Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Lucin]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Ritter: God has told Bush to attack Iran


Arms expert Scott Ritter says the US plans to attack Iran. Metro Times asks why he's so sure.

Q. A year ago, when your book Target Iran came out, you were sounding the alarm about war being imminent. Why do you think that attack hasn't occurred?

A. Let's remember that this is an elective war, not a war of necessity. A war of necessity would be fought at the point and time a conflict is required, if somebody is threatening to invade you, to attack, etc. But an elective war is one where we choose to go to war. It will be conducted on a timescale that's beneficial to those who are planning the conflict.

As far as why it hasn't happened, there's any number of reasons. One, the Bush administration has not been able to stabilize Iraq to the level they would like to see prior to expanding military operations in the region.

Two, the international community has not rallied around the cause of Iran's nuclear program representing a casus belli to the extent that the Bush administration would like. They were hopeful that there would be more action from the [United Nations] Security Council. It took a long time to get the issue shifted from the International Atomic Energy Agency's headquarters to the Security Council. And even when it got shifted to the Security Council, the Council took very timid steps, not decisive steps.

The Bush administration sort of tied its hands at that point in time. I think you are seeing increasing frustration today at the slow pace.

Also, the need to redefine the Iranian threat away from exclusively being focused on nuclear activity, because now you have the difficulty of both the IAEA saying there is no nuclear weapons program and the CIA saying pretty much the same thing. So the Bush administration needs to redefine the Iranian threat, which they have been doing successfully, casting Iran as the largest state sponsor of terror, getting the Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command a terrorist organization, and creating a perception amongst the American people, courtesy of a compliant media, that talks about the reason why things are going bad in Iraq is primarily because of Iranian intervention.

They have been working very hard to get back on track. I still believe that we are seeing convergence here. The Bush administration is moving very aggressively toward military action with Iran.

Q. Is your conclusion that an attack is imminent based on the administration's statements and actions, like labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, or do you also have sources within the intelligence community and the military and the administration telling you what's going on?

A. I don't have any current sources of the sort you just spoke of. I was plugged in back in 2006 to good quality current information. But I haven't been plugged in recently, so I have to use some sort of analytical methodology as opposed to saying, "Aha, I got it from the horse's mouth."

But there's nothing that has occurred that leads me to believe the Bush administration has changed its policy direction. In fact there has been much that's occurred that reinforces the earlier conclusions that were based on good sources of information.

We take a look at items in the defense budget, the rapid conversion of heavy bombers to carry bunker-busting bombs on a specific time frame, the massive purchasing of oil to fill up the strategic oil reserve by April 2008.

Everything points to April 2008 to being a month of some criticality. It also matches my analysis that the Bush administration will want to carry this out prior to the crazy political season of the summer of 2008.

Q. Last year you expressed hope that if Democrats took control of Congress it might pass legislation that could block the march toward war. Do you see them stepping up?

A. No. They just passed a resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command as a terrorist organization. Unless there is a radical reawakening in Congress, I don't see them passing any sort of pre-emptive legislation of that nature.

Q. But it is now clearer than ever that our invasion of Iraq has been a disaster. How do you explain the lack of opposition?

A. It's difficult to explain. First of all you have to note, from the public side, that very few Americans actually function as citizens anymore. What I mean by that are people who invest themselves in this country, people who care, who give a damn. Americans are primarily consumers today, and so long as they continue to wrap themselves in the cocoon of comfort, and the system keeps them walking down a road to the perceived path of prosperity, they don't want to rock the boat.

If it doesn't have a direct impact on their day-to-day existence, they simply don't care.

There's a minority of people who do, but the majority of Americans don't. And if the people don't care - and remember, the people are the constituents - if the constituents don't care, then those they elect to higher office won't feel the pressure to change.

The Democrats, one would hope, would live up to their rhetoric, that is, challenging the Bush administration's imperial aspirations. Once it became clear Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, one would have thought that when the Democrats took control of Congress they would have sought to re-impose a system of checks and balances, as the Constitution mandates.

But instead the Democrats have put their focus solely on recapturing the White House, and, in doing so, will not do anything that creates a political window of opportunity for their Republican opponents.

The Democrats don't want to be explaining to an apathetic constituency, an ignorant constituency whose ignorance is prone to be exploited because it produces fear, fear of the unknown, and the global war on terror is the ultimate fear button.

The Democrats, rather than challenging the Bush administration's position on the global war on terror, challenging the notion of these imminent threats, continues to play them up because that is the safest route toward the White House. At least that is their perception.

Q. Do you think there is anything that can happen at this point that will stop this attack?

A.You have to take a look at external influences, not internal ones. I don't think there is anything happening inside the United States that's going to stop that attack. I do believe that, for instance, if Pakistan continues to melt down, that could be something that creates such a significant diversion the Bush administration will not be able to make its move on Iran.

To attack Iran, they're going to need a nice lull period. That's what they're pushing with this whole surge right now. They're creating the perception that things are quieting. I don't know how many people picked up on it, but one day we're told that 2007's been the bloodiest year for US forces in Iraq, the next day we're told that attacks against American troops are dropping at a dramatic pace.

So, what's the media focus on? The concept of attacks dropping at a dramatic pace. No one's talking about the fact, wait a minute, we've just lost more guys than we've ever lost before. They are pushing the perception that Iraq is now stable.

If you have a situation in Pakistan that explodes out of control, where you suddenly have nuclear weapons at risk of falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists [(extremists)], that could stop it.

If Turkey attacks Kurdistan and that conflict spins out of control, that could put a halt to it. These are things that could overshadow even xxxx Cheney's desire to bomb Iran.

And there could be some other unforeseen meltdown globally that's not on the radar at this time, that, unfortunately, we have to be hoping for to stop an attack on Iran. And that says a lot, that we have to hope for disaster to prevent unmitigated disaster.

Q. What's the motivation?

A. The ideologues who are in there believe the United States in the post-Cold War environment needed to fill the gap created by the demise of the Soviet Union so that no nation or group of nations would ever again confront us as equals. And in order to do this, they basically divided the world into spheres of strategic interest and said we will impose our will. And the Middle East is one such area. There's a whole host of reasons to do this.

It's not just supporting Israel. It's not just taking down Saddam. It's about geopolitics. It's about looking down the road toward China and India, the world's two largest developing economies, especially the Chinese, and the absolute fear that this resurgent Chinese economy brings in the hearts of American industrialists and the need to dictate the pace of Chinese economic development by controlling their access to energy. And controlling central Asian and Middle East energy areas is key in the strategic thinking of the Bush administration.

So, there's a lot of complexity at play here. But you say why do they want to do this? It's about as Condoleezza Rice continuously says before the US Congress: It's about regional transformation, inclusive of regime change. It turns the Middle East into a sphere of interest that we have tremendous control over. That's what's behind all this.

[...]

[Lucin]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Q. And when Bush talks about being an instrument of God, do you think he really believes that or is that just political posturing, playing to the religious base?

A. That's a question that can only be asked of George Bush. But I find it disturbing that an American politician who is supposed to be the head of a secular nation where religion is protected but there is no state religion, and who has control over the world's largest nuclear arsenal, not only openly talks about how God is his final adviser, which pretty much negates the role of Congress or any other system of governmental oversight, checks and balances of the executive, but also embraces a kind of evangelicalism that gives legitimacy to the notion of the rapture, Armageddon, the apocalypse as a good thing.

Here's a man who speaks of World War III and the apocalypse and he has his hand on the button and he 'talks to God'. I don't know, if it's a show, it's a dangerous show, if it's real, we should all be scared to death.

Q. Even going back to before the start of the Iraq war, the national mainstream media just seemed to be beating the drum for it. Why do you think that is?

A. Again, only they can really answer that question, but I think it is clear the mainstream media, while not outright fabricators, are not there to tell the truth, they're there to win over ratings. They will package their programming in ways that sells well to an audience. And we are dealing with a complacent American audience, where in-depth reality stories are trumped by reality TV.

Q. Do you think the resolutions in 2001 and 2002 authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq give Bush the authority to attack Iran without first obtaining congressional approval?

A. I'd like to believe it didn't, but unfortunately when you take a look at it, and I've had constitutional scholars take a look at it, the feeling is that, yeah, because of the terrorist threat, if you take a look at the fine print on both of those resolutions, it gives the president authorization to use military force to take out groups, organizations, individuals, etc. who are linked to the events of 9/11. And the president has continued to make the case that Iran is linked to the attacks.

Q. Do you think an attack on Iran would be an illegal war of aggression and a war crime under international law?

A. It depends on what triggers it. If Iran engages in an action that legitimizes a military response, the answer is no.

There are two conditions that we are legally allowed to engage in military operations. Militaries are bound by the charter of the United Nations' Article 51, legitimate self-defense, and a Chapter 7 resolution passed by the Security Council authorizing military force to be used. If we attack Iran void of any of these, especially when it can be shown that we have hyped up a threat in defense of pre-emption - I think the Nuremberg Tribunals from 1946 have set a clear precedent with Judge Jackson condemning German generals to death for invading Denmark and Norway in the same premise of pre-emption.

It is quite clear this is illegal. Unfortunately the Nuremberg Tribunals don't have any weight when it comes to prosecution of the law.

The international community has not agreed upon a definition of what pre-emptive aggression is, and what the consequences of such are. Let's keep in mind if we attack Iran we're guilty of no more than what we're already guilty of in attacking Iraq: Hyping up a threat where one doesn't exist, going to war void of any legitimacy, violating everything we claim to stand for.

Yet we don't see any war crimes tribunals being convened for the Bush administration over Iraq.

One of the scenarios that has been raised has Israel launching the first strike, prompting a response from Iran that would then pull the US in.

I think Israel is capable of doing a one-time limited shot into Iran. One has to take a look at the distances involved and the complexity of military operations ... the lack of friendly airspace between corridors into and out of Iran.

It's nice to talk about an Israeli attack, but the reality is far different. Israel had trouble dominating Hezbollah right on its own border with air power.

I think Israel could actually go into Iran and get their butts kicked. It may not go off as well as they think it's going to go off. It is too long of a distance, too much warning for the Iranians. The Iranians are too locked-in; they're too well prepared. It doesn't make any sense. Israel doesn't have the ability to sustain a strike.

Like I said, they might be able to pull off a limited one-time shot. But I think the fallout from that would be devastating for the United States. As much as we've worked to get an Arab alliance against Iran, that would just fall apart overnight with an Israeli attack.

No Muslim state will stand by and defend Israel after it initiated a strike against Iran. It just will not happen. And the United States knows this. I just think it's ludicrous to talk about an Israeli attack.

I think what we're looking at is an American attack. It's the only viable option both in terms of initiation and sustainability of the strike.

Israel might be drawn in after that. There's no doubt in my mind the Iranians will launch missiles against Israeli targets. If you think Saddam Hussein firing 41 missiles was inconvenient, wait until the Iranians fire a thousand of them.

It goes well beyond an inconvenience; it becomes a national tragedy. And then the escalation that can occur from there.

I think right now what the Bush administration is conceiving is a limited strike against Iran to take out certain Revolutionary Guard sites and perhaps identified nuclear infrastructure. Not a massive, sustained bombardment, but a limited strike. But we were always told in the Marine Corps that the enemy has a vote and no plan survives initial contact with the enemy.

So we may seek to have a limited strike, but if the Iranians do a massive response, things could spin out of control quickly.

Q.What do you foresee as some of the possible consequences? No one is talking about putting troops on the ground in Iran are they?

A. A while back there was talk about having forces move in on Tehran via Azerbaijan. But I think those plans have gone to the wayside. If Iran is successful in shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, it will force our hand and we'll have to put the Marines in to secure the Straits.

If the conflict drags on and air power is not sufficient to break the will of the Iranian resistance, the Army may have to activate its option to put a reinforced corps into Azerbaijan and punch down the Caspian Sea coast. But these are definitely not the leading options at this point in time.

Q.When you say a "limited strike," what might that look like in more detail?

A. Iran is a big country. There are a number of target sites we have to look at. To give an example, to take out a number of air defense sites during the Persian Gulf War, a sortie required over 100 aircraft. It's not just one airplane coming in, firing a missile and going out.

You have to secure a corridor, you have to put a combat air patrol over it, you have to have air-to-air refueling, you have to have aircraft protecting the refuelers, and then you have to have the strike aircraft themselves.

You have to have pre- and post-reconnaissance. When you replicate this, let's say, over 20 targets, we don't have enough airplanes to do it all at once.

So, it's something that will occur in phases. What you look at is maybe a three- to five-day bombardment where we take out sites, radar sites and air defense sites the first day, the second we pound the nuclear sites, the third day we take the Revolutionary Guard Command sites, the fourth and fifth days we do follow-up strikes to make sure all targets are destroyed, then we're done. That's probably what we're looking at.

Q.How much damage could be done to the Iranian nuclear program?

A. No damage would be done to it. Remember, the problem the Iranians face isn't the manufacture of this equipment. They've already mastered that. And if you think for a second machine tools that are used to manufacture enrichment equipment are going to be stored out in the open where we can bomb them, you're wrong. They've been dispersed. The Iraqis were masters of this. We spent a lot of money blowing up concrete, but we never got the machine tools, because they were always hidden. They were always evacuated the day before - they'd take it to palm groves or warehouses that we didn't know about, or hidden in narrow streets. And we never detected that, and we never got them. The Iranians are even better.

They've been mastering the technology of deep-earth tunneling, so they can hide things underground that we can't reach with our conventional weapons.

So I just think it is absurd to talk about bombing these sites, because all we'll do is blow up buildings that can be rebuilt.

A couple of sites are more sensitive; I think the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, that'll be a major blow. It's a site that can be rebuilt however. It was a facility put in by the Chinese, but the Iranians have the blueprints. It'll take time, but they can rebuild it. At the best we are talking about retarding an Iranian program. But what's worse is if we bomb them, we may retard it, but we might also make it a militant program. Meaning that if their objective is only nuclear energy and suddenly they're being attacked and the world is doing nothing, we may push the Iranians into weaponization even though that is something they don't want to do. That's not in the cards right now. But our attack will have little or no impact on anything. That's for certain.

Q. So what do you think the United States should be doing to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

A. I think that is the wrong question. That presumes Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. So rather than pose a question that legitimizes a certain point, I think the question should be, "What should the United States be doing in regards to Iran?" I think we should be seeking to normalize relations with Iran.

Q. You are getting ready to go to Iran at the start of December. What's the purpose of that trip?

A. I've been trying to get there for some time now to talk with Iranian government officials trying to ascertain firsthand what's going on in Iran. We get a lot of rhetoric here at home, we get the media saying a lot of things that are derived not so much from on-the-ground truth in Iran but rather from talking points put out by the White House. I think it is imperative that if we are going to have a national debate, discussion and dialogue about Iran, that we get all sides of the story.

Hopefully, I'll have an opportunity to meet with Iranian government officials, and have a chance to speak with some religious officials, and maybe even have a chance to talk about hypotheticals, not only what the current situation is, but how the Iranians would like to see this thing resolved and what mechanisms might need to be employed and maybe come back with some ideas that people in Congress might be interested in.


Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510302

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

A Miracle: Honest Intel on Iran Nukes

For those who have doubts about miracles, a double one occurred today. An honest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program has been issued, and its "Key Judgments" were made public. With redraft after redraft, it was what the Germans call eine schwere Geburt – a difficult birth, 10 months in gestation. I do not know how often Vice President xxxx Cheney visited CIA headquarters during the gestation period, but I am told he voiced his displeasure as soon as he saw the first sonogram/draft very early this year and is so displeased with what issued that he has refused to be the godfather. This time Cheney and his neocon colleagues were unable to abort the process. And after delivery to the press, this child is going to be very hard to explain – the more so since it is legitimate.

The main points of the NIE:

"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program…

"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.

"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely…

"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."

Having reached these conclusions, it is not surprising that the NIE's authors make a point of saying up front (in bold type), "This NIE does not [italics in original] assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons."

This, of course, pulls out the rug from under Cheney's claim of a "fairly robust new nuclear program" in Iran and President Bush's inaccurate assertion that Iranian leaders have even admitted they are developing nuclear weapons. Apparently, intelligence community analysts are no longer required to produce the faith-based intelligence that brought us the Oct. 1, 2002, NIE "Iraq's Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction" – the worst in the history of U.S. intelligence. Truth be told, one of the Iran NIE's findings was written into its first draft, from which Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell drew in telling the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 27 that Iran could possibly develop a nuclear weapon by early-to-mid-next decade. McConnell said not a word, though, about Iran's having halted its nuclear weapons program in fall 2003. And in February, he was still adhering to the faith-based approach, saying, "We assess that Iran seeks to develop a nuclear weapon."

At which point Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) tried to sum up the proceedings with the disingenuous comment "We all agree, then, that the Iranians are trying to get nuclear weapons." Curiously, McConnell indicated recently that the key findings of NIEs would no longer be made public. My guess is that the Pentagon, and especially Adm. William Fallon, commander of our forces in the Middle East, succeeded in persuading McConnell to go public. Several months ago, Fallon was reliably reported to have said, "We are not going to do Iran on my watch." And it is an open secret that he and other senior military officers, except those of the Air Force, are strongly opposed to getting into a war with Iran for which the U.S. is so ill prepared. Will President George W. Bush and our domesticated media succeed in dismissing this latest NIE as "guesswork," as he has in the past? It is going to be highly interesting to see how the White House will try to spin this one.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12001

IAEA: US Iran Report Matches UN Agency

A new U.S. intelligence review that concludes Iran stopped developing a nuclear weapons program in 2003 is consistent with the U.N. atomic watchdog agency's own findings and ``should help to defuse the current crisis,'' the organization's chief said Tuesday. "Although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran,'' International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement. ElBaradei said he viewed "with great interest'' Monday's release of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that said Tehran halted nuclear weapons development in late 2003 under international pressure. The chief U.S. envoy to the IAEA, Gregory L. Schulte, said the U.S. assessment contained "some positive news'' and raised hopes of a peaceful and diplomatic end to the standoff. "It does make us more hopeful that diplomacy can succeed, but for diplomacy to succeed, we still need to keep the pressure on while giving Iran a negotiated way out,'' Schulte told reporters in Vienna. But "Iran's nuclear file is not closed,'' he said, adding that the U.S. report "shows we were right to be concerned.''

[...]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...126061,00.html

U.S. Loses Leverage Over Iran

U.S. leverage over Iran all but evaporated this week, along with some of the international credibility and goodwill the Bush administration has worked to rebuild since the phantom weapons debacle in Iraq. Washington's turnabout on whether Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon instantly took President Bush's sticks off the table, leaving him only the carrots his administration once dismissed as ineffective against an ambitious and determined adversary. The biggest stick — a U.S. military strike on Iran in the near term — is now out of the question. "It would be incredibly difficult to justify to either domestic or foreign audiences that any such step is even remotely necessary if there is not an active weapons effort," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst who managed the writing of previous U.S. intelligence assessments of Iran. A military strike was always far-fetched, and the administration has been trying to apply economic and diplomatic pressure instead.

But a new, tougher round of United Nations sanctions against Iran may be dead on arrival now that a U.S. intelligence composite has concluded that Iran isn't actively seeking to build a nuclear weapon. The assessment Monday amounts to a do-over of years of U.S. insistence that Iran is driving toward a bomb that could threaten its Mideast neighbors, and it increases pressure on Bush to bargain with Iran without preconditions. The Bush administration wants to hold together an international diplomatic alliance against Iran, in part because the alliance has proved useful in salving European irritation over the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the faulty weapons intelligence that led to it.

[...]

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...-5ywgD8TATI682

China: Things have changed on Iran

US efforts to push for a third round of UN sanctions against Iran are likely to meet with more resistance after the release of a US intelligence report saying Tehran halted nuclear work in 2003. China's UN ambassador suggested on Tuesday an agreement by six world powers to seek new sanctions had been called into question by the report. "I think we all start from the presumption that now things have changed," Wang Guangya said when asked whether the assessment might make new sanctions against Iran less likely in the near term. "I think council members will have to consider that," he said. "Certainly I think we will study the contents and also think about the implications for the [UN Security] Council's action here." Representatives of the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany met in Paris on Saturday to decide what the next steps would be in their efforts to make Iran comply with a UN-ordered halt to its uranium enrichment programme. The six powers said after the meeting they had agreed to start work on a UN Security Council resolution calling for new sanctions against Tehran.

Support for US

On Tuesday, France and Britain joined the US in saying international pressure must be maintained on Iran and they were willing to push ahead with the sanctions plan. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she would continue to push for a third UN sanctions resolution against Iran for defying UN Security Council demands that it stops enriching uranium. Britain, whose position on Iran is closely aligned with Washington's, said on Tuesday that it would also continue to push for increased international pressure. "We think the report's conclusions justify the actions already taken by the international community," a spokesman for Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, said. "It confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons [and] shows that the sanctions programme and international pressure were having an effect in that they seem to have abandoned the weaponisation element." France took a similar stand, saying that the elements of the report appeared to show that Iran was not respecting its international obligations. "We must keep up the pressure on Iran ... we will continue to work on the introduction of restrictive measures in the framework of the United Nations," a French foreign ministry spokeswoman said.

Israel questions report

Israel, the only country in the Middle East believed to have a nuclear arsenal, questioned the findings of the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), saying that efforts to curb Iran's nuclear programme should continue regardless.
Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, told Army Radio that, as far as Israel knew, Iran had probably renewed its weapons programme since 2003. Ehud Olmert, Israeli prime minister, said that he would continue to push the US and other allies move to halt Tehran's nuclear programme. "It is vital to pursue efforts to prevent Iran from developing a capability like this and we will continue doing so along with our friends the United States," he said.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...B8F2691106.htm

Iran still a danger says US President Bush

US President George W. Bush says Iran still poses a threat to world security despite the release of a report yesterday suggesting Iran had halted its nuclear arms program in 2003. Mr Bush said that despite the intelligence, he remained steadfast in his warnings over the danger of Iran getting possession of a nuclear weapon. The President in October warned that Iran's nuclear program and a potential arms race could lead to "World War 3", adding that anyone serious about world security would support nuclear weaponry protection.

"I've told people if you're interested in avoiding World War 3 it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing from them having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Mr Bush said in October. However a report released yesterday conflicted with Mr Bush's approach to dealing with Iran, saying that although Iran was continuing to enrich uranium, it was likely to be used for peaceful purposes only. The US has refused to rule out military action against Iran, however said it preferred to use diplomacy in negotiating an end to any weapons production. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) were a key plank to Mr Bush's reason for invading Iraq, saying that Saddam Hussein was producing and planned to use if required nuclear arms.

Source: http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/...President-Bush

[Virgil]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

China questions UN Iran sanctions

China's ambassador to the UN says a new US intelligence report on Iran's nuclear programme raises questions about the need for new sanctions.

The ambassador, Wang Guangya, said the UN Security Council would have to consider the new information because "now things have changed".

A US intelligence report released on Monday said Iran halted a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

The US and its European allies are still pushing for sanctions on Iran.

Mr Wang was asked whether the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran made the prospect of a third round of UN sanctions against Iran less likely.

"I think the council members will have to consider that, because I think we all start from the presumption that now things have changed," he said.

He said diplomats would have to think about the implications of the report for Security Council action.

US pressure

China has reluctantly supported two rounds of UN sanctions against Iran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

The assent of China - and Russia - is crucial if the UN is to pass a third round of sanctions. Both countries wield a veto over Security Council decisions.

The text of a draft resolution could be circulated by the end of the week, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN.

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Any comments on the "no-nuke" intelligence report? I do believe that the report came out with full blessing of the white house. I think, the are looking now in a different direction when it comes to dealing with Iran. No way, was this report independently released.


Bush Drops Military Option, Tehran Slams Door on Diplomacy

DEBKAfile Special Report

December 3, 2007, 11:03 PM (GMT+02:00)

In a radical about-face, White House officials suddenly “discovered” Monday, Dec. 3, that Iran had halted it nuclear weapons program four years ago, but has continued to enrich uranium and could have enough material to build a bomb between 2010 and 2015. This “discovery” appeared in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, together with the comment that Iran seems less determined to develop nuclear arms than previously believed and is more vulnerable to international pressure.

This finding caused astonishment and dismay in Israeli political and military circles, particularly in the light of the close Israel-US rapport over last week’s Annapolis conference on the Middle East and the close Olmert-Livni-Barak lineup behind the Bush vision of Palestinian statehood.

Monday, too, even the “moderate” Arab turnout at the Middle East conference proved to be an illusion when Saudi King Abdullah walked into the GCC conference hall in Doha hand in hand with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president was invited to the Gulf summit for the first time. The “moderate” Arab front against Iran, proudly presented by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and prime minister Ehud Olmert, melted away to nothing.

Presenting the NIE, Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley said: “The estimate offers ground for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically without the use of force, as the administration has being trying to do.”

DEBKAfile’s sources in Israel: In effect, Washington has taken the military option off the table at the very moment that Tehran’s Saeed Jalili slammed the door on diplomacy in the “disastrous” conversation he held with the European Union’s Javier Solana in London, Saturday, Dec. 1.

The Bush about-face, which leaves Israel high and dry against a regime committed to wipe the xxxish state off the map, may be designed to draw attention from the happy communion between the Saudi monarch and Iranian president in Doha and other policy debacles.

After years of foot-dragging, Tehran has decided it has nothing to fear from the US and so why bother with further engagement over its nuclear program? Deputy foreign minister Saeed Jalili, the dour official who took over negotiations from the urbane Ali Larijani, did not mince his words with the Solana. According to the New York Times , Ahmadinejad’s close ally said: ‘Everything in the past is past, and with me, you start over,’” He added: ‘None of your proposals has any standing.’”

When Solana said that he was under the assumption that there would be continuity in the talks, Mr. Jalili told him he was wrong

The French official described the meeting as “a disaster,” adding “Jalili essentially said: ‘Everything that Larijani has proposed is a dead letter and we have to start from zero.’”

The Iranian official is also quoted as saying: “There is no longer an Iranian nuclear problem,” and the only interlocutor recognized by Iran from now on would be the International Atomic Energy Agency, with whom he claimed Tehran had solved all its problems.

The London conversation took place as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany met in Paris over the weekend to discuss a third sanctions resolution. The Chinese delegate agreed for the first time to join a sanctions motion, but the meeting was unable to agree on the nature of those penalties or the degree of their harshness.

From the posture adopted by Jalili in London, it is clear that Iran is no longer willing to heed international pressure for halting its drive for nuclear arms – especially since the Bush administration is clearly short of backing from the “moderate” Arab front.

In these circumstances, the White House has opted for minimizing the Iranian nuclear arms threat rather than confronting it.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[I]Any comments on the "no-nuke" intelligence report? I do believe that the report came out with full blessing of the white house. I think, the are looking now in a different direction when it comes to dealing with Iran. No way, was this report independently released.

I don't think its a political game, dude. I think that the report in question is a from of an internal rebellion of sorts against the Neocon establishment and their subordinates in the Bush administration. You are discounting the fact that a considerable number of people in all levels of American society are beginning to see the disastrous legacy of the Bush administration. Similar situations have occurred in the past where documents have surfaced (information leaks) that have put the Bush administration in a bad light. I strongly believe that there is a power struggle going on within Washington DC.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran stops accepting U.S. dollars for oil

Iran has stopped selling its oil for U.S. dollars, the Iranian ISNA news agency said on Saturday, citing the country's oil minister. "In line with a policy of selling crude oil in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, the sale of our country's oil in U.S. dollars has been completely eliminated," ISNA reported Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari as saying. He also said "the dollar is no longer a reliable currency." Iran is the world's fourth-largest crude oil producer. At a November summit of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries heads of state, Iran proposed that oil sales be carried for a variety of currencies, excluding dollars, but was not supported by any other members except Venezuela. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had previously called the U.S. currency a "worthless piece of paper." 2007 has seen a significant fall in the value of the U.S dollar against other major world currencies. Tensions remain high between Iran and the U.S., which has accused the Islamic Republic of attempting to build a nuclear weapon, as well as providing insistence to insurgents in Iraq. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), published on Monday, stated that Tehran had put a stop to weapons production in 2003, although it was continuing to enrich uranium. The report contradicted a previous U.S. intelligence assessment in 2005 which said that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear bomb. U.S. President George W. Bush remained hawkish, despite the report, saying on Tuesday that, "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the know how to make a nuclear weapon." When asked if military action remained an option, the president answered, "The best diplomacy - effective diplomacy - is one in which all options are on the table."

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20071208/91488137.html

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I don't think its a political game, dude. I think that the report in question is a from of an internal rebellion of sorts against the Neocon establishment and their subordinates in the Bush administration. You are discounting the fact that a considerable number of people in all levels of American society are beginning to see the disastrous legacy of the Bush administration. Similar situations have occurred in the past where documents have surfaced (information leaks) that have put the Bush administration in a bad light. I strongly believe that there is a power struggle going on within Washington DC.

You may well be right, but I'm not discounting. I'm thinking back to the "WMD" intelligence. You and I both know that the WMD intelligence came from the white house, and the intelligence community didn't seem to protest when they were asked to fabricate an Iraqi threat. Certainly, its very possible that the yes men of a few years ago are now resisting.

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I don't think its a political game, dude. I think that the report in question is a from of an internal rebellion of sorts against the Neocon establishment and their subordinates in the Bush administration. You are discounting the fact that a considerable number of people in all levels of American society are beginning to see the disastrous legacy of the Bush administration. Similar situations have occurred in the past where documents have surfaced (information leaks) that have put the Bush administration in a bad light. I strongly believe that there is a power struggle going on within Washington DC.

Well this article backs your opinion on this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/wiran109.xml

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

On the other hand, here is one that backs my earlier assessment:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690696,00.html?imw=Y