Replies to post #6288 on Foreign Correspondence

[otraque]

These bombings reveal just how dark the hand Tony Blair has in all this--- i suspect Brits are holding hands with the Mujahadeen e' Khalq (many spellings as is case with transposing arabic script into english:Mahdi/Mehdi Queda/Quida two of so many).
For those wishing a starting point on MEK(or MKO), here is one on Wikipedia which has a an ALERT "accuracy is disputed" notice, so but a start.
MEK has been thorn in Iran's side for a longtime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen_al-Khalq

i like this:)

"The iranian people and government of the Islamic Republic refers to the organization as the Manafeqeen (Hypocrites)."

But whatever MEK is it is a player in all this, and if anything would draw Iran into crossing into Iraq in an open invasion it would be to hunt down MEK.

Iran wants the Iraqi government to declare MEK outlaws to be hunted down and destroyed, the Iraqi government simply agreed to opposing groups hostile to Iran, but refused to specifically name MEK, which was Iran's desire.

So with Brits holding hands with MEK they are holding hands with a group that is listed as an international terrorist group.
i have little doubt U.S. is working with MEK also.
went to the dispute "talk back". Whew! Strong passions at work over this group.
sample
<<Anon user 81.139.29.189 had this to say in the main article, which I moved here: In less than three month the wikipedia article on the terrorist organization of MKO had been substantially changed.

References to the terrorist nature of a killing machine had been changed and an obviously vicious terrorist cult have been described as a guerrilla organization.

What is happening in Wikipedia. The only explanation is: MKO as a master of political spin succeeded to access Wikipedia or there is a line by the NeoCons?

How can it be explained while U.S. persue terrorists, a terrorist cult that had killed thousands of Iranian civilians and Kurds and was supported by Saddam is being whitewashed by Wikipedia? ClockworkTroll 17:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
************************************************************


Don't bullshit man; there are no Iranian regime reps here. The fact is, and you know it, that Iranian people of all walks of life, HATE YOUR GROUP, and I am one of them. You can call me a representative of Iranian regime, but I live in USA, and I have nothing to do with Islamic Regime of Tehran. In fact, it was you bastards who brought this regime to Iran, then you clashed over power struggle. Do you forget that MKO was the main force to support Khomeini?! Your record is out there and everybody knows what hypocrites you losers are. You cooperated with Saddam. You are now cooperating with Washington. You are political prostitues. Even your own family members who are not members of your misguided cult, do not approve of you. Stop changing the article to suit your stupid agenda. Instead, accept the fact that you have been mislead, and there is no future for you in this loser organization. If you can't help your country, at least help yourself.
************
You should consider your own argument here, as you criticize another's arguement for representing a group of people that have not been correctly polled for the given situation and do the same yourself. Also consider that past cooperationg with Saddam is void in terms of foreign relations with the US, as the US also cooperated with Saddam. Also, please refrain from using terms with subjective definitions, such as "cult".--Glasgallow 19:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC) >>

[CoalTrain]

Lost Nuclear Warheads from a B-52 Now in Iran?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Iran may have the weapons-grade uranium out of three nuclear warheads dumped out of a B-52 back in 1991. Or so at least the US government might have some reason to believe, according to a seemingly well-informed person talking to CounterPunch last week.

On February 3, 1991, this particular B-52G had been deployed to circle around Baghdad. It was armed with 3 SRAM missiles armed with nuclear warheads and fitted with rocket drives to push them 100 miles to the rear of the B-52 before detonating.

The B-52 was heading off to refuel when it developed very serious electrical problems, including the loss of navigational equipment.

Hoping to limp back to base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, the crew were heading the plane south just off the coast of Somalia when fires in five of the engines threatened to detonate the heat sensitive fuse mechanisms of the SRAMS. Thinking they would plummet into deep water the crew dumped the nuclear bombs, and the B-52 crashed not long thereafter. Some members of the crew died, others survived and were picked up.

But, our informant tells us, the warheads in fact landed in shallow water, on Somalia's continental shelf. Three months later, in mid-May of 1991, they were allegedly retrieved and passed into the hands of an arms dealer involved in other covert transactions in Somalia at the time.

The dimension of each warhead was 30" x 18" x 18", weighing 560 pounds. Because of sea-water contamination only the weapons grade uranium would be usable, either in a "dirty" bomb, or as the warhead for a new missile.

As the three warheads entered international arms-smuggling loops, the Bush-One and subsequently Clinton administrations dispatched various covert units to recover them, with no success.

As possible substantiation that the warheads may have ended up in Iran, CounterPunch's informant cites a hour-long BBC-TV Channel-2 documentary, broadcast on May 3, 2005,titled "Iran's Nuclear Secrets" in which they showed their TV-cameraman with UN weapons inspectors in Iran.

During those searches the inspectors found radiation traces in rooms left by the previous presence of weapons-grade uranium, with an enrichment of 40% to 60%.

The BBC program suggested that as local enrichment had not started then the Iranians must have held non-local black-Market material. The BBC concluded that with this material Iran was already perceived as a threat by Israel and the Scott Ritter's forecasted raids were a likely possibility.

If the US or Israel does launch an aerial attack on the suspected depository of the three warheads, or of uranium from them, the consequences could be lethal in more ways than one, if a "bunker busting " raid simply dispersed the nuclear materials into the atmosphere, with unpleasant consequences for all in the wind path.

Vice President Cheney, recently linked to speculation that he is eager to use any future 9/11 type attack in the US as a pretext to attack Iran, was Secretary of Defense back in 1991.

At the Pentagon lost nukes are called Broken Arrows. A few years ago, my coeditor Jeffrey St. Clair wrote a riveting account of how another B-52 lost an H-bomb in the swamps near Savannah, Georgia. It still hasn't been recovered. You can find the story in his book Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me.

[Amaunet]

EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran?

"I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

This is amazing because we have been bombing Iran and apparently don’t know we are killing Iranians not just Iranian troops?

U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is using the bombs as a way to drive up U.S. casualties in Iraq but without provoking a direct confrontation.

Another amazing statement, when the US bombs Iran the idea is exactly the same, to cause causalities and instigate internal dissention without provoking a direct confrontation.

-Am




Updated 3:46 PM ET March 6, 2006

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures -- certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," said explosives expert Kevin Berry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and -produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," said Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."


'Very Lethal'
U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is using the bombs as a way to drive up U.S. casualties in Iraq but without provoking a direct confrontation.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, said, "Tehran's intention to inflict pain on the United States and Iraq has been constrained by its caution to avoid giving Washington an excuse to attack it."

The U.S. Army has embarked on a crash effort to find ways to stop the bombs, according to an unclassified report issued last month. The devices are easily hidden and detonated by motion detectors -- like those used in garden security lights -- that cannot be jammed.

When exploded, the copper disc becomes a molten liquid bullet that can penetrate the thickest armor the United States has.

"They penetrate the armor of an M1 Abrams tank," Clarke said. "They're shape charges. They go through anything, and they are very lethal."

There is currently no real defense against the weapons, he said.

"The Pentagon has a major crash study underway to figure out how to stop them," Clarke said, "but they haven't figured it out yet."



http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060306&cat=frontpage&st=frontpageross_bom...

[Amaunet]

Real men go to Khuzestan
By Pepe Escobar

PLs see:
We are bombing Iran again
#msg-9927571

-Am

Apr 6, 2006

TEHRAN - When it comes to Iran, the widespread belief is that the United States cannot possibly occupy the country - it's the size of France, Britain, Italy and Spain combined - and thus exercise the avowed White House goal of regime change.

The next best thing - from the point of view of armchair warriors - would be subversion from within. Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, in a widely distributed opinion piece a few months ago, stated that should the US attack Iran, ethnic minorities "might welcome the humiliation of their oppressors", that is, the Persians. Nonsense replays itself, as in the US supposedly being greeted as the "liberator" of Iraq.

In the overdrive run-up to the attack on Iraq in 2003, the ultimate neo-conservative mantra was "Real men go to Khuzestan." Indeed, some of of these "real men" may already have been there. The Iranian government is convinced US, British and/or Israeli special ops have been conducted on Iran's western and southeastern borders, at least since early 2005.

Significantly, the new US budget calls for additional funds to special operations and psy-ops (psychological operations) in Iran, in addition to the US$75 million the administration of President George W Bush wants to spend to advance "regime change". For their part, the US marines have commissioned Hicks and Associates, a subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp, one of the biggest US defense contractors and heavily involved in the Iraq invasion, to carry out in-depth research into Iranian ethnic groups.

The ultimate prize is Khuzestan province, where 90% of Iran's oil is located and which provides the country with 80% of its funds from oil production. In January, Tehran announced it had evidence of British special ops and bombings in Khuzestan, starting last year. Two Iranian Arabs were hanged in public for bombing a bank in the provincial capital Ahvaz in January. Three others were executed in a local prison.

At least 50 Arabs were accused as perpetrators of bombings that killed 21 people last April - after an "official" (but unconfirmed) letter was leaked with detailed plans for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in Khuzestan. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has already had to cancel three trips to Ahvaz at the last minute.

The province could not be more sensitive. Iran's second nuclear reactor will be built in Khuzestan. During an extended Nauroz - the Persian New Year - which in many cases goes on until early April - the Revolutionary Guards promote instructive Khuzestan tours to huge groups from all over the country, who are bused to battle sites of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. As many as 2 million people a year may participate in these tours. During this period special permits are not issued for the foreign press.

John Bradley was one of the few foreign journalists to be allowed in Khuzestan last month. In a dirt-poor Arab village near Ahvaz, crossed by pipelines supplying crude oil to the huge Abadan refinery (450,000 barrels a day), Bradley saw Iranian Arabs complaining that "we are standing on all of the country's wealth, and yet we get no benefit from it". [1] Unemployment is rife, Farsi is the only language taught in local schools, and no Arab-language newspapers are allowed. The pipelines have already been bombed - last September. One month later, Tehran announced it had cracked a plot to bomb Abadan with five Katyusha rockets.

Welcome to the Ahwazi intifada
There is speculation in Tehran that al-Qaeda may be courting Arab tribal leaders in Khuzestan as part of its broader strategy of sabotaging oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region. Exiled Khuzestanis for their part pin their hopes on an "Ahwazi intifada" (Ahvaz, the Farsi name, is "Ahwaz" in Arabic). The official Iranian government position remains that this would-be intifada is being conducted from Iraq - with substantial help by Britain, Canada and the US.

Trying to defuse the situation, Tehran argues that nine of Khuzestan's 17 members of the majlis (parliament) are Arabs, and Arabs are posted in senior positions both in Khuzestan and in Tehran. But the root of the problem - which is economic - remains. According to the Islamic Majlis Center for Research - a government think-tank - Tehran must do everything in its power to fight poverty in its ultra-sensitive non-Persian areas, as well as youth unemployment nationwide.

We will Persianize you
Khuzestan shares a land, river and sea border with Iraq. Saddam Hussein posed as a self-styled "liberator" of Arabistan - as Arabs call the province - during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. He embarked on a wide-ranging campaign to encourage local Shi'ites to rebel against the Islamic Republic. They didn't. The logic of war led to the destruction of Abadan and its refinery, and the devastation of Khorramshar and its port. Today, still because of the war, Khuzestan is almost enclosed in a shell. It used to be totally open to the outside world.

The groups living in Khuzestan have lived and traded together for centuries. They have a common history that reaches beyond ethnic rivalry. Many non-Persian dynasties have ruled for centuries. It's true that most of Iran's population whose mother language is not Farsi lives in the border areas - Azeris, Kurds, Turkmens, Balochis and Arabs. But their identity is always imprinted under Iran, not in a separatist vein.

Iran has a strong capacity of assimilation, synthesis, cultural appropriation and Iranization. Alexander the Great brought Hellenism to the heart of the Persian Empire, and was totally Persianized afterward. Iran's Islamization after the Arab invasions was counteracted by its tremendous intellectual, artistic and scientific pull, which influenced the whole Muslim world. Iranian Islam is really something else. Turks and Mongols were also Persianized and became promoters and ambassadors of Persian language, culture, art and literature.

The former foreign minister (under ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) and current secretary general of the opposition party, the Freedom Movement of Iran, Ebrahim Yazdi, nuances the explosive situation according to different Iranian borders. "People in Khuzestan complain about lack of freedom and economic development, and unemployment. Azeris are not independentists. Kurds are not for separation. With Arab governments it's different. They directly support separation in Khuzestan - ever since [Gamal Abdel] Nasser, [Hafez] Assad, [Muammar] Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein. No Arab country will complain when there are disturbances."

Moreover, "Americans and Pakistanis are against separation in Pakistani Balochistan. Once again, it's different as far as Khuzestan is concerned."

Yazdi sees many dangers in the venomous atmosphere of mutual accusations between Tehran on the one side and Washington and London on the another. Ahmadinejad has publicly accused the British in Iraq of "hiring terrorists for sabotage". Yazdi added that the US "could be tempted to try a real interventionist policy. If the Iranians are challenging the US, they must be prepared to react and defend themselves against the other side."

The crucial fact remains that any US interventionist dream of the "real men go to Khuzestan" kind is doomed. It will generate even more passionate Iranian nationalism, not to mention a nationwide and potentially bloody backlash against Arab Iranians, who will then be inevitably regarded as traitors in collusion with the Anglo-Americans.

Note
1. Repression of Arabs fuels unrest in Iran, Washington Times, March 23.







http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD06Ak01.html

[Amaunet]

THE BASIJ AS BUFFER
In an apparent effort to forestall ethnic unrest, Iran has deployed detachments of its Basij domestic militia on the Islamic Republic's border with Iraqi Kurdistan. "Iran is forming special forces, mainly of the Basij, on its borders with the Kurdistan Region." a source has told one Iraqi weekly. "There were about 500 applicants in Sardasht area in the last month. The applicants who had conducted their military service will receive one month training in Tehran; otherwise, they will receive six months training."

Tehran, however, also appears to have more long-term plans in mind. "After the training [Iran] will open centres for these Basijis in Alutan, Qasmarash and Kili," the source has disclosed. "The Basij's main responsibility is to block the infiltration of opposition groups into the country." (Sulaymaniyah Chawder, March 27, 2006)

http://www.afpc.org/idm/idm6.shtml

[Amaunet]

Britain Took Part in Mock Iran Invasion


Note: In addition to the Fort Belvoir war game 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.

On Jan 11, the troops conducted an anti-hijacking drill on a Pakistan International Airlines aircraft at an isolated place several miles from the main terminal, the sources said.

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.
#msg-6570194

-Am

Britain Took Part in Mock Iran Invasion

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian:
British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable. The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004. READ MORE

A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said.

The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who sparked outrage in the US, Europe and Israel last year by calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, created more alarm yesterday. He told a conference in Tehran in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

The senior British officers took part in the Iranian war game just over a year after the invasion of Iraq. It was focused on the Caspian Sea, with an invasion date of 2015. Although the planners said the game was based on a fictitious Middle East country called Korona, the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian.

A British medium-weight brigade operated as part of a US-led force.

The MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which helped run the war game, described it on its website as the "year's main analytical event of the UK-US Future Land Operations Interoperability Study" aimed at ensuring that both armies work well together. The study "was extremely well received on both sides of the Atlantic".

According to an MoD source, war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters. He cited senior military staff carrying out a mock invasion of southern England last week and one of Scotland in January.

However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations.

William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking."

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, as unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued."

After the failure of a mission to Tehran on Thursday by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia announced a diplomatic initiative yesterday. It is to host a new round of talks in Moscow on Tuesday with the US, the EU and China.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/britain-took-part-in-mock-iran_15.html

[Amaunet]

Attack Iran, destroy the US constitution

Iran is already under attack, say goodbye to our constitution.
The United States and the UK have been using military action inside of Iran against Iranians since at least last June.
Pls see:
#msg-6715484
#msg-6647963

-Am

Attack Iran, destroy the US constitution
By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith

Apr 26, 2006

During the 2004 election, President George W Bush famously proclaimed that he didn't have to ask anyone's permission to defend the United States of America. Does that mean he can attack Iran without having to ask Congress? A new resolution being drafted by Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio may be a vehicle to remind Bush that he can't.

Bush has called news reports of plans to attack Iran "wild speculation" and declared that the United States is on a "diplomatic" track. But asked this week if his options included planning for a nuclear strike, he repeated that "all options are on the table".

The president is acting as if the decisions that may get Americans into another war are his to make and his alone. So the Iran crisis poses not only questions of military feasibility and political wisdom but of constitutional usurpation. Bush's top officials openly assert that he can do anything he wants - including attacking another country - on his authority as commander-in-chief.

Last October, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether the president would circumvent congressional authorization if the White House chose military action against Iran or Syria. She answered, "I will not say anything that constrains his authority as commander-in-chief."

When pressed by Senator Paul Sarbanes about whether the administration can exercise a military option without an authorization from Congress, Rice replied, "The president never takes any option off the table, and he shouldn't."

The founding fathers of the United States were deeply concerned that the president's power to make war might become a vehicle for tyranny. So they crafted a constitution that included checks and balances on presidential power, among them an independent congress and judiciary, an executive power subject to laws written by Congress and interpreted by the courts, and an executive power to repel attacks but not to declare or finance war.

But the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, as laid out in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States and reiterated this year, claims for the president the power to attack other countries simply because he asserts they pose a threat. It thereby removes the decision of war and peace from Congress and gives it to the president. It is, as Senator Robert Byrd put it, "unconstitutional on its face".

Congressional response
DeFazio is now preparing and seeking support from other House members for a resolution asserting that the president cannot initiate military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

"The imperial powers claimed by this administration are breathtaking in their scope. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues were willing to cede our constitutional authorities to the president prior to the war in Iraq. We've seen how that turned out," DeFazio told the New York-based Nation newsmagazine. "Congress can't make the same mistake with respect to Iran. Yet the constant drumbeat we're hearing out of the administration, in the press and from think-tanks on Iran eerily echoes what we heard about Iraq.

"It likely won't be long until we hear from the president that he can take preemptive military action against Iran without congressional authorization, which is what he originally argued about Iraq. Or that Congress has already approved action against Iran via some prior vote, which he also argued about Iraq," DeFazio said. "That is why it is so important to put the administration, my colleagues and the American people on notice now that such arguments about unilateral presidential war powers have no merit. Our nation's founders were clear on this issue. There is no ambiguity."

There is considerable evidence that military action against Iran has already begun. Retired air force Colonel Sam Gardiner told the Cable News Network that "the decision has been made and military operations are under way". He said the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency recently told him that the Iranians have captured dissident units "and they've confessed to working with the Americans".

Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker that "American combat troops are now operating in Iran". He quoted a government consultant who told him that the units were not only identifying targets but "studying the terrain, giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds".

Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has written to Bush, noting, "The presence of US troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country," and urged him to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving US forces in Iran.

Bipartisan concern
Concern about presidential usurpation of the war power is not just a partisan matter. Former vice president Al Gore this year joined with former Republican congressman Bob Barr to express "our shared concern that America's constitution is in grave danger". As Gore explained, "In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power."

One of the stunning revelations of a recent spate of news stories is that top military brass are strongly opposed to the move toward military strikes. The Washington Post quotes a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Middle East specialist that "the Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it". According to Hersh's reporting in The New Yorker, the Joint Chiefs of Staff "had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran".

The Bush administration is putting military officials in a position where they will have to decide whether their highest loyalty is to the president or to the country and the constitution. Retired Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold, who recently called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has criticized the US military brass for its quiescence while the Bush administration pursued "a fundamentally flawed plan" for "an invented war". Now he is calling on serving military officers to speak out.

The "generals' revolt" has not publicly targeted the plans to attack Iran. But its central critique concerns Rumsfeld's disregard for the US military's evaluation of the costs of the Iraq war and the scale of commitment it would require. Even if the generals don't speak about Iran specifically, their arguments about the costs of the Iraq war logically fit a future Iran war too.

The American people are by now deeply skeptical of Bush's reliability in matters of war and peace. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, 54% of respondents said they did not trust Bush to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran", compared with 42% who did. Forty percent said the war in Iraq had made them less supportive of military action against Iran. But Americans are being systematically deprived of any alternative view of the Iranian threat, the consequences of US policy choices, or the real intentions of the Bush administration.

Congress and the US military allowed the Bush administration to bamboozle the country with false information and scare talk prior to the Iraq war - and they share responsibility for the resulting catastrophe. Now we're hearing again talk about mushroom clouds. It's up to Congress and the military to make it clear that the president does not assume monarchical power over questions of war and peace.

Congress and the American people - who should make the decision about war and peace - haven't even heard the forceful arguments of military officials against military strikes. Calling those Pentagon officials to testify - and protecting them against administration reprisals - would be a good place to start.

Gardiner, who specializes in war games and conducted one for The Atlantic Monthly magazine that simulated a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, concluded, "It's a path that leads to disaster in many directions." Unless preceded by a United Nations endorsement or an imminent Iranian attack, it's also aggression, a war crime under international law and the UN Charter. If Bush or his subordinates have already ordered military operations in Iran, it should be considered a criminal act, Gardiner said.

The DeFazio resolution could provide a rallying point for a coalition to act preemptively to put checks and balances on the Bush administration's usurpation of constitutional powers. Indeed, the growing evidence that the United States is already conducting military operations in Iran demonstrates the urgency of placing limits on executive power.

Anyone in the United States who wants to avoid national catastrophe should get busy defending it. Otherwise, Bush's legacy may be: "He bombed Iran, and the collateral damage wiped out the constitution."

Legal analyst Brendan Smith and historian Jeremy Brecher are the editors, with Jill Cutler, of In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan/Holt, 2005) (www.americanempireproject.com), and the founders of www.warcrimeswatch.org .

(Copyright 2006 The Nation. Used with permission.)


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD26Ak01.html