World War 3 News

Ronen Bergman Predicts 2012 Israeli Attack on Iran

2012-01-27T07:31:00.000-08:00

Ehud Barak imagines 'taking out' an Iranian scientist

Ronen Bergman’s front page NY Times Magazine feature story this week is important, but not for the reasons you might think. It is important not because it offers a constructive approach regarding urgent matters of the day, except possibly in a negative sense. In it, rather, we hear of all the common delusions and misconceptions of the main Israeli policymakers like Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will make the decision to bomb Iran. We hear relatively little (except towards the end) from those within Israel who argue against an attack, and when we do hear from them Bergman allows them to speak mostly second-hand through his paraphrase rather than in their own words. This has the effect of minimizing the weight of opinion they offer.
When we do hear directly from Dagan, it is towards the end of the piece, well after numerous opposing sources have contradicted the premises of his thinking. For every one source the Israeli security reporter uses who opposes war, he brings two or three holding opposite views. Frankly, I’m not surprised at this since Bergman is a fan of a robust projection of Israeli interests, especially projections of military and security might, against its enemies. What I am surprised and disappointed about is the decision of NY Times editors to allow such a heavily weighted view to be offered to its readers.
But understanding the thinking, wrong as it may be, of the Israeli hawks is important and useful. It allows us to rebut and combat their logic with those in the public who retain an element of realism about the consequences of war against Iran.
Here are some of the most dubious passages in which the Israelis betray wishful thinking, rather than sober or serious insight. He quotes Bogie Yaalon, one of Israel’s most aggressive hawks, as claiming that Iran will actually introduce one of its own nuclear devices into the U.S.:

“The Iranian regime will be several times more dangerous if it has a nuclear device in its hands,” he went on. “One that it could bring into the United States. It is not for nothing that it is establishing bases for itself in Latin America and creating links with drug dealers on the U.S.-Mexican border. This is happening in order to smuggle ordnance into the United States for the carrying out of terror attacks. Imagine this regime getting nuclear weapons to the U.S.-Mexico border and managing to smuggle it into Texas, for example. This is not a far-fetched scenario.”

This is so incredibly far-fetched as to separate Yaalon, one of Israel’s most serious security policymakers, from reason. It makes you wonder how a country can allow someone so deluded, so Strangelovian to have his finger anywhere near the nuclear button.
In this passage, Barak raises the long-discredited discredited claim about Iran’s genocidal intentions against Israel:

The Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map.”

Iran’s leaders have said that the current Israeli regime would disappear from the pages of history, not that it would destroy Israel itself. ”Disappearing” and “destroying” are two quite different words whose nuances Barak has conveniently confused.
Below Bergman outlines three critical questions Israel needs to answer affirmatively for its attack against Iran to be warranted:

1. Does Israel have the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and bring about a major delay in the Iranian nuclear project? And can the military and the Israeli people withstand the inevitable counterattack?
2. Does Israel have overt or tacit support, particularly from America, for carrying out an attack?
3. Have all other possibilities for the containment of Iran’s nuclear threat been exhausted, bringing Israel to the point of last resort? If so, is this the last opportunity for an attack?
For the first time since the Iranian nuclear threat emerged in the mid-1990s, at least some of Israel’s most powerful leaders believe that the response to all of these questions is yes.

In fact, Israel does not have the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear capability. A Time Magazine report about a critical IDF intelligence briefing given to the cabinet earlier this fall said Israel could not destroy Iran’s nuclear plants and that the most likely development is that Iran will achieve the option of creating a nuclear weapon:

“I informed the cabinet we have no ability to hit the Iranian nuclear program in a meaningful way. If I get the order I will do it, but we don’t have the ability to hit in a meaningful way.”

Though the source is not identified in the Time post, the officer who delivered this pessimistic news was, according to a trusted Israeli source of mine, none other than IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz.
Regarding point 2 above, I see no overt or even tacit U.S. support for an Israeli attack. In fact, Obama’s State of the Union address mentioned Iran almost in passing and did not contain any of the ringing affirmation of a hawkish position that one would expect if the U.S. was prepared to see Israel attack. The latest Israeli promise that it would give the U.S. 12 hours advance warning of such an attack may’ve been designed to assuage American concerns and show that Israel is acknowledging them, but it cannot have reassured anyone in Washington.
Below, you’ll find more delusional thinking arguing that Iran’s nuclear scientists are abandoning the program in droves out of fear for their lives (note no tangible proof is offered to bolster the claims):

Meir Dagan…has praised the hits against Iranian scientists…saying that beyond “the removal of important brains” from the project, the killings have brought about what is referred to in the Mossad as white defection — in other words, the Iranian scientists are so frightened that many have requested to be transferred to civilian projects. “There is no doubt,” a former top Mossad official told me…“that being a scientist in a prestigious nuclear project that is generously financed by the state carries with it advantages like status, advancement, research budgets and fat salaries. On the other hand, when a scientist…watches his colleagues being bumped off one after the other, he definitely begins to fear that the day will come when a man on a motorbike knocks on his car window.”

In fact, any scientist for any country who sees his nation intimidated by an enemy killing his colleagues is MORE likely to want to participate in the program. Not to mention that the leaders of that country will redouble their efforts out of a sense of national pride, to ensure they achieve their scientific and military objectives. Such covert attacks don’t seriously undermine the program. In fact, they bring it closer to fruition in the longer term.
Now, let’s confront some of the fuzzy thinking behind Meir Dagan’s justifications for his own covert war project:

“In the mind of the Iranian citizen, a link has been created between his economic difficulties and the nuclear project. Today in Iran, there is a profound internal debate about this matter, which has divided the Iranian leadership.” He beamed when he added, “It pleases me that the timeline of the project has been pushed forward several times since 2003 because of these mysterious disruptions.”

In a separate NY Times story by Ethan Bronner, Bibi Netanayahu betrays the same wishful thinking:

Mr. Netanyahu…believes the Tehran government to be deeply unpopular, indeed despised [by Iranians], and that a careful attack on its nuclear facilities might even be welcomed by Iranian citizens.

Actually, public opinion polls show almost unanimous Iranian support for the nuclear project and that they do not blame their economic woes either on the domestic leadership or the nuclear program. In fact, they correctly blame the west for bringing these woes upon them. As for a “profound internal debate,” I’ve seen no evidence of this whatsoever. Finally, his claim to have delayed the Iranian nuclear program is debatable. Since 1996, Israelis and western figures have predicted Iran’s imminent nuclear bomb. A combination of a western Chicken Little “sky is falling” fear-mongering and Iranian opacity has certainly contributed to rolling back the dates by which Iran would acquire nuclear capability.
Here is a prize example of Ehud Barak’s delusional thinking around the assertion of Iran’s aggressive intentions toward its neighbors:

“An Iranian bomb would ensure the survival of the current regime, which otherwise would not make it to its 40th anniversary in light of the admiration that the young generation in Iran has displayed for the West. With a bomb, it would be very hard to budge the administration.” Barak went on: “The moment Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the region will feel compelled to do the same. The Saudi Arabians have told the Americans as much, and one can think of both Turkey and Egypt in this context, not to mention the danger that weapons-grade materials will leak out to terror groups.
“From our point of view,” Barak said, “a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations.”
At that point Barak leaned forward and said with the utmost solemnity: “And if a nuclear Iran covets and occupies some gulf state, who will liberate it?

The alleged “admiration” in which the Iranian younger generation holds the west has been considerably tempered by precisely the sort of acts of terror which Barak has championed. That same younger generation will certainly not challenge or topple the regime while it is under such a threat to its existence.
As to whether or how neighboring states would procure nuclear weapons, Barak omits of course the fact that Israel has had such weapons since 1967. Pakistan has had a “Muslim bomb” for decades and not used it or even threatened to use it against Israel. Indeed Iran itself has never threatened to attack Israel militarily or with a nuclear weapon, while Israeli leaders regularly advocate violent regime change against the current regime.
As for “protection,” here Barak is right. Indeed, Israel has 200-400 nuclear weapons for precisely the same reason: to ensure it will not be destroyed. Yet somehow what is bestowed to Israel is treif when Iran seeks the same. But where Barak falls down, is in his assumption that Iran would use its weapon in an aggressive manner to threaten others. Israel has always claimed its weapons exist to guarantee its enemies cannot wipe it out. Iran’s motivation is precisely the same. It has never asserted it would use weapons to dominate the region.
Another troubling aspect of this piece is that Bergman omits most of the more troubling issues concerning an Israeli attack. For example, he doesn’t mention one of Ehud Barak’s more notorious claims about an Iranian counterattack–that it would take at most 500 Israeli lives. This is a figure that Meir Dagan practically sneered at when he discussed it on Israeli TV with Ilana Dayan. It is further evidence of the delusions under which the hawks operate. In 2006, Hezbollah alone caused over 100 Israeli deaths with its rocket barrages. Even if you anticipate Israel may’ve further perfected its anti-missile defenses, when you add Iran’s far more potent and accurate missile arsenal into the mix, the likelihood of thousands of Israeli deaths is almost guaranteed. Yet Bergman reassures that the Israeli military has taken this into account and developed measures that will somehow mitigate the danger. He notes that proponents of war claim that if Iran gets a bomb Israel will still be guaranteed an Iranian attack later rather than sooner and it might just as well face this attack now when it has a chance, supposedly, to knock out the nukes. This is a perfect example of Israel’s cock-eyed thinking where you anticipate a future hypothetical act as a given while having no definite basis to justify such certainty. Somehow, this doesn’t exactly reassure.
One element of Israeli military that Bergman offers is fascinating in its own right. He indicates that the Mossad director at the time of the 1967 War summoned the CIA station chief to his home, where they had a knock down drag out fight about an imminent Israel attack on Egypt (one that would precipitate the coming war). While the CIA officer warned that the U.S. would actively fight against Israeli aggression, the Mossad chief argued that Israel would attack and indeed should’ve done so sooner.
The Mossad chief went over the CIA officer’s head and flew to Washington where he received a tacit green light from Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to attack. The rest is history. One important aspect of this encounter is to confirm the fact that Israel itself started the 1967 War and was in no way forced into that War. In other words, it was a war of choice and not last resort. The fact that Israel believed that Egyptian forces were prepared to attack it in no way justifies subsequent Israeli action because the judgment of Egyptian military movement is open to interpretation and most analysts now are not convinced that Egypt intended to attack.
Bergman brings this story because he hopes it will serve as a historical analogy to what could happen in the case of Iran. He harbors a lingering hope that while the U.S. will do everything in its power to stop Israel from attacking, that when push comes to shove, we will acquiesce once we see that Israel is hell-bent on doing so and there is nothing we can do to stop them.
If this is Israel’s real belief, then we are in for real trouble for several reasons. First, if Bergman is right and the U.S. does support or even participate in the attack, then both powers will have guaranteed a bloody regional war in which no one will be spared the sort of mayhem that Meir Dagan has warned about. Second, if Bergman is wrong and the U.S. hangs tough and refuses to support a war, then Israel will go it alone and the damage done to Iran will be limited, will not cause significant damage to its nuclear program, but will cause severe ramifications for regional relations.

ww3news

2012-01-26T05:52:00.001-08:00

WW3NEWS

2012-01-25T05:32:00.001-08:00

India to pay gold instead of dollars for Iranian oil. Oil and gold markets stunned

2012-01-24T06:40:00.000-08:00

Tags: India China sanctions Iranian oil European Union

Iranian oil for India

India is the first buyer of Iranian oil to agree to pay for its purchases in gold instead of the US dollar, debkafile's intelligence and Iranian sources report exclusively. Those sources expect China to follow suit. India and China take about one million barrels per day, or 40 percent of Iran's total exports of 2.5 million bpd. Both are superpowers in terms of gold assets.
By trading in gold, New Delhi and Beijing enable Tehran to bypass the upcoming freeze on its central bank's assets and the oil embargo which the European Union's foreign ministers agreed to impose Monday, Jan. 23. The EU currently buys around 20 percent of Iran's oil exports.
The vast sums involved in these transactions are expected, furthermore, to boost the price of gold and depress the value of the dollar on world markets.
Iran's second largest customer after China, India purchases around $12 billion a year's worth of Iranian crude, or about 12 percent of its consumption. Delhi is to execute its transactions, according to our sources, through two state-owned banks: the Calcutta-based UCO Bank, whose board of directors is made up of Indian government and Reserve Bank of India representatives; and Halk Bankasi (Peoples Bank), Turkey's seventh largest bank which is owned by the government.
An Indian delegation visited Tehran last week to discuss payment options in view of the new sanctions. The two sides were reported to have agreed that payment for the oil purchased would be partly in yen and partly in rupees. The switch to gold was kept dark.
India thus joins China in opting out of the US-led European sanctions against Iran's international oil and financial business. Turkey announced publicly last week that it would not adhere to any sanctions against Iran's nuclear program unless they were imposed by the United Nations Security Council.
The EU decision of Monday banned the signing of new oil contracts with Iran at once, while phasing out existing transactions by July 1, 2012, when the European embargo, like the measure enforced by the United States, becomes total. The European foreign ministers also approved a freeze on the assets of the Central Bank of Iran which handles all the country's oil transactions.
However, the damage those sanctions cause the Iranian economy will be substantially cushioned by the oil deals to be channeled through Turkish and Indian state banks. China for its part has declared its opposition to sanctions against Iran.
debkafile's intelligence sources disclose that Tehran has set up alternative financial mechanisms with China and Russia for getting paid for its oil in currencies other than US dollars. Both Beijing and Moscow are keeping the workings of those mechanisms top secret.

France would "do everything to avoid a military intervention,

2012-01-21T11:38:00.001-08:00

French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned against any military intervention against Iran over its nuclear program, saying a strike on Iran would "trigger war and chaos in the Middle East."
At his annual New Year's address to diplomats in Paris, Sarkozy warned "a military intervention would not solve the problem (of Iran's nuclear program) but would trigger war and chaos in the Middle East and maybe the world."

	French President Nicolas Sarkozy
	Photo by: AP

France would "do everything to avoid a military intervention," he said, calling instead for "much stronger sanctions" against Iran.
Sarkozy's remarks come amid fresh tensions between Iran and the West since a report by the United Nations nuclear watchdog late last year, which said Iran had tested designs normally used to make a nuclear weapon.
European Union foreign ministers are likely to agree on extra sanctions, including an oil embargo and a freeze on the assets of Iran's central bank at a meeting on Monday, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said.
Iran has reacted by threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway at the mouth of the Gulf, through which about 20 per cent of the world's daily oil trade is shipped.
Last month, Iran conducted military drills in the Strait.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said this week any decision on an Israeli attack was "very far off".

Iran calls for Israel to be "punished"

2012-01-20T07:10:00.000-08:00

U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey (L) meets Israel's President Shimon Peres at Peres' residence in Jerusalem January 20, 2012.

TEHRAN/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An ally of Iran's supreme leader called on Friday for Israel to be "punished" for killing a nuclear scientist and the top U.S. general urged his Israeli ally to coordinate with Washington as crisis builds in the Middle East.
Alarmed Arab neighbors in the Gulf made a plea to scale back confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. France, calling on China and Russia to back Western sanctions, said time was running out for diplomacy to deflect Tehran from a course that Washington and Israel have threatened to stop by war.
An Iranian lawmaker, however, said there was no chance of resuming negotiations with world powers unless they agreed in advance to exclude the nuclear issue from the agenda - a vain hope, given the centrality of Western concerns that Iran is seeking atomic weapons to the diplomatic contacts.
After Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei paid his respects to the families of two scientists assassinated on what Tehran believes were Israel's orders, one of them just last week, a close ally who is a former nuclear negotiator and currently speaker of parliament demanded retribution.
"Terrorism has a long history in some countries like the Zionist regime," Ali Larijani said of nuclear-armed Israel, which views an atomic bomb in the hands of the Islamic Republic as a threat to the survival of the Jewish state.
"The Zionist regime should be punished in a way that it can not play such games with our country again."
Such threats have been made before in Tehran and it is unclear how or when they might be carried out. Israel is on guard against attacks on its borders and within, notably by Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, which is supported by Iran.
STRAINS
Israeli officials have not commented on accusations that it deployed the hit squad which blew up Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan on a busy Tehran street last week. But it has a record of such attacks and is widely presumed by Western analysts to be engaged, along with allies, in a covert war against a nuclear development program which Iran insists is entirely civilian.
Sharp U.S. disavowal of American involvement in the killing have drawn some analysts to see it as a form of rebuke to Israel, amid speculation that President Barack Obama is wary, while he campaigns for re-election in November, that Israel could launch unilateral action that might inflame the region.
Obama's top military official, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, paid a brief visit to Israel and was quoted by its defense ministry as telling officials there that Washington was keen to coordinate on strategy.
"We have many interests in common in the region in this very dynamic time and the more we can continue to engage each other, the better off we'll all be," Dempsey was quoted as saying in a statement issued by the Israeli defense ministry.
The United States has led Western pressure on Tehran to curb uranium enrichment that might provide material for weapons. In November Dempsey said he did not know whether Israel would give him advance warning if it decided to strike Iran.
Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, was quoted as saying on Thursday that the Obama administration would be ready to move beyond sanctions against Iran if they fail to curb the Islamic Republic's suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.
"We know that the sanctions on Iran might fail to work, and therefore we are leaving all the options on the table, as the president has said explicitly, and has instructed the top military officers to do everything necessary to be prepared for any action at any stage," Shapiro said in remarks at Haifa University that were relayed by a member of the audience.
Shapiro later told reporters that consultations were intended to "coordinate efforts ... toward the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
SARKOZY WARNING
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday that time was running out to avoid a military intervention, however, and he appealed to China and Russia, veto-wielding U.N. powers who have been reluctant to back tightening Western embargos let alone military force, to support new sanctions.
"Time is running out. France will do everything to avoid a military intervention," Sarkozy told ambassadors gathered in Paris. "A military intervention will not solve the problem, but it will unleash war and chaos in the Middle East."
"We need stronger, more decisive sanctions that stop the purchase of Iranian oil and freezes the assets of the central bank, and those who don't want that will be responsible for the risks of a military conflict," Sarkozy warned.
"Help us guarantee peace in the world. We really need you," he said, in an appeal to Moscow and Beijing.
France has been at the forefront of international efforts for tougher measures to increase pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program after talks between Tehran and six world powers -- the P5+1 of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- stalled a year ago.
Following Obama's approval of U.S. sanctions on New Year's Eve that are intended to choke Tehran's oil sales, European Union foreign ministers are expected to agree on Monday to an oil embargo.
The United States, like other Western countries, says it is prepared to talk to Iran but only if Tehran agrees to discuss halting its enrichment of uranium.
Western officials say Iran has been asking for talks "without conditions" as a stalling tactic while refusing to put its nuclear program on the table.
Hossein Naqavi, a member of parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying on Friday that using the P5+1 to discuss the nuclear issue was unacceptable:
"Iran will on no account attend the negotiations if the P5+1 is looking to make any comments on Iran's nuclear activities or wants to make any decision about that," he said, repeating however Tehran's willingness to cooperate with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.
With tensions, including mutual threats of disrupting the oil trade, creating worries across the region, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, the wealthy, U.S.-allied state sitting across the Gulf from Iran, offered a warm welcome to a call for calm on Thursday by his Iranian counterpart.
"It's important to get far away from any escalation and we stress the stability of the region," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan was quoted as saying by state news agency WAM.
"I welcome the comments of my colleague the Iranian foreign minister to create distance from any escalation.
"What matters to us is that stability prevail in the region. We don't want anything to damage stability in the region and there is an effort from all to work towards stability."

US back to two carriers near Iran

2012-01-20T06:49:00.000-08:00

The USS Abraham Lincoln arrives for deployment in the Middle East

January 19th, 2012

12:58 PM ET

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in the Arabian Sea on Thursday, Navy officials said, a likely prelude to testing Iran's recent warning against sending a U.S. carrier through the Strait of Hormuz.
The Lincoln joins the USS Carl Vinson, already in the region, returning the U.S. Navy its standard two-carrier presence there. The carrier USS John Stennis left in the past few days and is now traveling back through the western Pacific.
The Lincoln's arrival puts into place all the elements for a U.S. carrier to travel back into the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz for the first time since recent tensions with Iran escalated.
U.S. military officials have told CNN the United States will continue its long-standing military commitment to having an aircraft carrier in the Gulf, but will not say when the transit will take place in light of security concerns about Iran.
Several weeks ago, as the Stennis left the Gulf, Iranian officials warned the United States not to send in another carrier. In recent years, the United States has kept one carrier in the Gulf and one in the North Arabian Sea for much of the time.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the U.S. naval and military presence in the region will not change and the current level is sufficient to deal with any situation that could arise.
"We have always maintained a very strong presence in that region," Panetta said Wednesday. "We have a Navy fleet located there. We have a military presence in that region. And ... we have continually maintained a strong presence in the region to make very clear that we were going to do everything possible to help secure the peace in that part of the world."
A senior U.S. official acknowledged the Pentagon continues to see the Iranian naval forces controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps inside the Persian Gulf as more aggressive than regular naval forces.
U.S. military intelligence has been tracking the record of Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders in the region and remains concerned about whether they are all firmly under the control of the most senior commanders in Teheran, the official said.
Out of concern that a confrontation could escalate unnecessarily, the United States recently suggested that a direct channel of communication be opened between the two governments.

Dempsey visit will not alter Israel's refusal to notify US of an Iran strike

2012-01-19T06:45:00.000-08:00

US top soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

Gen. Martin Dempsey arrives Thursday, Jan. 19, for his first visit to Israel as Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff amid a major falling-out between the two governments over the handling of Iran's nuclear weapon potential. debkafile's military and Washington sources confirm that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands by the view that Iran is advancing its plans to build a nuclear bomb full speed ahead, undeterred even by the threat of harsher sanctions. Netanyahu therefore stands by his refusal of President Barack Obama's demand for a commitment to abstain from a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear sites without prior notice to Washington.
The US president repeated this demand when he called the Israeli prime minister Thursday night Jan. 13. Netanyahu replied that, in view of their disagreement on this point, he preferred to cancel the biggest US-Israel war game ever staged due to have taken place in April. The exercise was to have tested the level of coordination between the two armies in missile defense for the contingency of a war with Iran or a regional conflict.
The prime minister was concerned that having large-scale US military forces in the country would restrict his leeway for decision-making on Iran.
In an effort to limit the damage to relations with the US administration, Defense Minister Ehud Barak struck a conciliatory note Wednesday, Jan. 18, saying, "Israel is still very far from a decision on attacking Iran's nuclear facilities."
Striking the pose of middleman, he was trying to let Washington know that there was still time for the US and Israel to reach an accommodation on whether and when a strike should take place.
debkafile's sources doubt that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are in any mood to respond to Barak's effort to cool the dispute. Obama needs to be sure he will not be taken by surprise by an Israel attack in the middle of his campaign for re-election, especially since he has begun taking heat on the Iranian issue.
Republican rivals are accusing him of being soft on Iran. And while the economy is the dominant election issue, a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions by a margin of 48 to 33 percent according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this week.
Wednesday (Thursday morning Israel time), President Obama responded by reiterating that he has been clear since running for the presidency that he will take "every step available to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Echoes of Barak's arguments were heard in the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Wednesday night: "We are not making any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation. Why? Because, frankly, we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now."
Panetta went on to say that Defense Minister Barak contacted him and asked to postpone the joint US-Israeli drill "for technical reasons."
Before he took off for a short trip to Holland, Netanyahu instructed Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz not to deviate in their talks with Gen. Dempsey from the position he took with the US president, namely, no commitment for advance notice to Washington about a unilateral strike against Iran.
The Israeli prime minister is convinced that, contrary to the claims by US spokesmen and media, that current sanctions are ineffective insofar as slowing Iran's advance toward a nuclear weapon and the harsher sanctions on Iran's central bank and oil exports are too slow and will take hold too late to achieve their purpose.
In any case, say Israeli officials, Washington is again signaling its willingness to go back to direct nuclear negotiations with Tehran, although past experience proved that Iran exploits diplomatic dialogue as grace time for moving forward on its nuclear ambitions.
US spokesmen denied an Iranian report that a recent letter from the US president to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposed opening a direct channel for talks.
Still those reports persist. American and European spokesmen were forced to deny a statement by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi Wednesday on his arrival in Ankara that Iran and the big powers are in contact over the revival of nuclear negotiations.
Netanyahu fears that dialogue between Iran and the five powers plus Germany (the P5+1) will resume after bowing to an Iranian stipulation that sanctions be suspended for the duration of the talks. Once again, Tehran will be enabled to steal a march on the US and Israel and bring its nuclear weapon program to conclusion, unhindered by economic constraints

STOP THIS WAR ON FREEDOM!!

2012-01-18T07:41:00.000-08:00

WORLDWAR3NEWS

2012-01-17T07:45:00.001-08:00

Former UN ambassador says nuclear threat is now a 'clear and present danger' as Iran warns Saudi Arabia not to help the Wes

2012-01-16T18:27:00.000-08:00

Magnetic bomb killed scientist in Tehran last week - the FIFTH attack in two years
Iran blames US, Israel, and Britain for attacks
US military official heads to Israel Monday for talks

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has warned a report that Iran is a year away from being able to build a nuclear bomb may be too optimistic.
In a radio interview today, he said: 'I worry the publicly available information is giving only a very small picture and that Iran is actually even much further along.'
Mr Bolton was speaking on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New York’s WABC Radio.

John Bolton (left), pictured with U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (right), has warned of Iran's nuclear capability

The former ambassador was asked about a statement from a former head of U.N. nuclear inspections claiming Iran is now just a year or so away from having enough enriched uranium to assemble a nuclear bomb.
Olli Heinonen wrote in an article published earlier this week that Iran made this advancement after switching production of its higher-grade enriched uranium to a new, underground site.
Reacting to the one-year timeline, Mr Bolton stated: 'I think it can be even less than that.'

More...

He continued: 'They’ve got, by publicly available information from the International Atomic Energy Agency, enough low-enriched uranium that if enriched up to weapons grade would be enough for four weapons.'
'So they’ve got more work to do, but they are already well on their way,' he said.
Mr Bolton told Klein that 2012 will be a key year to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
'Even Secretary of Defense Panetta said last month that Iran could have a nuclear device within a year,' he argued. 'So they are very close, and obviously if they stepped up their efforts and worked harder, they may well be able to do it before then.

Negotiations: Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, right, talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron, far left,

'So this is a clear and present danger,' he continued. 'And I think it’s one of the reasons why you see the tension now in the region and why 2012 is going to be such an important year.'
In his article last week, Heinonen, who was the IAEA's director-general until 2010, said that building a stock of 250 kg of 20 per cent enriched uranium did not mean Iran could deploy a bomb without further engineering work.
Still, he allowed that 20 per cent enriched uranium could within weeks be further purified to the 90 per cent necessary for weapons grade.
Meanwhile, Iran today turned its attention towards its Gulf neighbours, warning Saudi Arabia that it would suffer consequences if they raised oil output to replace Iranian crude.

Dead: Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed in a magnetic bomb attack

With the EU contemplating a ban on oil imports from Iran, for their refusal to halt nuclear activity, Tehran officials have told several Arab countries not to negotiate with the United States and Europe.
The European Union is Iran's second biggest oil customer after China, buying some 450,000 barrels per day of its 2.6 million bpd exports. Its foreign ministers will meet on January 23.
China's premier was in Saudi Arabia on Sunday probing for greater access to its huge oil and gas reserves and Britain voiced confidence a once hesitant EU would soon ban oil imports from Iran.
That follows British Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to the Saudi capital Riyadh where he discussed Iran's position with King Abdullah whilst also requesting an increased output from the Saudi reserves.
Today, Saudi Arabia expressed doubts over Iran's claim it could block the main oil shipping route out of the Gulf and made clear it was ready to pump more oil after sanctions threatened to cut Iranian sales of crude.
Brent crude rose above $111 on concerns about global oil supplies if sanctions freeze OPEC's second biggest producer out of the market or push it towards military conflict, while Saudi Arabia said it would work to stabilise the price at $100.
Saudi Arabia, Iran's main rival for influence in the Middle East which would play a key role in replacing Iranian oil in he event of an embargo, played down Tehran's talk of closing the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping lane for Gulf exports.
'I personally do not believe that the Strait, if it were shut, will be shut for any length of time. The world cannot stand for that,' Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told CNN.
'I don't think all these pronouncements are helpful to the international oil market or to the price of oil. It's really disturbing.'
Iran's warning to its Gulf Arab neighbours not to raise oil output to replace its crude appeared to have fallen on deaf ears. Mr Naimi said Riyadh could increase production by about 2 million barrels per day (bpd) 'almost immediately'.

Killing: This is the car the Iranian scientist was sitting in when he was blown up by the magnetic bomb

'Our wish and hope is we can stabilise this oil price and keep it at a level around $100,' Mr Naimi said.

Iran has been in turmoil following the fifth bomb attack in two years that killed 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmad Roshan in Tehran last Wednesday.
Ratcheting up the war of words with the West, the Iranians claimed that they have proof that the CIA was behind the killing.
They also sent a ‘letter of condemnation’ to Britain accusing London of having an ‘obvious role’ in the bombing.
Both Britain and the United States have condemned the killing of civilians. Israeli officials, in contrast, have hinted at covert campaigns against Iran without admitting involvement.
It said that the chain of assassinations began after British intelligence chief Sir John Sawers hinted in 2010 at undercover operations against the Islamic Republic.
Sir John was quoted at the time as saying that intelligence-led initiatives were needed to make it more difficult for countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
He said one of the agency’s roles was to investigate efforts by states to build atomic warheads in violation of their international legal obligations and identify ways to slow down their access to vital materials and technology.

Aftermath: The killing has sparked outrage in Iran, and state TV broadcast footage Saturday of hundreds of students marching in Tehran

The letter said the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists had ‘started exactly after the British official John Sawers declared the beginning of intelligence operations against Iran.’

The Iranian Foreign Ministry handed a letter claiming it had evidence the US plotted the scientist’s death to the Swiss Ambassador in Tehran.
Switzerland has represented American interests in Iran since relations were broken off with Washington shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
‘We have reliable documents and evidence that this terrorist act was planned, guided and supported by the CIA,’ said the note, according to Iran’s state media.
Tehran has urged the United Nations Security Council to condemn the latest killing, claiming it was carried out to undermine its nuclear ambitions.
General Masoud Jazayeri, spokesman for Iran’s Joint Armed Forces Staff, said: ‘The enemies of the Iranian nation, especially the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime, or Israel, have to be held responsible for their activities.’

On a mission: U.S. Army General Martin Dempsey will head to Israel for discussions

While the Iranians insist they are merely trying to harness nuclear power for energy uses, the West and Israel says Tehran wants to build bombs.
Iran has threatened to close off the key oil shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz if new sanctions are imposed on its lifeblood oil exports.
Britain and other western powers have vowed to take military action to keep the channel open.
Senior U.S. military officials said mine-sweeping dolphins would be the first line of offence if Iran carried out its threat to choke off the Strait.
The Navy-trained dolphins would be used to identify Iranian mines, according to retired Admiral Tim Keating, former commander of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain.

In talks: President Obama, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, discussed the Iran situation via telephone

The top U.S. military commander is scheduled for talks in Israel this week at a time when the U.S. is concerned that Israel might be preparing to attack Iran over its nuclear program.
The Israeli Defence Ministry confirmed the planned visit Thursday by Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. It did not give his agenda for talks with Israelis - but Iran is expected to be at the top.
Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat because of its nuclear program, missile capabilities, support for anti-Israel militants in Lebanon and Gaza and frequent references by its president to the destruction of Israel.
Israel has repeatedly hinted it might take military action if international sanctions fail to stop Iran's nuclear development.
The U.S., Israel and other Western nations believe Iran is developing atomic weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Gen Dempsey's visit will be his first official trip to Israel since he assumed command of the joint chiefs on September 30. His predecessor, Admiral Mike Mullen, made several visits to Israel during his four-year term.
On Thursday President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the Iran situation in a telephone conversation.
The Obama administration is concerned that Iran's recent claim that it is expanding nuclear operations with more advanced equipment may push Israel closer to a strike.
The U.S. still hopes that international pressure will persuade Iran to back down, but the Islamic regime shows no sign it would willingly give up a project that has become a point of national pride.
The U.S. has led a series of economic sanctions against the regime.
On Sunday, Israeli Cabinet Minister Moshe Yaalon said he was disappointed that the U.S. has not expanded the measures to further damage Iran's central bank and its energy industry.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087206/Iran-warns-dire-consequences-Saudi-Arabia-increase-oil-production-help-West.html#ixzz1jg7y2mGF

US Backs Off Iran Attack?

2012-01-16T07:08:00.000-08:00

The United States has cancelled a joint military exercise with Israel in a move some analysts are saying could represent a reluctance to support an attack on Iran.

“Israel and the United States have postponed a massive joint defense exercise, which was expected to be carried out in the coming weeks, in order to avoid an escalation with Iran,” reports Haaretz.

Although the United States has already sent 9,000 troops to Israel, a move described as a “deployment” rather than an exercise by US Commander Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc, the Austere Challenge 12 drill, intended to be a wargame response to missiles fired by Iran, has now been postponed until the summer.

The Obama administration cited “budgetary constraints” as the primary reason for delaying the exercise, although observers suggest the move could be explained by a number of different circumstances, including Washington’s anger at how last week’s assassination of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, all but admitted to have been the work of the Israeli Mossad, was conducted so brazenly.

The postponement could signal that the US is backing off its support for an attack on Iran, but it could equally mean that the attack plans have already been finalized and that the drill was cancelled because it would have coincided with the actual start of hostilities.

“Did the U.S. cancel them to show displeasure to Israel?” asks Richard Silverstein. “And if so, why? Does Obama know something about Israeli intentions we don’t know? Are plans underway to strike Iran? Is Obama seeking to show his displeasure? Or is he trying to soothe Iran by not going through with a highly provocative military exercise which would’ve placed thousands of U.S. troops in the heart of Israel as a show of solidarity with Israel in its crusade against Iran?”

The Israeli intelligence outfit DebkaFile speculates that the postponement of the drill is another sign that Washington is concerned about the effect tensions in the region are having on oil prices, which would also explain why the EU embargo on Iranian oil has also been delayed by six months.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Whether or not the Obama administration has cooled its support for an attack on Iran, the US military is undoubtedly preparing for turmoil in the region, with three US aircraft carriers now stationed just outside Iranian waters, in addition to 15,000 troops that were sent to Kuwait at the end of last week.

The naval build-up could also be because “the United States intends to beat Israel to the draw and attack Iran itself,” points out DebkaFile.

Even if the Obama administration does not publicly back a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is highly unlikely to stand in the way of Israel. Once Iran retaliates, the US will then claim its interests are threatened and won’t hesitate to become embroiled in the conflict.

In addition, the US has made it clear that should Iran try to block the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil choke point, a “red line” will have been crossed. Iran is currently studying a letter sent by the US concerning the Strait. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said Iran “will respond if necessary.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey is due to arrive in Israel on Thursday for talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and other senior defense and intelligence officials, a meeting at which the US will try to convince Israel to delay any attack until sanctions, which have already crippled the Iranian economy, are allowed to take full effect.

Russia: “Should Anything Happen to Iran … This Will Be a Direct Threat to Our National Security”

2012-01-15T07:30:00.000-08:00

Russia and China Would Consider An Attack On Iran – Or Syria – As An Attack On Their National Security
RT notes:

The escalating conflict around Iran should be contained by common effort, otherwise the promising Arab Spring will grow into a “scorching Arab Summer,” says Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister and former envoy to NATO.
“Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,” stressed Rogozin.

Here’s what Rogozin is talking about (notice how close the Southern tip of Russia is to Northern Iran):

A Chinese general has also allegedly said that China would launch World War III if Iran is attacked. Andsee this.
While many Americans still believe that our government would not be crazy enough to attack Iran,economic – not national security – considerations may be driving the warmongers.
In addition, Iran and Syria have had a mutual defense pact for years. And China and Russia might also defend Syria if it is attacked. So an attack on Syria could draw Iran into the war … followed by China and Russia.

Fear and loathing in Central Asia: Will US go to war with Iran?

2012-01-14T07:32:00.000-08:00

Undated handout shows Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attending military maneuvers in an undiclosed location (REUTERS/Leader.ir/Handout)

TRENDS: Iran tension

TAGS: Arms, Conflict, Military, Politics, History, Iran, USA, Katerina Azarova, War

As sparks fly dangerously close to the powder keg of US-Iranian relations, speculation is rife and rumors are spreading like wildfire. Will there be a war? Who wants it? And what will happen to this very lucrative region?
Google the words “Iran”, “USA” and “war” and you get over 140 million hits. Many believe the possibility of a military conflict between the two is not even a question of “if”, but a question of “when”. And there is definitely enough evidence around to lend support to these beliefs.
Let’s break it down. Will there be a war? According to Israeli military analysts quoted by Global Research, an independent research and media organization, that possibility is “dangerously close”. But let us say analysts, especially military ones, are of the boy-scout-always-be-prepared disposition by nature. What other evidence is there?
Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most plausible. Logic tells us to follow the money – and in this case, the cases of weapons shipped out by the US. So where are they headed to?
In October 2010, the US negotiated a $67 billion deal with Saudi Arabia to supply the latter with bunker-buster bombs, F-15 fighter jets, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, Patriot-2 missiles and warships. It is, in simple terms, the largest bilateral weapons deal in US history.
One month later, in November, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the United States will provide the United Arab Emirates with “thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up US effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.”
Washington also plans to supply Stinger and other missiles to Oman. Kuwait is in for $900 million worth of Patriot missiles. And a $53-billion arms deal with Bahrain is still on the agenda – delayed only because of pressure from international lawmakers and human rights groups.
So the United States is increasing military ties with its allies, one might claim. And it is true, but all those allies are conveniently located in the Persian Gulf…right next to Iran.
It is not just weapons, either. Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman all have US military bases on their territory. And with the US most likely asking NATO in for a piece of the action, alliance members like Turkey are perfectly positioned to lend a helping hand. Besides being conveniently close geographically, Ankara has also been holding on to a lot of US nuclear weapons, including a large number of B61 bombs.
But all this does, effectively, is to highlight the military capabilities of the US in the region. Categorically stating all this is being done by the Department of Defense as part of a preparation for war with Iran would be irresponsible – until the Pentagon men say so themselves.
Oh wait… they have been. For years.
In late 2005, then CIA director Porter Goss, who was visiting Ankara, requested that the Turkish prime minister "provide political and logistical support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."
In 2006, the Israeli prime minister green-lit a military strike against Iran. Various staged war games always focused on the possibility of military conflict with Iran. And all these years later, Secretary of State Clinton’s former advisor on Iran still says Obama is more than willing to launch a pre-emptive strike.
Michel Chossudovsky, economist and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, says there have been specific, detailed military plans for war with Iran since 2003.
"These war plans go back to the 1990s or even before that. If you look at active war plans, you can say May 2003, when the Department of Defense came up with the strategic concept plan CON8022, dubbed “Global Strike”. The framework of attacking Iran and the scenarios and the war plans have been going on for the last eight years. We have so much evidence of covert operations, of scenarios, of drone attacks, of regime change scenarios. And it’s not only the United States that are preparing. The Iranians have been preparing for this war for years. They have the S-300 missile defense system, very extensive ground forces – enough to overrun the remaining US forces in Iraq. Our estimates are that Iran can mobilize 2 million troops overnight."
Preparations, strong allies in the region, huge defense budget for 2012 – all the signs point to the Americans getting ready for a potential war. But when – and how – does it start?
According to the editor-in-chief of Russia’s National Defense magazine, Igor Korotchenko, anything can trigger the triggers. “If the US pushes through more sanctions and Iran closes off the Strait of Hormuz in return, that could easily be enough. Basically, Washington will use any convenient reason that appears legitimate cause for the international community to attack.”
And with the upcoming US-Israeli war games in the Strait of Hormuz, analysts like Chossudovsky say a convenient reason will be very easy to come by. “The strait is very narrow. There’s not a lot of space before Iran’s territorial waters begin. And they would have to respond to a violation of its territorial waters.” He goes on to speculate that, faced with such a violation, Iran would have no choice but to send an ultimatum to the Fifth Fleet commanders there, which will be ignored for some reason. Then, according to international law, a second ultimatum. If that is ignored, Iran has no choice but to act – leaving America in its preferred position of reacting.
History does support this notion of provocation being a favored US military tactic. Richard Sanders of the Coalition Against the Arms Trade looked at US war history in detail and came out with a rather disturbing conclusion: starting from the Mexican-American War in 1846, pretext incidents have been used every time; incidents that were later disproved, or re-interpreted by historians, journalists and political committees; incidents that have become a military trademark for one of the world’s youngest, but war-hungriest nations.
Sanders’ statement is echoed by many – including www.infowars.com associate editor Patrick Henningsen. Examples he highlights are historical facts that show just how manipulative the US Department of Defense can be. “This is how the US was able to fake their way into the Vietnam War, via the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Likewise, Israel's slaughter of the USS Liberty naval crew in 1967 was designed as a false flag event, but luckily Russia intervened at the last minute before Israel could sink the American ship.”
It would not be the first time the US has tried to push Iran’s buttons. As revealed by a senior British officer a few years ago, there were times in Iraq when the US military commanders ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory. “If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," the unnamed officer said.
Unfortunately, “all hell breaking loose” is a scenario that is still not off the table. Iran, while not having many allies willing to go to bat for it in the region, can still put up a fight.
Iran plays a critical role in the Persian Gulf and with its strategic geography not only dominates the Northern Gulf but the shipping lines both inside and outside the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s leadership adheres to a "no first strike doctrine” and thus Iran has launched no wars of choice in modern history. The Iranian constitution bans the establishment of any foreign military bases in the country, even for peaceful purposes.
Following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran also divided its armed forces into regular and revolutionary components. The Iran’s Revolutionary Guards is separated from the regular army and has its own Navy, Aerospace and Ground Forces, as well as Special Forces.
And past experiences have also shown that for the American Armed Forces, a war with Iran, a country that is larger in population than the four countries recently invaded by the US put together, will not be a walk in the park. The Pentagon’s own war games in 2002 showed that in the event of an armed conflict, the United States would be overwhelmed by Iran in the Persian Gulf.
As speculated by researcher and sociologist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against US naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the US are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of US naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where US vessels are constricted.”
Allies-wise, Iran is more or less on its own. Syria, its closest ally, is too caught up in the almost year-long violence that has been shaking the country, Armenia is a possible one and Lebanon’s Hezbollah could shift their allegiance either way. The Shanghai Cooperation Council is a regional organization that has a few powerful friends, namely China and Russia, but whether they would want to get involved in an all-out military conflict is doubtful.
A statement made by Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma Committee for International Affairs, said that “a military operation against Iran could have grave consequences. And Russia should make every effort to control emotions, bring negotiations back into the field of political and expert discussion, and not allow any such action against Iran.”
As for China, it is showing Tehran some support by refusing to fold under US pressure and halt oil imports from Iran. But it has never been one to show its hand before it had to, so the extent of China’s potential involvement in the conflict is also open to debate.
Some analysts, like Patrick Henningsen, believe that should other countries get drawn into the conflict, it could signify the beginning of a new, economical Cold War-era. Henningsen says that “We have the ideal set of conditions for a New Cold War to emerge in the early 21st century – one where the Western Axis powers of the US, Europe, Israel and GCC countries sit on one side, and with Iran, Syria, Pakistan, China, and perhaps Russia sitting on the opposite side. This New Cold War will be more about sub-regional dominance in terms of economics – natural gas, mineral and trade relationships, as well as petroleum – than it will about the political ideologies that seemed to dominate the previous 20th-century Cold War.”
As sparks fly and tensions reach critical points, experts and analysts argue over who will start the war, why they will start the war, how the war will develop, whether it will spill out into World War III and what will happen in the end. Opinions are varied, detailed and range from the simplistic and obvious to the complex and conspiratorial.
And the only one thing they all agree on? That it is not a matter of if the war between the United States and Iran will happen. It is a matter of when.

Ex-Israeli Intelligence Officer: “Pearl Harbor” Style Attack Will Be Pretext For War On Iran

2012-01-13T06:09:00.000-08:00

Jerusalem Post article implies US will stage provocation to justify military assault

Former Israeli intelligence officer Avi Perry writes that a “surprise” Pearl Harbor-style Iranian attack on an American warship in the Persian Gulf will provide the pretext for the US to launch all-out warfare against Iran.

Given the fact that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s office openly considered staging a false flag attack on a US vessel in the Persian Gulf to blame it on Iran as a pretext for war, Perry’s summation of how “2012 will see to a new war,” cannot be taken lightly.

Under the headline ‘The looming war with Iran‘, Perry writes;

Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.

Perry’s use of quotation marks around the word “surprise” comes across as a literary device to imply that the so-called “surprise” attack will not be a surprise at all.

Of course, the Pearl Harbor attack, which provided the pretext for America’s formal entry into World War Two, was not a “surprise” by any means, it was known well ahead of time.

Released Freedom of Information Act files prove that weeks before the December 7 attack by the Japanese, the United States Navy had intercepted eighty-three messages from Admiral Yamamoto which gave them details of precisely when and where the attack would take place.

It’s also completely nonsensical that Iran would actively seek to provide the world’s pre-eminent nuclear superpower with an easy excuse to justify an attack by deliberately targeting US warships in the Persian Gulf. Perry’s article seems to be a tongue-in-cheek admission that the US or Israel will manufacture such an attack.

This presumption need not delve into the murky realm of conspiracy theories – history tells us that fake naval attacks have been staged on numerous occasions to hoodwink the American people into supporting wars of aggression.

Remember the Maine? The battleship USS Maine blew up while it was stationed in Havana harbor in February 1898. Although a Navy investigation could not find the cause of the explosion, the American media, led by pioneer of “yellow journalism” William Randolph Hearst, immediately blamed Spanish saboteurs, whipping the public into a war fever.

When Hearst sent his reporter Frederick Remington to investigate, little of note could be established about the disaster. When Remington asked to be recalled, Hearst told him, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.”

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

“Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere — in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.”

As a result of an incident that many consider to either be an accident or a deliberate false flag attack by the US on its own ship, the US was at war with Spain within months.

Over 60 years later, another staged naval event, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, was used as a pretext for the United States to launch the Vietnam war.

President Johnson told the American public that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf. Leaked cables and recordings of White House telephone conversations later proved that the incident was completely manufactured, and that “our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there,” according to Navy squadron commander James Stockdale, who was flying over the scene that night.

There was almost a 21st century version mirror of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in January 2008, when the US government announced that it had been “moments” away from opening fire on a group of Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz after the boats allegedly broadcast a warning that they were about to attack a US vessel.

The Iranian warning later turned out to be of dubious origin, but the incident led to a discussion in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office about how to start a war with Iran by launching a false flag attack at sea, according to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh.

The January 2008 Strait of Hormuz incident taught Cheney and other administration insiders that, “If you get the right incident, the American public will support it”. Hersh said: “There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build, we in ‘our shipyard’, – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives”.

Given the dangerous nature of overlapping Iranian and US/Israeli naval drills set to take place in the same region at some point within the next two weeks, the potential for another staged incident at sea that will be exploited as a pretext for war remains a potent threat.

Pentagon denies movement of aircraft carriers is linked to Iran tensions

2012-01-12T06:47:00.000-08:00

Pentagon denies movement of aircraft carriers is linked to Iran tensions

A total of three US warships will patrol the waters surrounding the Strait of Hormuz following confirmation that a third aircraft carrier strike group is being sent to the Arabian Sea as tensions with Iran rise.

“Another carrier strike group, led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, concluded a port visit to Thailand on Tuesday and was now in the Indian Ocean. It is on track to join the Vinson in the Central Command area of operations, which begins in the neighboring Arabian Sea,” reports Reuters.

The USS Lincoln and the USS Vinson will join the USS John C. Stennis strike group which is already in the region. Pentagon officials state the Stennis is scheduled to return to its home port in San Diego but refused to clarify exactly when this would occur.

The Pentagon’s denial that the movement of the warships has anything to do with Iran’s recent threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, an act that would prompt global economic chaos and provide a pretext for war, holds little credence.

Iran is set to conduct a “massive” new naval drill over the next two weeks that will coincide with a major US/Israeli wargame exercise in the same region, increasing the chances that a war provocation manufactured by either side could take place.

The announcement followed an escalation in rhetoric after the United States sent the massive battleship USS John C. Stennis sailing through the narrow Strait of Hormuz amidst Iranian wargames based around closing the Strait, a key oil choke point.

Iran responded by firing off missiles during the drill and ordering the US aircraft carrier to “stay out of the Persian Gulf”.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

We first reported that the USS Abraham Lincoln was on its way to the troubled region on December 8, noting at the time that the United States had a total of five major aircraft carriers deployed around the world, the same number of warships that were in action shortly before the invasion of Iraq in early 2003.

In a related development, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev told Russian news agency Interfax that Israeli pressure on the United States to attack Iran was building.

“There is a likelihood of a military conflict escalation, to which the Americans are being pushed by Israel,” he said, adding that economic sanctions by the west, which have caused the rial to plunge against the dollar, could be part of an effort to provoke instability and precipitate a “color revolution” that would lead to an overthrow of the Ahmadinejad regime.

Tensions went up another notch yesterday after terrorists assassinated yet another Iranian nuclear expert. Israeli sources confirm the car bomb attack in Tehran which killed Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was jointly carried out by the US-backed MEK terror group and the Israeli Mossad.

WORLDWAR3NEWS

2012-01-10T12:11:00.001-08:00

Russian, French warships off Syria, Iran,

2012-01-09T09:09:00.000-08:00

Russian, French warships off Syria, Iran, US drones over Iranian coast

Iran nuclear Strait of Hormuz Syria Russian warships US drone France Britain

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kutznetsov in Syrian port

US, Russian French and British air and naval forces streamed to the Syrian and Iranian coasts over the weekend on guard for fresh developments at the two Middle East flashpoints.
The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov anchored earlier than planned at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean Sunday, Jan. 8, arriving together with the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and frigate Yaroslav Mudry.
To counter this movement, France consigned an air defense destroyer Forbin to the waters off Tartus.
debkafile's military sources report a buildup in the last 48 hours of western naval forces opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea in readiness for Tehran to carry out its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Britain has dispatched the HMS Daring, a Type 45 destroyer armed with new technology for shooting down missiles, to the Sea of Oman, due to arrive at the same time as the French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.
Our sources report too that Saturday, the giant RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV, took off from the USS Stenning aircraft carrier for surveillance over the coasts of Iran. The Stennis and its strike group are cruising in the Sea of Oman at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran announced it would not be allowed to cross through.
This was the first time the US has deployed unmanned aerial vehicles over Iran since its RQ-170 stealth drone was shot down by Iran on Dec. 4. It was also the first time the huge drone was ordered to take off from an aircraft carrier for a Broad Aerial Maritime Surveillance Mission (BAMS).
US military sources reported Monday, Jan. 9 that the Global Hawk's mission is "to monitor sea traffic off the Iranian coast and the Straits of Hormuz." The US Navy was ordered to maintain a watch on this traffic, another first, after Iranian Navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari said in a televised broadcast Sunday night that the Strait of Hormuz was under full Iranian control and had been for years.
Also Sunday, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, warned in no uncertain terms that Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time.” He added in a CBS interview: “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.” Gen. Dempsey went on to emphasize: "Yes, they can block it. We've described that as an intolerable act and it's not just intolerable for us, it's intolerable to the world. But we would take action and reopen the straits."
Appearing on the same program, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a quick, decisive and very tough American response to any Iranian attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz.
They both spoke a few hours after a spokesman for the Revolutionary Guards said the supreme Iranian leadership had ruled the Strait must be closed in the event of an oil embargo imposed on Iran by the European Union.
debkafile's military sources report the constant escalation of military tension around Iran and Syria in recent days as not just stemming from the rapid advances Iran is making toward production of a nuclear weapon, but from fears in the West and Israel that Tehran and Damascus are in step over their military plans for the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean sectors.
After the Admiral Kuznetsov docked in Tartus Sunday with much fanfare, the Syrian Navy commander Dawoud Rajha was received on the deck by a guard of honor of marines under a flyover of Russian Su-33 and Su-25 fighter-bombers. This was taken as a signal of Moscow's willingness to back the Assad regime up against any Western military intervention as well as a gesture of support for cooperation between Syria and Iran in their operational plans.
Sunday, the Iranian media issued divergent statements about the situation at Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordo, near Qom: In English, the site as described as going on stream soon, while the Farsi media reported it was already operational.
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Fereydoun Abbasi Davani declared furthermore," …the Islamic Republic is capable of exporting services related to nuclear energy to other countries."
This statement showed that Tehran has no fear of raising the level of its threats to the West up to the point of offering to hand out its nuclear technology to other countries in a gesture of uncontrolled proliferation.

WW3NEWS

2012-01-04T07:42:00.001-08:00

WW3NEWS

2012-01-03T17:59:00.001-08:00

United States over blocking the Strait of Hormuz,

2011-12-30T06:35:00.000-08:00

Amid a verbal row with the United States over blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping route, Iran proclaimed on Friday that it will start testing long range missiles in the Persian Gulf.
"On Saturday morning the Iranian navy will test several of its long-range missiles in the Persian Gulf," navy deputy commander Admiral Mahmoud Moussavi told Fars news agency.

	A Saegheh ground-to-sea missile is fired by Iran's Revolutionary Guard during a military maneuver, April 25, 2010.
	Photo by: AP

The testing of the missiles is part of ongoing navy maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and, according to Moussavi, the main and final phase is preparing the navy for confronting the enemy in a warlike situation.
The maneuver has been overshadowed by a verbal row between Iran and the US over an Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which 40 per cent of the world's ship-borne crude is passed.
The spark for the row was a Tuesday remark by Iranian Vice President Mohammd-Reza Rahimi that, "if Western countries sanctioned Iranian oil, then Iran would not allow one drop of oil to cross the Strait of Hormuz."
Following his remarks, Iranian navy commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari said, although there was currently no necessity for Iran to close the strait, "it would be as easy as drinking a glass of water."
After the U.S. Navy said it would not accept any Iranian disruption of the free flow of goods through Hormuz, Iran continued the war of words with Revolutionary Guard deputy chief Hossein Salami saying that the U.S. was in no position to tell Iran what to do.
Salami also called the U.S. "an iceberg which is to be melted by the high degree of the Iranian revolution," and "a sparrow in the body of a dinosaur."
Neither President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad nor the ministries of defense and foreign affairs have so far commented on the issue.
The only official comments on the matter came last week, before the exchange of words, from Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, who said that closing the Hormuz has never been on Iran's agenda.
However, he added: "if the region would face a warlike situation, then everything would then become warlike."

closing the Strait of Hormuz

2011-12-28T15:42:00.000-08:00

A top Iranian military official has said blocking a crucial oil export channel will be "easier than drinking a glass of water." Experts say the West should listen, because Iran’s influence in the region has grown significantly.

Iran’s navy chief Habibollah Sayyari said that "closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy.”
The US Navy has responded by saying the threat is unacceptable. "Anyone who threatens to disrupt the freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated," said Amy Derrick Frost, spokesperson for the US Navy 5th Fleet in Bahrain.
Earlier this week Iran announced it will block the Strait of Hormuz, which sees the transport of over one sixth of the world’s oil trade, if the West sanctions the country’s oil exports.
Political analyst Chris Bambery thinks that as American control in the Middle East is weakening and Iranian is growing, “We are witnessing quite a dangerous escalation.”
“We now see that American control of the Middle East is weakest in decades… it is not in control of Iraq, Iran has considerable influence in Iraq, is extending its influence in Afghanistan.”
Commenting on the possible Iranian blockade of the strait, Bambery said that if the US tries to force open the passage, “that would mean war with Iran, and that would be a huge escalation and would threaten world peace.”
He believes that for the US it is not simply a military conflict, but something that could spill into a regional conflict in which the US has a much weaker hand than it had a decade ago.
According to Bambery, Iran is in much stronger position now and, as he sees it, “Iranians are really challenging Americans sensing the American weakness.”
He also said that the Western nations are making a big mistake because the “Iranian economy is doing well and Iran is in the position to exert more influence in the regional basis as we saw this week with these new agreements in Afghanistan.”
“It is the West who has racked up that situation,” he concluded.

U.S. Jets Enter Iranian Airspace, Oil Depot Bombed

2011-12-23T07:41:00.000-08:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tours the oil refinery in Abadan during the inauguration of the plant in May, 2011.

The Iranian news agency IRNA reported today that a U.S. missile hit an oil depot in the southwest village of Abadan on Wednesday. IRNA said British and American jets had entered Iranian airspace several times.

In addition to the oil depot attack, two rockets reportedly hit the village of Manyuhi near the border of Iraq’s al-Faw Peninsula near the Persian Gulf and the Iraqi city of Basra.

“In the border city of Arvand-Kenar, the invading American and British airplanes violated the airspace of the Islamic Republic of Iran three times,” a commander told the Islamic Republic News Agency.

The governor of Abadan told IRNA that three people, including a guard at the oil depot, had been released from hospital after receiving treatment, reports Mail Online.

No details were released on damage to the oil depot.

On December 12, Iran said its new Abadan refinery will raise its daily output of high-octane gasoline by almost 12,600 barrels by January 20, 2012. “Gasoline making and upgrading plans of Abadan oil refinery are going on respectively with 800 million and 3 billion dollars investment,” the Iranian Fars New Agency reported on December 13.

During the Republican debates in November, Newt Gingrich said he would bomb Iran “as a last resort and with a goal of bringing about the downfall of the government.”

In June, the former Speaker of the House said that the U.S. should “sabotage” Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure as part of its efforts to bring down the government. Gingrich said the U.S. should “use covert operations … to create a gasoline-led crisis to try and replace the regime.”

In early December, Iran warned that any attempt to cut its oil production would more than double crude prices with cataclysmic result on a battered global economy.

“As soon as such an issue is raised seriously the oil price would soar to above $250 a barrel,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said in a newspaper interview.

Ross: Obama Prepared to Take Military Action Against Iran

2011-12-22T08:03:00.000-08:00

Dennis Ross: If Obama draws the conclusion that certain kind of steps should be taken against Iran, he'll take them.

Dennis Ross

Israel news photo: Wikimedia Commons/Nrbelex

Dennis Ross, President Barack Obama’s former Middle East advisor, said on Wednesday that the Obama administration is determined to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon and would certainly consider military action against the Islamic Republic.
In an interview with Israel’s Channel 10 News, Ross said that the recent public statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, reflect the fact that that the President and the administration “take this issue with the greatest degree of seriousness.”
“This is not something that we’re prepared to accept,” Ross said. “The administration continues to believe that there is time and space available to achieve the objective that Iran will not be a nuclear-armed country through non-military means.”
However, he added, “They’re also saying – if you look at the words of the Defense Secretary – that all options remain on the table. Obviously, it’s better to use diplomatic means to achieve the objective, but the fact is the United States is not prepared to adopt a position of containment towards Iran.”
When asked whether he believes President Obama would give an order to take military action against Iran, Ross said, “This is a president who has prided himself on doing what he says, so I think if he draws the conclusion that what is required is to take a certain kind of step, he’s prepared to take those steps.”
“It means that when all options are on the table and if you’ve exhausted all other means, you do what is necessary,” he added.
Ross also dismissed the idea that there is a lack of chemistry between President Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and that this lack of chemistry could have an effect on the way the Iranian issue is dealt with.
“They have spent more time in one-on-one conversations than maybe any other two leaders today,” he said. “They have discussed the most sensitive issues. They discussed the most important issues, and I think that when it comes to an issue like this, which is obviously of such profound importance, you can count on the fact that they will have a serious exchange. I think they already have.”
On Tuesday, Dempsey said that the United States can successfully attack Iran, if necessary.
“I am satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary,” Dempsey told CNN.
Dempsey’s comments came after on Monday, Panetta told CBS that Iran is a year or less away from achieving a nuclear weapon, but the United States will stop it – no matter what.

WW3NEWS

2011-12-21T04:55:00.001-08:00