Comments on US prepared to grab Iran's oil rich province.
I am seeing many of these things have already come to pass. This plan is in its beginning stages.
1) This could be one reason Ahmadinejad is anxious to gauge the extent to which China and Russia are likely to back Iran’s stance against the United States and the EU regarding the rejection of the nuclear pact as this might also be an indication Russia and China will align with Iran if Bush attacks. #msg-7258285
2) Russia has called on Iran to stop work on uranium conversion immediately, a day after it resumed operations at its nuclear facility at Isfahan. #msg-7296090
If CIA counterparts in France, Britain, Canada, and Australia know of the plans it is highly likely Russia and China know.
The following factions and places are mentioned in the Madsen Report and previously documented by FC.
Turning the Arabs against the Persians or using the Arabs to take out Iran is a strategy long used by Bush. A case in point is the Persian Gulf Island dispute. #msg-3136614
The bombings took place in Ahvaz where ‘some foreign agents’, think U.S., were accused of being behind a previous riot.
On April 15, a letter, which was said to be written by Iran'sformer vice president Mohammad Ali Abtahi to promote a coercive migration of Arabs in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, touched off riots in the provincial capital of Ahvaz.
Iran disclaimed the letter and reined in the unrest, claiming "some foreign agents" were behind the incident.
US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on April 11 that Washington had earmarked 3 million US dollars to "promote democracy in Iran," a move criticized by Tehran as "interfering in Iran's internal affairs." #msg-6489463
US prepares Kurds and Azerbaijanis against Iran #msg-6269018
Special Forces from the US and Britain recently trained in the Pakistani port city of Karachi in areas that resemble Iranian cities, UPI reported quoting sources in the Pakistani intelligence.
During the exercise, the US and British troops showed particular interest in areas inhabited by Baluch tribesmen and Iranian refugees, where several key Al Qaeda terrorists are also believed to have taken refuge after escaping from Afghanistan following the US military operation against the Taliban in October 2001.
Pakistani police say that it was the same area where kidnappers of a Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, had temporarily hidden him before killing him.
Culturally, this area is considered the closest in Pakistan to parts of eastern Iran and is also used by Iranian tribal smugglers who have ethnic and lingual affinities with the Baluch tribesmen living here.
Pakistani intelligence sources said that during the exercises, the troops also familiarized themselves with other Karachi neighbourhoods, roads and exit points, railway and bus stations and the airport.
Witnesses said some streets in Karachi, lined with shops on both sides with people living in the flats above, were made to resemble similar congested areas of major Iranian cities. #msg-6570194
The MEK are reportedly in talks with Washington, while their fighters are under US protection in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. #msg-6176343
In a more significant indication of White House attitudes on the subject, the Department of Defense has failed to fully disarm the People's Mujahideen of Iran (or Mujahideen-e Khalq, MEK), an anti-government militia now based in Iraq that has conducted terrorist actions in Iran and is listed on the State Department's roster of terrorist organizations. In 2003, the Washington Post reported that some senior administration figures would like to use the MEK as a proxy force in Iran, in the same manner that the Northern Alliance was employed against the Taliban in Afghanistan. #msg-6019639
Crash Of US U-2 Spy Plane - Iran Related #msg-7123196
Bush is quite mad you know.
-Am
US prepared to grab Iran's oil rich province
Aug 10 2005, 08:02 PM Wayne Madsen Report
August 10, 2005 -- U.S. prepared to grab Iran's southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. According to sources within the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst - BND), the Bush administration has drawn up plans to hit Iran's nuclear, other WMD, and military sites with heavy saturation bombing using bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons. The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People's Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups. The German intelligence comes from classified briefings provided by elements within the CIA that are concerned the neocons in the Bush administration will, in attacking Iran, set off a chain of events that will lead to world war. Intelligence on U.S. plans to attack Iran has also been passed by CIA agents to counterparts in France, Britain, Canada, and Australia. The Bush war plans for Iran also entail quickly seizing Iran's southwestern Khuzestan Province, where most of Iran's oil reserves and refineries are located. Khuzestan has a majority Shia Arab population that has close links with their ethnic and religious brethren in Iraq. The Bush plans call for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi border and from naval forces in the Persian Gulf in answer to an appeal for assistance from the Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front and Liberation Organization rebel forces in Khuzestan, which will declare an independent Arab state of the Democratic Republic of Ahwaz and receive diplomatic recognition from the United States and a few close U.S. allies. After World War I, Khuzestan was annexed by Iran, then called Persia. There are also plans to incite rebellions among Iran's other minorities, including Azeris and Turkmenis in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Other minorities targeted by the neo-con planners are Iranian Kurds along the Iraqi and Turkish borders and Baluchis along the border with Pakistan. The neo-con plan seeks to separate Iran from its oil resources and create an "Irani triangle" centered around Teheran, Isfahan, Qom, and other historically Persian centers. In anticipation of the U.S. attack, the spy sub USS Jimmy Carter has placed taps on undersea communications cables in the Persian Gulf that carry Iranian commercial, diplomatic, and military traffic. In addition, Task Force 121 covert paramilitary forces have scouted Iran using the cover of journalists and businessmen to pinpoint military targets. omarleedsAug 10 2005, 08:03 PM http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
Has India sacrificed at Washington's altar? By Ramtanu Maitra
Aug 12, 2005
Shortly after his return from a state visit to Washington, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the Indian media that the United States had no role in the proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan. It was the umpteenth time this face-saving line had been ritually trotted out in New Delhi, despite evidence to the contrary.
Given the fractious US-Iran relationship, and both statements issued by US officials and the pussyfooting of the Manmohan government over the past six months about the future of the ambitious project, it is evident that unless the Iran-US bilateral relationship changes dramatically, the pipeline is a non-starter.
The participating countries in the proposed 2,600-kilometer, overland natural-gas pipeline began discussions in the early 1990s, but it has only been in recent meetings among officials from India, Iran and Pakistan that indications were given that the project could get underway in the near future, despite pricing disagreements.
India is a huge and growing natural-gas market, with consumption of nearly 25 billion cubic meters in 2002 and projections it will reach 34 billion cubic meters in 2010 and 45.3 billion cubic meters in 2015. Iran sits on the world's second-largest natural-gas reserves - an estimated 26.6 trillion cubic meters, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
US State Department official Stephen Rademaker has warned that Iran could fund terrorism and weapons of mass destruction with the money it made from natural-gas sales, and US officials have warned the Indians and Pakistanis that their companies could be sanctioned if they go ahead with the project.
The issue thus is a prism that has thrown into bold relief the political challenges and domestic dilemmas of India's unfolding strategic relationship with the US.
US opposition The Bush administration's opposition to the pipeline first showed up in March, when the then-newly appointed US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, visiting New Delhi, said, "I think that our views concerning Iran are very well known at this time. And we have communicated to the Indian government our concerns about gas pipeline cooperation between Iran and India. I think our ambassador has made statements in that regard, so those concerns are well known to the Indian government." As students of American foreign policy know, when the US secretary of state expresses "concern" it is a pleasant if emphatic way of saying no.
At the same time, the US-Iran relationship appears to be heading to a possible confrontation over Tehran's nuclear program. Tensions have heightened this week with Iran removing United Nations seals on equipment used in uranium enrichment at the Isfahan facility. The US suspects that Iran's program will be used to develop nuclear weapons, not just the nuclear energy that Tehran claims.
There are ample indications that Washington does not like the idea of its new strategic ally, Delhi, helping its enemy, Iran. In fact, President George W Bush reportedly conveyed this bluntly to the visiting Indian premier during the latter's July visit. New Delhi denies this, but the report refuses to vanish.
And in case there was any question on the US stance, on August 4, according to The Hindu newspaper, US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca told a group of visiting Pakistani journalists that Washington opposed the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, adding that Islamabad and New Delhi should explore alternative sources for meeting their energy needs. Rocca said the US believed it was not the right time to invest in Iran's gas and oil sector. "We would support this gas and oil coming from somewhere else," she was quoted as saying.
Rocca went on to accuse Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program in violation of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and of being a state sponsor of terrorism. She said investments in the oil and gas sector in Iran would be "a bad idea" because the US Congress is beefing up laws placing sanctions on any investments in the Iranian oil and gas sector.
Similarly, in a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 26, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, E Anthony Wayne, reiterated the explicit message: "A more troubling aspect of the recent surge in overseas energy deals by China and India is their willingness to invest in countries that are pursuing policies that are harmful to global stability. Both Chinese and Indian firms have reportedly been involved in oil and gas-sector deals in Iran that raises concerns under US law and policy.
For example, Indian and Pakistani officials are engaged in detailed discussions on the technical, financial and legal aspects of building a $4-billion pipeline that would bring Iranian natural gas to Pakistan and India - a project that, as Secretary Rice has said, also raises US concerns. India, and to a much larger extent China, have significant upstream investments in Sudan's energy sector ... ." There is no mincing of words here.
Isolating Iran The US objection to the project stems from the fact that at this point Iran is an enemy of the US, and unless this relationship changes the Bush administration will do its best to see that Iran becomes more and more isolated. Such isolation is necessary as the US is reportedly developing a contingency plan to "take out" Iran's nuclear facilities. Some in Washington insist that preparation for such a confrontation has in fact already begun.
In objecting to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, US officials cite the existing Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, signed by former president Bill Clinton. The act requires the president to impose sanctions on any international firm that does $40 million or more in oil or gas business with Iran or Libya, or that violates United Nations sanctions already in place against Libya.
The act was initiated due to US disapproval of Iran's alleged support of international terrorism. Statutory sanctions were imposed in 1984, when Iran was officially placed on the list of state supporters of international terrorism. Not only were weapons sales prohibited, but all assistance and loans to Iran from international financial institutions were prohibited as well. In 1997, an executive order prohibited the importation of goods and services from Iran. The 1997 sanctions restated that US citizens were prohibited from engaging in all trade and investment activities in Iran. This action was primarily spurred by the US accusation of Iranian efforts to disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf with naval mines and missile attacks.
Watch his feet, not his mouth Significantly, even as premier Manmohan was asserting India's independence of the US in the India-Iran pipeline affair, he was acting to scuttle the project. On August 3, the Press Trust of India reported that New Delhi was unwilling to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran to set a timeframe for implementation of the pipeline. The news agency commented that the Indian unwillingness stemmed from the fact that it would not be appropriate to sign an agreement until its security concerns were addressed.
At the beginning of a two-day special joint working group meeting this month on the pipeline, Tehran had proposed an MoU similar to the one it signed with Pakistan last month, setting a clear timeframe. Iran wants the project structure to be in place by December-end, and the implementation mechanism and project financing model by April next year so as to begin work by the second half of 2006.
But India is now clearly dragging its heels. Whether New Delhi's actions stem from a desire to please Washington, or represent practical self-interest in the face of an imminent US-Iran confrontation, is not known.
Further, the cost estimate for the project, previously stated to be US$4.5 billion, has now jumped to $7.4 billion. This is understandable and justified: the original estimate is old. But at the same time, it is evident that in the absence of international financing due to the American opposition to the project, it would be difficult to put together that additional $2.9 billion, if not the whole amount.
Aside from the potential negative side-effect of preventing the implementation of the pipeline, some observers in India point out that there may be an upside for India to the cost revaluation. Pricing disagreements between Iran and India still persist, and Iran may try to salvage the deal by offering India a lower price for its gas.
It is not clear whether the Indian premier was fully aware of the 1996 Iran-Libya sanctions legislation, but it is evident that it was read out to him while he was in Washington. On July 21, while still in Washington, Manmohan suddenly began saying he was unsure whether the pipeline would get funding, the Press Trust of India reported. "I am realistic enough to realize that there are many risks, because considering all the uncertainties of the situation there in Iran, I don't know if any international consortium of bankers would underwrite this," Singh said, according to the news agency.
Moving for damage control At a lower level, the Manmohan government seems to have quietly allowed the singing of a different tune in New Delhi. Talking to the Iranian news agency, IRNA, on July 27, Lydia Powell, a senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, a think-tank known to be closely aligned with the Congress coalition government in Delhi, elaborated on the economic difficulties the project faces. Powell said that the economic facts on the ground were not supportive of the pipeline project.
"There is a contradiction between India's foreign policy and energy policy. In such circumstances there is not a single bank that will come forward to fund it," Powell said. In addition, indicating that a regime-change in Tehran was very much on the Bush administration's agenda, and New Delhi must take note of that, Powell said such projects take a long time to execute and governments might be replaced and only a stable national policy could ensure construction of a like project.
In what may be the clearest indication that a damage-control effort is underway, Powell also took aim at the Manmohan government's most outspoken proponent of the project. "The pipeline project seems to be steered by the personality of the Indian Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas [Mani Shankar Aiyar]. A project does not become bankable because of one minister," Powell declared.
Indeed, one of the most strident voices assuring the Indian people that the pipeline will be built no matter what, has been that of Aiyar. He has repeatedly assured Indian parliamentarians that there was "no going back" for India. He also told the Indian parliament July 28 that there was no American "pressure" on India, but, significantly, did confirm that at least two US officials had expressed reservations over the project.
It was the same Aiyar who was the first to disclose the increasing US pressure on India after a meeting with the American envoy in New Delhi, David Mulford, ahead of Rice's March visit. At the time, the Indian media reported Aiyar saying: "All of us have noted what the US concerns are, but I think they too are aware of our energy security requirements."
Again, on June 4, during a visit to Lahore, Pakistan, Aiyar said India would not give in to US pressure to abandon the project because of concerns that Iran might use the revenues to develop nuclear or other banned weapons, the Press Trust of India reported.
Manmohan dilemma The difficulty that the Manmohan government faces is living up to recent claims that New Delhi's warming relations with the US have not undermined India's independent foreign policy or its close ties with Tehran. He must also prove that the recent announcement by the US that it will cooperate with India on nuclear issues has not resulted in India surrendering the autonomy of its strategic nuclear assets. "We have not surrendered in any way the effectiveness of our strategic nuclear assets program," Manmohan told Indian parliamentarians on August 4.
The India-US nuclear deal is the anchor of Manmohan's visit to Washington. Although some believe the deal was less than favorable for India, it is nonetheless projected by the premier as the crown of success in his dealings with Washington. By identifying "India's independent foreign policy or its close ties with Tehran" as potential chips in a bargain with the US, Manmohan has opened himself up for close observation by his critics.
In addition, if Powell is to be believed, Aiyar may go a long distance before allowing his premier to dump the project, albeit temporarily. This could create a serious factional division within the cabinet centered on the project. This is something Manmohan will have to face up to sooner rather than later.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, holds the keys to the project. The Indo-US nuclear deal cannot be put in place unless the US Congress approves it. The deal could be scuttled by opposition from the Congress, from other nuclear powers, or even from countries that gave up their own nuclear ambitions to sign the NPT. Bush has promised to lobby his own Congress as well as foreign allies to amend American laws and international agreements that now bar nuclear cooperation with India because it has not signed the NPT.
Under the circumstances, if New Delhi does not play ball with the Bush administration on the Iran-India pipeline, it is unlikely that the White House will go out and lobby to see the nuclear deal through. Moreover, within the US Congress, the anti-Iran lobby is getting stronger and the White House is sparing no effort to augment the process.
The Pakistan factor Pakistan is another element in the Indian dilemma. As of now, Pakistan has shown eagerness to see the pipeline project through. It would bring a substantial amount of money annually to Pakistan - some estimates suggest as much as $600 million a year in transit fees. Hence, there exists a lobby within Pakistan who would like to see the project implemented.
At the same time, however, US-Pakistan relations are multifold and compelling. Despite their joint commitment to the "war on terror" (to the tune of about a billion dollars in American aid a year since 2002), Islamabad's apparent difficulty in fighting its own people on behalf of the US makes the situation tricky. Pakistan has long been fussing about the growing military power of India and was denied military hardware by the US because of its "unlawful" development of nuclear weapons. But recently Washington resumed military assistance to Islamabad and in March agreed to sell the much-needed F-16 fighter jets to the Pakistan Air Force.
While in Pakistan last March, Rice reportedly argued with Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri that even if the US administration gave up its opposition to the pipeline, there were powerful groups within the US Congress, media and academia that would continue to oppose the project - all of which would ultimately adversely affect Washington's relations with Islamabad.
In other words, both Pakistan and India remain vulnerable to the Bush administration's policy on the Iran-India pipeline. Pakistan is arguably more vulnerable than India.
However, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhammad Naim Khan announced on July 25 that even if India gave in to US pressure, Islamabad would build a natural-gas pipeline from Iran, media reported. "We would welcome Indian association with this project, but if it is not feasible with India, we are going to go ahead with the project in any case," Khan said, adding that Pakistan needed the gas.
Iranian Petroleum Minister Bijan Namdar-Zanganeh visited Islamabad and met with Pakistani Petroleum Minister Amanullah Khan Jadoon in the first week of July. The two sides signed a MoU that called for continued discussions, and Namdar-Zanganeh said he hoped a final agreement would be signed by April next year. He noted that after 10 years of talks, this was the first "written document". Namdar-Zanganeh also met with President General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Business Recorder, a Pakistani financial daily, has reported that Islamabad had already begun a search for investment banks that could serve as "financial adviser/consultant" for the pipeline.
The bottom line But beyond all that, it is evident that the US-Iran relationship is reaching a point of no return, which may soon enough lead to military confrontation. In fact, according to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue of the American Conservative, the Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another September 11-type terrorist attack on the US.
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran, employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, according to this report, and, hence, the nuclear option. (As in the case of Iraq, the US response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the US.)
The bottom line, then, is that the prospect of such a war breaking out during the time period it would take to implement the pipeline (one estimate suggests designing the pipeline would take 12 to 18 months and actual construction would take between three-and-a-half years to four years) would, by itself, be sufficient to render the project unviable. And it is likely that the US informed India about this in no uncertain terms.
The India dilemma is to make the Indian people accept the fact that implementation of the pipeline project depends on a green light from Washington.
(Additional reporting by Bill Samii of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)
CARACAS - Oil prices hit a new record of US$66.69 a barrel in New York Friday, driven up by sustained demand, refinery problems, a drop in gasoline stocks in the United States, geopolitical tension and speculative activity. US benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) closed Friday at $66.55 a barrel, after climbing to a high of $66.69 - up 75 cents from Thursday. London Brent crude also hit a new high of $65.88 a barrel.
The weekly averages were $64 for WTI, $63.02 for Brent and $56.78 for the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) basket of 11 benchmark crudes, according to a report by the Venezuelan Energy Ministry. This week's prices were $3 higher than a week ago, $6 higher than a month ago, $15 higher than in the first quarter of 2005, $25 up from the 2004 average, and more than double the prices two years ago. But adjusting for inflation, they are still below the post-Iranian revolution prices of 1979, when they soared to more than $40 a barrel, equivalent to $80 a barrel today.
Iran, OPEC's second largest exporter - after Saudi Arabia - again indirectly contributed to last week's price rise due to concern sparked by its clash with the European Union and the United States over its nuclear program. But Seth Kleinman, an analyst with US-based PFC Energy, said prices were expected to hit $70 a barrel sooner rather than later.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who signed oil cooperation deals last week with Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, remarked: "Oil prices will continue rising because the reserves are running out on one hand and there are factors like the war in Iraq on the other. The United States' plans didn't work out. They had hoped that by now they would have had Iraq under control and be producing three million barrels a day, but they haven't been able to get the country under control." Ironically, the high prices President Chavez blames on the Iraq conflict have worked out exceedingly well for his own government, which is using the windfall of oil revenues to fund populist programs that would arguably be unaffordable otherwise.
Iraq is pumping less than two million barrels a day, and like the rest of the OPEC members, as well as the non-OPEC producers, it is producing at near capacity, in order to meet the current global demand of 84 million barrels a day. OPEC, which produces nearly 40% of the world's oil and accounts for around 55% of total shipments, is made up of Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.
Driving the steady high demand for oil is economic growth in the United States and in emerging giants like China and India. But prices are rising because of fears in the US and other markets of possible gasoline shortages due to problems in refineries. For example, ConocoPhillips, the largest US oil refiner, suffered a power failure and fire Wednesday in its Wood River refinery in Illinois. Although the 306,000 barrels a day processed by the plant is a small amount in comparison to total US gasoline consumption of 9.5 million barrels a day, the partial shutdown came on top of an Energy Department report that gasoline inventories had shrunk of late from 205.2 to 203.1 million barrels.
In the face of possible gasoline shortages and higher prices in the United States - the retail price currently averages $2.37 a gallon - traders are seeking to stock up on oil supplies and are thus pushing up demand and prices. "Speculation now adds $18-20 to the price of each barrel," said Venezuelan oil expert Mahzar al Shereidah. Speculative transactions are based on levels of inventories, refining capacity and demand in markets like the United States, as well as weather reports on the hurricane season affecting oil-producing areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and above all, the situation in the Middle East.
While Iran became a cause of market jitters last week, concern rose the week before that after the United States warned of the possibility of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, which pumps 9.5 million barrels a day of crude, making it the world's top producer. "There are many geopolitical risks, yet there is no slack in the system to handle any disruptions," said Tony Nunan, manager for energy risk management at Mitsubishi Corporation in Tokyo.
For small consumer nations like those of Central America, today's huge oil bills are a heavy burden on their economies. This year, Nicaragua will pay some $520 million, 95 million more than in 2004, for the 10.5 million barrels it imports, while El Salvador will spend $900 million to import the same quantity of oil that it purchased last year for $670 million.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
