The Drumbeat for a War against Iran - October

Updated January 23, 2007

62. Hersh alleges US is gearing up for an Attack on Iran - October 01, 2007.
"In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on "surgical" strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism. The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Shifting Targets: The Administration’s plan for Iran’ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh October 01, 2007).

According to hersh, gordon brown supports the bush regime’s new bombing strategy which would obviously remove another barrier in the way of bush declaring war on iran. "The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the newly elected government of Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Shifting Targets: The Administration’s plan for Iran’ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh October 01, 2007).

63. Shock, Horror: Jewish member of Bush regime hates Iranians - October 02, 2007.
"It ought to be political suicide. A Bush administration official (specifically, the Defense Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs) told a group of six members of the British Parliament, "In any case, I hate all Iranians." Three MPs attending the meeting have confirmed this to the British tabloid The Daily Mail. The official in question, Debra Cagan, appears in the Daily Mail photo in a red leather blouse and what looks like a chain-mail choker around her neck, along with some sort of martial cross although I understand she's Jewish." (Gary Leupp ‘Frank Talk from Defense Department Official: "I Hate All Iranians"’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10022007.html October 2, 2007).

64. Bush declares he has to stay in Iraq because of Iran - October 03, 2007.
Once again bush emphasizes the reason that america has to remain in iraq is not so much to combat al qaeda as the growing regional power of iran. "In trying to rebuild public support for an unpopular war, President Bush is warning about what he says could be regional chaos if the United States leaves Iraq before the government there can protect itself. Chief among his concerns is Iraq's neighbor Iran, who the president believes is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program, which Iran denies. "There would be nothing worse for world peace, if the Iranians believe that the United States didn't have the will and commitment to help young democracies survive, that if we left before the job was done, there would be chaos," he said. "Chaos would embolden not only the extremists and radicals who would like to do us harm, but it would also embolden Iran. What you don't want is to have a nuclear arms race taking place in the Middle East." The president told political supporters in the eastern state of Pennsylvania that Iran not only threatens its neighbors, but the United States as well." (Scott Stearns ‘Bush Says Leaving Iraq Would Embolden Iran’ http://voanews.com/english/2007-10-03-voa50.cfm October 03, 2007).

Bush also reiterated his willingness to go to war for the jews-only state in palestine. "In Iran, we're dealing with a country where the leader has said that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said. "My belief is that the United States will defend our ally Israel. This is a leader who has made very provocative statements. And, we have made it clear, however, that in spite of that, we are willing to sit down with him, so long as he suspends his program. In other words, it's his choice, it's not mine anymore. So I believe that's the best way to achieve an objective," the president added." (Deb Riechmann ‘Bush warns of nuclear-armed Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_7 October 03, 2007).

65. McNeill blaming Iran for Roadside Bombs - October 04, 2007.
"US Army General Dan McNeill, the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, said that the discovery of more than 50 roadside bombs and timers in lorries crossing the border from Iran last month proves that Iran's Quds Revolutionary Guards are actively supporting the Taliban. The allegation will add to fears that the escalating war of words between Iran and the West could end in armed conflict between the two. British special forces, believed to be from the Special Boat Service, played a prominent role in tracking and intercepting two lorries that crossed from Iran into Afghanistan's Farah Province on Sept 5. "I cannot see how it is possible for at least the Iranian military, probably the Quds force, to not have known of this convoy," said Gen McNeill. Gen McNeill added: "The observation of a number of British officers who served in southern Iraq was that [the bomb timers] were relatively common there and that they originated from Iran." A spokesman for the British embassy in Kabul said yesterday: "This confirms our view that elements within Iran are supporting the Taliban. We have previously raised the issue of arms to the Taliban with the Iranians and will continue to do so." Last month, Lt Col Patrick Sanders, the commander of British forces in Basra, said troops there were engaged in a "proxy war" with Iran, which was supplying Shia militias. Prior to September's find, there had been two discoveries of EFPs in Afghanistan. While they raised suspicions of Iranian involvement, they were crude by comparison and the Nato commander had never before yesterday pointed the finger directly at the Iranian military." (Tom Coghlan ‘Iran 'arming Taliban with roadside bombs' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=RXBAFXXDS2Q0DQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/04/wafghan104.xml October 04, 2007). Tom coghlan is either mistaken or deliberately lying by saying that mcneill had never before blamed iran for roadside bombs.

66. Now the Americans are using Iran to Excuse their Slaughter of Innocent Iraqi Civilians - October 06, 2007.
"U.S. airstrikes killed at least 25 people early yesterday. Falih al-Fayadh, the director of an office that represents the prime minister in the province, said more than 20 people had been wounded yesterday, and that the dead and wounded were residents who'd often been attacked by terrorists. The locals fired first, Mr. al-Fayadh said, but only because they mistook the soldiers, who came around dawn, for insurgents. Those killed included two women and a child, he said. "There was clearly a problem with the co-ordination between the coalition commanders and local police," Mr. al-Fayadh said." (U.S. denies killing civilians in Iraq battle’ http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=a2b81476-e87a-4bb5-8ee8-7f6c553e383e October 06, 2007); "American troops backed by aircraft attacked a Shiite town north of Baghdad at dawn on Friday, killing at least 25 Iraqis the military described as criminals who were involved in the transport of weapons. But Iraqis at the scene said the dead were civilians, though some were armed. The military said it was searching for an insurgent leader believed to be associated with the elite Iranian Quds Force, which American intelligence sources believe is working in Iraq to foment violent activity by some Shiite militias. A military spokesman said the insurgent leader was not captured in the raid. An official in the provincial office in Baquba, the provincial capital, said that the city’s hospital had received eight children, four of whom died." (Alissa J. Rubin ‘Accounts Differ Sharply on U.S. Attack in Iraq’ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/world/middleeast/06iraq.html?ex=1349323200&en=8324b6fe6c6644e9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss October 6, 2007).

67. Bush states he will not attack Iran in January or February next Year - October 06, 2007.
"Bush brushed off as "gossip" reports in the Arab press that he has issued orders to senior U.S. military officials to prepare for an attack on Iran at the end of January or in February. "I would call that empty propaganda," Bush said. "Evidently, there's a lot of gossip in the parts of the country, world that try to scare people about me personally or my country or what we stand for. And that kind of gossip is just what it is. It's gossip. It's baseless gossip."" (‘Bush denies plans to attack Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_arab_tv October 5, 2007).

Once again bush lies that he wants to find a diplomatic solution to the iran crisis. But this is not true since he’s insisting that iran surrenders to his demands before negotiations can take place. Basically bush is putting iran into a position where it cannot negotiate whilst pretending he wants negotiations. "I have said that if they suspend their nuclear program, we will be at the table," Bush said, according to a transcript of the interview the White House released on Friday. "But they have so far refused to do that."" (‘Bush denies plans to attack Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_arab_tv October 5, 2007).

After launching two pre-emptive and illegal wars, most people around the world realize bush is an inveterate liar. He’s also a monstrously evil barbarian depicting america as peaceful. ""I understand the images of my country have been distorted," Bush said. "And I understand people say things about me personally that simply aren't true. And so I appreciate the chance to come and talk to you directly and to talk to your viewers directly about what's in my heart and about the fact that my country is a country of peace."" (‘Bush denies plans to attack Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_arab_tv October 5, 2007). But then again bush believed that ariel sharon was a man of peace.

68. The Bush regime gets Gordon Brown’s support for war against Iran - October 06, 2007.
The bush regime has deftly worked out a way to get british prime minister gordon brown into a war he knows he has to support because of britain’s dependence on america but which previously he had refused to support because of public opposition to another war. Brown refuses to support a pre-emptive attack on iran’s nuclear facilities but, if america attacks iran and iran retaliates by attacking british troops, then brown would probably be given sufficient public support to retaliate against iran thereby bringing britain into the war. Brown has to defend british troops by allowing them to retaliate against those who attack them so this would provide enough of a rationale for the british public to overcome their reluctance to accept another war. The mere fact that there are british troops in afghanistan and iraq means they will find themselves in the way of a shooting match between america and iran, and this will make it next to impossible for brown to avoid becoming entangled in a war against iran. "Gordon Brown has agreed to support US air strikes against Iran if the Islamic republic orchestrates large-scale attacks by militants against British or American forces in Iraq, according to senior Pentagon officials. Washington sources say the Prime Minister has been informed of US plans to launch limited air and special forces raids against Revolutionary Guard bases. After talks with President George W Bush in July, Mr Brown left US officials with the belief that Britain was "on board" for a military response, but only if Iran was proved to be behind a big militant attack or another stunt similar to the kidnapping in March of British sailors. Mr Brown made clear to Mr Bush that he would not support a campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and bring about regime change in Teheran." (Tim Shipman ‘Gordon Brown 'will back air strikes on Iran'’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3UZLZHIZ5WVNNQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/07/wiran107.xml October 08, 2007).

69. Petraeus accuses Iran's ambassador - October 06, 2007.
"The top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has accused Iran's ambassador of belonging to an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Gen Petraeus said Hassan Kazemi-Qomi was a member of the Quds Force, which the US believes backs foreign Islamic militant movements. Gen Petraeus said he had no doubt Iran was behind attacks that had led to the deaths of US soldiers. Gen Petraeus said the Iranian ambassador to Iraq was a "Quds Force member", but added: "Now he has diplomatic immunity and therefore he is obviously not subject [to scrutiny]. He is acting as a diplomat." Gen Petraeus said: "There should be no question about the malign, lethal involvement and activities of the Quds Force in this country." He said Iran was "responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed US soldiers"." (‘US accuses Iran's envoy to Iraq’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7032557.stm October 07, 2007). This is a bit like saying that america’s ambassador to iraq is a republican.

70. Rice’s paranoid allegations about Iran - October 11, 2007.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program, saying there's no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the U.N.'s atomic watchdog about its intentions. "There is an Iranian history of obfuscation and, indeed, lying to the IAEA," she said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. "There is a history of Iran not answering important questions about what is going on and there is Iran pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to nuclear weapons-grade material," Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she headed to Moscow. U.S. officials have long accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons behind the facade of a civil atomic energy program, charges that Tehran denies. But Rice's strong words, including the blunt reference to Iranian "lying," come at a critical time in dealing with the matter." (Matthew Lee ‘Rice says Iran 'lying' about nukes’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran October 11, 2007).

71. America’s Torrent of Lies against Iran Continues - October 13, 2007.
"In Baghdad this week US forces have displayed 'shaped charge' roadside bomb kits, also known as EFPs (explosively formed penetrators), which have killed 170 American service personnel in Iraq. This figure is surprisingly precise, in contrast to much of the rest of the American presentation: the officers and intelligence analysts would not give their names, and could not substantiate their claim that the deployment of the EFPs was sanctioned "at the highest level" of the Ahmadinejad regime." (Robert Fox ‘Now the Saudis tool up for war’ http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1147 October 13, 2007).

72. American Military now depicting operations against Iraqis as being against Iranians - October 13, 2007.
By the simple expedient of labeling military operations against iraqi civilians as being aimed at combating iran, the likudnik dominated american military can pump out yet more propaganda about iran’s ‘war with america’. "As reported by the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, an October 5 US operation in Baquba killed 26 Iraqi civilians and wounded 40. The pretext, according to the Pentagon, was destroying an "Iranian cell". Let's even assume that Petraeus could produce hard evidence, which he won't. Even if rogue, former or de facto al-Quds force commanders are helping Shi'ite militias in southern Iraq, and that would be predominantly the Badr organization, trained by the IRGC and allied with the Americans, this is part of a war. The US is an occupying power, and the local resistance, in this case Shi'ite, has the right to use all means necessary to kick the occupiers out." (Pepe Escobar ‘General Petraeus in his labyrinth’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ13Ak01.html October 13, 2007).

73. Bush makes Self fulfilling Prophecy about World War Three - October 17, 2007.
Bush’s Statement.
"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace…. So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." (George Bush quoted in Farideh Farhi ‘Putin's Trip to Tehran’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/10/putins-trip-to-tehran.html October 17, 2007).

"US President George W. Bush's warning that Iran must be denied nuclear arms to avoid "World War III" was just "a rhetorical point," not a prelude to Armageddon, his spokeswoman said Thursday. "The president was not making any war plans, and he wasn't making any declarations," said press secretary Dana Perino. "He was using that as a rhetorical point."" (‘WW III warning just ‘a rhetorical point’: White House’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071018/pl_afp/usirannuclearwwiiiwhouse October 18, 2007).

The Views of Farideh Farhi.
"The most significant aspect of Putin’s trip to Tehran, from the Iranian leadership’s point of view, was that it took place at all, despite Washington’s hope for and, in all likelihood, expectation of last minute cancellation. This is why the trip is being touted as a success for Iranian diplomacy; displaying the fact that Iran is not as isolated as Washington portrays it to be. And perhaps it was this modicum of success that made George Bush upset enough to raise for the first time in public the specter WW III …" (Farideh Farhi ‘Putin's Trip to Tehran’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/10/putins-trip-to-tehran.html October 17, 2007).

The Views of Fareed Zakaria.
"At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon. The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence. Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?" (Fareed Zakaria ‘Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?’ http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346 October 29, 2007).

The Views of M K Bhadrakumar.
"United States President George W Bush revealed on October 17 that he's "told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon". Man has never before in his bloody history waged preemptive war against the spread of knowledge. The nearest he came was with the Inquisition when he insisted knowledge was heresy. But when Bush warns of preemptive war, it must be taken seriously." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran looms over Turkey crisis diplomacy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ25Ak01.html October 25, 2007).

Bush’s New ‘No Nuclear Knowledge’ Policy is the Policy of the Jews-only State.
It is important to appreciate that bush was not merely raising the highly sensitive issue of the criteria for triggering world war three he was also, although whether he understood what he was saying or not is another matter, changing american policy about such criteria. Up until bush’s speech, american policy has been to stop iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The implication of this stance is that americans accept that the iranians have the right to develop civil nuclear power. However, the policy of the jews-only state has always been to stop any country in the middle east from acquiring knowledge of nuclear processes from civil nuclear reactors which could enable it to develop nuclear weapons. In other words, the jews-intend to stop any middle eastern country from acquiring or developing any form of nuclear power.

The jews implemented this policy in 1981 when it bombed iraq’s osiraq’s small scale, civil, nuclear reactor despite the fact that the reactor was being monitored as safe by the international atomic energy authority. The jews’ attack on the reactor thus elicited condemnations from around the world even america! "Here are excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 487 condemning the Israeli pre-emptive strike. "Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that, in accordance with that treaty, Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date; "Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel – in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; "Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; "Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime, which is the foundation of the non-proliferation treaty."" (Gordon Prather ‘Go Ahead On: Start WWIII’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11849 November 3, 2007). (The irony being that after the jews’ attack saddam then launched into a secret programme to acquire nuclear weapons. "Since 1991, thanks to the IAEA, the whole world has known that Saddam began his quest for nuclear weapons as a direct result of the Israeli raid on his IAEA Safeguarded research reactor." [Gordon Prather ‘Go Ahead On: Start WWIII’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11849 November 3, 2007]).

See also concerning the mysterious pre-emptive jewish attack on syria on september 06, 2007. "The New York Times reported on October 13 that Israeli planes struck at what US and Israeli intelligence believed was a partly constructed nuclear reactor in Syria on September 6, citing American and foreign officials who had seen the relevant intelligence reports. According to the report, Israel carried out the report to send a message that it would not tolerate even a nuclear program in its initial stages of construction in any neighboring state." ('USAF struck Syrian nuclear site'’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380718519&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull November 2, 2007).

When bush stated that he would refuse to allow iran to acquire any nuclear knowledge he was changing united states’ policy and regurgitating the policy of the jews-only state. It is an open question as to whether he knew he was adopting the jews’ policy or was just using a phrase that he’d picked up from his likudnik friends without realizing this was not american policy. "The Israelis, on the other hand, have repeatedly expressed their outrageous view that the capability of enriching the Uranium-235 content of large amounts of natural uranium to any level is tantamount to having the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Are they serious? Well, back in 1981 Israel "took out" Osiraq, a French-built IAEA-safeguarded research reactor, apparently because they had concluded that Saddam Hussein expected Osiraq, in lieu of the Tooth Fairy, to miraculously leave a few nuclear weapons under his pillow. Now, Bush the Younger has apparently adopted the equally idiotic and outrageously inflammatory view of the Israelis about Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded programs." (Gordon Prather ‘Go Ahead On: Start WWIII’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11849 November 3, 2007).

Virtually all of america’s nuclear policy in the middle east has been imposed on it by the jews-only state in palestine including the jews’ refusal to state whether they have, or do not have, nuclear weapons. "Cheney's desire for a "clean" NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007. Negroponte had angered the neoconservatives in the administration by telling the press in April 2006 that the intelligence community believed that it would still be "a number of years off" before Iran would be "likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade." Neoconservatives immediately attacked Negroponte for the statement, which merely reflected the existing NIE on Iran issued in Spring 2005. Robert G. Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and an ally of Cheney, contradicted Negroponte the following day. He suggested that Iran's nuclear program was nearing the "point of no return", an Israeli concept referring to the mastery of industrial-scale uranium enrichment." (Gareth Porter ‘Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran NIE’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11879 November 9, 2007).

74. Dan McNeill continues Plugging the ‘Iran is Arming Terrorists’ Line - October 18, 2007.
"The top US general in Afghanistan said Thursday it was hard to believe a convoy of high-technology explosives intercepted here last month could have arrived without the knowledge of the Iranian military. The convoy from Iran, which was stopped on September 5 in western Afghanistan, reportedly contained armour-piercing bombs likely intended for insurgents fighting Afghan and international security forces here. General Dan McNeill, head of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), confirmed to journalists in Kabul that the convoy had contained "a number of advanced technology improvised explosive devices." "It is difficult for me to conceive that this convoy could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan without at least the knowledge of the Iran military," he said." (‘US general implicates Iran military in Afghan weapons find’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071018/pl_afp/afghanistanunrestnatoiran October 18, 2007).

75. Mullen argues US Military is ready for War - October 18, 2007.
"U.S. military forces are capable of conducting operations against Iran if called on to bomb nuclear facilities or other targets, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday. "From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve to respond if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do, and so I don't think we're too stretched in that regard," Adm. Michael Mullen told reporters when asked if current operations had worn out U.S. forces." (Bill Gertz ‘Mullen: U.S. can strike Iran’ http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071019/NATION/110190089/1002 October 19, 2007).

76. The Likudnik Cheney insisting once again on War against Iran - October 22, 2007.
Cheney’s Speech to his Jewish Masters.
Cheney’s speech can be found on the white house website. ‘Vice President's Remarks to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071021.html October 21, 2007

The Views of Jim Lobe.
"In the harshest speech against Iran given by a top Bush administration official to date, Vice President Dick Cheney Sunday warned the Islamic Republic of "serious consequences" if it did not freeze its nuclear program and accused it of "direct involvement in the killings of Americans. Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian president, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region, including the direct involvement in the killing of Americans, our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions," Cheney warned in a major policy address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences," he added. "The Untied States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Like Ahmadinejad, Cheney has long been seen as the leader of hard-line forces within the administration, and the mere fact that his speech, which must have been cleared at the highest levels, was as belligerent as it was, especially in accusing Iran of "direct involvement in the killings of Americans," suggests that the hawks are trying to take the offensive. The forum chosen by Cheney to deliver his speech was in many ways as significant as its timing and context. WINEP, a generally hawkish think tank, was founded some 20 years ago by the research director of the highly influential lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and is funded by many of the same donors." (Jim Lobe ‘Cheney Raises the Rhetoric Against Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11797 October 22, 2007). Cheney is more loyal to aipac and the interests of the jews-only state in palestine than he is to the american people and american interests. He has to keep denouncing iran for killing americans in order to cover up the way that the jews are sacrificing americans lives, treasure and reputation for the sole benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. In effect the jews are killing more americans than the iranians – over 3,000 americans killed by jews since the invasion of iraq.

The Views of Scott Horton.
Is Cheney threatening war against Iran? Yes, that’s exactly what he is doing. And while I pulled out the passages of the speech that constitute the most undisguised saber-rattling against Iran, the entire speech is worthy of careful study. It shows a man who has disintegrated into a moral sewer. He regales his audience with the need to use torture techniques, which he tells us elsewhere he learned of from "our friends" in the Middle East (a phrase which, I am told, describes the brutal techniques used by the Egyptians.) And he then proceeds to cite a positively insane op-ed by Bernard Lewis, the subject of one of my prior columns, in which the Soviet Union is held up as a wonderful model for the United States. So there you have Dick Cheney wonderfully summed up: traditional U.S. values are for sissies. Real international strongmen torture their own citizens like the Egyptians and bully the neighborhood like the Soviets. Yep, those policies served the Soviet Union very well, as I recall. The country collapsed and its entire southern underbelly was peeled away. It’s enough to make you wonder whether Cheney is on hallucinogens. But this man is at the driver’s wheel of the nation’s national security establishment; he is the most powerful vice president in the nation’s history. And he has a president who knows nothing about the issues, doesn’t care to learn, and follows Cheney’s advice blindly." (Scott Horton ‘The Roll-Out Presses On’ http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001472 October 22, 2007).

Conclusions: It’s the Jews who are killing Americans not Iranians.
Cheney is more loyal to aipac and the interests of the jews-only state in palestine than he is to the american people and american interests. He has to keep denouncing iran for killing americans in order to cover up the way that the jews, by pushing the bush regime into the invasion of iraq, sacrificed americans lives, treasure, and reputation, solely for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. Over 3,000 americans have in effect been killed by jews because of the invasion of iraq. The jews have killed far more americans than has iran.

77. Preparations for War against Iran - October 24, 2007.
"Some Democratic lawmakers questioned on Wednesday whether a new Bush administration request for $88 million to fit "bunker-busting" bombs to B-2 stealth bombers was part of preparations for an attack on Iran. The proposal was included as part of a nearly $200 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Bush administration sent to Capitol Hill on Monday." (Susan Cornwell ‘U.S. bunker-buster request prompts Iran attack fears’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071024/pl_nm/usa_iran_bomb_dc_1 October 24, 2007).

78. Jews pressuring their Muppets in Congress to demand Bush attacks Iran - October 24, 2007.
"Iran is a major obstacle to the U.S. vision of a Middle East in which nations will "trade more, invest more, talk more and work more constructively to solve problems," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says. "The Iranian government is pursuing policies which are detrimental to the long-term interests of its neighbors, of the region, and of the Iranian people themselves. It need not be this way," Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday to a panel in the House of Representatives. Rice's testimony, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, comes amid increased frustration by Republicans and Democrats alike that the Bush administration is not doing enough to deter Iran's nuclear activities, which they fear are aimed at developing weapons. Iran says its program is only for power generation and other peaceful purposes." (Anne Flaherty ‘Rice calls Iran a major obstacle to US vision in the Middle East’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20301546/ October 24, 2007). Congress is pressuring bush for war against iran.

The hardline likudnik bush regime is imposing economic and political sanctions on iran and yet iran is blamed for not wanting to talk or invest. "Speaking to the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Rice said Washington was looking closely at "new designations" against Tehran, which the United States accuses of fomenting violence in Iraq and of pursuing an atomic bomb. "One of our best levers, and it is a really simple proposition, Iran should not be able to use the international financial system to move its ill-gotten gains from proliferation or terrorism around the world," she said. "We are working very urgently to get some of that ready," she said of new sanctions against Iran. She did not provide details of when or what might be imposed." (Sue Pleming and Susan Cornwell ‘U.S. will cut off Iran's 'malignant' actions’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071024/pl_nm/mideast_rice_iran_dc October 24, 2007).

79. The West already skirmishing against Iran - October 25, 2007.
Erdogan did the right thing visiting Britain. He should check out the thinking in London, pick up signals. The sun may have set on the British Empire, but London still has an enviable say in the affairs of Mesopotamia. The London Times quoted British Defense Ministry sources on Sunday saying that SAS (Special Air Service Regiment) commandos, operating jointly with the US and Australian special forces units, have engaged in at least a dozen intense firefights in the recent weeks with Iranian border guards. The newspaper spoke of British special forces having repeatedly crossed into Iran several times in recent weeks, and of "persistent reports of American special-operations missions inside Iran preparing for a possible attack"." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran looms over Turkey crisis diplomacy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ25Ak01.html October 25, 2007).

80. Further successes for the Likudniks’ Sanctions on Iran - October 26, 2007.
Press Reports.
Designation of the Quds as a Terrorist Organization.
"The Bush administration will announce a long-debated policy of new sanctions against Iran on Thursday, accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism, administration officials said Wednesday night. The action against the Revolutionary Guard, first reported by The Washington Post, would set in motion a series of automatic sanctions that would make it easier for the United States to block financial accounts and other assets controlled by the Guard. In particular, the action would freeze any assets the Guard has in the United States, although it is unlikely that the Guard maintains much in the way of assets in American banks or other institutions. The immediate legal consequence of designating the Quds unit as a terrorist organization would be to make it unlawful for anyone subject to United States jurisdiction to knowingly provide material support or resources to it, according to the State Department. Any United States financial institution that becomes aware that it possesses, or has control over, funds of a foreign terrorist organization would have to turn them over to the Treasury Department." (Helene Cooper ‘New Steps by U.S. Against Iranians’ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25tehran.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin October 25, 2007).

Rice and Paulson announce Latest Sanctions on Iran.
"The United States is pursuing a comprehensive policy to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranian government," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday in a press conference with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "Today Secretary Paulson and I are announcing several new steps to increase the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behavior" Rice and Paulson named three large Iranian banks as well as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the largest and most powerful segment of Iran's military, as specific backers of both terrorism and a nuclear program that could yield the capability for nuclear weapons." (Ali Gharib ‘Dialogue Undermined by White House's Iran Sanctions’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/gharib.php?articleid=11817 October 26, 2007). "Ms Rice said that while Washington was still open to a diplomatic solution, "unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."" (Leonard Doyle ‘US hits Iran with toughest penalties since 1979 siege’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3098891.ece October 26, 2007).

Political Analysis of Sanctions.
Significance of Sanctions.
"The administration unilaterally imposed the toughest set of sanctions on Iran since the country's Islamic revolution in 1979. Matthew Levitt, an expert on terrorist financing and a former Treasury Department official, said the measures are "the largest single sanction action that I know of. ... This is huge."" (Warren P. Strobel and Kevin G. Hall ‘New U.S. sanctions likely to weaken international unity on Iran’ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20862.html October 25, 2007).

America Raising its Costs for imposing Sanctions on Iran.
Rice claimed she was raising "the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behavior" and yet these sanctions have dramatically raised the costs to america and the global economy. "Crude oil rose to a record above $91 a barrel in New York ..." (Angela Macdonald-Smith and Christian Schmollinger ‘Oil Rises to Record Above $91 on Supply Drop, Iran Sanctions’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=asRxaqSNoT4o&refer=us October 26, 2007). In britain, it has to be wondered when farmers and lorry drivers across the country will be holding demonstrations and flying pickets to denounce the bush regime’s fabricated aggression against iran which is provoking such dramatic rises in fuel prices. Its strange that the country’s farmers and motorists object vehemently when the government raises petrol prices to save the environment but roll over on their backs when the likudniks threaten war against iran.

Farideh Farhi and Juan Cole on Bush’s Crackpot Allegations.
According to farhi, the bush regime has denounced the quds force for supporting a terrorist organization solely because of its alleged support for the taliban! "The new set of unilateral sanctions against Iran target .. the IRGC Qods Force for providing material support to terrorist organizations (Taliban is the only identified) ..." (Farideh Farhi ‘New Unilateral Sanctions against Iran: What Do They Mean?’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-unilateral-sanctions-against-iran.html October 26, 2007). However, farhi seems suggest the bush regime has not designated the quds as a terrorist organization. "But the move shies away from designating either the IRGC or the smaller Qods force as terrorist organization ..." (Farideh Farhi ‘New Unilateral Sanctions against Iran: What Do They Mean?’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-unilateral-sanctions-against-iran.html October 26, 2007).

Juan Cole on Bush’s Crackpot Allegations.
"Among the more fantastic charges that Bush made against Iran was that its government was actively arming and helping the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are extremist Sunnis who hate, and have killed large numbers of Shiites. Shiite Iran is unlikely to support them. The neo-Taliban are a threat to the Karzai government, which represents the Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks) along with non-Taliban Pushtuns. The Hazara are Shiite clients of Iran, and both the Tajiks and the Uzbeks are close to Tehran. The neo-Taliban are being supported by Pakistan, which resents the Northern Alliance, not by Iran, which favors it." (Juan Cole ‘US Sanctions on Iran’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_10_01_juanricole_archive.html October 26, 2007).

Likudnik Lunatics.
Putin likens Bush to a Razor slashing Lunatic.
Putin, perhaps the world’s greatest, and virtually sole, statesman on the global stage, likened bush’s new sanctions on iran to a crazed lunatic running around slashing people with a razor blade. "But Russian President Vladimir Putin warned scathingly that new sanctions could worsen relations with Iran and bring talks to "a dead end." "It's not the best way to resolve the situation by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand," he said during a visit to Portugal." (Warren P. Strobel and Kevin G. Hall ‘New U.S. sanctions likely to weaken international unity on Iran’ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20862.html October 25, 2007).

Bush’s Hypocrisy.
The bush regime condemns iran for promoting international terrorism i.e. hamas/hezbollah freedom fighters but it is supporting terrorist groups launching terrorist attacks on iran. "Silently, stealthily, unseen by cameras, the war on Iran has already begun. Many sources confirm that the United States, bent on destabilising the Islamic Republic, has increased its aid to armed movements among the Azeri, Baluchi, Arab and Kurdish ethnic minorities that make up about 40% of the Iranian population. ABC News reported in April that the US had secretly assisted the Baluchi group Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), responsible for a recent attack in which some 20 members of the Revolutionary Guard were killed." (Alain Gresh ‘Countdown to War on Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/gresh06062007.html June 6, 2007).

The bush regime supports kurdish pjak, and mek, terrorist attacks on iran. It is also surreptitiously supporting kurdish pkk terrorist attacks on turkey. Given that pjak and the pkk are different branches of the same organization, the support the bush regime gives to pjak is also helping to support kurdish pkk in its terrorist attacks on turkey. Quite bizarrely, whilst the bush regime designates the pkk as a terrorist group it does not regard pjak in the same way even though the two groups are one and the same. "At least the United States officially classes the PKK as a terrorist organization and refuses to let its officials have any contact with it. But what’s this? There is a parallel terrorist organization called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), essentially a branch office of the PKK, also based in northern Iraq, which carries out attacks into the adjacent Kurdish-populated region of Iran, and the United States does not condemn the PJAK? It even sends its officials to have friendly chats with the PJAK terrorists? How odd!" (Gwynne Dyer ‘Hezbollah, PKK and American Hypocrisy’ http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=102980&d=30&m=10&y=2007 October 30, 2007). In other words, so great is the likudniks’ hatred of iran they are helping a terrorist organization to launch attacks on turkey supposedly one of their closest allies in the middle east.

Bush’s support for a Designated Terrorist Organization, the PKK.
"Erdogan told the Sunday Times, "We have told President Bush numerous times how sensitive we are about this [PKK] issue but up till now we have not had a single positive result. America is our strategic partner. But in northern Iraq we feel that both the terrorist organization and the administration there are sheltering behind America. It makes us sad to see American weapons being found in the possession of the terrorist organization acting against Turkey."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran looms over Turkey crisis diplomacy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ25Ak01.html October 25, 2007); "The hypocrisy of the Bush case is obvious when it complains about Iran supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. The Kurds based in American Iraq have done much worse things to Turkey in the past month than Hizbullah did to Israel in June of 2006." (Juan Cole ‘US Sanctions on Iran’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_10_01_juanricole_archive.html October 26, 2007); "The serial numbers of arms captured from PKK fighters have been traced back to U.S. shipments to Iraqi military and police units. Responding to Turkish complaints, the Americans claim these arms were diverted by the Iraqis, presumably the Kurdish regional government, but the Turks aren't buying it: if the large quantity of U.S.-made arms (1,260 seized so far) turns out to have been directly provided to the PKK by the Americans, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul warned, U.S.-Turkish "relations would really break apart." U.S. diplomats immediately rebuffed this suggestion, and Washington dispatched the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes, to the scene, where he met with top Turkish military leaders. According to at least one report, "The meeting discussed an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Defense into reports that U.S. arms were being sold by U.S. troops in Iraq." If the Kurds' price for subverting the Iranian regime is covert aid for their continuing assault on Turkey, then it hardly beggars belief that the War Party is willing to pay it: loyalty is not one of their strong suits, as Iraq's Shi'ites can readily attest." (Justin Raimondo ‘Who's Behind the PKK? In a word: Washington’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11828 October 29, 2007); "At the time, Ali Larijani, the then-secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief negotiator on Iran's nuclear portfolio, visited Turkey to coordinate counter-PKK activity. For six hours, he met with Yigit Alpogan, the secretary general of the National Security Council, then-foreign minister Abdullah Gul and Erdogan. Larijani warned that he had documents implicating US officials in meeting with the PKK, although Washington considers the Kurdish group a terrorist organization. The meetings, at the level of military commanders, had taken place, he claimed, in Mosul and Kirkuk. Larijani asked, "If the US is fighting terrorism, why then is it meeting with the PKK?"" (Sami Moubayed ‘Roots of the Kurdish struggle run deep’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK03Ak01.html November 03, 2007).

Bush’s support for PJAK Terrorist attacks on Iran.
"Iran has access to evidence of U.S. support for terrorist groups in the Middle East, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying on Sunday. Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, made the allegation in comments to visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, whose country may soon send troops to hunt down Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq. Like Turkey, Iran also has faced cross-border attacks by Kurdish rebels and has shelled targets inside Iraq in response. "Escalation of terrorism in the region is one of the direct results of the presence of occupiers in Iraq, particularly America," Jalili, an ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said according to the country's state broadcaster. "And there are documents and information available proving America's support for terrorist groups in the region," he said, without giving details. Jalili is also the new secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council." (‘Iran says documents show U.S. backing "terrorists"’ http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKDAH86038420071028?sp=true October 28, 2007); "The US and Israeli establishment regards Hezbollah as a group of evil super-terrorists. But the PKK consists of just "minor" terrorists, and very useful ones at that, since the US Central Intelligence Agency is covertly financing and arming the PJAK (Party for Free Life in Kurdistan), the Iranian arm of the PKK, whose mission is to "liberate" parts of northwest Iran." (Pepe Escobar ‘Double-crossing in Kurdistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK02Ak01.html November 02, 2007); "A third conspiracy theory popular in Turkey sees the PKK as an American surrogate. It calls itself PEJAK in the Kandil and seeks to foment a liberation war among the Iranian Kurds. So far there have been skirmishes along the border. It is true that the PKK and PEJAK want to present themselves as potential allies of the US. Bozan Tekin rather crudely claimed that Erdogan's moderate pro-business Islamist government supports Hamas and al-Qaida'. Turkish ministers say that the PKK often uses American weapons, though this proves nothing: much of the American military equipment delivered to the Iraqi army is immediately sold in the arms market. No doubt the CIA and maybe Mossad would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the government in Tehran but they are unlikely to use the PKK or its offshoots because of the offence this would cause to the Turks. US officials hypocritically, refuse to condemn PEJAK as 'terrorists', even when they kill Iranian soldiers in forays identical to those the PKK makes into Turkey." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Among Ocalan's Disciples. In the Kandil Mountains with the PKK’ http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick11092007.html November 9, 2007).

Bush’s support for Jundallah Terrorist attacks on Iran.
"The question of whether Washington is engaged in provocations must also be crossing the minds of the Iranian leadership after a bomb attack against a bus carrying members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards in isolated Sistan-Balochistan province on Wednesday. A passenger car loaded with explosives stopped in front of the bus and its passengers fled on motorcycles shortly before the bomb detonated, killing 11 officers, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. There have been conflicting rumors that the Jundallah (Soldier of Allah) group has claimed responsibility for the action. Jundallah, a Sunni Muslim militant group, last year conducted a series of daring raids targeting the Iranian government. In December 2005, Jundallah claimed responsibility for kidnapping seven Iranian soldiers. They were apparently released through negotiations with local tribesmen. Last April, Iranian newspapers reported that "rebels" killed two Iranian army officers and seriously wounded a senior religious official. Two months later, three small explosions injured two people in Zahedan." (Iason Athanasiadis ‘An accident waiting to happen in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB16Ak01.html February 16, 2007).

The Second Set of Compromises made to the Likudniks’ Recent Proposals.
Presidential Appeasement of the Likudniks’ Demands.
It has been pointed out in section 58 that the jews-only lobby and their likudnik allies in congress put forward a series of extreme amendments/bills aimed at sanctioning iran as a prelude to a war against iran. It was proposed that, in effect, the likudniks were challenging the interests of the rest of the world from the president of the united states, other governments around the world, to the world’s multinationals. Compromises were made to the likudniks amendments/bills so they did not get all they wanted. However, the bush regime’s announcement of new sanctions against iran give the likudniks further significant victories. Once again, they did not get all that they wanted but they will continue fighting until they do so.

Sanctions the result of Frustrations with the UN or Presidential Appeasement?
Cole alleged bush’s new sanctions arose from his frustrations with the united nations’ failure to support a third round of sanctions against iran. "These unilateral sanctions clearly reflect frustration on the part of Bush/Cheney that they have not been able to convince the UN Security Council to apply international sanctions. (Iran has not been demonstrated to be doing anything that is illegal in international law)." (Juan Cole ‘US Sanctions on Iran’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_10_01_juanricole_archive.html October 26, 2007). It is much more likely, however, that they have much more to do with dissuading congress from giving the likudniks’ proposals any further support. "Washington justified the new sanctions by accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of the devastating campaign of roadside bombs by Shia militias against its troops in Iraq. Attempts to declare the entire Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the Iranian defence forces, a foreign terrorist organisation were shelved following European opposition." (Leonard Doyle ‘US hits Iran with toughest penalties since 1979 siege’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3098891.ece October 26, 2007); "But the move shies away from designating either the IRGC or the smaller Qods force as terrorist organization and as such significantly falls short of the US Senate vote which designated the larger IRGC as a terrorist organization. It seems to be a compromise intended not to freak out the Europeans who had balked at the idea of placing the military force of another country on the terrorist list." (Farideh Farhi ‘New Unilateral Sanctions against Iran: What Do They Mean?’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-unilateral-sanctions-against-iran.html October 26, 2007). Whether bush’s appeasement tactic will work or not remains to be seen. It is highly unlikely that it will. Bush’s new sanctions make the struggle between jewish power and the rest of the world even more transparent for the following two reasons.

Firstly, Who could be affected by the Sanctions?
The likudnik paulson wanted to create the impression that if any company around the world trades with iran then they are likely to run foul of american laws and thus face severe fines if not imprisonment. "The IRGC is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy and commercial enterprises, it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are doing business with the IRGC," said Secretary Paulson, implying that the US knows that the sanctions will hurt the broader Iranian economy." (Ali Gharib ‘Dialogue Undermined by White House's Iran Sanctions’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/gharib.php?articleid=11817 October 26, 2007).

Pepe escobar suggested those affected are american businesses and those outside america who do business with both the united states and iran. "The new restrictions are unilateral and aim to prevent businesses and other groups both within and outside the US, but that do work within the US, from dealing with individuals who are part of any of the banks, military forces and other organizations in Iran that were named, including the IRGC." (Pepe Escobar 'War on terror' is now war on Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ27Ak03.html October 27, 2007).

Secondly, America’s Likudnik inspired Sanctions are driving a huge wedge between America and Russia/China.
One of the biggest consequences of bush’s likudnik inspired sanctions is to bring about an even greater divorce between america and both russia and china who are becoming increasingly unwilling to cave in to unilateral american demands. "The more than 20 companies and individuals affiliated with the IRGC that are now excluded from the American financial system, and nodes of the international banking system, will still have plenty of opportunities of doing business with Russia, China or Arab monarchies. They may barter. They may exchange goods with services. And they may resort to the black market. As far as Moscow and Beijing are concerned, they are hardly shivering with fear in the face of renewed State Department "warnings" to China not to invest and Russia not to sell weapons to Iran." (Pepe Escobar 'War on terror' is now war on Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ27Ak03.html October 27, 2007).

The bush regime seems willing to sacrifice positive relationships with both russia and china for the sake of implementing likudnik policies aimed at promoting the interests of the jews-only state. There are those who argue that america invaded iraq for the sake of oil. And yet a similar argument does not seem to apply to america’s relationship with russia. It might have been thought after the cold war, given russia’s vast natural resources, that america would have gone out of its way to cultivate a close relationship with russia to ensure its priority to these resources. But the reverse has been true. The bush regime has gone out of its way to antagonize and alienate russia preventing the two countries from developing an amicable relationship. What this seems to imply is that the bush regime is more willing to support jewish supremacism in the middle east than it is to develop an alliance with the world’s fossil fuel superpower.

It is hard to imagine that a tiny country of six million people could be so powerful as to bring about an increasing divorce between america and both russia and china even though the former is a fossil fuel superpower and the latter is one of america’s biggest lenders and the world’s most rapidly developing economic power. The likudniks are forcing the bush regime to alienate these two global powers to such an extent that it is driving them into an alliance against america.

The likudniks are forcing the bush regime to focus so much on implementing policies for the benefit of the jews only state it has alienated turkey, a long standing american ally, by promoting kurdish terrorism. It is alienating russia and china even though it needs strong relations with both. Even putting aside the fact that america could have a strong strategic relationship with iran, at present the bush regime is so alienating turkey, russia, and china, that it is driving them into a closer alliance with each other which will increasingly damage america’s national interests. Such is the scale of jewish power that it is forcing the world’s military and economic hyperpower to alienate itself from three major players around the world at the expense of its own interests in order to boost jewish supremacism. It has driven america into an economic, political and military, disaster in iraq. It is driving america into an economic, political and military, catastrophe in iran.

Bush’s New Sanctions: Promoting Global Jewish Power against the rest of the World.
The likudniks are the primary if not the sole driving force demanding american and global sanctions against iran. The greater the sanctions that america imposes upon iran, either unilaterally or globally, the more transparent it becomes that jewish power is taking on the entire world. "A renewed push from Jewish organizations for tougher sanctions against Iran is facing tough obstacles in Washington and capitals throughout the world. American Jewish groups are aggressively attempting to rally support for isolating Iran until it ends its suspected nuclear weapons program. They are lobbying Congress, reaching out to friendly nations overseas and seeking allies in the United States. Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is warning that Iran is close to acquiring the knowledge it needs to build nuclear weapons. Officials at the Anti-Defamation League have launched a campaign in support of tougher sanctions, and recently pressed the issue in a meeting in Moscow with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Also, the American Jewish Committee has been meeting with foreign leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy. In the latest manifestation of the renewed push, delegates to the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities in Nashville passed a resolution Monday calling on federations and Jewish community relations councils to move on the Iran issue by initiating, coordinating and funding "expanded efforts aimed at both educating and mobilizing the Jewish community as well as partnering with other respected members in the broader community."" (Ron Kampeas ‘Israel, U.S. Jews intensify efforts to isolate Iran’ http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20071111heinleinmofaz.html November 11, 2007).

81. Military base being prepared for Attack on Iran – October 29 2007.
"The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military sources. The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft." (Ian Bruce ‘Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans’ http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1792035.0.0.php October 29 2007).

82. Iran is "Single greatest challenge to American security interests" – October 31 2007.
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch." (Ray McGovern ‘Attacking Iran for Israel?’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11835 October 31, 2007).