Monday, September 17, 2007

Neo-Cons Want to Attack Iran


***********

And how does Bush really feel about Iran?




“War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.”
- Karl von Clausewitz

'Hype' on Iran Similar to Attack on Iraq: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/iran_nuclear/2007/09/17/33228.html?s=al&promo_code=3A32-1 "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he told reporters. He was alluding to a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 without Security Council approval_ that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no such arsenals have been found. ElBaradei, speaking outside a 144-nation meeting of his agency, urged both sides to back away from confrontation, in comments addressed both to Iran and the U.S.-led group of nations pressing for new U.N. sanctions for Iran's refusal to end uranium enrichment.

Bush Is About to Attack Iran - Why Can't Americans See it? http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10411 Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs.
UN warns against attack on Iran: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3800D534-C4F9-4826-A6D2-3204FAFD9535.htm The UN nuclear watchdog has warned against the hasty use of force over Iran's nuclear programme after the French foreign minister said the world needed to prepare for the possibility of war. The US has said it has not ruled out using military strikes against Iran and Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said on Sunday that "all options are on the table".
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
Iran warns of 'problems' if US attacks: By Agence France Presse (AFP) http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=85041 Iran on Tuesday issued a stark warning to the United States over the danger of launching a military attack, saying Washington could never foresee the size of its response against US troops in the region.
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran by Michel Chossudovsky: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being
asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective
is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first,
and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess
afterwards," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/16/wbolton16.xml A nuclear Iran would be as dangerous as “Hitler marching into the Rhineland” in 1936 and should be prevented by Western military strikes if necessary, according to a leading hawk who recently left the Bush administration. John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.
Iran Attack Gains Credence
by Dave Lindorff
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/040
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 20 November 2007 - 2:45pm.

As someone who has been writing about this crazed administration's plans to launch an attack on Iran now for over a year, I have always noted that the real sign that it might happen would be when oil industry analysts started to worry about it.
That's because the oil industry is probably more plugged into the inner sanctum of the Bush Administration than any other entity. If the analysts, who have their fingers on the pulse of the oil industry, start worrying that an attack could happen -- with the resulting shutdown of oil shipments through the Persian Gulf, from which the world gets roughly a third of its oil -- then we need to take the threat very seriously.
While we haven't seen the kind of spike in oil futures prices that we would expect should that mad war begin -- which would see oil soaring well above $200 a barrel -- we are seeing oil rise to a record high of around $100 a barrel.
Now comes word from the respected newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, that analysts are starting to factor a U.S. attack on Iran into their thinking. As the newspaper put it in an article published today reporting on the recently concluded meeting of the leaders of OPEC nations:
"The 13-nation cartel once controlled prices often by just talking about pumping more or less oil. But now its leaders say booming world demand -- largely from India and China -- and concern over a possible U.S. attack on Iran are driving prices."
The article also quotes oil industry analyst Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, UAE, who says, "...there's very little they [the OPEC leaders] can do if there's an attack on Iran or something of that nature. In that case, prices will double, perhaps go to $300 a barrel."
It may be that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his generals, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and the leaders of many of America's Fortune 500 companies are opposed to an attack on Iran, knowing that it will be a military disaster and that it would cause a global economic collapse, but the U.S. today is being led by two insane and desperate men who may not care what any of those people think. With their domestic and international policies in ruins and their legacy a disaster, they may have decided to double up on their bet and just throw everything in with an air assault on Iran.
Keep watching those oil prices. If they start really bumping up from their current level, hold on to your Constitution -- and get the hell out of dollars -- because they're both going down.
Ahmadinejad Visits the United States
Backlash Against Bollinger Hits Columbia:



By Annie Karni staff Reporter of the SunSeptember 26, 2007

A backlash against the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, who on Monday delivered a harsh rebuke to President Ahmadinejad, is coming from faculty members and students who said he struck an "insulting tone" and that his remarks amounted to "schoolyard taunts." The fierceness of Mr. Bollinger's critique bought the Iranian some sympathy on campus that he didn't deserve, the critics said, and amounted to a squandered opportunity to provide a lesson in diplomacy.

Mr. Bollinger opened a two-hour program during which the Iranian president spoke and answered questions at the Roone Arledge Auditorium in Morningside Heights by calling Mr. Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator." He chastised the Iranian for calling for the destruction of Israel, funding terrorism, persecuting scholars, women, and homosexuals, denying the Holocaust, and for fighting a proxy war against America within the borders of Iraq. Mr. Bollinger also tauntingly predicted that the Iranian would lack the "intellectual courage" to offer real answers to questions from the audience.
"It's odd to invite someone and then deal with the objections to inviting him by insulting him before he gets to talk," a professor of political science at Columbia, Richard Betts, said during an interview in his office yesterday. "He's having it both ways in a sense, honoring the principle of free speech by not choosing speakers on the basis of how nice they are, but being sharp to him before he speaks."

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8606300370
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses for 10 questions of the Iranian academicians and intellectuals.

The following is the full text of the letter.
Mr. Lee Bollinger Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.
We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.
Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.
During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.
1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?
3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran 's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?
5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran 's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?
7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?
9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?
Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.
Ahmadinejad lauded in Iran for "Lion's Den" visit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070926/ts_nm/iran_usa_ahmadinejad_dc by Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States by suggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home on Wednesday for taking his country's case to "the Lion's Den."
Generally, politicians and media in the Islamic Republic -- even some who have previously criticized the president -- described Ahmadinejad's visit to New York as a triumph and denounced the university president who called him "a petty and cruel dictator."

But one pro-reform newspaper said that, although the president told his U.S. audience he respected academics, that was not always how it seemed at home.
Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, traveled to the United States at a time of escalating tension between the two foes over Tehran's nuclear ambitions and the war in Iraq.

The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and on Tuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions was "closed" and that military threats and sanctions had failed.
"By fearlessly and courageously walking into the 'Lion's Den' ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslim street than before," the daily Iran News wrote.

Iran denies U.S. accusations it is seeking atomic bombs, saying it wants to generate electricity. It also rejects accusations it is violating human rights and muzzling critics.
Related Searches: New York Times
Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud
Columbia University
United States International Relations
Iran


[under construction - on-going]