Iranian Oil Bourse IS A Reality

www.comcast.net/data/fan/...

Above is a FOX clip on the matter

http://voanews.com/englis...
100+ Fighters Practice Attack

See related thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/...

Wanted to add this news in the context of the "Iran/Oil Bourse" thread-

My immediate thought: Possibly due to opposition to attacking Iran this summer/August?

http://www.airforcetimes....

Moseley, Wynne to be asked to resign

The last straw appears to be a report on nuclear weapons handling by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion. The critical report convinced Gates that changes must be made.
-snip-

http://www.dailypaul.com/...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTr...
Officials: Iran, al-Qaida communicating
Published: May 29, 2008 at 8:27 PM

WASHINGTON, May 29 (UPI) -- Top officials in the U.S. government say the Iranian government has secretly been in contact with al-Qaida leaders in recent months.

ABC News said all of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

Poland posed no threat to Germany prior to the German attack on Poland. But the Germans actually portrayed the attack as defending their territory from a Polish attack. Sound similar?

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom" on revolutionbroadcasting.com
Mondays thru Thursdays Midnight EST
or visit www.mikeandjake.com

Did any of you see this article?

http://www.reuters.com/ar...

Venezuela has declared that it is establishing a common bank with Iran to finance economic development projects in the two countries.

The bank, to be based in Tehran, will have an initial capital base of 1.2 billion dollars, with each nation providing half of the funds, AFP reported on Tuesday.

It follows up on a March 2007 agreement the two countries signed.

The relations between the two countries has elevated to an unprecedented level during President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's term.

Last month Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said unity and cooperation between Tehran and Caracas has gotten the 'US imperialism' riled up.

"The two countries' cooperation has turned into a great unity between the Iranian and Venezuelan nations and this annoys the US imperialism," he said.

www.presstv.ir/detail.asp...

http://afp.google.com/art...

US, allies say UN report bolsters fears Iran wants nuclear bomb

4 hours ago (around 3:30 CDT on 5/27/08)

WASHINGTON (AFP) ­ The United States said Tuesday that Iran's refusal to respond to queries from the UN atomic watchdog is "very troubling," warning its behavior bolstered suspicions it aimed to build a nuclear bomb.

The US government, which has spearheaded toughening rounds of sanctions against Tehran, added it was studying what "diplomatic next step" to take after Monday's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

France and Germany -- which along with Britain, Russia and China are locked in carrot-and-stick negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program -- voiced immediate concerns about the report.

The IAEA on Monday expressed "serious concern" that Iran is still hiding information about alleged studies into making nuclear warheads and defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

The alleged studies comprise a uranium conversion project, high explosives testing and designs for a missile re-entry vehicle, and suggest there may have been a possible military angle to past nuclear work.

The report "refers to the fact that the Iranians are willfully -- trying to willfully withhold information about their activities related to potential weaponization," McCormack told reporters in Washington.

"There are a number of different questions out there about the military's involvement in this nuclear program, about Iran's efforts to fabricate hemispheres of uranium," he said.

"And I'm not sure other than for a weapon why you would do that," McCormack added.

Washington has in the past pointed to IAEA inquiries into Iran's possession of blueprints for making the uranium metal hemispheres that are the core of bombs as signs of military intentions.

McCormack called the new report "very troubling" and "disturbing," adding: "And we'll see what diplomatic next step will flow from this."

The State Department spokesman said the report will have no impact on a so-called "refreshed" package of incentives for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment and reprocessing work.

"The package is set," McCormack said.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he hopes to travel to Iran soon to present the package from the six negotiating powers after meeting Tehran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki over the weekend.

The permanent Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States plus Germany have re-worked an offer of political and trade incentives originally made in 2006.

Solana has been struggling to establish high-level talks aimed at getting Iran to accept the package but Tehran refuses to suspend enrichment as a precondition for negotiating.

Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium to make nuclear fuel to help meet its electricity needs and has so far defied three sets of Security Council resolutions which demand it halt the process.

At highly refined levels, such work can also make the fissile core of an atomic bomb but Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and has vehemently denied that it is seeking to make weapons with it.

In Paris, French foreign ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani said the details mentioned in the report "could be the sign of a possible military dimension of the Iranian nuclear program."

In Berlin, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the report "leaves open a number of questions that we will have to examine very quickly."
Hosted by Google
Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » []

No need for either party's conventions, then, right?

http://www.atimes.com/ati...
Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously
-snip-

http://www.arabianbusines...

Gulf in fresh push to hit single currency deadline

by Daliah Merzaban on Sunday, 06 April 2008

Gulf Arab states agreed on Sunday on fresh impetus for efforts to create a single currency by 2010 and resist pressure to revalue currencies or drop their dollar pegs unilaterally to offset soaring inflation.

Central bank governors from the six-member GCC will meet again in two months to "complete the legislation and the matters relating to monetary union as we march to reach 2010", GCC Secretary-General Abdul-Rahman Al-Attiyah said after a meeting of the governors in the Qatari capital, Doha.

The governors' regular twice-yearly meeting on Sunday discussed removing obstacles to the single currency plans.

Of the six countries, Oman said in 2006 it would not join by a January 1, 2010 target and Kuwait dropped its dollar peg in May, throwing the plan into disarray.

"We are going to review the date in 2009," Qatari Central Bank Governor Sheikh Abdullah bin Saud Al-Thani told reporters at the end of the meeting, of which Qatar currently holds the revolving chair.

Of the 2010 target, he said: "It is realistic. We are committed to working towards that target."

The comments contrast with statements last year which indicated the monetary union project would probably be delayed several years as the economies of the region diverged, particularly on inflation.

"They are trying to take speculation away from GCC currency-reform talk after last year, when so many comments were made that increased speculation," said Monica Malik, Middle East economist for Cairo-based investment bank EFG-Hermes.

Qatar's Sheikh Abdullah said the six countries will have to work more closely together to resist going their separate ways on currency policy as interest rates fall and the US dollar weakens.

The dollar has lost almost 8% of its value against the euro this year alone, helping fuel record or near-record Gulf inflation by making some imports more expensive.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar are among the oil producers that have come under pressure to revalue their currencies or drop their pegs as the link forces them to track declining US interest rates when their own economies are surging. Oil prices have surged five-fold during the last six years.

"We meet today against the backdrop of very difficult and complicated developments, in terms of their impact on our economic conditions in general, and fiscal and monetary in particular," Sheikh Abdullah said earlier on Sunday.

"The pressure on our economies has piled up in the last year, be it in terms of interest rates or exchange rates," he said. "These pressures appear to be likely to continue over the current year in a manner that requires us to deal with them with the greatest level of coordination and consultation."

This is "so that these developments do not push us away from our common aspirations and our march that leads to the achievement of monetary union", he said.

Several Gulf states are determined to meet the 2010 deadline, GCC Secretary-General Attiyah said earlier on Sunday, without identifying them. Others could follow later, he said.

UAE inflation hit a 19-year high of 9.3% in 2006 and probably accelerated to more than 10% last year. In Qatar, the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, it was 13.7% in the fourth quarter. (Reuters)

Friday, May 9, 2008. (AP Photo/David Karp)
By JOHN WILEN
AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Oil rose above $126 a barrel for the first time Friday, bringing its advance this week to nearly $10, as investors questioned whether a possible confrontation between the U.S. and Venezuela could cut exports from the OPEC member. Gas prices, meanwhile, rose above an average $3.67 a gallon at the pump, following oil's recent path higher.

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal published a report that suggested closer ties between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and rebels attempting to overthrow Colombia's government. Chavez has been linked to Colombian rebels previously, but the paper reported it had reviewed computer files indicating concrete offers by Venezuela's leader to arm guerillas. That appears to heighten the chances that the U.S. could impose sanctions on one of its biggest oil suppliers.

"If we put on sanctions, I'm sure Chavez would threaten to cut off our oil supply," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. "Obviously that would have a major impact on oil prices."

Light, sweet crude for June delivery vaulted to a new record of $126.25 on the New York Mercantile Exchange before retreating slightly to settle up $2.27 at a record $125.96. Oil futures set new records for the fifth straight day, and ended the week up $9.64, or 8.3 percent.

Even if Chavez cut oil shipments to the U.S., Venezuelan oil would still make its way to the U.S. via middle men, who would buy it from Venezuela and resell it to the U.S., Flynn said. But that new layer in the supply chain would bump up costs.

www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111...

Published: Saturday, 10 May, 2008, 02:08 AM Doha Time

BEIRUT: Hezbollah fighters, their guns blazing, seized control of west Beirut yesterday after three days of deadly street battles with pro-government foes pushed Lebanon dangerously close to all-out civil war.
The US warned that the Shia movement must be held accountable for the violence and said it was working with Lebanon’s neighbours and the UN Security Council on steps to do so. Convoys of triumphant opposition gunmen firing into the air and flashing victory signs took to the streets after routing fighters loyal to the Western-backed government of the divided nation.

As the fighting eased, the army and police moved across areas now in the hands of opposition forces which have been locked in an 18-month power struggle with the ruling coalition. But as foreigners scrambled to leave it was unclear what the immediate future would hold, amid fears the protracted political feud could plunge Lebanon back to the dark days of the 1975-1990 civil war. Although the guns had largely fallen silent in the besieged capital last night, a security official said two opposition militants were killed in fighting south of Beirut.

Both sides appeared unwilling to give any further ground yesterday, with Hezbollah insisting that the roadblocks that have paralysed much of the nation would remain until the government meets its demands. “We are not carrying out a coup — all of this is related to the government’s decisions,” an opposition official said. “We are offering partnership... and they want to monopolise power and limit our share.”
But Youth and Sports Minister Ahmed Fatfat ruled out any chance of the government going back on its decision to probe Hezbollah’s private communications network — the trigger for the latest unrest.
“It would be easier for the government to resign than to revoke its decision,” Fatfat said.

The unrest triggered urgent international appeals for calm, amid fears that any possible civil war could spread to the region.
The White House called the fighting proof of the danger Hezbollah poses to the region.

“Hezbollah’s relationship with Iran and Syria, as well as its history of international terrorism and provision of lethal support and training to Iraqi-based extremist groups, demonstrates the threat it poses to international peace and security,” White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
“The US is consulting with other governments in the region and with the UN Security Council about measures that must be taken to hold those responsible for the violence in Beirut accountable,” he said.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington would support Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora in the standoff. “Seeking to protect their state within a state, Hezbollah has... demonstrated its contempt for its fellow Lebanese,” she added. In Brussels EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also assured Siniora of the European Union’s “full support.”

Earlier Christian Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea accused Hezbollah of launching “an armed coup... that is counter to the constitution... and democratic principles”.

Hezbollah, the most powerful armed group in Lebanon, was the only faction allowed to keep its weapons after the civil war to fight Israeli forces occupying the south.

In west Beirut, most shops and businesses remained shuttered while tanks rolled through the streets and riot police and troops patrolled but with orders not to intervene in the conflict. – AFP

www.gulf-times.com/site/t...

Hizbollah rules west Beirut in Iran's proxy war with US

By Robert Fisk in Beirut
Saturday, 10 May 2008

Another American humiliation. The Shia gunmen who drove past my apartment in west Beirut yesterday afternoon were hooting their horns, making V-signs, leaning out of the windows of SUVs with their rifles in the air, proving to the Muslims of the capital that the elected government of Lebanon has lost.

And it has. The national army still patrols the streets, but solely to prevent sectarian killings or massacres. Far from dismantling the pro-Iranian Hizbollah's secret telecommunications system – and disarming the Hizbollah itself – the cabinet of Fouad Siniora sits in the old Turkish serail in Beirut, denouncing violence with the same authority as the Iraqi government in Baghdad's green zone.

The Lebanese army watches the Hizbollah road-blocks. And does nothing. As a Tehran versus Washington conflict, Iran has won, at least for now. Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader and MP and a pro-American supporter of Mr Siniora's government, is isolated in his home in west Beirut, but has not been harmed. The same applies to Saad Hariri, one of the most prominent government MPs and the son of the murdered former prime minister Rafik Hariri. He remains in his west Beirut palace in Koreitem, guarded by police and soldiers but unable to move without Hizbollah's approval. The symbolism is everything.

When Hamas became part of the Palestinian government, the West rejected it. So Hamas took over Gaza. When the Hizbollah became part of the Lebanese government, the Americans rejected it. Now Hizbollah has taken over west Beirut. The parallels are not exact, of course. Hamas won a convincing electoral victory. Hizbollah was a minority in the Lebanese government; its withdrawal from cabinet seats with other Shias was occasioned by Mr Siniora's American-defined policies and by their own electoral inability to change these. The Lebanese don't want an Islamic republic any more than the Palestinians. But when Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah chairman, told a press conference that this was a "new era" for Lebanon, he meant what he said.

Mr Hariri's Future Television offices were invested by the army after Hizbollah surrounded it on Thursday night, its staff evacuated and the station switched off. When I turned up there yesterday morning, I joined a queue for manouche – Lebanon's hot cheese breakfast sandwiches – at Eyman's bakery in Watwat Street. I patiently waited behind four black-hooded gunmen from Hizbollah's allied (but highly venal) Amal movement only to find uniformed Lebanese soldiers representing the government patiently queuing at the next window. Law and disorder, it seems, both have to eat.

But I found far more powerful symbolism in Hamra Street, one of west Beirut's two main commercial thoroughfares. More than 100 Hizbollah men were standing or patrolling the highway, clad in new camouflage fatigues, wearing new black flak jackets and new black, peaked, American-style baseball caps and – more to the point – what appeared to be equally new American sniper rifles..

No, this is not a revolution. No, this is not a "hijacking" of west Beirut or the airport, which remains cut off by burning tyres on roads guarded by Hizbollah militiamen. But the government's supporters deserve some space. Several pointed out that the Israelis closed Beirut airport in 2006. So what right did Hizbollah have to do the same to the Lebanese now? And, according to Saad Hariri, Mr Nasrallah – when he called Mr Jumblatt "a thief and a killer" – was "authorising his murder and clearly stating that, 'I am the state and the state is me'." No wonder, then, that Mr Jumblatt fears for his life and that Mr Hariri claims the Hizbollah's coup de folie is a form of fitna, the Arabic for chaos. "I invite you, Sayed Nasrallah, to take back your fighters from the streets and to lift the siege of Beirut to protect the unity of Muslims," he said. "Israel will be rejoicing at the blockade of the country and the collapse of its economy."

Marwan Hamade, Mr Siniora's Telecommunications Minister – and victim of an attempted assassination in 2004 – admitted he had turned a blind eye to Hizbollah's underground phone system but could no longer when he realised that Hizbollah now maintains 99,000 numbered lines.

Mr Nasrallah also insisted on the reinstallation of Brigadier General Wafiq Chucair as head of security at Beirut airport, since he was not a member of Hizbollah. General Chucair was suspended after Mr Jumblatt claimed he worked for Mr Nasrallah's outfit, a demand which prompted Mr Jumblatt to say he did not know General Chucair was so important to Mr Nasrallah that it was worth closing the international airport.

And so it goes on. There was an unusually good editorial in the French-language daily L'Orient Le Jour, which asked how the Hizbollah – literally "the party of God" in Arabic – could have war as its raison d'etre yet be a factor of stability and security in Lebanese domestic affairs. "And this party, can it really call itself the 'Party of God' without creating, in the long term, the distrust of all those other children who count themselves to be from the same unique and one God?"

No, this is not a civil war. Nor is it a coup d'etat, though it meets some of the criteria. It is part of the war against America in the Middle East. The Hizbollah "must stop sowing trouble," the White House said rather meekly. Yes, like the Taliban. And al-Qa'ida. And the Iraqi insurgents. And Hamas. And who else?

www.independent.co.uk/new...

Report: US Convenes on Iran War Scenario

Wed, 07 May 2008 17:52:35

The White House, Washington, DC

High-ranking US officials have reportedly held a special meeting to study options for a military strike against the Islamic Republic.

The secret meeting was reportedly held on Tuesday either at the White House or at the US Department of Defense.

In response to questions by reporters regarding the subject of the meeting, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said he would not disclose any details.

Morrell said White House officials frequently hold sessions to discuss issues related to Iran. He, however, refused to reveal the details of Tuesday's meeting, informed sources told Press TV.

When asked about the secret meeting, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment and referred reporters to the US Department of Defense.

The Pentagon spokesman claimed in an address to reporters that Washington was seeking to fight the fatal interference of the Iranian government in Iraq and went on to say that the US had 'conclusive evidence of Tehran's support for Iraq insurgency'.

Morrell also accused Tehran of double standard policies claiming that while the Islamic Republic claims it supports the Iraqi government, it funnels arms to those who destabilize the administration.

Washington continues to accuse Iran of supplying and training Iraqi militants; however, it has so far failed to provide 'smoking gun evidence' for its allegations.

Iran categorically denies such allegations, asserting that the country has vowed to help Iraq restore security and stability in the war-torn country.

Although US officials have recently rejected the possibility of an imminent attack on Iran, many critics inside and outside the US government harbor serious doubts about the Bush administration's claims and fear that despite the relentless war in neighboring Iraq, it is preparing for a war on Iran.

www.presstv.ir/detail.asp...

I filed this as an individual post however, I'm going to file this here as well in that Chavez did say that if the US attacked Iran He'd be sure to raise oil to $200 pb....It may be indicative of impending action in Iran....It may not....Time to Keep an Eye on Things Down South....

"It’s now official: The Pentagon is going to resuscitate its Fourth Fleet, with the mission of patrolling Latin American and Caribbean waters. Created during the Second World War to protect traffic in the South Atlantic, the structure was dissolved in 1950. “By reestablishing the Fourth Fleet, we acknowledge the immense importance of maritime security in this region,” declared Adm. Gary Roughead, head of the Pentagon’s naval operations. Based in Mayport, Florida, the fleet will operate under the double orders of the American Navy and the Army’s Southern Command, responsible for Latin America and the Caribbean. Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan will command the fleet, which should include a nuclear aircraft carrier.

According to Alejandro Sanchez, an analyst at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a research center on Latin America based in Washington, “the reestablishment of the Fourth Fleet is more of a political than a military gesture, designed to confront the rise in power of left-leaning governments in the region.” The Pentagon does not trouble to camouflage its intentions: “the message is clear: whether local governments like it or not, the United States is back after the war in Iraq,” Sanchez explains.

“New Threats”

De facto,, Washington’s military influence in the region has diminished considerably since September 11, 2001, and the launch of the “war against terrorism.” Concentrated on the Middle Eastern arc of crisis, the Pentagon did not pay much attention to the political upsets in its own backyard. Leftist governments, now broadly in the majority in Latin America, reproach the United States with the support it gave the dictatorships that reigned over several decades and to the ultra-neo-liberal policies those dictatorships applied."

"While Washington assures that its sole interest in the region is combating “new threats” (terrorism, drug trafficking and the Maras gangs of Central America), Latin American people often see it as the pursuit of “imperialist” interests dictated by energy needs. The tensions between Washington and the radical presidents of the sub-continent’s main oil and gas producers (Venezuela, Equator and Bolivia) accentuate that perception."

Continues
http://rinf.com/alt-news/...

John Bolton, America’s ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq.
Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.

“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”

Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bush’s inner circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol...
May 4, 2008

United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency campMichael Smith
Read Mick Smith's defence blog at www.timesonline.co.uk/mic...

The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.

Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.

However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.

“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province.

They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.

Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran.

British officials believe the US military tends to overestimate the effect of the Iranian involvement in Iraq.

But they say there is little doubt that the Revolutionary Guard exercises significant influence over splinter groups of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, who were the main targets of recent operations in Basra.

The CBS television network reported last week that plans were being drawn up for an attack on Iran, citing an officer who blamed the “increasingly hostile role” Iran was playing in Iraq.

The American news reports were unclear about the precise target of such an action and referred to Iran’s nuclear facilities as the likely objective.

According to the intelligence sources there will not be an attack on Iran’s nuclear capacity. “The Pentagon is not keen on that at all. If an attack happens it will be on a training camp to send a clear message to Iran not to interfere.”

President George W Bush is known to be determined that he should not hand over what he sees as “the Iran problem” to his successor. A limited attack on a training camp may give an impression of tough action, while at the same time being something that both Gates and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, could accept.

www.politicallore.com/wri...

Busy "Iran" day new wise...May is on horizon

US official: Iraqis to urge Iran to stop backing militias

By LOLITA C. BALDOR – 2 hours ago

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Iraqi leaders are hoping to pressure Iran to stop aiding militias in Iraq by presenting Tehran with the latest evidence of weapons and training crossing the border, a senior defense official said Wednesday.

It is not known yet whether the Iranians agreed to the meeting. But the official said the Iraqis want to try let Iran know that the support is not helpful and should be stopped. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

According to the official, plans to roll out the evidence of Iranian support for the militias during a public briefing have been delayed to give the Iraqis time to speak directly to Tehran about the problem.

U.S. officials have recently escalated their complaints about the weapons and training that Iran — largely members of Tehran's elite Republican Guard — is providing to militants. The problem was underscored during the recent fighting in Basra.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is meeting with Mexican leaders, said Tuesday that the U.S. is not laying the groundwork for an attack against Iran. And his spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters Wednesday that he is not aware of any "ramping up or revision" of war plans for Iran at the Pentagon.

U.S. Military officials have said that the evidence includes caches of weapons that have date stamps showing they were produced in Iran this year.

The weapons to be presented will include mortars, rockets, small arms, roadside bombs and armor-piercing explosives — known as explosively formed penetrators or EFPs — that troops have discovered in recent months, according to another senior military official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the evidence has not yet been made public.

The U.S. very briefly had two Navy aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf this week — a move that Gates said Tuesday could be seen as a "reminder" to Iran. The Pentagon has routinely said that moving ships to the Gulf is a way of showing countries there that the U.S. remains committed to the region.

At the Pentagon, defense officials said the USS Abraham Lincoln entered the Gulf in a normal rotation of forces, not as an addition of force. The carrier that the Lincoln replaced, the USS Harry Truman, has now left the Gulf and is en route to its home base at Norfolk, Va. The two carriers were together in the Gulf for only one day, as is common during a rotation, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because details about ship movements are considered classified.

http://ap.google.com/arti...

Tehran, April 30

(Xinhua) Iran has replaced the US dollar with other currencies in its oil transactions, an oil ministry official said Wednesday. “The dollar has completely been removed from our oil trade. Crude oil customers have agreed with us to use other currencies. Our future oil business will be in euro in Europe, yen in Asia,” he added.

In the wake of worsening relations with Washington in the past years over the nuclear disputes and the latest depreciation of the US dollar, Iran has vowed to scale down the use of the greenback in its foreign trade. The Iranian central bank has also reduced its dollar reserves.

During the last summit of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Saudi Arabia, Iran proposed that it was necessary to replace the US dollar with other major hard currencies in oil trading.

Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari declared last December that Tehran had completely stopped selling its oil in dollars, according to a report by the semi-official ISNA news agency at that time.

www.thaindian.com/newspor...

Air force ready to pull down enemies from Iran sky
Tehran, April 30, IRNA

Iran-IRGC-Commander
Iranian Air Force is well-prepared and is strong enough to pull down enemies from high sky of the sacred country, Air Force official said on Wednesday.

Addressing the IRGC air force unit, Brigadier General Hossein Salami said, "The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps has become a reliable, invincible and impenetrable body" to defend the country against any threats."
US officials may believe that they possess the "military empire" of the world with having more than half of the world's military power "but, they have failed to fulfill their goals anywhere," he said.

However, he stressed that Iranians should not forget that "enemy is too close to us."
1394**1416

---> Iran-IRGC-Commander
www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0804301692143417.htm

Lebanon, Israel and the next Middle East war
BY MATEIN KHALID

30 April 2008
...The failure of the Arab summit in Damascus, Israel’s determination to settle scores with Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia’s schism with Alawite-Baathist Syria and the acceleration of Iran’s nuclear programme suggest that political twilight in Beirut presages the next bloody war in the Middle East. The spiral of miscalculation, escalation, betrayal and punishment, so easily predictable by the mathematical models of Von Neumann’s Game Theory, could trigger the next regional war in a manner reminiscent to Sarajevo 1914.

The flashpoints for a regional war are Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed “open war” against Israel and Zionist targets all over the world after the alleged Mossad hit on his intelligence ops head Imad Mughniyeh, the mastermind of suicide bombing attacks on US Marines, French Legionnaires, the Amir of Kuwait’s motorcade, Western embassies and Maronite Phalangists patrols.

Israel has responded to Nasrallah’s threats by warning that it will retaliate with mass violence on the Lebanese border across the Blue Line, exactly as in July 2006. The diplomatic and shadow souks of the Middle East also speculate that the IDF will attack Syria, the political sponsor of Hezbollah.

It is ominous that the White House, the Elysee Palace, Downing Street and the Kremlin did not rebuke an Israeli Cabinet Minister who threatened Iran with nuclear destruction. The US Mediterranean fleet patrols off the coast of Lebanon and both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have advised their citizens to leave Beirut. As in 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006, the Middle East is sleepwalking into war.

www.khaleejtimes.com/Disp...

'Israel must be decisive'

Opposition Chairman Netanyahu tells local press in southern Israel ‘government's blindness’ to blame for Israel's inability to curtail incessant Qassam barrages

04.30.08, 17:51 / Israel News

“There will be no choice but to overthrow Hamas. They are essentially Iranian offshoots sitting within us. It’s intolerable that Israel allows its cities to be fired upon; we must move from a war of attrition to a war of decisivness,” said Opposition Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday in a meeting with local journalists in Netivot as he addressed Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza.

Threat Continues
Hamas: Hundred of thousands ready to become martyrs / Ali Waked
Speaking at conference in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar warns Israel Hamas has 200,000 suicide bombers waiting to attack. 'We must use all our resources to fight occupation,' he says
Full story
Netanyahu asserted that less than 500 Qassams were fired towards Israel prior to the disengagement in 2005, whereas since the pullout there have been over 4,000 rockets.

“This is a result of the government's blindness and erroneous political decisions, which led to the strengthening of the Hizbullah in the North,” added Netanyah.

Netanyahu also criticized Israel's conduct during the Second Lebanon War, saying that the forces were scattered and that therefore the outcome of the campaign was not as expected.

“Both the Arab world and the West expected focus - and for us to prevail, but it has become apparent that Israel failed to defeat Hizbullah because our efforts were not focused.”

Netanyahu also discussed the situation in southern Israel, saying that there was no room in so small a nation for any part to be disregarded as simply 'the periphery.'

"We will make sure this happens and it will prove beneficiary to the Negev and its underprivileged residents in particular.”

www.ynetnews.com/articles...

4-30-08

JERUSALEM — The world could have faced destruction if Hitler had succeeded in acquiring nuclear weapons, Israeli President Shimon Peres said Wednesday at a Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony, calling on the world to shoulder today's responsibilities — a reference to Iran's nuclear program.

The ceremony at Yad Vashem, Israel's official Holocaust memorial and research center in Jerusalem opened the annual memorial day for the 6 million Jews killed in the Nazi Holocaust of World War II. Hundreds of Holocaust survivors and other Israelis filled the main plaza on a cool evening to listen to speeches, prayers and music, including a children's harmonica band founded by Shmuel Gogol, a survivor of the Warsaw ghetto.

Restaurants and places of entertainment closed throughout the country on Wednesday evening. After a memorial air raid siren on Thursday morning, further ceremonies were to include the public reading of names of Holocaust victims at sites around the country, including the Knesset, Israel's parliament.

Speakers at Wednesday's opening ceremony repeatedly referred to Israel's military strength, asserting that it could prevent another mass catastrophe from befalling the Jewish people.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert lashed out at Holocaust deniers.

"Historical accuracy doesn't interest you," he said. "You want to negate the moral basis of the state of Israel. (But) Israel was not created because of the Holocaust," rather as an expression of the right of the Jewish people to its homeland.

Peres, 84, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 and serves now as ceremonial head of state, observed that the Jewish people might have been tardy in setting up their state, too late to rescue Jews from Europe.

Peres charged that the world woke up too late to eliminate the threat of Hitler before he started a war that killed 60 million people, warning that the world must not let that happen again. "In history, it is forbidden to be late," he said.

"My heart shudders when I recall that there was a possibility that Hitler could acquire nuclear weapons," he said. "A leader who plans mass destruction, together with weapons of mass destruction. What would have been left of our world?" he asked.

Aides confirmed that Peres was comparing Hitler and Nazi Germany to Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though Peres did not name either. Despite Iranian denials, Israel believes Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, and Ahmadinejad has called repeatedly for Israel's destruction.

"We will act on our responsibilities," Peres said. "The world must act on its responsibilities without delay," he added, in what aides said was another reference to Iran.

In his speech, Peres criticized the German people of the 1930s for electing and venerating a "crazy person," Hitler. "How is it possible that a people does not rise up in the face of murder in the streets, an army rolling on tank treads to destroy neighbors of yesterday and friends of the day before?" he asked.

About 270,000 Holocaust survivors live in Israel, of whom about 80,000 survived Nazi death camps, according to Zeev Factor, chairman of a commission working on benefits for them. Many survivors live in poverty, and Factor said that despite Israeli government promises to increase their support payments, "nothing has been implemented yet."

In his speech at Yad Vashem, Olmert admitted, "We have not always paid our debt to the survivors."

The body that deals with German reparations and restitution, known as the Claims Conference, distributed or allocated $737 million to survivors in 2007, according to a statement. Some survivors charge that the body spends too much on education and research projects and not enough to help destitute survivors.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...

4-30-2008
"Hostile" Iran sparks US Attack Plan

(CBS) A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.

"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program. New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon.

No attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has warned Iran not to assume the U.S. military can't strike.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.

Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.

If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...

Iranian president tries to seal India pipeline
Tue Apr 29, 2008

By Bappa Majumdar and Nidhi Verma

NEW DELHI, April 29 (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pushed to seal a $7.6 billion pipeline deal linking the world's second-largest gas reserves to growing South Asian economies, despite opposition from the United States.

Ahmadinejad met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday in a brief stop-over trip that has already sparked diplomatic tension between New Delhi and Washington, which fears the pipeline will fund Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"The two sides are very close to each other. We will finalise the gas pipeline soon," Ahmadinejad told reporters, saying a firm proposal on the pipeline would be formulated in the next 45 days.

The Iranian leader visited Pakistan on Monday before moving on to Sri Lanka and then India. Islamabad and Tehran said they had settled a host of issues over the pipeline project, which could be completed by 2012.

It would initially transport 60 million cubic metres of gas (2.2 billion cubic feet) daily to Pakistan and India, half for each country, but capacity would be raised later to 150 million cubic metres.

Ahmadinejad said that there was a proposal from China to join the pipeline. India Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said on Tuesday that this proposal was "only an idea".

New Delhi also wants to revive a 2005 agreement to import 5 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas from Iran. Washington urged India this month to use Ahmadinejad's visit to encourage Iran to stop nuclear enrichment.

India, which has been growing closer to the United States in recent years, responded sharply -- saying that it did not need any "guidance" on its bilateral relations.

"We do not think our relationship with Iran should worry any other country," Menon, repeating the government's line, said on Tuesday.

"CRADLE OF HUMAN CIVILISATION"

India also hopes to improve diplomatic relations with Tehran which have been strained. It voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2006, and launched an Israeli spy satellite earlier this year.

"We are two friends and India and Iran are the cradle of human civilisation ... India supports the peaceful nuclear activity of Islamic Republic of Iran," Ahmadinejad said.

India has been boycotting trilateral meetings on the Iran pipeline since mid-2007, saying it first wanted to resolve the issues of transit fees and transportation tariffs with Pakistan.

"On the pipeline, there will be further discussions. The discussions will relate to security of supply and how to start the project," Menon said.

"This pipeline is not just a commercial deal. It is a part of confidence-building measures.

Earlier on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad launched a project to boost the capacity of Sri Lanka's main oil refinery, part of a $1.5 billion loan to the government as Iran extends its energy ties in South Asia.

Ahmadinejad's visit came as Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, increasingly isolated over criticism from Western countries about his government's human rights record in a 25-year-old civil war with Tamil Tiger separatists, seeks closer ties with Asian countries.

"We can ensure security and fair play for all ... but in the world some powerful nations do not allow such a situation and they have created divisions among people and nationalities," Ahmadinejad said at the launch in remarks through an interpreter.

"The peoples of Sri Lanka and Iran are against the policies of the nations who are the enemies of humanity."

Iran had pledged a $1.5 billion loan to fund a raft of infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka, including a deal to boost oil refinery capacity and a 100-megawatt hydropower project.

The project aims to boost production of Sri Lanka's existing Sapugaskanda oil refinery in Colombo from 50,000 barrels per day to 100,000 bpd. (Additional reporting by C.K. Nayak; writing by Alistair Scrutton; Editing by Himangshu Watts and Myra MacDonald)
www.freedomsphoenix.com/F...

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

believe its about the nukes. If its about the nukes then why do we let all these other countries obtain them? No one would want to nuke us for fear of being wiped off the map. I think this war is about the dollar and oil which is keeping it afloat.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Says U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran
4-25-08

The nation's top military officer said today that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Says U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran
Iranians vote in parliamentary run-offs
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing specifically to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.

"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference.

Still, Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution to the tensions with Iran and does not foresee any imminent military action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.

Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal a new rhetorical onslaught by the Bush administration against Iran, amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.

In a speech Monday at West Point, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said a war with Iran would be "disastrous on a number of levels. But the military option must be kept on the table given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon to lay out detailed evidence of increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in Iran, he said.

"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not. Indeed, they seem to have gone the other way," Mullen said.

He said recent unrest in the southern Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been understood by the U.S. military previously. "It became very, very visible in ways that we hadn't seen before," he said.

But while Mullen and Gates have recently stated that Tehran must know of Iranian actions in Iraq, which they say are led by Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mullen said he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership [of Iran] is involved in this."

In an incident early local time yesterday, a cargo ship contracted by the U.S. military fired "several bursts" of warning shots at two fast boats that approached in international waters off the Iranian coast, defense officials said today.

The unidentified small boats approached the Westward Venture, a ship carrying U.S. military hardware, as it headed north through the central Persian Gulf at about 8 a.m. local time, said Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for the Navy's Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain.

The U.S. ship initiated bridge-to-bridge communications, and, after receiving no response, it fired a flare. The speed boats continued to approach, so the ship fired warning shots with a .50-caliber machine gun and M16 rifle. The boats then left the area, she said.

"They fired several bursts, it went pretty quickly," Robertson said.

Soon afterwards, an Iranian coast guard boat queried the Western Venture, Robertson said. It was unclear whether that was one of the small boats.

"There have been some Iranian boats that have operated this way, and some unidentified boats," said Robertson, adding that the crew had no voice communication with the small boats.

In January, five Iranian patrol boats sped toward a U.S. warship and dropped small, boxlike objects in the water, an incident that alarmed military officials and that President Bush called "a provocative act." The objects turned out to pose no threat to the USS Port Royal or two other U.S. vessels accompanying it.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...

Great Article out of Egypt, an analysis of the current situation. There was a post up regarding David Walker's assessment that by 2009 the US wouldn't be able to service its debt should the spending continue. If I can find it I will put a link. Given that, if the US launches (or Israel does and the US joins in) an Irainian conflict, would that move the timeline for 'force majeure' up?

The Intro:

"At a time of ongoing talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), of diplomatic efforts by a group of UN Security Council members to persuade Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, and coordination between Washington and Tehran over Iraq to the extent of forming joint security committees, a dangerous current is pushing in the polar opposite direction and gaining momentum. There is a growing frequency of leaks, innuendoes, outright threats and other signs that point to an immanent military attack by the US or Israel or both against Iran.

Is a fourth war really slated for the Gulf or is it all part of an orchestrated pressure to compel Iran to capitulate to Western demands to halt its nuclear development programme? This article takes an in-depth look at the harbingers of war and the obstacles to war, obstacles that may ultimately gain the upper hand if reports that secret negotiations have been ongoing between Washington and Tehran for five years are anything to go by."

The Conclusion:

"In sum, while US-Israeli threats should not be underestimated, the situation as it stands seems to favour the protraction of a state of no-war, no-peace. Overall, the factors against war seem to outweigh the factors propelling towards war. But since when has logic had the upper hand in determining the behaviour of the Bush administration? It is perhaps again the unknown quantity of Bush and his neo-con allies that, above all, feeds the spectre of Gulf War IV."

There's a good bit of meat between those slices of bread. Highlights Below but, if you have time it is worth the read. Believe it or not the post below is edited for length LOL

THE RISE OF THE MILITARY OPTION AGAINST IRAN: :The US and Israel have been pounding the alarm bell over Iran's nuclear programme in the hope of rallying the international community against Iran. Intelligence, they say, shows that Tehran is trying to develop the technology necessary to produce nuclear arms and may soon possess it. They have been beating the war drum in order to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear programme."

"In the case of Iran, Washington does not discriminate between nuclear energy for peaceful or for military purposes. It maintains that Iran is simply bent on acquiring the technology to produce the full nuclear cycle and, hence, the capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium. Not only would this trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, Washington insists, but it would also pose a direct threat to the US, because once in the hands of a "renegade state" such as Iran the likelihood would be high that it would supply nuclear arms to terrorists."

"In The New Yorker of April 2007, the eminent journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that he had learnt from intelligence sources that the Bush administration had already begun to draw up war plans. He added that he believed that the play the US administration was giving to Iran's activities in Iraq was intended to prep US public opinion for a military offensive against Iran. More recently, France's foreign minister echoed the tenor of American rhetoric and cautioned public opinion to gird itself for the worst from the Iranian nuclear crisis. When called on to explain this statement he denied that he had actually called for war, but affirmed that war would be the last resort if sanctions failed to persuade Tehran to suspend its nuclear programme."

"According to informed military sources, top officials in US Central Command in Florida have long since identified strike targets in Iran, which include the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and similar facilities in Esfahan, Arak and Bushehr. The sources add that the US will use long-range Phantom B-2 missiles and silo-busting bombs dropped from mammoth B-52s in an attempt to destroy reactors built some 25 metres underground. B-52s can fly at altitudes well out of reach of even the latest defence missile batteries."

ISRAEL'S STAKES IN WAR: "Signs of Israel's intentions against Iran emerged in August 2003 when Israeli press reports revealed that Mossad -- Israel's primary security intelligence agency -- had received instructions to study means of delivering military strikes to more than six nuclear sites in Iran. A team from Israeli national intelligence accordingly produced a report containing numerous scenarios for coordinated aerial strikes (using F-16 missile carriers) against the targets. Ironically, the Israeli threat to Iran shed unprecedented light on Israel's own considerable nuclear capabilities. Israel could deliver nuclear strikes against all its targets in Iran and destroy them all in one go. Tel Aviv's choice of that time to depart from its customary policy of nuclear ambiguity, offering a peek beneath the shroud of secrecy with which it normally veils its nuclear arsenal, was designed to deliver an explicit message to all Arab or Islamic countries that might get it in their heads to possess nuclear weapons. The article added that some Israeli military sources stated that Israel's nuclear weapons could reach some 15 major cities at considerable distances away from Israel inside the Arab and Islamic world. Iran was clearly intended as the main recipient of this message. Like officials in the Bush administration, Israeli officials believe that Iran is on the threshold of possessing nuclear military capacity. On 29 September 2004, the Israeli defence minister stated that, "Israel must get ready to deal with the Iranian threat."

"By 2007, Israeli plans were even more concrete. In January, the Sunday Times reported that Israel was conducting long-range training exercises and that if it did strike Iran it would use atomic bombs to penetrate Iranian underground bunkers. The newspaper added that the air force would use conventional laser-guided missiles to open breaches into which airplanes would then drop tactical atomic bombs, supposedly one-15th the power of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima."

"French military sources confirm the existence of secret Israeli plans to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities using nuclear weapons. They add that following strategic talks between Israeli and US officials in Washington on the Iranian nuclear threat, the Israeli and US air forces conducted joint training missions fine-tuned to the crisis in the Negev and in Gibraltar."

SCENARIOS FOR GULF WAR IV: "Many military and strategic reports discuss a blueprint for a run-up phase to military action against Iran. Washington is campaigning to form a coalition of "moderate" Arab states against Iranian influence in the Arab world. In the meantime, the US has intensified its military presence in the vicinity. More mammoth aircraft carriers are roaming the Gulf, equipped with early-warning radar systems, short- range defensive shields."

"Reports predict that the US offensive against Iran will rely primarily on fighter planes from aircraft carriers and combat ships based in the Gulf.
One possible scenario for an American offensive was proposed by former US Air Force Commander Tom McKenzie. It identifies 1,000 Iranian locations to be attacked by 15 B-52 bombers taking off from the US and supported by 45 F-15s and F-16s based in the Gulf. The first wave of assault would be intended to take out Iranian long-range radars and strategic defence systems. This would be followed by successive waves of B- 52, F-15 and F-16 aerial assaults targeting Iranian nuclear installations, command-and-control centres, Revolutionary Guard bases, some of the headquarters of the Iranian leadership and other sensitive infrastructure. The thinking is that these attacks will encourage either a mass uprising against the regime or a concerted revolt on the part of opposition groups inside the country. Supposedly the operation could be completed within the space of two days and set the Iranian nuclear programme back to zero for the next five years."

"A second scenario drafted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies envisions the deployment of between 150 and 200 cruise missiles launched from the Red Sea in conjunction with some 100 raids by B-52s and other aircraft. The offensive would have to rely on land bases in countries neighbouring Iran for organising and refuelling and re-equipping the aircraft for repeated waves of assault. He believes that an operation of this sort would succeed in destroying at least two out of Iran's three most valuable nuclear facilities."

"The Oxford Research Group, with the assistance of global security consultant Paul Rogers, came up with a third scenario. The group operated on the premise that a military operation against Iranian nuclear facilities needed to accomplish two primary objectives: first, to bury the Iranian nuclear dream forever; and second to show that the US is ready to take pre-emptive military action on this matter. Accordingly, the scenario envisions an intensive assault, relying on the element of surprise, to destroy Iran's primary nuclear infrastructure and air defence systems. It would use primarily air and naval power, in the form of hundreds of formations supported by missile fire and reconnaissance flights to take out Iranian defence systems. Some are of the opinion that such a scenario could forestall a protracted war. They argue that a short, intensive and powerful surgical operation against Iranian nuclear facilities would convince the Iranian regime to acknowledge defeat without great resistance or responses that would severely damage US military capacities in the region. Some add that US planners are particularly attracted to the idea of using tactical atomic bombs to accomplish a rapid victory and that this option makes sense in terms of the way US forces are deployed in the area."

WHAT CHANCE DIPLOMACY? "Despite all the publicity given to leaks, conjecture and projected scenarios, the US administration still sticks to the claim that it intends to stick to resolve the crisis with Iran by diplomatic means. The last affirmation of this was when US Secretary of Defense Gates announced that Washington had no intention of attacking Iran. Are all those threats and innuendoes, then, no more than smoke? Is it all just psychological warfare, or is the intent to goad Tehran into escalatory actions that would create openings for an American offensive?

Certainly events on the ground suggest the latter. The US military build-up in the region, the provocative tone and behaviour of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Israeli allegations of an Iranian threat to Israel, US charges against the actions of Iranian forces in Iraq, plus the need to sideline the influence of Iran and its allies in order to push through a formula for a settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, all seem to tip the probabilities in favour of war. However, there remains a strong likelihood that although this is precisely the impression Washington is trying to convey, it is, in fact, no more than a façade for another strategy.

Amidst the din of the war drums several questions arise. Why see the glass as half empty? Why rule out the possibility of a repetition of US experience with North Korea, which Washington had identified as another corner in the "Axis of Evil," and yet which Washington eventually decided it could live with even after it had crossed the nuclear threshold? Nor should we exclude from our calculations the US quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, tensions between the now Democratically- controlled Congress and the Bush administration, the positions and opinions of other international powers, and Iran's ability to deploy its effective military, strategic and economic assets. Surely these and other considerations weigh in against another US military adventure."
_____________________________________________________________
******Unfortunately, three recent developments seem to tip the scales in the opposite direction and lead one to affirm that war with Iran is at hand: first, the split of Moqtada Al-Sadr's faction from the Iraqi parliamentary coalition and recent clashes with Iraq forces supported by US-British occupation forces (this faction has sufficient popular and military leverage to form part of an Iranian response in the event of a military strike against it); second, the fact that Israel now seems reluctant to go ahead with a major incursion into Gaza despite the resources and training it has already invested in this option; third, ongoing negotiations between the Israeli prime minister and Palestinian Authority president over a binding agreement. The subtext in these negotiations is that whatever binding agreement is produced it is going to be based on the outcome of a military strike against Iran.*******
____________________________________________________________
MOMENTUM TOWARDS WAR: "Several other developments support this tipping of the scales. French President Nicolas Sarkozy's succession, following British prime minister Tony Blair, as Washington's closest European ally marks a radical departure from his predecessors. Sarkozy has positioned himself fully behind US policies in the Middle East, so much so that during a meeting with France's ambassadors to 188 nations in October 2007 he informed them that Iran would be bombed if it did not renounce its nuclear ambitions. France, he said, regarded the possession of nuclear weapons as a red line that Iran had best not cross.

Second, note the about-face Bush made towards the Nuri Al-Maliki government. Whereas the US president had formerly expressed disappointment in that government and hinted that he wanted to remove it from power, he suddenly gave it a public vote of confidence. Translated, this means that the Bush administration does not feel that it has enough time to arrange things exactly to its liking in Iraq before a military operation against Iran, so it decided to accept the current situation and avoid a constitutional crisis in Iraq and other headaches.

Third, the British withdrawal of its forces from Basra and the handing over of security in southern Iraq to Iraqi security forces reflects two British predictions for the future. On the one hand, that the defeat of US-led coalition forces is a foregone conclusion; on the other, that a US military strike against Iran is in the near offing and that Britain wants its own forces well out of range of what would be one of the immediate targets of an Iranian retaliation. Basra is only a stone's throw away from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, if it is not already under their de facto control.

Fourth, the US's branding of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, setting the stage for sanctions against the Iranian leadership, is another step towards war. In addition, the Bush administration has upped the tenor of its invective against Tehran, levelling against it a lengthy list of accusations including intervening in Iraqi domestic affairs, inflaming sectarian violence, undermining security efforts, supplying Shia militias with arms and explosives, supporting such "terrorist groups" as Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, seeking nuclear weapons technology and working to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process. As though to back these threats, the US deployed the latest generation of Patriot missiles abroad for the first time since their production, with Israel receiving considerable quantities of them. Also, the USS Stennis aircraft carrier and its attendant fleet recently left its customary patrolling grounds in the Pacific to join the USS Eisenhower in the Gulf. Other naval vessels of various types and functions have also headed to the Gulf. In addition, there is the 21,500 troops increase in Iraq following the suspension of the planned force reductions that had been scheduled for July 2008. The troops, which may yet be increased, could be redeployed to meet a possible Iranian land incursion into Iraq in the event of an eruption of hostilities.

Fifth, the US president's frequently reasserted personal conviction regarding Iran's alleged determination to obtain nuclear weapons. In a press conference in October 2007, he said, "I am telling world leaders that if you want to avoid World War III it seems to me that you have to stop the Iranians from getting the know-how to make a nuclear weapon." Also in October 2007, Israeli President Shimon Peres echoed this belief. Ahmadinejad, he said, was following in the footsteps of Hitler and Stalin, which was why the international community should move quickly against Iran's nuclear designs. He added, "Even if [Russian President Vladimir] Putin says he is not convinced that Iran is conducting nuclear development for the purpose of war, everyone knows their true intentions, and many intelligence agencies throughout the world have proof that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons for the purpose of war and death."

Sixth, as additional proof of the inevitability of war on Iran some cite the theory that this would be only the latest episode in a series of US wars in the Middle East that began in the 1950s and identified a new enemy per decade: Abdel-Nasser and Arab nationalism (beginning in the late 1950s), Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (beginning in the late 1960s), the Iranian Revolution (in the late 1970s), Iraq by the end of the following decade, to be joined by Al-Qaeda and then Tehran again in the first decade of the new millennium. At every new turn, it is charged that the enemy of the moment threatens regional and/or international security, and in coordination with Israel the US has always moved onto the offensive, striking the Nasserist project in 1967, the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1982, Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 2001, and Saddam's Iraq in 2003. Only one of the five enemies is left: Khomeini's Iran (now headed by Ahmadinejad) and its Syrian retainer.

Seventh, there are strong indications of a heavy covert US presence in Iran. Iranian officials have accused the US of engineering a new wave of subversion in the country, using Pakistan as a staging point, with the purpose of destabilising the Iranian regime. In February 2008, Zahedan was the scene of a massive explosion that killed or injured dozens of Iranian Revolutionary Guard members. Iranian fingers pointed to Washington and charged that CIA operatives were increasingly active in the country, especially in the region of Baluchestan adjacent to the Pakistani and Afghan borders. These suspicions are not unfounded. We recall that Bush asked Congress for a $75 million allocation for the purpose of promoting democratic change in Iran and supporting Iranian opposition groups. The problem the US is encountering, in this regard, is that apart from the Kurds, Iran has no minorities that are interested in secession.

Eighth, on th