Iran and American Interference

Condi Rice is George W's Butt Queen nothing else!

In these times of international war situations my choice was Dick Clark, the former NATO Commander and tough statesman, a democrat but should have been offered the job.
 
.

Toc: In these times of international war situations my choice was Dick Clark, the former NATO Commander and tough statesman, a democrat but should have been offered the job.


********


February 19, 2006

SouthAmerica: Reply to toc

Did you mean - General Wesley Clark?

Dick Clark is famous as a disk jockey and for broadcasting the fall of the ball on Time Square every New Years Eve.



********


The New York Times published an article on February 18, 2006 “US criticized for actions in UN Council” by Warren Hoge.

The article said: United Nations – Developing nations expressed anger on Friday at what they said was a United States-led effort to wrest power from them and give authority for bringing major change at the United Nations to the 15-member Security Council.

…John Bolton, the American ambassador to the United Nations …”The United States believes in taking action and being effective, and we don’t apologize to anybody for that,” he said.


****


The New York Times article should have included also the following – The United States has been showcasing to the rest of the world to see it how fast the US government takes action when there is a major crisis – such as Katrina – and the US government has been showing how effective they are in taking follow up steps to fix the problems – and there is almost no corruption involved on these US government quick solutions – other than a few misplaced billion dollars.

Mr. Bolton should highlight on one of his speeches at the United Nations how well the US government handled the crisis related to Katrina – and after he is able to implement his reforms in the United Nations that organization will be able to perform as well and at the same level that the US government did when handling Katrina.

If the people at the United Nations still skeptical about his bullshit – then Mr. Bolton should mention how well the United States has been handling the war against Iraq and Afghanistan and what kind of success they have achieved on both wars.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are in complete chaos today and in the middle of a civil war. But these fiascos on the eyes of the Bush administration - these astronomical failures are considered some of their best work and performance since 2001.

Most countries from around the world send their best diplomat to be their ambassador to represent their country at the United Nations – the key word here is their best diplomat.

The Bush Administration sent instead a “Rottweiller” - to bark and try to intimidate everyone. This is the idea of diplomacy of the Bush administration.

Then Americans wonder why their foreign policy is going to hell on a daily basis – they have an incompetent secretary of state and a Rottweiller representing them at the UN.

It does not matter where do you look at the Bush administration – they are the most incompetent group of people to rundown the US government – what a bunch of idiots.


.
 
February 20, 2006

STRATFOR - IN A U.S. ATTACK SCENARIO, IRAN HOLDS MANY CARDS

Speculating on how Iran might respond to a U.S. attack against Tehran's nuclear facilities, a member of the Global Islamic Movement told a Feb. 19 seminar on suicide-bombing tactics at Tehran's Khajeh Nasir Toosi University that hundreds of suicide bombers could be unleashed against U.S. and British troops in Iraq. Mohammed Ali Samadi, spokesman for the movement's Committee for the Glorification of Martyrs, might have been simply responding to U.S. and Israeli pressure on Iran over its developing nuclear program, though he did point out one of the many unconventional ways the Iranians could retaliate for an attack. Iran, however, has other methods at its disposal.

Historically, the ayatollahs at the helm in Tehran have demonstrated that they have the means and the will to strike at their enemies. In the event of a U.S. attack against Iran, then, Tehran could unleash Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) operatives against U.S. interests in the region, and possibly beyond.

Iran's intelligence apparatus remains one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East, due largely to the legacy of training provided by the CIA to SAVAK, the Shah's secret police. After the revolution -- and after considering the alternatives -- many CIA-trained SAVAK agents began plying their trade for their new masters. Coordinating intelligence and logistics with MOIS and elements of Iranian-backed Hezbollah, Iranian agents could strike at sensitive U.S. targets, or those of other Western powers.

Because the tactic has worked for Iran in the past, the Iranians also could conduct a global assassination and kidnapping campaign, with targets including Western diplomats and nongovernmental organization workers, among others. Because it is a part of Iran's state apparatus, MOIS could use embassies worldwide as a cover. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Iranian operatives killed more than 100 dissidents and opponents of the clerical regime in Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. This network could easily be revived and used against Western targets around the world.

With such an extensive infrastructure established abroad, Iran's options for retaliation remain open. Although increasingly secure Western embassies no longer are easy targets, Western hotels and areas where Western expatriates congregate would be vulnerable. Furthermore, these targets could be in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America or elsewhere. Hezbollah pioneered the use of the suicide truck bomb in Lebanon in the early 1980s, its most notable success being the October 1983 attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. These skills could be brought to bear on U.S. interests again as retaliation for an attack against Iran. This time, however, Lebanon likely would be used strictly as a staging and logistics center for operations. Iranian agents, acting with the help of Hezbollah's influence, could use Beirut as a hub to move operatives and material throughout the world.

Within the Middle East, the Iranians could disrupt U.S. efforts in Iraq by inciting the Shia in southern Iraq to attack coalition forces. Although Iran wants a Shiite-dominated, and thus Iran-friendly, neighbor -- and inciting the Shiite population in southern Iraq would complicate that goal -- a U.S. attack against Iran could change the Iranian position. Under such circumstances, Iran could unleash proxies in the Iraqi Shiite community against coalition forces. More likely, Revolutionary Guards or MOIS operatives could operate in the area using local Shia for cover and support. If Saudi Arabia is thought to be accommodating U.S. efforts, Iran also could lash out against oil facilities and Western expatriates in the kingdom.

Iran also has canned operations -- sleeper cells that are awaiting activation -- in Latin America and Southeast Asia. The March 1991 attack by Hezbollah offshoot Palestinian Islamic Jihad against the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, is one example of Iranian involvement in militant activity in the region. Some U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials believe Hezbollah to be involved in current low-level operations in South America as well.

Within the United States, a Hezbollah network was revealed in the summer of 2004 when several men were arrested for selling black market cigarettes in Virginia and North Carolina, then funneling the proceeds to the group. Although the cigarette ring was exposed, the safe-houses, contacts in the local criminal culture and other assets that would have been established -- as well as those supporting any unknown Hezbollah network -- could be called into action.

As a state actor, Iran would have to make certain to distance itself from any attack against U.S. or Western interests -- especially large-scale attacks inside the United States or Western Europe. As a nation state, Iran would have to conduct such a retaliatory campaign with the knowledge that it would be held accountable for its actions if they were proven to be linked back to Tehran. Therefore, retaliatory attacks most likely would be carried out by groups that do not appear to have direct connections to Tehran. Unlike a non-state actor such as al Qaeda or other jihadist group, the Iranian government has infrastructure, resources and territory to lose if it were to trigger a massive U.S. retaliation.

If attacked, Tehran's counterattack likely would be designed to give the United States so many fires to put out around the world that it could not concentrate on Iran.
 
.

Quoting from The New York Times article about "National Security Strategy of the United States," by Stephen J. Hadley - national security adviser to La La Land.

The strategy document declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," a near final draft of the document says. But it carefully avoids spelling out what steps the United States might take if diplomacy fails, and it makes no such direct threat of confrontation with North Korea, which boasts that it has already developed nuclear weapons.

...Still, the wording of the warning about confrontation with Iran comes just two pages after the strategy reiterates the 2002 warning that the United States reserves the right to take "anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." The juxtaposition is unlikely to be lost on Iran's leaders.

…The report notes that "there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."


**********


March 16, 2006

SouthAmerica: Quoting from the article: “proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities” – (Maybe that is why George W. Bush decided to reward a “proliferator” (India) with the latest in nuclear technology.

The United States has a new respect for North Korea, since the North Koreans said that they have a number of nukes.

In the mean time, the way the United States is behaving in the world stage regarding Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan – it does make a very clear case for countries to develop nuclear weapons as soon as they can to be able to protect themselves.

The US barks a lot about North Korea’s nukes but at the end of the day the US knows that there is nothing that they can do about it – other than whine like a baby.

The policy of pre-emptive strikes works both ways – 9/11 is small example of what can happen regarding pre-emptive strikes – even a small group of 20 people armed with box cutters can cause a lot of damage against a supposed superpower.


************


The report also said: “Throughout the document there is talk of the need for "effective democracies," a code phrase, some of its drafters said, for countries that do not just hold free elections but also build democratic institutions and spread their benefits to their populations.”


************


SouthAmerica: The report is implying the support for democracy that the United States gives to such a countries as: Taiwan, Tibet, and Kurdistan.


************


“Report Backs Iraq Strike and Cites Iran Peril”
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 16, 2006
The New York Times


WASHINGTON — An updated version of the Bush administration's national security strategy, the first in more than three years, gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States.

The strategy document declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," a near final draft of the document says. But it carefully avoids spelling out what steps the United States might take if diplomacy fails, and it makes no such direct threat of confrontation with North Korea, which boasts that it has already developed nuclear weapons.

When asked about the omission in an interview today, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser and the principal author of the new report, said "the sentence applies to both Iran and North Korea."

The 48-page draft of the new "National Security Strategy of the United States," which was released by the White House before a formal presentation by Mr. Hadley on Thursday, is an effort to both expand on and assess the security strategy published by the administration in September 2002, a year after the terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon upended American foreign policy.

But in a reflection of new challenges, the document also covers territory that the first strategy sidestepped, warning China, for example, against "old ways of thinking and acting" in its competition for energy resources.

China's leaders, it says, are "expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow 'lock up' energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up — as if they can follow a mercantilism borrowed from a discredited era."

No such discussion appears in the earlier version of the strategy, and Mr. Hadley said the warning was an effort to get China's leaders to think about "the broader constellation" of their interests.

In a reflection of growing tensions between Washington and Moscow, the administration also expresses deep worry that Russia is falling off the path to democracy that Mr. Bush spent much of his first term celebrating.

"Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," the document reads. In a much tougher tone than the 2002 document, it emphasizes that the future of the relationship with Russia "will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts."

Mr. Hadley, who was the deputy to Condoleezza Rice, who was the national security adviser when the 2002 document was produced, said the effort was not intended to formulate new strategy, but to "take stock of what has been accomplished and describe the new challenges we face."

He noted, for example, that dealing with economic globalization — a subject the administration rarely talked about directly until recently — constituted a new chapter, and that in other areas "we've learned something over the past four years."

But chief among the sections that remain unchanged is the most controversial section of the 2002 strategy: the elevation of pre-emptive strikes to a central part of United States strategy.

"The world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue W.M.D. at their own peril," the strategy says. It acknowledges misjudgments about Iraq's weapons program that preceded the invasion three years ago, but it is clearly unwilling to give ground on that decision. The report notes that "there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."

While the new document hews to many of the administration's familiar themes, it contains changes that seem born of bitter experience. Throughout the document there is talk of the need for "effective democracies," a code phrase, some of its drafters said, for countries that do not just hold free elections but also build democratic institutions and spread their benefits to their populations. "I don't think there was as much of an appreciation of the need for that in 2002," one senior official said.

The new document is also less ideological in tone, and far more country-specific. Syria, for example, received no mention in the older document, but it is cited as a sponsor of terrorism in this one.

Mr. Hadley and other officials said that in using the word "confrontation" the administration did not intend to signal a greater willingness to use military force against Iran's nuclear production sites.

But it did indicate a willingness to step up pressure against Iranian leaders, including the threat of penalties that the United States is pressing in the United Nations Security Council.

Even as the White House edited the final drafts of the strategy, the House International Relations Committee voted 37 to 3 for legislation to end American economic aid to any country that invests in Iran's energy sector. The administration has opposed the bill out of concern that it would interfere with efforts to form a common front against Iran in the Security Council.

Still, the wording of the warning about confrontation with Iran comes just two pages after the strategy reiterates the 2002 warning that the United States reserves the right to take "anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." The juxtaposition is unlikely to be lost on Iran's leaders….


.
 
.

May 24, 2007

SouthAmerica: Here is further proof of why Iran needs nuclear weapons to be able to defend itself against a potential foreign attack.

Why the rest of the world doesn’t understand that and why it does need more justification than that I don’t know?

As far as I can see the facts speak for itself.

Just read the headlines about what is going on and put yourself in place of the country Iran as if Iran was your country and had been threatened by a superpower since 1953 when the US started meddling on Iran’s internal affairs.

I wonder what would happen if Iran reciprocated to the United States in kind.

1) First, by starting an Iranian military war game on the Straight of Hormuz for a week and OPS – they sink 2 or 3 of their training ships by mistake inside the Straight of Hormuz.

2) Second, I wonder what kind of reaction we would have here in the United States if there were similar news being reported out of the Iranian mainstream media saying that: "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had directed the equivalent of Iran’s CIA to carry out secret covert operations against the United States both inside and outside that country.

Probably the American people would think that the leader of Iran had gone crazy.

Anyway what I am trying to say is that both countries can play the game that the United States is playing with Iran

By the way, it is a very dangerous game the one that the US is playing right now with Iran – but at this point I am not surprised by anything that the Bush administration does anymore – these clowns are capable of starting even a nuclear war.



************



“U.S. navy begins war games on Iran's doorstep”
By Mohammed Abbas
Reuters - 24 May 2007


MANAMA, May 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. navy began war games on Iran's doorstep on Thursday, navy officials said, a day after a large flotilla of U.S. ships entered the Gulf in a dramatic daytime show of military muscle.

The group includes two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, whose presence adds to the pressure on the Islamic Republic to abandon its own nuclear ambitions, which the West says are an attempt to develop atomic weapons.

Iran, already under U.N. sanctions for enriching uranium, says its plans are for energy purposes only.

Asked if any of the American ships carried atomic weapons, a U.S. navy spokesman said the United States routinely did not comment on whether its warships were equipped with nuclear arms.

On the same day the U.S. ships entered the Gulf, skirting Iran's coast as they passed the Gulf's narrowest point, the U.N.'s atomic agency released a report saying Iran was continuing to defy world demands to stop enriching uranium.

The agency's report opens the way for tougher sanctions.

"The Stennis is conducting flight operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nimitz is conducting an air defence exercise. Bonhomme Richard is conducting replenishment at sea," navy Media Operations Officer Denise Garcia told Reuters.

The USS John C. Stennis, USS Nimitz, and the USS Bonhomme Richard are part of the group of nine ships that entered the Gulf on Wednesday, sending oil prices higher as jittery markets eyed possible tensions in the oil shipping hub.

OIL PRICES RISE

Oil prices have continued to rise, hitting a nine-month high above $71 on Thursday.

The ships, carrying about 17,000 personnel and 140 aircraft will take part in war drills over the next two weeks, the group's leader Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn said on Wednesday, adding that the drills would include exercises to defend against air, surface and submarine threats.

Their aim is to reassure allies of the U.S. commitment to regional stability, he said. Iran has blamed foreign forces for causing regional instability, and on Wednesday said it would give a "powerful answer" to enemies.

U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused Iran of fomenting violence. Iran denies the accusations.

The passage of the U.S. ships through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in the Gulf and major oil shipping lane, was the largest such move in daylight hours since the 2003 Iraq war.

Most U.S. navy ships transit the straits at night, so as not to attract attention, and rarely in large numbers.




*****************



“Romney criticizes ABC for story on alleged CIA Iran operations”
By Associated Press
Thursday, May 24, 2007

NEW YORK - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized ABC News on Wednesday for its report about CIA plans in Iran, saying it could potentially jeopardize national security and endanger lives.

ABC News rejected Romney’s analysis, and said it had given the CIA a chance to make the case that its report put people at risk, but the agency didn’t respond.

The network led its top-rated "World News" on Tuesday with Brian Ross’ report saying that President Bush had directed the CIA to carry out secret operations against Iran both inside and outside that country. The network said the campaign was "non-lethal," and involved propaganda broadcasts, the planting of newspaper articles and the manipulation of Iran’s currency and banking transactions.

Romney, during a campaign appearance in Tulsa, Okla., said he was shocked that ABC News would broadcast the report.

"The reporting has the potential of jeopardizing our national security," the former Massachusetts governor said. "Stated quite plainly, it has the potential of affecting human life. We may never know."

He said he did not support censorship, but that "the media has a responsibility to police itself."

ABC News’ Web site was flooded with 1,683 comments within a day of the broadcast, with one poster urging ABC to "keep your big mouths shut."

ABC News President David Westin said the network has changed or withheld stories in the past if the CIA convincingly says it could put lives or operations in jeopardy. The CIA was contacted six days ago about Ross’ story, and chose not to say anything about it, he said.

The report didn’t specify timing or any specific operations, Westin said. CIA activity in Iran has been reported before, he said, including within that country. What made Tuesday’s story new was Bush formally signing documents authorizing the operations, he said.

"The facts don’t bear out the accusations (from Romney)," Westin said. "I even think that any brief look at the facts says that. This is not a complicated one."

Romney had called him early Tuesday to give him a heads-up that he was making the accusations, Westin said.




**************



“ABC Story on Covert Ops in Iran: Romney Can't See an Obvious Government Plant”
Mother Jones Magazine – May 24, 2007


The ABC News story about covert operations in Iran just turned into a political football, and Mitt Romney, in seeking to emphasize his tough guy credentials yet again, is making an ass of himself.

Two days ago, ABC's investigative unit revealed that the "CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government." But the CIA isn't allowed to kill anyone because the presidential finding authorizing the black op is "non-lethal." In fact, the main thrust of the thing is informational and financial -- the CIA is charged with executing a "coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation, and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions."

This is according to current and former officials in the intelligence community.

Now, Kevin Drum makes a couple very good points. The whole leak is suspicious. Insiders go to the press when they feel the CIA or any other government agency has clearly crossed the line -- the NSA wiretapping story, for example, was uncovered by the New York Times because government officials were willing to come forward and say, "This is totally not kosher and public outrage is the only way we have of putting a stop to it." As Drum writes, this business about "disinformation" and "manipulation of Iran's currency" is "just about the mildest possible covert operation you can imagine. Why would anyone at the CIA, let alone multiple sources, be so outraged by it that they decided to leak its existence to ABC News?"

It's a good question. Moreover, writes Drum, "the CIA is mostly populated by hardnosed Republicans who hate countries like Iran and love covert operations like this that strike back at them. It's their bread and butter.... they really, really don't make a habit of disclosing active covert operations to major news organizations. That can get people killed, whether the operation itself is lethal or not."

So the CIA has no reason to be up in a tizzy about this new presidential authorization to go after Iran. Then why did multiple members of the intelligence community go to the press?

Drum speculates this was a plant coordinated by the government "as a way of sending a message to Iran."

Supporting Drum's theory is the fact, recently revealed by ABC, that the White House had six days to register any objection at all to the story, and they chose not to act.

The story pretty clearly came out with the Bush Administration's consent….

…Oh, and PS -- I'd be willing to bet a ton of money that there are other, more "lethal" covert ops going on in Iran right now, but no official in the intelligence community would ever come forward to tell the press, because it would be a PR nightmare for the CIA and could more directly jeopardize national security.


.
 
.

September 26, 2007

SouthAmerica: I agree with President Lula on this issue.

**********

“Brazil's Lula defends Iran's nuclear rights”
By Walter Brandimarte
Reuters - Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:00am BST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iran has the right to proceed with peaceful nuclear research and should not be punished just because of Western suspicions it wants to make an atomic bomb, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Tuesday.

"So far, Iran has committed no crime regarding the U.N. guidelines on nuclear weapons," Lula told reporters as he prepared to return to Brazil after delivering a speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

"Nobody should be punished in advance," said Lula, whose country started enriching uranium for its nuclear power plants last year, causing only limited international attention.

Meanwhile, concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions are among the hottest topics on the agenda of the U.N. assembly. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said failure to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons could destabilize the world.

Tehran insists it seeks to master technology to generate atomic power although Western nations believe it is running a covert bomb program.

The United Nations has demanded Iran halt its nuclear enrichment program, and has slapped two rounds of sanctions on Tehran for refusing. The United States is pressing for a third round of sanctions.

"If Iran wants to enrich uranium, if it wants to handle the nuclear issue in a peaceful way like Brazil does, that is Iran's right," Lula said, adding however that all countries are subject to U.N. guidelines.

Iran agreed with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, on August 21 to explain the scope of its nuclear program.

Iran's Natanz enrichment plant is expected to start producing usable quantities of nuclear fuel in the coming months. Such plants can also produce uranium for weapons.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2536221720070925

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top