US Tells Israel To Negotiate Flight Paths With Iraqis If They Want To Bomb Iranians

Is this the end, for now at least, of Israel's war plans for Iran?

The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.

Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.

About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel's capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.

Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:
Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.

Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of "If you want, coordinate with him."

New York Times Pimps NeoCons War On Iran

Lebanon Terror Masters In Iran Training Iraqi Insurgents : The Story Sourced From An Anonymous "Official" Based On Reports Media Is Not Allowed To See

The New York Times is proud to declare itself thoroughly against the War On Iraq, even as it helps set the scene for a War On Iran. A headline from today :

Hezbollah Trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials Say

This 'news' story is very reminiscent of pieces in the Washington Post and the New York Times back in late 2002, blithely producing reams of headlines, op-eds and stories light on hard facts but heavy on big claims made by "officials".

The journalist admits that he is quoting from a set of interrogation reports he hasn't seen, and is simply taking the word of the "official" that they are exactly what they are claimed to be :

The "official' summed up the information from the interrogation reports but did not make them available. He declined to be identified because the information had not been released publicly.

If the interrogation reports are so solid on evidence, why wouldn't the "official" put their name to claims of Iranian interference that work in the White House's favour as it tries to undermine Iran? Alarm bells once rang in journalists' heads when any "official" from the government tried to feed them stories based on reports the journalists are not allowed to see.

Not now.

Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran, according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government.

An American official said the account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last year and questioned separately.

The United States has long charged that the Iranians were training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran, which Iran has consistently denied, and there have been previous reports about Hezbollah operatives in Iraq.

Material from the interrogations was given to the Iraqi government, along with other data about captured Iranian arms, before it sent a delegation to Tehran last week to discuss allegations of Iranian aid to militia groups.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government announced Sunday that it would conduct its own inquiry into accusations of Iranian intervention in Iraq and document any interference.

“We have experienced in the past that Iran interfered and has special groups in Iraq, but Iran also had evidence that they were participating in positive ways in security,” Ali al-Dabbagh, a senior Iraqi government spokesman, said in an interview.

“We would like the Iranians to keep their commitment, the commitments they made in meetings with the prime minister and with other groups that have visited them,” he said. “They had made the promise that Iran would be playing a supportive role.”

Iran's clearly not going to leave, or let go, of Iraq. The Iraq government and most Shiites don't want Iran to leave Iraq. They want the United States to leave Iraq.

There has been debate among experts about the extent to which Iran is responsible for instability in Iraq. But President Bush and other American officials, in public castigations of Iran, have said that Iran has been consistently meddlesome in Iraq and that the Iranians have long sought to arm and train Iraqi militias, which the American military has called “special groups.”

In a possible effort to be less obtrusive, it appears that Iran is now bringing small groups of Iraqi Shiite militants to camps in Iran, where they are taught how to do their own training, American officials say.

The militants then return to Iraq to teach comrades how to fire rockets and mortars, fight as snipers or assemble explosively formed penetrators, a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb made of Iranian components, according to American officials. The officials describe this approach as “training the trainers.”

According to their interrogation reports, the militiamen believed that militants from other countries were also being trained at the camp, an impression based on hearing snippets of conversations in other dialects and languages.

They think they might have heard other prisoners talking about such things, in other languages.

“We don’t want to be at war with Iran, and we will not allow anyone to settle their scores with Iran on Iraqi soil,” Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Mr. Maliki, said Saturday in an interview. “But at the same time, we don’t want Iran to settle their scores with the United States on Iraqi soil.”

Jalaluddin al-Sagheer, a prominent member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite political party, asserted that the Iraqi Shiite politicians would be loath to take any position that would alienate Iran.

“Iran is not an easy country for us,” he said. “We have a long border with them; we have a long history of relations with them; we have strong commercial ties with them and we cannot hurt that because of copies of documents.”

Key Iraqi politicians obviously think the information within the interrogation reports is utter crap, and they don't want to embarrass themselves with the Iranians by having anything to do with what may or may not turn out to be pure propaganda from Israel and the US.

CBS News : Prepare For War On Iran

One of the more lurid examples of how the American corporate media is preparing Americans for an inevitable 'War On Iran'. The reasons for war are established, the threat posed is made intolerable, the capacity to strike from the air and sea is boasted, and promoted. It is not about proof or reason only the creation of a 'War On Iran' reality :

A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.

"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program. New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.

Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in I.raq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.

If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.

It's a replay of 2002, and how the corporate media that reaches almost every US TV, radio or newspaper helped Americans to believe that War On Iraq was not only inevitable, but that it was warranted, necessary, and already way overdue.

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

US Military Thinks Cheney & Bush Are 'Out Of Control'

Iraq War Is Being Lost Under A Tide Of Unstoppable IED Attacks

Some highlights from an interesting interview with military historian Gabriel Kolko, who wraps up some of the latest news about the revolt fermenting against the American president and vice president inside its own military. Attacks on Iran, of course, are the key to this rising
rebellion :

"The American military is stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another? The Pentagon is short of money for procurement, and that is what so many people in the military bureaucracy live for. The situation will be far worse in the event of a war with Iran.

Many in the American military have learned the fundamental dilemma of modern warfare: More money and better weapons don't mean that you win. IEDs, which cost so little to make, are defeating a military which spends billions of dollars per month. IEDS are so adaptable that each new strategy developed by the United States to counter them is answered by the Iraqi insurgents.

"Many in the US military think Bush and Cheney are out of control. They are rebelling against Bush and Cheney. Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently said in an interview that she believed the US military would revolt and refuse to fly missions against Iran if the White House issued such orders.

"CENTCOM [US Central Command, the military grouping whose responsibilities include the Middle East] commander Admiral William Fallon reportedly thwarted Cheney's wish to sent a third additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. One paper wrote that he "vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM."

Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, in charge of US forces in Japan, told the Associated Press last week that the Iraq war had weakened American forces in the face of any potential conflict with China. He was quoted as saying, "Are we in trouble? It depends on the scenario. But you have to be concerned about the small number of our forces and the age of our forces."

"All the significant economic journals (Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) recognize that the American and European economies are now in a crisis, and it may be protracted. The dollar is falling; Gulf States and others may abandon it (as an investment currency). A war with Iran would produce economic chaos because oil would be scarce. There are states which the United States wishes to isolate, like Russia and Venezuela, who can develop great influence through their ability to sell oil in such a crisis. The balance of world economic power is involved, and that is a great issue.

...I regard the Israelis as opponents of a war with Iran which would involve them. They certainly noticed how during the war with Lebanon the Palestinians in Gaza used the opportunity to increase pressure on Israel from the south. Israelis opposed the Iraq war because it would lead to Iranian domination of the region, which it has.

Hence, the report that Cheney is trying to use Israel, if it is true, shows that he's confused and quite mad -- but also unusually isolated.

Bush Raises Threat Of "World War 3" Over Iran Gaining "Knowledge" To Make Nuclear Weapons

Caspian Sea States Issue Statement Opposing Iran Strikes By US, Israel

From The Last Days Of President Bush blog :

President Bush casually discussed the possibility of World War III breaking out over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions today, with a few chuckles thrown in to 'lighten' the mood at the press conference.

His warning that Iran had to be stopped from gaining "the knowledge" of how to building nuclear weapons was directed primarily towards Russia and China, both of whom have opposed further sanctions on Iran, and resisted even talk of military action.

President Bush now finds himself squaring off with only Israel as a fully committed anti-Iran alliance member against the full might of an unofficial alliance comprised of Iran, Russia and China, who now have dozens of other countries, including Pakistan, India and Afghanistan on side under umbrella trade and economic alliances. Putin recently warned the states bordering the Caspian Sea not to allow the United States to launch air strikes on Iran from their territory. Putin reportedly faced little resistance from the 'stans.

Both Russia and China have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of trade interests and energy deals with Iran at the moment, and both had have warned the United States and Israel not to go to War On Iran.

Remarkably, President Bush has now backed almost completely away from NeoCon-pumped propaganda claiming Iran already has nuclear weapons, or is only a year or two away from developing them.

President Bush clearly said his interest was to stop Iran from gaining "the knowledge" to build nuclear weapons, not that they had them already, or were close to getting them.

"I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so.

"I told (world leaders) that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And I take this very -- I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."

World opposition to the United States and/or Israel striking Iran is now overwhelming. Yesterday, an alliance of Caspian Sea states issued a statement voicing their opposition to the growing tide of threats from the US, Israel and France toward Iran :

Russia, Iran and other Caspian Sea states have issued a declaration warning other nations against using their territories for launching military action against any one of them.

The statement came at the end of a summit of leaders of the five nations, and is believed to refer to a possible US strike on Iran launched from Azerbaijan.

Putin has said that no Caspian Sea state should let its soil be used to attack a fellow coastal country.

"The parties underline that under no circumstances would they allow other nations to use their territory for waging aggression or other military action against any of the parties," the declaration said.

Putin had said earlier: "We should not even think of making use of force in this region."

Although the mostly manufacture 'Iran Crisis' is helping to distract Americans from the unfolding tragedy of the War On Iraq, in the rest of the world the growing alliance between Iran, China and Russia, and a host of other nations, united in their opposition to NeoCon-led demands for air strikes on Iran, is making the United States look weak and decidedly like a rogue nation.

More rogue, at least, than Iran for the time being.

US Military Vs BushCo. Over War On Iran

Reality Of An American Military Coup Against BushCo. No Longer In The Realms Of 'Outrageous Conspiracy Theory'

'Revolt Of The Generals' Reaches The Most Senior Ranks Of US Military

If BushCo. and the NeoCons try to launch nuclear strikes on Iran, would the dissenting retired and serving generals of the US military intervene? Could it really be true that there is a movement within the US military to stop the War On Iran that BushCo. and the NeoCons seem so intent on starting?

The idea that there is a growing mutiny against the Bush administration within the American military has been kicking around the message boards of conspiracy. military and alternate news sites for more than two years. A lot of this speculation has come from the very real 'Revolt Of The Generals' - a grouping of multi-star retired generals who began speaking out against the War On Iraq in late 2004.

But what was once the domain of mostly anonymous gossip and conspiracy sites is now hitting the mainstream media. And it would appear the speculation may have not been all that far from the truth.

Blogger Glenn Greenwald points out that the very credible Dana Priest, of the Washington Post, recently had this to say during an online Q & A :

West Chester, Pa.: History seems to be repeating it self as the drumbeat for war with Iran, based on accusations not backed up by any facts, intensifies. Do you think the Bush administration will launch a war (perhaps sending only the bombers) against Iran and if they do what are the likely consequences for the Middle East?

Dana Priest: Frankly, I think the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions. This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. Casey, the Army chief, said yesterday. That the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the "war" or "bombing" part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?

Greenwald says there has been a number of "extraordinary reports" on what he calls the "virtual refusal of senior military officials to permit a war on Iran." He's playing it safe. There is nothing virtual about it. The revolt within the US military against BushCo. and the NeoCons going to War On Iran is clearly a very real event, and all but unprecedented in more than a century of American history.

It's a shocking, and extremely sad, fact to soak up that one of the biggest stories of the new age of American war has barely been reported at all.

Greenwald also points out that CENTCOM Commander, Admiral William Fallon, was successful in his attempt to block efforts by Vice President Dick Cheney, and BushCo. NeoCons to move a third aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf. Fallon found few mainstream media headlines for his historical show of dissent when he declared, privately, "there would be now war against Iran" as long as he was chief of CENTCOM :

At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran's leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon.

The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.

"He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it," says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon's message from a Pentagon official who had read it.

Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".

Further, Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, was recently quoted as saying that despite what BushCo. and the NeoCons desired, no new military conflicts would be possible, as the US Army had been dangerously depleted by six straight years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan :

The Army's top officer, General George Casey, told Congress yesterday that his branch of the military has been stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it can not adequately respond to another conflict -- one of the strongest warnings yet from a military leader that repeated deployments to war zones in the Middle East have hamstrung the military's ability to deter future aggression.

In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

Officials said Casey, who appeared along with Army Secretary Pete Geren, personally requested the public hearing -- a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.

It's a stunning admission. The top officer in the US Army says America's primary military force was so damaged and worn down that it could not respond to another conflict. No doubt it's true, but it's clear that by demanding the public hearing, Casey was making sure that BushCo. and the NeoCons would not be able to censor, or undermine, his revelations, before they went out on live TV.

The 'Revolt Of The Generals' is no longer a collection of retired generals, voicing their dissent on cable news shows.It has now become a very real revolt, and growing force of actionable dissent, within the most senior ranks of the American military.

As we said, a truly mind-blowing event in the history of American war, and in the history of the nation itself.

The American military is now fighting, if only by word and declaration for now, to stop itself from going to War On Iran.

There was a fairly popular conspiracy theory kicking around in early 2003 that BushCo. and the NeoCons wanted to go to War On Iraq, with the full knowledge that such an action would all but destroy, or at least, utterly degrade the fighting strength of the US Military. To destroy the American military by sending it into a war that it could not win. That it was never given a chance to win in the first place (by BushCo.'s refusal to follow overwhelming advice that 350,000 to 500,000 troops would be needed to actively, and successfully, secure Iraq).

It's a shocking state of affairs to now see so many wondering, and speculating, whether or not the above conspiracy might actually hold some truth. As horrible as that reality might be.

It's also interesting to speculate that if BushCo. ordered, as commander in chief, his forces to attack Iran and they outright refused to follow his orders - a reality some senior rankers already appear to be preparing for - would the majority of the American people oppose a military coup against the NeoCon-infested Bush administration?

Such strange and troubling times.


Some further reading on all this :

US Military Commanders Insist Striking Iran Would Be A Disaster

December 2006 : Join Chiefs Of Staff Tell Bush They Are "Unanamiously Opposed" To Air Strikes On Iran's Nuclear Faciltiies

Bush Now Has "Inherent Authority" Under Constitution To Attack Iran

"The Most Effective Anti-War Movement In America Is Inside The Walls Of The Pentagon"

NeCon Bolton Says No Alternative Left But To Launch "Pre-Emptive" Strikes On Iran, Depose Mahmadinejad Regime

Key BushCo. Aide Tells British MPs "I Hate All Iranians"

Former US ambassador the UN, and internationally despised 'diplomat', John Bolton is ramping up the NeoCon propaganda campaign to get Americans used to the idea that launching pre-emptive war on Iran is the only option the US now has left.

It's the latest set of remarks in a clear, precise and well-organised propaganda campaign to 'seed' the idea that Iran is going to be armed with nuclear weapons and so War On Iran must begin now, not later.

On Friday in the UN Security Council, both China and Russia, as expected, refused to back a slate of new sanctions on Iran.

China and Russia have both stated that they would retaliate for any attacks by Israel or the United States on Iran, who they view as an essential business partner, an energy source and an important ally.

From the UK Guardian :

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

"...life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad.

"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back."

The fact that intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity was partial should not be used as an excuse not to act, Mr Bolton insisted.

"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction." He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. "'It's only Manchester?' ... Responding after they're used is unacceptable."

Mr Bolton, now a fellow at the conservative thinktank the American Enterprise Institute and the author of a forthcoming book called Surrender is Not an Option, was applauded by delegates when he described the UN as "fundamentally irrelevant".

US Defence Secretary Aide Tells British MPs "I hate all Iranians" :

Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

The six MPs were taken aback by the hardline approach of the Pentagon and in particular Ms Cagan, one of Mr Bush's foreign policy advisers.

The MPs say that at one point she said: "In any case, I hate all Iranians."

"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP. "She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."

Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."

NeoCon Movement 'Grandfather' Told Bush To Bomb Iran, Bush Laughed :

One of the founding fathers of neoconservatism has privately urged President George W Bush to bomb Iran rather than allow it to acquire nuclear weapons.

Norman Podhoretz, an intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement who has joined Rudolph Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser, held an unpublicised meeting with Bush late last spring at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

The encounter reveals the enduring influence of the neoconservatives at the highest reaches of the White House, despite some high-profile casualties in the past year.

Karl Rove, who was still serving in the White House as Bush’s deputy chief of staff, took notes. But the meeting, which lasted 45 minutes, was not logged on the president’s schedule.

“I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought there was no alternative,” said Podhoretz, 77, in an interview with The Sunday Times.

“I laid out the worst-case scenario – bombing Iran – versus the worst-case consequences of allowing the Iranians to get the bomb.”

He also told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You’re the only one with the guts to do it.” The president looked very solemn, Podhoretz said.

For the most part Bush simply listened, although he and Rove both laughed when Podhoretz mentioned giving “futility its chance”, a phrase used by his fellow neoconservative, Robert Kagan, about the usefulness of pursuing United Nations sanctions against Iran.

“He gave not the slightest indication of whether he agreed with me, but he listened very intently,” Podhoretz said.

He is convinced, however, that “George Bush will not leave office with Iran having acquired a nuclear weapon or having passed the point of no return” – a reference to the Iranians’ acquisition of sufficient technical capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

The UN security council, facing deadlock with Russia and China, agreed on Friday to give Iran until November to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about its nuclear programme.

But the NeoCons and BushCo. have now been forced to deal with the reality of 'No Iran War' dissidence and mutiny within the most senior ranks of the American military :

Admiral William Fallon, US commander in the Middle East, said last week that the “constant drumbeat of war is not helpful”. But he added that the pressure on Iran would continue: “We have a very, very robust capability in the region, especially in comparison to Iran. That is one of the things people might like to keep in mind.”

All this follows the recent dramatic news that US Vice President, Dick Cheney, had considered how to provoke Iran into attacking Israel, so the US could then move to attack Iran under the cover of 'protecting' Israel.

These people are sick, truly demented.


NeoCons Want 'What Iran Did Wrong' Dossiers To Justify Air Strikes Against Teheran

US Trains Gulf Air Forces For War On Iran

Jewish Community In Iran Slam Anti-Ahmadinejad Protests And Columbia University 'Ambush'

Iranian President : We Don't Have Nuclear Weapons And We Are Not On A Path Towards War With US

US Rejects Iranian Pledge To Help Unite Iraq, Stop Violence

Iran Labels CIA Terrorist Organisation

US Military Plans Ready For War On Iran

Israel Media Mouthpieces Openly Lust For Attacks And Oil Blockade



Will President Bush deliver the War On Iran that he has long promised, and long been demanded of him?

This report from the Jerusalem Post all but says the War On Iran will be a reality within a year, and it will not just be Iran's nuclear energy facilities that will be targeted, but the oil exports that drive the development of China and supply more than one-fourth of the world's oil-derived energy :

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.

Bush has repeatedly said the United States would not allow Iran to "go nuclear."

A high-ranking American military officer told the Post that senior officers in the US armed forces had thrown their support behind Bush and believed that additional steps needed to be taken to stop Iran.

Predictions within the US military are that Bush will do what is needed to stop Teheran before he leaves office in 2009, including possibly launching a military strike against its nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said the US should consider a military strike against Iran over its support of Iraqi insurgents.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

According to a high-ranking American military officer, the US Navy and Air Force would play the primary roles in any military action taken against Iran. One idea under consideration is a naval blockade designed to cut off Iran's oil exports.

The officer said that if the US government or the UN Security Council decided on this course of action, the US Navy would most probably not block the Strait of Hormuz - a step that would definitely draw an Iranian military response - but would patrol farther out and turn away tankers on their way to load oil.

Does all this help explain why Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, General Peter Pace, who was publicly opposed to military action on Iran, was removed last week by President Bush? Was he tossed aside to clear the way for the War On Iran?

If you have any delusions that Russia or China will allow the US and/or Israel to not only attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but to blockade international oil supplies, then you have been watching too much Fox News.

Russia and China have both openly, and clearly, stated that they will not allow anybody to attack an ally of theirs as important as Iran, or to take action that would threaten the supply of oil to world markets.

What the JPost story fails to make clear is that an attack on Iran will place every single coalition soldier in Iraq in the direct path of an Iraq wide, Shia-led uprising.

Nor does it explain that such an oil blockade would drive per barrel prices beyond an estimated $150, smashing fragile economies across the world.

Joint US-Israel Military Exercises Underway

Israel Deputy Prime Minister Meets With US Officials, Announces Military Action Against Iran "On The Table"

If US Hits Iran Nuclear Plants, Iran Promises To Blitz The Gulf

Iranian President Says It's Too Late To Stop Nuclear Drive

THE US FAILS TO FIND MOMENTUM FOR ACTION ON IRAN

CHINA, RUSSIA TELLS THE US TO BACK OFF

THE NEW WORLD ORDER COMES TOGETHER, BUT WHERE IS THE US AND THE UK?

Opinion

By Darryl Mason

Iran has announced it will defy any further calls by the UN to stop its program of enriching uranium for civilian, peaceful purposes. At the same time, the US has declared the UN Security Council must act now in order to save its credibility.

But China and Russia have warned the US not to do anything stupid, or dangerous, when it comes to Iran. And Iran has told the US it will strike back "beyond belief" if there is an invasion or round of aistrikes, or even a solid slab of sanctions.

The US has crowed too loud this time.

The UN Security Council is unlikely to impose sanctions on Iran, and certainly won't okay military action, because two of its key members, China and Russia, hold vetoes and don't want any action on Iran, even if they are found to have nuclear weapons in development.

The US and Israel might not be able to live with Iran having nuclear weapons, but Russia and China are not so bothered. Iran is a powerful ally in the region now, where the US has become a dangerous liability.

After a solid month of leaked information about US military strike plans on Iran, and wall to wall television debates on the subject, US Secretary of Defence, Condileeza Rice, is finding it hard to be taken seriously when she declares that the US prefers diplomacy over war. She said it before, but the media didn't notice. They were too fixated on how the US will strike Iran.

Such talk of diplomacy will now be seen as a major backdown by the US, especially back home, even though Rice is singing the same song she has sung since the start of the year.

And the same for Bush. Neither have announced an intention to bomb Iran, but the major media in the US has talked about it ceaselessly - how it will be done, why it must be done, why it can't be done, when it will be done and, occasionally, if it will be done.

Bush, however, hasn't helped the global perception of the US being a war-wanting nation when he has thumped podiums and grinned speciously while talking about how no options have been taken off the table yet when it comes to Iran, "including the nuclear option".

Rice now finds herself unwelcome as she tours Middle East and EU countries. The diplomats may still like her, and trust her, but she is bad for local business. A War On Iran is shaping up, in Europe and the East at least, as the most unpopular confrontation in decades.

Condi Rice's quick "pop-in" to Iraq on Wednesday, teamed up with the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, just as the Iraqi government was breaking a crippling deadlock over leadership and its constitution, was not widely viewed as affirmation of democracy in Iraq, but as further interference by the US.

"What are you doing here?" the uncomfortable Iraqi faces glared at Rice and Rumsfeld, who looked extremely uncomfortable themselves. Rice put on a good show, but Rumsfeld was grim and bitter and obviously had a lot on his mind.

Their visit was widely seen in Iraq, and across the Middle East, as the US giving its blessing to the new moves by the Iraq government, where no blessing was required.

The fact that this visit by Rice and Rumsfeld was undertaken with a wall of US media in tow didn't do much to wind back the idea that these are simply PR trips. The locals don't buy it, and now neither do the majority of Americans.

Rice is having an awfully hard time trying to round up enthusiasm and support for some hardcore UN sanctions on Iran, let alone military action, even now it is clear Iran will not stop pursuing their homegrown nuclear energy drive.

China and Russia are already doing big business with Iran and don't want their profit margins affected by sanctions that would clearly benefit the US, by giving a major leg-up to Iraq and all the US corporations now basing themselves there in the hope that Iraq will serve as a new American gateway to the riches of the Middle East.

"Help us on Iran," Rice says, seemingly desperate now, but so many countries are scared of getting involved with the US, this time.

Rice says "diplomacy", Bush says "all options, including nuclear, are on the table" in dealing with Iran, and suddenly it is the US, not Iran, who looks like the rogue state, the drunken sword swinger in the diplomatic ballroom.

And the US is not getting much help from the media this time.

There was resistance to the War On Iraq in the major media in the US, for a period, but once it seemed a lock-in that the War was on, they fell into line. Once Rumsfeld and then Secretary of State Colin Powell handed out the 'confidential' memos, intelligence reports and fake photos, the media took the bait and ran with it all the way to the front page.

But not this time.

Shocked, mortified, by their original enthusiasm for the War On Iraq, and the hellstorm of response from their readers that followed, and continues still, growing even stronger, journalists and editors across the US are suspicious of everything Rice, President Bush and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have to say about "options" on Iran.

The media is wary. They are stand-offish. "You lied before, how do we know you aren't lying this time?"

Scanning through dozens of newspapers online, from the US, across the EU, along with (translated) Russia and Chinese media portals, it appears the US faces nothing but opposition to any action at all to solve the Iran Crisis.

The international media didn't believe the US on Iraq from the beginning, and they seem to be literally doing everything they can to hammer the US now, to codify them, to nullify their once formidable projection of power and dominance.

Perhaps it's easier for the media to simply believe Iran is telling the truth when it says it only wants to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Or easier to believe the US is lying, and wants to bomb Iran regardless of whether or not they are "nuking up".

There has been some extraordinary changes in the world since the start of the War On Iraq, and a huge slab of those changes have come directly from new energy and trade deals forged between the rising mega-powers which are China, Iran and Russia.

And there is the boom in Latin America as well, with new socialist democratic governments storming through, rich with fat oil dollars and major investment capital from China and the East.

All the while that this new order has been cutting deals and firming fresh ties, the US has been distracted by Iraq War fallout back home - 2300+ dead soldiers, torture scandals, intelligence scandals, battles over who lied about what and when, and the wall of opposition to the wartime implementation of hard security measures on freedom-focused Americans.

And perhaps worst of all, the money is now running out. The US can barely afford another War, and the American people now know this. It took a while, but once fuel prices leapt above $3 a gallon, suddenly every American wanted to know why.

China and Russia are working together and working with Iran, cutting energy deals for gas and oil worth half a trillion amongst themselves, and bringing India and Pakistan (two nations that most definitely are nuclear) into their breezily formed zone of energy security.

China has also made stunning inroads into Africa as well, just this week, locking up major supplies of oil from Niger.

The new global order of China, Iran, Russia, with India and Pakistan almost on board, and the leftist Latin America unification, is rich and powerful and popular.

The US, the UK, Australia, these countries are neither needed, nor especially wanted, in the new global order. We might have some resources they can use, but to not get coal and gas and uranium from the West will not cripple the new global order's rise and dominance. China and Russia will just go elsewhere to get what they need, which is why Iran and African countries like Niger are now so important to them.

But the US wants to freeze out Iran, shut down their rising world status, and isolate them from their ties with China and Russia, and pipeline deals with Pakistan and India.

Iran with the bomb is a country that will be hard to hold back from dominating the Middle East, particularly with China and Russia standing tall behind them, if that is actually what China and Russia will allow.

Iran has more readily available oil and gas today than Iraq does, and far more stability, for now, in the face of US pressure, which has caused the dissenters to go quieter, instead of rising up as might be expected, to cash in on the US pressure.

And Latin America, led by Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, is gradually pulling out of the US oil market and finding new customers, in the Bahamas, in Iran, in China and Russia.

In the Middle East, outside of Israel, it is not Iran that is viewed as the greatest danger, or the most repressive of the regimes. That black honour falls on the Saudi Kingdom, one of the strongest US allies in the world. And yet is a brutocracy that appears to be fragile, a few shoves away from finally toppling over.

The US doesn't want this, of course. The Saudis are friends, and good business partners, despite the torture and brutality used to hold onto power, and despite being the producer of September 11 terrorists and Osama Bin Laden.

The US shouts for freedom and democracy, and Bush sermonises about how every human soul longs to be free, but young people in the Middle East wonder why they don't start with the Saudi kingdom first, and then perhaps Syria, and then move on from there.

How will the US get back on top? How will they regain their position as the stable, most trustworthy, mega-power in the world? No-one seems to know, including the US.

They are being played for fools by Iran, by Venezuela. While demand for oil, and refining problems, are bumping up the cost of oil, the insecurity borne of the talk of war has added substantially to the storming rise in fuel costs of the past three months.

Iran threatens the US and appears dangerous, and unstable, and oil goes up. Iran makes money. And so does Venezuela, another so called 'wild-card' nation in the Americas that is cleaning up from the US' current vulnerability, thanks to the Iraq War fiasco.

The US has been set up, quietly, subtly, by all these countries that now point out how exposed they are, how vulnerable. Did the US walk into a trap by invading Iraq? Perhaps. Osama Bin Laden himself said it was what he wanted, and he stated that the price of oil was too cheap, when it was only $50 a barrel, that it should in fact be closer to $100.

Right now it's almost too easy for Iran to destabilise the US simply by banging together a few swords and raging against Israel. They must be laughing oil heading towards Bin Laden's preferred market price. Who gets rich from all this? Not the average American. But the chiefs of the oil companies do, no matter in which country they are based. They're all cleaning up.

Does a War On Iran loom larger today? Hardly. Russia and China would not allow it, for starters, let alone the US Congress, let alone every other country in Middle East, with the exception of Israel.

There was the appearance that Iran was buying time, baffling the UN and the IAEA, delaying the inevitable while it rushed towards building nuclear weapons. But perhaps next week it will will be revealed that it was actually the US buying time.

Time enough to prove invading Iraq was the right thing to do, that it would be a success.

Time enough to show the world that they are still in control, that they are still number one.

Or time enough to buy their seat at the table of the New Global Order, the New World Order that they were leading, initiated by President Bush's father in the early 1990s.

President Bush may well say that time is running out for Iran, but Iran knows the truth, that the exact opposite is, in fact, true.

With Russia and China as friends, business partners and allies, Iran has all the time in the world now.

(This piece has been corrected since its original publication)