fredag, januari 13, 2006

3/ Iran - Next stop UN Security Cauncel - Whitney, Gerson, Watson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Förord: Ingen "utlänning" vågar, vill, törs stoppa galningarna i Vita huset,

EU och IAEA i Wien jamsar med som vanligt och nästa steg blir, vilket tidigare bl.a Scott Ritter påtalat, att bomba Iran. Och USA har som vanligt pressat och pressat på FN och via sina taktiska steg få Säkerhetsrådet in i ett hörn, så att man till slut får det att låta som om det är OK att bomba Iran.


Det har också noggrant avslöjats hur USA fick Iran att gå i en fälla och även provokativt försökt placera "bevis" för Irans kärnvapenplaner. Bombningarna skall enligt plan ske tidigast i mars via israeliska ombud och ca 500 mini-bunkerbusters levererade av USA. Till hjälp mot det eventuella anfallet levererar emellertid Ryssland sitt högkvalificerade antirobotvapen.


Vid denna tid planerar samtidigt Iran att skapa sin egen oljebörs, ett drag som får president Bush att rysa vid blotta tanken på vad som då händer med dollarvärdet. Även Iraks president Saddam Hussein hyste liknande planer, men så kom Gulfkriget emellan..


Också under Saddams tid 1981 bombade Israel det nästan färdigbyggda kärnkraftverket i norra Irak. Som vanligt känner sig Israel nu förfärligt hotat av sina grannar, vilket istället borde föranleda dom att rannsaka sig själva och sin egen sionistiska erövringspolitik. Men tyvärr verkar hoppet för en fredlig politik vara ute, även när det gäller dessa dårar i regeringsställning.


Allt detta innebär en stor fara inte bara för läget och människorna i Mellanösrtern utan över huvud taget. Inte minst när det gäller det ev radioaktiva nedfall som sprider sig runt jorden via atmosfärsströmmarna och i koncentrerad form faller ner med nederbörden.


Det är troligt att USA inte vill ha sina mannar i närheten vid ett anfall, då det räcker med en fatwa från ayatollorna att man i så fall kommer till paradiset om man anfaller amerikanarna.


Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran

By Mike Whitney

02/01/06 -- -- In less than 24 hours the Bush administration has won impressive victories on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. At home, the far-right Federalist Society alum, Sam Alito, has overcome the feeble resistance from Democratic senators; ensuring his confirmation to the Supreme Court.


Equally astonishing, the administration has coerced both Russia and China into bringing Iran before the United Nations Security Council although (as Mohamed ElBaradei says) “There’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.” The surprising capitulation of Russia and China has forced Iran to abandon its efforts for further negotiations; cutting off dialogue that might diffuse the volatile situation.


“We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television.


The administration’s success with Iran ends the diplomatic charade and paves the way for war. Now, UN Ambassador John Bolton will appear before the Security Council making spurious allegations of “noncompliance” that will rattle through the corporate media and prepare the world for unilateral military action.


The administration has no hope of securing the votes needed for sanctions or punitive action. The trip to the Security Council is purely a ploy to provide the cover of international legitimacy to another act of unprovoked aggression. The case has gone as far as it will go excluding the requisite “touched up” satellite photos and bogus allegations of unreliable dissidents.


We should now be focused on how Washington intends to carry out its war plans, since war appears to be inevitable.


Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.


Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government.


But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based” bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar” by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse” by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.


The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless.


The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.


The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.


Battle Plans

The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war.


If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear weapons programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.


Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green-light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.


Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. A


s long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. (In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency)


This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. This is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.


Invading Khuzestan

In a recent article by Zolton Grossman, “Khuzestan; the First Front in the War on Iran?”, Grossman cites the Beirut Daily Star which predicts that the “"first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks."


This strategy has been called the “Khuzestan Gambit”, and we can expect that some variant of this plan will be executed following the aerial bombardment of Iranian military installations and weapons sites. If Iran retaliates, then there is every reason to believe that either the United States or Israel will respond with low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons.


In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons do deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft.


Tonkin Bay Redux

On January 28, 2006, Iranian officials announced that they would “hand over evidence that proved British involvement in bombings in the southern city of Ahvaz earlier in the week” that killed eight civilians and wounded 46 others. This was just one of the many bombings, incitements, and demonstrations that have taken place in Khuzestan in the last year that suggest foreign intervention.


The action is strikingly similar to the 2 British commandoes who were apprehended in Basra a few months ago dressed as Arabs with a truckload of explosives during the week of religious festival.


Coincidence?

Perhaps.

But, step by step, Iran is being set up for war. What difference does the provocation make? The determination to consolidate the oil reserves in the Caspian Basin was made more than a decade ago and is clearly articulated in the policy papers produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).


The Bush administration is one small province away from realizing the its dream of controlling the world’s most valued resource. They won’t let that opportunity pass them by



Joseph Gerson: Vad gör vi när det gäller Iran? Skriftlig intervju av Agneta Norberg

1. What should we do?

We should bear in mind that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, and the West’s "intelligence" services report that it could take three to five years or more before Iran could develop a nuclear weapon.


This crisis is an example of the truism that one reaps what one sows. It is a mistake to view this as simply and Iranian generated problem.


Iran received nuclear technology, training and materials from the United States when Iran was ruled by the Shah and played an essential role for the U.S. in helping to contain Nasserite and other Arab nationalism.


The situation has been greatly compounded by U.S. regional hegemony in the Middle East which has been enforced by at least ten U.S. nuclear threats, beginning in 1946 and continuing through Bush the Lesser’s implied threats on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


Two other fundamentally important compounding elements have been the nuclear hypocrisy of the United States and other nuclear powers who have insisted that non-nuclear nations abide by the provision of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.


While they nearly flaunt their resistance to fulfilling their NPT Article 6 obligations - reinforced by the International Court of Justice’s 1999 advisory opinion - to negotiate and implement the complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals.


Unfortunately, both the clerical regime in Teheran and Kim Jung Il in Pyongyang are on solid legal ground when the assert their right under the NPT to enrich uranium for production of energy, not weapons production.


In this increasingly dangerous existential situation, the "West" needs to take a deep breath and be rather more imaginative in its diplomacy than the Bush Administration and Europeans have been.


Joseph Rotblat, the one senior scientist to quit the Manhattan Project for moral reasons, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, posed humanity options clearly years ago: Humanity can either eliminate all the world’s nuclear weapons, or we will see their global proliferation and the apocalyptic wars that will follow.


The boldest move that George Bush, who tells us that God speaks directly to him, could take now would be to say that the Creator has sent him a new epiphany: The crises with Iran and North Korea have illuminated the wisdom of Joseph Rotblat.


And together with Russia and China the U.S. will be convening a gathering of the most senior officials of the declared and non-declared nuclear powers - including Israel - to negotiate a time bound and completely verifiable nuclear weapons convention to eliminate the gravest sources of insecurity – nuclear weapons – where are spurring the proliferation that threatens humanity’s very survival.


That announcement should be linked to an appeal to Iran, North Korea, and all other nations which are exploring the development of nuclear weapons to freeze their programs - with IAEA monitoring - while the negotiations among the nuclear powers proceed.


Bush should also add that he has become aware that the growing reliance on nuclear power generation by "advanced" nations is dangerous for the planet, both because the plants’ wastes poison the planet and they lead to the creation of weapons grade nuclear fuel.


In addition to reaffirming the need for the world’s nations to close this loophole in the NPT, he should indicate that this will be on the agenda of those negotiating the nuclear weapons convention.


The U.S. should state publicly that there is little chance of preventing other nations in the Middle East from going nuclear until Israel dismantles its secret nuclear weapons arsenal in a verifiable manner. Then, much as it did during its nuclear alerts at the end of the 1967 and 1973 Israeli-Arab wars.


Privately, both Republican and Democratic U.S. leaders should communicate to all of the candidates for the Israeli presidency that if Israel does not move toward complete nuclear disarmament, the U.S. will sharply cut back on its economic and diplomatic assistance.


Will this happen? Very unlikely! But unless it does, after the crisis with Iran - whatever its outcome - we’ll be facing crises with twenty or more nations from Japan and Taiwan, to emerging powers in South America.


2. What can we expect: In the world of Realpolitik, a more likely approach is that the Northern powers and their allies will do what they can to further disengage from Iran


And to isolate it economically while encouraging Russia and to a lesser extent China - important suppliers and markets for Iran - to take the lead in brokering an agreement, much as China has done in the Six Party Talks with North Korea. Will this succeed? Who knows?


The U.S. is now pressing the IAEA to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council where the U.S. and the Europeans will press for economic sanctions, and the Russians and Chinese will determine whether such sanctions have the imprimatur of the U.N.


The U.S. will accelerate and deepen its efforts to engineer "regime change" through covert means.


Planning for a possible military strike - aerial bombardments, possibly including tactical nuclear weapons - against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will deepen.


Just as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel secretly developed nuclear weapons, I think there is a better than even chance that within a decade Iran will emerge as nuclear power. The Iranian President’s rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map makes this a particularly horrifying prospect.


But we should not forget that under the current U.S. Nuclear Posture Review Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Syria are named - explicitly threatened - as targets of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Such nuclear attacks would certainly “wipe” these nations “off the map.”


3. Will the U.S. or the U.S. and Britain, or possibly even Israel attack Iran?

Here in the United States there are credible reports that planning for military strikes against Iran, as described above, began early in 2004 and are well advanced. There are also credible reports that these attacks will take place before the end of March, 2006.


At the same time, popular wisdom is that the dispersal of the elements of Iran’s nuclear program to more than 250 sites means that such attacks would ultimately be ineffective.


We should remember that even the use of so-called "conventional" weapons against nuclear reactors would be a form of nuclear war, spreading radiation across populated areas and poisoning thousands if not millions, of people.


Finally, it should also be anticipated that if the United States attacked Iran, it would lead to widespread reprisals across the Islamic world and to countless devastating terrorist attacks - possibly including "dirty bombs" in urban settings - against the United States and its allies in such attacks. Hopefully this reality is being considered in the highest councils of power in Washington, D.C. and corporate boardrooms across the planet.


We’ve hit a very nasty time. Its seeds were planted before many of us were born. And it will take wisdom and commitment from the world’s peoples and governments to see humanity through its nuclear crisis - of which Iran is but its newest incipient dimension.



US set to clinch nuclear deal with India

By Paul Watson in New Delhi
January 14, 2006


AS WASHINGTON steps up pressure on Iran and North Korea to abandon suspected nuclear weapons programs, US officials are completing a nuclear deal with India that critics says is a threat to non-proliferation efforts.


India has agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor civilian nuclear plants. But it will decide which of its sites are civilian, and any designated military will remain off-bounds and free to produce more nuclear weapons as India builds the sophisticated missiles to deliver them.


After meeting the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, on Thursday, John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential hopeful who sits on the powerful Senate foreign relations committee, said he supports the deal, which is still being negotiated, in principle and called it "a very positive step forward". But he echoed concerns that it allows India to keep producing the weapons-grade nuclear material.


The same day the foreign ministers of Germany, Britain and France declared that more than two years of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program have hit a "dead end", and called for the matter to be brought before the United Nations Security Council for tougher action, setting the stage for a long-awaited international showdown.


It was also revealed that Israel has drawn up plans for strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities with bunker-busting bombs supplied by the US, but analysts say it has no intention of carrying them through while diplomatic pressure is growing on Tehran.


Israel regards Tehran as the single greatest threat, a view sharpened by the call by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran for the Jewish state's destruction and his denial of the Holocaust.


Iran said yesterday it would end voluntary co-operation with the UN over its nuclear program, including snap checks of atomic sites, if Tehran was referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions.


The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said on Thursday that the Iranian Government had carried out a "deliberate escalation" of the nuclear dispute as she joined condemnation of the Islamic republic by Britain, France and Germany. Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, also warned Tehran could lose Moscow's support if it did not re-impose a moratorium on sensitive nuclear research.


Japan added its voice to the chorus of disapproval yesterday. The Chief Cabinet Secretary, Shinzo Abe, said: 'Unless Iran changes its behaviour, there is no option other than to report to the UN Security Council".


The US's nuclear deal with India goes back to July, when President George Bush and Dr Singh agreed to resume nuclear co-operation in energy and other civilian fields, even though India refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Under the Atomic Energy Act, Mr Bush needs congressional support to initiate nuclear co-operation between the US and India.


The US led international moves to isolate India after it tested a nuclear bomb in 1974, when India was a close ally of the Soviet Union. Sanctions were tightened when India and neighbouring Pakistan carried out a series of tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests in 1998.


But the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and India's growing economic and military strength, have radically changed Washington's views of South Asia.


The Bush Administration has moved quickly to forge a close "strategic partnership" with India, which includes accords for closer co-operation in high-tech fields such as space flight, satellites and missile defence.