The appointment of Israel’s new deputy PM raises fears of a new catastrophe, says robert fox
The Middle East is abuzz with ugly rumours. One of them is so dire - and comes from sources in so many capital cities - that it has to be taken seriously.
The suggestion is that the Israeli government has served notice on the White House that it must take pre-emptive action against Iran's sites of nuclear weapons development - or Israel will go it alone and do the job itself. Israel has apparently given Bush a deadline of six months.
The pressure on the Americans - if it is true - comes with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman, one of the hardest of all hard-liners, as Israel's new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, under the new coalition with his party, Yisrael Beytenu.
posted
considering as how we should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq? it's about time somebody told Bush what to do... he can't figger anything out for himself. ...
hey dubya, go bomb dem dare nuKular bunkers in Iran... the real WMD? nahhh couldn't be... they are all buried in the Iraq dessert...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps this is the real reason behind the idea of a surge in troops?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are Bush and Cheney Planning an Early Attack on Iran?
DAVE LINDORFF Counterpunch Sunday, December 24, 2006
Back on October 9, I wrote in The Nation that it looked like the Bush-Cheney gang, worried about the November election, was gearing up for an unprovoked attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Eisenhower being ordered to depart a month early from Norfolk, VA to join the already-on-station USS Enterprise. That article was based on reports from angry sailors based on the Eisenhower who had leaked word of their mission.
There was, thankfully, no attack on Iran before Election Day, but it is starting to look like I may have been right about the plan after all, but wrong about the timing.
As the threat of a catastrophic US election-eve attack on Iran started to look increasingly likely, reports began to trickle out of the Pentagon that the generals and admirals were protesting. They knew that the US military is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a war with Iran would be a disaster of historic proportions. To bolster their blocking efforts, the Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican fixer and former Secretary of State (under Bush Pere) James Baker, which had been slated to release its report on what to do about Iraq in January, 2007, pushed forward its report. Baker, together with co-chair Lee Hamilton, went prematurely public with the group's conclusion that the Iraq war was a failure, and that the US should be trying to negotiate with Iran, not attack that country.
That joint effort appeared to have blocked Bush and Cheney's war plan, but the reprieve may have only been temporary.
It now appears that the idea of attacking Iran is again moving forward. The Eisenhower strike force, armed with some 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as a fleet of strike aircraft, and already on station in the Arabian Sea for over a month and a half, has moved into the Persian Gulf. A second carrier group, led by the USS Stennis, is steaming toward the Gulf, too. Already in position are three expeditionary strike groups and an amphibious warship, all suitable for landing Marines on Iranian beaches. On December 20, the New York Times, citing Pentagon sources, reported that both Britain and the U.S. are moving additional naval forces into the region "in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country." (We've all seen what "displays of force" by the Bush administration actually turn out to be.)
The idea of hitting Iran may make sense from the Bush-Cheney bunker, where the only consideration is not what's good for the country, but what's good for Bush and Cheney. After all, if you're losing your war in Iraq, and if you have hit bottom politically at home (Bush's ppublic support ratings are now down in the 20s, where Nixon's were just before his resignation, and Cheney's numbers have been in the teens for months), and if the public is clamoring for an end to it all--and maybe for your heads, too--expanding the conflict and putting the nation on a full war footing can look like an attractive even if desperate gambit.
From the nation's point of view, of course, an attack on Iran would be an unmitigated disaster. There are no more troops that the U.S. could throw into battle (the Pentagon is scrambling just to find another 20,000 or so bodies that Bush wants to throw into the Iraq quagmire), so an attack would have to be basically that--an attack.
Certainly the forces the Navy is assembling in the Persian Gulf, together with the B-52s and B-1s and B-2s available at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and at bases in other countries in the region, are capable of destroying most of Iran's nuclear facilities, as well as its military infrastructure. But in terms of conquering territory, the most the U.S. could hope to do would be to perhaps hold a beachhead on the Straits of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf links to the Arabian Sea. And even that would be a bloody challenge.
There is no way the U.S. could hope to conquer Iran.
Nor would the Iranian people rise up and overthrow their theocratic leaders--the same neoconservative fantasy that Bush war-mongers promised ahead of the Iraq invasion, and which they are re-cycling now to justify an attack on Iran. In fact, an attack on Iran, far from sparking a rebellion against the government there, would crush the new wave of reform that was evidenced in last week's local elections in Iran, which dealt a blow to the country's hardliners. Iran is a proud nation with a history reaching back thousands of years. If attacked, its people can be counted on to rally around their current rulers, and its war-hardened soldiers can be counted on to fight to the death to defend their country.
Moreover, while its military may be no match for America's, Iran has many asymmetrical options for retaliation. As the key player in Iraq, with close links to Iraq's Shia factions, Iran's military has trained and armed the Badr Brigades--the largest and best-armed faction in Iraq, and one which to date has stayed out of the fighting against US forces. Iran is also close to the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr, and could unleash his fanatical troops too, against US forces in Iraq. If this happens, count on American casualty rates leaping to or even surpassing Korea or Vietnam-era levels overnight.
Additionally, Iraq's intelligence services have connections with Shia groups in Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, and can be expected to quickly organize cells to strike at economic and US military targets there.
More seriously, of course, an attack on Iran will jack the price of oil to levels never seen before. Even if the US managed to militarily control the Straits of Hormuz, Iran's hundreds of stockpiled anti-ship missiles, which are buried in bunkers all along the Persian Gulf, would cause insurance rates to soar so high that no tanker could afford to sail that route, effectively cutting off over one quarter of the world's oil supply. Virtually all of the oil produced in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the Arab Emirates would be trapped in the ground. As well, the network of pipelines that bring oil from wellheads to refineries and to storage and pier facilities would be virtually indefensible against Iran-inspired sapper attacks.
Oil industry analysts have talked of oil leaping in price to $200 a barrel or more in the event of a US war with Iran, and given how panicked this country got when oil reached $80 a barrel recently, there's no need to go into detail explaining what $200/barrel oil would do to the U.S. economy--or to the global economy.
Of course, the biggest issue is that attacking Iran would be yet another war crime by this craven administration. No one can argue that Iran poses an imminent threat to anyone, least of all to the U.S.--the only legitimate grounds under the U.N. Charter and the Nuremburg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, for initiating a war. Attacking a country that poses no such threat is defined as the most heinous of war crimes: a Crime Against Peace.
If Bush and Cheney perpetrate this crime, the Congress should initiate immediate impeachment proceedings and should simultaneously pass legislation terminating funding for the war. The important thing now is for the American people to register their opposition to this war before it happens. Call your senators and your representative and let them know you don't want it to happen, and you want impeachment if it does. And add your name to the petition against war. Also mark down January 27 in your calendar, for the big march and rally against war and for impeachment in Washington, D.C. (to be followed by two days of lobbying Congress on Jan. 28-29.
Finally, send this story to everyone you know, and urge them to do the same. At this point, with Democrats still cowering in their offices, only the American people can stop this madness.
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
early attack? you are kidding right? whatajoke these Gddamn chickenhawks are: 26 years too late... in case you forgot? the Iranians declared war on US back in November , 1979 until January 20, 1981, for 444-days, they took and held hostage 63 diplomats and three other United States citizens inside the American Diplomatic mission in Tehran.The hostage-takers released several captives, leaving 53 hostages at the end. Reagan Bush Jr and Bush Sr.. Cheney Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all wussied out... They tried to make Saddam their "biotch" to fight Iran by proxy, and we all know how well they handled that... Now? Iran is gonna own Iraq too...and Oil? it's gonna be traded in Euro's and the exchange is gonna be in Teheren....
it's way past time to take out all of Iran's electric power plants... it's kinda hard to run a country without electricity... much less run centrifuges to enrich Uranium...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
and another thing? you wanna impeach Bush and Cheney? Tell your Senators and congressmen you wanna know why Valerie Plames covert status was revoked by Bush...
Official court documents released on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[30] According to his testimony, the information Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, Condoleezza Rice told reporters that "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available."[31
her "specialty" was was "energy analyst"... you know? the kind they are building in Iran?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Target Iran - Countdown Timeline The Bush Administration has almost certainly not approved the timing of military operations against Iran, and consequently any projection of the probable timing of such operations is neccessarily speculative. The election of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad as Iran's new president would appear to preclude a negotiated resolution of Iran's nuclear program. The success of strikes against Iran's WMD facilities requires both tactical and strategic surprise, so there will not be the sort of public rhetorical buildup in the weeks preceeding hostilities, of the sort that preceeded the invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Bush Administration will do everything within its power to deceive Iran's leaders into believing that military action is not imminent.
2001 The Coalition for Democracy in Iran was formed in 2001 to mobilize the efforts of a variety of groups and individuals across the United States supporting the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom, democracy and respect for human rights in Iran. The CDI strongly supports President Bush's designation of Iran as part of the deadly "axis of evil." Michael Ledeen [of the American Enterprise Institute], Morris Amitay [a former director of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC], and James Woolsley [former CIA director] formed the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, which has strong ties to the exiled Reza Pahlavi, the deceased shah's son.
29 January 2002 In his first State of the Union address, President Bush named three countries that he said continue to sponsor terror: North Korea, Iran and Iraq. He called them and their terrorist allies "an axis of evil," and said the price of indifference to them would be "catastrophic." He also warned that the country cannot afford to delay in further responding to the terrorist threat. "Time is not on our side," he said. "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer."
01 June 2002 Speaking to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, President Bush said "Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.... We have our best chance since the rise of the nation state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.... America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."
20 May 2003 Senator Sam Brownback introduced the Iran Democracy Act, asking for $50 million to fund opposition groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Islamic regime. The Iran Democracy Act would provide funds for pro-democracy broadcasting into Iran, would reform radio Farda to make it more effective, and would state that it is the policy of the United States to support transparent, full democracy in Iran; to support an internationally-monitored referendum in Iran by which the Iranian people can peacefully change the system of government in Iran.
02 June 2003 The United States and its allies expressed concern at the Evian G-8 Summit about Iran's covert nuclear weapons program, stating that "we will not ignore proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear program" and that "we offer our strongest support to comprehensive IAEA examination of this country's nuclear program."
10 June 2003 California Democrat Brad Sherman is set to introduce a bill in the House of Representatives that would serve as a counterpart to Senator Brownback’s Iran Democracy Act, which will allocate approximately $57 million to Iranian opposition groups and satellite TVs. Sherman’s bill, however, will also slap new sanctions on Iran, a “total” embargo” in order to “encourage the people of Iran to bring about a more peaceful and democratic government,”
June 2003 As of June 2003 a new national security presidential directive on Iran had gone through several competing drafts, but had yet to be approved by President Bush.
16 June 2003 The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report on Iran has been given out to IAEA members prior to the IAEA Board of Governors meeting which begins June 16.
3 July 2003 Officials say Israel will destroy Natanz plant if Iran operates it Mark Hibbs Nucleonics Week, July 3, 2003
12 February 2004 On February 12, the Senate passed an important resolution, S. Res. 304, that was submitted that same day by Senator Brownback. Denouncing the elections as harmful for true democratic forces in Iran, the resolution stated that the policy of the United States should be to advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, abandon terrorism, protect human rights, and live in peace and security with the international community.
08 March 2004 On 26 November 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board requested the Director General to submit a comprehensive report on the implementation of the resolution on Iran by mid- February 2004, for consideration by the 08 March 2004 Board of Governors, or to report earlier if appropriate.
06 May 2004 The House passed H.CON.RES.398, which was introduced by HIRC Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) on March 25. It expresses “the concern of Congress over Iran’s development of the means to produce nuclear weapons,” and was passed under “suspension of the rules” on 06 May 2004. The final tally was 376 for the resolution, three against, 14 answering “present,” and 40 not voting. Opponents of this concurrent resolution charged that it led the country down the road to war against Iran. This resolution demands that Iran immediately cease all efforts to acquire nuclear enrichment activities and calls for the country to honor its stated commitments to grant IAEA inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear sites. But the resolution also calls upon all state parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--including the United States--to use ``all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'' It also "calls on the President to use all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons..." Even if this bill doesn't authorize the use of force against Iran, it creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing ``regime change'' in Iraq back in 1998. This legislation called for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran , including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. Critics charged that sanctions were unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country.
15 July 2004 On 15 July 2004 William S. Lind suggested that "an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction President George W. Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November."
22 July 2004 Another concurrent resolution (S.CON.RES.81 calls upon all states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), including the United States, to use appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, was passed/agreed to in the Senate on 22 July 2004. This slightly less inflamatory bill was accepted by the House in conference, replacing the more inflamatory language of H.CON.RES.398.
25 July 2004 Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi said in the northeastern city of Gorgan on 25 July 2004 that there is a "weak" possibility that archfoe Israel will attack Iran, Fars News Agency reported the same day. "Still, Iran has thought of the measures needed to repulse all attacks," he said. Separately, the head of the Iranian regular army's land forces, Brigadier General Nasir Mohammadifar, said in Mashhad in northeastern Iran on 25 July, "America would have attacked Iran by now if it were sure it could defeat us." Mohammadifar told a gathering of army inspectors that the United States is "intensely aware" of its "absolute" inability to attack Iran.
17 August 2004 Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, the deputy chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said in a statement issued 17 August 2004, "If Israel fires a missile into the Bushehr nuclear power plant, it has to say goodbye forever to its Dimona nuclear facility, where it produces and stockpiles nuclear weapons." The head of the Revolutionary Guards' political bureau, Yadollah Javani, said said in a separate statement that "All the territory under the control of the Zionist regime, including its nuclear facilities, are within the range of Iran's advanced missiles."
20 August 2004 Iran might launch pre-emptive strikes to protect its nuclear facilities if they are threatened, Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in remarks broadcast on 20 August 2004. "We won't sit with our hands tied and wait until someone does something to us," Shamkhani told Arabic channel Al Jazeera when asked what Iran would do if the United States or Israel attacked its atomic facilities. "Some military leaders in Iran are convinced that the pre-emptive measures that America is talking about are not their right alone," he added in Persian. "Any strike on our nuclear facilities will be regarded as a strike on Iran and we will respond with all our might."
13 September 2004 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will consider Iran's nuclear efforts during the IAEA Board meeting scheduled for 13 September in Vienna, Austria. The US may resort to the United Nations Security Council in an attempt to impose sanctions on Iran. The IAEA Board of Governors may report Iran's noncompliance to the United Nations Security Council, and the Security Council may take action under Articles 39 through 41 of the United Nations Charter to encourage or order Iran to cease its programs that would contribute to building a nuclear weapons capability. From 20-24 September 2004 the 48th Regular Session of the IAEA General Conference meets in Vienna, Austria.
02 November 2004 John Kerry's position is that "A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."
December 2004 Sightings of unidentified flying objects in Iranian skies increased in late December 2004. There were sightings in Markazi Province (where Tehran is located) and Bushehr Province (where nuclear reactors are being built). Sightings in Isfahan Province occurred near Arak and Natanz (where other nuclear-related facilities are located). Observers suggested these could be military-reconnaissance aircraft. US combat aircraft allegedly were sighted near Khorramshahr on 29 December and again on 30 December 2004. An anonymous informed source said, "The circling of two American fighter planes on Wednesday and their maneuvers over border areas of Iran and Iraq indicated that the planes were involved in spying." It is not clear if the Iranian antiaircraft units were able to react to the alleged violation of their airspace.
01 January 2005 A US warplane reportedly violated Iranian air space, this time a border edge near Afghanistan in the eastern province of Razavi Khorassan, in the latest spate of such overflights reported by the press. According to the evening daily Kayhan, an American fighter entered Iranian air space Thursday night, flying over the southern border strip at Iran`s Mousa-Abad region for several minutes. The US warplane flew back to Afghanistan, from where it had entered the Iranian airspace, the paper added. Kayhan further quoted an unknown source as saying that three US warplanes had again violated Iranian air space in the southwestern cities of Khorramshahr and Abadan near the Iraqi border.
23 June 2005 Iran's ninth presidential election took place on 17 June 2005, with the runoff election taking place on 24 June 2005. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad was elected as Iran's president. Ahmadinejad's campaign issued a statement which described Iran's nuclear program as "a flood which cannot be stopped by a match stick ... It's impossible to stop a nation's scientific progress with a bunch of irrelevant words ... We will hold talks from a rational point of view and if they accept our legitimate right we'll cooperate ... The analysts say no country, no matter how powerful they are, can attack Iran. It would be suicidal for a country to attack Iran... so we must not bend to threats."
13 August 2005 On 13 August 2005 President Bush once again refused to rule out the use of force against Iran. When asked in an interview with Israeli television if the use of force was an alternative if diplomacy failed, 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... 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 ... 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 sceptical ... "
23 September 2006 The first day of Ramadan is 23 September 2006, and the last day is 22 October 2006.
7 November 2006 The US Congressional elections of 2006 will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. It is unclear how the United States election cycle would influence the timing of strikes against Iran. If the White House is risk averse, it would be unlikely to launch strikes in the run-up to the 2006 election [or the 2008 election]. However, as soon as the election concludes, risk averse domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran might be greatly diminished. Alternately, it might be conjectured that the White House might judge that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party. This would argue for timing the strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.
2006 Some analysts predicted that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006. As of mid-2003 the CIA reportedly assessed that Iran was two or three years away from developing nuclear weapons. IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei told Der Spiegel 21 February 2005 that if Iran was determined to have nuclear weapons - as the US believes it is - it was “likely to have a bomb in two or three years”. These estimates would seem rather pessimistic. A more realistic date would seem to be around 2010.
01 February 2007 The year 2007 begins to mark the closing of the window of opportunity for military strkes against Iran.
CBS News reported on 18 December 2006 that the Bush administration has decided to ramp up the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to send a message to Tehran. CBS reported that an additional aircraft carrier would be added to the Gulf contingent in January 2007, arriving on station around 01 February 2007. The New York Times reported 20 December 2006 that the Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis and its strike group could leave weeks earlier than planned as part of a move to increase the U.S. military presence in and around the Middle East. Moving up the Stennis’ departure date in January 2006 allows a longer overlap with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the carrier currently in the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007. It is difficult for one Carrier Air Wing [CVW] to conduct flight operations for much more than about 12 hours before having to stop. However, with the combined striking power of two CVWs, the Carrier Task Force (CTF) is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle.
If the White House is politically risk averse with reference to striking Iran, striking Iran in early February 2007 would allow the maximum time betweeenr the strikes and the 2008 Presidential election.
1-11 February 2007 - Ten-Day Dawn The 10 Day Dawn (Daheh-ye Fajr) celebrations mark anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. On 12th of Bahman 1357 (01 February 1979), the Imam Khomeini appeared in Iran on the steps of an Air France plane. The great crowd of people who had gone to welcome their Imam were waiting at Mehrabad airport and along his way to Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery. They desired to meet their leader whom was returning to his homeland after a 15-year exile forced by the Shah’s regime. The whole city was illuminated and strewn with flowers. The Islamic Revolution gained the victory on 11 Febreary 1979. The Ten Day Dawn marks the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and is celebrated by Iranians each year.
On 14 November 2006 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that two major technological achievements of the government will be made public during the Ten-Day Dawn (February 1-11) of 2007. He said this year's Ten-Day Dawn will the ten-day celebration of Iranian nation for its nuclear and technological achievements. "This year's Ten-Day Dawn period will mark the Iranian nation's success in mastering fuel cycle as well as its achievements in other fields," Ahmadinejad said. He said Iran possesses the “full nuclear fuel cycle and time is completely running in our favor in terms of diplomacy.” Further, “We will commission some 3,000 centrifuges by [the Ten-Day Dawn festivities at the beginning of February].” On 18 Decenber 2006 Government Spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said that Iran will be announced as an established nuclear state during the 2007 Ten Day Dawn ceremonies.
March 2007 On 26 September 2006 Iran and Russia signed an agreement under which Russia will ship fuel to a nuclear power plant it is building in Iran by March 2007. The agreement was signed by Sergei Shmatko, head of Russia’s state-run company Atomstroiexport, and Mahmoud Hanatian, vice president of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. The document provides for supplying Russian fuel for the atomic energy plant in March, physical start-up in September 2007 and electric generation by November 2007. about 80 tons of fuel would be supplied by Russia for Iran.
On 12 November 2006 Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Iran intended to install 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by March 2007. Hosseini said Iran was doing all the work to install the centrifuges under control of the UN nuclear watchdog, adding that two cascades of 164 centrifuges were already in operation in the country. The 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges would give Iran the capability of producing enough Highly Enriched Uranium for about one atomic bomb annually.
Either one of these events might be regarded as a "Red Line" by either Israel and/or the United States. That both would take place nearly simultaneously would seem to significantly raise the probability of strkes against Iran's WMD facilities in this timeframe.
August 2007 Monday, September 3rd is Labor Day 2007, the notional beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign. If the White House is politically risk averse with reference to striking Iran, the weeks before Labor Day might mark the last opportune moment to do the deed before the Presidential campaign gets under way.
4 November 2008 The US presidential election of 2008 is scheduled to occur on November 4, 2008. If the White House judges that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party, it would argue for timing strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.
20 January 2009 The new President is innaugurated. Depending on political calculation, a final window of opportunity to strike Iran opens during the transition from the old President the new. If Bush judged that his incoming successor lacked the resolve to take the neccessary action, or if it were judged that blaming Bush would ease the way of the new President, there might be arguments for striking after the election but before the innauguration.
31 December 2009 If strikes have not occured by January 2009, the new President will have some months to decide on a course of action. If strikes have not occured by the end of 2009, American policy will have shifted from saying the Atomic Ayatollahs are unacceptable, to accepting them as an accomplished fact.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
When there's a Republican President the Democrats cry like babies....
When there's a Democratic President the Republicans cry like babies....
They all need to grow up!!!! EVERY president deserves repect no matter what party he belongs to...It's probably the hardest job on Earth & you can't make everyone happy...
Anyone who believes that George Bush or Bill Clinton WANTED 911 to happen is absolutely CRAZY!!!! As a New Yorker that is extremely offensive! I can tell you that the president was in New York after 911 & Rudy G. was a great leader at that time, they were showing support but for the record alot of New Yorkers were wondering where Hillary was....(but does that mean that I think she didn't care or wanted it to happen- NO!)
I am NOT Democrat or Republican & I like it that way....It helps you to respect both sides & there opinions.....each party is not 100% right about every issue.......you have to admit it....
This country is the greatest country in the world, not perfect but GREAT, if soemone doesn't like it there are many other countries to choose from like Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, France, Korea, Afganistan.......take your pick....& good luck!
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
comeon, you are welcome to be a cheerleader if you like, but the truth is that no matter how good a job these bozo's do? somebody needs to say what's wrong, and right now there's plenty to talk about...
Dubya has a terrible record at everything he's ever done... so what if he came to NYC and stood on the WTC site? anybody can do that... it's called a photo-op... if that sounds harsh to you? so be it.. (it's not as harsh as what Ahmadinejad would like to do) i could care less how many good pictures they take, if they aren't getting the job done? they need to rebuked... and as far as i'm concerned? being a Dem or a GOP has nothing to do with getting the job done... Iran is our enemy... invading a crippled and decayed Iraq was a big mistake when Iran was sitting strong right next door...
Bush wants to blame "bad" intel, but he got the intel he WANTED from the analysts that were kissing butt... the folks who knew better got "set aside" by the brown-nosers...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: comeon, you are welcome to be a cheerleader if you like, but the truth is that no matter how good a job these bozo's do? somebody needs to say what's wrong, and right now there's plenty to talk about...
Dubya has a terrible record at everything he's ever done... so what if he came to NYC and stood on the WTC site? anybody can do that... it's called a photo-op... if that sounds harsh to you? so be it.. (it's not as harsh as what Ahmadinejad would like to do) i could care less how many good pictures they take, if they aren't getting the job done? they need to rebuked... and as far as i'm concerned? being a Dem or a GOP has nothing to do with getting the job done... Iran is our enemy... invading a crippled and decayed Iraq was a big mistake when Iran was sitting strong right next door...
Bush wants to blame "bad" intel, but he got the intel he WANTED from the analysts that were kissing butt... the folks who knew better got "set aside" by the brown-nosers...
maybe i´m slow, but i forgot...why is Iran our enemy again?
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: comeon, you are welcome to be a cheerleader if you like, but the truth is that no matter how good a job these bozo's do? somebody needs to say what's wrong, and right now there's plenty to talk about...
Dubya has a terrible record at everything he's ever done... so what if he came to NYC and stood on the WTC site? anybody can do that... it's called a photo-op... if that sounds harsh to you? so be it.. (it's not as harsh as what Ahmadinejad would like to do) i could care less how many good pictures they take, if they aren't getting the job done? they need to rebuked... and as far as i'm concerned? being a Dem or a GOP has nothing to do with getting the job done... Iran is our enemy... invading a crippled and decayed Iraq was a big mistake when Iran was sitting strong right next door...
Bush wants to blame "bad" intel, but he got the intel he WANTED from the analysts that were kissing butt... the folks who knew better got "set aside" by the brown-nosers...
maybe i´m slow, but i forgot...why is Iran our enemy again?
Tompom, it's because they say they are..
We have no diplomatic relations with them... They are funding Hamas in Lebanon. They plainly state that they wish to destroy our ally Israel. They WILL take over Iraq if we leave. Bush has put US in a very bad position and this postiton we find ourself in was predicted by many. Even tho i am a harsh critic of the Iraq war? I understand that we are unable to withdraw, and unable to win politically. There is one solution where we can win without killing 5-15 million Shiites. That would be to cut our oil consumption by 50%. There is no other solution. The Islamic fundamentalists running Iran are not going to concede any strategic advantage to US with less than their very existence at stake. I'm not guessing here. I'm not trying to make a personal politico-religious statement. It's just the way the landscape is. They fully intend to spread Islamic fundamentalism to the far corners of the earth.
Some of my friends parents were in the embassy when it was taken... i'm not saying we are better than everybody else, what i am saying is the Iranian Ayatolluhs have declared themselves to be our enemy and they act on that. They are our enemy because they have no interest in changing their culture to "match up" to western values. As far as they are concerned? We are th spawn of Satan. Nearly everything everything we do socially is against their beliefs. And they have a rich religious history to base that on.
Most importantly? I am against nuclear proliferation. I don't even want US to increase our nuclear arsenal. We need to maintain a nuclear arsenal as fail-safe mechanism, but tactical (relatively little, battlefield type) nukes are not going to be useful in any war. If you use them once? Anybody can and will use them. We need a strong military because the world is tough place. Iran isn't interested in western values, and that is just fine. However? You have to look at the middle east as having two Islamic factions. Sunnis and Shia. The Sunnis have Nukes (Pakistan) which we made available to them thru our colleges and universities. The Shia feel that they are in need of nukes because of the power trip thing. Iran has a wonderful history, they WERE Persia. The current power brokers there are NOT Persians. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
the real WMD? nahhh couldn't be... they are all buried in the Iraq dessert...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
