich country isolated and resisted Russian influence.

Russia in May secured a deal to build a new pipeline to import more gas from Turkmenistan, bolstering its dominant hold on supplies to Europe and heading off a competing U.S.-backed plan that would bypass Russian territory.

Finally, a report on the massive re-arming programs that Russia has launched, as Putin seeks to give Russia a formidable international military presence :

Russian defense spending rose by 22 percent and 27 percent in the past two years, respectively, and could be up as much as 30 percent this year. In February, Sergei Ivanov, then defense secretary and now one of the front-runners to replace Mr. Putin next year, announced an almost $200 billion program of expenditures.

According to Jane's Sentinel Country Risk Assessments, the Russian shopping list includes two new submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles, the Bulava and the Sineva — both with a 5,000-mile range and capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads — and a new anti-aircraft missile, the S-400, which the Russian Defense Ministry claims is effective against incoming missiles. Production of the new SS-27 Topol-M missile, the land-based equivalent of the Bulava, has also begun.

Russia also plans to spend heavily on the new TU-160 strategic bomber, which can launch cruise missiles, the SU-34 "Fullback" fighter-bomber, capable of all-weather attacks on heavily defended targets, and a new fifth-generation fighter, the Sukhoi T-50, which is expected to come into service in 2008 as Russia's main lightweight front-line fighter.

The expanded Russian fleet will include six new nuclear-powered aircraft carriers — a dramatic increase from only one such carrier — and eight ballistic-missile submarines.

The formation and solidifying of 'The Other NATO' would appear to be progressing at an upwards pace comparable to the downwards pace of the Coalition of the Willing's progress in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Between NATO and the CoW, taking in the US, Australia and the UK, primarily, and the growing power and influence of the SCO alliance lies Iran.

China and Russia, along with many other member and observer states of the SCO, regard the protection of Iran as being in their "national interest". NeoCons and US hawks continually push for BushCo. to strike Iran now, and not wait until it begins a nuclear armed nation, if that is Iran's intention. China and Russia state that it is not Iran's intention, and would regard any aggression towards Iran by BushCo. or Israel, as being an act of aggression towards the SCO alliance.

Interesting, dangerous times indeed.


SCO Summit : Putin Says "Security Co-Operation" Is Top Goal

Russia Resumes 'Cold War Era' Long Range Bomber Flights

The Facts On Russia's Long Range Strategic Bombers

It's The West Starting This New Cold War

Russia Says Iran Poses No Threat - Quietly Warns US To Back Off Tighter Sanctions Regime Against Iran

Russia And China Hold War Games - Rattling The West

China, Russia Welcome Iranian President As 'Important Guest' At SCO Summit

Bush, Cheney Threaten War On Iran

New York Times, Washington Post Create 'War On Iran' Reality

Iran and Maliki Government Firm Ties, As Iran Promises Security To Help 'Secure' Iraq

If the United States, with the help of Israel, attacks Iran in the coming year, the moment that Vice President Dick Cheney gave a chilling, lopsided grin in response to a question about what the US intends to do about Iran will go down in history as the first clear sign that BushCo. was readying for more war :

When Larry King asked Cheney in an interview on July 31, ""Would you make an overt move on Iran?" Cheney said with a grin, "For what reason?" He then added, "I'm not going to speculate about prospective operations."

Cheney has been instrumental in preparing the homeland for a series of air strikes on the nuclear energy infrastructure of Iran. Naturally, he has been helped out enormously in this task by the same cabal of warpig NeoCons who created a looming enemy danger out of Iraq in 2002.

And the Washington Post, and the New York Times have been primary in giving voice to the NeoCons and the infamous rollcall of "senior military sources" and "White House sources", just as they did before when most Americans barely even knew the Iraq War was already locked and loaded for March 2003.

President Bush is pumping the claim that Iran are arming, training and funding Shia insurgents in Iraq to attack and kill American troops, primarily through the use of "advanced" IEDs

But how true are those claims? Think Progress rounds up the expert opinions :

– Gen. Peter Pace told reporters he has no evidence of any links between the explosives killing Americans and the Iranian government.

– A National Intelligence Estimate released in February concluded that Iranian involvement was “not likely” to be a major driver of violence.

– A recent McClatchy analysis of U.S. casualties in Iraq confirms earlier reports that the great majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Sunni Saudis, not Iranians.

Last Thursday, President Bush issued his first clear warning of the military action to come :

Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.

"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.

He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.

"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

More from Raw Story :

The degree of responsibility than can be placed on Iran and the Shiite groups it supports for current attacks in Iraq is not clear. Until recently the US tended to blame most Iraqi violence on Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda. However, what McClatchy describes as a "growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq" appearing in US media is beginning to remind observers of the media campaign in 2002 that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

Kurt Nimmo writes that Cheney "is getting antsy to kill Iranian toddlers and grandmothers" :

Let’s cut to the chase: Cheney is not “skeptical of diplomacy with Iran,” but rather finds it abhorrent and anathema. As a neocon, Cheney wants to bomb Iran and kill untold numbers of Iranian toddlers and grandmothers—anything short of mass murder will be wholly insufficient. As for this purported “truckload of fighters or weapons,” Publisher & Editor notes: “It was reminiscent of the day in September 2002 when Cheney and other officials went on Sunday talk shows and touted the now-infamous Gordon-Judith Miller front-pager in the Times on the ‘aluminum tubes’ in Iraq and the possible ‘mushroom cloud’ on the horizon.” Of course, plenty of clueless and ill-informed Americans bought into this transparent scam and no doubt many will this time around as well.

Think Progress details how the Washington Post and the New York Times are facilitating the NeoCon push for a War On Iran, through one-sided stories on the "debate" and through the use of non-attributed sources to build a consensus amongst Americans that Iran is already fighting a war against the US through Iraqi insurgents :

In today’s Washington Post, reporter Robin Wright gives neoconservative pundits like the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and AEI’s Michael Rubin a platform to advocate for military action against Iran. Wright suggests these calls are part of “a new drumbeat for bolder action.” Without offering opposing viewpoints, Wright recycles the preemptive strike theories of her sources — all prior advocates of preemptive military action against Iraq.

Like the NYT’s Michael Gordan before her, Wright uncritically reports the Bush administration’s claim that “since May, the first formal talks between U.S. and Iranian envoys in 28 years have not deterred Iranian support for Iraqi Shiite militias targeting U.S. troops and the Green Zone,” a claim that has become media conventional wisdom.

Iran, meanwhile, knows exactly what is going on :

AN Iranian minister said the United States had dropped the idea of attacking Iran but wants to topple its leadership through a "soft revolution".

Intelligence Minister Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, a cleric, said Iran's enemies had waged "psychological warfare" to prepare for military action against the Islamic Republic.

In comments carried overnight by the government-owned Iran newspaper, he suggested the country's successful defence against Iraqi forces during the 1980-88 war and more recent US setbacks in Iraq had, however, forced the Americans to rethink.

"The resistance of the Iranian nation during the eight years of holy war and the defeat of the enemies in the Middle East caused the Global Arrogance (the United States) to put aside the option of a military attack against Iran," he said.

Iran is also locking in a series of new trade, diplomatic, energy and military alliances with the Maliki government. On behalf, of Maliki, the Iranian government is promising to help Iraq sort out its security, but is demanding the US withdraw its forces from Iraq :

An end to violence in Iraq depends on the US withdrawing its troops, Iran told Iraq’s prime minister yesterday, seeking to deflect blame for bloodshed that the US directs at Tehran.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, facing political woes at home and US criticism for lack of progress in bridging sectarian division, won support from Shiite Iran in a visit to Tehran.

These latest move by Iran and Maliki has sent Australia, a key ally in the Coalition of the Willing, into a near state of apoplexy. Australia's prime minister, John Howard, is now demanding the Maliki government meet numerous political goals, and get the Oil Law passed, or Australia will withdraw its forces.

Howard's big demands to Maliki came only hours after the prime minister "discussed Iraq" with President Bush.

Unlike the US, Australia still has diplomatic ties with Iran, and it is looking more likely that Australia will be used by BushCo. to ramp up the pressure. Pressure that Iran, however, is unlikely to feel, or react positively to.

Iran sees no reason why it should play by the Coalition's rules. It has Russia and China on side, and a solid relationship with the Maliki government in Iraq. Iran only has to look to the media in the United States to see the growing chorus of opinionists and even key Republicans now saying the Iraq War is lost.

Iran knows that BushCo., despite the rhetoric of the NeoCons, has little support for military action against its nuclear energy infrastructure.

Like BushCo. the NeoCons are a fading force in American politics and influence.


How The American Zionist Lobby Launched Their Pro-Iran War Propaganda Campaign In 2006 In New York, With The Help Of Republican Senators

Fears Of US Attacks On Iran Grow As Media Campaign Hots Up

Cheney Urges Strikes On Iran, Bush Steps Up To Back The Vice President

Iran Promises To Help Iraq's Security