War with Iran

[Russell Kanning]

Still more anti-Iran stuff building.

[AlanM]

Still more anti-Iran stuff building.

So,... we have Iran momentum building, along with Syria. N. Korea is in the wings, also. They have to keep the military out of the country as much as possible to pull this off. Plus wars whip up patriotic hysteria. Then tank the economy at the opportune moment and institute sweeping powers, and Presto! a complete dictatorship of, by, and for the Powerful Elite.  I should write for the movies. 

[AlanM]

I am going to bed now, and have a few nightmares. 

[Russell Kanning]

 Have Peace Activists Ever Stopped a War?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wittner/wittner17.html

[Kat Kanning]

IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 42 minutes ago

VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on
Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."

Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.

"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."

The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether
Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading
Iraq and toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.

[Kat Kanning]

Military Orders Suggest Iran Attack

Newsmax | September 18 2006

Two recent orders by the American military have led some observers to conclude that the U.S. is preparing for an attack on Iran.

One order was a "Prepare to Deploy" command sent to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters, telling the ships? commanders to be ready to move by Oct. 1.

The other was a request from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) for a fresh look at long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf.

The orders created a buzz within the military because there are few places in the world where minesweepers could be significant ? chief among them, the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, where about 40 percent of the world?s oil passes each day.


"Coupled with the CNO?s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed ? but until now largely theoretical ? prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran,? according to a special report in Time magazine.


The U.S. military routinely makes plans for many different scenarios, and the vast majority of them will never be carried out.

"And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran ? over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region ? may be impossible to avoid,? Time reports.

The magazine?s reporters interviewed dozens of experts and government officials to find out what an attack on Iran would consist of ? and what its repercussions might be.

First of all, most observers believe the attack would not involve ground forces and would instead be a massive air campaign against Iran?s 18 to 30 nuclear-related facilities.


But many of the targets are hardened, and would have to be struck repeatedly to ensure that they were destroyed or severely damaged. Some sites are in populated areas, and civilian casualties would be a certainty, according to Time. And there would be no guarantee that the strikes would destroy all nuclear-related sites, because some sites could be undiscovered.

What?s more, the attacks would spark retaliation from Iran that could include ordering a Hezbollah attack on Israel and stepping up the funneling of money and weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq.

The likelihood that Iran would also seek to close the Strait of Hormuz is high, and a disruption of the oil supplies flowing through the strait could send oil prices skyrocketing. That in turn could spur a stepped-up military effort by the U.S. that could even include the "worst case? use of ground forces in an effort to topple the Iranian regime, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni told Time.

For that reason, Zinni believes an attack on Iran is a "dumb idea.?


And that is why the U.S. has sought to emphasize a possible diplomatic solution, Time concludes. One Bush administration official told the magazine:

"Nobody is considering a military option at this point. We're trying to prevent a situation in which the President finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

[Kat Kanning]

Retired Colonel: ?We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now. The Evidence Is Overwhelming.?

Think Progress | September 19 2006

Just now on CNN, Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) said, ?We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming.?

Gardiner, who taught at the U.S. Army?s National War College, has previously suggested that U.S. forces were already on the ground in Iran. Today he added several additional new points:

1) The House Committee on Emerging Threats recently called on State and Defense Department officials to testify on whether U.S. forces were in Iran. The officials didn?t come to the hearing.

2) ?We have learned from Time magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step.?

3) ?The plan has gone to the White House. That?s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we?ve gone to a different state.?

Watch it here

[Kat Kanning]

The guys who came to our anti-torture rally today were talking about this.  They said the timing was also the same for the new moon.  The moon chart I looked up (strangely enough on the military's website) said new moon on Oct. 22nd.  Ships scheduled to arrive Oct. 21st.  Do these guys start bombing on the new moon?


War Signals?

Dave Lindorff
   
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

This article was updated Sept. 27 to clarify the timing of the shift in deployment of the US Naval strike force. While the Eisenhower was nearing a scheduled deployment following nuclear refueling, its departure from Norfolk was recently moved forward so that it can reach the Iran region before November.
As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

[aworldnervelink]

Do these guys start bombing on the new moon?

Yes. The US has a substantial advantage in night vision technology, hence it makes the most sense to begin an aerial campaign on the darkest night available.