US Confirms Establishment of An African Command In Effort To Secure Future Oil, Gas Supplies

As a prominent counter move against China's increasing presence, and influence, across Africa, the Pentagon is already well underway to establishing a new African Command, despite the Department of Defence's announcement (below) that it is something they've only just come up with.

With the increasing power and spread of jihadists across Africa, the chaos in Somalia threatening to tip over into Ethiopia, and the endless attacks and kidnappings launched on oil platforms, pipelines and international workers in Nigeria, the US can hardly afford not to pour thousands of permanent soldiers, special forces, diplomats and spies into the region.

A recent White House national energy policy paper predicted that Africa would become "one of the fastest growing sources of oil and gas" for future American markets, as they try to break free of their "addiction" to Middle East oil.

But China has moved fast and decisively in Africa, showering development money and spreading bribes far and wide to niche up their own increasing energy demands, which will only grow in the next decade.

The question now is whether the United States has left their move into Africa too late to get their hands on the best quality, and easiest to harvest, oil and gas reserves.

From the US Department of Defence :

The U.S. military will establish a separate U.S. Africa Command to oversee military operations on the African continent, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced during Congressional testimony today.

“The president has decided to stand-up a new unified, combatant command, Africa Command, to oversee security cooperation, building partnership capability, defense support to non-military missions, and, if directed, military operations on the African continent,” Gates said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The command will enable the U.S. military to have a more effective and integrated approach than the current command setup, Gates said.

Responsibility for operations on the African continent is currently divided among three combatant commands: U.S. European Command, which has responsibility for most of the nations in the African mainland except in the Horn of Africa; U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya; and U.S. Pacific Command, which has responsibility for Madagascar, the Seychelles and the Indian Ocean area off the African coast.

Gates called this arrangement an “outdated arrangement left over from the Cold War.”

He added that DoD will consult closely with Congress and European and African allies to implement the effort.

Chinese President Hu Jintao's Eight Nation Tour Of Africa Yields Results

Nine Chinese Oil Workers Kidnapped In Nigeria Set Free, Unharmed

United States Vs Russia, Over Iran & Hamas

But Kosovo May Be The Biggest Relationship Breaker Of All

Trouble is brewing between the United States and Russia over a host of issues, including Iran, Hamas and the US plans to expand its missile defence system via foreign bases close to Russia's border.

Russia has proven to be a reliable and influential ally of Iran in the past year, all but completely dismantling Washington's attempts to isolate Iran from the rest of the international community. Russia has energy deals worth tens of billions of dollars with Iran, and is building one of its new nuclear energy reactors.

Russia sees the actions of Israel and the United States in, and against, Iraq, Iran and other Arab states as negatively influencing its long-term plans to expand business and energy deals across both Sunni and Shiite states, including Palestine.

It is interesting to note that it has been the United States and not Russia who has been acting aggressively, and undiplomatically, in the region. The more the US and Israel pushes, prods and threatens states like Iran and Syria and Lebanon, the more they look to Russia for protection and development funds.

Russia's controversial Foreign Affairs Minister, Sergev Lavrov, spent almost a week in Washington in late January, early February, specifically to take part in the Quartet negotiations aimed at pushing forward the 'Roadmap To Peace' for Israel and Palestine.

While in Washington, Lavrov, claims he was told by the Americans they were not intending to start a new war in the Middle East :

"The American side assured us that it has no plans to go to war against Iran," said Mr. Lavrov en route from Washington to Moscow.

According to Mr. Lavrov, he was told in Washington that the buildup of American military strength in the Persian Gulf "is aimed at stabilizing the situation in the region and at calming the fears of the Gulf countries."

But there remains visible, risible tensions between the United States over other issues relating to Iran.

The US is now trying to bolt sanctions onto Russian companies they believe are cooperating militarily with Iran. The US has also placed sanctions on Rosoboronexport, a massive Russian arms exporter, and other Russian weapons manufacturers.

The Russians see these sanctions as both insulting, and a betrayal.

The US only got its widely heralded, but minor, sanctions against Iran through the United Nations Security Council because Russia chose not to veto the American push.

The Russians let America have its small victory against Iran, but its move to sanction Russian companies dealing with Iran is viewed in the Kremlin as "an unfriendly move".

But even more fireball for Russian-US relations is Washington's growing of its missile defence system (MDS) into Poland, the Baltic States and Czech Republic. The Kremlin sees the Americans shuttling a missile defence system virtually onto Russia's borders.

Lavrov had no luck during his late January visit to Washington to get the Americans to rein back its MDS expansion :

"What we have been hearing [on this topic] has not convinced us that this is an adequate answer to the real threats that exist today in the sphere of nuclear and missile proliferation," contended Mr. Lavrov after his return to Moscow.

Russia had also pushed Washington and Israel to recognise that Hamas was the legitimate authority of the Palestinian government and that the crippling international trade and aid boycott must be lifted.

Again, no interest from Washington in recognising Hamas, while it refuses to recognise Israel.

From Naharnet.com :

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said the United States is likely the "most difficult partner" for Russia to deal with, reiterating suggestions that the U.S. was being shortsighted by not engaging countries that could help solve problems from Iraq and Lebanon to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The Middle East settlement has been suspended because, despite our position and the position of the European Union, Washington has conducted policy based on the principle, 'He who is not with us is against us,"' the Interfax news agency on Sunday quoted Lavrov as saying.

He said that the United States is isolating Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah, even though they are "key actors in solving the Middle East puzzle."

Lavrov claims Washington's position in the Middle East is "too confrontational," and claimed that while the relationship between President Bush and President Putin appeared to be strong, relations between their equivalent state and foreign affairs departments were "far less positive" :

The remarks reflected troubled ties between the Cold War superpowers, which are strained by disagreements over an array of international issues and over Russia's record on democracy under President Vladimir Putin, despite avowals of common aims on matters such as terrorism and weapons proliferation.

While Moscow and Washington have been able to "achieve mutually acceptable results" on many issues, he said the United States "is not an easy partner at all (to deal with) -- probably the most difficult partner."

Lavrov said that Moscow is frank with Washington when it takes issue with U.S. foreign policy, and that the United States should learn from its own experience, and quickly.

"Too much potential for crisis has built up in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan."

Russia sharply criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq and has sought to counter what it suggests are overly uncompromising U.S. positions on the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

And then there is Russia's increasing investment in Iran's oil, gas and nuclear energy future, which moves ahead in leaps and bounds despite the pressure from Washington :

...the United States holds little chance of discouraging Russia from pursuing energy cooperation with the cash-strapped but oil- and gas-rich Iran.

Russia wants Iranian oil and natural gas, and while concerns over Tehran`s nuclear program may affect relations in the future, for the time being Moscow is not hesitating to invest in energy exploration and production in Iran.

LUKoil, the largest Russian oil company, agreed in January to take over development of the 26 billion-barrel Azadegan oil field. Japanese oil company INPEX had contracted for a 75 percent stake in the field, but under pressure from the United States, dropped its share to 10 percent at the end of last year.

And in December Russian media reported that Tehran and Moscow would pursue a joint venture to develop natural gas deposits in the two countries.

Iran is desperate for investment in its energy sector. Domestic shortages in January forced it to stop contracted shipments of natural gas to Turkey, despite holding the world`s second-largest proven gas reserves, more than 950 trillion cubic feet, or about 16 percent of the world`s total. Iranian oil production is suffering as well, though it has 10 percent of the world`s reserves.

Russia and Iran, the world`s top two producers of natural gas, may be teaming up in other ways. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Moscow would consider a natural gas cartel with Iran.

At the same time as highlighting tensions between the White House and the Kremlin over Iran, Hamas, the Middle East in general, and missile defence, the world's media has barely touched on one issue that is likely to see serious tensions and perhaps even military confrontations in the future between the Bear and the Wolf.

And that issue is the future of Kosovo.

A dangerous dispute now ferments over how Kosovo will be officially determined in the near future, and what areas will constitute its territory.

The United States is behind the push for independence for the province of Kosovo.

But the Russians back Serbia in its claims that Kosovo is "an integral part of its territory."


US Director Of National Intelligence Plans To Turn New Eyes On Russia

In His Own Words : Vladimir Put Answers To The World's Media

Russia Embraces Iranian Energy - Billions Of Investment Dollars To Flow

Russian Pundit : The West Is Losing The War On Terror, Despite "Isolated Victories" - Failed To Learn The Lessons Of 9/11

The Economist On A New Gas OPEC

Iraq : US Intel Declares Iraq Is Bad, But Will Get Much Worse

On the eve of the mega-hyped 'Baghdad Crackdown', which is supposed to be "last roll of the dice" for the US in Iraq, though of course it won't be, here's two key US media analyses of a long delayed National Intelligence Estimate on the near future of Iraq, and America's role in the bomb-blasted war zone.

The NIE represents the unanimous opinion and fact-checking of the 16 separate agencies that make up the United State 'intelligence community.'

The NIE was widely presented as a "starkly pessimistic" assessment of the Coalition of the Willing's appallingly failed attempt to refashion Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

Iran was presented as being lethally influential in the ongoing attacks on US troops, and a actionary force in Shia-related attacks on Sunnis and growing tensions towards the Kurds in the north of Iraq. A view heavily promoted in recent months by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and and an endless series of Israeli politicians and Israel-aligned US think tanks.

However, evidential documents from US intel that was supposed to show how Iran was supplying weapons and hardware to Shia insurgents inside Iraq was not included in the NIE, nor have any credible reports been presented to the US Congress on Iran' role.

All passages below are excerpts from longer articles.


From the Washington Post :

...even if security improves, deepening sectarian divisions threaten to destroy the government and ultimately could lead to anarchy, partition or the emergence of a new dictatorship.

Citing "the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene," declassified judgments of a new National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iraqi leaders will be "hard pressed" to reconcile over the next 18 months.

Though the administration has repeatedly asserted that al-Qaeda and Iranian operatives are responsible for provoking much of the violence in Iraq, the NIE played down their roles.

Analysts studied what would happen if Iran were not a factor inside Iraq and concluded that, even though Iranian agents target U.S. troops, the absence of Tehran's agents would not appreciably alter the sectarian conflict.

The sectarian nature of the fighting, along with the "ethno-sectarian mobilization and population displacements," the estimate said, is consistent with the definition of "civil war." But it said the term "does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widely criminally motivated violence."

Despite their majority status, the Shiites who now dominate the government remain "deeply insecure" after decades under the brutal control of Hussein and his Sunni regime, the NIE said. Their insecurity "leads the Shia to mistrust U.S. efforts to reconcile Iraqi sects and reinforces their unwillingness to engage with the Sunnis on a variety of issues," the estimate said.

Many Sunnis "remain unwilling to accept their minority status," the NIE continued, "believe the central government is illegitimate and incompetent, and are convinced that Shia dominance will increase Iranian influence over Iraq."

The Kurds, the country's third major group, "are moving systematically to increase their control" over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and are looking to a constitutionally required referendum to take place no later than the end of this year, the NIE said. The voting will deal with the incorporation of the city within the Kurds' regional border. Such a move, the estimate said, "could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion."

From the New York Times :

The assessment, by American intelligence agencies, expressed deep doubts about the abilities of Iraqi politicians to hold together an increasingly balkanized country, and about whether Iraqi troops might be able to confront powerful militias over the next 18 months and assume more responsibility for security.

The estimate suggested that the United States now faced an unpalatable decision in which a rapid withdrawal of American troops would only accelerate momentum toward Iraq’s collapse, and in which Iraq faced long odds of quelling the violence and overcoming hardening sectarian divisions, regardless of how many American troops police Iraq’s streets.

The intelligence report (concluded) that Iran is providing “lethal support” for Shiite groups that is intensifying the violence. But it portrayed the violence as essentially “self-sustaining,” and suggested that the involvement of outsiders, including Iran, was “not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability.”

The declassified portions included an assessment that an Iraqi military hampered by sectarian divisions would be “hard pressed” over the next 12 to 18 months to “execute significantly increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against Shia militias with any success.”

The report also concluded that security in Iraq would continue to deteriorate at current rates unless “measurable progress” can be made in efforts to reverse the conditions that fuel violence.

The previous National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, in the summer of 2004, detailed three possible outlooks for Iraq over the following 18 months, with the most pessimistic possibility that Iraq would descend into civil war.

By contrast the new report, struggling to describe the nature of the ongoing violence, said that calling it a “civil war” was hardly sufficient.

The report also warned that a further sectarian splintering of Iraq could incite other countries in the Middle East to arm and finance various sects in the country: Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt supporting the Sunnis, and Iran coming to the aid of Shiite forces.

Beyond the current grim picture, the report described several “triggering events” that could cause the situation to worsen significantly. Among them, it listed the assassination of major religious or political leaders, a complete Sunni defection from the government, and sustained mass sectarian killings that could “shift Iraq’s trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political and security consequences.”

Were the already fragile government to collapse, the report outlined three possible outcomes: the emergence of a Shiite strongman to assert authority over minority sects, an “anarchic” fragmentation that puts power in the hands of hundreds of local potentates, or a period of sustained, bloody fighting leading to partition of Iraq along ethnic lines.

“Collapse of this magnitude would generate fierce violence for at least several years,” the report concluded, “ranging well beyond the time frame of this estimate, before settling into a partially stable end-state.

From the Washington Post :

In crafting key judgments of the 2007 estimate, analysts from across the intelligence community laid out three possible scenarios, each of which could have enormously negative consequences for Iraq: Chaos leading to partition, the emergence of a Shiite strongman who would seize power and rule by dictatorship, or a complete collapse of central control resulting in violent fiefdoms across the country.

The official said the new estimate "highlighted a trend of deterioration that is not irreversible. But if it's not reversed soon, then we're heading toward a worsening security situation over the next 12 to 18 months. It's more of a main judgment than we were able to give in 2004, if significantly caveated."

The senior intelligence official who agreed to discuss some aspects of both reports said that while the 2004 estimate now seems prescient, analysts failed to predict "the rapid degree of intensification of sectarian mobilization and consciousness, and the speed in which that happened. I don't think we were that insightful."

Palestine : Devoid Of Hope For A Better Future, Hamas and Fatah Gunmen Go To War

When Hamas claimed victory in Palestinian elections almost a year ago, Palestinians had renewed hope that their misery would soon come to an end. Hamas still refused to officially recognise Israel, but instituted a "cease fire" regardless, and reached out to engage Israel, the rest of the Arab world and chiefly the United States, in peace talks.

But the United States, who backed democratic elections in Palestine, decided to side with Israel and locked Hamas out of 'Roadmap To Peace', two-state negotiations. Funding was cut, Israel destroyed power plants in Gaza and the West Bank under the guise of pursuing militants, and the killings continued.

The Palestinian Authority, once so deeply despised by Israel that its leaders could barely stand to even be in the same room as the Fatah members, let alone Yasar Arafat, suddenly found itself befriended by Israel and the United States.

Recently, Israel and the US began funding Fatah and, remarkably, arming it with an array of guns and ammunition. But there was a condition for the cash and the guns. Fatah had to break Hamas.

And so a virtual civil war rages today in the streets of Gaza, amidst Fatah-Hamas ceasefires and truces. Dozens have died in the past two weeks alone, including many children.

While the 'Qaurtert' meets in the United States, peace and an internationally acknowledged state for the Palestinians now seem further away than they've been for years. If not decades.

From Haaretz :

Clashes between Fatah and Hamas gunmen resumed across the Gaza Strip on Saturday in defiance of a truce deal, sending Gazans who had tentatively ventured from their homes scattering to seek refuge from the violence.

On Saturday afternoon, Fatah sources announced that Hamas gunmen kidnapped six unarmed members of the Palestinian Authority's Preventative Security Service at roadblocks they had set up in the city.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas' Damascus-based political leader Khaled Mashal agreed to an immediate cease-fire late Friday, after two days of factional violence left 25 Palestinians dead, Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said.

Rumours of Iranian involvement in Gaza, backing and arming Hamas, run rampant, as the US and Israel claims that at least six Iranian weapons experts were arrested at a Hamas-run university complex.

Through Gaza and the West Bank there now grows the very proxy Sunni Vs Shia war feared, and sometimes cheered, by all the major regional power players. But hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are now on the verge of starvation. Many live without electricity, fresh water, basic sanitation.

And all the while, Israel and swarms of 'settlers' continue to occupy and annex Palestinian lands while the US pretends it doesn't see what's going on.

From the Melbourne Age :

"What's happening here in Palestine is good only for Israel, but what can we do?" said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, who on Thursday was the target of an unsuccessful Fatah assassination bid.

"We had a democratic process and people voted for Hamas and for us to form the Government. But the whole world supported Israel, even most Islamic countries. What we understand is that some Fatah people are co-ordinating with the Israelis and Americans to destroy our national project."

A Fatah commander in Gaza acknowledged that Fatah was being armed and funded by the US and Israel but said: "There is no other way for us to survive as Palestinians but to look for support from the Israelis, the Americans and the Arab world."

From Haaretz :

The Americans say events of the past week in Gaza have only proved to the Palestinians that the Hamas government cannot provide them with the security they need. "Hamas is trying to shake off responsibility and give it to the international community," a source in the State Department said, "but it's their responsibility."

The American noted that in Gaza, where Hamas' control is ostensibly stronger [than in the West Bank], Hamas is unable "to deliver the Palestinians what they expect."

This is, of course, exactly what Washington and Israel has dreamed of for the past twelve months. They want to prove they were right from the beginning, that Hamas could not bring peace to Palestine.

The majority of Palestinians chose to elect Hamas after Fatah's Palestinian Authority failed to bring peace and improvements to daily life for years. Palestinians are now continuing to be punished for their insolence in choosing to elect Hamas, against the wishes of Israel and the United States.


25 Killed In 24 Hours Of Fighting, Palestinians Declare New Ceasefire

Claim : Iranian Agents Nabbed In Gaza, 1 Commits Suicide - Fatah Fighters Seize Hams Weapons Stockpile

Truce Between Hamas & Fatah Shattered As Street Battles Erupt Again

Russia, US Disagree Over Syria's Role In Mid-East Peace Process

Russia Furious Over US Refusal To Engage Syria, Iran Over Solving The War In Palestine

Egyptians Blame Hamas As Gaza Ceasefire Collapses

US Backing For Fatah Stirs New Conflict

Claim : US Poised To Strike Iran Nuke Targets From Bulgarian Bases

Iran Moves On Iraq, Bush Sounds Warning, US Democrats Open Negotiations With Maliki Government

UN, Russia, China Calls For "Time Out" Over Iran Nuclear Energy Controversy

February 21 is the deadline imposed by the United Nations Security Council for Iran to stop enriching uranium.

Iran currently gives no indication that it is going to adhere to that deadline. The United Nations, and Russia separately, are both sounding out the United States about a "time out" over pressuring the Iranians to wind back the growth of their nuclear energy cycle.

From Israel, and the Israel lobby in the United States, comes a seemingly endless sheeting of bog-standard warnings about what Iran will do with its nuclear weapons, and how much of a threat Iran armed with nuclear weapons will be, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly states there is no proof, nor indication, that Iran is building nuclear weapons, or is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

But Israel's anti-Iran PR offensive has already worked.

Discussions can be heard all across newspapers, TV, radio from New York City to York, England, and all across Australia, where debates roll on how The West should react to a nuclear-armed Iran, not whether or not they actually have nuclear weapons in the first place.

Or will at any time in the next decade.

February 21 is now the date to watch.

The United States already has enough water-based firepower in the Persian Gulf to strike hundreds of targets inside Iran, and another aircraft carrier on the way.

Likewise, Israel's air force remains on a virtual two-minute-warning, ready to act on its own, or as part of an air strike offensive launched by President Bush, without the consent of the US Congress.


From the Sunday Herald :

President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.

"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.

The American build-up alongthe Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution.

President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.

Israel, according to the Washington Times, has its own plans for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities :

A military source tells us the talk among Israeli military officials is how and when to counter Iran's nuclear weapons program, most likely in a pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

The Israelis know that any attack will require overflying U.S.-dominated Iraq, but one solution would be to set up a secret base in another area between Iran and Israel to refuel Israel's bombers.

The Israelis in recent months have purchased large numbers of U.S. precision-guided joint direct attack munitions, or JDAM, kits for their bombs and special bunker-buster explosives that could be used to destroy underground Iranian nuclear facilities.

Our source said the Israelis know that their attack on Iran would be far bloodier and much more difficult than the daring 1981 bombing attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

"They will have to strike during the day to make sure they get the technicians and scientists," the source told us.

Also, an anti-nuclear military strike will cause collateral damage because many of the Iranian nuclear facilities are located close to civilian population centers.

At least 13 Iranian nuclear facilities are known and can be located publicly on Google Earth mapping software. They include facilities at Tehran, Natanz, Arak, Lashkar-Abad, Isfahan, Ardekan, Bushehr and Gachin. Most are underground and have advanced air defense missiles for protection.

Key targets: the Natanz nuclear facility, a military plant about 200 miles south of Tehran that is the location of at least one centrifuge cascade that is thought to be where nuclear fuel for weapons is being developed.

The Bushehr nuclear reactor on the Persian Gulf coast also will be a key target, and any bombing there risks killing scores of Russians who are part of construction crews for the reactor facility.

The Bush administration is hardening its position on Iran but is holding Israel in check from attacking. That said, in 1981, the United States had no warning of the Osirak raid until after the F-16s and F-15s were in the air.

Iran isn't waiting for the United States/Coalition retreat from Iraq before they set up the financial infrastructure they need to gradually absorb the now Shiite dominated country into their own, if that's what they're actually planning to do. It begins with the founding of banks and solid financial infrastructure.

From the New York Times :

Iran's ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.”

In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction...

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”

Mr. Qumi also acknowledged, for the first time, that two Iranians seized and later released by American forces last month were security officials, as the United States had claimed. But he said that they were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should not have been detained.

He ridiculed the evidence that the American military has said it collected, including maps of Baghdad delineating Sunni, Shiite and mixed neighborhoods — the kind of maps, American officials have said, that would be useful for militias engaged in ethnic slaughter. Mr. Qumi said the maps were so common and easily obtainable that they proved nothing.

“They worked in the security sector in the Islamic Republic, that’s clear,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to Iran. But he said that the Iranians were in Iraq because “the two countries agreed to solve the security problems.” The Iranians “went to meet with the Iraqi side,” he said.

In a surprise announcement, Mr. Qumi said Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans’ noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the bank, which he said would apparently be the first “wholly owned subsidiary bank” of a foreign country in Iraq.

“This will enhance trade between the two countries,” Mr. Uzri said.

Any Iranian military assistance to Iraq would be fraught with potential difficulties. Aside from provoking American objections, such assistance could further alienate Sunni Arabs, many of whom already suspect that Iran, overwhelmingly Shiite, is encouraging Iraq’s Shiite-led government in persecuting them.

A number of American and Iraqi officials said Sunday that it was difficult to respond to Mr. Qumi’s statements until they had been communicated through official routes. A spokesman for the American Embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor, declined to address the statements.

“We are welcoming all the initiatives to participate in the process of reconstruction,” said Qasim Daoud, a former national security adviser who is now a secular Shiite member of Parliament. “My belief is that our strategic alliance is with the Americans, but at the same time we are looking for the participation of any country that would like to participate,” Mr. Daoud said.

Mr. Qumi also warned the United States against playing out tensions in what he called “the nuclear file” in Iraq. “We don’t need Iraq to pay the cost of our animosity with the Americans,” Mr. Qumi said.

As the interview was breaking up, Mr. Qumi made one last stab at the Americans. If Iran is allowed to undertake reconstruction activities in Iraq, he said, all international construction companies would be welcome. “Urge the American companies to come here,” he said.

The Response from President Bush

From Raw Story :

In a lengthy National Public Radio interview with Juan Williams today, President George W. Bush warned Iran, one of the nations in Bush's so-called "axis of evil," over its nuclear ambitions and threatened potential retaliation for Iran's doings in war-torn Iraq.

"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," said the President, who also remarked, "I take the Iranian nuclear threat very seriously, even though the intel on Iraq was not what it was thought to be."

Yet Bush also insisted, in response to rumors of a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Teheran, "I have no intent upon going into Iran..."

Going into Iran is not the same as bombing Iran from the sky, or the Gulf.

Only crazed right wing war pigs seriously discuss the merits of deploying US troops on the ground in Iran. The debate as it now stands is over whether the US will launch air strikes at Iran's nuclear energy facilities, or whether Israel will do it.

And as Bush made clear, "I have no intent upon going into Iran..." He didn't say anything about "going over Iran".

While the relationship between President Bush and Iraq's Maliki government continues to descend into something akin to an emotional scratching post, with the US as the cat, the Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi, now in control of the US Congress, have entered into their own negotiations with Maliki to bring the war to a close.


From the LA Times :

Representatives of Iraq's government are hedging their bets on America's political future, hoping to keep U.S. support for their country strong by building ties with a Democratic Party that now controls Congress and is closely scrutinizing President Bush's Iraq policy.

"There's a decision to be in contact, find out what they want, what their concerns are and to tell them of our concerns as well," said Ali Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and close associate of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Republicans have dominated Iraq policy since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Many of the first U.S. officials in Iraq were handpicked party activists.

In one sense, the Nov. 7 election that handed Democrats control of Congress changed little, even though it was largely viewed as a repudiation of the White House's Iraq policy. The State and Defense departments are still the primary instruments of policy in Iraq.

A top government official close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who ended a brief visit to Iraq on Saturday, said the Bush administration remains the final arbiter of decisions on how much continued U.S. military and financial support the Iraqis receive.

But the election that changed the political dynamic in Washington also altered the rules of the game here.

Iraqi leaders studied and discussed the possibility of a Democratic takeover for months before the vote. They concluded early that even the most staunchly antiwar Democrats would not abandon Iraq. In heated discussions, lawmakers reminded one another that it was Democratic President Clinton who signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which funded the opposition movements now in power.

The Shiite Muslim leadership has informally recommended to ministerial and parliamentary delegations heading to Washington that they cultivate closer relationships with Democrats as well as Republicans.

Many pointed out advantages to the Democrats' increased sway over Iraq policy. Government officials said they had generally found the Democratic position on handing over security to Iraqi forces sooner rather than later closer to theirs.

"I see that the Democratic ideas are more related to reality," said Ammar Tuma, a lawmaker who serves in Maliki's ruling Shiite coalition. "They talk about the real problems that the Iraqis are facing every day."

To date, government officials said, they've also found Democratic visitors such as Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois less parochial, more culturally sensitive and more willing to listen to Iraqi concerns than Republicans.

"Before, Bush used to order Iraqi officials to do this and that," said one member of Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The Republicans were dictating the political process in Iraq. With the Democrats in control of Congress, the Republicans are now less influential than before. It helps us in a sense to breathe a bit more and to have more freedom."

Many of the Shiites around Maliki still harbor bitterness about the Bush administration's push to remove then-interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari from his post last year. They considered the pressure inappropriate interference in Iraq's domestic affairs. They were also angered by recent remarks by Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice questioning whether Maliki was up to the job of leading Iraq.

The United Nations has called on the US, and its allies, to sound "a timeout" over the rising confrontation with Iran over its nuclear energy programs :

A key to resolving the issue is a direct engagement between Iran and the United States similar to that with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei stressed in several interviews over the weekend in Davos, Switzerland, where he attended the World Economic Forum.

“I call on all parties to take a simultaneous timeout. Iran should take a timeout from its enrichment activity, the international community a timeout from the application of sanctions, and parties should go immediately to the negotiating table,” he said. “The right track is dialogue, negotiation.”

The US has roundly rejected any and all calls for "a timeout".

But now Russia and China are backing up the United Nations, against the United States.

Everyone, it seems, now wants a "time out", except the United States, Israel, and more quietly, Australia.

But any idea that China or Russia would tolerate any kind of military action by the United States and/or Israel on Iran should be dismissed from the mind. They've made it clear. No-one strikes Iran, without serious consequences.


Israel's Plans To Destroy Iran's Nuclear Facilities, And Nuclear Scientists

US Air Force Says Iran Tensions Could Trigger "Accidental" War

Talk Of US Vs Iran War Raised At DAVOS Summit, Russia Warns US Against Unilaterial Action Against Iran Now UN Sanctions Are In Place

Russia, Iran Move Forward On Multi-Billion Dollar Gas Deal Talks

Russia Demands Explanation From United States Over Persian Gulf, Middle East Military Build Up

Energy Giant Shell Ignores US Pressure, Intends To Go Ahead With $5 Billion Gas Deal With Iran

Only The US War Hawks Can Save The Iranian President Now

Bush Faces His Burden Of Iraq War Lies, Distortions, As He Moves To Confront Iran

Israel Is The Real Winner Of America's War On Iraq, And Coming War On Iran

Iran's Supreme Leader Broadcasts Close Ties Of Iran And Russia As US War Looms

Afghanistan : Town Recently Controlled By British Forces Now Falls To Taliban

As the world's media focuses on the daily bombings and slaughter in Iraq, the 'war at home' in the US Congress over Bush's troop "surge" plan, and the increasing tensions between the US/Israel and Iran, the war goes on in Afghanistan.

From the UK Guardian :

Taliban militants have reportedly overrun a southern Afghan town that British troops pulled out of last year after a local peace agreement was reached.

A resident of Musa Qala said 200-300 Taliban fighters seized the town, took weapons from police and destroyed a government compound late yesterday.

Colonel Tom Collins, a spokesman for Nato's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said an "unknown number" of militants had apparently entered Musa Qala and that Nato had conflicting reports about tribal elders temporarily being taken hostage.

Asadullah Wafa, the governor of Helmand province, said the militants came into the town Wednesday, disarmed the police force and then returned yesterday and destroyed part of the compound housing the district's governor and police.

British forces are based in Helmand province but pulled out of Musa Qala in October after a peace agreement was signed between local elders and the Helmand governor with the support of the British troops. According to the deal the security responsibilities were turned over to local leaders, while Nato forces were prevented from re-entering the town.

Afghanistan Government Grants Immunity To All Afghanis Involved In Wars Over The Past 25 Years

Britain Plans To Increase Number Of Troops In Afghanistan

US Military "Donates" 800 Vehicles, More Than 12,000 Weapons To Afghan Army

30 Suspected Taliban Killed In Two Days Of Fighting

Iraq : Hundreds Dead As Iraqi Army, US And UK Air Strikes Kill Messianic Cult Leader And Followers

But Claims Emerge That "Successful" Joint Operation Against Crazed Armageddonists Was An Horrific Slaughter Of Innocent Men, Women And Children

A swirling mass of unconfirmed, unverifiable reports have swamped the world's media about what will go down in the history books as 'The Battle Of Najaf': one of the deadliest, most chaotic and downright strange confrontation between Shiite Iraqis and the combined forces of the UK, the US and the Iraq Army.

Hundreds were killed, an American helicopter was shot down, and the Iraqi Army failed to stand up as fully expected, requiring British and American aircraft to launch devastating air strikes on trenches, tunnels and fortifications manned by members of a Shiite cult, looking forward to Armageddon.

Or so it would seem. But is the 'official narrative' being foisted up by American news agencies, the US government, the Iraqi government and the American military the true story of what happened twelve or so miles outside of Najaf?

First a quick chew through some of the official accounts.

Here's some extracts from a London Times report :

They came from nowhere, a Shia cult reversing the murderous cycle of Sunni-Shia violence to start one of the largest battles in recent years — against their fellow Shia.

When the day-long combat ended, the Shia of Iraq had to confront a disturbing truth: a schism had spawned an apocalyptic splinter group bent on slaughtering as many Shia pilgrims and religious leaders as possible — in their holiest city, on their holiest day.

Their hit-list included Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most senior Iraqi Shia cleric.

Iraqi officials released a picture of the Soldiers of Heaven leader yesterday, naming him as Samer Abu Kamar. He was killed, with between 200 and 400 of his fighters and their wives and children, in trenches dug into the orchards north of Najaf.

Assad Sultan Abu Klil, the governor of Najaf, said that the sect planned to kill Shia pilgrims as they marched to Karbala on Ashoura, which commemorates the death of Imam Ali’s son, Hussein, in AD680.

Three of the cult were captured near the golden-domed shrine of Imam Ali, in Najaf, officials said, after renting a hotel room in front of the office of Grand Ayatollah al-Sis-tani. They had planned to kill him and demolish the shrine.

The group’s “zero hour” was 6am yesterday, as more than a million Shia were descending on Karbala, according to a document obtained from security sources.

It indicated that different units were assigned specific tasks: one to bring chaos to the city; an explosives unit to plant bombs smuggled into the old city, in shoes and drums, used by Shia pilgrims during Ashoura; another to assassinate senior ayatollahs; others to carry out mortar attacks and blow up the Shrine of Imam Ali.

Some reports claim up to 400 cult members were killed in the hours of fighting, although this figure may include their wives and children, who were with them in the encampment.

Other reports claim that cult fighters were roped or chained together, so they couldn't run from the fighting.

The cult, so it is said, had had enough time to extensively prepare for its battle. It was well armed with hand and shoulder mounted rocket-propelled grenades, at least 500 automatic rifles, heavy machine guns capable of bringing down helicopters and aircraft, as well as a number of Russian-made Katyusha rockets.

Extracts from yesterday's report from the Associated Press :

Iraq's army announced Monday it killed the leader of a heavily armed cult of messianic Shiites called "the Soldiers of Heaven" in a fierce gunbattle aimed at foiling a plot to attack leading Shiite clerics and pilgrims in the southern city of Najaf on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar.

The fierce 24-hour battle was ultimately won by Iraqi troops supported by U.S. and British jets and American ground forces, but the ability of a splinter group little known in Iraq to rally hundreds of heavily armed fighters was a reminder of the potential for chaos and havoc emerging seemingly out of nowhere.

Members of the group, which included women and children, planned to disguise themselves as pilgrims and kill as many leading clerics as possible, said Maj. Gen. Othman al-Ghanemi, the Iraqi commander in charge of the Najaf region.

The cult's leader, wearing jeans, a coat and a hat and carrying two pistols, was among those who died in the battle, al-Ghanemi said.

The gunmen had put up tents in fields lined with date palm groves surrounding Najaf, 100 miles south of the capital. They planned to launch their attack Monday night when Ashoura celebrations would be getting under way...

In the battle to foil the attack on the pilgrims, Iraqi and U.S. forces faced off against more than 200 gunmen with small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and hand grenades, the U.S. military said. The battle took place about 12 miles northeast of Najaf.

The American military said U.S. air power was called in after the Iraqis faced fierce resistance. American ground forces were also deployed after small arms fire downed a U.S. helicopter, killing two soldiers.

U.S. and British jets played a major role in the fighting, dropping 500-pound bombs on the militants' positions, but President Bush said the battle was an indication that Iraqis were beginning to take control.

"My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something," Bush told National Public Radio on Monday.

So far, so successful, so victorious, outside of the dead women and children, but so constant is the slaughter of Iraqi civilians - men, women, children, infants alike - a few dozen dead civilians lying amongst the corpses of hundreds of crazed, messianic cult fighters would hardly seem to matter.

It's war, the argument, and wars are cruel and bloody and indiscriminate...you know the rest.

But will we look back in years to come and see that 'The Battle Of Najaf', as far as the 'official narrative' and the semi-official narratives go, and see that it was actually nothing more than a huge hoax?

An incredible spin and psy-op campaign to cover up an horrific massacre of innocent Iraqis?

Alexander Cockburn, reporting in the UK Independent, says this may well be the case. In the following report, he cites fatality figures of over 260, with more than 240 injured :

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement.

The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday.

Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief.

Members of another tribe called Khaza'il living in Zarga tried to stop the fighting but they themselves came under fire. Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da with advanced weapons. Reinforcements poured into the area and surrounded the Hawatim tribe in the nearby orchards. The tribesmen tried - in vain - to get their attackers to cease fire.

American helicopters then arrived and dropped leaflets saying: "To the terrorists, surrender before we bomb the area." The tribesmen went on firing and a US helicopter was hit and crashed killing two crewmen. The tribesmen say they do not know if they hit it or if it was brought down by friendly fire. The US aircraft launched an intense aerial bombardment in which 120 tribesmen and local residents were killed by 4am on Monday.

The messianic group led by Ahmad al-Hassani, which was already at odds with the Iraqi authorities in Najaf, was drawn into the fighting because it was based in Zarga and its presence provided a convenient excuse for what was in effect a massacre.

Middle East expert Juan Cole supplies some analysis of the various narratives and some background :

"...the fighting erupted when American and Iraqi troops attempted to arrest (cult leader) al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. The latter tried last summer to take over the shrine of al-Husayn in Karbala.

It may have been feared that he would take advantage of the chaos of the Muharram pilgrimage season to make a play for power in Najaf.

The group follows Ayatollah Ahmad al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, called al-Yamani, who is said by his followers to be in direct touch with the Hidden Imam or promised one.

Al-Hayat, however, quotes a member of the group, Abu al-Hasan, who is said to be close to al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. He said that the rumors that the group intended to conduct a campaign of assassinations inside Najaf was "devoid of truth."

It says that an attempt had been made to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, who was present in the al-Zarkah, an agricultural area east of Najaf, which caused his followers to revolt.

...there is yet a third narrative... The holy city of Najaf, where Ali is buried, is the seat of Shiite religious authority in Iraq. The militiamen, devotees of an obscure religious leader named Ahmad Hassaani, are said to have infiltrated the area from Hillah, Kut and Amara. The well-armed, black-clad militiamen were heard to call upon the Mahdi, the awaited Promised One of the Muslims, to return on that night.

It seems most likely that this was Shiite on Shiite violence, with millenarian cultists making an attempt to march on Najaf during the chaos of the ritual season of Muharram.

The dangers of Shiite on Shiite violence in Iraq are substantial, as this episode demonstrated. Ironically, given Bush's mantra about Iran, the trouble makers here are a sect that absolutely hates Iran

Iraq Plunging Into Total Civil War, Brookings Institute Report Urges US To Pull Out Of All Iraqi Cities

'Battle Of Najaf' Suggest Dangerous New Sectarian Divides In Iraq

Widespread Condemnation Of Fatal Mortar Attack On Iraqi Girl's School

770 Civilian Contractors (Mostly Americans) Have Died In Iraq, Yet Haliburton Claims It Is "Inundated" With Resumes

US Senators Roundly Reject Iraqi Troop "Surge", Democrats And Republicans Alike

The Coming Sunni, Israel, US Front Against Iran

"The US Is Going To Have To Shut Up About Democratization..."

Iran appears to be almost relentlessly prodding the United States and/or Israel to open up another new front in the Fourth World War, against themselves.

The United States and Israel continues to quietly poke and light fires amongst the opposition groups ranged against the Iranian president, within Iran and across the Middle East.

There are numerous stories in the Western media causing a swirl of confusion about whether or not Iran is in the early days of developing a nuclear bomb, or in the final stages, or even if they're building one at all.

The LA Times has run a credible investigative piece de-mything the BushCo tales that Iran is funnelling the most dangerous and deadly of the roadside bombs into Iraq. The story just won't stick yet in the world public opinion on what Iran is up to across the border.

But the bombs exploding out of corpses, sewers and the sides of houses into American armoured vehicles are clearly far more deadly, accurate and therefore professionally made.

No longer are just rigged-up butane bottles ripping the doors off Humvees. Bombs are taking out the entire vehicle and killing all the Americans inside.

Iran's president has claimed in the past that the Israel government will cease to exist. Now he is reported to be predicting the demise of both Israel and the United States.

But Iranians are not unanimously behind their president. The 'Holocaust Cartoon Competition' and the recent seminars questioning the validity of the Holocaust itself have angered millions of Iranians, who find the vehement anti-semitism somewhat embarrassing in their dealings with Western businesspeople, and in front of their new online friends from the US, UK, Israel, Australia and Europe.

Plus, the derided conference cost money that could have been spent on education reforms. That in particular has been a very strong and enthusiastic argument online.

The westernisation of Iran's culture and education is well underway, and tens of thousands of Iranian bloggers are in contact with people and culture from across the planet (MySpace is proving invaluable to this communication

Israel has been promoted as the 'lone gunman' who would attempt to strike Iran's nuclear reactors and research centres, leaving the US to stand back and stay out of the fight (at least as far as the Western media, US Congress and the American people was concerned).

But now a credible new alliance appears to be forming, piled up against the Iranians, and their Shiite allies in Lebanon and Iraq, in particular.

It is a barely previously discussed new alliance between Israel, the United States and Sunni Middle East nations, kingdoms and, more quietly, 'extremist' groups - until recently referred to by Bush as "terrorists".

Some suggest the United States is successfully seeking something of a 'free pass' for Sunni insurgents in Iraq, to wedge the Iranian backed Maliki government.

Maliki doesn't want an amnesty or reconciliation with insurgents who have attacked their own countrymen. But both Maliki and the United States appear to agree that they might give a quiet okay to the pressure being lifted off some Sunni insurgents, to keep the Saudis out of Iraq, and to win support from the Saudis, Jordan and Egypt to go after the Iranians.

At least, go after them until thy submit, and enter negotiations over their nuclear and military future goals.

Bush has used the words "sacrifice" and "sacrifices" and "more sacrifices" in the past two months, repeatedly, in almost speech and press conference and address, laying the ground for Americans to accept that while Sunni insurgents are killing Americans, they are only "sacrifices" and for the greater good of peace and stability in the Middle East, Sunni insurgents will become the glue helps to bind together a formidable new front against Iran.

This is also why Bush rarely refers to "terrorists" anymore when he discusses Iraq. And he particularly does no say "terrorist" when talking about Sunni insurgents.

They are now "extremists" and "insurgents", so he will not break his promise about never dealing with terrorists when it comes time to give the free pass to the Sunni insurgents that the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians are asking for.

Below are excerpts of a Q & A with Gary G. Sick, a former National Security Council advisor on Iraq, who backs the claim that there is an "emerging strategy" of co-operation between Israel, the United States and Sunni Arab states.

Sick disagrees with the heavy rumours that Iran will be hit by US air strikes soon, and argues against the possibility that the United States will put troops into Iran. He says the US simply doesn't have the military numbers to do so.

From the Council on Foreign Relations (excerpts) :

Sick : "...it is a strategy that is being adopted. It has several very real advantages. First, all three parties—the Sunni states in the Gulf, plus Jordan and Egypt—are very worried about Iranian expansion in the region and of Shiite expansion in the Middle East. And of course Israel is very worried about Iran and makes no bones about it quite openly.

For the United States, I think there’s a perception that by focusing on Iran, you can remove some of the emphasis on Iraq, which of course is a catastrophe. So there are some advantages to all sides and there also have been real contacts among all of the parties, which I think go beyond just casual talk.

Q: ..we’re seeing this problem in action right now in Lebanon, where there’s a major confrontation going on between the Shiite Hezbollah and the Sunni-led government.

Sick : I do believe the whole Lebanese situation was the galvanizing moment for this emerging strategy. The action by Hezbollah in attacking Israel [last summer] was seen as an extension of Iranian power and an extension of its influence in the region. And the outcome of this, which is taking the form of Hezbollah challenging the Christian/Sunni government of [Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad] Siniora, I think, is also perceived as an Iranian plot. I personally think that’s an exaggeration, at least in terms of Iranian direct control or involvement in this.

But if you look at Hezbollah as an Iranian creature—which I don’t, but many people do—you come to the conclusion this is a battle between Israel and Iran or even, by extension, the United States and Iran, and that Lebanon is the battlefield where this is being fought out.

Q: Of course when you look at this, when you talk about this kind of strategic alliance, or whatever you call it, then the Iraq invasion was a total mistake, right, because it empowered Shiites?

Sick : I think it was. And I think it was by almost any consideration that you want to take. Certainly the way it’s played out has been a complete disaster for, I think, just about everyone involved.

...if there is a new strategy emerging.......the United States is going to have to shut up about democratization—that this has put our authoritarian Sunni allies in the region on the defense and it complicated their lives. I think the days of pushing democratization in the Middle East are probably over, at least for the time being.

Q: The United States has also announced it’s increasing its naval strength in the Persian Gulf. Another aircraft carrier is going out there, making two aircraft carriers on station. What do you think the likelihood is of any military action against Iran?

Sick : In addition to sending the aircraft carrier, the United States is placing Patriot missiles in the Gulf. You’ve got to remember that in the event of a real or threatened military strike against Iran, the big concern is how Iran might retaliate. And one way they could is to use their existing, relatively short-range missiles to attack Europe by attacking, for instance, oil loading on the Gulf. So I think the Patriot missiles are there to demonstrate that the United States is prepared to defend those countries if it comes to that. It’s also clear the Iranians have been actively building an infrastructure that would give them the capability to retaliate against American forces in Iraq.

As to the likelihood of an actual military campaign against Iran, I continue to believe that’s not going to happen. And I think the logic of the thing is that if you think you can do it with a quick air strike, you’re kidding yourself.

....I personally think that the U.S. administration is going to talk about it as the Israelis are talking about it, very openly, but not in fact do it.

Q: You think there’s a possibility at that point that Iran might agree to a temporary suspension of its enrichment?

Sick : I think that is a very real possibility. And I’ve been hearing this from some Iranians who are quite well-plugged-in to their nation’s policies.

Q: That would open the door to U.S.-Iranian talks.

Sick : That’s right. And I think that after the celebration is going to be the moment when that idea can be tested. And my guess is that Iran will actually be willing to consider a suspension of testing at that point.

Iran Tests Short Range Missiles As US Sends Second Aircraft Carrier To Gulf

LA Times : Scant Evidence Found Of Iran-Iraq Arms Link

Bush Says Lethal Force Against Iranians In Iraq Is Justified

Iran Confirms Arrival Of Russian Air Defence Systems, Begins Three Days Of Military Manouvers

Israel Tries To Cut Iran Off From World Oil And Investment Markets - US Pension Funds Still Doing Business With Iran-Linked, Iran-Based Companies

Iranian President Claims United States See Iran As "An Obstacle In The Way Of Reaching Their Goals In The Region," Declares US And Israel Won't Damage Iran In Rumoured Air Strikes.

Israel Claims Iran Is An "Existential Threat", Ramps Up Near-War Rhetoric, Threats

US Claims 150 Iranian Intelligence Officers, Revolutionary Guard Active In Iraq At Any One Time