Given the level of lies, propaganda, fear-mongering, and manipulation of intelligence exhibited at the highest levels of our government, is it any wonder that confusion and distrust surround the government's intentions towards Iran? Take a look at the array of articles trying to discern BushCo's Iran strategy and I defy you to come away with anything but a scrambled brain.
- El Baradei Says Iran Is at Least 5 Years Away From Nuclear Arms:
Bloomberg reports: "Iran is at least five to 10 years away from developing nuclear weapons, and any military attack on the country would only speed up its program, the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog organization said....
'We have not seen any facilities capable of building a weapon,' International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 'We are not dealing with a threat tomorrow.'
Military strikes to knock out any suspected Iranian nuclear program would be 'absolutely catastrophic' and would 'accelerate a program, if it exists,' he said. Graham Allison, an international-affairs professor at Harvard University and a former Defense Department official, told the forum that there's a 20 percent chance the U.S. or Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear research sites within the next two years...." - New US strategy on Iran emerges from Davos:
Timesonline reports: "The real value of Davos is in making connections - not just in the sense of networking and schmoozing with important people, but also in relating seemingly disparate events and ideas. Overtly the main themes at Davos today were terrorism and Iraq – and the story, as presented publicly by Iraqi and US politicians and officials, was all about wresting back control of Baghdad from terrorists, with al-Qaeda and Shia death squads bearing equal blame. In contrast to American officials, who simply repeated President Bush’s mantra that "failure is not an option", Iraqi politicians have a more realistic and nuanced view.
As Abd Al-Mahdi, the Vice-President, noted privately after his appearance at a plenary session: "The Americans actually have two options: either they stay or they withdraw. But we Iraqis don’t have any options. If we don’t succeed on ending the violence with the present strategy, we just have to be patient and keep trying. Unlike the Americans, we don’t have an exit strategy from Iraq." The same was true, he noted, of Iraq’s neighbours Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. This was why Iraqi politicians were constantly urging President Bush to start talking to Iraq’s neighbours and warning the White House that any military attack on Iranian nuclear installations, whether by America or Israel, could spill over catastrophically into Iraq.
Why, then, did President Bush refuse to start talking to Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Baker-Hamilton commission? Why instead did he seem to be increasing military tensions with Iran?"
[...]
"...[T]hree strands of a more interesting and hopeful strategy begin to emerge in conversations with Middle Eastern analysts and politicians at Davos....
The first is, obviously, the US effort to reduce violence in Iraq – or failing that, at least to mount a show of strength against the Iranian-backed Shia militias and to remind Tehran that America retains its capacity to deploy overwhelming military power.
The second is the sabre-rattling over Iran’s nuclear programme, especially the semi-public threats of Israeli bombing, perhaps even with tactical nuclear weapons. America’s announcement that two aircraft carrier battle groups will move to the Gulf within a month or so are clearly a reminder that Washington still has plenty of firepower to attack Iran directly or to back Israeli bombing – and also to protect international oil shipments through the Gulf against Iranian retaliation. These deployments and public warnings do not necessarily suggest that an actual attack on Iran is likely but rather that America wants Iran to realise that it is playing for very high stakes in its confrontation with the West."
[...]
"...the final and most interesting strand in the anti-Iranian policy nexus: the price of oil. Iran’s economy depends entirely on oil sales, which account for 90 per cent of exports and a roughly equal share of the Government’s budget. Since last July, a barrel of oil has fallen from $78 to just over $50, reducing the Government’s revenues by one third. If the oil price fell into the $35 to $40 range, Iran would shift into deficit, and with access to foreign borrowing cut off by UN sanctions, the Government’s capacity to continue financing foreign proxies would quickly run out. Iran has reacted to this threat by calling on Opec to stabilise prices but, in practice, only one country has the clout to do this: Saudi Arabia. Earlier this month, in a highly significant statement, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi Oil Minister, publicly opposed Iranian calls for production cuts to halt the decline in prices. Mr Naimi's pronouncement was cast as a technical matter unconnected with politics, but it seemed to confirm private warnings by King Abdullah that his country would try everything to thwart Iran’s hegemony in Iraq and throughout the region, whether by military intervention or more subtle economic means.
This policy was spelt out with surprising precision in an article by Nawaf Obaid, a senior Saudi security adviser, in The Washington Post: "King Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the Iraqi militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funnelling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere." If the above is true, the following begins to make sense: - Mr. Bush's Oil Security Blanket:
The New York Times reports: "One of the stranger and so far unexplained items in President Bush's energy program is his proposal to double the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to 1.5 billion barrels, over the next 20 years. The proposal carries a $65 billion price tag -- one of several reasons Congress should question Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman closely when he comes looking for the money...."
Or is, as the following article asserts, war with Iran the goal after all? Or is it merely a matter of US propaganda helping to execute the earlier mentioned strategy? Propaganda, fear, and confusion are still the main tools in White House's game. - Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack:
Global Research reports: "In the overall flow of information coming from the Middle East, there are increasingly frequent reports indicating that within several months from now the US will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For example, citing well-informed but undisclosed sources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on the territory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The campaign will start from the sea and will be supported by the Patriot missile defense systems in order to let the US forces avoid a ground operation and to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by 'any Persian Gulf country'.
'Any country' mostly refers to Iran. The source which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper believes that the US forces in Iraq and other countries of the region will be defended from any Iranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots...." So what is this about? - Bush Throws The Dice:
Information Clearing House reports: "By funding the Iraq war and supporting Israel, Egypt and Jordan, the US pays an oil security tax running at least $100 billion per year. China doesn't pay billions per year to secure their oil supplies. The Europeans collectively spend a fraction of the US amount on oil security...."
More on Iran:
- NYT: Europe Resists U.S. Push to Curb Iran Ties
- NEW: US takes new steps to isolate Iran
"The United States took new steps to isolate Iran, announcing a freeze on the sale of all F-14 fighter parts and warning that an attempt by Tehran to block the flow of Gulf oil could be turned against it.
President George W. Bush reiterated in a television interview that the US had no plans to invade Iran, but will step up diplomatic pressure to convince it to abandon its nuclear program...." (Hat tip to A. Buono) - NEW: Senators warn against war with Iran:
"WASHINGTON - Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened. Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door
Iraq." - ZNet | Iran | Hegemony and Appeasement: Setting Up the Next U.S.-Israeli Target (Iran) For Another "Supreme International Crime"
- NEW: Iran Clock Is Ticking
"While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George W. Bush’s war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.
Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities...." - NEW: Iranians Worry about a Possible American Attack
No comments:
Post a Comment