In 1996, the newly elected prime minister of Israel, Benjamin
Netanyahu, commissioned a study group, called "Study Group on a New
Israeli Strategy Toward 2000," to craft a strategy for Israel in the
coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies' which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles
Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav
Wurmser, created Israel's strategy paper titled: "A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm" [11].

The paper contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu
and some of the more relevant suggestions are presented below:

From the online journal website:

Why Iraq and now Iran ?
By Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
Online Journal Contributing Writer


May 15, 2006, 00:44


On April 28, IAEA released its report on Iran. IAEA reported that:
"the Agency cannot make a judgment about, or reach a conclusion on,
future compliance or intentions." The report came as no surprise to
those who have been following the ongoing dispute between Iran, United
States and the IAEA.

The United States, for quite some time now, has been accusing Iran of
trying to develop nuclear weapons and Iran has been insisting that its
intentions are peaceful and that it is only interested in peaceful use
of nuclear energy. Iran, to allay the international community's fear,
froze its enrichment program and started a series of negotiations with
U.K., Germany, and France. However, without the United States these
negotiations were not going to produce any results, since it was only
the United States that could address the Iranian's national security
concerns. Iranian seeing themselves surrounded by American forces
wanted a security guarantee that United States would not invade Iran,
something that United States was not prepared to give. So the
negotiations with the European three failed and Iran resumed its
enrichment program. Iran was threatened with Security Council and even
invasion without any effect. Now once again there is talk of Security
Council resolution under article 7 and continuous threats of invasion.
There have even been talks of tactical nuclear strike on suspected
Iranian nuclear facilities.

All these events are reminiscent of the negotiations and threats
preceding the invasion of Iraq. The unfolding events are so similar
that makes one wonder if the Iraq scenario is not being used as a
template for Iran. And with what has come to light since the Iraq
invasion, we have to assume that like Iraq, the decision to invade Iran
has already been taken, and that the E.U. Three negotiations and IAEA
are being used to prepare the public for that event. There are already
reports of increased U.S. provocations along Iranian borders such as
flying unmanned surveillance flight over Iran, and insertion of
commandos into Iran for intelligence gathering and other activities.
The talk of invasion is also accompanied with war games. For example on
April 14, 'USA Today' reported that "Amid rising tensions between
the United States and Iran over the future of Iran's nuclear program,
the Pentagon is planning a war game in July so officials can explore
options for a crisis involving Iran." [1]

But this war game is not the first of its kind. According to William M.
Arkin of the Washington Post, "In early 2003, even as U.S. forces
were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun
conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis,
called TIRANNT, for "theatre Iran near term," was coupled with a mock
scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian
missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war
game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command
to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian
weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a
new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military
sources confirm now exists in draft form." [2]

But why did United States attack Iraq and why is she so keen on
attacking Iran now? We now know that from the beginning, this
administration was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. Washington
has, over time, given a number of different reasons for invading Iraq:
starting with Iraq's developing nuclear weapons, to war on terror, to
spreading democracy in the Middle East. All these reasons have proven
to be false. Iraq did not possess any Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD); and did not have any link to Al Qaeda. And instead of democracy,
Iraqis have had to endure Abu Gharib, car bombs, shortage of basic
services such as electricity, clean water, and health care. None of the
ministries are functioning properly and in addition Iraq has to deal
with half a million displaced people. There is also talk of
partitioning of Iraq [3]. On top of all this, the Iraqis now face a
possible bloody civil war.

After spending over $320 billion on the Iraq war (officially so far)
and with no end in sight, why is this administration insisting in
starting another catastrophic war in the Middle East?

There have been a number of theories put forward by various groups and
individuals.

Crusade- Some Muslims think that United States has started a crusade
against Islam and is determined to vanquish any and all countries that
stand in its way.


Oil Reserves- There are other groups who think that with the oil
reserves diminishing fast, United States is trying to corner all the
reserves and supplies for itself, thereby ensuring its future dominant
economic position in the world.


China- There are others who think that invasion of Iraq and targeting
of Iran is part a geo-political move by United States to block
China's emergence as a world power by restricting its access to oil.


Israel- And finally there are those that argue that United States doing
the bidding of Israel and getting rid-of those that may challenge
Israel's hegemony in the Middle East in the future.
The answer probably contains some of all of the above.

Crusade Against Islam

Muslims living in Jakarta, Cairo, Karachi, London, or Detroit, every
day, hear and sees things that seem hostile, if not to them personally,
then to other Muslims across the world [4]. They have seen the plight
of Palestinians for years without anyone doing anything about it. They
are frustrated by the impotence of their leaders in the face of the
neo-colonialist encroachment of the west. They hear the West talk about
democracy and yet see the West support the very dictators that are
oppressing them. They see that when in exceptional cases, like
Palestine, where there has been a democratic election, the West has
stepped in to dismiss the results as not acceptable. They look at their
past colonial masters and fear their return in disguise. They see the
wars like Iraq and the war on terror as excuses for new colonial
ambition of the West. And above all they feel that their lives and
rights, in the eye of the West, are worth less than non-Muslims. They
are appalled by extrajudicial killings in Israel, torture of prisoners
by Americans, the treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners, and ongoing
torture of people at the hands of Western supported dictators as signs
that the West in general and America (as the leader) in particular is
on a crusade to subjugate them.

Fight for Oil Reserves

The profits of five oil companies combined (American: ExxonMobil,
Chevron, and Conoco, British: Shell and British Petroleum) in 2005 was
$111 billion. And these profits are about to go through the roof. The
reason? Production cannot keep up with demand, and even if it could,
there isn't enough oil to satisfy all, at present prices. Oil
companies' valuations are based on those companies' access to oil
reserves. Iraq and Iran combined have over 20 percent of the world's
total proven oil reserves. Imagine what having access to those reserves
will do for the valuation of American oil companies, not to mention
their profits.

There is also the matter of consumption. United States consumes fully
25 percent of the world oil supplies. China and India are growing
rapidly and their economies consume more and more oil. China currently
consumes 8.2 percent of the world's oil production. Soon it will
increase to 10 or even 14 percent. Where is that oil going to come
from? Is the United States willing to reduce its share for China? It is
highly improbable.


World Oil Consumption. Source: British Petroleum (BP), "Statistical
Review of World Energy 2005."
Recently, President Bush held a television conference where he assured
the public that Americans' dependence on oil soon would be over. He
spoke of great new technologies and fuel sources that were just around
the corner. What he forgot to mention was that there are 600 million
cars in the world today that run on petrol, and it is estimated that if
the present trend continues, by 2030, the number of cars in the world
will reach 1.2 billion [5].

Just to change the engines of the existing 600 million cars will take
years, not to mention all the petrol stations and the support
facilities that have to be modified for this to work. There is also
more in a barrel of oil than petrol for our cars. We need such oil
derivatives as jet fuel, Kerosene, lubricants, feedstock, asphalt,
etc., for our industries to function.

Currently over 60 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the
Middle East. Four countries in the region, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and
Kuwait, have over half of the world's proven oil reserves.

If we keep the world's oil consumption at its current level then the
Middle East can theoretically supply the world with oil, at its current
production rate, for another 80 years.


World Oil Reserves. Source: "Statistical Review of World Energy 2005,"
BP.

But the fact is that in 15 years the North American and Asia Pacific
oil reserves will be depleted. This will represent a marked reduction
in oil supplies worldwide. In other words within 15 years if we do not
increase oil production drastically in the Middle East and elsewhere,
the world will face tremendous oil shortages. Increasing oil production
is not that easy either. Each oil field has an optimum production rate.
If one tries to go beyond that rate and tries to sustain a high
production rate, one damages the oil field and, thereby, substantially
reduces the amount of recoverable oil. This problem is well documented
by the oil industry.

But what about the new oil discoveries? Well there have been very
little new discoveries; the future doesn't seem that bright either.
According to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) analysis
of the long-term world oil supply, we can expect to discover only 10
percent more oil in the future [6]. Even this 10 percent is disputed.
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), which closely
follows the development in the oil industry, the Foundation of Economic
Sustainability (FEASTA), and others see an alarming trend in the future
of oil discovery and production.


Source: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPI).

If one looks at the amount of oil discovered in the years from 1930 to
the present, one sees a clear downward trend in new discoveries; this
in spite of using more money and better technologies.

In March 2005, HIS energy (an international oil consultancy firm) did a
comprehensive analysis of the world oil supply and demand and reached
the following conclusion: that even if one includes natural gas
production and all other liquid fuels in our total available supplies,
there will be a shortage some time around 2011 to 2020 [7].

China

In 1972 Richard Nixon went to China to secure an ally against the
Soviet Union and thereby shift the balance of power towards the West.
Recently President Bush made a similar trip to India to enlist it as an
ally against China. The United States sees China as its main strategic
competitor now and in the near future. The United States is concerned
with losing its dominant position in East Asia to China. This concern
has been voiced by both political and military authorities. In the 2006
Quadrennial Defence Review Report, China is identified as a major
concern.

"Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential
to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive
military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S.
military advantages, absent U.S. counter strategies. China is an
emerging world power." [8]

The report goes on to point out that in United States should take all
necessary steps (in case of hostilities) to deny China its strategic
and operational objectives.

"The United States will work to ensure that all major and emerging
powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the
international system. It will also seek to ensure that no foreign power
can dictate the terms of regional or global security. It will attempt
to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other
capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action
against the United States or other friendly countries, and it will seek
to deter aggression or coercion. Should deterrence fail, the United
States would deny a hostile power its strategic and operational
objectives." [9]

To this end the United States is restructuring and repositioning its
bases to be better able to contain China's growing power. It has also
revamped its alliance with Japan and other countries in Southeast Asia.
In addition, the United States is transforming Guam into a hub for
long-range bombers and is planning to add a sixth aircraft carrier to
its pacific group.

All these steps are taken to contain China and limit its ability to
move freely in the area. On top of all this, the United States is
positioning itself to control China's access to China. If the United
States can control the oil reserves it will be able to determine not
only the economic growth of China but also limit its strategic
ambitions.

Israel

There is no doubt that Israel has a powerful lobby in the United
States. There are currently over 50 Jewish organisations that directly
or indirectly lobby for Israel. The Israeli influence is well known,
but few are willing to openly talk about it, especially in the United
States and Europe. The Israeli dimension is particularly difficult to
mention, for if one dares to state the obvious, one is branded as and
anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser. The Jewish lobby also can make
life very unpleasant for those who dare to mention the extent of its
influence in U.S. and other countries.

There are still a few brave soles such as John Mearsheimer (Professor
of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on
International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) and Stephen
Walt (Belfer Professor of International Relations and Academic Dean of
Harvard University) in the U.S. that are willing to speak out. In March
2006, they wrote an article titled "The Israel Lobby" in which they
question the United States policies in the Middle East. Here is a
section of their article:

"Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year,
roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a
year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since
Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income
roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

"Other recipients get their money in quarterly instalments, but Israel
receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year
and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for
military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel
is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise
its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have
to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually
impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US
opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the
US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons
systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk
helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to
intelligence it denies to its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye to
Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

"Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support.
Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical
of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other
Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put
Israel's nuclear arsenal on the IAEA's agenda. The US comes to the
rescue in wartime and takes Israel's side when negotiating peace. The
Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet
intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was
deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in
the lengthy 'step-by-step' process that followed, just as it played
a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo
Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and
Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli
position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said:
'Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel's lawyer.' Finally,
the Bush administration's ambition to transform the Middle East is at
least partly aimed at improving Israel's strategic situation." [10]

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are not anti-Semites nor are they
uninformed individuals. What they are saying is that United States'
Middle Eastern policy is in the interest of Israel and
counterproductive for the United States.

We now know that as soon as the Bush administration came to power, it
started looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. It used every possible
propaganda tool under the sun to get the UN to sanction the invasion of
Iraq, and when it didn't succeed, it went ahead and invaded Iraq
anyway. The people in the U.S. pushing for an invasion, the so called
neocons were at the forefront of disseminating misinformation in anyway
they could. But to understand part of their agenda we have to go back
to 1996.

In 1996, the newly elected prime minister of Israel, Benjamin
Netanyahu, commissioned a study group, called "Study Group on a New
Israeli Strategy Toward 2000," to craft a strategy for Israel in the
coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies' which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles
Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav
Wurmser, created Israel's strategy paper titled: "A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm" [11].

The paper contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu
and some of the more relevant suggestions are presented bellow:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in
Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.
Peace depends on the character and behaviour of our foes. We live in a
dangerous neighbourhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries.
Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state
and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not
secure "peace now." Our claim to the land -- to which we have clung for
hope for 2000 years -- is legitimate and noble. It is not within our
own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally.
Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in
their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for
the future.
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and
one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the
strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah,
Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon,
including by:
striking Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in
Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
paralleling Syria's behaviour by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break
from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of
strategy based on balance of power.


Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including
upholding the right of hot pursuit for self-defence into all
Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat's exclusive
grip on Palestinian society.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and
moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to
contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction
program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.


Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of
foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's
regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the
Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to
which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the
Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently
signalled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving
Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to
remove Saddam.
It is interesting to note that many of the co-authors of this strategy
paper are Jewish Americans and not Israelis. Below you will find a very
short description of a few co-authors.

Richard Perle has served in important government posts under various
administrations. He was Assistant Secretary of Defence in the Reagan
administration and Chairman of the Defence Policy Advisory Committee
(2001-2003) in the Bush II administration. He is also a signatory of
the Project for the New American Century, a think tank and one of the
main organisations pushing for invasion of Iran. Perle is currently a
resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research. He sits also on the board of advisors of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

Douglas Faith served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the
Bush II administration. Feith had previously served in the Reagan
administration, starting off as Middle East specialist at the National
Security Council (1981-82) and then transferring to the Defense
Department, where he spent two years as staff lawyer for Assistant
Defense Secretary Richard Perle. He is the director of the Foundation
for Jewish Studies, and former advisor to the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA).

David Wurmser, ***** Cheney's Middle East adviser, was the Special
Adviser to Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security John Bolton (2001-2003). He is also a member of the Board of
directors of the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon.

One can produce a very long list of influential people in United States
(e.g., Paul Wolfowitz -- current World Bank president and
Undersecretary of Defence for Policy from1989-93) that work very hard
to safeguard Israel's interests.

Implementing Israel's Strategy

Since the election of George W. Bush, we see that this Israel strategy
paper has served as a template for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle
East. Now let us examine each suggestion in the paper and the events in
the Middle East.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Only the unconditional
acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial
dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

During Mr. Bush's presidency, Israel has abandoned the concept of
"Land for Peace" and concentrated instead on unilaterally drawing
the borders of a future Palestine. This is being done by first
constructing a so called "security wall" separating Israel from
Palestine, and then declaring that wall as the international border
separating the two states. The "Peace for Peace" means that Israel
will increase the pressure on Palestinians by such a degree that
Palestinians will come to Israel, hat in hand, begging not for land but
for peace. In this way Israel will determine the size and shape of the
future Palestinian state. This has been and is supported by United
States. The current strangulation of the Palestinian Economy is part of
that strategy.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->An effective approach,
and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized
the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging
Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in
Lebanon.

This has been done through news media and United Nations where United
States has tried hard to isolate Syria and even have put sanctions on
the country. United States has also tried, by pressuring the Lebanese
government, to isolate Hezbollah and reduce its power within the
Lebanese society. Syria has claimed that former Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafiq Harriri was assassinated by Israeli agents to damage its
reputation in Lebanon. It is interesting to note that this
assassination was one of the main reasons that Syria was forced to
leave Lebanon. It was also used to try to impose U.N. sanctions on
Syria.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Work closely with
Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back some of its
most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan,
"comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on
balance of power.

The Israel's relationship with Turkey prior to the Iraqi invasion was
improving rapidly. Turkey knows that it needs United States backing in
its negotiations with the European Union. It also needs United
States' help in restructuring its 200+ billion dollar loans.
Therefore for Turkey it was a good idea to accept a close partnership
with Israel. Currently Israeli pilots carryout air exercises in Turkey
and rumours have it that they even spy on Iran from Turkey.

Israel (behind the scene) has traditionally had a good relationship
with Jordan. Israel hoped that after invasion of Iraq, the former crown
prince Hassan of Jordan would become King of Iraq. The Jewish Daily
Forward of New York reported on August 9 2002, the following:

"Several observers said some Bush administration officials are indeed
rooting for Hassan at a time when Washington is struggling to find a
consensus leader to succeed Saddam. After the London meeting, the
London-based Guardian newspaper reported that Hassan had the backing of
Pentagon hawks and that he met in April in Washington with one of their
most prominent figures, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz."

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->This effort can focus
on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli
strategic objective in its own right.

Here we see that Israel's strategy as presented in the document is
the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Israel could not do this on
its own. But again Israel didn't have to. United States achieved the
strategic objective of Israel, without Israel spending a single dollar.

So far Israel has achieved most of its main objective except completely
neutralising Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Israel has been partly
successful in weakening and isolating Syria, however, the Syrian
government remains in place and still supports the Palestinians. The
Iranian government is still there, supporting Syria, Hezbollah and the
Palestinians. The main point of problem for the Israelis then is Iran.
If Iran is neutralised, then no one is left to back Hezbollah, and
Syria is left totally at the mercy of Israel. Then Israel can play the
"Peace for Peace" game with Syria.

By occupying and breaking large centres of power in the Middle East
such as Iraq and Iran, Israel will be left the dominating power for a
very long time. Iraq is now fractured into many pieces and in the near
future will not be able to support Palestinians in any meaningful way
or cause Israel any problem. If Iran is also occupied and made into a
federation, like Iraq, the internal strife will be such that it (Iran),
too, will not be able to do anything.

Something for Israel and Something for the United States

But the architects of these wars have to, at the end of the day, have
something tangible to show the American people for all the blood and
money that United States has spent on these ventures. The answer of
course is oil. Now that the war in Iraq has gone terribly wrong, and
the threat to Iran has pushed oil prices to above $70 per barrel,
people are thinking that maybe it will not be a bad idea for the U.S.
to do something to bring the prices down.

If the United States can occupy Iran, or at least change the regime in
Iran to something that is subservient to American interests, then U.S.
can have over half of the world's oil reserves under its control.
There are four countries in the Middle East, that combined, have over
50 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. These countries are:
Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The United States directly or
indirectly controls three of the four countries, and if it can get the
fourth, then it has its cake and can eat it too. But to control means
to be close enough to be able to protect or threaten the governments in
those countries. This necessitates the presence of American bases on
those territories or close by.

The United States has bases in most of the Persian Gulf countries such
as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and now is planning permanent bases in Iraq.
With regard to Iraq, the United State is trying to give the impression
that it is interested in leaving as soon as possible, but all evidence
points to the contrary.

Speaking to the United States' House Appropriations Subcommittee,
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "The presence in Iraq is
for a very clear purpose, and that's to enable Iraqis to be able to
govern themselves." She added, "I don't think that anybody believes
that we really want to be there longer than we have to." [12]

Her comments were echoed by the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay
Khalilzad.

"US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said Saturday that his country
did not want permanent military bases in Iraq and that he was willing
to talk to Iran about the war-torn country's future.

"We want Iraq to stand on its own feet, we have no goal of establishing
permanent bases here," he said in an interview with Iraq's Ash-Sharqiya
television, according to a transcript obtained by AFP. [13].

But these statements are pure lies. There are a number of reports
indicating that the United States is building large permanent military
bases across Iraq.

A report in Newsweek said that the 38 square kilometres mini-city and
airport in Balad was the evidence that American forces were preparing
for to stay in Iraq for a long time.

Michael Hirsh of Newsweek wrote: "If you want an image of what
America's long-term plans for Iraq look like, it's right here at Balad.
Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this
15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is
one of four "super bases" where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S.
forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war."
[14]

At a White House press conference on 21 March, when President George W.
Bush was asked if there would be a day when there were no more American
forces in Iraq, he replied that that would be "decided by future
presidents and future governments of Iraq," suggesting that the US
would continue the occupation of Iraq for years, if not decades, to
come.

On 2 April this year, the Independent wrote: "The Pentagon has
revealed that coalition forces are spending millions of dollars
establishing at least six "enduring" bases in Iraq - raising the
prospect that U.S. and U.K. forces could be involved in a long-term
deployment in the country. It said it assumed British troops would
operate one of the bases." [15]

In addition to the bases, the U.S. is building the world's largest
embassy in Baghdad.

Iran's Nuclear Weapons

Let us be clear about this: Iran (unlike Israel, Pakistan, India, and
self-declared North Korea) does not posses nuclear weapons. Everyone,
even in Washington, agrees on this. Even US Director of National
Intelligence John Negroponte estimates that in spite of Iran's
declaration that it has managed to enrich uranium, Iran will not have a
bomb within four to nine years from now.

The main argument against Iran is that Iran is enriching uranium. Under
the "Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" (NPT)
[16], all members are guaranteed the right to enrich uranium.

Article four of the treaty states that: "Nothing in this Treaty shall
be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to
the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with
articles I and II of this Treaty."

This clearly gives Iran and other member states the right to do
research and enrich uranium. So what Iran is doing is totally legal. In
contrast we see that all the nuclear states such as Great Britain,
Russia, China, France, and United States are in violation of this
treaty. The treaty clearly states that nuclear powers have to disarm.

"Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the
strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the
cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all
their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals
of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty
on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control."

Not only have the nuclear powers not reduced their nuclear weapon
research and development activities but some openly threaten
non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons.

President Bush constantly reminds us that he considers using nuclear
weapons against Iran. For example on 12 April, Reuters reported that
Bush once again had refused to rule out nuclear strikes on Iran.

"President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes
against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic
ambitions . . .

"Speculation about a U.S. attack has mounted since a report in New
Yorker magazine said this month that Washington was mulling the option
of using tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's subterranean
nuclear sites." [17]

Even French President Jacques Chirac has stated that his country will
use nuclear weapons to "safeguard" French "interests." In an
address to the strategic submarine forces (FOST) at the Ile Longue
nuclear submarine base in Brittany on 19 January, Chirac said the
"perception" of the country's "vital interests" had changed with the
world's growing interdependence. "For example, the guarantee of our
strategic supplies or the defence of our allies are, among others,
interests that are to be protected," he said. Chirac said it is up to
the president of the Republic-himself, until at least next year to
determine whether a given "aggression, threat, or unacceptable
blackmail" has consequences that bring it within France's "vital
interests" and thus could unleash the nuclear deterrent. [18]

This is very interesting since none of these countries are threatened
and they state very clearly that they want to use nuclear weapons to
protect their "interests."

While Iran is being threatened with sanctions, military invasion and
nuclear attack, others are rewarded for going nuclear. India, which has
not even signed the NPT and has tested nuclear weapons, is rewarded
with access to new nuclear technologies, weapons and even lucrative
trade deals.

Pakistan the creator of the Taliban and home of the infamous Dr. A.Q.
Khan -- black market nuclear technology salesman -- is similarly
rewarded with brand new F16s (capable of delivering nuclear weapons)
and financial aid.

Israel's 200-plus nuclear bombs are the best known secret in the
world. On 12 October 2003, the Guardian newspaper reported that Israeli
and American officials have admitted deploying U.S.-supplied Harpoon
cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of
Dolphin-class submarines.

"Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy
US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.

"The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states
'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's
declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its
territory again." [19]

We all know that US, UK, France and even peaceful Norway helped Israel
to develop nuclear weapons.

And then we have the Brazilian nuclear activities to consider. The
Associated Press reported on 22 April: "The government-run Industrias
Nucleares do Brasil S A has been conducting final tests at the
enrichment plant, built on a former coffee plantation in Resende, 145
km west of Rio de Janeiro. When it opens this year, Brazil will join
the world's nuclear elite." [20] So where are the IAEA, and
Security Council? Brazil is doing exactly the same thing that Iran is.

Let us face the truth, Just like Iraq, all the talk about Iranian
nuclear activities is a smoke screen for something else. The most
likely answer is a combination of the United States strategic interest
in oil, containment of China and Israel's interests. But in 2006,
governments are understandably shy about mentioning neo-colonialism and
greed as the reasons for invading other countries.

Footnotes

[1] USA Today, "War game will focus on situation with Iran," April
4, 2006

[2] Washington Post, "The Pentagon Preps for Iran," Sunday, April 16,
2006

[3] The Seattle Times, "Strategy of dividing Iraq starting to make
sense, some officers, analysts say," Monday, May 1, 2006.

[4] Palestinian Media Watch, "Egyptian TV promotes anti-American
hatred," April 30, 2006

[5] Stein, Jay. "New Cars for Better Future: Driving Us Crazy."
Earthgreen, 1990.

[6] United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Long-Term
World Oil Supply Scenarios," Washington, DC, Aug 18, 2004

[7] IHS Energy, "Global oil supply issues: recent trends and future
possibilities," 2 March 2005

[8] Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Page 29, February 6, 2006

[9] Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Page 30, February 6, 2006

[10] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby," London
Book Review, Vol. 28 No. 6, dated 23 March 2006.

[11] Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies,^ 8 July
1996, Richard Perle et al

[12] News Channel 15 - Wane.com. "Rice dismisses talk of permanent
U.S. bases in Iraq."

[13] Financial Express. "US vows no permanent bases in Iraq," Sunday,
March 12, 2006

[14] Newsweek International Edition, "Stuck in the Hot Zone," May 1,
2006 issue.

[15] The Independent online edition, 'US and UK forces establish
'enduring bases' in Iraq," April 2, 2006

[16] International Atomic Energy Agency, "TREATY ON THE
NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS," Information Circular, 22 April
1970.

[17] Reuters, "Bush declines to exclude nuclear strike on Iran,"
Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:07 AM ET

[18] Ann MacLachlan,, Nucleonics Week, "Chirac shifts French doctrine
for use of nuclear weapons," January 26, 2006.

[19] Guardian Unlimited, "Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines,"
Sunday October 12, 2003.

[20] Associated Press, "Brazil follows Iran's nuclear path, but
without the fuss," Saturday, April 22, 2006

Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway and is currently writing a book about
the reasons behind the United States involvement in Iraq and Iran. He's
a former associate professor of Nordland University in Norway. He can
be reached at: bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no.

---------------------------------

Go Get Iran, But Don't Mention Israel


Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit


excerpted from Abunimah News - May 17, 2006


Forward - 12 May 2006

http://www.forward.com/articles/7764


Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel Linkage


By Ori Nir


WASHINGTON -- Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to
refrain
from publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian
hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward.


Messages were passed to the White House through several channels,
Jewish
activists said. And it seems to have worked: Speaking before the annual

conference of the American Jewish Committee in Washington last week --
his
most recent address before a Jewish audience -- President Bush talked
about
America's commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon
and
about his administration's commitment to Israeli security, but he did
not
link the two, as he has several times in recent months.


"We are basically telling the president: We appreciate it, we welcome
it.
But, hey, because there is this debate on Iraq, where people are trying
to
put the blame on us, maybe you shouldn't say it that often or that
loud,"
said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.
"Within the Jewish community there is a real sense of 'thank you but no

thank you.'"


Communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the
president's
repeated promises to come to Israel's defense, public declarations to
that
effect do more harm than good. Such statements, they say, create an
impression that the United States is considering a military option
against
Iran for the sake of Israel -- and could lead to American Jews being
blamed
for any negative consequences of an American strike against Iran.


Jewish activists are concerned that "there would be [a scenario] just
like
with Iraq: the idea that somehow the Jewish community and the
neoconservatives have dragged the United States into a conflict with
Iran,"
said Martin Raffel, associate executive director of the Jewish Council
for
Public Affairs, a policy coordinating organization that brings together
13
national Jewish agencies and 123 local Jewish communities. "And if
things go
badly and our people are killed, then who is to blame?"


In early February, during an interview with Reuters, the president was
asked
about America's reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's
threats
against Israel. Bush replied: "We will rise to Israel's defense, if
need be.
So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing
to the
United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world, as
well."
Asked whether he meant that the United States would militarily defend
Israel, Bush said: "You bet we'll defend Israel."


The White House's public liaison office has been ending its e-mails to
the
Jewish community with the following Bush quote from a March 20
appearance:
"I made it clear. I'll make it clear again, that we will use military
might
to protect our ally, Israel." At the time, Bush was speaking about the
threat posed by Iran.


Most Jewish communal leaders, despite their unease, say that the
president
talks about defending Israel from Iran out of a deep, personal
commitment to
the Jewish state.


"This comes from the heart," Foxman said.


Some, however, say that other factors may be at work, specifically the
president's poor approval ratings, even among members of his political
base.
Two recent opinion polls show Bush's support among conservatives
dropping,
including among evangelicals, who consistently cite their support of
Israel
as a key political priority.


"I wouldn't be surprised if the White House is playing politics here,"
said
an activist with a major Jewish group, speaking on condition of
anonymity.


Jewish objections to the president's rhetoric have increased in recent
weeks, as the storm created by a recent paper by two academics
criticizing
the influence of the "Israel Lobby" continues to grow. The study,
co-authored by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and
Stephen
Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, has been
attracting support in national media outlets with its thesis that
Israel,
with the help of powerful supporters in Washington, has all but
hijacked
America's policy in the Middle East.


In one such article, Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large at United
Press
International, wrote April 24 that the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, the lobbying powerhouse known as Aipac, "has maneuvered to
make
Israel the third rail of American foreign policy." In addition, more
than
1,000 Americans, most of them university professors, have signed an
online
petition challenging the Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish
Organizations, an umbrella body of 52 groups that serves as Jewish
community's main united voice on Middle East issues, to "condemn" the
"smearing" of Mearsheimer and Walt by several fellow scholars and
pundits as
"antisemites."


The executive vice chairman of the Presidents Conference, Malcolm
Hoenlein,
said that none of the Jewish organizations in the umbrella group had
accused
the two scholars of being antisemitic. But Juan Cole, the University of

Michigan professor who initiated the petition, pointed out that the
Anti-Defamation League has. In a comment on the study posted on its Web
site
in March, the ADL expressed the hope that "mainstream individuals and
institutions will see it for what it is nn a classical conspiratorial
anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish
control."


Even with the buzz surrounding Walt and Mearsheimer's paper, not
everyone
agrees that the president's statements are potentially damaging for the

Jewish community. One senior official with a major Jewish group,
speaking on
condition of anonymity, said: "So what do [Jewish communal leaders]
want?
They want the president of Iran to be threatening Israel with nuclear
destruction and the United States will say nothing? If that happens
they
would be complaining: 'Why aren't you committing yourselves to
protecting
Israel?'"


Robert Freedman, a professor of political science at Baltimore Hebrew
University and an expert on Iran, calls the concerns about the
president's
statements "nonsense" and "foolish." First, he said, the case for tough

action against Iran is stronger than the case was for action against
Iraq --
the intelligence this time is solid, the Iranian president says he
wants to
destroy Israel and Iran's possession of nuclear weapons poses a much
greater
danger to the region than Saddam Hussein's regime ever did. Second,
according to Freedman, the risk of an entanglement in Iran is much
smaller.
A military campaign against Iran would most likely not involve a ground

invasion, but an air bombing campaign. Third, he said, Israel is not in
as
good a position to carry out such a bombing campaign as the United
States
is.


"So," Freedman said, "if the president of the United States says, 'I am

going to support Israel and we will not let Israel be destroyed,' that
should be taken as a given and as a good given."


*
=============================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
==========================================