Iran, Nuclear Weapons and the Rush to War

U.S. Has Plan in Case Attack On Iran Needed, Says Army Chief

Both Israel and U.S. keeping military option on table; Iran envoy to UN: We'll set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel strikes us.

By The Associated Press

August 01, 2010 "Haaretz" -- Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday that the U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran if necessary, but clarified that he considered such a strike to be a bad idea.

Mullen, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, has often warned that a military strike on Iran over its contentious nuclear program would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects around the Middle East. At the same time, he has called the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon unacceptable.

Mullen would not say which risk he thinks is worse, but told NBC television's Meet The Press that a military strike remains an option if need be. Should come to that, Mullen added, the military has a plan at hand. He did not elaborate.

Both the U.S. and Israel have declared that the option of attacking the Islamic Republic must remain on the table.

Iran's envoy to the United Nations earlier Sunday warned that the Islamic Republic would set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel dares attack it.

"If the Zionist regime commits the slightest aggression against Iranian soil, we will set the entire war front and Tel Aviv on fire," Mohammad Khazai said, Kashmar, the Farhang-e Ashti daily reported.

Last month, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said world leaders "believe absolutely" that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders.

Iranian military officials said last week that the United States and Israel would not dare attempt a military strike of Iran's nuclear sites, adding that they were confident that Tehran would easily repel such an attempt.

The United States, the United Nations and the European Union have each imposed new restrictions on Iran over its nuclear enrichment activities.
____________

US Has Plan to Attack Iran, Mullen Admits: Insists Plan Is Only Meant to Be Used 'If Necessary'

by Jason Ditz,
Antiwar.com
August 1, 2010

Just weeks ahead of a planned P5+1 talk with Iran, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen announced on Meet the Press that the military has drawn up plans to attack Iran, though he insisted they would only do so ‘if necessary‘

Mullen said the prospect of attacking Iran is “well understood” and that it remains “an important option” for President Obama. Iranian officials warned they would retaliate if attacked by the US.

The US has been threatening to attack Iran for several years, but perhaps the most memorable was a comment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year, in which she threatened to attack Iran “the way that we did Iraq.”

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 on the basis of false claims regarding its nuclear program. The US threats against Iran are likewise based on allegations centering around their civilian nuclear program.


NOTE:

How absurd. There is absolutely no existential threat to the security of the United States posed by Iran--irrespective of whether it is in the process of producing a nuclear weapon--which to date has not been proven.

Recall that the last US NIE on Iran held that Iran abandoned any attempt at building a nuclear weapon years ago. The fact that a subsequent NIE has not been produced suggests that nothing has changed and that the saber rattling for war with Iran is all propaganda on the part of the war monger's.

What is truly sad is that a constant state of war has become the default position of those in power despite the fact that polls show a majority of American's oppose it.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

____________


Who’s afraid of Iran’s civilian nuclear programme?

by Thierry Meyssan
Non-Alligned Press Network
July 27, 2010

According to Thierry Meyssan, the debate around the possible existence of an Iranian military nuclear programme is nothing but a smokescreen. The great powers suspended all transfer of technology with the overthrow of the Shah and the Islamic Revolution repudiated the principle of the atomic bomb. The feigned suspicions of western countries are merely a ploy to isolate a state which calls into question the military and energy dominance of the nuclear powers and their veto rights at the Security Council.



Security Council chamber aisle during the vote on Resolution 1929. Clockwise: Ambassadors from Germany, the U.K., China, Russia, France and the USA. © UN Photo/Evan Schneider

The White House issued a press kit explaining the thrust of Security Council resolution 1929 [1]. Its content – as well as the widespread communication campaign behind it - were relayed by the mainstream media without, as usual, the slighest critical approach.

According to the Western media – parroting the White House – the resolution was adopted by a “large majority” and constitutes “a reponse to Iran’s constant refusal to comply with its internacional obligations related to its nuclear programme”. Let’s take a closer look.

Of the 15 Security Council members, 12 voted in favour of adopting the sanctions (including the five permanent members), 1 abstained and two voted against [2]. This “large majority” actually shrouds a new political divide: for the first time in the history of the Council, a bloc of emerging nations (Brazil and Turkey, supported by the non-aligned countries in unison) took a stand against the permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and USA) and their vassals. Thus, in reality, this “unanimity minus two votes” reflects the chasm between the Directory of the Big Five and what one must again refer to as the Third World by analogy to the Thid Estate [3], or those whose voice doesn’t count.

Brazil played a key role in the framing of the Tlatelolco Treaty, establishing Latin America as a “nuclear-free zone”. Turkey is actively pursuing the same objective for the Middle East. The sincerity of these two countries’ opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons is beyond doubt. As is the fact that Turkey, which shares a common border with Iran, should be particularly concerned with preventing Tehran from acquiring the atomic bomb.

Why, then, did they vote against Resolution 1929? As we shall see, the problems conjured up by the big powers are but a smokescreen intended to stymie the deeper debate allowing Iran and the non-aligned bloc to denounce their privileges.



Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini (1902-1989) declared that weapons of mass destruction are incompatible with Islam.

The myth of the Iranian bomb

During the reign of Shah Reza Pahlevi, the United States and France implemented a wide programme to equip Tehran with the atomic bomb. In view of its history, it was generally accepted that Iran was not an expansionist State and that the great powers could safely provide it with such technology. MORE...

Iran's Growing Revolution vs. the Democrat's Intervention

By Shamus Cooke

Global Research,
December 28, 2009

On Sunday in Iran, mass protests were drowned in blood by government authorities; at least ten reportedly have been killed with hundreds injured. The events have been given ample coverage in the U.S. media, with the intention of further demonizing Iran's repressive government. Absent in the American media are the deeper implications of the protests, which, to anyone paying close attention, constitute a powerful revolutionary movement.

This movement has grown exponentially in a very short period of time. Although only beginning in June over allegations of voter fraud, the movement is now endorsed by millions of combative Iranians, demanding “death to the dictator,” while they waive an Iranian flag that's missing the Muslim insignia. Massive demonstrations in the streets and university campuses have directly confronted police repression and in some cases have overcome it. The New York Times describes a scene found only in instances of revolution:

“There were scattered reports of police officers surrendering, or refusing to fight. Several videos posted on the Internet show officers holding up their helmets and walking away from the melee, as protesters pat them on the back in appreciation. In one photograph, several police officers can be seen holding their arms up, and one of them wears a bright green headband, the signature color of the opposition movement.” (December 27, 2009).

The recent killing of protesters is likely to have the opposite of its intended effect: protesters are likely to become even more demanding and radicalized. After the shots were fired, thousands of demonstrators were heard yelling: “I'll kill, I'll kill those who killed my brothers.” If the current Iranian government survives the revolutionary movement, it will do so only after a prolonged period of extreme domestic crisis and repression.

The reaction of the U.S. government to the month's long events in Iran has been largely to ignore it. After some initial comments in June, the White House has talked only about Iran's “nuclear ambitions,” minus one sentence in Obama's Orwellian Nobel Peace Prize speech, where he said: “We will bear witness to the hundreds of thousands marching in the streets of Iran.”

Not only has the U.S. government not “born witness” to the people's struggle in Iran, the Democrats are working to undermine it. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced his intention to push forward potentially crippling U.S. sanctions against Iran's oil imports (Iran cannot refine all of the oil it needs, and must import 40 percent). If realized, this action would amount to an act of war.

The AFP reports: “The legislation, which includes sanctions that can be slapped on foreign companies with more than 20 million dollars of investments in Iran's energy sector, was approved by the Banking Committee at end of October.” (December 25, 2009).

The effect of such an economic attack will be to assist Iran's current rulers, who will use the provocation to distract the public away from domestic issues, and focus instead on a powerful foreign enemy.

But “liberals” in Washington are not only advocating economic acts of war, but also the direct military type. A recent Op-Ed article in the New York Times was titled “There's Only One Way to Stop Iran.” The author was more than blunt:

“We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.” (December 24, 2009).

This essay is from the U.S.' most powerful “liberal” mainstream newspaper.

In the same article, the author writes about the consequences of a U.S. attack on the Iranian “opposition,” i.e., revolutionary movement. He admits that such an attack would have dire consequences for the Iranian social movement, but says it would be “temporary.”

It should be no surprise that Washington's “liberal” wing of the corporate establishment is getting in line behind a more aggressive approach to Iran, since the exact same thing happened on the war path to Iraq.

Like Iraq, politicians are conjuring up nightmare scenarios to scare the American public into accepting an attack on Iran. In fact, the exact same bogeymen are being used which justified the invasion of Iraq. Iran, we are told, will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, just like Saddam was supposedly about to do.

Also like Iraq, there is zero evidence of nuclear weapons in Iran. Contrary to the accusations of Democrats and Republicans, the U.S. government's own National Intelligence Estimate of late 2007 stated that Iran had halted its entire nuclear weapons program in 2003 and had not re-started it as of 2007.

U.N. inspectors inside of Iran have also reported zero evidence of nuclear weaponry. Likely, however, as in Iraq, false “intelligence” may be “uncovered” that could be used to justify an attack.

Regardless of the many media-invented lies surrounding the situation in Iran, the real cause for intervention would be the same as Iraq: oil and corporate profits in general.

Like Iraq, Iran has lots of oil. Also like Iraq, Iran has a large state sector that could be privatized as gifts for U.S. corporations. Like Iraq, Iran is not a puppet of the United States, one of the few countries in the oil-rich Middle East hanging on to their independence.

This Iranian revolution, if successful, has profound implications for the Middle East and beyond. The last Iranian revolution, in 1979, shook off the U.S.-installed puppet dictator and made Iran an independent country. Unfortunately, the aspirations of the people were choked off by the Ayatollahs, who stopped the revolutionary movement in its tracks by murdering progressives by the thousands.

Because the Middle East continues to be dominated by U.S. puppets or directly by the U.S. military, Iran's independence continues to be a source of inspiration for millions in the region. Regrettably, the stunted outcome of the 1979 revolution is also viewed as a goal for many of these same people, who wrongly see a religious government as more just and equitable than what they currently experience under U.S. domination.

The popular revolution in Iran is likely to come into conflict with not only Mullahs, but in addition, powerful corporations. The people will not be satisfied submitting to either, making this revolution inherently more radical than the “pro-democracy” label given by the U.S. government. If Iran were to complete a revolution that made its goal to spend its oil wealth and other riches on the people, it would send an example that would rock the Middle East. Any U.S. or Israeli intervention would be useless, which is precisely why they may try to abort the baby before it is born.

Those in the United States involved in the anti-war movement must be aware of the unfolding events in Iran. The people of Iran must be allowed to complete their revolution without U.S. intervention. HANDS OFF IRAN!