Replies to post #3639 on Foreign Correspondence

[Ace Hanlon]

The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr

Memo To: Republican Senators
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: With Tony Blair‚s Support

Buried down in today‚s New York Times report on President Bush reaffirming his unqualified support for John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador is the reason why almost all of you are ready to vote for his confirmation.

„Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr. Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns about Iran`s suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security Council.‰
Why the big rush? My reliable sources tell me it is because there is a timetable that makes it urgent for Bolton to be ready for action in June in order to cripple the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as part of the plan to bomb the Iranian nuclear-power plant at Bushehr. That‚s because Bushehr, under construction with Russian supervision, will soon be ready to receive the Russian fissile material enabling it to produce power. In 1981, remember Republican Senators, Israel bombed the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Baghdad just before it was to be fueled by its French contractors. Once fueled, bombing is out of the question because of the radiation that would be emitted, with clouds traveling who knows where.

Of course you must know by now that at the time the Israelis blew up Osiraq, the situation was quite different. We were in the midst of the Cold War, the United States was supporting Iraq in its war against Iran, and the Russians were supporting Iran. So when the billion-dollar Osiraq plant went up in smoke (with the help of the neo-cons who were already occupying the Pentagon in that first year of the Reagan administration), there was no reaction from Russia because the Israelis were essentially bombing us!! We also know by now that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program at the time, but only began its (unsuccessful) clandestine effort after Osiraq.

The same is now true of Iran. If a month or two from now you are advised by President Bush that it is necessary to take out Bushehr to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you would have to wonder if the neo-cons and their Likud allies in Tel Aviv aren‚t simply threatening World War III on a faulty premise. Wouldn‚t you. The situation now is quite different, with Bushehr a Russian project in Iran.

On a recent, quite incredible FoxNews special <http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=15> , Lieut. General Thomas McInerney said we are already moving aircraft carriers into positions from which we could strike. He was then asked: „If you had to put a percentage on it, the chances that the US will eventually have to take military actions against Iran, what would you put it at?‰ to which McInerney replied casually: „Well, I would put one percent of using ground forces, boots on the ground in Iran, I would put up 50 percent on a blockade and I would put up fifty to sixty percent on precision air strikes on their nuclear development sites.‰ He also observed casually that Iran wouldn‚t dare take on the United States. Perhaps the 60 million Iranians would greet our bombers with garlands and sweets. Do you see what I mean? FoxNews, as you may know, is commonly known as "The War Channel," for similar work it did in promoting the war against Iraq.

Is Iran this kind of threat to anyone? As far as I can tell, ladies and gentlemen of the GOP Senate, the answer is „absolutely not,‰ at least as long as they remain members in good standing of the NPT, which means they will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect intrusively and constantly, as they have been doing. It has been the mission of John Bolton and his underling, Stephen Rademaker, to „reform‰ the United Nations in a way that dissolves the NPT and the need for the IAEA, not only to pave the way for the bombing of Bushehr, but also to get out from under the NPT provisions that require all the nuclear-weapon powers to make progress toward making the world a nuclear-free zone.

If you wish to really understand what‚s going on, instead of getting briefed by the same people who briefed you prior to the invasion of Iraq, please read Dr. Gordon Prather‚s commentaries on the crisis just around the corner. First, on WorldNetDaily.com, he writes Strengthen the NPT -- Or Else <http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=5951> , in which he walks us through the misinformation that Bolton, Rademaker and the neo-cons have been spreading on Iran‚s alleged violations of its treaty obligations. Dr. Prather, who by the way came to Washington under the patronage of Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and is no left-wing liberal, also penned a second column today for antiwar.com, Bush-Blairs Nutty U.N. Proposal <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44263> , which you have to read to realize how „nutty‰ it is.

There is also today on the antiwar.com website today an overview of this looming crisis that I highly recommend, as it was highly recommended to me by Dr. Prather, The Iran Crisis in Global Context <http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5952> . If you and your staffs do take my suggestions seriously and go to these links, I think you may have greater doubts about the Bolton nomination than you have now. If you have any doubts about Dr. Prather, check with your colleague, Senator Domenici, who was instrumental back in getting Prather an appointment as the Army‚s chief scientist during the Reagan administration.

This isn‚t too much to ask, is it? For good measure, I‚d hope those of you who are reading this memo to the GOP Senators and are among their constituents would urge them to take a second look before they send Bolton to the United Nations. His mission is not to clean up the so-called „Oil-for-Food Scandal‰ or promote UNICEF gift cards. It is to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iraq after undermining the work of IAEA and the need for the NPT.

[Amaunet]

I can’t get the Tariq Ali link. We know for certain Brzezinski’s Grand Game is being played, the pipelines don’t lie.

Therefore Iran is targeted. For the sake of discussion I will however state that Bush cannot militarily attack Iran. A big clue I believe is in his statement that we are to become much more aggressive in our push for democracy. World opinion has turned virulently against the United States since we invaded Iraq. Another military action similar to Iraq will turn the world farther away from us and closer to China who is considered the more benevolent country and our number one enemy.

I think Iran has significant influence in Iraq and what you said has merit. Bush will use a destabilization through which different factions will be pitted against one another as Kurds against Iranians, etc. Bush will maintain a strong military presence for intimidation. He will play the political/ bribery route with the UN and various countries. And he will clandestinely attempt to undermine the government of Iran by way of a velvet revolution. All of these things will be tried instead of another Iraq scenario.

The United States cannot manage or control a destabilization of the region and you are being kind to consider such a destabilization merely a crap shoot. This whole game is out of control. It has taken on a persona of its own and in doing so Bush has become desperate.

You are right they do seem in a rather large hurry. There is almost a panic about Washington.

Iraq is not going as planned, Afghanistan is once again on fire, Kyrgyzstan is leaning toward Russia, Uzbekistan wasn’t supposed to happen that way, India told us they were going ahead with the pipeline from Iran, Pakistan has gone over to China’s side, Latin America is forming an alliance with the Arabs, China is poised to take over the leadership of Asia and perhaps the world, our debt ridden economy is in incredibility bad shape and much more.

They have completely miscalculated yet the United States does no seem to have a ‘plan B’.

[Amaunet]

Good Read! Iran is calling the shots in Iraq at least in the south.

This has got to be why we armed the Sunnis in the south, the Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement is under Iran’s influence.


To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to "nip the evil in the bud".

Asia Times Online has learned that in a highly clandestine operation, the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US military cargo aircraft at Chaklala airbase in the past few weeks. The aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq.

The US-armed and supported militias in the south will comprise former members of the Ba'ath Party, which has already split into three factions, only one of which is pro-Saddam Hussein. They would be expected to receive assistance from pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's Iraqi National Accord.

#msg-5461656

Note they supposedly have photos of the desecration of the Koran.

-Am

Iraq's southern discomfort
By Kathleen Ridolfo


May 20, 2005

As Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi arrived in Baghdad this week to stress Iran's support for a stable, unified Iraq, Iran's Arabic-language al-Alam television station was broadcasting footage showing desecrated Korans strewn across a mosque floor in Iraq.

Playing on allegations made recently in Newsweek that US soldiers desecrated a Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the news channel claimed that the footage was taken following a US military raid on an Iraqi mosque in March.

The mood in Baghdad, however, was one of rapprochement. Iraqi leaders praised Kharrazi's "landmark" visit, stressing the need to build on brotherly relations with Iran.

The position of the transitional government is starkly different from the position taken by the interim government toward its eastern neighbor. During Iraq's interim administration, defense minister Hazim al-Sha'lan routinely criticized Iran for interfering in Iraq's internal affairs on a variety of levels, including the regime's purported financial support of political parties and its funding of the insurgency.

Historic visit
As Iraq's leadership was quick to point out, Kharrazi is the first minister from an Arab or Islamic neighbor to visit Iraq. From that perspective, the visit can be viewed as historic for Iraqis, who fought an eight-year war with Iran that left some 1 million people dead. In addition, many of Iraq's Shi'ite leaders - including Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari - spent years of exile in Iran, and are said to be on good terms with the Iranian regime.

During his visit, Kharrazi stressed to reporters Iran's support for a stable, unified Iraq. "We believe that security on the border with Iraq is security for the Islamic republic of Iran," he said. He also said that Iran has gone to great lengths to secure its border with Iraq over the past two years. "Had the Islamic republic of Iran exploited the situation in Iraq to interfere in Iraq's affairs and allow terrorists to enter Iraq from Iran, the situation in Iraq would have been much worse," he said.

Meanwhile, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar al-Zebari defended Iran, telling reporters: "We do not deny that infiltrations occur but we cannot say that these operations take place with the approval of the [Iranian] government." He acknowledged, however, that the transitional government views some of Iran's interests in Iraq to be "illegitimate", but cautioned that the Iraqi government is "against anything that harms relations between the two peoples and countries".

Iran's southern influence
Despite Iran's poor relations with the United States, Kharrazi said that "we consider it our duty to help the people of Iraq". In previous statements he has espoused the viewpoint that the US intends to harm Iraq and the region - a viewpoint that many analysts believe aims to sow internal Iraqi discord.

Iranian presidential frontrunner Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani elucidated this position when he told a group of Iraqi Assyrians in Tehran on May 16, "The colonialists and the Zionists are sowing the seeds of discord to rationalize their presence in the region." The US intention, he claimed, is to "seek inroads to the region's resources" through its domination of Iraq.

While both Zebari and Kharrazi stressed the need for non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs, no mention was made of widespread reports of Iranian militias ruling the streets of Basra and other southern cities. Nor was there any mention of the growing drug trade that flows from Afghanistan through Iran to Iraq. As London's al-Sharq al-Awsat reported on April 12, "An infiltrator from Iran ... needs only to cross a small land barrier in the al-Shalamjah area to get to Iraqi territory. Alternatively, this infiltrator can go through the palm orchards and then cross into Iraqi territory. If the infiltrator wants to use the river, he can use a small boat to cross the Shatt al-Arab to be in Iraq."

The report illustrates the level of Iranian penetration in Basra, and substantiates earlier reports by RFE/RL that Basrans are fearful to speak against the growing Iranian presence on the streets of Iraq's second city. In addition to a thriving smuggling trade, Iran has taken what the daily calls "humanitarian steps" to spread its political influence while distributing much-needed aid to the elderly and poor, much like the tactics successfully employed by the Palestinian Islamic group Hamas to win political support in Gaza. Iran has allocated $1 billion in aid that "is meant to implement projects that reinforce its intervention in Iraqi affairs", the daily reports.

Other media reports, including a May 14 article in Baghdad's al-Furat, talk of armed militias seizing the homes of Iraqis and redistributing them to Iranian families, in what the author calls "an organized process by Iranians to occupy Iraqi towns under various pretexts".

Iraqi Islamic Party member Iyad al-Azzi told al-Sharq al-Awsat in early April that Iran and Syria "have plans to further drown the United States in the Iraqi quagmire at the expense of [Iraq's] security, blood, and citizens" in order to divert US attention away from those states.

While the transitional government has claimed that it has no intention of duplicating an Iranian-style regime in Iraq, it appears to be taking the high road, at least publicly, in its dealings with Iran. As transitional President Jalal Talabani told Jordan's Television 1 on May 8, "We should not forget that Iran and Syria had thankfully assisted the forces ruling in Iraq now when they were in the opposition. Therefore, even if there are differences with these two countries, we seek to solve them in a brotherly manner. We do not want to export these differences to the press or television. We will exert efforts to solve differences cordially and through direct contact if such differences exist."

Both Iran and southern Iraqis might interpret that position as tacit approval of Iranian domination in the south. Like Hamas in Gaza, Iran's control over southern Iraq could slowly solidify - and later prove difficult to remove.

Copyright (c) 2005, RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC 20036

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE20Ak01.html