Saturday, April 08, 2006

The Nuke Iran Roundup

Published April 8th 2006
Updated April 15th 2006
The bad news, according to paul craig roberts, is that the jewish neocons are doing what they love doing most – warmongering. Or, more specifically, pushing their servile american groupies into fighting wars on behalf of the jews-only state in palestine (jos), "Neocons are fanatics. They would certainly risk U.S. troops to achieve their agenda. If neocons can provoke the Shia militias into joining the attacks on U.S. troops, the situation would quickly spin out of control. To avoid a crushing defeat, Bush could resort to extreme means. Neoconservatives don't want "no stinking talks." They want war. War is their only hope. Neoconservatives are ruthless. They have control of the U.S. government and military. Little stands between them and their fanatical determination to widen war in the Middle East." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Israeli Electorate Rebukes Bush’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8783 March 30, 2006).

The good news, according to jim lobe, is that the increasingly jewish neocons are supposedly on the way out. "Demoralized by the quagmire in Iraq, as well as President George W. Bush's still falling approval and credibility ratings, the coalition of aggressive nationalists, neoconservatives, and the Christian Right that promoted the belligerent, neo-imperial trajectory in U.S. foreign policy has lost both its coherence and its power to dominate the political agenda here. The return to realism has been helped immensely by the disappearance over the past year of key players from the administration, among them Wolfowitz and Feith, whose unpopularity with the military and among even Republican lawmakers made them convenient scapegoats for the growing fiasco in Iraq." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush's War Hawks Edged Out of the Nest - April 4, 2006). Also amongst the disappeared, unfortunately only off the washington circuit, is john bolten removed through promotion to the united nations and "i. lewis "scooter" libby, cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser who is suffering from indictmentitis. "A national security specialist who acted with the full authority and confidence of the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, Libby was the hub of the hawks' network inside the administration." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush's War Hawks Edged Out of the Nest - April 4, 2006).

Back to the bad news. It now seems as if neocon ideas are now being promoted by the jews’ american groupies, "As a result – and almost by default – realists under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and in the uniformed military have steadily gained control over the administration's policy." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush's War Hawks Edged Out of the Nest’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8803 April 4, 2006); "Rice is the public relations vehicle designed and calculated to maintain an intense and escalating period of American neoconservativism which she will launch on a global scale with direct interventions into the domestic policies of foreign nations across the planet. Her agenda will be to jerk and pull and force a sharp planetary political shift to the hard-right. Expect Rice to make her Christocratic credentials the fountainhead of her platform for the White House." (Michael Carmichael ‘Condi Does Britain: The Christocrat’ http://www.counterpunch.org/carmichael04042006.html April 4, 2006).

As a consequence, according to lobe, an attack on iran still seems likely. "While all of these trends have weakened the hawks and are likely to moderate U.S. policies in the region, they do not mean that the chances of military action against Iran have been significantly reduced." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush's War Hawks Edged Out of the Nest’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8803 April 4, 2006).

At the beginning of april, condi flew over to blackburn, lancashire, to meet britain’s sharon-loving jewish foreign secretary, jack straw. The spin put on their meeting was that the war against iran was now imminent. "The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable. There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq." (Sean Rayment ‘Government in secret talks about strike against Iran’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ARQDKSMXA34BVQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/02/wiran02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/02/ixportaltop.html April 2nd 2006). But wasn’t it only in the previous month that jack straw stated that war with iran was "inconceivable"?

A few days later, there were more rumours about war, "Immediately after Condoleezza Rice's visit to the north of England for a series of secret meetings and public appearances with Foreign Minister Jack Straw, the UK top brass held their own secret meeting Monday in London to prepare Britain for what they now describe as the "inevitable" U.S. military strike against Iran." (Michael Carmichael ‘Top UK Brass Plan for US Strike on Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/carmichael.php?articleid=8802 April 4, 2006).

Carmichael even believes a time frame has now been set, "Planetary Movement has been informed that the timing of the U.S. strike will be synchronized with the political cycle in Bush's America. Political intelligence experts based in Washington, D.C., advise that the U.S. strike against Iran will likely occur between Labor Day (Sept. 4) and election day (Nov. 6) – although it could come earlier if the president's popularity continues its precipitous decline. The political spin of the U.S. action is now being designed by Karl Rove and his minions to strengthen the weakening hand of a deeply unpopular presidency and to stave off a drastic defeat for the Republicans in this year's midterm elections by galvanizing the American voters with the bombing campaign that will be ballyhooed as"essential for national security." (Michael Carmichael ‘Top UK Brass Plan for US Strike on Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/carmichael.php?articleid=8802 April 4, 2006).

After their blackburn meeting, condi and jack flew off to iraq (contrary to rumour condi slept on the floor whilst jack had condi’s bed) to tell the democratically elected candidate for prime minister that they weren’t going to allow him to be prime minister. Their favourite for the job was mahadi who ran execution squads and various torture chambers. "Adil Abdul Mahdi of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) called Wednesday for his rival Ibrahim Jaafari to step down. As for security, it is Abdul Mahdi's party that is implicated in the scandals at the Ministry of the Interior over death squads and militia infiltration, not Jaafari's Dawa Party." (Juan Cole ‘Jaafari refuses to Resign’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 5, 2006). They supported mahdi’s candidacy because they believed he would pose fewer objections to an attack on iran. "In Baghdad, the pair met with President Jalal Talabani and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, to arrange the ouster of Jaafari and his replacement by Mahdi. The imminent regime change in Baghdad is merely a first step in their preparations for the U.S. air strike against Iran, which will create massive political pressures on the U.S.-backed government in Iraq." (Michael Carmichael ‘Top UK Brass Plan for US Strike on Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/carmichael.php?articleid=8802 April 4, 2006). So, although straw believes a war against iran is inconceivable he’s helping america to drive iraq into a civil war in order to prepare the way for a war against iran.

One commentator argued, "This week's most terrifying remark came from the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. He declared that a nuclear attack on Iran would be "completely nuts" and an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going to happen and "inconceivable" means certain." (Simon Jenkins ‘If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1752058,00.html April 12, 2006). In other words, jack straw, the highest ranking jew in the british cabinet is doing what jews are expected to do - support an initiative in private but oppose it in public so that nobody can accuse jews of stirring up wars in favour of their beloved jos.

Forgetting america for the moment, britain seems ever more likely to support war as blair drifts off ever closer to the neoconservative abyss at the edge of the universe. In mid april, not one but four commentators have suggested blair is no longer trying to moderate bush’s extremism but to make it palatable for the british, "But Iran's casus belli was set out in unambiguous terms by the prime minister in his speech to the Foreign Policy Centre in London on March 21. Blair was updating his 1999 Chicago doctrine of global intervention. Then it was justified by humanitarianism and was optional. Now it is vital for the "battle of values ... a battle about modernity". Those who are not of our values are to be subject to pre-emptive attack. Blair demanded that the west become "active not reactive" against alien values (obviously Islamic) as "we risk chaos threatening our stability". The crusade against them was "utterly determinative of our future here in Britain". He accepted that Britain should seek international agreement before going to war, but should still fight without it. People were crying out for democracy. We must bring it to them since "in their salvation lies our own security". The speech was full of jihadist rhetoric. Blair's desire to wipe non-democratic values off the map is akin to Iran's view of Israel. But we know that when he says war he means war. The speech was the wildest by a British leader in modern times and was the clearest imaginable statement of a casus belli. He mentioned Iran three times. It was gilt-edged, copper-bottomed, swivel-eyed neoconservatism." (Simon Jenkins ‘If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1752058,00.html April 12, 2006); "It's almost certain that as the United States ratchets up the pressure on Iran in the coming months the non-issue of Tehran 's "links" with Al Qaeda will come to the fore. In fact the groundwork is already being laid. Blair, no less, said ominously in a speech last month that although "the conventional view is that Iran is hostile to Al Qaeda: we know from our own history of conflict that, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change."" (Tom Porteous ‘The Al Qaeda Myth’ http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/12/the_al_qaeda_myth.php April 12, 2006); "According to Hersh, our allies 'especially the British' are very worried. "[Prime Minister] Blair's the wild card in this. He and Bush both have this sense, this messianic sense, I believe, about what they've done and what's needed to be done in the Middle East. I think Blair is every bit as committed into this world of 'rapture' as is the president." (Quoted in Gordon Prather ‘Neo-Crazy Plans for Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8853 April 15, 2006).

The good news is that the security council has bounced the iran dossier back to the board of the international atomic energy agency, "The Security Council strongly supports the role of the IAEA Board of Governors … and underlines the necessity of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran's nuclear program."" (Gordon Prather ‘Security Council Defies Bolton’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8800 April 4, 2006). So there won’t be any sanctions let alone declarations of war .. for the moment. However in the jewish conservatives’ parallel universe this security council put-down of americans’ demands is being interpreted as an enthusiastic call for sanctions against iran, "Nevertheless, the neo-crazies and their media sycophants have been falsely claiming that the Iranian dispute is now in the hands of the Security Council which has "demanded" that Iran immediately suspend all IAEA-Safeguarded activities." (Quoted in Gordon Prather ‘Neo-Crazy Plans for Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8853 April 15, 2006).

A few weeks ago raimondo was worrying that a long war looked inevitable. But now things look different, "The War Party's base is seriously eroding, and they can't maintain their present level of aggression – never mind launch new wars – with this level of public support." (Justin Raimondo ‘The People Speak’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8820 April 7, 2006). He dillies and he dallies. Surely bush’s unpopularity is as good a reason as any for an attack on iran?

The even worse news is that the neocons haven’t gone at all, "Let there be no doubt: The neoconservative warriors are still in charge and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a preemptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq." (Rep. Ron Paul ‘Iran: The Next Neocon Target’ http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8821 April 7, 2006).

Gordon prather responded directly to paul’s arguments, "But maybe Congresspersons, the media and the people just appear to accept those arguments. Maybe it doesn't really matter to them why we invaded Iraq. Or why we're going to gut the nuke proliferation prevention regime in order to establish a "strategic partnership" with India. Or why we're building a zillion-dollar untested antiballistic missile defense system in Alaska to defend against non-existent North Korean nuke-tipped ballistic missiles. Or even why we’re going to attack Iran later this year or next. Maybe what matters most to all of them are good jobs for Americans." (Gordon Prather ‘Why We're at War’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8828 April 8, 2006).

Investigative reporter seymour hersh published an article in the new yorker magazine which contained a veritable cauldron of good and bad news all brewing up nicely together. He points out that bush is desperate to trigger a war whilst parts of the american military are desperate to avoid such a war. "And obviously some large segment of the military has no stomach for any such Iran escapade. The Seymour Hersh tale of the deranged set of plans to take out Iran's nuclear facilities with "bunker-busting mini-nukes" can only be seen as a strong no-way statement out of the Brass . Of course, the Pentagon undoubtedly has contingency plans for invading from the Maldives to Malta, but such a leak has to be seen as "official."" (Michael Donnelly ‘The Week the Bush Administration Fell Apart: End Game for the Lizard Brains?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly04132006.html April 13, 2006).

Such is the great political status of seymour hersh in the american political system that his article required a response from bush and was even reported in the mainstream british media. "Seymour Hersh's extensive article describing plans to attack Iran, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, has forced President Bush to respond. Two days after Hersh's article appeared, President Bush came forward to deny any intent to attack Iran - calling such claims 'wild speculation.'" (Kevin B. Zeese ‘Attacking Iran: Hersh vs. Bush: Who Would You Believe? http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04142006.html April 14, 2006). There is very little that is new in his article: many of these arguments have been aired on the internet for many months.

A couple of days later the bush administration stoked up the war fever, ""Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow." (‘Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany April 12, 2006).

When america invaded afghanistan in 2001 it relied on iranian military assistance. After the defeat of the taliban, iran promised to help the bush administration to round up members of al quaeda in afghanistan. But the bush administration turned its back on iran calling it a part of the axis of evil, and ever since has refused to talk, or negotiate, with the iranians over their outstanding differences. Since the invasion of iraq the americans have been suffering considerable losses and losing control over increasing parts of the country. Their dire military predicament eventually forced them into doing the inconceivable - seeking iran’s help after the december 2005 iraqi national elections failed to produce the democracy the americans’ desired. In other words, the bush administration blinked first. For america to have to beg iran for help must be a deep humiliation.

And yet, over the subsequent four months, whilst the basis for these negotiations has been worked out, the bush administration has become increasingly belligerent towards iran over its development of civilian nuclear energy with its potential for the development of nuclear weapons. What on Earth is bush doing condemning iran on the one hand whilst begging for its help on the other? Quite what help bush believes the iranians would be willing to give him over iraq when he is threatening to attack their country seems utterly bizarre. It’s just as difficult to understand what the iranians hope to get out of these negotiations under such circumstances other than an opportunity to have a laugh in the face of the almighty, but grossly stupid, americans. Is it possible that bush is allowing the jewish warmongers to whip up public fervour for a war against iran: firstly, to pressure europe into accepting united nations’ sanctions against iran in preference to war and, secondly, to pressure iran into sorting out the mess in iraq? But this means that if bush is so concerned about the safety of his troops in iraq then he wouldn’t dare risk an attack on iran. In which case why is he allowing the jewish media and the jewish lobby to whip up so much animosity against iran that it might easily push him into such a war? Or is he just going the extra millimetre for peace before launching his crusade to save america from yet another non-existent nuclear threat?

Perhaps the most terrible news is that the bush administration simply does not care about american casualties in iraq, "There has been some snarking that Gen. Batiste did not speak out while in uniform. These comments come from civilian chickenhawks. Moreover, in the kind of shop Rumsfeld has been running, the US field commander, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, was almost fired for simply remarking on the guerrilla tactics of the Saddam Fedayeen, saying, "This is not the war we gamed for." His innocent and entirely accurate remark sent Rummy ballistic and Tommy Franks almost fired him. Franks was furious that Wallace and others wanted to deal carefully with the dangerous guerrillas, and told them he didn't care about keeping US casualties low. He actually put his hand over his mouth and yawned to show his uninterest in casualties. Rumsfeld was the one who pushed on Wallace a tiny military force that could not deal with, and never was able to deal with the guerrillas. US civil administrator Paul Bremer also admitted that we never had enough troops on the ground, and he told Rumsfeld so. He got no response. Rumsfeld keeps saying that no one told him things like that. But people did. He just wasn't listening. He should go." (Juan Cole ‘Retired Generals Besiege Rumsfeld’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 15, 2006).


Let’s be realistic about this. It is not possible to persuade americans to curb the jewish lobby (in america or anywhere else) by asking them to coolly and rationally understand john mearsheimer and stephen walt’s academic tract. The jewish lobby drowns out any rational debate. The change of attitude in america will be brought about by good bits of bombast such as this from reese. "The Israeli lobby and the neoconservatives are beating the drums for war with Iran. I hope the president is not that dangerously stupid. The betting on whether he is that stupid is about even. Once again, the dead roach in America's salad is Israel. The U.S. hypocritically opposes a nuclear-free Middle East because Israel has nuclear weapons. We hypocritically claim the Iranians are in violation of international law when, in fact, it is Israel that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses international inspections. Given our craven obedience to Israel, we have exactly zero credibility in the Arab and Muslim world. The Israeli lobby pushing America to fight yet another war for Israel reminds me of what the French ambassador to Great Britain said at a party: "Why does the world allow this (expletive deleted) little country to cause so much trouble?"" (Charley Reese ‘Israel: The Dead Roach in America's Salad’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8856 April 15, 2006). It’s the jewish lobby which is responsible for killing americans in iraq not iraqis.

In the first half of april the american military has been campaigning against donald rumsfeld, "In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more. In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘The Generals' Revolt’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8858 April 15, 2006).

This military rebellion may have something to do with fears for american troops caught up in a civil war in iraq. It may have something to do with the pending war against iran. But the campaign against rumseld is being fought from two sides. The military wants him replaced by richard armitage but the neocons want him to be replaced by joe lieberman who supports an attack on iran.

Bush, and his muppet blair, may have messianic designs for attacking iran but if he hasn’t got a military then what’s he going to do? Perhaps the fundamental point is that america is irrelevant. It can bluff away to its heart content. What is important is the jos. It is not bluffing.

The advantage of a jos attack on iran is that no one can then say that it’s all the fault of the jol in america. But if the jos does attack, and this leads to a war throughout the middle east, this will endanger american troops. It will reveal just how traitorous the jos is since the weapons it will use to attack iran will have supplied to jos by bush.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home