[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2006 2:45 am    Post subject: CHENEY BENT ON INSANE PLAN TO NUKE IRAN Reply with quote

CHENEY BENT ON INSANE PLAN TO NUKE IRAN

American Free Press.net

By Greg Szymanski


A high-ranking military officer has come forward saying “a real danger exists” of a large-scale terrorist attack in the United States in the near future, adding Vice President Dick Cheney has become consumed with the thought of U.S. nuclear retaliation in the Middle East if an attack on American soil occurs.

The retired officer, who wishes to remain anonymous, claims officers in the U.S. military are openly dissenting over how to address the terrorist threat, claiming the Iraq war, the threats being leveled at Iran and Israel’s stranglehold on the Palestinians have created global instability. These accounts compound earlier reports made last week by others in the military that Cheney has already ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to prepare a nuclear attack against Iran.

Adding to this, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (ret.) recently made shocking statements about how close the world actually is to a nuclear conflict.

“It’s similar to what we had during the Cold War,” said Vallely. “We tell the radical Islamists, ‘If you launch one nuclear device against us anywhere, we will then irradiate Mecca and Medina because you know all Muslims have to go there at least once in their lifetime.’

“Change the regime in Iran and you change the whole Middle East. All roads lead to Teheran: Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda. I told the Pentagon that my sources have also sighted bin Laden in Iran. They’re also supporting Zarqawi.

“We could conduct operations, but they would be covert, to take out training camps in Syria and Iran. . . . With regard to the Iranian nuclear program, the Israelis have completed targeting for Iran, and bunker busters have already been given to Israel.”

Further raising eyebrows and fueling tension of another 9-11-like attack is the ongoing simulated nuclear terrorist attack, called Exercise Sudden Response being held from Aug. 15 to 19 at Ft. Monroe, Va.

Capt. Kevin McNamara, media relations officer, said the training session is being conducted officially by the Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS), beginning Monday and ending Thursday.

“The exercise will focus on the Department of Defense’s ability to support civil and federal authorities in providing a coordinated response to a nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city. The exercise will be a computer-based field training exercise with very limited troop movements. All unit-level troop movements and response activities will be simulated,” said McNamara.

===========================
Dears,

Our country is in terrible danger!

We have to move & do away with IRI before they devastate us.

We will never be able to make our IRAN again!

Hashem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2006 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Hashem,

Before folks go running off declaring the sky is falling, and Cheney's gonna nuke anyone, let me take a moment to debunk what is obviously a work of selling fairy tails for political manipulation.

The article above by Greg Szymanski is false on its face if anyone truly understands how America's separation of powers works. His unnamed source is ficticious, or if he exists, has fooled the author, but only because the author didn't do his research.

My point being, that;
Quote:
A high-ranking military officer has come forward saying “a real danger exists” of a large-scale terrorist attack in the United States in the near future, adding Vice President Dick Cheney has become consumed with the thought of U.S. nuclear retaliation in the Middle East if an attack on American soil occurs.


;is classic conspiracy theory in practice....take a bit of truth ( "a real danger exists") and spin the rest.

Quote:
The retired officer, who wishes to remain anonymous, claims officers in the U.S. military are openly dissenting over how to address the terrorist threat, claiming the Iraq war, the threats being leveled at Iran and Israel’s stranglehold on the Palestinians have created global instability. These accounts compound earlier reports made last week by others in the military that Cheney has already ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to prepare a nuclear attack against Iran.


The truth is Iran has strived to create global instability, not US policy in the war on terrorism, removing Saddam, or US proposed two state solution to Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

As anyone who is familiar with American government must be fully aware, the president is both the chief executive, and the Commander in Chief of US armed forces. He determines US foreign policy, in consultation with his cabinet, Congress, and other advisors with constructive imput (including those of common citizens with expertise and a fair read on any given situation).

The VP (Cheney) is one of those advisors, but the VP does not have the authority on his own to "order" any branch of the armed forces to go to war, or to prepare for a nuclear strike as is alledged in the article.

The only exception would be if the president were to be incapacitated, and the VP were duly designated to fill the president's position as a result.

Quote:
Adding to this, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (ret.) recently made shocking statements about how close the world actually is to a nuclear conflict.


Last I looked, (a couple weeks ago) the Nuclear Clock stood at 7 1/2 minutes to midnight..(midnight being 0 hour for global nuclear war).

This is not nearly as close as it's been at some points in the past.

If one is going to believe an arm-chair general who's job is now some TV consultant for hire, then one might as well believe the moon is populated by little green men, because that's as about as credible as it gets....(chuckle).

Now for the truth:

1. US policy has been, and is now one of retaining the right to respond to a WMD attack on American soil in kind. It's a policy called mutually assured destruction, or MAD for short....

2. All kinds of contingency planning takes place constantly in the Pentagon to update threat analysis, capabilities(both ours and any potential enemy's), and intent of hostile regimes such as the IRI.Among a lot of other things related to keeping America safe, including simulation studies to provide first responders to a WMD attack on America with the tools they need via experiential data to cope with any catostrphic situation that might arise in actuality.

3. Now as for how Cheney views the threats (and the alleged response the article proposes), it would be perfectly logical for him to be concerned with having to be in a position (theoreticly) whereby he would be the one making the decision on a proper response to a WMD attack on America. Assuming the president himself were incapable of making that decision due to death or injury.

4. To put all this in perspective I include the following excerpt from a recent interview with Don Rumsfeld, which will shed a lot of light on the truth of the matter.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Thursday May, 25, 2006

Television Interview with Secretary Rumsfeld on CNN's "Larry King Live"

On the Web: http://defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060525-13131.html

(excerpt)

MR. KING: Tell me the relationship you have with Dick Cheney.



SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I used to think of him as a promising young man, when I hired him.



MR. KING: You hired him.



SEC. RUMSFELD: I did. It was so many years ago, 1969. I hired him as my -- one of my special assistants.



MR. KING: And you were in Congress.



SEC. RUMSFELD: I had just resigned from Congress and went into the Cabinet, and I was running the Office of Economic Opportunity. And the thing I found about him, when I made him my deputy when I was chief of staff at the White House for President Ford, the tougher things got, the better he got. He can take it. And the harder the work got or the more difficult the situation or the more tense something might get, he got stronger and better and more steely with respect to it. He's a very talented fellow.



MR. KING: Do you know why so many -- at least in the polls -- are apparently negative toward him?



SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, he doesn't spend any time trying to make people like him. He really -- he's not running for anything. He's not going to run for president. He is here to advise the president of the United States. He does it well. The president likes it, the vice president likes it, and he just doesn't get up every morning and say, "What can I do to polish my image?" He gets up every morning and says, "What can we do to make sure there's not another terrorist attack on this country? What can we do today, in the event that that might happen, how can we prevent it, or how can we mitigate it in the event that it does happen?" And that's his focus and that's his orientation, and it's to the benefit of the country.



MR. KING: Do you expect another terrorist attack?



SEC. RUMSFELD: You have to. You have to. I do that here in this department. We sit down and we say: Okay, assume there's a terrorist attack in six months. There's going to be one; we know it now; and it's going to be one or two or three times 9/11. What ought we to be doing today, every minute, every hour, to see that that doesn't happen? What can we do today to see that -- if it does happen -- the damage, the effects, the loss of lives are minimal?



And that's the impetus you have to have. I mean, we know -- they have told us -- they intend to attack this country again. And I just don't want to see another September 11th.

----------(end excerpt)----------


So Hashem, there's the rest of the story to consider, which the author obviously either had no wish to include in his article, or was simply devoid of common sense in his writing of it.

I hope this helps ease your concerns to some extent, but I happen to agree with you in principal on this:

Quote:
Our country is in terrible danger!

We have to move & do away with IRI before they devastate us.

We will never be able to make our IRAN again!


"They" being the IRI, by starting a war....that the catalyst for the Iranian people doing away with the regime is a collective assesment that the regime is indeed hell bent on an apocalyptic path of mutually assured destruction....of your people and mine..........and that one cannot return to the past in creating a future free Iran, now that is not to say that a constitutional monarchy is out of the question in a future free Iran, for that is "for the people to decide", as RP put it so well.

But it won't be the Iran of pre-1979 no matter how it evolves.....time itself cannot be turned back, and a people can only move forward as a society (when not held back by tyrany).

Last, but not least: Even in a worst case scenario, there are other ways to use a nuke besides the traditional Hiroshima style strike.
One may simply detonate a couple at the edge of space to create a blanket of EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) across a nation-wide area (line of sight from detonation at the speed of light) to knock out all electrical systems, power grids, radar, missile guidance systems, and command and control functions, including communications, without the blast effect, radiological fallout, and direct human toll that one usually associates with nuclear weapons.

Folks have talked about limited strikes on nuclear facilities, while failing to take into account the biological, chemical, and perhaps even a nuke or two (purchased on black market) in the IRI's inventory, with missile delivery capability added to this WMD capability, any conventional means of attack leaves a gap in giving the IRI a probable chance to launch on warning, and create hell on Earth in the Mideast.

Again, the danger you speak of is not from what the US might do, but from what the IRI has publicly stated as its intent as policy in the region, as well as for my nation....in a "World without Zionism" , (I.E. without the US or Israel, or even Europe to stand in the path of Antar's global agenda.)

What would the effect be on Iran, should diplomacy fail and it be deemed neccessary to pre-empt the IRI via an EMP strike?

1. Iran would come to a grinding halt within seconds, and be living in the 17th century (without electricity) for a couple years until the infrastructure could be repaired.

2. The mullah's toys would be utterly useless, and the regime would be removed as a matter of policy, with or without the help of the Iranian people. However, the playing field would be leveled for the opposition, as the regime would no longer have effective means to control the people, or coordinate response to uprising.

3. #2 above would be absolutly neccessary as the result of no electrical power would mean no refrigeration, and a follow-on massive humanitarian effort would have to be mounted by the international community to avert starvation among the Iranian population.

4. It's not to say that there would be no casualties as a result, at least from an indirect effect of EMP, but far less than a war started by the IRI that puts 200 million at risk in the region and beyond (and that's a conservative figure) , in fact, EMP as a tool to effect regime change of a regime possesing WMD is about as compasionate as one could hope to see employed given the threat this regime poses to the world.
Casualties due to instant loss of electrical power (airplanes crashing, hospitals without power, traffic accidents, and other related circumstance would be the major collateral damage as a result) would be pretty minimal in reality.

My only question is whether castrating the mullahs in such a manner would be deemed an acceptable price to pay for freedom, in the minds of the Iranian people....and this with the knowledge they would be able to then "make Iran" as they see fit, with the help of the entire global community, so long as a repeat of the current nightmare government does not become manifest.

Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaDrEtebar



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: Diversion Alert Reply with quote

Dear all

Please take a look at the attached PDF document which is an announcement for a suspicious seminar in a Senate office building at Washington DC tomorrow!

I don’t believe the US government to be so naïve supporting such events to strengthen the IRI position.

Recall the June 2003 statements by Colin Powel calling the spontaneous Iranian uprising a “family Feud”, remember John Bolton recent statements “This is a sign to the rulers in Tehran that if they give up their long-standing support for terrorism and they give up their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, that their regime can stay in place and that they can have a different relationship with the United States and the rest of the world,"?

The US government can not be trusted; they may intend to keep the mullahs in power by creating division among IRI opposition.

I don’t believe for a moment that the US intelligence agencies and statesmen to be unaware of the Iranian patriots’ sensitivity over the territorial integrity of Iran.

The Iranian nationalist must be aware of such dubious actions and boycott these imperialistic conspiracies.

Attached please find the announcement.



Sincerely,

Ramin Etebar, MD

_________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To the Iranian opposition; Members, groups and leadership....everyone:

Senate hearings on Iran:

http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8123


The above link to topic will provide a lot to chew on, and a lot of reading material.

As for territorial integrity, the US is on record as a stated policy to ensure the territorial integrity of Iran, on a number of occasions, and in practical application, starting with forcing the soviets to honor their WW2 agreements after the war was over....so there's a long positive history of consistant US policy over many administrations to draw confidence from today.

Now I have many times asked a simple question of folks here that has never been adequately answered to my satisfaction, so I'll ask it again.

How the hell does the opposition think it can unseat the regime from power if it can't include ethnic minorities (including groups that have been labeled "separatist") in a unified common goal of regime change?

It is my opinion that the only way one can turn a separatist into a democrat is by including them in "the process". If fair representation in a post regime government is assured, and the universal declaration of human rights becomes the basis for a new constitution, then why would a separatist remain so in a future Iran?

Point of fact in today's circumstance is that they wish to separate from the regime because the regime is treating them like second or third class citizens, so don't look to the US to point blame for any potential break-up of Iran, point the fingers where they belong....on the methodology the regime uses to create crisis and have the blame put on others.

Now, as for any group that has need for a voice in the matter to be heard, I have no problem defending their right to have that say as freedom of speech is part and parcel to the democracy called America, so they have the right to petition the US government just as anyone else, or hold a seminar, or discus their concerns with whomever in government will listen, just as anyone else (terrorists excepted) can.

It is up to you folks, the constitutional monarchists, the democrats, the republicans among you to reach out and offer a hand of unity to those you may now turn up your nose at, or suffer disunity at your own hands, as has been the case for many years.....not because the US is trying to "create disunity in the opposition" , but simply because of old prejudices that exist within the opposition, even to this day, with so much at stake.

You must find common ground if your cause of freedom is to be successful, the first step is to be willing to try....and that's not something the US gov. nor myself can do for you.....

What I will do is read folks the riot act if you keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.....having left once in disgust as a result of the blinders you folks insist on wearing about this, much to your own detriment and credibility.

You cannot have any hope of an Iran, whole, free, and at peace unless you grasp the concept of inclusiveness and the opportunities to create unity with both hands and with all your heart in a "do or die" manner, because that quite litterally may indeed be the reality as the IRI would make it for you in constantly trying to divide and conquer, using ethnic tensions as a propaganda tool in so many ways.

Not to mention all the other ways it does with many issues.

In this sense, Colin Powell was right, it is a "family fued" within the Iranian family of opposition groups, not just an internal feud with the regime itself.

As for Bolton's comments, you'd have to understand the man to understand the comment....he knows damned well the mullahs won't give up their support for terrorism, nor can the "leapord change it spots" as they say....the regime won't change...can't change and remain in power....it would be in conflict with itself and its ideology....therefore when reading his statement that IF THE REGIME CHANGES....we won't remove it (I'm paraphrasing) the point is we won't have to, it will self destruct.

Thus you have in a nutshell, the difference in strategy behind "behavior change" and "regime change" (as it is commonly thought of coming from outside). Same result, just a diiferent path.

I mean, think for a moment....has any tyrany survived "behavior change"? Only Ghaddafi in a total and complete, verifiable back-flip in policy and attitude would be any kind of example in the last hundred years.

Then think for a moment, as much as the US may want to see the mullahs do a "Ghaddafi", do you folks in the opposition think so little of the US to think that we'd be fools enough to belive the mullahs capable of that, and survive the backlash from their own power base?

Why do you think a package of incentives is being prepared, along with a package of "disincentives" by the P5 + 1? Because when the IRI turns the incentives down cold, the international community looks very reasonable indeed for having at least made the attempt.

When the status quo changes before your very eyes, do you refuse to see change for what it is? Or do your suspicions blind you all to the action you must take to grab the opportunity at hand?

In all of this, try to understand there is some reverse psycology at work as well in the approach taken by the west. You may not understand all the nuances, but you will understand the effect it will have on the regime....and you don't have long to wait.

I know the opposition has question at this point as to what's going on, but remember, if you folks knew, so would the IRI..so it's not public knowledge yet until it's a working program...and letting the IRI sweat a bit over what's in store is not a bad thing at the moment.

In any case, the cat will be out of the bag by week's end...and then you can stop wondering.

Please take heed to what I've said about inclusiveness. As much as I try to help promote your success , lend perspective, or talk to folks in governments to lend their support to a free Iran, I cannot help you if you cannot, or will not help yourselves as you are able.

The thing about "empowerment" as a concept is that no one does it "for you" , a hand up is one thing...but you have to stand on your own feet.
Standing on principal cannot be with one foot, if you call yourselves proponents of freedom and democracy than "inclusiveness" as a concept in action, should be central to this stance you take.

There are no separatists , as you are all under the thumb of the regime and wish Iran separated from the regime, there are no minorities because you are all in the majority of the oppressed.

There are no ethnic divisions in misery, it serves all equally badly to be dealing in petty rivalries with millions of lives hanging in the balance of whether the opposition as a collective whole can get its act together or not....and in this case, no one can help you do this but yourselves, through concerted will, and dialogue among you.

Failure is not an option, but if fail you must for lack of trying, then my faith in all of you was indeed misplaced, and history will write that it was a tragedy the Iranian people were not (for whatever reason) able to grab shining freedom's destiny as it passed them by, and war ensued.

Mark my words well.

-Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaDrEtebar



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:42 am    Post subject: Re: Diversion Alert Reply with quote

ViaDrEtebar wrote:
Dear all

Please take a look at the attached PDF document which is an announcement for a suspicious seminar in a Senate office building at Washington DC tomorrow!

I don’t believe the US government to be so naïve supporting such events to strengthen the IRI position.

Recall the June 2003 statements by Colin Powel calling the spontaneous Iranian uprising a “family Feud”, remember John Bolton recent statements “This is a sign to the rulers in Tehran that if they give up their long-standing support for terrorism and they give up their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, that their regime can stay in place and that they can have a different relationship with the United States and the rest of the world,"?

The US government can not be trusted; they may intend to keep the mullahs in power by creating division among IRI opposition.

I don’t believe for a moment that the US intelligence agencies and statesmen to be unaware of the Iranian patriots’ sensitivity over the territorial integrity of Iran.

The Iranian nationalist must be aware of such dubious actions and boycott these imperialistic conspiracies.

Attached please find the announcement.


Sincerely,

Ramin Etebar, MD

_________________________________________________________


This is a follow up on the separatist conference in the Senate office building at Washington DC.
The good news is that not even a single congressional aid attended the event!


The question remains which congressman or senator sponsored the event?
Why did the leftist who condemn the Azaries and Baluchies for their uprising labeling them as racist are cosponsoring the event?



A compatriot’s response to this event :
We strongly condemn the attempt by certain individuals and groups to exploit the problems caused by the terrorist mullah regime to provoke separatist activities in Iran. These individuals and groups are not representatives of Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkman, and Arabs. The extremist views of the separatist groups are not supported by most Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkman, and Arabs.

The overwhelming majority of the individuals and groups in the Iranian democracy movement support a democratic form of government that will respect the rights of all Iranians, including Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Persians, Baluchis, Arabs, and Turkmen. However, there are different views regarding federalism, and it is not an issue that can be resolved before the liberation of Iran. Emphasizing the issue of federalism today will cause further harmful divisions among political groups, and delay Iran’s liberation from the despotic rule of the mullahs. The best course is for political groups with diverse views to work together to achieve the high priority goal of liberating Iran, and resolve divisive issues such as federalism after the fall of the Khomeinist regime.

Those who seek to disintegrate Iran are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem. Any activities to promote extremist separatists will help the agenda of the terrorist Islamic Republic.

We urge everyone who is concerned about human rights in Iran to stand with the Iranian people in the struggle to free Iran and the world from the tyranny of the Islamic Republic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaDrEtebar



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:59 am    Post subject: Re: Diversion Alert Reply with quote

ViaDrEtebar wrote:
ViaDrEtebar wrote:
Dear all

Please take a look at the attached PDF document which is an announcement for a suspicious seminar in a Senate office building at Washington DC tomorrow!

I don’t believe the US government to be so naïve supporting such events to strengthen the IRI position.

Recall the June 2003 statements by Colin Powel calling the spontaneous Iranian uprising a “family Feud”, remember John Bolton recent statements “This is a sign to the rulers in Tehran that if they give up their long-standing support for terrorism and they give up their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, that their regime can stay in place and that they can have a different relationship with the United States and the rest of the world,"?

The US government can not be trusted; they may intend to keep the mullahs in power by creating division among IRI opposition.

I don’t believe for a moment that the US intelligence agencies and statesmen to be unaware of the Iranian patriots’ sensitivity over the territorial integrity of Iran.

The Iranian nationalist must be aware of such dubious actions and boycott these imperialistic conspiracies.

Attached please find the announcement.


Sincerely,

Ramin Etebar, MD

_________________________________________________________


This is a follow up on the separatist conference in the Senate office building at Washington DC.
The good news is that not even a single congressional aid attended the event!


The question remains which congressman or senator sponsored the event?
Why did the leftist who condemn the Azaries and Baluchies for their uprising labeling them as racist are cosponsoring the event?



A compatriot’s response to this event :
We strongly condemn the attempt by certain individuals and groups to exploit the problems caused by the terrorist mullah regime to provoke separatist activities in Iran. These individuals and groups are not representatives of Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkman, and Arabs. The extremist views of the separatist groups are not supported by most Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkman, and Arabs.

The overwhelming majority of the individuals and groups in the Iranian democracy movement support a democratic form of government that will respect the rights of all Iranians, including Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Persians, Baluchis, Arabs, and Turkmen. However, there are different views regarding federalism, and it is not an issue that can be resolved before the liberation of Iran. Emphasizing the issue of federalism today will cause further harmful divisions among political groups, and delay Iran’s liberation from the despotic rule of the mullahs. The best course is for political groups with diverse views to work together to achieve the high priority goal of liberating Iran, and resolve divisive issues such as federalism after the fall of the Khomeinist regime.

Those who seek to disintegrate Iran are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem. Any activities to promote extremist separatists will help the agenda of the terrorist Islamic Republic.

We urge everyone who is concerned about human rights in Iran to stand with the Iranian people in the struggle to free Iran and the world from the tyranny of the Islamic Republic.


Dear all

This event was sponsored by Senator Mike Dewine. His office number is (202) 224-2315 and fax number is (202) 224-6519.
Please call or fax him expressing your disgust from his outrageous anti-Iranian territorial integrity behavior.

RE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:37 am    Post subject: Islamofascist Taazi In Iran Is a Leader in Terror Reply with quote

Islamofascist Taazi In Iran Is a Leader in Terror, Rumsfeld Tells Defense Group

June 03, 2006
The New York Times
Michael R. Gordon

http://www.nytimes.com/

SINGAPORE -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a gathering of defense experts here on Saturday that Iran was “one of the leading terrorist nations in the world.” Mr. Rumsfeld also questioned why Russia and China would allow Iran to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional organization that includes Russia, China and Central Asian nations.

Iran has observer status in the group, and the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is expected to attend a summit meeting that the organization is holding in Shanghai this month.

“It strikes me as passing strange that one would want to bring into an organization that says it is against terrorism one of the leading terrorist nations in the world: Iran,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.

His pointed comments were made at an important moment in American diplomacy. This week, the Bush administration reversed a refusal to hold direct talks with Iran that had lasted decades. The administration said it was willing to join European allies in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program if Teheran first suspended its efforts to enrich uranium.

At the same time, Washington has been seeking Russian and Chinese cooperation in fashioning a common negotiating strategy. Both nations are members of the United Nations Security Council, which the United States would like to impose punitive measures if Iran does not accept a package of incentives and suspend its nuclear enrichment activities.

The United States and its European allies recently agreed on the package of incentives, which are to be conveyed to Iran in the coming days. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Iran must respond within weeks. President Ahmadinejad has rebuffed the offer, but America officials said this may not be the final word.

In his comments, Mr. Rumsfeld said that President Bush had presented Iran with the opportunity to defuse the confrontation over its nuclear program through diplomacy and that more time was needed to assess the prospects for a diplomatic settlement.

“The information has just been communicated to them, and it seems to me the appropriate thing now to do is to wait and see which path the Iranian government will take,” he added.

But he painted a dark picture of Iran, saying that it had a long history of “being engaged in terrorist activities” and, thus, was not an appropriate participant in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The Russian- and Chinese-dominated organization was established in 2001 and one of its stated goals is to counter separatist and terrorist groups.

Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong , said Friday that Iran’s role in the Shanghai organization was a way for Russia and China to demonstrate their influence. Iran, he said, had applied to upgrade its presence to full-fledged member. By agreeing to consider this, he said, “Russia and China have reminded the West of their combined influence on world-turning events.”

India, which also has observer status in the organization, said Iran’s participation in the upcoming summit as an observer was a matter for Iran to decide. “Who am I to decide on their behalf?” said the Indian defense minister, Pranab Mukherjee.

One of the main themes in Mr. Rumsfeld’s address here was the need for more inclusive institutions. The United States was concerned last year when an East Asian summit was held that included 10 members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, as well as China, Korea, Japan and other countries, but which excluded the United States.

Mr. Rumsfeld repeated a theme from last year’s address — that China needed to be open about how much it was spending on its military and what the funds were being used for.

Russia, he said, had sought “to constrain the independence and freedom of action of some of their neighboring countries.” Defense officials said this was a reference to the pressure that Moscow has put on Central Asian nations to curtail military ties with the United States as well as to Russia’s difficult relationship with Georgia and Ukraine.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s presentation and that of other defense officials were made at an annual conference organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Neither China nor Russia sent high-level officials to the conference. Iran has made its own forays into the region. Last month, President Ahmadinejad visited Indonesia where, Mr. Lee noted, he received a hero’s welcome from Indonesian students.

“This showed how successfully Iran has portrayed itself as a leading Muslim country, its nuclear program as a project in which Muslims worldwide should take vicarious pride, and the issue as a nationalist struggle,” Mr. Lee said. “We have to refocus on the core issue, which is nuclear proliferation and Iran’s obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:16 am    Post subject: Draft text of U.S., European package offered to Iran Reply with quote

Nuclear 'Carrots and Sticks' for Iran

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2046423&page=1
Proposal Offers Rewards, Punishment to Convince Iran to Dump Enrichment Program
By LUIS MARTINEZ
WASHINGTON, June 6, 2006 — - ABC News has obtained a draft of the "carrots and sticks" proposal that the United States, Europe, China and Russia made to Iran to encourage it to stop developing its nuclear program. The four-page document offers a "fresh start" based on "mutual respect."

Click here to read a draft copy of the document.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/ht_iran_documents_060606.pdf

After initially downplaying any interest in the proposal, Iran now says it needs more time to consider the proposal, a step President Bush says "sounds like a positive step to me."

Iran's change in tone comes after the United States and its allies offered Iran the most generous proposal yet to resolve the nuclear standoff of the past two years.

Among the incentives, or "carrots" for Iran if it ceases its nuclear program:

Iran would get help building new nuclear power plants, specifically light water reactors that cannot be used to make weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

Iran would get a new facility to hold a five-year supply of nuclear fuel.

The deal would also open the door to "guarantees for [Iran's] territorial integrity" -- words meant to assure Iran there would be no invasion by the United States or Israel.

A package of economic incentives so Iran can purchase a new fleet of American and European aircraft, something that it is now forbidden to do. Its aging airline fleet has become a safety threat.

The incentives would all be contingent on Iran agreeing to stop enriching uranium -- making fuel that can be used for bombs or nuclear power. Iran's refusal to do just that has raised tensions with Iran over the past two years.

But even on that point, the proposal says Iran could be allowed to resume uranium enrichment in the future if it can convince the United Nations Security Council it is for peaceful purposes only.

If Iran rejects the deal, the draft proposal threatens a long list of sanctions -- "the stick" approach:

freezing Iranian assets abroad;

a travel ban on high ranking officials;

an arms embargo;

reducing diplomatic relations with all the countries that made the proposal. Very significant, since Russia and China -- two hesitant partners in the sticks approach, both of which have extensive trade with Iran -- have agreed to this proposal.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran has "a matter of weeks" to respond to the offer.

A source close to the Iranian government told ABC News today that Iran may agree to temporarily stop enriching uranium but is unlikely to agree to fully shut down the program. It's unclear if that is enough for a deal on negotiations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:10 pm    Post subject: Diplomacy is not enough Reply with quote

Diplomacy is not enough
By Michael Rubin
Prospect
June 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/940

On 31st May, Condoleezza Rice offered Iran a deal: suspend nuclear enrichment in exchange for a package of incentives, including de facto US recognition. But engagement alone will not solve the crisis. Between 2000 and 2005, EU trade with Iran almost tripled. But the Iranian authorities invested their additional income not into schools and hospitals, but rather into Iran's nuclear programme. Tehran has become conditioned to associating concessions with non-compliance. Indeed, further incentives may make a crisis more rather than less likely. President Bush is serious when he says: "the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable."

Iranian reformers do not offer a way out. While the rhetoric of hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shocked Western officials, Iran's nuclear programme is no recent phenomenon, but rather the product of the administrations of Ahmadinejad's predecessors, the reformist Muhammad Khatami and pragmatist Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Nor should diplomats assume that Tehran is motivated by security concerns. Iran's covert programme pre-dates US presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq. While Israel occupies a paramount position in regime rhetoric, no Iranian has ever died in a war with the Jewish state.

The idea that there exists a magic diplomatic formula to bring Iranian behaviour back in line is the product of the faulty assumption that motivation for the regime's programme is external. Seventy per cent of Iranians were born or came of age after the 1979 revolution. Polling and anecdotal evidence suggest that only 20 per cent of Iranians still believe in the wisdom of theocracy. Yet there is no question that the unelected supreme leader and those surrounding him believe their sovereignty rests with God, not the people. To them, public opinion and demography is irrelevant. While pundits may hope for gradual reform or a "saffron revolution," true believers will not compromise their ideology. A nuclear deterrent enables them to crush dissent at home without fear of outside interference. China model? Think ten Tiananmen Squares.

European officials point out the difficulty of military action. While air strikes would set back Iran's programme, they would not eliminate it. Iranians would certainly rally around their flag. The regime might lash out. It could destabilise Iraq or engage in terrorism. It could disrupt oil supplies. But, if it felt itself secure behind a nuclear deterrent, it could do the same. No matter how costly military strikes may be, however, they remain possible, as the White House calculates that the cost of allowing the Islamic Republic to possess nuclear weapons would be higher given the possibility that the regime might use them.

But debate need not be limited to advocating diplomacy or defending a military strike. Between the extremes is an arsenal of tools which could be applied if Iran continues to defy the international community. While comprehensive sanctions are unlikely given high oil prices, more targeted sanctions are possible: just as the international community once curtailed air service into Libya, it could do so into Iran. Freezing the bank accounts of Iran's corrupt leadership would be popular among ordinary Iranians and inflict pain only upon those who deserve it.

While the chattering classes dismissed Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric as unsophisticated, Iran's inclusion was not cowboy rhetoric, but rather a non-violent effort to apply economic pressure. It worked. Foreign investment in Iran dropped.

The EU should not let ongoing diplomacy stop investment in independent civil society. The West should not hesitate to support independent, unlicensed civil society groups and trade unions, even if Iranian authorities declare such groups illegal. The dangers from the Islamic republic come from its government's lack of accountability to its people, who are far more moderate. The west should invest in independent Iranian media, which could better explain western concerns over the Iranian regime's behavior. Western governments might be surprised by how receptive ordinary Iranians would be: while Iranian government-sponsored polls indicate 77 per cent of Iranians support Tehran's nuclear stance, support drops precipitously when independent pollsters ask whether Iranians would feel comfortable if their leaders possessed nuclear weapons.

The west should also support Iranian dissidents. Besieged Iranian journalists have become engines for change. It is incumbent upon European diplomats to recognise their courage. When imprisoned journalists receive medical furlough, Iranians line up to visit them. European diplomats ignore them. The silence of the British, French, and German embassies makes a mockery of European human rights rhetoric and gives carte blanche to the regime to continue its abuses. Dissidents have little to lose; they have already proved their mettle and put their lives on the line. If British officials demanded to see Ahmad Batebi, the young student imprisoned after the 1999 student protests for the crime of having his photograph put on the cover of the Economist, the effect would be enormous.

The Gdansk model should be emulated, especially as labor unrest grows in Iran. Independent unions would force the regime to be accountable to its people. Textile workers in Gilan, bus drivers in Tehran, and refinery workers in Abadan all deserve respect. Rather than invest its money in nuclear centrifuges, the Iranian leadership might pay the back wages of workers in government-owned factories.

The Iranian supreme leader is unelected and wields absolute power for life. The council of guardians disqualified more than 1,000 presidential candidates before the last elections for insufficient revolutionary fervor. If there is to be a lasting solution to the Iranian crisis, the west must address the question of how to make the Iranian regime accountable to its constituents.



You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its author, date, and source.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:07 pm    Post subject: Is Bill Clinton Still President? Reply with quote

Is Bill Clinton Still President?
June 07, 2006
National Review Online
Michael Ledeen

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDg2YzE3ZGQwYWVmYjQ2MDBhZmU0N2NiMzcxYmU2ZGQ=


From time to time various wags have suggested that we send Bill Clinton to negotiate with the mullahs on our behalf. It turns out it isn’t necessary; we’ve just adopted his methods. Apparently those in charge of our Iran non-policy concluded that the appeasement of North Korea worked so well, we should do the same thing with Iran. I suppose it’s only a matter of time before Condi borrows one of Albright’s big hats, and goes to Tehran to dance with their dictator.

The architects of this latest foolishness are whispering the same reassuring nonsense as their predecessors did about North Korea: We’re offering light-water reactors, which aren’t as dangerous as heavy-water reactors, we won’t give them anything unless they agree to stop enrichment, blah, blah, blah. All of which is true, and totally insane, since a madman is, famously, a person who thinks that he will produce a different outcome by doing the same thing over and over again.

It is utterly fanciful to think that Iran will negotiate away their nuclear-weapons program, whatever the combination of diplomatic carrots and sticks. They have no interest whatsoever in giving away their bombs, whatever the actual status of their arsenal. For them, the only point of negotiations is to gain more time to pursue their war against us, to kill more Americans and Brits in Iraq, to mobilize more jihadis all over the region, to threaten our regional friends and allies, to enlarge their terror network throughout the world, to stuff their war chest with petrodollars, and to enlarge their arsenal.

I do not believe any of the Europeans seriously believes that the mullahs will abandon any of their war plans, whether it is enrichment or terrorism or political subversion or the intimidation of lesser regional players. I think the Europeans view the negotiations as a method of restraining us, not bringing the Iranians to heel. They have long since adopted a policy of total appeasement. To her shame Chancellor Merkel came to Washington a few weeks ago and begged President Bush to play along. And he shamefully agreed.

The much-heralded announcement that we were willing to sit down with the Iranians if they halted their enrichment program was either a total collapse or a gambit designed to expose the Iranians’ unwillingness to play by the international rules. If the latter, it was too clever by half, as shown by the sorts of Western offers that are now trickling out of the foreign offices. We have actually set a clever trap for ourselves. The carrots are precisely what negotiations were supposed to be all about, and here we’ve offered them in advance of talks. The Iranians are certainly smart enough to say “well, that’s interesting, and maybe if you make the pot a bit more caloric, we might even agree to suspend enrichment. Let’s talk about it.” The Europeans and our statesmen will declare a diplomatic triumph and they will say to Bush that we do indeed have to talk about it, and then we will have lost even this little gambit. We will have undertaken negotiations, and the Iranians will not have ceased enrichment. We will still not have an Iran policy, we will still have done nothing to support freedom in Iran, and we will still be pretending it is possible to win a regional war by playing defense in Iraq alone.

The political consequences of such foolishness are very hard to calculate, but it is certain that any Iranian contemplating risking his or her life on behalf of a free Iran will be discouraged at the spectacle. It is also certain that this demarche-to use a word much beloved by the diplomats—will reinforce the extremely dangerous conviction in Tehran that they are winning, and we will do nothing to threaten them. This is what makes the latest gambit so self-destructive. It will encourage the mullahs to intensify their attacks—real attacks, not merely verbal ones—on all fronts. They think we are headed out of Iraq, in abject humiliation, as a result of their terror war against us, and they will now redouble those efforts.

Would you not do the same in their position? Of course you would, and you would do it even if you were not a fanatic, you would do it if you were a student of Bismarck and Clausewitz and Sun Tzu.

But these are fanatics, millenarian fanatics who believe that the world is headed for a final and decisive confrontation between the forces of Islam and the infidels and crusaders. They believe that the final days are at hand, and that they are the instruments of Divine power and glory. They have no doubt about their ultimate triumph, and everything they see in the West only reinforces their confidence, and leads them to redouble their murderous efforts.

Their vision is not world peace, but world domination, accompanied by the slaughter of their enemies. And we are encouraging them in that vision.

I do not believe we will surrender and give them a free hand, but our current behavior only makes the ultimate confrontation with Iran more difficult and likely more violent than it need be. No matter how unwilling Western leaders may be to respond to their 27-year war against us, we cannot escape it, because they will not permit us to escape. It is a conflict we can either win or lose, but we cannot opt out of it. Eventually we will be compelled to respond.

At the moment, most of our leaders are trying desperately to convince themselves that there is a way out, that we can make a grand bargain, that we do not have to confront the mullahs. It is the illogic of appeasement so well described by Churchill after Munich. Chamberlain, he said, had to choose between war and dishonor. Chamberlain chose dishonor, and he got war. This is the risk our leaders are running today.

And the hell of it all is that the mullahs are terribly vulnerable, loathed by their own people, our natural allies in what is after all a political and ideological conflict. Our failure to support the Iranians’ cry for freedom is a dark stain on our banners, and worse: Our dishonor leads directly a war that we should not need to fight. We can defeat the mullahs the same way we defeated the Soviet Union, by mobilizing their own people against them, and by consistently stating and supporting our own ideals. Instead we are sending our young men and women into the field to fall alongside innocent Iraqis to whom we promised a better fate.

Faster, please. Please.

- Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reza Pahlavi Says West's Offer Will Lead to Foot-dragging by Reply with quote

Reza Pahlavi Says West's Offer Will Lead to Foot-dragging by Tehran

By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_re_eu/france_iran_1

PARIS - The son of the toppled shah of Iran said Wednesday that the Western proposal to end a standoff with Tehran over its nuclear program will only lead to further foot-dragging.

Reza Pahlavi called on the world to support Iran's opposition groups, which he claimed have put differences aside and united in a bid to install a democratic government and rid Iran of the clerical regime.

"Why waste time ... in endless negotiations?" Pahlavi said at a news conference after meeting with a group of French parliamentarians.

The fact that the U.S. added its name to the proposal, which includes an incentive package, "puts the regime in an impossible position" — a "lose-lose situation," Pahlavi said.

If it accepts the proposal, Iran would have to backtrack on its propaganda, which he called the "glue" holding the regime together. Should it reject the offer, Tehran would face an "economic shock" from potential U.N. sanctions, he said.

"I'm concerned that the status quo will prevail," he said.

Iran "will need to take a stand with the world watching. The only question is how long it could drag out the game of confusion and suspend the moment of truth," said Pahlavi.

He appealed to countries to help opposition groups in exile who, he said, include Iranian rightists, leftists, monarchists and republicans.

The current clerical regime thrives on crises, and "the only thing Mr. Khamenei is afraid of is the people on the streets of Iran," Pahlavi said, referring to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The opposition represents "the most logical, least costly and most direct" means for peaceful regime change, he said.

Pahlavi was 20 when Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi fled his country as the Iranian revolution took hold in 1979 and installed a clerical regime. The shah ultimately died in exile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
ABC News has obtained a draft of the "carrots and sticks" proposal that the United States, Europe, China and Russia made to Iran to encourage it to stop developing its nuclear program.


Dear Cyrus,

Proposed possible elements of a revised draft is not the same as what ABC claims to have received as a "draft" of the deal actually offered to the IRI.

As I think about it, this could have very possibly been pulled out of a wastebasket in Vienna, if you know what I mean.

The official proposal will not become public until the IRI officially responds to it....yea or nay.

So it serves no good purpose in speculation, as ABC is doing by claiming to have an "exclusive" inside knowledge they just don't have.


I would note that the US has made very definate that security guarantees are NOT on the table....nor is it going to get into some "grand bargain" with a state sponsor of terrorism in the Persian Gulf region as this so-called draft suggests.

If you wish to review official US position on the matter, see a topic I started called "Test Case"

As from what I've heard quoted about any possible enrichment in the future...."30 years from now when the mullahs are long gone" is an exact quote from a US official....I'll try and pull it up again to find the name of the source.

Basicly leaving open the possibility that with a new government, a lot is possible....but please make note as well that any nuclear weapons development by ANY Iranian government, now or in the future would be deemed unacceptable in its assured destabilization of the region.

Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:14 pm    Post subject: The mullahs and the global war on terror. Reply with quote

Iran Connects the Dots
The mullahs and the global war on terror.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDY2NWE0NWQzNDFhYWM3YjY5N2NjMmNmN2NhMTA1ODk

By Michael Ledeen

It didn’t take long for the yackers and scribblers to start pooh-poohing the significance of the elimination of Zarqawi. The MSNBC/al-Reuters headline said it all: ‘Zarqawi more myth than Man.’ And of course, the hate-America crowd was hinting that the ‘timing’ was peculiar (Bush needed a boost in the polls), as if killing Zarqawi was just a matter of giving the order, rather than a difficult operation made possible by the great performance of our Special Forces and the active cooperation of Sunni tribal leaders in the Anbar Province, plus the Jordanians, plus the various party leaders in Baghdad.

Whatever the "explanation," the significance of this operation is enormous. It’s not just about Iraq (it very much involves North America, for example), and it effectively explodes one of the most dangerous confusions about the nature of the terror network.

Zarqawi was a very important man in the terror network. I first noticed him some years ago, reading the German and Italian press. Several terrorist cells in those countries had been rounded up, and court documents showed that in both countries the network had been created from Tehran, by Zarqawi. Thus, years before we went into Iraq, Zarqawi was already a major player in international terrorism, and in recognition of his skills he was sent into Iraq as one of the organizers of the terror war against us and the Iraqi people.

Despite his intonations against the Shiites, and his manifest efforts to promote civil war in Iraq, Zarqawi was happy to work with the radical Shiite regime in Tehran, and they were happy to work with him. It is quite wrong to view him as a leader of one faction in a religious war; his promotion of religious conflict was simply a tactic designed to destabilize Iraq and drive out the Coalition. He and his Iranian backers/masters were desperate to promote all manner of internal Iraqi conflict: Kurds against Arabs, Turkamen against Kurds, anything that worked. It’s The Godfather all over again: the terror masters put aside their differences, sat down around the table, and made a war plan in which Sunni and Shia, Syrian and Saudi, Iranian and Iraqi cooperated against their common satanic enemy, the United States.

One other very important factoid emerged from the accounts of the attack on Zarqawi: we killed two women in the same house. We did it deliberately, because they were his key intelligence officers. From which two lessons should be drawn. First, women get something approaching parity in the jihadist terror organizations, despite endless citations from the holy Koran demanding their subservience. These were not suicide bombers, of which we have seen several exemplars in the past; these were important components of the terror headquarters. And second, when our soldiers enter terrorists’ quarters and kill women in the ensuing firefight, remind yourself that it might have been entirely proper, since the women may have been terrorists themselves.

Zarqawi played on a global scale. Reports from Canada recount contacts between the ‘home-grown’ terrorists arrested by the Mounties and Zarqawi himself (See the ‘Mississauga News,’ June 7: ‘The arrest of 17 suspects...is said to be the latest stage in dismantling a terrorist network that’s linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi...’). Those arrests seem linked to those carried out in Atlanta, Georgia, by the FBI, and to other arrests in Sarajevo, England, and Denmark. It will be surprising if we don’t find Zarqawi’s claw prints in several of those venues, as the Canadians have said. Remember, it was publicly announced a few months ago that Zarqawi was no longer the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, that henceforth the Iraqi Sunni ‘community’ would run the terror war there, and that Zarqawi would devote his efforts to the international jihad. It seems he did just that — and failed.

We have probably just lived through the greatest global counterterrorist operation in history. In Iraq alone, some 16 or 17 terror cells were attacked at the same time as Zarqawi was killed. And the wave of arrests — just yesterday the Swiss reported they had broken up a cell planning to attack an El Al passenger plane — is like nothing I have seen before, bespeaking an encouraging degree of international cooperation. It goes hand in hand with the devastating campaign in Iraq against the terrorist leadership. Zarqawi is just the latest to fall; most of his top associates had been eliminated over the course of the past several months.

The global operation seems to have been prompted by the discovery that the terror masters had ordered a worldwide assault, and so far the West has proven equal to the challenge. Let’s hope we stay on top of it. The Zarqawi operation will surely encourage people with information on the terrorists to talk to their local spooks; they have seen the terrorists fall, and the informers rewarded. That sort of thing fuels a bandwagon.

These recent successes may even provoke some of our analysts to rethink one of the core doctrines about contemporary terrorism: that it consists of myriad independent cells, tied together ideologically but not operationally. Not so. Shortly after the liberation of Afghanistan, I wrote that al Qaeda had been effectively destroyed, and that we should stop talking about al Qaeda as if it were the most important component in the terror network. I argued that we should conceive of terrorism as a kind of galaxy, with numerous components — ranging from Hamas and Islamic Jihad to the rump of al Qaeda and, most importantly, Hezbollah — who worked together, organized a division of labor, and were held in their orbits and epicycles by the Iranian intelligence apparatus, from the official ministry to the specialized units in the Revolutionary Guards.

The intelligence community was savaged after 9/11 for its failure to connect the dots, and it would be truly embarrassing, and very dangerous, to leave the Iranian dot out there apart from the rest of the network we have uncovered and shattered. A week ago Director of National Intelligence Negroponte gave a very interesting interview to the BBC in which he reiterated what everybody knows: ‘(the Iranians) are the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world.’

So how come we’re not going after them?

And for those who think the recent ‘we’ll-talk-if-you-stop-enrichment’ gambit was some sort of master diplomatic stroke, consider this: it turns out that the Iranians have actually increased their enrichment program.

There is no escape from the necessity of bringing down the mullahcracy, for they will keep killing our people and our friends.

Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With all due respect for Ledeen's analysis, it is incomplete, as his conclusion draws on the premis that the US is "not doing anything" about the IRI's network, globally.

Out of some 1900 forign terrorists captured in Iraq in 2005, some 1200 of those were Iranian. The discoveries of caches of Iranian weapons and munitions in Iraq, the capture of IRI intel agents, the Iraqi government's recent declaration of an emergency in Basra, and the removal of IRI backed government officials, the Iraqi government's first public statement was concerning the disbanding of all militias.

No, I think Ledeen has not appreciated the quiet approach to taking down the mullah's terror infrastructure.....The IRI can no longer hide behind Syria in its activities in Lebanon, and elsewhere.

There is at this point a huge body of evidence, and more on the way, as these opps he speaks of have given what some in the US Military have called a "treasure trove" of information.

Nor do I think the US has been blind to the communication and cooperation between the "spiderweb" of terrorist networks. Nor the "spider" that continues to weave a web, globally.

When the US speaks of "isolating" , it has more than one context, and one of the great advantages that the US has in intel gathering and spec opps is not just a matter of training and technology, it's that even our own so-called experts give them (the Bush Admin.) no credit for subtlety or "having a plan" as it were. When the mullahs dance and sing, "The west can do nothing to us!" I respectfully suggest that "the plan" has worked in one respect to make the enemy overconfident, and gleefully walked right into its own demise of its own making.

I hear this "where's the plan?" song a lot from Ledeen. An old song he sings, but it's a bit out of tune in my opinion.

"The gambit" as Ledeen puts it, does a number of things in both political and diplomatc areas.

1. No one will ever be able to say down the road that the US did not "exhaust diplomacy".

2. The onus is now on the IRI to choose a peaceful path, publicly. Or to continue on the path its on to the great detriment of peace and stability, publicly. No games, no "dragging out" the process, this is a test of the international based, multilateral process. And in my thinking with all the objections there was to US intervention in Iraq, the international community has also a clear choice to make, having just given the IRI one.
That is to either see multilateralism work in the UN context, or see it fail once again to keep the peace of nations via disunity.

3. I think even Ledeen would agree that the Iranian opposition needs some time yet to take matters forward, and must be prepared to do so in a simultaneous coodination with the implementation of sanctions. The IRI is fast pushing the free world to another alternative that could be far worse, if the IRI does produce a nuclear weapon before the people decide their own fate, and remove the threat both to them and the international community.

4. I have no doubt the IRI will try to draw things out, while trying to maintain enrichment activities, but their stepping up activity is kind of par for the course being that these kinds of "in your face" confrontational means of "diplomacy" have only served to backfire on the regime, and solidify the multilateral stance taken to address the issue in no uncertain terms. (uncertain to us, as the proposal is not public, but certain to the IRI as it has been delivered.)

It's like the P5+1 said to the IRI, "Put up, or shut up." And if they don't put up enrichment on the shelf, for the duration, than there is no need to talk about it further, and concequences ensue from there.

5. Teddy Rosevelt coined the phrase "Speak softly and carry a big stick." and this is part and parcel to a correct stance by what the US has been referred to as a "Hyperpower" in showing restraint.

6. It limits the IRI's options....not just acceed to other's will and lose face, or face the wrath of nations, but it gives only a couple side options for the IRI to go:

a) Having no way to back down and survive the internal struggle within the IRI regime, and having no good way forward against the will of nations, the IRI starts a war to seek support from the muslim world and support at home.

b) Antar declared Iran "a nuclear power" in the full meaning and context, as I reviewed his statement. The only other option I see for the IRI to put a different light on the subject is to test a nuclear weapon if they have one ready at this point ( by hook or by crook ).

Maybe it's true that from an indiginous nuclear weapons production standpoint, the IRI may be anywhere from 4-10 years out, but I'm not willing to bet the farm on it. The probabilities when you add in other factors of proliferation is greater that they have a nuke at this moment, ready to go, than not.

So in conclusion, "the gambit" as Ledeen calls it, serves also the purpose of placing the IRI in a position of responsibility for what happens next. If that be sanction or war even, should the regime react badly, the "gambit" puts it on the IRI's head, and the IRI will have a harder time getting Muslim nations to support them as a result, unable to further play "the victim game".

-Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Top cleric warns of attempts to create ethnic divisions in Iran
Fri. 09 Jun 2006
Iran Focus

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7529

Tehran, Iran, Jun. 09 – A top cleric accused the Iran’s “enemies” on Friday of attempting to create ethnic divisions inside the country.

“Creating divisions and enmity inside the country is on the enemy’s agenda”, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads the powerful Guardians Council, told Friday prayers worshippers in Tehran. His sermon was aired live on state television.

Iranian authorities have been struggling to put a lid on anti-government demonstrations by the predominantly Azeri population in the north-west of the country and unremitting protests by the Arab minority in the south-west.

Iran’s south-eastern province of Sistan-va-Baluchistan has also been a hotbed of activities against the ruling theocracy with several instances of armed attacks against government officials taking place earlier in the year.


---------end--------

Comment: This is an excelent example of what I mean by "the victim game" the IRI plays, accusing others of what it itself is responsible for...and now is reaping the results of repression of civil liberties over the decades.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 6 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group