Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS: 'Planned U.S. Israeli Attack On Iran: Will There Be A War Against Iran?'

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Whileyouslept

unread,

May 16, 2008, 12:59:41 AM5/16/08

Planned U.S. Israeli Attack On Iran: Will There Be A War Against Iran?

by Michel Chossudovsky,
Global Research,
May 14, 2008.

The media has failed to cover the history of US war preparations
directed against Iran. News coverage of US sponsored war preparations
in relation to Iran started to surface in early 2007 in scanty press
reports.

Although confirmed by official military documents and reports, public
opinion has largely been kept in the dark and misinformed on these war
preparations.

A war on Iran has been envisaged since the mid-1990s as part of a
strategic "sequencing" of theater operations. During the Clinton
administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war
theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran:

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's
National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United
States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs
implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states
of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S.
interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens.
Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the
region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater
strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S.
engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States'
vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied
access to Gulf oil."

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy
, emphasis added)

Consistent with CENTCOM's 1995 "sequencing", the plans to target Iran
were activated under TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term) in the immediate
wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. TIRANNT consisted in a model
scenario type analysis of a theater war directed against Iran. The
analysis, which involved senior military and intelligence experts,
consisted in examining different theater scenarios.

"The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle
plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation
Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command
[resigned in March 2008], has inherited computerized plans under the
name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, 19 Feb 2007)

The following text (in annex) entitled Planned US Israeli Attack on
Iran was published three years ago by Global Research in May 2005. It
outlines the earlier phase of US-Israel war preparations in relation
to Iran.

(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html)

While much of this analysis remains valid, military planning in
relation to Iran is now in a much more advanced stage. Moreover, the
structure of military alliances underlying the Pentagon's war plans
has also evolved. NATO is now part of the military alliance.

Under NATO auspices, in liaison with the Pentagon, British, German,
Turkish and French forces are slated to play a significant role in the
case of an attack on Iran and Syria.

In this regard, it is worth noting that already in 2005, NATO and
Israel had established the basis of a far-reaching military
cooperation agreement. In turn, Turkey, which from a military
standpoint constitutes a significant force within NATO, has a
comprehensive bilateral military cooperation agreement with Israel.

According to military documents and statements, US, Israeli and allied
forces are "in an advanced state of readiness". In fact much of the
war planning had already reached that "advanced stage" in 2005.

Several important variables come into play in assessing the
possibility of an all out war on Iran.

"An advanced stage of readiness" to attack Iran does not signify that
a war will actually occur. A number of important countervailing
factors must be addressed.

Saber Rattling

Apart from outright war, the US sponsored war preparations serve
several other foreign policy objectives.

The threat of war coupled by advanced military preparedness are often
used to bully countries into compliance, to oblige them to give up
their sovereignty, to open up their economy to Western investors, to
privatize and sell off their assets to American companies, etc. These
threats will only be effective if the country does not have the
ability to defend itself militarily. The strength of its national
economy is also a major consideration.

The Sabre rattling is ongoing in relation to Iran. The objective is
ultimately to subdue Iran as a regional power and take possession of
its oil wealth, which constitutes approximately ten percent of total
world reserves.

What are Iran's military capabilities, namely its ability to defend
itself and inflict damage on US and allied forces?

The answer to this question involves essentially two aspects.

First, Iran has an advanced air defense system, using both Iranian and
Russian technology. Moreover, it has, according to Western military
experts, perfected its ballistic missile capabilities to the extent
that it is capable of inflicting significant damage on US and allied
military installations in Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Israel.

Over the last few years, Iran has been actively preparing for a US
sponsored attack. Moreover, resulting from the surge in oil revenues,
the Tehran government has enhanced capabilities to finance its
military preparedness. In this regard, Iran is in a very different
situation to that of Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, targeted by
Anglo-American air attacks under the "No Fly Zone" coupled with more
than ten years of deadly economic sanctions.

US military planners are fully aware of the possibility of escalation.
If extensive air attacks were to be launched, Iranian conventional
forces would immediately cross the border into Iraq and attack US
military installations. This is a factor which has contributed to
"putting the war on hold".

Instead of extensive bombings which would result in retaliation.
Washington may decide as a first step in a broader military campaign
to launch limited air attacks, on the presumption that Iran would not
retaliate. According to Philip Giraldi, the attack would "be as
'pinpoint' and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods
and avoid civilian casualties." Before launching a "limited attack",
the US would attempt to ensure, through threat and secret
negotiations, that retaliation would not occur.

The US Military's "Ability to Fight Wars"

Adm. William Fallon, who was recently fired as Commander of US Central
Command (USCENTCOM) was acutely aware of Iran's ability to retaliate
militarily and inflict significant losses to US and coalition forces.
This understanding was in fact conveyed at the outset of the 2003 war
scenarios under TIRANNT.

Prior to his dimissal, Admiral Fallon played down the possibility of a
war with Iran: “We are not going to do Iran on my watch.”.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen,
while broadly supportive of the Bush-Cheney White House, has
officially acknowledged US military weaknesses. The wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan "may have undermined the military's ability to fight wars
against major adversaries - including Iran." ( quoted in Haaretz,
October 22, 2007).

In an interview with the New York Times, Mullen stated:

"...the risks could be very, very high.... We're in a conflict in two
countries out there right now... We have to be incredibly thoughtful
about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third
country in that part of the world."

These statements were made at the very outset of his mandate as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in October 2007.

Mullen's hesitations to wage war on Iran are not based on a divergent
political stance but on a realistic assessment of US military
capabilities. Admiral Mullen recognizes that the US military is
overstretched and that in relation to Iraq, the US military is facing
serious problems in military recruitment.

Moreover, tacitly acknowledged by the Pentagon, US and coalition
forces are facing fierce resistance in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Appointment of General David Petraeus as Head of USCENTCOM

The appointment of General David Petraeus to the Head of U.S. Central
Command (USCENTCOM) has served to neutralize potential opposition
within the US Armed Forces. It reinforces Vice President Cheney's
ability to order an attack and ensure that the Military will fully
support the Bush administration.

The objective is to "set up Iran for attack" using Iran's alleged
intervention in Iraq as a pretext and justification, "on [the] grounds
that Iran ... is responsible for the mounting death toll among
American troops in Iraq." (See Iran should be "Set Up for an Attack"
by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Global Research, May 2008). Iran is also
accused of intervening in Afghanstan and Lebanon. In this regard, the
2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon are part of the roadmap of a broader
war directed against Iran and Syria. (See Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global
Research, May 2007)

Armed Clashes in Lebanon

The recent armed clashes in Lebanon opposing Hizbollah to the US-
Israeli supported May 14th Movement, have precipitated the country
into chaos. Fighting erupted after the pro-US Siniora government
announced a crackdown on Hizbollah.

Hizbollah has taken control of parts of West Beirut setting the stage
for a NATO "peacekeeping" intervention inside Lebanon. A greater
involvement of NATO coupled with the militarization of the entire
Eastern Mediterranean coastline is an integral part of the Iran-Syria
war scenario: "a peacekeeping" role by NATO forces, on behalf of
Israel, targetting Syria as well as Hizbollah and Hamas.

These recent events in Lebanon have been triggered quite deliberately
with a view to destabilzing the country. They are part of the US
sponsored military roadmap; they are intended to set the stage for a
confrontation with Syria.

The Structure of Military Alliances

The structure of military alliances is crucial. America's allies are
Israel and NATO.

Iran's allies are China and Russia and the member States of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Both China and Russia have far-reaching bilateral military cooperation
agreements with Iran. Since 2005, Iran has an observer member status
in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In turn, the SCO has
ties to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), an
overlapping military cooperation agreement between Russia, Armenia,
Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan.

In October 2007, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding, laying the foundations for military cooperation between
the two organizations. This SCO-CSTO agreement, barely mentioned by
the Western media, involves the creation of a full-fledged military
alliance between China, Russia and the member states of SCO/CSTO. It
is worth noting that the SCTO and the SCO held joint military
exercises in 2006, which coincided with those conducted by Iran. (For
further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Russia and Central Asian
Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats, Global Research,
August 2006)

In the context of US war plans directed against Iran, the US is also
intent upon weakening Iran's allies, namely Russia and China. In the
case of China, Washington is seaking to disrupt Beijing's bilateral
ties with Tehran as well as Iran's rapprochement with the SCO, which
has its headquarters in Beijing.

In this regard, a military operation directed against Iran can only
succeed if the structure of military alliances which link Iran to
China and Russia is significantly weakened.

There are indicaitons that this Eurasian military alliance underlying
the SCO has in fact been strengthened. While currently Iran has
observer status, the Tehran government has indicated its desire to
become a full member of the SCO. Moreover, in the course of the last
year, Iran has strengthened its bilateral ties in the field of energy
and oil and gas pipelines with India as well as Pakistan. The
positioning of India on the side of Iran in the oil and energy field
is another factor which weakens Washington's influence in the
region.

"What Tehran is seaking is "nothing less than a blueprint for a new
correlation of nations in Eurasia, whose collaboration in developing
continental infrastucture--nuclear energy, gas and oil pipelines, and
transportation--should establish the economic, and therefore
political, basis for true independence" (see Muriel Mirak Weissbach,
May 2008)

History points to the importance of competing military alliances. In
the present context, the US and its NATO partners are seaking to
undermine the formation of a cohesive Eurasian SCO-CSTO military
alliance, which could effectively challenge and contain US-NATO
military expansionism in Eurasia, combining the military capabilities
not only of Russia and China, but also those of several former Soviet
republics including Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan
Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.

The Decision to go to War: Not a Rational Choice

The decision to go to war is not made by the Military high command.

The decision to go to war is taken by civilians.

The US Military is characterised by a hierarchy and command structure.
Orders come from above, emanating from the "civilian government",
namely the Bush administration. They are transmitted downwards
through the military command structure. Once the order to go to war is
taken, it is not discussed or debated, it is carried out by the
military. Moreover, in all likelihood, in implementing a "preemptive
attack" on Iran, the Bush administration would bypass the US Congress,
in blatant violation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution.

In practice, the President and Commander in Chief, namely George W.
Bush, does not decide. He also obeys orders from above. He follows the
diktats of powerful financial and corporate interests.

This war is profit-driven. "War is good for business". It is a money
making operation. It results in billions of dollar of profits for Wall
Street, the oil giants and the military industrial complex, not to
mention the institutional speculators in the oil, currency and
commodity markets.

The objective of the proposed war is to extend the frontiers of the
global capitalist economy, eventually taking control of Iran's oil
wealth. The broader implications of a war using tactical nuclear
weapons in the conventional war theater are of no concern to those who
decide to go to war.

The Central Role of Vice President Dick Cheney

In contrast to previous adminstrations, the Vice President has played
a central role in the Bush adminstration, overshadowing the office of
the President. In practice, Vice President Cheney, supported by an
army of senior officials and loyal advisers, controls the White House.
At the same time, Cheney is part of a powerful corporate apparatus,
through his links to Halliburton and the role Halliburton has played
in defining a profit-driven military agenda.

Cheney has personally played a key roie in activating war plans
directed against Iran.

"At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney
dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was
"right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and
that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without
US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do
it"." (Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005)

Cheney is the de facto Head of State, he overshadows George W. Bush,
who is mere figurehead. More recently, he has played a key role in
pressuring the frontline Arab states into supporting a preemptive
attack on Iran.

Vice President Cheney has little concern for the likely consequences
and the resulting loss of life which would result from the use of both
conventional and nuclear weapons. He is fully aware that even a
limited air attack on Iran could contribute to unleashing a broader
Middle East-Central Asian war, extending from the Eastern
Mediterranean to China's Western frontier. The various scenarios of
this broader war have already been envisaged.

Most serious Crisis in Modern History

We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history.
These war plans coincide with a parallel process of economic
restructuring and a deepseated Worldwide economic depression. War and
globalization are intimately related processes. The militarisation of
the Middle East and Central Asia supports the extension of the global
"free market" system into new frontiers.

In turn, the war has heightened the economic crisis. The civilian
economy is collapsing, overshadowed and undermined by the dynamic
growth of the military industrial complex, which in a very real sense
produces "weapons of mass destruction. In turn, the concurrent hikes
in the price of crude oil, in the price of basic food staples, through
speculative activities on major commodity exchanges have contributed
to impoverishing millions of people.

"The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next
phase of this war from happening.

This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not
in itself reverse the tide of war.

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the
military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold
an illegal war agenda.

What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national
and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the
military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in
unseating those who rule in our name.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is
galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their
safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a
humanitarian mandate.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the
war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must
be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be
targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the
financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an
integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals
in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.

What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and
the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the
"war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public
opinion in support of a global war agenda." (Michel Chossudovsky, May
1st 2005)

SOURCE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8861

simple_...@yahoo.com

unread,

May 16, 2008, 5:05:35 AM5/16/08

Do not feed the Muslim troll. The troll (Faris Jawad) emigrated from
southern India to Hamilton, Canada, where he makes a living as a
computer programmer. The troll uses many names including: Ramabriga,
ourfreedom...@lycos.com, Cosmic programmer,
visual...@yahoo.com, LeBlanc, Islamaphobia, Yaako Warrior,
global...@yahoo.ca, whiley...@live.ca, LuChuck, Matt, jamiil,
Anti-Muslim Bigots, V-for-Vendicar, fruitella, Zionism equal Racism,
The Chemical Oil Nazi, LORD RAMA RANTER, Muslim With Mission, Wayne,
Ian Balchin, Qahir Al-Ashrar, Venkataraman the Biiiig Hindu, Liu Yan,
ISLAMOPHOBIA, Möbius Pretzel, Buddy III, Mujahid, V i v a P a l e s t
i n e!, Burhan, Farid Ahmed, Kope, Death to Israel..Israel has no
Right to Exist, Franko Pizza, rick murphy, rich murphy, ISLAM - THE
SOLUTION OF MODERN PROBLEMS, Faris Jawad, Sabastawi, The Founding
Church, Ilan Ramon: Kike Lost in Space. Proudly serving Islam and al
Quds, Katrina, Ahura Mazda, TROLLS HUNTER, Kayid Al-Kuffar, Firnando,
R Geovani, Blondes Gaulloises, Zimbawi, Muslims Always Victorious,
Islam Will Replace Collapsing Amerikan Empire, Muslims Are Good Folks,
Katucha, katucha is the zionists worst nightmare, We are Muslims, and
we are extremely proud of it, Born To Serve Islam, All praise is due
to Allah Lord of the Worlds, the Owner of all of the creation, Ardalan
Keykavoussi, Tommy Davis, LORD RAMA. (The 19 terrorists who attacked
our nation on September 11, 2001 used a total of 364 aliases.)

Islam broke world records of genocide, slavery, religiously sanctioned
rape, abuse of human rights, and prohibition of scientific inquiry. It
forbids Muslim emigration to the lands of the infidels because a
Muslim minority cannot enslave the infidel majority. Despite this
prohibition Muslims emigrate to the West, not as migrants, but as
conquerors. They live in sharia mini-states and expand these mini-
states by terrorizing infidel neighbors and driving them out. Arabic
proverb says "first comes Saturday, then Sunday." It means that Arabs
are going to exterminate Jews before they exterminate Christians. It
also means that Israel is the first line of defense against Islam.

“I have been made victorious with terror.” - Muhammad (according to
Sahih Bukhari)

Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to
between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025. source:
http://news.scotsman.com/europeanunion/CIA-gives-grim-warning-on.2595505.jp

The average European couple now has fewer than 1.4 babies, compared to
3.6 babies born to the average Muslim immigrant couple in Europe.
Across Western Europe 16 to 20 percent of babies are being born into
Muslim families… By 2025, one-third of all European children will be
born to Muslims… In Italy, 95% of all rapists are Muslims. Eighty-five
percent of all murderers are Muslims… France will have a Muslim
majority in less than 25 years! Another telling statistic is that
although the Muslims are 12% of France's population, 70 percent of a
total of 60,775 prisoners in France are Muslims! All of France's urban
suburbs are being roamed by Muslim black African or Arabic gangs… A
very high proportion of French Muslims are in the underclass, that
segment of the population that relies not so much on education and
work as on welfare and predatory activities. In fact, over one
thousand Muslim neighborhoods are under monitoring throughout France.
Seven hundred of those Muslim neighborhoods are listed as "violent"
and nearly 400 hundred are listed as "very violent." Violence ranges
from rape (95% of rapists are Muslim), murder (85% of murderers are
Muslim), theft and looting of cars (58% committed by Muslims) and
street fighting to assault on teachers and civil servants… source:
http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

"There does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in
number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate"
by their repudiation of Muslim extremists. Violence has been an
integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is
sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to
advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their
faith culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then
deemed apostate and subject to harm. Consequently, what might pass for
"moderate" Muslims, the large number of Muslims unaccounted for as to
what they think, in practical terms constitute a forest within which
extremists are incubated, nurtured, given ideological and material
support, and to which they return for sanctuary." - Salim Mansur

Markku Grönroos

unread,

May 16, 2008, 8:23:23 AM5/16/08

Kun ottaa huomioon että neekeriperversi on hölissyt näitä samoja jorinoita
jo
useamman vuoden ja nähnyt vaivaa niitä konstruoida ja lähetellä
lukemattomiin konffeihin, niin ei kaiketi ole epäilystäkään siitä että
hinttari on kolhinut päänuppiaan railakkaasti. Kandeis varmaan kirjoittautua
sisään paikalliseen Lapinlahteen ja antaa lääkärisetien tutkia silmänpohjat
josko sieltä löytyisi vastaus. On vissiin aika raskasta moinen elämä. Hermo
pinnassa

<simple_...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:4d292943-23d9-43b9...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

ourfreedom...@lycos.com

unread,

May 16, 2008, 10:12:11 AM5/16/08

THE ROVING EYE: The US-Iran Sound Bite Showdown

By Pepe Escobar
Asia times,
May 16, 2008

They just can't keep from going at each other's throats.

Just in time for President George W Bush's special guest appearance at
the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, his ultimate nemesis,
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, unleashed another rhetorical
shot across the bow as his own way of "celebrating" the anniversary.

And once again the substance of what Ahmadinejad actually said risks
being lost in (mis)translation.

According to Agence France Presse (AFP), quoting the Fars news agency,
Ahmadinejad, speaking in the Iranian northern province of Golestan in
one of his popular provincial tours, said, "They [Israel] must know
that the nations of the region hate this counterfeit regime. And if
there is the slightest chance, they will uproot this counterfeit
regime."

Reuters had a much more bellicose take. According to its translation,
"They [Israel] should know that regional nations hate this fake and
criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to
regional nations they will destroy it."

It is hardly a secret that for a substantial majority of Arab
populations in the Middle East - but not for their unrepresentative
regimes - an Israel driven by Zionism should not have a place in the
region. Thus Israel would qualify as a "counterfeit" regime that
should be "uprooted". But this does not mean that Arabs - or Persians
- are in favor of the actual physical destruction of Israel.

The Associated Press's (AP) version of the quote is even more
apocalyptic. It reads: "The criminals assume that by holding
celebrations ... they can save the sinister Zionist regime from death
and destruction." The AP copy notes, "Ahmadinejad used an Arabic word,
ismihlal, than can also be translated as destruction, death and
collapse." An Arabic expert contacted by Asia Times Online said
ismihlal means basically "to break down in smaller parts". That's not
exactly nuclear annihilation.

We are back to the situation of Ahmadinejad's 2005 alleged threat to
"wipe Israel off the map". What he actually said then, quoting his
personal icon, the leader of the Islamic revolution in 1979, ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini, was that the "regime occupying Jerusalem should
vanish from the pages of time". Yes, this means regime change - as
much as the Bush administration always wanted regime change in Tehran.
It does not mean a call for a nuclear holocaust.

Now, the fact remains that the Reuters translation - distributed to
countless newspapers all over the world - will inevitably be seized by
the Bush administration and assorted armchair neo-conservative
warriors as yet more evidence that Iran wants to "destroy" Israel -
muscling up the case in Washington for a preemptive US attack on
Iran.

This week, Philip Giraldi published a groundbreaking story on the
American Conservative, according to which the US National Security
Council (NSC) has agreed - in principle - on a cruise missile strike
against an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force training camp
near Tehran. This would be a sort of "warning" to the Iranian
leadership. The only NSC member to urge for a delay was allegedly
Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Giraldi carefully noted that Bush
"will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations
are made". But the decision to attack seems to have been made.

Annihilation a-go-go

Juicy extras are inevitable when it comes to Ahmadinejad's runaway
tongue at ease in cozy provincial settings. What AFP translates as
"the Zionist regime is on the verge of dying ... throwing a birthday
party for this regime is like having a birthday party for a dead
person", Reuters prefers to package as "the Zionist regime is dying.
The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations ... they can save
the Zionist regime from death".

But in this case it was up to APTN, the video arm of AP, to provide
the meatier translation: "The criminals wrongly suppose that by
holding celebrations, coming to the occupied lands of Palestine and
supporting these criminals, they can save the resented Zionist regime
from death, annihilation and from the claws of Palestinian fighters."

This is as contextual as what Ahmadinejad had said a day before, in a
press conference in Tehran. According to the Deutsche Presse Agentur,
the German news agency, he said, "This terrorist and criminal state is
backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by
the Palestinians." And he added, "As far as the regional countries are
concerned, this regime does not exist." This is better in terms of
framing the anger expressed by Ahmadinejad - as well as the theocratic
leadership in Tehran, and most of the Arab world for that matter -
towards Israel as a direct consequence of Israel's mistreatment of
Palestinians.

It is interesting to note that for the Iranian press, the references
to Israel were not even on the map. Press TV, for instance, went with
the headline "Ahmadinejad: Tyranny falling from grace", stressing
other parts of the president's speech, for instance when he said that
"tyrannical powers have fallen from grace and the sound of their
cracking bones can be heard".

Whatever Ahmadinejad said, Bush, for his part, totally stuck to
script. Even before his arrival in Jerusalem on Wednesday, Bush
commented that "the message to Iran is that your desire to have a
nuclear weapon, coupled with your statements about the destruction of
our close ally, have made it abundantly clear to everybody that we
have got to work together to stop you from having a nuclear weapon. To
me the single-biggest threat to peace in the Middle East is the
Iranian regime." Once again, a call for regime change.

To add fuel to the fire, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud
al-Faisal - in synch with Washington - started accusing Iran of
backing a Hezbollah coup in Lebanon. That is predictable, considering
that the Hariri clan in Beirut is a Saudi client. But nothing could be
further from the truth. Last week, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah
was blunt: "Had we wanted a coup, they [government leaders] would have
woken up to find themselves in jail, or [thrown) in the sea."

Nasrallah was cunning enough to see it would be politically impossible
for Hezbollah to control Beirut - even though they proved they could
do it, on the ground with weapons, in less than 24 hours. Nasrallah
also said last week, "If they told us to come and take over, we would
say 'no thank you'."

There is no evidence the celebrity sound bite showdown will abate any
time soon. Bush appears to want war - to bolster his "legacy".
Ahmadinejad, too, might want war to bolster his faltering
administration. American and world public opinion can only hope the
clock does not run out before a possibly upcoming changing of the
guard in the White House.

Just as the rhetoric between Tehran and Washington was once again at
red alert levels, former Democratic presidential candidate Senator
John Edwards stepped into the ring to announce his endorsement of
Democratic Senator Barack Obama in the US presidential race - sucking
out the hate waves. "Walls" inside and outside the US may soon come
tumbling down, as Edwards hinted in his speech. But the fact remains
that the hardline faction in the Bush administration centered around
Vice President Dick Cheney still has over five months to fulfill its
agenda of regime change in Iran. And the danger is Ahmadinejad will do
absolutely nothing to dissuade them.

(Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World
is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues:
a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. He may be reached at
pepe...@yahoo.com.)

SOURCE: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE16Ak01.html

0 new messages