The Drumbeat for a War against Iran - September

Updated January 23, 2008

36. Heritage Foundation War Games - September 02, 2007.
"The good news is that this was a war game; for those who fear war with Iran, the less happy news is that the officials were real. The simulation, which took four months, was run by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with close links to the White House. Its conclusions, drawn up last month and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, have been passed on to military and civilian planners charged with drawing up plans for confronting Iran. News that elements of the American government are working in earnest on how to deal with the fallout of an attack on Iran come at a tense moment. The war gamers advocated deploying American oil reserves, good for 60 days, using military force to break the blockade (two US aircraft carrier groups and half of America's 277 warships are already stationed close to Iran), opening up oil development in Alaska, and ending import tariffs on ethanol fuel. If the government also subsidised fuel for poorer Americans, the war-gamers concluded, it would mitigate the financial consequences of a conflict. The Heritage report concludes: "The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes from the blockade."" (Tim Shipman ‘Will President Bush bomb Iran?’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/02/wiran102.xml September 02, 2007).

37. Kimberly Kagan’s Likudnik Report - September 02, 2007.
Kimberly kagan is the wife of fred kagan, the hardline likudnik, warmongering, fundamentalist who formulated bush’s "surge" strategy in iraq. "The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the coalition must tackle"." (Sarah Baxter ‘Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece September 02, 2007).

38. Alexis Debat suggests Massive Airstrikes on Iran - September 02, 2007.
Alexis Debat’s Likudnik Propaganda.
"The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert. Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for "pinprick strikes" against Iran’s nuclear facilities. "They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said." (Sarah Baxter ‘Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece September 02, 2007); "The Sunday Times of London reports from Washington a story I have not seen in any U.S. media: that "the Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days." The source of this report was Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center." (Barnett R. Rubin ‘Administration's Iran, drug policies endanger Afghanistan’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/09/administrations-iran-drug-policies.html September 02, 2007).

The Unmasking of a Neocon Warmongering Trickster.
"Alexis Debat, the French terrorism and security "expert" cited by the Times, has been a major neocon cheerleader for widening the Iraq War policies and for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. He has been presented as an expert on terrorism and/or national security, not only by the Sunday Times (an organ of Rupert Murdoch’s hawkish media empire), but also by ABC News, PBS, the Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Time, the International Herald Tribune, and the National Interest. He was until recently a reporter and consultant for ABC News and a senior fellow at the prestigious Nixon Center. However, it turns out that Monsieur Debat is a complete fraud. "Dr." Debat’s Ph.D. from the Sorbonne doesn’t exist. The interviews he supposedly conducted with Alan Greenspan, Bill Gates, Barak Obama, Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, and others were totally fabricated. ABC News and the Nixon Center have quietly announced that he "resigned" recently from their employ." (William F. Jasper ‘Pushing War With Iran’ http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5999 October 29, 2007).

39. Cheney testing out his "End Run Strategy" through the Jos’s attack on Syria? – September 06, 2007.
Cheney proposed an end run strategy in which the jos would attack iran’s nuclear facilities in order to force bush into declaring war against iran. Is it possible that the jos’s airstrikes against syria were a trial to assess the military and political feasibility of such a tactic? "Some believe that the Office of the Vice President is continuing to battle any attempts at diplomacy made by the US State Department in an effort to ensure no alternative but a military solution to destabilize and strike Iran, using Syria's alleged nuclear weapons program and close relations with Iran as a possible pretext." (Larisa Alexandrovna ‘Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say’ http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Intelligence_officials_say_Israel_received_flawed_0924.html September 24, 2007).

40. US to build Military base at Shindand on border with Iran - September 10, 2007.
New American base in southern Iraq.
"The US military said on Monday that it is to build a base on Iraq's border with Iran to stem what it charges is rampant smuggling of weapons and fighters. The base, which the military describes as a "life support area", will be set up near the headquarters of the Department of Border Enforcement in Badrah, in the central province of Wasit. The province, currently the theatre of a massive US-led military crackdown targeting Shiite militiamen allegedly involved in weapons smuggling, shares a 200 kilometre (125 mile) border with Iran. "We've got a major problem with Iranian munitions streaming into Iraq," Major General Rick Lynch, the commander of US army forces in central Iraq, was quoted as saying by the Wall Street Journal on Monday. "This Iranian interference is troubling and we have to stop it." The newspaper gave further details about the base, saying it will have living quarters for some 200 soldiers, will be built six kilometres (four miles) from the border and should be completed by November." (‘US to build military base on Iraq-Iran border’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070910/pl_afp/usiraqiranmilitary September 10, 2007).

It has been argued. "In late July, Bush agreed in principle to a proposal by Cheney for cross-border military strikes against IRGC targets that have allegedly been involved in training and supplying Iraqi Shi'ite militias, according to Philip Giraldi, a former military intelligence and CIA officer, writing recently in the American Conservative. But the Pentagon brass, which has become increasingly outspoken about the overextension of ground forces in Iraq and the uncertainty about how Iran would react, countered with a more cautious strategy of building a new military base and extending patrolling along suspected smuggling routes, according to knowledgeable sources." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007).

New American base in western Afghanistan.
"The Americans have recently begun work to expand Shindand airbase, in western Afghanistan, which is within 50 miles of Iran's border. Afghan officials insist that this is in preparation for Shindand becoming the main base for the newly formed Afghan Army Air Corps and say they have a written undertaking by the US government not to use the bases for military operations against Iran." (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).

41. Brit Hume’s interview with Petraeus - September 10, 2007.
"Further evidence that the Bush administration has taken a step closer to geographic escalation of the war came in a September 10 interview by Brit Hume of Fox News with General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq. Hume, who appeared to have been tipped off to ask about the option of broadening the war into Iran, asked Petraeus whether the "rules of engagement" allowed him to "do what you think you need to do to suppress this activity on the part of Iran, or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?" Pressed by Hume, Petraeus said, "When I have concerns about something beyond [the border], I take them to my boss ... and in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command, and there is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation."" (Gareth Porter ‘US frets at Iran's 'strategic dominance'’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II28Ak01.html September 28, 2007).

42. Petraeus’ Surge Speech claims Iran fighting Proxy War against America - September 11, 2007.
Press Reports.
"The top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said on Monday that Iran was fighting a "proxy war" in Iraq through the covert operations unit of the Revolutionary Guards, the Quds force. "It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Quds force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq," Petraeus said." (Farhad Pouladi ‘Iran warns over 'US weak points' in Iraq, Afghanistan’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070911/wl_mideast_afp/iranmilitaryusiraqafghanistan_070911121337 September 11, 2007).

Justin Raimondo.
"If you go through the Petraeus report, the key passages are those that deal with Iran. Petraeus continually points the finger at Tehran as an explanation for the lack of "progress" in Iraq. In answer to questions from the senators, Petraeus gave away the show when he bluntly stated, "We cannot win Iraq solely in Iraq." Oh no, we have to conquer most of the rest of the Middle East, including Iran, Syria, and who-knows-where-else before we can even begin to talk about winning in Iraq." (Justin Raimondo ‘Surging Toward Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11599 September 12, 2007).

Kim Sengupta.
"The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state". In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation" he said." (Kim Sengupta ‘The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece September 12, 2007).

Gareth Porter unravels the Misinterpretations.
"In his prepared statement to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees last week, Gen. David Petraeus claimed that Iran is using the Quds Force to turn Shi'ite militias into a "Hezbollah-like force" to "fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq." But Petraeus then shattered that carefully constructed argument by volunteering in answering a question that the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, had essentially left Iraq. "The Quds force itself, we believe, by and large those individuals have been pulled out of the country as have the Lebanese Hezbollah trainers that were being used to augment that activity…." Petraeus' contradictory statements on the Quds force are emblematic of an administration propaganda line that has essentially fallen apart because it was so obviously out of line with reality. Nine months after the George W. Bush administration declared that it was going to go after Iranian agents in Iraq who were threatening U.S. troops, the U.S. military still has not produced any evidence that the Quds Force operatives in Iraq were engaged in assisting the militias fighting against U.S. troops. The U.S. military command in Iraq has failed to capture a single Quds Force member whom it could link to the Shi'ite militias. And the evidence that has emerged over the past nine months about Shi'ite militias and their relationship to Iran suggests that Quds force personnel in Iraq never had the mission of assisting Shi'ite militias, as claimed by the Bush administration." (Gareth Porter ‘Petraeus Helps Destroy Bush's 'Proxy War' Claim’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11633 September 18, 2007).

43. The Likudnik Lieberman stirs it up Again - September 11, 2007.
"Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who is among the Senate's fiercest hawks, blamed Iran for the deaths of "hundreds of American troops," and claimed the US has evidence that Iran is training insurgents outside Tehran before sending them to Iraq. He asked whether the US should expand its invasion into Iran. "Is it time to give you authority, in pursuit of your mission in Iraq, to pursue those Iranian Quds Force operations in Iranian territory, in order to protect Americas troops in Iraq," Lieberman (I-CT) asked at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee." (Nick Juliano ‘Lieberman blames Iran for Iraq attacks, asks if invasion should be authorized’ http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Obama_Holding_Iraq_hearing_on_911_0911.html September 11, 2007).

44. Lynch claims 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs - September 12, 2007.
"Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, commander of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs had been used against his forces killing nine soldiers. "We've got a major problem with Iranian munitions streaming into Iraq. This Iranian interference is troubling and we have to stop it," he told The Wall Street Journal this week." (Kim Sengupta ‘The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece September 12, 2007).

45. Bergner blames Iran for Rocket Attack - September 12, 2007.
"U.S. military officials in Iraq tell ABC News that a rocket used in an attack on coalition headquarters at Camp Victory Tuesday was made in Iran. Officials say the rocket, which narrowly missed its target, was fired from an area of Baghdad controlled by Shia militia leader Moqtada al Sadr. Officials say Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, will display fragments of the 240mm rocket, complete with Iranian markings, at a press conference in Baghdad Thursday. "We want to show the link between the Iranian weapons and the damage they are doing," said a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad." (Jonathan Karl ‘Iran Linked to Iraq Rocket Attack’ http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3593296&page=1 September 12, 2007); "US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed would be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this week by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq. A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner, raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US military headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American soldier and wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran." (Julian Borger and Ian Black ‘Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts warn’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2169798,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront September 15, 2007).

46. Petraeus claims there is evidence against Iran - September 12, 2007.
"Despite the assertion by Gen. David Petraeus on September 12, quoted in the proposed Lieberman-Kyle amendment, that the U.S. military obtained evidence of the complicity of Iranian officials in arming and training Shiite militias from interrogations of the above detainees, it has not produced wither detainee or any transcript of the interrogations. Nor has it released a direct quote from either detainee. No apparent intelligence reason exists for withholding such evidence from Congress and the public." (Gareth Porter ‘Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure’ http://www.alternet.org/audits/63740/?page=entire September 27, 2007).

47. Crocker comes out to bat against Iran - September 13, 2007.
"Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, coming off two days of congressional testimony, told the Post that the administration was building support for a third United Nations resolution that would impose harsher sanctions against Iran. He accused Tehran of pursuing a "fairly aggressive strategy" on the ground in Iraq, according to the Post. "We know what you're doing in Iraq. It needs to stop," Crocker told his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, he said in the Post interview. Crocker's sit-down with Post editors and reporters appears to be the latest step in what is emerging as a coordinated push against Tehran. The ambassador spent Monday and Tuesday testifying in front of four House and Senate committees alongside Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq. The two officials invoked the Iranian threat in Iraq dozens of times in their testimony, which was meant to provide Congress with a progress report on President Bush's troop surge earlier this year." (Nick Juliano ‘Bush team's Iraq ambassador briefs Washington Post editors and reporters on Iran’ http://rawstory.com//news/2007/AntiIran_drumbeat_continues_from_US_diplomat_0913.html September 13, 2007).

48. Negroponte complains Iran supplying Taliban with Chinese weapons - September 14, 2007.
"U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte says Washington has complained to Beijing about Chinese weapons shipments to Iran that appear to be turning up in the hands of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Negroponte confirmed the U.S. concerns over China's weapons deals with Tehran after a 10-ton weapons cache was discovered in the western Afghan province of Herat. The cache found in Ghurian district, near the border with Iran, included artillery shells, land mines, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers with Chinese, Russian, and Persian markings on them. To date, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to publicly support allegations of a direct link between Tehran and weapons shipments to the Taliban. "We don't have any such evidence so far of the involvement of the Iranian government in supplying the Taliban. We have a very good relationship with the Iranian government. Iran and Afghanistan have never been as friendly as they are today," Karzai said. Vatanka says that as long as Karzai maintains that position, skeptics around the world will dismiss suggestions from Washington that Tehran is supplying Taliban fighters in Afghanistan." (‘Afghanistan: U.S. Worried Iran Sending Chinese Weapons To Taliban’ http://www.payvand.com/news/07/sep/1177.html September 14, 2007).

49. American officials believe Bush following Cheney’s Provocation Strategy - September 16, 2007.
Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman.
"Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran. In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq, arming and training militants, would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories. A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured. Under the theory, which is gaining credence in Washington security circles, US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces. Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics." (Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman ‘Bush setting America up for war with Iran’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml September 16, 2007).

Condi still Opposes Cheney.
These two commentators quote american officials who believe the bush regime is moving towards war with iran. They suspect war is even more likely because they believe rice has relented in her opposition to cheney’s desire for war. However, other commentators argue rice is still fighting her corner and, specifically, trying to prevent the bush regime from designating the irgc as a terrorist organization. "While White House officials and members of the vice president's staff have been pushing to blacklist the entire Revolutionary Guard, the officials said, officials at the State and Treasury departments are pushing for a narrower approach that would list only the Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force as well as companies and organizations with financial ties to that group. The designation would set into 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 group." (Helene Cooper ‘Iran strategy divides Bush administration’ http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/15/africa/diplo.1-134423.php September 15, 2007); "But not everyone in Washington is sold on the idea of upping the ante against Iran. The New York Times has reported of a growing rift between the hawks, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, and the doves, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, over Iran policy. This has been reflected in the US media, with hawks such as Max Boot defending the Cheney line by anticipating a "catastrophic" victory for Iran and al-Qaeda if the US withdraws from Iraq, and more moderate voices such as the Washington Post's David Ignatius, calling for "cooling" US-Iran tensions, eg by endorsing a growing call by various US military leaders for an "incident at sea agreement" with Iran." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Growing need for US-Iran confidence steps’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II18Ak01.html September 18, 2007).

Iran is America’s best Excuse for staying in Iraq.
Iran is becoming the only viable excuse for americans to stay in iraq since all other rationales have disintegrated. "Beyond its nuclear program, Iran has emerged as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration, U.S. officials say, by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip." (Helene Cooper ‘Iran strategy divides Bush administration’ http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/15/africa/diplo.1-134423.php September 15, 2007).

50. Petraeus on kidnapping of Qais Khazali - September 16, 2007.
"Petraeus said U.S. troops had captured Qais Khazali, a leader of the "special groups" of the Mahdi Army, which is trained by the elite al-Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. According to Petraeus, when interrogators asked Khazali if he could have conducted his deadly attacks without Iranian support, the Shiite fighter responded, "Of course not!" Crocker said he has warned Iran's ambassador to Baghdad that "no Quds Force officer is going to be safe in Iraq."" (David Ignatius ‘Cooling The Clash With Iran’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402051.html September 16, 2007).

51. Jerusalem Post publicizes Jane's Defence Weekly allegation that Syria and Iran developing Chemical Weapons - September 17, 2007.
"Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria. According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas." ('Dozens died in Syria-Iran missile test' http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411428847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull September 19, 2007).

52. McNeill claims Iran supplying Arms to Afghanistan - September 20, 2007.
"A top NATO commander said Thursday that a shipment of weapons intercepted by international forces in western Afghanistan this month clearly came from Iran and almost certainly was sent here with the knowledge of "at least the Iranian military." U.S. Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, NATO's senior commander in Afghanistan, said a convoy of weapons captured Sept. 6 in the far western province of Farah, which shares a long border with Iran, was transporting "upscale" roadside bombs that had the hallmarks of those made in Iran and used with lethal regularity against U.S. forces in Iraq. "I think there is sufficient intelligence to put together a picture that says this convoy that we intercepted the other day, which clearly geographically originated in Iran, and other things that we've encountered, it would be hard for me to imagine that they had come into Afghanistan without the knowledge of at least the military in Iran," McNeill said. "Who is that military?" he said. "Likely the Republican Guard Corps, could be the Quds Force part of that," he said, referring to Iran's elite military corps and its unit that specializes in covert operations. The Washington Post reported over the weekend that international forces had intercepted the convoy in Farah province, a remote and sparsely populated area of desert and swampland, as it apparently was seeking a less-traveled route into Afghanistan. International forces captured two smaller shipments of sophisticated roadside bombs believed to be from Iran in April and May in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province, a stronghold of the Taliban insurgency and one of the most violent areas in the country." (John Ward Anderson ‘Arms Seized in Afghanistan Sent From Iran, NATO Says’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092001236_pf.html September 21, 2007

53. Americans Kidnap another Iranian Diplomat - September 20, 2007.
The Bush regime accuse Farhadi of being a Terrorist.
"Coalition forces on Thursday arrested a suspected member of an elite Iranian unit that has been accused of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. military said. The military said the suspect, who was not identified, is a member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Quds Force. The U.S. military calls the force "a covert action arm of the Iranian government responsible for aiding lethal attacks against the Iraqi government and coalition forces." The military said the Quds Force suspect was involved in bringing roadside bombs from Iran into Iraq and in training foreign terrorists in Iraq. The man, captured in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya, is one of several Iranians in U.S. custody in Iraq." (‘U.S. military says it nabbed Iranian commando in Iraq’ http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/20/iraq.main/index.html?section=cnn_latest September 20, 2007); "The latest was the arrest of an Iranian "officer" by US forces at a hotel in Baghdad who is identified by Iraq's government as part of a trade delegation on an official visit. It remains to be seen whether the United States' allegations against this individual turn out to be correct or a tissue of disinformation timed with Ahmadinejad's New York visit." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Iranophobia hits Ground Zero’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II22Ak01.html September 22, 2007); "(US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark) Fox reiterated that Iranian national Mahmudi Farhadi, detained on Thursday in the northern province of Sulaimaniyah, is one of the kingpins in the bomb smuggling operations. "He is a member of the Ramazan Corps, the Quds Force department responsible for all operations in Iraq," Fox said. "We are fulfilling our professional responsibility to detain those individuals who are smuggling these illegal weapons into Iraq," he added. Iran insists that Farhadi is a civilian official on a visit to Iraq as part of a trade delegation." (Iran smuggling missiles into Iraq: US military’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070923/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestiranus September 23, 2007); "US officials have alleged that the arrested man, Mahmudi Farhadi, is not a diplomat as Iraqi and Iranian officials insist, but has instead been involved in smuggling weapons into Iraq." (Dan Murphy ‘U.S. moves in Iraq may push Iraqi and Iranian governments closer’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0924/p99s01-duts.html September 25, 2007).

Views of Scott Ritter.
"In the first, Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a spokesperson for the U.S. military in Iraq, let it be known that U.S. forces had captured a "known operative" of the "Ramazan Corps," the ostensible branch of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard command responsible for all Iranian operations inside Iraq. This "operative," one Mahmudi Farhadi, was, according to Fox, the "linchpin" behind the smuggling of "sophisticated weapons" into Iraq by the Quds Force. The fate of Farhadi is likewise up in the air. None other than Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, a staunch pro-American, condemned the detention of Farhadi by U.S. military forces, noting that the Iranian was a well-known businessman who was in Iraq as part of an official trade delegation. The Iranians have threatened to close down cross-border trade in Talabani’s sector of Iraqi Kurdistan, shutting down a key income stream for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi Kurdish faction Talabani heads. Such is the reality of modern Iraq." (Scott Ritter ‘Iraq Will Have to Wait’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070927_ritter_stop_iran_war/ September 27, 2007).

54. Fallon heading off the Warmongering Likudnik Loonies - September 21, 2007.
Press Reports.
"Adm. William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, said Iran's Revolutionary Guard is supplying roadside bomb parts for the type of sophisticated and deadly bombs found in Iraq known as explosively formed penetrators. "The Iranians are clearly supplying some amount of lethal aid," Fallon told The Associated Press during a trip to Afghanistan. "There is no doubt ... that agents from Iran are involved in aiding the insurgency." Fallon said the U.S. was carefully watching the flow of weapons from Iran and said the U.S. would "act decisively" if the cross-border flow continues. His comments were not meant as a threat of military action against Iran but a suggestion that border interdiction efforts may need to be increased, Fallon's aides said later." (‘U.S. commander: Iran gives militants 'lethal aid'’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-21-afghan-violence_N.htm?csp=34 September 21, 2007).

And yet, "The commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East does not believe current tensions with Iran will lead to war and urges for greater emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy. "This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful," Adm. William Fallon said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday. "I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for," said Fallon during the Friday interview at Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. "We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all .... It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions."" (‘U.S. military chief foresees 'no war' with Iran’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-23-iran-fallon_N.htm September 23, 2007).

Jim Lobe.
Lobe argues the continuing battle between those opposed to military action against iran and those in favour have reached a standoff. "The continuing paralysis, however, appears to have favored the hawks, who have pressed their campaign for cross-border military action against Iran in the opinion pages of such neoconservative publications as the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and the Wall Street Journal. Their calls for action became so intense that the commander of the Central Command and Petraeus' superior, Adm. William Fallon, who has been trying to get authorization to negotiate an "incidents at sea" agreement with Iran, complained publicly that "this constant drumbeat of conflict is ...not helpful and not useful. It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions," he told al-Jazeera." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007).

55. Rear Admiral Mark Fox alleges Iran smuggling missiles into Iraq - September 23, 2007.
"Iran is smuggling advanced weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, into Iraq to be used by extremists against American troops, the US military charged on Sunday. US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told reporters in Baghdad that Iran was shifting sophisticated arms such as "RPG-29s, explosively-formed penetrators (EFPs), 240 mm rockets and Misagh-1 surface-to-air missiles" across its borders into Iraq." (Iran smuggling missiles into Iraq: US military’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070923/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestiranus September 23, 2007).

56. Bush and Podhoretz organize Publicity stunt for War - September 24, 2007.
The following news item is presented as a personal effort by Podhoretz to persuade bush to attack iran when in all likelihood this was just a publicity stunt to promote a war against iran. "President Bush and Karl Rove sat listening to Norman Podhoretz for roughly 45 minutes at the White House as the patriarch of neoconservatism argued that the United States should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. The meeting was not on the president’s public schedule." (David Paul Kuhn ‘Podhoretz secretly urged Bush to bomb Iran’ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5964.html September 24, 2007).

57. House passes Iran Counterproliferation Act and the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act against Iran - September 25, 2007.
The likudnik dominated american congress was busy debating two bills on iran, one in the house of representatives and the other in the senate. The debates over these bills were almost certainly timed to embarrass mahmoud ahmadinejad before he gave a speech in new york at the united nations’ general assembly.

Press Report.
"The US House of Representatives aimed a sharp jab at Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday, slapping new energy sanctions on Tehran, and branding its Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. A measure targeting the elite military corps and the lucrative Iranian energy sector sailed through the House by 397 votes to 16, hours before Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The legislation is aimed at depriving Iran of proceeds from energy sales which could be diverted into funding its nuclear program, which the West says is intended to produce atomic weapons, a charge Tehran denies. The bill sanctions foreign companies with US subsidiaries which invest in Iran, particularly in the oil and gas sectors. It also prohibits civilian nuclear cooperation with nations that support Iran's nuclear program and calls on the US government to urge foreign states and banks to divest from Iranian interests. It also calls on the State Department to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a "foreign terrorist organization" and therefore open the corps and affiliated companies to economic sanctions. The House bill, named the Iran Counterproliferation Act, takes away the often used power of the US president to waive sanctions against giant global oil firms which do business in the Iranian energy sector. It also bars Iranian imports into the United States." (‘US House votes to tighten Iran nuclear sanctions’ http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiAuEr6DaumEXCldgqkOl51dLS5A September 25, 2007).

Jim Lobe.
"At the same time, the House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously, 408-6, for another measure, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would force Bush to impose sweeping sanctions against foreign companies that invest more than 20 million dollars in Iran's energy sector. That bill, which is opposed by the Bush administration itself due to strong pressure from Washington's European and Asian allies and key multinational companies, is considered likely to stall in the Senate through the remainder of this year." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007).

58. The Lieberman/Kyl Amendment to the Senate’s Defense Authorization bill for War with Iran - September 26, 2007.
The militant, lukudnik extremist, joe lieberman, teamed up with another likudnik jon kyl to propose an amendment to the defense authorization bill going through the senate that would in effect give the bush regime the go ahead for an attack on iran. As if to make it obvious beyond dispute that this was a likudnik proposal to push america into another war for the sake of the jews-only state in palestine, the amendment was written by aipac.

Commentators’ Views on Amendment.
Marjorie Cohn.
"Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl just introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would authorize Bush to attack Iran. Here is the language from the amendment:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
If the Congress adopts this amendment, U.S. policy would be to "combat" Iran with "all . . . military instruments." It is imperative that this amendment be defeated." (Marjorie Cohn ‘The Drift Toward War: Pursue Diplomacy, Not War, with Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn09252007.html September 25, 2007).

Jim Lobe alleges AIPAC wrote the Amendment.
"Amid growing speculation about prospects for military action against Iran, neoconservatives and other hawks won a significant, if somewhat incomplete, victory in rallying the Democratic-led Congress to its side. In a 76-22 vote Wednesday, senators approved a non-binding amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill that called for the administration of President George W. Bush to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "a foreign terrorist organization." Indeed, it was Lieberman and Republican Sen. John Kyl, the honorary co-chairs of the pro-Likud Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), who co-sponsored the Senate amendment naming the IRGC as a terrorist group in an effort clearly designed to help tilt the internal balance within the administration. As introduced, the amendment, which, according to several Capitol Hill sources, was drafted by AIPAC, actually went considerably further, deploying language that some senators argued could be interpreted as authorizing war against Iran." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007).

Mike Gravel insists AIPAC was behind Amendment.
On the jim lehrer news hour show, ray suarez interviewed former alaska senator and democratic presidential hopeful mike gravel.

RAY SUAREZ: You're 77. Why put yourself through this?

MIKE GRAVEL: I love my country, and I love the human race. And I want to see a change made in the leadership of our country so we can do more to protect the human race....With respect to my country going to war when there's no reason to go to war, killing human beings, I'm ashamed of this. I'm ashamed of the leadership we have, whether it's Democratic leadership or Republican leadership. That's the reason why I'm in. Look what we're trying to do with Iran right now. Last week, the Lieberman resolution, he's the guy that wrote the resolution with Iraq and killed over 3,000 Americans and a million Iraqis. And now he comes forward with another resolution, and the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate doesn't even have the brains or the judgment to recognize what he's doing. Sanctions on the Republican Guard? They already have sanctions. The U.N. passed them in March, Resolution 1747. What is the game they're playing right now to have sanctions? I mean, this was AIPAC that put Lieberman up to do this. This is disaster... If we touch Iran and they respond, you're talking about, in the minimum, a world depression, because the oil industry will just get shut down at the Straits of Hormuz. That's the minimum.

RAY SUAREZ: You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American- Israeli Political Action Committee?

MIKE GRAVEL: Wait a second. They'll be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer. The worst that will happen will be a nuclear exchange, and I don't think we'll ever be able to contain once they start shooting bombs at each other nuclear devices. This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray." (Gravel Discusses Campaign Funding, Relations with Iran http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/gravel_10-01.html October 1, 2007).

Philip weiss commented on this exchange. "What is most significant about this is that the question of Israel's interest versus America's interest in confronting Iran is out on the table, on public television." (Philip Weiss ‘Sen. Gravel Say AIPAC Is Pushing Confrontation With Iran’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/10/sen-gravel-say-.html October 02, 2007).

Hersh states that Rich Jews paid for AIPAC’s Amendment.
In an interview with mike gravel and hilary clinton, gravel bitterly criticized clinton for voting in favor of the lieberman/kyl amendment. When asked to respond to gravel’s criticism, clinton just laughed.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of, right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside." (Seymour Hersh: White House Intensifying Plans to Attack Iran’ http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1438251 October 2nd, 2007).

William A Cook.
"Why pretend that an established arm of the government of Iran is a terrorist organization when the opposite is so evident? Because Cheney and Bush and their Neo-con/AIPAC alliance have not been able to convince the American people of the threat to the US should Iran eventually acquire nuclear capability. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives this administration license to attack Iran using the original resolution passed by the Congress for the invasion of Afghanistan since Iran now harbors terrorists that threaten America." (William A Cook ‘Unmasking AIPAC’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cook10052007.html October 5, 2007).

Philip Giraldi.
"Lieberman was the co-sponsor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the recently passed defense appropriations bill, which passed by a Senate vote of 76 to 22 on Sept. 26, 2007. The amendment stated that "the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States." Lieberman's press release on the subject, dated July 11, 2007, accused Iran of "murdering our troops" and quoted Sen. John Kyl, who blamed Iran for "actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq." When the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was debated in the Senate, James Webb of Virginia said, "At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate." Webb also called the amendment "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream" and noted correctly that the attempt to categorize the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary guard as a "foreign terrorist organization" would mandate military action against Iran: "What do we do with terrorist organizations? … We attack them."" (Philip Giraldi ‘Joe Lieberman's War’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11858 November 6, 2007).

Rice denies Amendment gives Bush the go-ahead for War.
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she does not believe a Senate resolution authorizes President Bush to take military action against Iran. "There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view. And, clearly, the president has also made very clear that he's on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus," Rice said. While the resolution, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure. Her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. Clinton insists her vote would not support military strikes and instead was a vote for stepped-up diplomacy. On Sunday, Rice echoed that view. She said Bush was focused on diplomatic options, not waging war." (‘Rice: Iran resolution doesn't OK war’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_1 November 11, 2007).

The Likudniks solely responsible for anti-Iran Bills.
Senate’s Defense Authorization bill.
The jews-only lobby in america and its likudnik supporters in the senate were solely responsible for initiating, promoting, and eventually passing, the lieberman/kyl amendment to the senate’s defense authorization bill. The amendment was written by aipac.

Liebermann is a well known likudnik. "In 1998 he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Baghdad official U.S. policy. His regular forays to Baghdad have convinced him that Iraq has been transformed from "primitive, killing tyranny" into "modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood."" (Philip Giraldi ‘Joe Lieberman's War’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11858 November 6, 2007). He has frequently demanded that america attack iran. "In an April 2006 interview in the Jerusalem Post, he freely discussed using military force to disarm Iran, noting that the U.S. had learned a lesson from both Osama bin Laden and Hitler that "sometimes when people say really extreme things … they may actually mean it." In December 2006, Lieberman followed up by explaining that he opposed direct talks with Iran because it would be like going to "your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire. They are extremists." On Dec. 29, 2006, Lieberman wrote a Washington Post op-ed in which he explained the situation in the Middle East in simple terms: "On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States."" (Philip Giraldi ‘Joe Lieberman's War’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11858 November 6, 2007). He was the first to call for the american military to carry out cross border attacks on iran. "On June 10, 2007, Lieberman told Face the Nation, "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike into … over the border into Iran … where they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers." He later stated that "By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," and, for good measure, he added that if Iran is not willing to live "according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them." On the following day, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said "It sure does," after being asked if the Lieberman statement would make it easier for the White House to consider an attack against Iran." (Philip Giraldi ‘Joe Lieberman's War’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11858 November 6, 2007); "In fact, the first call for cross-border attacks on Iranian targets was made by the Senate's "independent" Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, who is regarded as particularly close to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007). He has also supported the jews-only state’s allegation that america needs to go to war against iran because iran is already at war with america. "The Post's assertion that Iran is already at war with the U.S. has a familiar ring to it. It has already been used by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and was originally coined by the Israel lobby." (Philip Giraldi ‘Who's Killing American Soldiers in Iraq? Iran or the White House?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11509 August 28, 2007); "On July 6, 2007, Lieberman wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he claimed, "The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East. American now has a solemn responsibility to utilize the instruments of our national power to convince Tehran to change its behavior," employing "credible force" because Iran is bringing "about the death of American service members in Iraq." He described, without providing any evidence, how the "Iranian government has been using the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to train and organize Iraqi extremists, who are responsible in turn for the murder of American service members." He called Iran's role as "hostile and violent" and complained that Tehran's "fanatical government" demonstrates "expansionistic, extremist behavior." After again referring to Iran's "fanatical regime," he cited "attacks on American soldiers" as a reason why Iran "must be confronted head on."" (Philip Giraldi ‘Joe Lieberman's War’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11858 November 6, 2007).

Kyl is a militant likudnik fruitcake. "Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) compared today's Iran to Nazi Germany: "During the run up to World War II, Europe failed to heed the warnings." He believes that Washington has given Tehran too many concessions, including allowing some private trade. "The price of their aggression has been too cheap for too long," he added." (Doug Bandow ‘Iran, World War III, and the Madness of President George’ http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=11845 November 2, 2007). Lieberman and kyl are "the honorary co-chairs of the pro-Likud Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) .." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007).

House of Representatives’ Iran Counter-Proliferation Act and the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act.
At the same time as the likudniks were pushing through this bill in the senate they also won massive majorities in the house of representatives for the iran counterproliferation act and the iran sanctions enabling act. "The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act [.pdf], so-called, doesn't bother targeting goods and services that Iran might put to military use. Instead, it takes a broad-brush approach and openly seeks to strangle Iran economically. The legislation, written by champion warmonger Tom Lantos, would prohibit the import of any and all items from Iran, ban dealings with Iranian banks, stop the export of items having to do with civil aviation, and ratchet up the pressure on other countries to impose similar restrictions. Furthermore, Lantos wants a report from the White House every six months on the "progress" being made to tighten the chokehold on Iran." (Justin Raimondo ‘Tom Lantos, Warmonger’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11204 June 27, 2007); The Iran Counter Proliferation Act of 2007 (HR 1400), introduced by Democrat Tom Lantos in March, aims to increase economic pressure on Iran by eliminating President George W Bush's ability to waive sanctions against foreign companies that invest in the country's energy industry. The bill would also restrict US nuclear cooperation with countries such as Russia that assist Iran's nuclear and weapons programs. "Our goal must be zero foreign investment, let me repeat this, zero foreign investment, in Iran's energy sector. That is the only formula that can prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons," said Lantos in statement released by the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, which he chairs. HR 1400 is just one of several bills in Congress and state legislatures to respond to a grassroots campaign calling for divestment in companies that do business with countries that the State Department considers state sponsors of terrorism. In the past year, state lawmakers in California, Missouri, Florida and New Jersey have introduced bills that specifically seek to ban investment in Iran's oil and natural-gas infrastructure. The "terror-free" investment movement, spearheaded by the neo-conservative think-tank Center for Security Policy, aims to force mutual funds, pension funds and endowments to pull their investments from international companies that do business with Iran." (Khody Akhavi ‘Double edge to US sanctions bid on Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG20Ak04.html July 20, 2007); "The state department has been pressing for disengagement for months. But the move is being given added impetus by the Iran counter-proliferation bill going through Congress that would penalise the American interests of companies that continue to have a presence in Iran. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, said: "Our goal must be zero foreign investment."" (Ewen MacAskill ‘US steps up effort to stop EU firms trading with Iran’ http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2130840,00.html July 20, 2007).

This revealed the dominance of the jews-only lobby. "But its huge margin of approval .. helped demonstrate once again how responsive members of both major parties are to the so-called "Israel Lobby," which has made the sanctions bill its top legislative priority this year." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007). Justin raimondo concluded. "Beating the drums for war, the Israel lobby is pulling out all the stops, and this time they are out in the open about it. The fear that the Lobby would be too visible in promoting Israel's interests motivated them to keep a relatively low profile during the run-up to war with Iraq, but it isn't holding them back now. AIPAC, for one, is openly leading the charge for war, and, as the overwhelming vote in favor of Kyl-Lieberman indicates, they are doing a bang-up job of it. The Democrats are terrified of the Lobby: the loss of all that New York money, which is essential for Hillary's victory, would be a disaster for them." (Justin Raimondo 'Invade and Bomb With Hillary and Rahm': Why war with Iran is likely’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11846 November 2, 2007).

The Passage of these Likudnik proposals would have been a Victory over Bush, America’s Multinational Oil Companies, Multinationals around the world, Governments around the world, and America’s Non-oil Multinational Corporations.
These likudnik amendments/bills were opposed by the following political constituencies.

President George Bush.
President bush was opposed to the legislation and sent a letter to congress outlining his objections. It was ignored. "The letter, delivered August 1, had virtually not impact, as the legislation in question, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, was approved by the House, 408-6.) (Jim Lobe ‘AEI: Caught Between Its Likudist Heart and Its Corporate Head’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=54 August 03, 2007). Bush opposed these proposals because they would remove his power to waive sanctions even against his closest political and military allies around the world. And even worse in these days of the unitary executive, they would constrain his exercise of unlimited powers. "At the same time, the House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously, 408-6, for another measure, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would force Bush to impose sweeping sanctions against foreign companies that invest more than 20 million dollars in Iran's energy sector. That bill, which is opposed by the Bush administration itself due to strong pressure from Washington's European and Asian allies and key multinational companies, is considered likely to stall in the Senate through the remainder of this year." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007). What is even more important is that the bill has enough support to overcome a presidential veto. The jewish lobby in congress is powerful, so omnipotent, it is thus imposing laws even on the president.

America’s Multinational Energy Companies.
In the mid-1990s, the jews-only lobby had pressured the clinton administration into supporting sanctions against iran preventing america’s multi-national oil companies from making vast profits by investing in iran’s massive fossil fuel industry. The latest proposals would reduce their chances even further of ever being able to invest in iran. They thus run counter to the interests of these gigantic multinational corporations. "Now the argument has reached the heart of the american establishment where the conflict of loyalties between the jos and europe is being exposed. "Today’s quotation in the Financial Times attributed to Danielle Pletka, the Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was a stunner. "If we …begin to sanction foreign companies through more stringent sanctions in the Iran Sanctions Act, I think there will be serious repercussions for our multilateral effort." Whatever would possess AEI and Pletka, who personally has been one of the most prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders of the rapidly spreading state divestment movement against companies doing business in Iran, to offer a cautionary note about adopting unilateral sanctions, let alone stress the importance of preserving multilateral unity with limp-wristed European allies in dealing with a charter member of the "Axis of Evil"? Judging from its provenance at what must be considered Neo-Con Central, it certainly couldn’t be common sense. As AEI jumped on the divestment bandwagon initiated by Perle protégé Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy (CSP) earlier this spring with its publication of a list of evil-enabling companies, some of its corporate contributors with interests in some of those same companies, or in countries where those companies are based, objected. After all, multinational corporations, such as ExxonMobil, Motorola, American Express, State Farm Insurance, Dow Chemical, Merck & Co., Dell Inc., all of which are represented in various ways on AEI’s board of trustees, not to mention General Electic, Amoco, Kraft, Ford Motor, General Motors, Eastman Kodak, Metropolitan Life, Proctor & Gamble, Shell, General Mills, Pillsbury, Prudential, Corning Glass Works, Morgan Guarantee, and Alcoa, all of whose foundations have reportedly contributed significant amounts of money to AEI, generally oppose economic sanctions that interfere with their investment and commerce, especially if they are unilateral and especially if they result in many jurisdictions (i.e. states) enacting different sanctions with which companies must comply. Indeed, it is very strange that a think tank purportedly devoted to "limited government," "private enterprise," free markets and other neo-liberal ideals and funded in major part by the foundations of multinational corporations is actively leading a campaign to impose unilateral sanctions (and divestment) against multinational corporations like themselves and, in some cases, their own subsidiaries." (Jim Lobe ‘AEI: Caught Between Its Likudist Heart and Its Corporate Head’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=54 August 03, 2007). The reason that the likudnik fundamentalists in the aei have been promoting a policy which runs counter to the interests of the companies they are supposed to be representing is that they do not care about these interests only the interests of the jews only state in palestine. In reality they have been using these corporate interests to promote their own jewish interests.

Virtually all American Multinational Companies.
These likudnik proposals threaten to damage the interests not only of america’s multi-national energy companies but virtually all other american multi-nationals. If the bush regime punishes foreign based multi-national corporations for breaking america’s unilaterally imposed sanctions, it is highly likely that the governments affected would retaliate by penalizing american companies. "U.S. companies doing business in the European Union, China, Russia and other countries could face retaliation if a bill aimed at pressuring Iran to give up nuclear weapons becomes law, industry officials said on Wednesday. The bill, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month by a vote of 397-16, strengthens rarely used U.S. sanctions aimed at foreign companies that invest $20 million or more in Iranian energy. The bill puts the United States on a collision course with countries it has been working with to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which includes major exporters and oil companies among its members. "The effect of this is going to be entirely on European, Chinese, Russian and Japanese companies, maybe a few others. So, we are going to be sanctioning companies in the very countries that the president is trying to get to cooperate with us on multilateral sanctions," Reinsch said." (Doug Palmer ‘US business fears backlash from Iran sanctions bill’ http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17343789.htm October 17, 2007).

Some american companies are so opposed to these likudnik proposals they’ve even formed their own lobbying organization to fight the implementation of these sanctions. "USA*Engage is a coalition of businesses that opposes unilateral sanctions on the basis of their costs to the US economy. "The Bush administration is framing this as a diplomatic initiative," William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council and the co-chair of USA*Engage, said in a statement. "In fact, they are sanctions intended to punish Iran, though their primary effect may well be on companies in third countries. As a result they are unlikely to lead to a positive diplomatic outcome."" (Ali Gharib ‘Dialogue Undermined by White House's Iran Sanctions’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/gharib.php?articleid=11817 October 26, 2007).

Europe’s Multinational Energy Companies.
The jewish lobby has been promoting financial sanctions against iran not merely to discourage european fossil fuel companies from investing in iran’s fossil fuel industry but to divest from iran. This was invariably going to have a huge impact on european energy companies because of their considerable investments in iran. In other words, the jewish lobby believes it is powerful enough to take on europe’s energy companies. The jewish lobby had already defeated america’s even bigger energy companies so what is to stop them from being successful against european companies? The outcome of this battle will indicate clearly the relative power of these two lobbies and thus decisively settle the question of which lobby controls the bush regime.

Some european energy companies are resisting these likudnik threats. "Washington has protested an Austrian oil and gas firm's investment plans in Iran. However, the Americans won't have much influence on the deal, observers say. OMV, Central Europe's largest oil and gas firm, announced last Saturday it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran to jointly develop parts of the gigantic South Pars gas field and cooperate with Iran in producing liquefied natural gas. The field would be explored by OMV, with LNG transported via container ships to a terminal to be built in Croatia; from there, the gas will be fed into the Austrian and Italian pipeline networks. The total value of the deal has been reportedly estimated by the Iranian Oil Ministry at $18 billion. With yearly sales of roughly $13 billion, OMV is a major player in Central Europe and has in the past explored in other politically sensitive countries, such as Libya. Yet what has excited Austrian investors has managed to irritate politicians across the Atlantic. Earlier this week, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-California, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned OMV that under his legislation the company will not escape sanctions if it follows through on the deal to help develop the Iranian field. "I am outraged by news of OMV's energy deal with Iran, which shows utter contempt for the will of the international community," Lantos said in a statement. "The UN Security Council is sanctioning Iran for the nuclear activities that this deal will clearly, if indirectly, support." Under the US Iran Sanctions Act, foreign firms that invest heavily in Iran's energy sector, which supports its nuclear development programs, are subject to restrictions in dealing with the United States and US-based entities. "OMV will regret this action," Lantos said. "It has already damaged its reputation and, if it follows through on the deal, I have no doubt it will be sanctioned, whether under the Iran Sanctions Act or the soon-to-be-enacted Iran Counter-Proliferation Act."" (‘Austria courts Iran, angers US’ http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_25764_austria+courts+iran+angers+us..html April 28 2007).

Multinationals around the world.
A large number of multinationals around the world would also be affected by these likudnik proposals. If they trade with both america and iran then they would be liable to financial penalties by breaking american sanctions against iran.

European Governments.
The jewish lobby in america clearly believes it has the power to take on european governments seeking to protecting their energy companies against american sanctions on iran. "European governments are warning Congress that US legislation aimed at Iran could hit European energy groups, undermine transatlantic unity on Tehran’s nuclear programme and provoke a dispute at the World Trade Organisation. Diplomats from France, Germany and the UK, among other countries, have stepped up a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill against moves that would mandate sanctions on energy companies that invested more than $20m (€14.6m, £9.9m) in Iran. Among such companies, already marked out by a US campaign to disinvest in energy companies that trade with Iran, are Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France and Repsol of Spain. President George W Bush has the power to waive sanctions on third parties doing business with Iran, but a bill introduced by Tom Lantos, chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, would remove his ability to do so. The bill has 322 co-sponsors, enough to overcome a presidential veto. In principle the Iran Sanctions Act, a successor to a 1990s measure, requires the president to impose at least two out of six possible sanctions on foreign companies investing more than $20m in Iran, although in practice both Mr Bush and former President Bill Clinton have always exercised the waiver. These sanctions include denial of Export Import Bank loans, denial of US bank loans exceeding $10m, prohibition of US government procurement and restrictions on imports from the company concerned. This week, the House of Representatives backed a separate piece of legislation, that would oblige the federal government to keep a record of energy companies violating the $20m threshold and make it easier for state pension funds to disinvest in them." (Daniel Dombey, Javier Blas and Francesco Guerrera ‘Europe warns US on Iran sanctions’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c87fa5ba-411a-11dc-8f37-0000779fd2ac.html August 2 2007); "Austria's Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said OMV had the right to do business with Iran. "The Americans may refuse to invest in Iran's oil industry," she told the Austrian Die Presse newspaper. "But Austria is not bound by US law." All major government politicians in Austria have sided with OMV, and so have lawmakers of the European Parliament. And European Union laws are with OMV as well: An EU Council decree ruled that certain US laws aiming to be effective in other countries as well (for example the Iran Sanctions Act) must not to be followed by companies in the EU." (‘Austria courts Iran, angers US’ http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_25764_austria+courts+iran+angers+us..html April 28 2007); "A mounting US crackdown on foreign companies and banks doing business with Iran is provoking serious opposition in the UK and Europe, where diplomats are warning that the action could lead to a new trade war. Congress wants all international companies to end their investment in Iran now and is pushing through a bill that would penalise companies that fail to do so. The British government, along with other European governments, views the US approach as draconian and are lobbying hard against it. The chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, Tom Lantos, said: "Our goal must be zero foreign investment." The bill appears to have overwhelming support in Congress. They point out that any penalties imposed by the US would be in breach of World Trade Organisation rules. A senior US official said that there have been discussions between Stuart Levey, the US undersecretary of state at the Treasury, and the British government, though he acknowledged the involvement of British banks and companies was not as deep as some on the continent." (Ewen MacAskill British banks fight US over Iran embargo’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2130495,00.html July 19, 2007).

Governments around the world.
Many governments around the world, especially america’s allies in the western world, opposed these likudnik proposals because they would apply to some of their multinational corporations. Sanctions would deter these multinationals from trading with iran or they would incur financial penalties by continuing to trade with iran. In either case this would damage the national interests of the countries in which these multinationals were based. "The newly imposed restrictions are unilateral extraterritorial sanctions that 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. Extraterritorial sanctions have had their legality challenged in courts and are often overturned because they conflict with the sovereignty of other countries. As a result, the new sanctions promise to further endanger already strained relations with US allies." (Ali Gharib ‘Dialogue Undermined by White House's Iran Sanctions’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/gharib.php?articleid=11817 October 26, 2007).

Conclusions.
What is going on here is that the jews-only state in palestine is using the colossal power of its political agents in america to pressure, manipulate, and bribe, congress into passing amendments/bills that would damage the interests of the president of the united states, america’s multi-national energy companies, multinational coporations around the world, governments around the world, and america’s non-energy multi-nationals. In other words, the jews are basically trying to force the rest of the world to act against its interests by isolating iran economically and politically in order to bring about regime change. If these amendments/bill are eventually passed this would be a remarkable testimony to the global dominance of jewish power.

The First Set of Compromises made to the Likudniks’ Proposals.
According to left wing political orthodoxy, the lobbying power of america’s multinational energy corporations should have been more than sufficient to prevent the jewish lobby from persuading successive american administrations to impose sanctions on iran. This should have been even more true given the additional lobbying power of europe’s multinational energy corporations, and the western governments who protect their interests. And yet the jewish lobby has been highly successful in persuading american administrations to disregard these interests and impose an increasing range of sanctions on iran whether unilaterally or through the united nations’ security council.

This section has noted that the likudniks most recent demands, in a variety bills and amendments, for american sanctions against iran. They did not expect to get all they wanted and were forced to accept various compromises but they won some significant victories. The likudniks doubtlessly hope that by building up pressure on the bush regime they might eventually get all they want.

Jim Lobe.
Lobe pointed out that changes were made to the lieberman/kyl amendment to curb its most extreme and dangerous demands but he concluded. "Still, the fact that the amendment was approved by a significant margin, and with the support of key Democrats, including Clinton and Majority Leader Harry Reid, is certain to be used by hawks within the administration as an indication of bipartisan support for a more aggressive policy toward Iran." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007).

Gareth Porter.
"The Lieberman-Kyle amendment has just passed the Senate overwhelmingly after two sections were removed to satisfy Democrats that it will not serve as a backdoor authorization for war against Iran, using U.S. forces operating in Iran. Even after that compromise, it remains a poison chalice, because it endorses a set of "findings" that are fundamentally false and which are being used by the administration to lay the groundwork for a more aggressive policy toward Iran." (Gareth Porter ‘Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure’ http://www.alternet.org/audits/63740/?page=entire September 27, 2007).

59. US Official blames Iran for Spate of Rocket Attacks - September 28, 2007.
"The George W Bush administration recently concluded that the increase in rocket attacks on coalition targets by Shi'ite forces in Iraq over the summer was a deliberate move by Iran to escalate the war to put pressure on the United States to accept Iranian influence in Iraq, according to a senior US government official. The Bush administration now believes that Iran's "larger strategic aim" in allegedly providing modern weapons such as 240mm rockets to Shi'ite militias targeting US and coalition forces in Iraq is "to attempt to establish escalation dominance in Iraq and strategic dominance outside", according to the official. The reported conclusion that the increased attacks by Shi'ite forces represent an effort to achieve such dominance could be the basis for a new argument that only by reducing Iranian influence in Iraq through military action can the United States avert Iranian "strategic dominance" in the region." (Gareth Porter ‘US frets at Iran's 'strategic dominance'’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II28Ak01.html September 28, 2007).

60. More US Military Preparations for War - September 30, 2007.
"An air warfare conference in Washington last week was told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organise combined exercises designed to make it easier to fight together. Gen Michael Mosley, the US Air Force chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if President George W Bush chooses to bomb Iran. Pentagon air chiefs have helped set up an air warfare centre in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Gulf nations are training their fighter pilots and America has big bases. It is modelled on the US Air Force warfare centre at Nellis air force base in Nevada. While it is unlikely that America's Gulf allies would join any US air strike against suspected nuclear targets in Iran, their co-operation might be required to allow passage of warplanes though their airspace. American defence officials are also keen that Iran's Arab neighbours prepare to deal with any Iranian attempt to target them in return." (Tim Shipman ‘US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran130.xml September 30, 2007); "Two days after a British report that an Assistant Secretary of Defense declared, "I hate all Iranians," a report from the Gulf reveals the US is training Arab militaries and regional leaders for a possible war with Iran. A Washington-based air warfare conference last month, led by Air Force chief of staff Gen. Michael Mosley, was told how the US has helped coordinate intelligence sharing and organize group military exercises designed to make parallel warfare easier." (John Byrne ‘US trains Gulf air forces for possible Iran strike, while revisiting strategy at home’ http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_trains_Gulf_air_forces_for_1001.html October 1, 2007).

61. US alleges Iranian-made surface-to-air missiles used in Iraq - September 30, 2007.
"The US military in Iraq said Sunday it had seized sophisticated Iranian-made surface-to-air missiles that were being used by insurgents in the war-torn country. Several Misagh-1s have been found in different locations, the military said, although it stopped short of saying the use of the weapons represented an escalation of Iranian activity in Iraq. "We've said that we've found these things, we've seen them employed. That's significant in it's own right," US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told reporters in Baghdad." (‘US says Iranian-made missiles found in Iraq’ http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb4AhAlU9zCCZHGp1ilB0h75KXAg September 30, 2007