Qur'an – Bible.

* Religion * Politics * News Networks * Mainstream Media Biased Reporting * Independent Analysis

Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category

Change has come to America!

Posted by QB on December 20, 2008

Barack Obama used this phrase on election night after winning the election. I too believed that that the change has really come into American politics until  Barack Obama announced his cabinet which does not give me any hope of change with his administration. Hillary Clinton does not believe in diplomacy is the Secretary of State. She strongly believe that there should be no negotiations with Iran, she believes that Iran must be obliterated, she supports trade embargo on Cuba, she supports are Israel aggression unconditionally, she voted for Iraq invasion. How she could be Secretary of State for change?

Robert Gates still Secretary of Defence. Barack Obama election promise was to end Iraq war immediately is now saying that he will listen to the advice of Generals on Iraq, this is the same policy from last eight years adopted by Bush regime. This is not the change Americans voted for.

Barack Obama also promised to bring social reforms for poor and middle class which he can’t do before inauguration, so that still is some hope for change in America.

Advertisements

Posted in Barack Obama, Barak Obama, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Politics, US Politics | 19 Comments »

Who do you want to win US Presidential election?

Posted by QB on September 25, 2008

The US presidential election effect the whole world. The wrong candidate has already bring down the world economy and started unending wars. McCain if get elected the world will be worst place to live. Obama has the plan to change the foreign policy and do something about the economy.McCain, God forbid in White House, the world will see worst situation than Bush regime has already brought by fighting “war on terror”, spending trillion of dollars on wars leaving the poor people suffering in his own country.

Give your opinion.

Posted in Afghanistan, Asia, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Pakistan, Politics, Russia, Venezuela | 3 Comments »

Opinion from inside Iran by Farhang.

Posted by QB on September 13, 2008

Your web site is again unfiltered from yesterday and I can have access to it through ordinary internet proxy servers. I will keep regular inspection on this issue and if any thing changes, you will be informed accordingly .I hope all these hates between the two governments will finish and I will meet you in future. You may not be familiar with Iranian cultures. We are not an aggressive nation at all. Most of the people in here are very sensitive, sincere and kind with a very good sense of humor. I sometimes feel pity about the very false propaganda that western media create against us. Although our government has some problem, but even our politicians are not looking for violence and war. If you come to Iran your view will completely change .Here is really different .The problem is that US regime and its allies want to change the geopolitics of Middle East. They have surrounded us. They support many terrorist organizations.

They have created and support an aggressive and savage regime as Israel. They have fucked our ordinary life. People in here are under different pressures. Of course some of them are due to our faults but many are imposed by US government. Iran is always repeating that we are ready for negotiation, instead US is pushing us to approach Russia and China more and more .We want to be friend with all the countries under same and fair condition. But your government is acting proudly, not considering that we are a big and old nation. We do not accept any unfair behavior from any body. All of us are human not super man or god. Their period will finish. You are observing how they act. How they are directly causing Russia become stronger. For sure I do not want Russia to stay wick. I do not want any country be wick. Any how your government believes that we should not support Hezbollah of Lebanon. In fact they are mostly pure people, spending their life to defend their country. Seyed Hassan Nasorllah is a nice man.

He does not play dirty games .His life is always in danger. But he is there and hopefully will be until his mission is completed. US government should realize that the dream of resolving the countries in this region should be forgotten .If they realize this fact they will start to rectify their policy in this region and other regions too. At the same time Iran is getting stronger through self made advanced military weapons. My friend, believe me that I am not under the internal propaganda .The substantial progress in Iranian arm forces is a reality .We had to chose this pass because the US does not understand any other languages . If any war happens, US government is finished, unless they use atomic weapons or other mass destruction ones. In that case again they will be finished .Because even their own nation will not believe them any more.Because lies will show themselves as the Sun does.

In fact we do not want war and violence.It is against our mood and culture .Not because we are afraid or because we are under pressure.We are a nation strongly believe in the supernatural life.We believe that the period of our living on this planet is a flash when compared to the real life we will have in the later phases .Such a nation never feel any fear from death.This was clearly proved in Iran-Iraq war.US politicians should take lesson from it and I believe they have.

This will make the warmongers McCain and Palin understanding that Iran is not a threat at all. Like Saddam Hussein was not threat for US and its European allies. The Republicans are the one who are cling by creating fears exploiting 9/11. There will be no peace if US continue its policies of preemption for their favorite war on terror. It look like McCain and Palin will win the coming election. Iraqi government want US troops out, but this old idiot McCain insists to keep their country under occupation..

Posted in Bush, Hasan Nasrallah, Iran, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 21 Comments »

US Security Agreement Not So Popular.

Posted by QB on June 13, 2008

The Bush regime is trying to sign long term security agreement with Iraqi government to provide legal cover to their occupation as the UN authorization will expire by the end of this year. The US government is facing tough resistance from Iraqi law makers to sign any such deal.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — New U.S. proposals have failed to overcome Iraqi opposition to a proposed security pact, two Iraqi lawmakers said Thursday, casting doubt that an agreement can be reached before this fall’s U.S. presidential election.

The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, claiming that accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of this country.

Iman al-Asadi, a Shiite member of the parliamentary committee on legal affairs, said the latest U.S. version “wasn’t satisfactory, to say the least.” Asadi said her committee had recommended to Iraq’s negotiators that they reject the latest draft, the fourth since the talks began in March.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman confirmed Asadi’s comments, adding that “we will not sign” the current proposed agreement.

This is clear indication that Iraqis don’t want US military presence in their country, Bush regime and John McCain are the only ones who wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Iraqi puppet Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki also met with Ahmadinejad last week who oppose US military presence in Iraq as they see threat to their own national security.

Barak Obama plan to withdraw troops within 16 months will be accepted by Iraqi government. Bush went into Iraq killed million Iraqi innocent civilian, destroyed their cities, towns, villages is facing tough resistance from the same people who he liberated. Iraqis want all the occupation troops out of their country.

US if try to force an agreement that will result in the tough resistance from Shias and maybe from Sunnis who are now on US military payroll.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, Iran, Iraq, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 3 Comments »

Bush War Promotion European Tour.

Posted by QB on June 11, 2008

Bush is on his farewell European tour promoting another war this time with Iran. Bush issued warning to Iran to resolve the nuclear issue with diplomacy adding the threat that all the options are on the table. It look like that he might bomb few Iranian sites before the elections evaluate Iranian military strength. Bush know that this will benefit John McCain who does not have any chances of getting elected in November. Bush also know that Democrats does not have the courage to speak against his air strike on Iran because they don’t wanted to be called soft on national security. He will justify his air strikes to eliminate non existent Iranian nuclear weapons which are threat to Israel security and danger for US national security. Ehud Olmert visited White House recently and his Deputy Prime Minister wanted to attack Iran because they believe Iran nuclear program is real threat for Israel safety.

The majority of the US politicians will support his air strikes on Iranian sites getting strong support from Israel. Iranians must be very alert safe guarding their nuclear sites because the chances of getting destroyed by Bush madness.

Barak Obama can’t condemn Bush attack because of the coming elections.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, US Politics | 2 Comments »

Ehud Olmert dangerous intentions to save his political career.

Posted by QB on June 6, 2008

The Deputy Prime Minister is threatening Iran will be attack if they did not stop their nuclear program. Ehud Olmert also wanted to stop nuclear program by all means possible. This would be another mistake by this corrupt politician to save his political career like his decision to attack Lebanon. The Lebanon invasion, which could have been easily avoided was complete disaster for Israel. Ehud Olmert visited White House yesterday trying to get Bush blessing on Iran attack.

There are more disadvantages than any advantages looking at the present Middle East situation. Israel is engaged in peace talks with Syria with Turkey assistance will be stopped, Hezbollah start firing missiles across Israeli border, Syria will support Iran, Iraq situation will become more violent, Al Qaeda will get fresh reason to create hatred against Israel and USA.

Ehud Olmert is not in a position to comment any other mistake. He might survive the corruption charges but it will be impossible to hold on to power after another fail war.

Source : Israeli minister threatens Iran BBC News

Posted in Bush, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | Leave a Comment »

Farhang Adib – Opinion from inside Iran.

Posted by QB on May 26, 2008

I hope you are doing well .Attached please find a  picture from inside Iraq.

There are two points that I mention as follows

1- Obviously the boys do not know the story . Specially because Muslims males are very sensitive and firm about their family

2- For respect ,the address of the porno site written on the picture is omitted .

I hope you will publish that in your site .

We shouldn’t be surprised with this picture when they let themselves to shoot at Quran the

Muslims holly book . We really understand the American democracy and all those rubbishes the US politicians are always repeating .They should really wait for the sever consequences that for sure will happen to them

All the best

Farhang 

Posted in Iran, Politics | Leave a Comment »

John McCain – Barak Obama foreign policy.

Posted by QB on May 20, 2008

This is what John McCain foreign policy adviser said on Situation Room talking to Wolf Blitzer. The interview was so confusing that it was hard for me to determine what he is saying. Lehman lies very well stick with majority of Americans who will believe his lies just like CNN BBC propaganda that Ahmadinejad wanted to destroy Israel. Wolf Blitzer is on Zionist mission to promote lies for ground work for Iran invasion. The same propaganda campaign which lead to Iraq invasion, lies lies lies. The truth is that Al Qaeda and Iran can’t be allies because of their sectarian differences. Lehman lies will spread among the ignorant voters as truth voting for this old man John McCain, who is not a straight talking maverick but a liar crocked politician.

John McCain and Barack Obama are clearly going after each other with increasing vigor when it comes to foreign policy, specifically policy towards Iran. Let’s talk about that and more. John Lehman is joining us. He’s one of the foreign policy advisers to John McCain, a former secretary of the navy, 9/11 commissioner.

JOHN LEHMAN, MCCAIN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Thanks very much for coming in, Mr. Secretary.

Pleasure to be here.

BLITZER: All right. Here’s a clip of what Obama is saying about McCain and we’ll talk about it. Listen to this.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The reason Iran is so much more powerful now than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush/McCain policy of fighting an endless war in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They’re the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.

BLITZER: All right. Pretty serious accusation from Barack Obama. You want to respond?

LEHMAN: Well, you know, I think he doesn’t understand what the nature of summitry is all about. You don’t go and meet with the head of state until you have something very clear to say. You’ve either got to have a carrot or a stick. We know what Iran’s intentions are. We know they’ve killed a lot of Americans in Beirut and Saudi Arabia and now in Iraq. They trained some of the 9/11 conspirators. They gave them free passage to al Qaeda. What are you going to say if you go to a summit with them? Are you going to say either you stop killing Americans and supporting jihad around the world or we’re going to do something to you? Or do you say, we’ll give you this concession if you please stop being mean to us? That’s a very naive point of view.

BLITZER: Let me ask you, when McCain says that his policies, Obama’s policies meeting with an Iranian leader without preconditions seriously deficient, deficient a strong word, what does he mean by that?

LEHMAN: I think he means that we’ve seen what happens when new presidents go without an agenda to meet with — with adversaries. Senator Obama used the example of President Kennedy meeting with Khrushchev. That was a catastrophe. All historians now see that was a huge mistake to go without an agenda, a clear agenda.

BLITZER: What Senator Obama says, excuse me for interrupting, he says there would be no preconditions at the actual summit meeting but there would be a lot of advance work, a lot of preparations going into the meeting. What’s wrong with that? Why not have the lower level preparations to make sure everybody knows what’s going on but then when you go in, there’s no commitment in advance for preconditions?

LEHMAN: Well, obviously there has got to be preparations. But the point is what deal are you going to make? Are you going to — are you going to just sit down and say, OK, I’m prepared, I know all the bad things you’ve done and can’t we just be friends?

BLITZER: The U.S. meets — the Bush administration has had several meetings with Iran going back to right after 9/11.

LEHMAN: Sure. And we would continue to have discussions and — and very intense communication. But to bring the president in to give the dignity of the presidential office to a meeting with an extremist like Ahmadinejad without a clear deal being pre-negotiated would be a huge mistake.

BLITZER: Would John McCain as president, Secretary Lehman, do anything differently toward Iran or, for that matter, the war in Iraq right now than what President Bush is doing?

LEHMAN: I think very definitely.

BLITZER: Give us a few examples. First of all, how would he deal differently with Iran than the way President Bush is dealing?

LEHMAN: First of all, you have to look at the history of this. We’ve been sitting by and watching Hezbollah supported by the government of Iran blow up our marines in Beirut.

BLITZER: That was back in ’83.

LEHMAN: Right. Then a few years later blow up our Air Force people in Saudi Arabia and then to give training to al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and now to be providing these weapons to kill Americans with these shape charges, providing them to enemies both Shiite and Sunni.

BLITZER: What would he be doing differently towards Iran if he were president as opposed to President Bush?

LEHMAN: Well, I think what you’d see is a much more comprehensive overview of how everything fits together. And not treat everything as episodic. He would certainly not allow Iran to get off Scott free. That doesn’t mean —

BLITZER: He would have a more robust military strategy against Iran than President Bush? Is that what you’re suggesting?

LEHMAN: He would have a fully integrated strategy in which the military options like blockade and other options short of an invasion or a bombing attack would be integrated with the diplomacy in a larger picture?

BLITZER: Isn’t that going to scare a lot of voters out there who think John McCain might be getting ready for another military confrontation with Iran right now?

LEHMAN: No. Because he’s made it clear he’s not advocating an attack on Iran. He’s advocating treating them with the full range of an integrated policy that takes into view exactly what the whole picture in the Middle East is. And not allow them to kill Americans without paying a price. That doesn’t necessarily mean a military attack at all. We have plenty of levers beyond that. And it would be a return to fully integrated foreign policy and national security policy, which we haven’t seen for 15 years.

BLITZER: All right. Secretary Lehman, thanks very much for coming in. Let’s continue this conversation down the road.
Source : CNN Situation Room

Lehman, McCain foreign policy adviser, tried to link Iran to Al Qaeda, linked Iran to 9/11 which are new baseless allegations. There is no proof of Iran was anyway involved in 9/11 attacks like Iraq had nothing to do with that attack. Iran is not training Al Qaeda. Lehman get away easily because Wolf Blitzer did accepted all his allegations without correcting him. Wolf Blitzer Lou Dobbs Aaron Brown Paula Zahn all promoted the Iraq invasion and it look like they want US to attack Iran. These SOBs wants the US troops out of Iraq which proved to be disaster don’t know that it will be the worst disaster for US military and economy if they open another war front.
The following is Barak Obama adviser transcript.

Joining us now to discuss this and more, Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, the former Assistant Secretary of State, National Security Council official Dr. Susan Rice.

Thanks for coming in, Susan.

SUSAN RICE, OBAMA SENIOR FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. I will play you a little clip of what McCain said today. And then we will discuss. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCCAIN: Senator Obama has declared and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right.

I want you to respond, but remember, when — when Senator Obama made that suggestion at one of the debates, even Hillary Clinton said it was naive, not a good idea. Joe Biden disagreed. John Edwards did.

How does Senator Obama defend that decision to meet without preconditions with a leader like Ahmadinejad?

RICE: Well, first of all, he said he would meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be. It may in fact be that, by the middle next of year, Ahmadinejad is long gone. There will be elections in Iran.

BLITZER: So, let’s say there is a new leader.

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: But he said Iranian leaders.

BLITZER: But the words “without preconditions…”

RICE: Yes. Let’s talk about that.

The Bush administration and John McCain have for eight years taken the view that we should not deal directly with the Iranians unless and until they meet all of our conditions, meaning suspending their nuclear program. So, in effect, we want them to do everything that we would aim to achieve in negotiations…

BLITZER: But the precondition they put was for the direct dialogue over nuclear issues, they have to stop enriching uranium.

RICE: Right.

BLITZER: That’s the condition they put.

RICE: Before we will talk to them about their nuclear problem, they have to suspend their nuclear problem. That counterproductive precondition…

BLITZER: And, so, what would you do differently?

RICE: Is to talk to the Iranians.

BLITZER: At the highest level, president to president?

RICE: Can I…

BLITZER: Please.

RICE: Please. Thank you.

What Barack Obama has said is, with due preparation, after appropriate diplomatic contacts at lower levels, when it is appropriate time that serves our interests, he is willing to meet with Iranian leaders. He is not prepared to put preconditions on those meetings, like the Bush administration has, demanding that the Iranians do exactly what we seek to compel them to do before we even sit down.

That is naive. John McCain has backed a policy, Wolf, by the Bush administration that has made us less safe. It is Iran that is stronger today as a result of our invasion of Iraq and our failure to…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Because I believe the question at that debate is, would you be willing to meet during your first year of your presidency without preconditions with leaders in Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, Syria, something along those lines.

RICE: He said he would be willing. It doesn’t mean that he will meet all of those leaders. It doesn’t mean he will meet them all in the first year. What he will do, Wolf, is end the foolish and dangerous Bush policy of assuming that by dealing with our adversaries, we’re giving them some gift. Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon all understood, with respect to the Soviet Union and communist China, that we can advance our interests through principled strong negotiations. It’s only in the Bush administration that…

BLITZER: So, let’s be precise, because what they criticize Barack Obama, not only John McCain, but others, for suggesting that he would meet without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, who only last week on Israel’s 60th anniversary called Israel a stinking corpse. The question that they ask is, what is Barack Obama going to talk with him about?

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: Well, first of all, as I said, it will be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time, not necessarily Ahmadinejad.

Secondly, we will talk to them about the issues that we’re most concerned about, their nuclear program, their support for terrorism, the threat they pose to Israel, their nefarious actions in the region, including in Iraq.

The point is to use a combination of serious pressure and sanctions and engagement to see if we can move them to a better place. The Bush administration’s approach is to refuse to negotiate. And what has that left us with, Wolf? An Iran whose nuclear program is steaming full speed ahead, Iran who is supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, who are stronger in the region, Iran who is more influential in Iraq than it’s ever been.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Here’s the other criticism that they level at — this kind of summit meeting between a president of the United States and a leader of Iran would only add to the prestige of a tyrant like this and making it easier for him to go and do his dirty deeds.

RICE: Well, first of all, you don’t go straight to a high-level presidential meeting. You do the preparation that’s necessary.

It’s not about prestige, Wolf. It’s about, what does the United States need to advance our national security interests and that of our ally Israel? The policy of the Bush administration backed by John McCain was to invade Iraq. That has left us less safe. It’s made Israel more vulnerable. It’s made Hamas and Hezbollah more powerful. It’s made Iran more powerful while it pursues its nuclear program.

That is a very dangerous, failed policy. The alternative is to withdraw responsibly from Iraq and deal with Iran from a position of strength. The alternative is they continue full steam ahead on their nuclear program. And that doesn’t serve our interest.

(CROSSTALK) BLITZER: And just to clear up, there’s no hard and fast commitment he would in fact if he were president meet in that first year with any of these leaders?

RICE: He said he’s willing to meet with these leaders, obviously, after preparation and at the appropriate time and when and as it serves our interests.

These are distortions, Wolf, that John McCain has found convenient because he knows that, if the American people are allowed to focus on his failed policies and that of George Bush, they won’t have a chance in this election. It’s all politics. And they continue to distort Barack Obama’s words and his intentions.

BLITZER: Secretary Rice, thanks for coming in.

Source : CNN Situation Room

Susan Rice was very rudely interrupted by Wolf whenever she try to explain Barak Obama foreign policy. Barak Obama foreign policy is very much understandable than the confused John McCain policy.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iraq, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 10 Comments »

Democracy stink.

Posted by QB on May 13, 2008

Democracy stink when outcome of the majority of the educated voters decision is overruled by uneducated blue collar voters. These uneducated votes are based on race, religion not looking at the issues rationally. There are voters who will believe Barak Obama is Hamas candidate for President, the others will not vote for him because his former Pastor Wright sermons and there will be people who will not vote for him because he wanted get engage in diplomatic negotiations with Iran.

The majority of American do not fall for these political attacks knowing the issues, it is the uneducated religious racists who  are the  ones spoiling their intelligent votes.

The news from Pakistan is that majority of people are supporting Nawaz Sharif demand for reinstating deposed corrupt judges without realizing that it will destabilize the Federal government, creates chaos and open new legal confrontation between the corrupt judge Iftikhar Chaudary going after Pervez Musharraf.

Posted in Afghanistan, Barak Obama, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Politics, Presidential Race 2008 | 1 Comment »

War with Iran.

Posted by QB on May 2, 2008

The following is from Farhang Adib, he asked questions related to article published in Antiwar website. Farhang Adib, I raised the same questions in different posts. The answer is that Americans support Israel beyond reason and intelligence. Jack Cafferty last night strongly supported Hillary Clinton threatening Iran US retaliation if they attack Israel . Iran leaders are on the record that they don’t have any plans to attack any country in the region and their nuclear program is for peaceful purpose which nobody pays attention.

I, as an Iranian from a country that according to the US regime is the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world, have some questions from American people.

My questions are completed with an Article recently published in Anti War site by

Justin Raimondo. The Article link is http://antiwar.com/justin.

Who ever reading the Article, should put away the present massive propaganda against our region for a while, tries to approach the matter in a reasonable way and come to a clear conclusion.

My questions are as follows:

1- Who is really behind the US politicians decision?

2- Who is feeding false information to the media?

3- Who is trying to create war in Middle East?

4- Who has Atomic bombs?

5- What country is threatening others to an atomic bomb attack?

6- What Country has so far used atomic bombs against other nations?

7- What will happen if another war starts by Bush regime and pass the consequences to the next US president?

8- Why UN Security Council keeps silence against all those Israeli crimes in the region?

9- Why IAEA and UN Security Council do not take effective action against Israel illegal nuclear activities? Because they are trustable good guys?

Because Israel shall never use his nuclear potential against others?!

10- Why Israel has such a great influence on the US decision makers?

11- Do other nations have right to choose their own way, or they should follow the “based on force” American democracy?

For example Hemas is the legal government selected through an election by Palestinians. Why should they be considered as terrorists? How many people are dying over there? While defending themselves against Israel, should they be called Bad Guys “?

12- What is the fortune of this continuous unlimited and unmoral US supports

to Israel? Who will pay for the consequences?

13- Who is the main cause of the global terrorism ?

Is War With Iran Imminent?
This time, it’s more than a rumor…

by Justin Raimondo

Editor’s note: Justin Raimondo’s column will return Friday.

The shooting has already started in the Persian Gulf – and chances are we’ll be at war with Iran before President Bush’s term is up.. An American ship under contract with the U.S. Navy – the Western Venture – claims it was in international waters when Iranian speedboats approached and failed to answer radio calls. Shots were fired on the American side. Iran denies the whole thing. Yet you’ll recall that in the last incident, involving the capture of British sailors, the story about being in international waters was the same – except, it turns out, they weren’t in international waters, but in disputed waters, just as we speculated in this space. There’s no reason to expect anything different this time. Clearly, the U.S. and Britain are trying to trigger a new conflict with the most brazen provocations, and they don’t really care how it happens – only that it does.

The indications of an imminent attack – the latest incident, the steady stream of accusations coming from the U.S. regarding Iranian influence in Iraq, the nuclear charade, etc. – have suddenly taken a more ominous turn with the recent statement of America’s top military officer that the U.S. is weighing military action against Iran. The Washington Post reports:

“The nation’s top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for ‘potential military courses of action’ as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government’s ‘increasingly lethal and malign influence’ in Iraq. Admiral 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 to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.”

Speaking of malign influences: since when does an American military officer make foreign policy pronouncements, as if he were the president? It’s an indication of the advances militarism has made in what used to be a republic that no one has so much as blinked at the brazenness of such blatant Caesarism.

The reasons for the uptick in the rhetorical and physical assault on Iran by the Americans are entirely due to domestic politics, not anything occurring on the ground in the region.

Hillary Clinton’s demagogic threat to “obliterate” Iran, uttered on national television just before the Pennsylvania primary, was meant to buttress her newfound image as a shot-swilling macho up against the effete, Adlai Stevenson-esque Barack “Arugula” Obama. It’s the Old Politics, trying to revive the red state-blue state dichotomy, and it’s driving us down the road to war with Tehran. McCain, too, is helped by the ratcheting up of tensions in the Persian Gulf: think what the outbreak of war with Iran would do for his underdog candidacy.

Standing behind this developing pro-war Popular Front, the central factor in turning the U.S. toward a policy of confrontation rather than constructive engagement with Iran has been the Israel lobby. Since 1993, the Lobby has been demanding that the U.S. take a more aggressive approach to the mullahs of Tehran, and, with few exceptions, has been largely successful.

The policy of “dual containment,” conceived by the Clinton administration during the early 1990s, meant that the U.S. was committed to hostile relations with both Iraq and Iran. The policy, as John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt point out, “was essentially a copy of an Israeli proposal.” It meant stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to offset an alleged threat to American interests. Yet there was no reason to assume Tehran had hostile intentions toward the U.S. At the time, Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was eager to establish friendly relations with the U.S. As pressure built to abandon “dual containment” and initiate a more workable policy that would give the U.S. more flexibility, the Lobby went on the offensive with a relentless campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran.

The Iranians, determined to signal their willingness to be reasonable, chose an American oil company, Conoco, to develop the Sirri oil fields. As Trita Parsi points out in Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States:

“For AIPAC, the Conoco deal ‘was a coincidence and a convenient target.’ The organization went into high gear to use the Iranian offer not only to scuttle the Conoco deal, but also to put an end to all U.S.-Iran trade. In a report that it released on April 2, 1995, titled ‘Comprehensive U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action,’ AIPAC argued that Iran must be punished for its actions against Israel. ‘Iran’s leaders reject the existence of Israel.. Moreover, Iran views the peace process as an American attempt to legalize Israel’s occupation of Palestinian, Muslim lands,’ it said. Pressured by Congress, AIPAC, and the Israelis, President Clinton swiftly scrapped the deal by issuing two executive orders that effectively prohibited all trade with Iran. The decision was announced on April 30 by Clinton in a speech before the World Jewish Congress.”

This wasn’t enough for the Lobby, which brought pressure on Sen. Alphonse D’Amato to introduce a bill that imposed sanctions on any countries doing business with either Libya or Iran. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act passed the House with not a single dissenting vote, and the same scenario went down in the Senate. The Lobby made sure the Iranian peace offering was rudely rebuffed – and the president reminded of just who was in charge of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The White House meekly went along with the Lobby’s wishes: after all, the presidential election was but three months away.

The Conoco affair should dispel any myths about the supposedly supreme power of the “oil lobby” as the decisive factor in shaping U.S. policy in the region: the Israel lobby beat them hands down. As James Schlesinger put it, “It is scarcely possible to overstate the influence of Israel’s supporters on our politics in the Middle East.” The harder the Iranians tried to approach the Americans, the more rudely they were repulsed.

The election of the even more pro-American Mohammad Khatami as Iran’s president in 1997 did not break the back of “dual containment” – dubbed “a nutty idea” by Brent Scowcroft, albeit one with plenty of domestic political traction. The U.S. had every reason to pursue a policy of engagement, while that was possible, giving Iranian moderates the political breathing space they needed to ensure the growth of pro-American forces in the country. The benefits of opening up Iran to American investment are similarly obvious, yet our leaders chose to do otherwise due solely to the power of the Lobby. As Ephraim Sneh, a prominent figure on the Israeli Right, acknowledged: “We were against it … because the interest of the U.S. did not coincide with ours.”

In short: Washington policymakers weighed the interests of both the U.S. and Israel, and made their decision accordingly…

From dual containment to regional transformation and “regime change” was not a long road to travel. After 9/11, Washington embarked on a campaign to topple the governments of both Iraq and Iran, as well as Syria, and rid Lebanon of Hezbollah while they were at it. As soon as “mission accomplished” was declared in Iraq, the Israelis and their American amen corner began demanding action against Iran.

In an interview with the Times of London, Ariel Sharon declared that Washington had better start threatening to march on Tehran “the day after” Baghdad was secured. By late April 2003, the Israeli ambassador to Washington was complaining that the demise of Saddam’s regime was “not enough.” Those indolent Americans must be made to “follow through” by taking action against “great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.”

Shimon Peres rallied the faithful with an op-ed in the War Street Journal titled “We Must Unite to Prevent an Ayatollah Nuke.” The neoconservatives convened a special all-day conference devoted to inciting war hysteria aimed at Tehran, with all the usual suspects – Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Reuel Marc Gerecht – in attendance. The cry went up: “Regime change!” The only question was which exile faction we were going to support: the royalists, or the cult-like neo-Marxist Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its numerous well-connected front groups in the U.S. and Europe.

The leaders of the latter have energetically vied for the role of the Iranian Chalabi, coming up with reams of “intelligence” detailing Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Their “revelations,” however, have been definitively debunked by the latest national intelligence estimate, which says Tehran abandoned its nuclear program some time ago. All those diagrams and documents coming from MEK by the truckload were evidence of a nuclear program that no longer existed.

If any of this sounds familiar, then it should.

The efforts of the Lobby aren’t limited to war propaganda. The AIPAC spy trial – in which two top officials of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization have been indicted for passing top-secret classified information to Israeli embassy officials – is all about Israel’s attempt to penetrate U.S. governmental discussions about what stance to take regarding Iran, with the goal of exerting maximum influence on American policymaking circles.

Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran an “existential threat” to the Jewish state, a contention that amounts to little more than absolute nonsense. Their argument goes something like this: Iran is not a normal state, it is run by ideologues who are profoundly invested in apocalyptic religious visions that can only end in war. Deterrence means nothing to them. They want to be incinerated in a nuclear exchange involving Israel, themselves, and quite possibly the U.S., because it fulfills the ancient prophecies and means the return of the Mahdi, or something along those lines.

This makes no more sense than the inverse version of the religion-determines-all theory, which would have the “born again” George W. Bush intent on provoking a nuclear war in the Middle East in order to bring about the Second Coming and the Kingdom of God on Earth – as the Christian dispensationalists who make up so much of the GOP’s base fervently believe is entirely possible and certainly desirable.

These latter, of course, are the foot-soldiers of the Israel Lobby in America, a group that GOP presidential candidate John McCain has actively courted in the person of the Rev. John Hagee. Rev. Hagee is a vicious Catholic-hater and all-around nut-job who looks forward to a nuclear war in the Middle East as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Hagee has lately taken up with AIPAC, appearing at their last national confab in a starring role.

This administration, which has been in thrall to the Israel lobby more than any other, has been increasing the volume in its war of words with Tehran since January of this year, and, as Bush’s reign comes to an inglorious end, there apparently remains one last act of perfidy the neocons will leave as their legacy. Bush’s going away gift to the American people looks more than likely to be another war – one that truly does make the Iraq war seem like a “cakewalk” in comparison. It took a few years for the impact of the war in Iraq to be felt by the American people, and its full impact has yet to hit. Not so with the next war. The firing of a few shots at those speedboats sent the price of oil up three bucks. Think of what a full-scale all-out war would do to the price of nearly everything. And for what?

Iran, a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, says it is not seeking to build nuclear weapons, and that the production of nuclear energy for peaceful uses is the one and only goal of its activities on this front. This is more than Israel can say, far more. Everyone knows the Israelis have nukes – the technology for which they probably stole from us – and they are one of the few civilized countries who haven’t signed the NPT and refuse to even discuss doing so.

If ever there was a nuclear rogue nation, then surely it is Israel. As Henry Kissinger said of them in a 1969 memo to Richard Nixon: “The Israelis, who are one of the few peoples whose survival is genuinely threatened, are probably more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” Although the Iranians claim their nuclear program is geared exclusively toward peaceful purposes, that they have the option to act otherwise, should the need arise, is a challenge to Israel’s nuclear hegemony. The Iranians, by American and Israeli lights, have no right to a deterrent.

In a world where “benevolent global hegemony” is the goal of U.S. foreign policy, there is no right to self-defense; that, along with national sovereignty, has been abolished. Defiance is met with an implacable campaign for regime-change in the offending nation. By all indications, Iran is the next victim to be made an example of, sometime in mid-summer, or so the rumor goes.

We know where the presidential candidates stand on this issue. Hillary looks forward to the “obliteration” of Iran and takes up Charles Krauthammer’s demand that we extend our nuclear shield over Tel Aviv just as we would do the same for, say, Toledo. Indeed, there are not a few who would argue that we would be fully justified in sacrificing the latter in order to save the former, and not all of them are to be found among Rev. Hagee’s deluded flock. In any case, we know what the McCain-Hagee position is without even having to ask.

We also know where Obama stands on all or most of this: he advocates a policy of engagement with the Iranians, just as he has endorsed talking with South American caudillo Hugo Chavez, and for the same very sound reasons: because it’s talk or fight. He clearly realizes waging perpetual war is hardly in our interests, even if we had the financial and military capacity to carry out such a crazed policy. Yet, if he’s speaking out about this, at this crucial moment – when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is practically declaring war on the Iranians – then I just can’t hear him: he must not be speaking very loudly, or perhaps this gets lost amid all the soaring rhetoric about Change and Hope and A Better Tomorrow.

Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards – an official part of the Iranian armed forces – as a “terrorist organization,” and now Gen. Petraeus is telling us Tehran is funding, arming, and succoring those who are killing American soldiers and bombing the Green Zone. The main threat against us in Iraq is no longer the Sunni “dead-enders,” as Don Rumsfeld liked to call them, it’s the Mahdi Army – Iraqi Shi’ites – and the Iranians, who have very close ties to the government our troops are dying to defend. If Bush seeks to obliterate Iranian hopes for regional preeminence by launching an attack before he leaves office, one can hardly see how the Clintons could possibly object: perhaps they’ll declare that, this time, we have to send enough troops to “do the job.” This, you’ll recall, was Hillary’s McCain-like critique of the Iraq invasion long before being antiwar was required of all Democratic presidential aspirants. No doubt she’ll revert to that when the time comes, but what about Obama?

He could skewer Hillary the hawk with one well-placed arrow, aimed straight at her vulnerability on the Iran issue. With the first shots of a new war already fired, apparently, and rumors of an imminent American strike at Iran flying thick and fast, Obama could denounce her as a warmonger, a McCain in drag, whose short-term political opportunism is helping to embroil us in a quagmire far worse than the one in Iraq, where she played a similar role in 2003. Yet I hear nothing like this coming from Obama’s camp. Maureen Dowd nails it, with her typically acerbic take:

“Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points.”

The American people oppose war with Iran, perhaps more than they want out of Iraq: the economic consequences alone will infuriate them far more than any other foreign policy decision of this administration. What the War Party is hoping is that their fury will be directed overseas, at our alleged “enemies” in Tehran, and not at home, in the direction of Washington, where proper blame belongs.

Americans await the advent of a real leader, the sort who could and would focus that anger on the right target. Whether Obama has the gumption – and the strategic sense – to make this fight about policy, not personalities, race, and gender, remains to be seen. He’s promised us a new politics, but that doesn’t have to mean blandness and an inability to fight. It can and must mean sharp attacks on wrong ideas – and one looks in vain for an idea as wrongheaded as war with Iran.

Posted in Iran, Israel, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 26 Comments »

Bush believe Iraq is success.

Posted by QB on March 29, 2008

Bush yesterday said during the joint press conference with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Australian troops are leaving after the successful military operation just like 5 US brigades will leave Iraq after the successful operation. Bush also make some ridiculous success claims but this success statement was on top of all his other statements. There is nobody in Bush regime to tell him the truth that Iraq is still a big failure and I believe he only get the positive briefing on Iraq.

The facts reflect Iraq as more failure than success, Basra and Southern cities are in control of Mahdi Army, Green Zone rockets attacks are now daily routine. The US military blame this violence on Iran that they are supplying weapons to Mahdi Army is absurd. The truth is that Iranians are supporting Nuri Al Maliki government providing support to Badr Brigade which is the government backed pro Iran militia group. Muqtada Al Sadr is nationalists and his Mahdi Army is fighting with Badr Brigade for dominance in Shi’ite Southern province. Iran can’t be on the both sides. This is the policy of Bush regime since the beginning of invasion to blame Iran Syria Hizbollah for all their failures.

The US occupation military in five years fail to take control of the region. The violence goes down in one area with huge US military presence and goes up in other areas. This was also reported by Michael Ware that nine thousand Sunni Resistance has joined the Iraqi Police force who are working independently with no Nuri Al Maliki control. Bush has created the religious sectarian mess in Iraq.

The present Iraq situation require a nationalist strong Leader like Saddam Hussein to unite the people and the country. Saddam Hussein who keep sectarian and ethnic hatred under tight government control and there was peace and stability. Iraqis suffer more from US backed sanctions than Saddam Hussein so called brutality.

Posted in Bush, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Saddam Hussein, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

Nuclear weapons shipped to Taiwan.

Posted by QB on March 26, 2008

The nuclear weapons scare is used by Bush regime since the beginning of their term in White House. The Bush regime used the Nuclear Weapons argument that Saddam Hussein has Nuclear Weapons which will end up in the hands of terrorists, keep brainwashing Americans that Pakistan Nuclear Weapons are dangerous because they will somehow end up with terrorists. North Korea Kim Jong Il is portrayed as mentally instable person who will sell the WMD to terrorists by the news network and the press. Iran nuclear weapons will be dangerous for Israel. The truth is that Pakistan Nuclear Weapons are very well protected and there are no single incident of any kind security breach. Kim John Il never sold his weapons to any terrorist group. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons according to US intelligence reports.

The real danger of Nuclear Weapons ending up in the wrong hands come from US with morons like Bush in control of these WMD. The US air force plane did take off with active Nuclear Warheads last year. It was just six months ago the air force accidentally flew six nuclear armed missiles across the country. After that, Gates was assured by the military it had fixed problems.The the latest stupidity is reported yesterday that US military has shipped the parts of Nuclear Missile sent to Taiwan by mistake and they realize this after one year. The Pentagon says it mistakenly sent crucial parts for minute man three intercontinental ballistic missiles to Taiwan in 2006. And the U.S. just figured it out last week. Components for nuclear missiles are the most heavily guarded items in the U.S. military inventory. No nuclear material was sent to Taiwan.

Bush regime is the most incompetent morons incharge who can’t protect the US nuclear weapons had the chances of ending up in the wrong hands than any other country in the world. The Taiwan government who had ordered the helicopter batteries must have learned about the nuclear weapons missile technology in one year and must be capable of developing the nuclear missiles. Bush regime must have bombed the Pakistan or North Korea if this mistake was committed by these countries. The US Nuclear Weapons are real danger for the world.

Taiwan’s defense minister on Thursday said the island did not dismantle and examine nuclear missile parts mistakenly shipped by the United States, in an incident which has angered China and embarrassed Washington.

I will not be surprised if Taiwan build nuclear missiles in near future. Taiwan government is lying.

Posted in Asia, Bush, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Politics, US Politics, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

Barak Obama – US Politics and Iraq war.

Posted by QB on March 20, 2008

Barak Obama Pastor’s speech which he give in his Church get the CNN and all other news too much air time as usual. These networks reported the story as that somehow Barak Obama is responsible for his Pastor’s speech. Barak Obama criticize the speech which, did not stopped the news network to drop this story, to end this Barak Obama gave a very good speech on race in USA. There are still people like idiot racist Lou Dobbs who believe that Barak Obama should have cut his relationship with his Pastor which, to me is the most stupid demands from these people.

Barak Obama is not responsible what the other people say and he should not get the blame or responsibilities of others.

Bush delivered speech on the fifth anniversary of Iraq invasion and occupation calling it the “Noble Cause” to kill over one million Iraqis destroying their country with lies. Michael Ware reported from Baghdad that this war is not over for US and it will continue for decades.

BLITZER: Joining us now from the northern part of Baghdad, a small U.S. combat outpost, our own Michael Ware. He’s embedded with the 101st airborne right now on the scene.

Michael, five years. Who would have thought U.S. troops, 140,000, 150,000 would still be deployed in Iraq five years later? We got an assessment from the president of the United States today, a rather upbeat assessment. Things were definitely, he says, moving in the right direction.

You have been there since day one. Give us your five year bottom line assessment.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf, first and foremost, I have to tell you that given the situation on the ground, even though there’s a downturn in violence, even though the surge so-called has been a success, and I’m not talking about 30,000 troops sent to reinforce the capital.

I’m talking about America doing deals with its enemies, about America running its own militias and putting them on the U.S. payroll, I’m talking about a political surge trying to batter this Iranian linked Iraqi government. All these things have produced some success.

Certainly less people are dying each and every month. But just last month, more than 600 Iraqi civilians still died. That’s not good by anyone’s measure.

Despite these successes, what I can tell you Wolf is that even entering the sixth year of this grinding seemingly never-ending war, there’s no way America can leave any time soon, not if it wants to retain any shred of its international standing, nor if it wants to do anything to help the Iraqi people, Wolf.

BLITZER: So when they talk about a pause in the withdrawal this summer, it’s going to go down to 140,000, 145,000, then they are going to keep it at that level for awhile, what I hear you saying is they will have to keep it at roughly that level for some time to come.

WARE: Oh, absolutely. You talk to any officer here in Iraq, you even talk to the sergeants, you can even talk to the specialists, the every day soldier. Now as embittered as they may be, though the morale remains high, their commitment to being a professional soldier, to protecting their brother, continues, all of them know that this problem is far from fixed, and there’s no long-term solutions.

Indeed, I have had countless conversations with soldiers and officers over the past month here in Iraq where we talk endlessly about America’s opponents, be it al Qaeda, be it Iran, be it others, playing a long game, a generational game, whereas the men in uniform can’t help but feel frustrated by the fact that America is fighting this war election to election.

So this country is broken. America broke it. Whether you were for or against the war, in the beginning, is moot. Whether there was WMD is irrelevant. You had the situation you have now. America simply can’t walk away, not any time soon — Wolf.

BLITZER: What would happen if the U.S. started withdrawing troops in major numbers, a brigade or two a month, over the next year and brought it down to 20,000 or 30,000 troops? What would be the immediate impact?

WARE: Well, what we would see is once U.S. forces reach a certain level where they’re unable to flex real combat muscle, where they can no longer intimidate the myriad of groups and international players like Iran here in this country, and I have to say, Iran is not intimidated right now with 160,000 troops. But once American forces get to the point where all they can do is basically defend themselves as they withdraw, watch out.

I mean lot of people point to the southern Iraq. Now while relatively peaceful, you see a whole rainbow alliance of Iranian backed militias in battles for power. Imagine that across the country, throwing in not just rival Shiite on Shiite as Iran plays its hand, making sure no one group becomes powerful enough. Add to that Shiite versus Sunni, Arab versus Kurd, Turkey and Iran pressing their claims in the Kurdish north.

You will see that if America pulls out or if America stops paying the 70,000 plus former insurgents who are now U.S. backed militias, then other people will step in; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, even American rival Syria will step in. You will see proxy wars, something that will be far worse than Lebanon in the 1980s — Wolf.

BLITZER: Michael Ware, be careful over there. Good luck. Thanks for joining us.

WARE: Thank you, Wolf.

The other interesting situation is that after elections there are too many differences who would be the next Prime Minister after PPP and Nawaz Sharif join hands to form the coalition government. The PPP get the more seats because of Benazir Bhutto murder. It is so disgusting that now the two most corrupted people Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif has become the powerful politicians to control the government.

John McCain believe that Iran is training Al Qaida and he is the one who is presently running ahead of Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton to be the next President of USA. John McCain will be the continuation of Bush failed policies. The situation will be the same with continuation of Iraq and Afghanistan war and the common poor people in US and the world will suffer.

Posted in Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Bush, Iran, Iraq, Lou Dobbs, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern Politics, Pakistan, Politics, US Politics, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

US Navy and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Incident. By Farhan Adib.

Posted by QB on January 19, 2008

Few days ago, Pentagon announced that five small Iranian millitary boats threatened three advanced US warships!! at Hormose region of Persian Gulf.
I have seen the films published by Iran and US governments .I do not want to judge about any of them in advance .As a person ,the following questions have raised in my mind. We may be able to make a clear Judgment when reading those questions and the following article which has been written on the Tonkin Gulf incident.
1- Five small and light boats threaten three advanced US military warships. The US commander in charge of the warships was threatened through a radio message that those ships will be exploded by the boats in few minutes!!
2- Why Iran government did not threatened the warships for missile attacks. We all know that many Iranian mobile missile sites are positioned in the region. Why giving the chance to US navy for preparing some evidences through making films from the boats? Wasn’t it more effective to just warn the warships through a radio message? Who could prove the message coming from an Iranian military source? Were Iranian military commanders so stupid to arrange such a scenario?
3- This incident happened when Mr. George Bush was starting his trip to the Arab countries in the region. He had announced his purposes for this trip clearly. One of them was warning those countries about the danger of Iran.
4- Considering item 3 of this report, were the Iranian leaders so careless to present such a beautiful gift to Mr. Bush to prove what he wanted to be proved?
I have read about the Tonkin Gulf incident. That incident started the terrifying Vietnam War in the decade of 1960.

Please read the following article written on this issue. It has been copied from the following address:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/011108a.html written by Ray McGovern
on January 12, 2008 under the title CIA, Iran & the Gulf of Tonkin.
Let’s read it together:
When the Tonkin Gulf incident took place in early August 1964, I was a journeyman CIA analyst in what Condoleezza Rice refers to as “the bowels of the agency.”
As a current intelligence analyst responsible for Russian policy toward Southeast Asia and China, I worked very closely with those responsible for analysis of Vietnam and China.
Out of that experience I must say that, as much as one might be tempted to laugh at the bizarre theatrical accounts of Sunday’s incident involving small Iranian boats and U.S. naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz, this is—as my old Russian professor used to insist—nothing to laugh.
The situation is so reminiscent of what happened—and didn’t happen—from Aug. 2-4, 1964, in the Gulf of Tonkin and in Washington, it is in no way funny.
At the time, the U.S. had about 16,000 troops in South Vietnam. The war that was “justified” by the Tonkin Gulf resolution of Aug. 7, 1964, led to a buildup of 535,000 U.S. troops in the late Sixties, 58,000 of whom were killed—not to mention the estimated two million Vietnamese who lost their lives by then and in the ensuing 10 years.
Ten years. How can our president speak so glibly about 10 more years of a U.S. armed presence in Iraq? He must not remember Vietnam.
Lessons from Vietnam and Iraq
What follows is written primarily for honest intelligence analysts and managers still on “active duty.”
The issuance of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was particularly welcome to those of us who had been hoping there were enough of you left who had not been thoroughly corrupted by former CIA Director George Tenet and his malleable managers.
We are not so much surprised at the integrity of Tom Fingar, who is in charge of national intelligence analysis. He showed his mettle in manfully resisting forgeries and fairy tales about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction.”
What is, frankly, a happy surprise is the fact that he and other non-ideologues and non-careerist professionals have been able to prevail and speak truth to power on such dicey issues as the Iranian nuclear program, the upsurge in terrorism caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the year-old NIE saying Iraq is headed for hell in a hand basket (with no hint that a “surge” could make a difference).
But those are the NIEs. They share the status of “supreme genre” of analytic product with the President’s Daily Brief and other vehicles for current intelligence, the field in which I labored, first in the analytic trenches and then as a briefer at the White House, for most of my 27-year career.
True, the NIE “Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction” of Oct. 1, 2002, (wrong on every major count) greased the skids for the attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003. But it is more often current intelligence that is fixed upon to get the country into war.
The Tonkin Gulf events are perhaps the best case in point. We retired professionals who worked through the Tonkin Gulf incident are hopeful that Fingar can ensure integrity in the current intelligence process as well.
Salivating for a Wider War
Given the confusion last Sunday in the Persian Gulf, you need to remember that a “known” in the form of a non-event has already been used to sell a major war—Vietnam. It is not only in retrospect that we know that no attack occurred that night.
Those of us in intelligence, not to mention President Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy all knew full well that the evidence of any armed attack on the evening of Aug. 4, 1964, the so-called “second” Tonkin Gulf incident, was highly dubious.
But it fit the president’s purposes, so they lent a hand to facilitate escalation of the war.
During the summer of 1964, President Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were eager to widen the war in Vietnam. They stepped up sabotage and hit-and-run attacks on the coast of North Vietnam.
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later admitted that he and other senior leaders had concluded that the seaborne attacks “amounted to little more than pinpricks” and “were essentially worthless,” but they continued.
Concurrently, the National Security Agency was ordered to collect signals intelligence from the North Vietnamese coast on the Gulf of Tonkin, and the surprise coastal attacks were seen as a helpful way to get the North Vietnamese to turn on their coastal radars.
The destroyer USS Maddox, carrying electronic spying gear, was authorized to approach as close as eight miles from the coast and four miles from offshore islands, some of which already had been subjected to intense shelling by clandestine attack boats.
As James Bamford describes it in “Body of Secrets:”
“The twin missions of the Maddox were in a sense symbiotic. The vessel’s primary purpose was to act as a seagoing provocateur—to poke its sharp gray bow and the American flag as close to the belly of North Vietnam as possible, in effect shoving its 5-inch cannons up the nose of the Communist navy. In turn, this provocation would give the shore batteries an excuse to turn on as many coastal defense radars, fire control systems, and communications channels as possible, which could then be captured by the men…at the radar screens. The more provocation, the more signals…
“The Maddox’ mission was made even more provocative by being timed to coincide with commando raids, creating the impression that the Maddox was directing those missions and possibly even lobbing firepower in their support….
“North Vietnam also claimed at least a twelve-mile limit and viewed the Maddox as a trespassing ship deep within its territorial waters.”
(pp 295-296)
On Aug. 2, 1964, an intercepted message ordered North Vietnamese torpedo boats to attack the Maddox. The destroyer was alerted and raced out to sea beyond reach of the torpedoes, three of which were fired in vain at the destroyer’s stern.
The Maddox’s captain suggested that the rest of his mission be called off, but the Pentagon refused. And still more commando raids were launched on Aug. 3, shelling for the first time targets on the mainland, not just the offshore islands.
Early on Aug. 4, the Maddox captain cabled his superiors that the North Vietnamese believed his patrol to be directly involved with the commando raids and shelling. That evening at 7:15 (Vietnam time) the Pentagon alerted the Maddox to intercepted messages indicating that another attack by patrol boats was imminent.
What followed was panic and confusion. There was a score of reports of torpedo and other hostile attacks, but no damage and growing uncertainty as to whether any attack actually took place. McNamara was told that “freak radar echoes” were misinterpreted by “young fellows” manning the sonar, who were “apt to say any noise is a torpedo.”
This did not prevent McNamara from testifying to Congress two days later that there was “unequivocal proof” of a new attack. And based largely on that, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution bringing 10 more years of war.
Meanwhile, in the Trenches
By the afternoon of Aug. 4, the CIA’s expert analyst on North Vietnam (let’s call him “Tom”) had concluded that probably no one had fired on the U.S. ships. He included a paragraph to that effect in the item he wrote for the Current Intelligence Bulletin, which would be wired to the White House and other key agencies and appear in print the next morning.
And then something unique happened. The Director of the Office of Current Intelligence, a very senior officer whom Tom had never before seen, descended into the bowels of the agency to order the paragraph deleted. He explained:
“We’re not going to tell LBJ that now. He has already decided to bomb North Vietnam. We have to keep our lines open to the White House.”
“Tom” later bemoaned—quite rightly: “What do we need open lines for, if we’re not going to use them, and use them to tell the truth?”
Two years ago, I would have been tempted to comment sarcastically, “How quaint; how obsolete.” But the good news is that the analysts writing the NIEs have now reverted to the ethos in which “Tom” and I were proud to work.
Now the analysts/reporters of current intelligence need to follow suit, and we hope Tom Fingar can hold their feet to the fire. For if they don’t measure up, the consequences are sure to be disastrous.
This should be obvious in the wake of the Tonkin Gulf reporting experience, not to mention more recent performance of senior officials before the attack on Iraq in 2003.
The late Ray S. Cline, who was the current intelligence director’s boss at the time of the Tonkin Gulf incident, said he was “very sure” that no attack took place on Aug. 4. He suggested that McNamara had shown the president unevaluated signals intelligence which referred to the (real) earlier attack on Aug. 2 rather than the non-event on the 4th.
There was no sign of remorse on Cline’s part that he didn’t step in and make sure the president was told the truth.
We in the bowels knew there was no attack; and so did the Director of Current Intelligence as well as Cline, the Deputy Director for Intelligence. But all knew, as did McNamara, that President Johnson was lusting for a pretext to strike the North and escalate the war. And, like B’rer Rabbit, they didn’t say nothin’.
Commenting on the interface of intelligence and policy on Vietnam, a senior CIA officer has written about:
“… the dilemma CIA directors and senior intelligence professionals face in cases when they know that unvarnished intelligence judgments will not be welcomed by the President, his policy managers, and his political advisers…[They] must decide whether to tell it like it is (and so risk losing their place at the President’s advisory table), or to go with the flow of existing policy by accentuating the positive (thus preserving their access and potential influence). In these episodes from the Vietnam era, we have seen that senior CIA officers more often than not tended toward the latter approach.”
“CIA and the Vietnam Policymakers: Three Episodes, 1962-1968,” Harold P. Ford
Back to Iran. This time, we all know what the president and vice president are lusting after—an excuse to attack Iran. But there is a big difference from the situation in the summer of 1964, when President Johnson had intimidated all his senior subordinates into using deceit to escalate the war.
Bamford comments on the disingenuousness of Robert McNamara when he testified in 1968 that it was “inconceivable” that senior officials, including the president, deliberately used the Tonkin Gulf events to generate congressional support for a wider Vietnam War.
In Bamford’s words, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become “a sewer of deceit,” with Operation Northwoods and other unconscionable escapades to their credit. Then-Under Secretary of State George Ball commented, “There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that this would provide the provocation we needed.”
Good News: It’s Different Now
It is my view that the only thing that has prevented Bush and Cheney from attacking Iran so far has been the strong opposition of the uniformed military, including the Joint Chiefs.
As the misadventure last Sunday in the Strait of Hormuz shows, our senior military officers need all the help they can get from intelligence officers more concerned with the truth than with “keeping lines open to the White House” and doing its bidding.
In addition, the intelligence oversight committees in Congress seem to be waking from their Rip Van Winkle-like slumber. It was Congress, after all, that ordered the controversial NIE on Iran/nuclear (and insisted it be publicized).
And the flow of substantive intelligence to Congress is much larger than it was in 1964 when, remember, there were no intelligence committees as such.
So, you inheritors of the honorable profession of current intelligence – I’m thinking of you, Rochelle, and you, Rick – don’t let them grind you down.
If you’re working in the bowels of the CIA and you find that your leaders are cooking the intelligence once again into a recipe for casus belli, think long and hard about your oath to protect the Constitution. Should that oath not transcend any secrecy promise you had to accept as a condition of employment?
By sticking your neck out, you might be able to prevent 10 years of unnecessary war.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer, then a current intelligence analyst at CIA, and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics | 1 Comment »

World did not change in one week.

Posted by QB on December 8, 2007

There is no change during my one week absence, I was able to watch some news at my hotel room and Hugo Chavez Constitutional Amendment Referendum defeat was big surprise and I was wrong predicting that Hugo Chavez will win the “Yes” vote. The people who voted “No” don’t want him to run for President for the third time will the losers by electing typical politician who will stop Hugo Chavez social reforms, will work to protect the interest of elite class.

Putin party did win the Parliamentary election with huge majority, don’t know the numbers and have no time to find that out by reading one week news archives. I have only today and tomorrow which is Sunday morning again will be leaving.

The most interesting news what US NIE on Iran nuclear program. The reaction from Bush regime is disgraceful who still insists that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace. John Bolton the former UN Ambassador believe that the intelligence agencies has under estimated  Iran nuclear program to compensate their report on Iraq WMD. Bush still believe that Iran is dangerous with the knowledge of building developing nuclear weapons. This is really the most stupid statement made by the only super power of the world. What is the Bush and Dick plan for Iran? Do they wanted to brainwash all the Iranian scientists who had the knowledge to build nuclear weapons?

The NIE confirmed what ElBardei said that they don’t have proof of Iran’s secret nuclear program which become problem for the Republican Presidential candidate who wanted to be tougher than Bush on Iran including Democrat Hilary Clinton, she wanted to use limited Nuclear Weapons on Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop the development of nuclear weapons which which they are not building. Saddam Hussein told the world that Iraq does not any Chemical or Nuclear Weapons and he too was telling the truth like Ahmadinejad.

The US if really wanted peace stability in the world than the American politicians have to learn to trust the other governments, stop interfering in their internal affairs, stop the policy of regime change.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Asia, Bush, Iran, Latin America, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Putin, Russia, South America, Venezuela, Vladimir Putin | 2 Comments »

There will be no posts for three weeks.

Posted by QB on December 1, 2007

There will be no post for atleast three weeks. I will leave home tomorrow morning and will come back on weekend for couple of days. There are very interesting situation in Venezuela Constitutional Referendum on Sunday  and  Russia  Parliamentary elections  the same day. Putin is very critical from last few weeks accusing US government interference in their election process. Hugo Chavez is facing US backed tough opposition on his Constitutional Referendum.

Hugo Chavez will get the “YES” vote and Putin United Russian Party will win the two third majority in Parliament. This is my prediction.

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Asia, Bush, Hugo Chavez, Iran, Iraq, Mullah Omar, Musharraf, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

Republican Presidential Debate. Ron Paul was impressive.

Posted by QB on November 29, 2007

The Republican Presidential candidates participated in debated in Florida, the majority of the Republican candidates, like Democrats front runners, wanted to continue Bush failed policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is only one Republican Presidential candidate who is honest truthful not scared to say what is right is Ron Paul who unfortunately did not get much time to speak but whenever he get a chance to speak he was impressive. The other Republican Presidential candidate was Mike Huckabee from conservative ideology. The two front runners Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani get the most of the time but their answers were exactly what voters wanted to hear. The question related to terrorism get the most applause by the audience which were answered by Mitt Romeny Rudy Giuliani Fred Thompson Tom Tencredo and Duncan Hunter, they all believe that permanent occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is necessary to fight the war on terror. It was Ron Paul who pointed out very correctly that the main cause of Islamic terrorism is the wrong US foreign policies of interference in Middle East and Al Qaida was created as the result of US presence in Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul is intelligent and he knows that US can’t win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so his proposal is to withdraw all the US occupation troops from these two countries which will definitely hurt Al Qaida agenda.

This is a known fact that Al Qaida is gaining popularity and general public sympathies because of Bush policies of invasion and occupation. Osama Bin Laden can lose all the support and find it very difficult to attract people to join their fight if US stop their stupid war on terror the way they started it and fighting after 9/11.

Ron Paul on the Republican Presidential candidate who has the plan to bring stability in US as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who has the, like Ron Paul, to end this endless conflict.

John McCain with Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Tom Tendcredo Duncan Hunter all believe that US is winning the war in Iraq. The fact they ignored that US has make peace agreement with the Iraqi Sunni resistance which is working in some areas and the Shiite South is clam because British troops have handed over the security to Iraqis, completely withdrawing their troops from the area. Iraqi Sunni resistance is getting lots of financial support from US and my analysis is that they are presently busy in strengthening their power by acquiring weapons, trying to create unity between all the resistance groups for the final fight with US occupation military, the chances are that Shiites will be on board when this final battle start. The fact which these morons ignore that Iraqis did not wanted permanent US military bases in their country and over 72% Iraqis want US troops out of their country.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will not get the nomination of their parties so the “war on terror” will continue for decades. The next elected President will be Republican or Democrat front runner who will continue Bush policies.

Thanks to Jones who pointed out my mistake referring Duncan Hunter as Chris Dodd.

Posted in Al Qaida, Bush, CNN, Fred Thompson, Iran, Iraq, John McCain, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Mike Muckabee, Mitt Romney, Osama Bin Laden, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, Republicans, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, US Politics | 2 Comments »

Iran Nuclear Program. US and Europe on confrontation course.

Posted by QB on November 28, 2007

The IRNA reported that Britain France Germany see that Iran is co-operating with IAEA on nuclear inspections but these countries still insist to impose tougher sanctions. The British Prime Minister wanted to impose tougher sanctions with the same old claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The France President and German Chancellor wanted the tougher sanctions as well and urging Russia China to co-operate.

This does not make sense, how the morons leaders of Britain France Germany reached to the conclusion that Iran is building nuclear weapons because IAEA did not find any evidence of Iran secret nuclear program and they have issued very positive report on inspections. The Bush regime still accuse Iran of interference in Iraq without providing the proof. Iraq Shiite leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim dismissed US claims by saying that Iran is the friends of Iraqi people and the US government did not provided any solid proof of Iran’s interference in Iraq. 

The problem is that Bush the mentally retarded person is incharge of US military and WMD who might make another mistake of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Then there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans Presidential hopeful who are trying to portray themselves tougher than Bush on Iran promising to use limited nuclear weapons to make sure that Iran will not get the nuclear weapons. This is all madness, when people ignore the facts and escalate the issue for political reasons. The US might make another blunder of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities to please Zionists Israelis and Evangelicals which will make the whole Middle East the battle ground.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Britain, Bush, France, Germany, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iran Uranium Enrichment, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, US Politics | 1 Comment »

Iran Nuclear Program and IAEA Diplomacy.

Posted by QB on November 23, 2007

The Iran Nuclear Program is still an issue because IAEA inability to come to conclusive decision. IAEA did reported Iran’s co-operation but also added that Iran might have secret nuclear weapon program putting restrictions on UN inspectors for two years, the IAEA is trying to please the US and its allies with creating doubts. The IAEA is free to do the inspections and come up with the conclusive answer otherwise this issue will become the next excuse for another bloody destructive war.

The Saddam Hussein government did co-operated with IAEA by allowing them to inspect all their suspected sites without notice and the UN agency did not find any active nuclear or chemical weapons program in Iraq. The IAEA report was diplomatic saying that they did not find any active nuclear program in Iraq but also added that they still have questions related to chemical inventory. The Saddam Hussein Iraqi government did provide them the documentation that they have destroyed these chemicals. The Bush regime used UN ambiguous report, spin it for their political purposes claiming that Saddam Hussein is dangerous for US and Israel who is not co-operating with IAEA and US will destroy the WMD by force.

“The report gives a clean bill of health on Iran’s nuclear activities for the past 20 years. With ambiguities removed on the basis of this report, there remains no legal reasons for discussions about Iran at the U.N. Security Council,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Mohammed Saeedi as saying.

The IAEA report on Iran’s Nuclear Program is very much similar to Iraq, which Bush regime can use to air strike the Nuclear facilities, if the US government go to that limit of stupidity. The IAEA inspectors are in Iran and they can keep inspecting any Iranian sites which they believe are suspicious and come up clear report that Iran Nuclear Program is according to NPT, failed in doing so will start another useless war. The IAEA must not get involved in too much politics diplomacy trying to please both sides, honestly report what they have found and clearly tell the world what they did not find. They had no proof of Iran’s secret Nuclear Program so why make it a issue.

Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, IAEA, Iran, Iran Nuclear Program, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Politics, Saddam Hussein, US Politics | 1 Comment »

US Politicians and American Policies.

Posted by QB on November 16, 2007

The Bush regime is sending envoy to meet Pervez Musharraf to end the emergency rule and hold fair and transparent elections in January. The Bush regime also wanted Pervez Musharraf to be tough on their war on terror without realizing that is the main reason of Pervez Musharraf unpopularity loosing support of people. The Bush regime wanted the democracy and continue the war on terror which is not possible whoever get elected in January elections.

There was CNN Democrats Presidential debate last night where the front runner did not answer single question with honestly and intelligently, Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards responses were confusing, talking what people wanted to hear. Wolf Blitzer, the most biased dishonest person, was the moderator, completely ignorning Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich who had the clear plan to bring stability to US, restoring America’s image in the world. Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who had pointed out  that the US policies are the main cause of Anti Americanism in Middle East and Muslim countries where they see these wars against Islam.

The front runners Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards with Chris Dodd, Joe Biden were answers on Iraq, Iran and Pakistan were similar to Bush regime promising not to let Iran build nuclear weapon, put more pressure on Pervez Musharraf to be tough in their war on terror, keep Afghanistan and Iraq under US occupation. Hilary Clinton might get the nomination of Democratic party because majority of Democrats believe that she has the best chances of beating Republican candidate in next general elections, just like when the Democrats nominated the wrong Presidential candidate John Kerry. Hilary Clinton might get the nomination but she will lost in next year elections.

The IAEA report on Iran Nuclear Program was due on Wednesday, which maybe made public which I have not read it yet. Bush regime and Britain Brown is wasting no time promising to be tough on Iran.

Posted in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Asia, Bush, CNN, Dennis Kucinich, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Politics, Mullah Omar, Musharraf, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics, Presidential Race 2008, Taliban, US Politics, Wolf Blitzer | 6 Comments »