| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?V29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA2IFtUaGUgTGFzdCAyMzAwIERheXNd4pml4oSi?=" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2006 05:16:26 AM |
| Object: |
World War III **NEWS** Thursday, 1st June, 2006.....ENDGAME IN IRAN |
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=3Dm23630&l=3Di&size=3D1&hd=3D0
Endgame in Iran
Mike Whitney
May 31, 2006
"The US is updating contingency plans for a strike to cripple Iran=E2=80=99s
atomic weapon program if international diplomacy fails=E2=80=A6.The plan
calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400 key targets,
including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar
installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters." Ian Bruce, "US
spells out plan to bomb Iran", The UK Herald
The Bush administration has no intention of peacefully resolving the
nuclear dispute with Iran. They have consistently blocked all attempts
by Iran to negotiate in good faith or to establish diplomatic channels
for discussion. The current offer by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice to talk directly with Iran is less a departure from the normal
US=E2=80=99 belligerence than it is a means of enlisting support from Russia
and China for future punitive action. In one particularly ominous
comment, Rice said that the negotiations would give Iran "one last
excuse" to resist American demands. This tells us that US diplomacy is
a just a smokescreen for the eventual hostilities.
It took the United States months of behind the scenes wrangling to
persuade the UN Security Council to even consider Iran=E2=80=99s "alleged"
nuclear weapons programs. Iran tried to prevent this by offering to
allow surprise inspections on any facility suspected of covert nuclear
activity. Iran is not required to do this under the terms of the NPT,
but volunteered as a way of building confidence among the member
states. The Bush administration, which made this a vital part of
earlier demands, rejected the offer outright saying that Iran=E2=80=99s
concession would not be enough to end the standoff.
A similar incident took place just weeks earlier when Iran was
finalizing the details of an agreement with Russia to enrich uranium
outside of the country. Iran figured that this would allay US fears
that it was secretively developing nuclear weapons.
Again, the Bush administration rejected this "good will" gesture as
insufficient, while Condi Rice scoffed at the idea as a trick. These
are just latest examples of Iran=E2=80=99s efforts to find a peaceful way to
placate Washington. The administration is not interested in concessions
or settlements. It is simply building the case for punitive action or
war.
Despite growing pressure from the administration, the Security Council
has not agreed on a resolution condemning Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear programs. =
So
far, Iran has cooperated fully with the IAEA and there=E2=80=99s simply no
evidence of non compliance. It took an enormous effort by the Bush
administration to push a feeble "non-binding presidential statement"
through the Council. The statement neither endorses economic sanctions
nor military action. It is a toothless declaration that is utterly
meaningless except for its use in fueling the propaganda campaign
against the Islamic regime.
The administration has hit a road-block at the Security Council. Their
appeal for decisive action is going nowhere.
Last week, Secretary of State Rice said, "Security guarantees for Iran
were off the table". Her announcement reveals the true depth of
America=E2=80=99s inflexibility and the unlikelihood of a peaceful solution.
If the United States refuses to sign a "non aggression pact", then what
incentive is there for Iran to abandon its nuclear programs? After all,
Iran has the "inalienable right" to enrich uranium under the NPT.
Shouldn=E2=80=99t that at least be a bargaining chip for negotiations with
the US?
The administration=E2=80=99s hardnosed approach precludes any future
compromise. Their stubbornness only makes sense if the ultimate
objective is war, which appears to be where Washington is headed.
If we compare the present situation to the lead up to the war in Iraq,
we can assume that the war plans are already underway. The maneuverings
at the UN are just a facade to conceal the movement of military
hardware and troops. Once the logistical work is done, the
administration will create a pretext for attacking Iran just as it did
with Iraq. Rice's globe-trotting diplomacy means nothing; it's Cheney
and Rumsfeld who will decide when the time is right.
The administration sees non-aggression treaties as a sign of weakness
unworthy of a superpower. As stated in its National Security Strategy
(NSS) the United States reserves the right to attack any nation that
may challenge its national interests or its global supremacy. Iran is
the next domino to establishing permanent American hegemony.
Controlling the oil resources of the Caspian Basin and removing
regional rivals to Israel remain the fundamental goals of Bush=E2=80=99s
global resource war. This makes a military confrontation with Iran
inevitable. It is absurd to expect the Bush administration will
seriously negotiate when their final purpose is regime change.
In a recent article in Counterpunch, "Embedded Journalism and the
Disinformation Campaign for War on Iran", Gary Leupp notes that the
same cadres of neocons who misled the nation into war with Iraq have
been reassembled in the Pentagon to repeat their success against Iran.
Under the rubric of "The Office of Iranian Affairs"; Abram Shulsky,
Elizabeth Cheney and other far-right hawks fill out a roster of pro-war
advocates. Their task is to prepare the country for war by generating
fear and suspicion of Iran=E2=80=99s imaginary weapons programs. The group's
influence is probably similar to that of Judith Miller who was allowed
to spout her bogus claims about Iraqi WMD from headlines across the
country. In this case, however, the intention is to omit the critical
facts about Iran=E2=80=99s activities rather than simply inventing false
allegations.
For example, the media invariably excludes the important details about
Iran=E2=80=99s programs that would allow American=E2=80=99s to form an educ=
ated
opinion. These are:
1 The IAEA has consistently said that there is "no evidence" that Iran
has a nuclear weapons program or is diverting nuclear material from its
research.
2 Iran has been in full compliance with all its treaty obligations for
3 years although it has undergone the most intensive inspection regime
in the history of the IAEA.
3 The UN Security Council reaffirmed Iran=E2=80=99s "inalienable right" to
develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and did not order Iran to
suspend nuclear enrichment as was falsely reported in the news.
4 The United States has violated its obligations under the NPT by
developing a new regime of "bunker busting" low yield nuclear weapons.
5 That the United States is violating the UN Charter by unilaterally
threatening a sovereign nation which is not in breach of any UN
resolution.
These are the fundamental facts that the American people need to know
to make an informed judgment about the present confrontation. Instead,
the media simply reiterates the specious claims of government officials
without regard to either international law (NPT) or the findings of the
UN watchdog agency, the IAEA. We must assume that the media is working
with high-ranking officials in The Office of Iranian Affairs to produce
news that is so obviously skewed in favor of the administration. After
all, their entire raison d=E2=80=99etre is to create the rationale for movi=
ng
the country to war.
A growing number of American elites are uneasy with the precipitous
decline of American prestige as well as the reckless approach to
foreign policy. Henry Kissinger has joined Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Chuck Hegel and other CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)
luminaries to pressure the Bush administration to open a direct
dialogue with Iran. Until today, Bush showed no sign that he would do
so. Despite the many setbacks in Iraq, the "war president" still
appears to be entirely under the spell of VP ***** Cheney and Sec-Def
Donald Rumsfeld. Regrettably, there=E2=80=99s no indication that Rumsfeld or
Cheney are the least bit affected by the widening divisions in
elite-opinion. They are in complete control of the policy-making
apparatus and should be expected to execute their war plan regardless
of its unpopularity or its long-term consequences.
In a recent article by Gareth Porter "Iran Proposal to US offered Peace
with Israel", the author reports that in 2003 Iran not only offered "to
accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian
armed groups" but made a "two-page proposal for a broad US-Iran
agreement covering all the issues facing the two countries". The secret
document that was provided to IPS proves that Iran is neither committed
to the destruction of Israel nor to the continued sponsorship of
terrorist groups.
.. "What the Iranians wanted in return," Porter says, " was an end to
U=2ES. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the
region" They want to see a "halt in hostile US behavior and
rectification of status of Iran in the US" as well as "recognition of
Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according
defense capacity." (ISP)
Respect and security; the same demands that one expects from any
reasonable sovereign nation.
"In 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to
negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of
Israel." (IPS)
This implies that the decision to attack Iran must have been made in
the earliest years of the Bush administration. (Perhaps, even before
Bush took office as indicated in the Project for the New American
Century)
Will there be a war with Iran?
The UK Herald reported two weeks ago ("US spells out plan to bomb
Iran", Ian Bruce) that "the US is updating contingency plans for a
strike to cripple Iran=E2=80=99s atomic weapon program if international
diplomacy fails=E2=80=A6.The plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing
campaign against 400 key targets, including 24 nuclear-related sites,
14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard
headquarters."
If there is an invasion it will probably be limited to securing the
region of Khuzestan which is adjacent to Iraq=E2=80=99s southern flank and
contains 90% of Iran=E2=80=99s oil wealth as well as much of its natural ga=
s=2E
This could be achieved with as little as 15-20,000 combat troops, plus
a backup of Special Forces. The rest could be accomplished by aerial
bombardments of military installations, radar, artillery placements,
missile silos, nuclear sites and Republican Guard facilities. Needless
to say, there are not "400 nuclear targets" in Iran. The Herald article
implies that the Pentagon is anticipating a "Serbia-type" attack which
disrupts major industry, oil production and civilian infrastructure.
This strategy has been described in great detail by author John Pilger
in his article "Calling the Kosovo Humanitarians to Account" Pilger
states:
"NATO's civilian targets included public transport, hospitals, schools,
museums, churches. ..bombing bridges on Sunday afternoons and market
places."
Citing the goal of opening the region to a "free-market economy",
Pilger notes how NATO intentionally targeted state owned businesses to
bring Kosovo into the global economic paradigm and remove any stain of
its socialist past. Pilger says:
"In the bombing campaign that followed, it was state-owned companies,
rather than military sites, that were targeted. NATO's destruction of
only 14 Yugoslav army tanks compares with its bombing of 372 centers of
industry, including the Zastava car factory, leaving hundreds of
thousands jobless. Not one foreign or privately owned factory was
bombed."
We expect that the same basic model will be applied to Iran, although
the assault will be papered-over by the "state-media franchise" (the
"free press") Iran has no nuclear weapons programs and Washington knows
it. It is being prepared for "economic reform" and "structural
readjustment" so that it can be included into the prevailing system of
predatory capital and satisfy the west=E2=80=99s ravenous appetite for cheap
oil and new markets.
US carrier groups are already moving to the Gulf and the finishing
touches are being put on the battle plans. Lt General Sam Gardiner
expects that an attack will come as early as June 2006. That seems like
a reasonable prediction.
:: Article nr. 23630 sent on 01-jun-2006 00:12 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=3D23630
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
World War III NEWS, Thursday, April 6th, 2006 AD....Iran Test-Fires 'Top Secret' Missile
World War III NEWS, Thursday, March 9th, 2006 AD.....NATO May Help US Airstrikes on Iran
World War III *NEWS*, Thursday, May 25th, 2006 AD......Iran promises 'historic slap' to any attacker; has 'mastered nuclear cycle'
World War III NEWS,Thursday, April 27th, 2006 AD.....Iran threatens global retaliation if US attacks
World War III NEWS, Thursday, March 9th, 2006 AD.....NATO May Help US Airstrikes on Iran
World War III News, Thursday, April 20th, 2006 AD....U.S. & Iran on collision course
WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, MARCH 12th, 2006 AD....Iran threatens to use oil as weapon
An Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran before the end of 2006 ?!?
| World War III **NEWZ** August 1st, 2006 __ Syria, Iran on high state of readiness for war with the jews
World War III NEWS, Friday, May 5th, 2006 AD....Iran military plays down threat to strike Israel
WORLD WAR III NEWS, Monday, April 10th, 2006 AD......Iran attack would be 'nuts'
World War III NEWS, Saturday, April 29th, 2006 AD....Iran hurls defiance as UN braces itself for a nuclear showdown
World War III NEWS, Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006 AD...Iran will hit Israel if US does "evil".
World War III NEWS, Wednesday, April 5th, 2006 AD.....Iran says it can handle any invasion
Bush to invade Iran in 2003, 2004, 2005... 2006... 2007
|
|
|
