Next stop: Iran

[Greg]

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps....germany



So far, I keep hearing that Iran must not be allowed to have any "nuclear program," not just "nuclear weapon program." It's like the Bush administration is saying Iran shouldn't even have the right to nuclear energy. Just who the hell is the U.S. to say that Iran, or any other country, has any less of a right to nuclear energy than any other country?

[Damien]

For anyone who's interested, there's a petition sponsored by the Traprock Peace Center at

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran

Petition - Don't Attack Iran

Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney,

We urge you not to attack the nation of Iran. In so
doing, we hope to make clear to the world that public
opinion is strongly opposed to such criminal behavior.

We urge you to respect international law and the right
of sovereign nations not to be attacked.

[Sonic Youth]

Yes He Would
by Paul Krugman

"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.

Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran - and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

"But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking.

As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we're already in.

First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.

Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he was presenting for war - a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds - rested on suspect evidence. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment.

Was the difference between Mr. Bush's public portrayal of the Iraqi threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so. According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove "cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged" if the contents of an October 2002 "President's Summary" containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public.

Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that doesn't mean it won't happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq.

As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops."

Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.

And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?

[Sonic Youth]

Bush wants to nuke Iran.


THE IRAN PLANS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
New Yorker Magazine


The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.” (In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.


One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government”—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ ”—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,” the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,” specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.”

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. “The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,” he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?”

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


This is a very long article. Read the rest here:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[Greg]

On his March 8 radio show, Bill O'Reilly said, ". . . in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the Earth."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603100008

[Sonic Youth]

Bush restates pre-emptive doctrine, first strike theory

Thursday, March 16, 2006;
Posted: 7:00 a.m. EST (12:00 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President George W. Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

In the earlier report a year after the September 11 attacks, Bush underscored his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.

The latest report makes it clear Bush hasn't changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same," Bush wrote.

The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict.

"This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," Bush said.

He did not say what would happen if international negotiations with Iran failed.

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

As if we couldn't make the connection.

[kaytodd]

On one of the Sunday morning talking head shows, it was said that Bush made the remarks about "all options are on the table" on Iran for Israeli TV. I wonder if he is hoping Israel will hit Iran with U.S. backing.

[Sonic Youth]

Sounding familiar?


UN nuclear watchdog rebuts claims that Iran is trying to make A-bomb

By Anne Penketh
Published: 14 August 2005
The Independent

The UN nuclear watchdog is preparing to publish evidence that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons programme, undermining a warning of possible military action from President George Bush.

The US President told Israeli television that "all options are on the table" if Iran fails to comply with international calls to halt its nuclear programme. Both the US and Israel - the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power - were "united in our objective to make sure Iran does not have a weapon", he said.

However, Iran is about to receive a major boost from the results of a scientific analysis that will prove that the country's authorities were telling the truth when they said they were not developing a nuclear weapon. The discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003 set off alarm bells in Western capitals where it was feared that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon under cover of a civil programme. The inspectors took the samples from Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.

But Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, and that the traces must have been contamination from the Pakistani-based black market network of scientist AQ Khan. He is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

The analysis of components from Pakistan, obtained last May by the IAEA, is now almost complete and is set to conclude that the traces of weapons-grade uranium match those found in Iran. "The investigation is likely to show that they came from Pakistan," a Vienna-based diplomat told The Independent on Sunday.

The new information, which strengthens Iran's case after last week's contentious IAEA board meeting in Vienna, will be a central part of the next report to the board by Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA chief. "The biggest single issue of the past two years has now fallen in their [the Iranians'] favour," the diplomat said. The meeting of the 35-nation board, which ended last Thursday, urged Iran to suspend the uranium-related activity at its Isfahan plant, which many fear will be the first step towards building a nuclear weapon.

The resumption of uranium conversion at the plant last week caused an international crisis and prompted Britain, France and Germany, which have been attempting to find a negotiated solution to the dispute, to call the emergency IAEA meeting. In its resolution concluding the meeting, the board also asked Dr ElBaradei to report back by 3 September. Hardliners on the board - including Britain, the United States and Canada - had hoped that Dr ElBaradei's next report would be sufficiently damning to increase the pressure on Iran.

However those hopes will be dashed by the revelation about the IAEA analysis of the particles from Pakistan, which will remove any chance of Iran being referred to the UN Security Council. But the IAEA is not closing the book on its investigation of Iran's possible weapons programme. A team of IAEA experts arrived in Iran on Friday to pursue other outstanding issues, but they are unlikely to be resolved by the time Dr ElBaradei reports to the board.

The three European countries are fast running out of options, as there is no appetite among non-nuclear states on the IAEA board to report Iran to the Security Council for punitive sanctions, when there is no legal basis to do so. Iran, which agreed to suspend its uranium conversion during the talks with Britain, France and Germany, insists on its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The Iranian authorities restarted Isfahan after rejecting a package of security and economic incentives submitted to Iran 10 days ago by the three countries which sought a binding commitment that Iran would not pursue fuel cycle activities. "It's difficult to see things moving ahead if Europeans think that every country can have enrichment facilities except Iran," one Western diplomat said.

Dr Ian Davis, the director of the British-American Security Information Council (Basic), an independent nuclear thinktank, said that if the Europeans were prepared to compromise on the fuel cycle issue, "the negotiations may yet prevent a crisis".

However, a Foreign Office spokesman insisted that a new round of negotiations scheduled with Iran for 31 August would go ahead only if Tehran again suspended uranium conversion. "There are no talks with no suspension," the spokesman said.

Iran, sensing that it is gaining international support for its stand and with a new hardline President in power, also looks as if it is in no mood to compromise at this point.

[Sonic Youth]

Bush refuses to rule out force against Iran
AFP News
2 hours, 39 minutes ago


US President George W. Bush refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over the Islamic Republic's resumption of nuclear activities, in an interview aired on Israeli television.

When asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomatic efforts, Bush said: "All options are on the table."

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said in a clear reference to Iraq, which the United States invaded in March 2003.

"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

Bush was speaking from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to a reporter from Israeli public television. The Jewish state has accused Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and believes it is the prime target of the alleged arms programme.

The international community was waiting for Tehran's response after urging the Iranian government to halt its uranium conversion activities, which it resumed on Monday.

Bush expressed doubts that the European Union (EU) initiative to defuse the crisis through diplomatic means would succeed.

"The Iranians refused to comply with the demands of the free world which is: do not, in any way shape or form, have a program that could lead to a nuclear weapon," he said.

"In this particular instance the EU three -- Britain, France and Germany -- have taken the lead in helping to send the message, a unified message to the Iranians," Bush said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday in Vienna passed a EU resolution expressing "serious concern" at Iran's resumption of uranium conversion activities, and set a September 3 date for an IAEA report on Iran's compliance.

"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we are working feverishly on the diplomatic route and, you know, we will see if we are successful or not. As you know I'm skeptical," he said.

Bush's interview to Israeli television was a step up from his previous warning to Iran Thursday.

"If Iran doesn't take the steps described in the resolution, we would expect that the next step would be referral to the Security Council," he had said.

Israel has been prodding Washington to adopt a tough stance on Iran and charged that Iran resumed its uranium conversion activities because it had sensed the "weakness" of the international community.

"Iran made this decision because they are getting the impression that the United States and the Europeans are spineless," a senior official from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office told AFP Tuesday.

Israel itself is believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Although it has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, it is believed to possess an arsenal of about 200 warheads.

[Sonic Youth]

Bush Says U.S. Won't Attack Iran, (but won't say "never")

Friday February 18, 2005 11:01 PM
By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Friday the United States does not intend to attack Iran to crush its suspected nuclear weapons project but added that ``you never want a president to say never.'' He expressed hopes that a European diplomatic initiative would persuade Tehran to abandon any such program.

In interviews with European journalists at the White House, Bush was asked about an opinion poll showing that 70 percent of Germans believe the United States is planning military action against Iran.

``I hear all these rumors about military attacks, and it's just not the truth,'' said Bush, who leaves Sunday for Europe to mend fences with allies. ``We want diplomacy to work.''

The president sat down for a series of broadcast interviews with correspondents from Russia, France, Belgium, Slovakia and Germany in connection with a five-day trip to Europe. There were repeated questions about whether the United States would attack Iran.

``Listen, first of all, you never want a president to say 'never.' But military action is certainly not - it's never the president's first choice. Diplomacy is always the president's first - at least my first choice.''

(He is so full of ####.)

Bush said he supports European nations' efforts to persuade Iran to scrap its uranium enrichment program in exchange for technological, financial and political support. But he did not address U.S. reservations about Europe's approach. The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments, insisting that Iran abandon its program.

``I believe diplomacy can work so long as the Iranians don't divide Europe and the United States,'' Bush said. ``There's a lot more diplomacy to be done.''

Bush said he applauds efforts by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and other leaders for sending a clear message to Iran.

``They know what they need to do,'' Bush said of Iran. ``And so what they are trying to do is kind of wiggle out.''

He said Iranians think they don't have to do anything because the Americans are not involved.

``Well, America is involved,'' Bush said. ``We're in close consultation with our friends.''

``We've got a common goal,'' the president said. ``And that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. ... If we continue to speak with one voice and not let them split us up, and keep the pressure on them, we can achieve the objective.''

Bush also said Iran should stop supporting Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon because this could threaten the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Iran is on record as firmly opposed to any peace process that might legitimatize Israel's presence as a Jewish state in the Middle East.

Asked if trusted Iran, Bush said, ``Well, it's hard to trust a regime that doesn't trust their own people.''....

[Sonic Youth]

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Halliburton's Iran Ties</span>

Business As Usual?
Halliburton’s CEO says his company is pulling out of Iran. But a corporate subsidiary is still going ahead with a deal to develop Tehran’s natural gas fields

WEB EXCLUSIVE
Newsweek
Updated: 6:10 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2005


Feb. 16 - Only weeks before Halliburton made headlines by announcing it was pulling out of Iran—a nation George W. Bush has labeled part of the “axis of evil”—the Texas-based oil services firm quietly signed a major new business deal to help develop Tehran’s natural gas fields.

Halliburton’s new Iran contract, moreover, appears to suggest a far closer connection with the country’s hard-line government than the firm has ever acknowledged.

The deal, diplomatic sources tell NEWSWEEK, was signed with an Iranian oil company whose principals include Sirus Naseri, Tehran’s chief international negotiator on matters relating to the country’s hotly-disputed nuclear enrichment program—a project the Bush administration has charged is intended to develop nuclear weapons.

There are few matters more sensitive for Halliburton than its dealings with Iran. The company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, last year disclosed that it had received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Texas in connection with a Justice Department investigation into allegations that the firm violated U.S. sanctions law prohibiting American companies from directly doing business in Iran. (U.S. firms are barred from doing direct business in Iran, but under a confusing quilt of federal regulations, their foreign subsidiaries may do so as long as they operate “independently” from U.S. management.)

Documents disclosed by the company indicate that the Justice Department probe into Halliburton’s Iran dealings, like a separate Justice investigation into alleged foreign bribes paid by a Halliburton-connected consortium to officials in Nigeria, cover the period that Cheney was Halliburton CEO.

There have been no allegations that Cheney was directly involved in any of the conduct that is under scrutiny by Justice, although as Halliburton CEO, Cheney repeatedly and forcefully criticized the U.S. sanctions laws restricting business in Iran, arguing that they caused U.S. firms like Halliburton to lose business to international competitors. (As it has in the past, Cheney’s office today declined to say whether the vice president has been questioned by investigators on either the Iran or Nigerian matters.)

Halliburton’s new deal, in which it will participate in a $308 million project to develop Iran’s huge South Pars natural gas fields, was not at first publicly announced by the company. But after the South Pars project, and its role, was reported in the Iranian press in mid-Janury, Halliburton publicly confirmed that its Dubai-based subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Limited, had been awarded a subcontract on the project that, a Halliburton official told NEWSWEEK today, will net the parent firm between $30 million and $35 million over the next several years.

The new Halliburton project, congressional investigators say, raises substantial questions about the Jan. 28, 2005 public announcement by Halliburton CEO (and Cheney successor) David Lesar that the firm plans to cease doing business in Iran. Lesar made no reference to the South Pars project in his conference call with investment analysts that day, when he blamed “the political nature of the attacks on Halliburton” for the media attention given the company’s Iranian business.


But overlooked in most of the press coverage of the announcement was that Lesar’s statement contained enough wiggle room to permit Halliburton to continue participating in the new South Pars project. After telling the analysts that “we have decided to exit Iran and will wind down our operations there”—a decision he attributed to the current “business environment” in Iran—Lesar quickly added that the company would continue “fulfilling our existing contracts and commitments.” He also added another caveat: “If the U.S. sanctions are lifted in the future, or more of our customers go there, we will return to this market.”

Lesar’s announcement was little more than “PR damage control,” said one congressional investigator who has closely followed Halliburton’s dealings. “They’re still acting like the sanctions law are a big joke,” the investigator added. Lesar’s comments also raise another question that are central to questions about the Iran sanctions: How could Lesar, as Halliburton CEO, decide to pull out of the Iran market at all and then reserve the right to “return to this market” if all of its business in Iran is, as Halliburton has repeatedly argued, been conducted by a foreign subsidiary (Halliburton Products and Services) that is acting “independently” of management in Houston?

Halliburton has consistently argued that it is not in violation of U.S. sanctions law because Halliburton Products & Services Limited (which is registered in the Cayman Islands but located in Dubai) operates autonomously without direction from senior management in Houston. In documents the company has submitted to investigators, for example, Halliburton has stated that Halliburton Product & Services' 133 employes include no Americans and that its five-person board of directors includes four British citizens and one Canadian citizen; “none of them is a U.S. permanent resident alien” or green card holder. “Day to day management and decision-making responsibility at HPSL resides with the Management Director (who is a British citizen) and other local management, all of whom reside in Dubai.”

But other company documents and sources familiar with the Justice Department investigation suggest that, at the very least, U.S. government officials have had questions about the Dubai-based subsidiary’s “independence” for some time. Company disclosures show that the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control first questioned Halliburton about whether it was in compliance of U.S. sanctions against Iran as early as mid-2001. In January, 2004, Treasury raised the issue again after a "60 Minutes" report that Halliburton Products & Services was located in, and receiving mail, in the same Dubai office tower address where another of the company’s principal—and indisputably U.S.-controlled subsidiaries, Kellog Brown & Root—also had offices. This led, according to a company report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to a referral of the matter by Treasury to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. Halliburton then received its first a grand jury subpoena for documents on September 16, 2004, according to the firm’s latest filing with the SEC.

A Halliburton official, who asked not to be identified, noted that a Congressional anti-Iran sanctions law—and Treasury Department regulations interpreting it—expressly allowed foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies that “ran their own affairs” to continue doing business in Iran. This, the official said, is in contrast to U.S.-imposed sanctions on Cuba and North Korea, which explicitly cover all foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, is pushing legislation to close what he considers the current loophole in the law by prohibiting any foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business in Iran.)


Responding to questions from NEWSWEEK, Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall noted today that Halliburton is merely one of a number of U.S. subcontractors to Oriental Kish, the Iranian oil company that is in charge of the South Pars natural gas project. “I’d like to point out that we have no ownership in Oriental Kish Co. and we certainly did not form it,” Hall said in an e-mail response. “We are a subcontractor to Oriental. In addition, many of our American-based competitors were awarded a piece of this work as well. The facts show that HPSL (Halliburton Products and Services Limited), a foreign-owned subsidiary, was selected for about $30-$35 million in work out of an anticipated $308 million for the total project.”

Still, the figures cited by Hall for the size of the new project—even though spread out over about three years—are substantial in relation to Halliburton’s overall business dealings in Iran. Company documents obtained by NEWSWEEK show that Halliburton’s revenue from Iran—principally through the Dubai-based Halliburton Products and Services, but also including five other foreign subsidiaries—grew from $31 million a year in 2001 (when Bush first called Iran an “axis of evil” nation for its support of terrorism) to $42.5 million in 2003.

In addition, the role of Naseri—Iran’s nuclear negotiator—as a principal in Oriental Kish and the South Pars project has raised questions about the project. Naseri, according to a Western diplomatic source, was a former senior Iranian diplomat who, until two years ago, served as Tehran’s ambassador to a permanent United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva. A couple of years ago, the diplomat said, Naseri left the Iranian government to get involved in the oil business and is widely known to be involved with Halliburton Product & Services in oil-field activities.

But when the U.S., its allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency recently stepped up pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear activities, the diplomat said, Naseri rejoined the Iranian team handling international negotiations. He is described as one of the Iranian's main negotiators in talks with the IAEA, Britain, France and Germany and is described as a "very slick and sophisticated" negotiator. This week, Naseri was reportedly in Vienna and also traveled to other European capitals in connection with the nuclear talks. Diplomats say he serves as a key advisor to Hassan Rowhani, Iran's hard-line national security advisor, on the nuclear issue.

Halliburton spokeswoman Hall said the company “does not have any knowledge” that Naseri was “directly involved” in negotiations with Halliburton Products and Services and is “not aware of any other roles.” As for how Halliburton’s role in Iran fits in with larger U.S. foreign policy in Iran, Hall responded: “We are in the [oil] service business, not the foreign policy business. We have followed and will continue to follow applicable laws.”


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

[Sonic Youth]

What astonishing synchronicity!

FIRST, we warn Iran not to build any nuclear facilities;

THEN, we learn that the U.S. is flying drone planes into Iran, supposedly only for spying purposes;

AND THEN, a huge explosion takes place 90 miles from a nuclear (or not) facility in Iran, and no one has any idea what caused it;

----

ALSO TODAY, Israel is claiming that they have intelligence suggesting that Iran is six months away from creating a nuclear weapons program;

HOWEVER, the head of the IAEA, ElBaradei, says there is absolutly NO PROOF that Iran is working on missile programs;

NONETHELESS, Bush is doing everything in his power to get ElBaradei fired from his post, never mind that ElBaradei was one hundred percent right about Iraq's nuclear capabilities;

--------

THEN, A FEW DAYS AGO, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon was assassinated by a car bomb powerful enough to blow up 22 other automobiles on the street, the car-bomb to end all car-bombs; no one knows who did it, and no one has taken any responsibility, but the U.S. is blaming Syria;

AND TODAY, Iran and Syria announce that they are forming a "common front"... against the U.S. and Israel, obviously.

And all this has happened in less than a week. Anyone want to guess when the first atomic bomb will be dropped?

Could someone remind me, please, what was the singular event that set World War I in motion? Hmmmm?

[Okri]

BBC Article


'Blast' reported in southern Iran
An unexplained large explosion is reported to have been heard in the southern Iranian province of Bushehr.

There is confusion over the cause of the blast, said to have occurred near the town of Daylam on the Gulf coast.

But an interior ministry spokesman told AP news agency that it might have been caused by a "friendly fire" incident.

There have been eyewitness reports saying a missile was fired by a plane in the area, and also that a fuel tank dropped from an Iranian plane.

There have also been reports that a fuel tanker caught fire and exploded, or that the blast was a controlled explosion carried out during the construction of a dam.

The Mehr news agency quoted a source in the governor's office as saying there had been no air attack on Daylam.

The BBC's Frances Harrison says it is clear that the reports of the blast are not connected with fears of a strike on the nuclear plant near Bushehr town.

Iranian atomic officials have said that the plant has not been affected, while a Russian embassy official told the BBC that Russian nationals working in the plant had reported that everything was normal, and that they had not heard an explosion.

'Mistaken'

The interior ministry spokesman, Jahanbakhsh Khanjani, told AP: "An airplane flew over Daylam today. Minutes later, there was an explosion.

"But we have no reason to say it's a hostile attack. There is a big possibility that it was a friendly fire by mistake.

"Several such mistaken friendly fire incidents have been reported there in recent days."

Tensions between the US and Iran are running high over what the Americans say is Tehran's attempts to build a nuclear bomb.

Iran says its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

Russia has completed construction work at the Bushehr reactor, but the plant is not yet operational.

[Reza]

There is Breaking News on BBC and CNN that a missile was fired into Iran - somewhere in the desert area.

Has it started??

[Sonic Youth]

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Iran, Syria 'form common front'</span>
BBC News

Iran and Syria say they are to form a common front to face challenges and threats from overseas.

"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.

Both countries are under intense US pressure, with Washington accusing Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons.

US tensions with Syria have soared since the apparent suicide attack that killed former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

Many Lebanese blame Monday's car bombing in Beirut on Syria, but the Syrian government has denied it was responsible for the blast.

The US has recalled its ambassador to Syria in protest at the attack, although it has not directly accused Damascus of responsibility.

The announcement from Iran and Syria came as Hariri was buried in the Lebanese capital Beirut.