Iran Warns to Retaliate against Inspections

[MartinL]

Dcopymope,

In a letter to all military personal in Sweden you are from now on forced to accept to go to an international war zone and if you dont sign the letter you are kicked out of the army in Sweden.

The NBG (Nordic battle group) can now be sent anywhere in the world even if Sweden is a neutral country and are by law not supposed to be in wars but now they do it under the EU Flag.

http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/Organis ... ttlegroup/

It looks like they want all countries to join the bandwagon when this thing is kick started and goes live.



D.Duck

Oh boi..... that's what happens when people give up their soveregnity and their country becomes a province in a super-state. Good game, Sweden. :(

[hoi.polloi]

They've been saying the Draft will come back for years. I have never in my life talked to a single person who thought it was remotely a good idea -- and I've talked to people from all across the political spectrum, from lunatic left to lunatic right to lunatic green and everyone in between. Never. Not one person. Old, young or employed by the military.

If a Draft policy like that actually gets instated, we might presume democracy had nothing to do with it.

How do you think the government could change that opinion about the draft? I think all they have to do is put the demonization campaign against Iran into high gear and make them out to be the new Nazi’s, and by the time a massive attack occurs, provoked or not, the public will than support the draft wholeheartedly. Of course, at the moment almost no one would support a draft, but like I said, under the right circumstances, they will support it; the situation just has to be similar to that of WW1 & 2.

One would hope we have wised up at least enough since then to reject such outright technocratic imperialism. My public grade school education on the wars began with plenty of information about propaganda. I repeat, the nation will never support a draft as a whole. It's not as simple as you say to get public opinion in line with the fake fear-mongering leaders. Either democracy is not being represented during any forthcoming attempt to instate a draft policy, or fiddlesticks. It would take much longer than "soon" for this to be a true democratic success and if they try to do something like this it will end in miserable problems for our country's relationship to its leaders. It could do as much damage as, if not more than, the 9/11 propaganda. We don't have much democracy in the United States, but there's still enough mob rule to fight this ... or divide the individual states.

[Dcopymope]

A great article on the situation so far.

The Three Stooges Go To Israel
Keith Johnson
Revolt of the Plebs
July 12, 2010

Slowly I turned? step by step? inch by inch?

Does anyone remember the famous black-and-white skit, performed by the Three Stooges, where a psychotic Moe goes berserk and attacks an innocent bystander who unwittingly utters the trigger words “Niagara Falls!”?

These are the guys the American people have entrusted to dictate our foreign policy?

Today, we have a new cast of crazies doing the same routine. However, you can substitute the word “Iran!” in place of the words “Niagara Falls!” and still get the same reaction out of the likes of Joseph Lieberman (I ? CT), John McCain (R ? AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R ? SC), AKA: The Three Stooges.

For the last few days, this psychotic trio of serial killers were in their beloved homeland of Israel, licking the hand that feeds them and performing renditions of John McCain’s favorite tune: “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” to an audience of likeminded Israeli warlords.

Actually, what was said behind closed doors can only be speculated. But, considering the track record of these three filthy war criminals, you can be almost certain that the blood sacrifice of your children and the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Persians were among the highlights discussed by these well-fed senior citizens as they stuffed their sagging jowls with caviar and sipped champagne from their thin, purple lips.

When they emerged, they met the press. Their comments were purposely measured in tone and contradictory in nature. While they denied that neither Israel nor the U.S. were planning to strike Iran anytime soon, they strongly suggested that they were prepared to take any action necessary to halt continued progress on its nuclear ambitions. Their tempered and seemingly innocuous statements were the most telling sign--to date--that an attack on the Islamic state is imminent.

Speaking from Jerusalem on Wednesday, John McCain addressed a gaggle of reporters after meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israel’s military chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi. When asked if he would support an Israeli military strike on Iran, McCain said, “I don’t believe we are at the point of making that kind of decision, nor is the Israeli government, given the state that Iran is in now as far as the development of their nuclear weapons is concerned.” McCain said it was impossible for him to say whether he would back such an operation because it “would be dictated by so many different circumstances.”

Those “many different circumstances” that McCain refers to are the multitude of options that the Israeli government and their NeoCon puppets are weighing as an excuse to launch a U.S. led strike on Iran. McCain has been frustrated by sanctions, because as far as he’s concerned--sanctions are for pussies! Nothing less than a mushroom cloud rising out of the ashes of a big steaming pile of Bar-B-Qued 4-year-olds will make John McCain happy. For months he has been rallying support among his constituency of misguided Christian Zionists and armchair war hawks, insisting that nothing short of tough military action should be taken to prevent Iran from destroying the world with their cache of low-grade medical isotopes. Why now would he tone down his rhetoric unless he was confident that his dream of mass destruction was soon to become a reality?

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, couldn’t help but reiterate his long held position of aggression. He told reporters that there is a broad consensus in Congress that military force can be used, if necessary, to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Lieberman cited the recent sanctions passed by Congress as a potential deterrent. But he went on to say that keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power would be accomplished, “through diplomatic and economic sanctions if we possibly can, through military actions if we must.”

Little Lindsey Graham summed up the trio’s true “consensus” best when he declared, “Congress has Israel’s back!” It was his little way of letting Israel know that their AIPAC money was being well spent on him, and that there was no need to out him as a homosexual.

What a confederacy of dunces! These are the guys the American people have entrusted to dictate our foreign policy? They insist that Iran is developing nuclear weapons when their own intelligence sources provide evidence to the contrary.

I wrote in a previous article that as recently as February 11, 2010, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a claim by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran had produced the first stock of 20 percent enriched uranium. Gibbs said, “The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.” The enriched uranium that Ahmadinejad was referring to was not for building a nuclear weapon but rather for medical isotopes used to treat cancer patients. And even if they did have the capability of enriching to 20 percent, it still falls far short of the nearly 98% that is required for building a weapon of mass destruction. As a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium in the manner that they are claiming.

These are the facts. So why would anyone believe these morons? Need I remind you of the last time we went to war over the assumption that another Middle Eastern country was in possession of weapons of mass destruction? The idiots who are making false claims about Iran’s weapons program were the same ones making those claims back then. Both Lieberman and McCain were signators on a letter (dated December 5, 2001) to President George W. Bush, urging him to go after Saddam Hussein for his mythical weapons program.

“There is no doubt that ? Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Of course history has now shown that Lieberman, McCain and other likeminded fools were dead wrong. What’s worse is that they most likely knew they were wrong. But that didn’t stop them from leading us into a war that resulted in the murder of over a million Iraqis and the deaths of over four thousand (conservatively) of our American servicemen.
Now we stand on the precipice of yet another disaster that will make the Iraq War look like a Pop Warner scrimmage. Are we going to let them do it? Do we have any choice?

All the chess pieces have been laid out on the table. Every attempt to bring Iran into western influence has thus far failed. In 2009, the Brzenzski /Soros team failed to affect regime change by way of a “color revolution” during the Iranian presidential elections.
Now we have sanctions. But these have yet to apply adequate pressure on the Iranian government or encourage dissenters, within the Regime, to stage a coup. It is unlikely that sanctions will ever dissuade Iran from relinquishing its sovereignty.

As a matter of fact, while threats from the west loom, prospects for Iran have never been brighter. Iran’s ambassador, Mahamoud-Reza Sajjadi, told the Islamic Republic News Agency “Many countries and even American firms don’t like Iran to be under sanctions. That’s why they are operating in Iran with different names or through proxy companies from other countries.” In a relaxed manner, Sajjadi added that, “The question of sanctions is commonplace to our people as Iran has been under sanctions for the past 31 years.”

Sajjadi was confident that his nation would survive sanctions and allow for internal economic development that would help bring them closer to self-sufficiency. But his most compelling statement was in regards to the true nature of Iranian-Russian relations when he said, “We are two neighbors with common interests and (common) threats. Iran and Russia are against the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel’s expansionist objectives.”

Don’t underestimate Russia. Russia’s signatory to a joint UN resolution on Iranian sanctions is a clever ploy to delay an attack on Iran. Their strategy is to eliminate justification for western strikes on the Islamic regime while sanctions are in place.

During a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev boldly voiced strong criticism of the additional U.S. and EU sanctions on Iran that go beyond those approved by the UN Security Council. “We didn’t agree to this when we discussed the joint resolution at the U.N.,” said Medvedev.

As stated previously, Iran continues to survive with covert Russian aid and western trade alliances working by proxy. Muslim nations, even those with fundamental religious differences, are now finding themselves obliged to aid Iran in light of the worldwide condemnation of Israel over the botched raid on the Gazan peace flotilla.

Nowhere was this reversal so self-evident than when, On June 11, the London Times initially quotes a U.S. security official as saying that, ”The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way. They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.” It further quoted sources in the Saudi government as saying that officials in the country “all know” about the plan, and that they “will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing.”

One day later, Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news service, completely discredited this assertion by proclaiming that, “Saudi Arabia on Saturday denied a report in the London Times that it had given Israel “clear skies” to attack Iran. According to the report, Saudi Arabia was testing its radar and defense equipment in order to partially disable defenses, in order to allow Israeli planes to fly over Saudi airspace in the event of an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. Riyadh [capital of Saudi Arabia] denied the report later Saturday, saying it was “slanderous. Saudi Arabia rejects violating its sovereignty or the use of its airspace or territories by anyone to attack any country,” an official said in a statement.”

So where does that leave us? Any good gambler would look at his cards and fold. Not so with the U.S. and Israel. These two never leave the table because they believe they have an endless supply of money to cover even the most foolish bet. The U.S. is in it to win it, and you won’t find a sympathetic or reasonable shoulder to cry on from either end of the political spectrum; they are both afflicted with the same mental illness.

The Democrats and Republicans both agree that Iran must fall to western rule. The Brzenzski/Soros led left wanted to affect that through peaceful regime change while the Israeli led NeoCons would like to just blow the Hell out of the place.

The left had their chance and they blew it. The “color revolution” fell flat and it looks like sanctions won’t work either. So now it’s up to the insane NeoCons to do things their way. That’s why McCain is so calm, cool and collected these days. There’s no longer any need for strong words. The ships are in the gulf, the rockets are ready to launch out of Diego Garcia?all that’s missing is the slightest provocation from Iran and it’s GO TIME!

I guess all we can hope for is that Iran avoids a confrontation by refraining from doing anything provocative. That’s easier said than done.

Imagine having a psychotic policeman?who’s got a grudge against you?parked outside your front door 24/7. He’s looking for any excuse to bust you! The minute you hit the street--he’s on your tail. The minute you get out of the car--he’s on your heel. The minute you come around a corner--he’s lying on the floor--but you don’t see him! Your right toe goes into his thigh as you trip over his body and land flat on your face. The next thing you know you’ve got your hands behind your back and you’re on your way to the county jail for assaulting a police officer.

I know this may sound like something out of a slapstick comedy. For these “Three Stooges” and the rest of their cohorts, playing with peoples lives might seem like all fun and games. But as far as you and I and the rest of the world are concerned? This is no laughing matter.

[Dcopymope]

They've been saying the Draft will come back for years. I have never in my life talked to a single person who thought it was remotely a good idea -- and I've talked to people from all across the political spectrum, from lunatic left to lunatic right to lunatic green and everyone in between. Never. Not one person. Old, young or employed by the military.

If a Draft policy like that actually gets instated, we might presume democracy had nothing to do with it.

How do you think the government could change that opinion about the draft? I think all they have to do is put the demonization campaign against Iran into high gear and make them out to be the new Nazi’s, and by the time a massive attack occurs, provoked or not, the public will than support the draft wholeheartedly. Of course, at the moment almost no one would support a draft, but like I said, under the right circumstances, they will support it; the situation just has to be similar to that of WW1 & 2.

One would hope we have wised up at least enough since then to reject such outright technocratic imperialism. My public grade school education on the wars began with plenty of information about propaganda. I repeat, the nation will never support a draft as a whole. It's not as simple as you say to get public opinion in line with the fake fear-mongering leaders. Either democracy is not being represented during any forthcoming attempt to instate a draft policy, or fiddlesticks. It would take much longer than "soon" for this to be a true democratic success and if they try to do something like this it will end in miserable problems for our country's relationship to its leaders. It could do as much damage as, if not more than, the 9/11 propaganda. We don't have much democracy in the United States, but there's still enough mob rule to fight this ... or divide the individual states.

Well, the reason the global elite gave us democracy to begin with was because they understood from the perfect understanding of human nature that the public at large can be manipulated into supporting whatever the elite want them to support, using mass psychology, it never fails, because the public do not think for themselves. Democracy is not necessarily mob rule; it’s the rule of a few at the top using the mob to push their agendas through. I see no reason at all why a draft wouldn’t pass and be supported by most people under the right circumstances. What worked before in history will work again, because human nature doesnt change.

[Dcopymope]

Iran scientist: CIA offered me 50m to lie about nuclear secrets

By Patrick Cockburn

Friday, 16 July 2010

Shahram Amiri is reunited with his son at Imam Khomeini airport near Tehran

An Iranian scientist who says he was abducted and taken to the United States by the CIA returned to Tehran yesterday to a hero's welcome and claimed that he had been pressured into lying about his country's nuclear programme.
Shahram Amiri said that he was on the hajj pilgrimage when he was seized at gunpoint in the city of Medina, drugged and taken to the US, where he says Israel was involved in his interrogation. In the US, officials were reported to have admitted that Mr Amiri was paid more than 5m (?3.2m) by the CIA for information about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The US claims to have received useful information from him in return for the money, but is clearly embarrassed by his very public return to Iran. The offer of a large bribe is reportedly part of a special US programme to get Iranian nuclear scientists to defect.

Flashing a victory sign, Mr Amiri returned to Tehran International Airport to be greeted by senior officials and by his tearful wife and seven-year-old son, whom he had not seen since he disappeared in Saudi Arabia during a visit 14 months ago. Iran said it was demanding information about what had happened to him.

The US says that he entered the US of his own free will and had relocated to Tucson, Arizona. The US is claiming that Mr Amiri, who had worked for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, re-defected because pressure was placed on his family back in Iran, something he denied yesterday. Officials suggested that Iran had used his family to get him to leave the US.

"Americans wanted me to say that I defected to America of my own will, to use me for revealing some false information about Iran's nuclear work," Mr Amiri said at Tehran airport.

"I was under intensive psychological pressure by [the] CIA... the main aim of this abduction was to stage a new political and psychological game against Iran."

Iran and the US have been engaged in a semi-covert war involving defections, seizures and kidnappings in recent years, of which the case of Mr Amiri is only the latest example.

It reached its peak in Iraq in 2007 when the US abducted Iranian consular officials from the northern city of Arbil and Iran seized a British navy patrol boat in the Gulf. Last year, Iran seized three Americans hiking in the mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan, claiming they had strayed over the Iranian border, while other accounts said they had been forced into Iran at gunpoint.

Mr Amiri had appeared in three contradictory videos; in the first he claimed to have been kidnapped and tortured and in the second, he said he had come to the US to write his PhD.

In a third video he denounces the second one. On Monday he arrived unannounced at the Iranian interest section of the Pakistani embassy in Washington and asked for an air ticket to return to Iran.

At his press conference at Tehran airport, Mr Amiri stressed that he had acted under compulsion. "Israeli agents were present at some of my interrogation sessions and I was threatened to be handed over to Israel if I refused to cooperate with Americans," he said. "I have some documents proving that I've not been free in the United States and have always been under the control of armed agents of US intelligence services."

He says he was offered 50m to stay in the US. Mr Amiri denied that he had ever had any information about the Iranian nuclear programme. "I am an ordinary researcher... I have never made nuclear-related researches. I'm not involved in any confidential jobs. I had no classified information."

Mr Amiri had worked at Iran's Malek Ashtar University, an institution closely connected to the country's elite Revolutionary Guards.

US officials said that Mr Amiri may not be able to access his 5m, because of sanctions on Iran. The Washington Post said yesterday that the Iranian scientist had been working with the CIA for a year and officials were "stunned" by his request to go home this week. The officials added that he had provided useful information, though not directly on whether Iran was trying to make a nuclear device.

Iranian scientist speaks about the US kidnap and bribery to frame Iran 1/4

Iranian scientist speaks about the US kidnap and bribery to frame Iran 2/4

Iranian scientist speaks about the US kidnap and bribery to frame Iran 3/4

Iranian scientist speaks about the US kidnap and bribery to frame Iran 4/4

[Dcopymope]

First came the warning of retaliation against inspections, now it’s official.

Iran's parliament adopts bill against inspections


By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 20, 12:43 pm ET

TEHRAN, Iran ? Iran's parliament authorized the government Tuesday to retaliate against countries that inspect cargo on Iranian ships and aircraft as part of new U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program.

Lawmakers, hoping to discourage compliance with a fourth round of Security Council penalties, passed a bill allowing the government to respond in kind, with cargo inspections of its own.

Last month's Security Council resolution calls on, but does not require, all countries to cooperate in cargo inspections if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the items could contribute to the Iranian nuclear program, and any inspection must receive the consent of the ship's flag state.

The new sanctions, which also include financial penalties, were imposed because of Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology the United States and other world powers suspect Tehran is seeking to master as a possible pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran says it is only after nuclear power.

In Geneva, Iran's parliament Speaker Ari Larijani said his country's new law should serve notice that it accepts only the conditions in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which grants signatories the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy as long as they do not acquire atomic weapons.

"There should be a balance between the obligations and the rights within the framework of the NPT," he told journalists through an interpreter. "If they ignore our rights, then they could expect us to ignore some of our obligations."

"If they want to act illegally and inspect Iran's ships, then we will retaliate," he said.

The Iranian bill also requires the government to maintain its limited level of cooperation with United Nations nuclear safeguards agreements. Iran, for example, refuses to allow surprise visits by U.N. nuclear inspectors.

Iran's uranium enrichment program is at the center of international concerns about its nuclear work because of the possibility it could be used to make weapons. At lower levels of processing, enriched uranium is suitable for making fuel for power plants. Iran recently increased its enrichment to a level of 20 percent, which it says is needed for a medical research reactor.

That development, however, puts it much closer to being able to advance toward the 90 percent level needed in weapons production.

The bill adopted Tuesday presses the government to continue enriching uranium to 20 percent levels and to pursue self-sufficiency in nuclear fuel production.

___

Associated Press Writer Bradley S. Klapper contributed to this report from Geneva.

[Dcopymope]

Charles Rangel intrudes the Draft bill as promised.

H.R. 5741 Slave bill now in Committee

Rob Dew
Infowars.com
July 26, 2010

Slavery has a new name: “Mandatory Service”, introduced July 15th 2010 by Charles Rangle.

H.R. 5741 will give the president the authority “To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”

Barely a year after introducing H.R. 1444, which was supposed to form a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes”, Congress has upped the ante. Anyone between 18 and 42 will be eligible for a two year commitment of civilian or military service. With more college graduates working for the fast food industry, a depression era unemployment rate and less people retiring; the government will have plenty of eligible able bodies to move into the slave ranks.

This echos the sentiment of President Obama who asked Congress in Febuary 2009 to send him a bipartisan bill in the spirit of national service. His Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel outlined a similar plan in his book The Plan.

But even Emanuel aims low looking at only 18 to 25 year olds for three months of compulsory service. Under this new legislation nearly all, able bodied Americans will be sentenced to two years of forced labor. The infrastructure is already in place for those unwilling to participate in mandatory service and now the army is looking to fill it’s ranks with Interment/Resettlement Specialists.

There are very few loopholes to opt of out national service, even CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (SEC. 109) will be forced to choose the mandatory option of A. noncombatant service (as defined by the President) or B. national civilian service. It seems the congressional commission on civic service will no longer be needed thanks to the hard work of a suspected Congressional tax cheat from New York.

The slavery bill is currently in debate in the House Committee on Armed Services chaired by Rep Ike Skelton a democrat from Missouri. Those who oppose mandatory slavery should contact Rep. Skelton. Many bills die in committee and this bill should meet the same fate.

[simonshack]

It looks like they want all countries to join the bandwagon when this thing is kick started and goes live.

Well - it doesn't look good...


H. RES. 1553
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf

[hoi.polloi]

It looks like they want all countries to join the bandwagon when this thing is kick started and goes live.

Well - it doesn't look good...


H. RES. 1553
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf

WHAT nuclear weapons?

Nobody has even proven that Hiroshima's damage pictures are the result of "documentation of a nuclear weapon detonation". Bullshit!

First Israel has to prove that the Nuke tests are "documented explosions" with no hint of fakery or computer graphics or photographic overlaying before you can say that the Nuke is a real weapon that's a real threat to anything.

What a pathetic excuse to start a war. It's obvious this would be an imperialist globalist attack on a sovereign nation. Just as the USA is considering the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and offering pseudo-apologies to Native Americans. It's like "well, we're sort of slowing down our invasion of your culture, because we want to go invade the Middle East, now."

Grr.

[Dcopymope]

It looks like they want all countries to join the bandwagon when this thing is kick started and goes live.

Well - it doesn't look good...


H. RES. 1553
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf

Now what does one with sanity say about this bill? He would say it’s tacky, full of holes and inaccuracies, using quotes that have nothing at all to do with Iran being a "threat" to Israel or anyone else. It uses the same old tired cherry picked quotes from speeches given by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lumped together in a way to make him out to be some kind of Hitler incarnate, and mistranslated quotes at that. It ignores the deal Iran signed with Turkey and Brazil to ship half of their low enriched uranium to those respective countries in return for refined fuel and gas, which is what America wanted Iran to do to begin with. And it totally disregards the huge consequences of any attack on Iran, ignoring the many analysis in and out of government that say it will most definitely lead to a world war scenario. They've been trying to bring back the draft these last ten years for this very reason. It’s not because they have some kind of shortage of troops for Afghanistan or Iraq, it’s for Iran. They know that Iran will respond ferociously to any attacks and there will be massive casualties as a result.

[Dcopymope]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity claims Israel may attack Iran this month. I'm not quite sure about this, but this is a very serious group.

Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran
Tuesday 03 August 2010
by: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity | Consortium News | Op-Ed

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: War With Iran

We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war.

Israel’s leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel.

This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to pre-empt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens.

We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu.

Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much “room” to give to the diplomatic effort.

On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically ? as opposed to changing them militarily.”

Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders.

“Neither of us try to surprise each other,” you said, “and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.” You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel.

Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories.

We had long since concluded that Israel had been exaggerating the Arab “threat” -- well before 1982 when former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed:

“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders.

Given this record, one would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may have given you that Israel would not surprise you with an attack on Iran.

Netanyahu’s Calculations

Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your reluctance even to mention in controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship.

During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene.

This prime minister learned well from Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon.

Netanyahu’s attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them.

The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward -- and wonderment at -- an America so easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:

“America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. ? They won’t get in our way ? Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be “a con artist ? who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes,” adding that such behavior “does not change over the years.”

As mentioned above, Netanyahu has had instructive role models.

None other than Gen. Brent Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized;” that “Sharon just has him “wrapped around his little finger.”

(Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and told never again to darken the White House doorstep.)

If further proof of American political support for Netanyahu were needed, it was manifest when Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham visited Israel during the second week of July.

Lieberman asserted that there is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including “through military actions if we must.” Graham was equally explicit: “The Congress has Israel’s back,” he said.

More recently, 47 House Republicans have signed onto H.R. 1553 declaring “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran ? including the use of military force.”

The power of the Likud Lobby, especially in an election year, facilitates Netanyahu’s attempts to convince those few of his colleagues who need convincing that there may never be a more auspicious time to bring about “regime change” in Tehran.

And, as we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern.

If Israel’s professed fear that one or two nuclear weapons in Iran’s arsenal would be a game changer, one would have expected Israeli leaders to jump up and down with glee at the possibility of seeing half of Iran’s low enriched uranium shipped abroad.

Instead, they dismissed as a “trick” the tripartite deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil with your personal encouragement, that would ship half of Iran’s low enriched uranium outside Tehran’s control.

The National Intelligence Estimate

The Israelis have been looking on intently as the U.S. intelligence community attempts to update, in a “Memorandum to Holders,” the NIE of November 2007 on Iran’s nuclear program. It is worth recalling a couple of that Estimate’s key judgments:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. ? We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons ?”

Earlier this year, public congressional testimony by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (February 1 & 2) and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Ronald Burgess with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright (April 14) did not alter those key judgments.

Blair and others continued to underscore the intelligence community’s agnosticism on one key point: as Blair put it earlier this year, “We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build a nuclear weapon.”

The media have reported off-the-cuff comments by Panetta and by you, with a darker appraisal -- with you telling Israeli TV “? all indicators are that they [the Iranians] are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon;” and Panetta telling ABC, “I think they continue to work on designs in that area [of weaponization].”

Panetta hastened to add, though, that in Tehran, “There is a continuing debate right now as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb.”

Israel probably believes it must give more weight to the official testimony of Blair, Burgess, and Cartwright, which dovetail with the earlier NIE, and the Israelis are afraid that the long-delayed Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE will essentially affirm that Estimate’s key judgments.

Our sources tell us that an honest Memorandum to Holders is likely to do precisely that, and that they suspect that the several-months-long delay means intelligence judgments are being “fixed” around the policy -- as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

One War Prevented

The key judgments of the November 2007 NIE shoved an iron rod into the wheel spokes of the Dick Cheney-led juggernaut rolling toward war on Iran. The NIE infuriated Israel leaders eager to attack before President Bush and Vice President Cheney left office. This time, Netanyahu fears that issuance of an honest Memorandum might have similar effect.

Bottom line: more incentive for Israel to pre-empt such an Estimate by striking Iran sooner rather than later.

Last week’s announcement that U.S. officials will meet next month with Iranian counterparts to resume talks on ways to arrange higher enrichment of Iranian low enriched uranium for Tehran’s medical research reactor was welcome news to all but the Israeli leaders.

In addition, Iran reportedly has said it would be prepared to halt enrichment to 20 percent (the level needed for the medical research reactor), and has made it clear that it looks forward to the resumption of talks.

Again, an agreement that would send a large portion of Iran’s LEU abroad would, at a minimum, hinder progress toward nuclear weapons, should Iran decide to develop them. But it would also greatly weaken Israel’s scariest rationale for an attack on Iran.

Bottom line: with the talks on what Israel’s leaders earlier labeled a “trick” now scheduled to resume in September, incentive builds in Tel Aviv for the Israelis to attack before any such agreement can be reached.

We’ll say it again: the objective is regime change. Creating synthetic fear of Iranian nuclear weapons is simply the best way to “justify” bringing about regime change. Worked well for Iraq, no?

Another War in Need of Prevention

A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran would most probably head off such an Israeli move. Follow-up might include dispatching Adm. Mullen to Tel Aviv with military-to-military instructions to Israel: Don’t Even Think of It.

In the wake of the 2007 NIE, President Bush overruled Vice President Cheney and sent Adm. Mullen to Israel to impart that hard message. A much-relieved Mullen arrived home that spring sure of step and grateful that he had dodged the likelihood of being on the end of a Cheney-inspired order for him to send U.S. forces into war with Iran.

This time around, Mullen returned with sweaty palms from a visit to Israel in February 2010. Ever since, he has been worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran, while adding the obligatory assurance that the Pentagon does have an attack plan for Iran, if needed.

In contrast to his experience in 2008, though, Mullen seemed troubled that Israel’s leaders did not take his warnings seriously.

While in Israel, Mullen insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be “a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences.”

After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22 Mullen drove home the same point. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being “on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization” and its “desire to dominate its neighbors,” he included the following in his prepared remarks:

“For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.”

Unlike younger generals -- David Petraeus, for example -- Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. That experience is probably what prompts asides like this: “I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It’s messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful ?”

Although the immediate context for that remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic and economic equities at stake know he is right.

Other Steps

In 2008, after Mullen read the Israelis the riot act, they put their pre-emptive plans for Iran aside. With that mission accomplished, Mullen gave serious thought to ways to prevent any unintended (or, for that matter, deliberately provoked) incidents in the crowded Persian Gulf that could lead to wider hostilities.

Mullen sent up an interesting trial balloon at a July 2, 2008, press conference, when he indicated that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran. But nothing more was heard of this overture, probably because Cheney ordered him to drop it.

It was a good idea -- still is. The danger of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation in the crowded Persian Gulf has not been addressed, and should be. Establishment of a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran would reduce the danger of an accident, miscalculation, or covert, false-flag attack.

In our view, that should be done immediately -- particularly since recently introduced sanctions assert a right to inspect Iranian ships. The naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards reportedly has threatened “a response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” if anyone tries to inspect Iranian ships in international waters.

Another safety valve would result from successful negotiation of the kind of bilateral “incidents-at-sea” protocol that was concluded with the Russians in 1972 during a period of relatively high tension.

With only interim nobodies at the helm of the intelligence community, you may wish to consider knocking some heads together yourself and insisting that it finish an honest Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE by mid-August -- recording any dissents, as necessary.

Sadly, our former colleagues tell us that politicization of intelligence analysis did not end with the departure of Bush and Cheney?and that the problem is acute even at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which in the past has done some of the best professional, objective, tell-it-like-it-is analysis.

Pundits, Think Tanks: Missing the Point

As you may have noticed, most of page one of Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook section was given to an article titled, “A Nuclear Iran: Would America Strike to Prevent It? -- Imagining Obama’s Response to an Iranian Missile Crisis.”

Page five was dominated by the rest of the article, under the title “Who will blink first when Iran is on the brink?”

A page-wide photo of a missile rolling past Iranian dignitaries on a reviewing stand (reminiscent of the familiar parades on Red Square) is aimed at the centerfold of the Outlook section, as if poised to blow it to smithereens.

Typically, the authors address the Iranian “threat” as though it endangers the U.S., even though Secretary Clinton has stated publicly that this is not the case. They write that one option for the U.S. is “the lonely, unpopular path of taking military action lacking allied consensus.” O Tempora, O Mores!

In less than a decade, wars of aggression have become nothing more than lonely, unpopular paths.

What is perhaps most remarkable, though, is that the word Israel is nowhere to be found in this very long article. Similar think pieces, including some from relatively progressive think tanks, also address these issues as though they were simply bilateral U.S.-Iranian problems, with little or no attention to Israel.

Guns of August?

The stakes could hardly be higher. Letting slip the dogs of war would have immense repercussions. Again, we hope that Adm. Mullen and others have given you comprehensive briefings on them.

Netanyahu would be taking a fateful gamble by attacking Iran, with high risk to everyone involved. The worst, but conceivable case, has Netanyahu playing -- unintentionally -- Dr. Kevorkian to the state of Israel.

Even if the U.S. were to be sucked into a war provoked by Israel, there is absolutely no guarantee that the war would come out well.

Were the U.S. to suffer significant casualties, and were Americans to become aware that such losses came about because of exaggerated Israeli claims of a nuclear threat from Iran, Israel could lose much of its high standing in the United States.

There could even be an upsurge in anti-Semitism, as Americans conclude that officials with dual loyalties in Congress and the executive branch threw our troops into a war provoked, on false pretenses, by Likudniks for their own narrow purposes.

We do not have a sense that major players in Tel Aviv or in Washington are sufficiently sensitive to these critical factors.

You are in position to prevent this unfortunate, but likely chain reaction. We allow for the possibility that Israeli military action might not lead to a major regional war, but we consider the chances of that much less than even.

Footnote: VIPS Experience

We VIPS have found ourselves in this position before. We prepared our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of February 5, 2003 after Colin Powell’s speech at the UN.

We had been watching how our profession was being corrupted into serving up faux intelligence that was later criticized (correctly) as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and nonexistent” -- adjectives used by former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller after a five-year investigation by his committee.

As Powell spoke, we decided collectively that the responsible thing to do was to try to warn the President before he acted on misguided advice to attack Iraq. Unlike Powell, we did not claim that our analysis was “irrefutable and undeniable.” We did conclude with this warning:

“After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion ? beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downl ... twelve.pdf

We take no satisfaction at having gotten it right on Iraq. Others with claim to more immediate expertise on Iraq were issuing similar warnings. But we were kept well away from the wagons circled by Bush and Cheney.

Sadly, your own Vice President, who was then chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the most assiduous in blocking opportunities for dissenting voices to be heard. This is part of what brought on the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation’s history.

We now believe that we may also be right on (and right on the cusp of) another impending catastrophe of even wider scope -- Iran -- on which another President, you, are not getting good advice from your closed circle of advisers.

They are probably telling you that, since you have privately counseled Prime Minister Netanyahu against attacking Iran, he will not do it. This could simply be the familiar syndrome of telling the President what they believe he wants to hear.

Quiz them; tell them others believe them to be dead wrong on Netanyahu. The only positive here is that you -- only you -- can prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Phil Giraldi, Directorate of Operations, CIA (20 years)

Larry Johnson, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years)

W. Patrick Lang, Col., USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: Defense Intelligence Officer for Middle East/South Asia, Director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years)

Ray McGovern, US Army Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA (30 years)

Coleen Rowley, Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI (24 years)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service Officer, Department of State (16 years)

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Israel may attack Iran this month

[Dcopymope]

Now where have we heard this before?

USA arming Iran with weapons and has lost nuclear material FALSE FLAG ALERT

[Dcopymope]

Gordon Brown says Saddam Hussein was in the way of the New World Order

Now what the hell is this "New World Order" these puppets keep going on about? Does anybody find it odd that no one in that inquiry bothered to demand Gordon explain what this "New World Order" is they are trying to create? They are never questioned on this matter. In the CFR thread I explain what this "New World Order" is about, and it’s not some happy global village, it is a world-wide scientific dictatorship. This is about invading the last few countries that are holding out against this "New World Order" and putting them as well as all of their natural resources under the control of the U.N, Iran is next. All nations must be united under the banner of the ‘UN’, which is French for 'one' i.e. one world government. The natural resources will be used as a big stick to keep everyone in line. For example, it wouldnt take long to crush opposition to this "New World Order" if they could just simply cut off your food supply, you won't try and bite the hand that feeds you.

Related - Global Governance or One World Government?

[hoi.polloi]

It seems the self-proclaimed geniuses of this movement are simply jumping on board humanity's inevitable domination of the physically accessible world and hoping to make a system out of it that involves what we call "modern man" instead of letting humans destroy one another and split into their artificially created natural progression with the cloning and genetic freedom that the new technology brings.

It's not exactly sinister to have such a goal, but it doesn't bode well for our inherent intelligence either. Seems like they are just plain too stupid to implement a compassionate, reasonable system progression. Maybe we all are.

I have the eerie feeling those who want to see us as slaves to a Venus project-type utopia are the same murderous maniacs who would abuse the technology for mass murder and "power" gained through war. They are the very evil that they fear and overreact to, and we just can't get rid of their fears! They are just too self-destructive and trying too hard to control the uncontrollable.

I hope Iran can resist the urge to wage war against these people. That would frame themselves as the evil this globalist cabal seems to want us to fear so much.

[godzilla]

It seems the self-proclaimed geniuses of this movement are simply jumping on board humanity's inevitable domination of the physically accessible world and hoping to make a system out of it that involves what we call "modern man" instead of letting humans destroy one another and split into their artificially created natural progression with the cloning and genetic freedom that the new technology brings.

It's not exactly sinister to have such a goal, but it doesn't bode well for our inherent intelligence either. Seems like they are just plain too stupid to implement a compassionate, reasonable system progression. Maybe we all are.

I have the eerie feeling those who want to see us as slaves to a Venus project-type utopia are the same murderous maniacs who would abuse the technology for mass murder and "power" gained through war. They are the very evil that they fear and overreact to, and we just can't get rid of their fears! They are just too self-destructive and trying too hard to control the uncontrollable.

I hope Iran can resist the urge to wage war against these people. That would frame themselves as the evil this globalist cabal seems to want us to fear so much.

It's hard to imagine just how they might be able to avoid fighting the cabal, if the cabal are dead set on that happening. But I hope they can find a way.