Bryce on the Ethanol Explosion

Robert bryce has emerged as a prominent critic of the bush regime’s push for a dramatic increase in biofuel crops to reduce america’s dependence on arab oil production. In a recent article he’s argued the explosion in ethanol production is both wrong and immoral. Wrong because "no matter how much of U.S. or world grain is diverted to make motor fuel, it will never make a large dent in global oil needs." (Robert Bryce ‘The Mandates Aren't Just Wrong, They're Immoral: The Ethanol Apologists’ http://www.counterpunch.com/bryce04172008.html April 17, 2008). And immoral because it is driving up world grain prices thereby pushing more of the world’s poor toward starvation.

But there is one criticism that bryce avoids about the massive expansion of biofuel crops: that it is highly destructive of the Earth’s life support system and thus the stability of the Earth’s climate. The reason for this omission is his agnosticism over global warming. "When it comes to the science of global climate change, I'm an agnostic. Again, I no longer care much about the science. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what?" (Robert Bryce ‘Beyond Group Think on Climate Change: If More CO2 is Bad ... Then What?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce02082008.html February 8/10, 2008). Bryce’s limited criticisms of biofuel expansion leads to distortions in his analysis.

Bryce argues that the expansion of biofuel crops is reducing food crops and thus driving up global food prices. However, he recognizes that food prices are not rising solely because of biofuels, "Several factors are driving food prices higher including growing global grain demand, crop failures in other countries, rising energy prices, and the weak dollar." (Robert Bryce ‘The Mandates Aren't Just Wrong, They're Immoral: The Ethanol Apologists’ http://www.counterpunch.com/bryce04172008.html April 17, 2008).

There are three flaws in his analysis. Firstly, although he believes that biofuel crops are driving up food prices he doesn’t know exactly by how much. It may not be that significant. During the 1990s in both america and europe, agricultural surpluses led to the establishment of major set-aside schemes. Agricultural land was taken out of production and allowed to regenerate as natural areas. It is all too likely that when bush announcement his drive for energy independence much of this set aside land in america was reclaimed for biofuel production: the same is also likely to be true in europe. This would have had no impact on food prices.

Secondly, he mentions that crop failures contribute to the rise in food prices but given his agnosticism towards global warming he can’t blame this on anthropogenic climate change. And yet the probability is that the damage that humans are inflicting on the Earth’s life sustaining processes is a significant cause of climate instability and thus crop failures. The greater the damage that humans inflict on the planet’s life sustaining processes e.g. through the creation of monocultural biofuel plantations, the greater the climatic instability, the more widespread and intense the crop failures are likely to be. Thus the expansion of biofuel production will contribute to increasing levels of starvation amongst the world’s poor not merely, as bryce suggests, through reducing food production but also through increasing crop failures.

Thirdly, another factor which bryce ignores when looking at the causes of food price rises is the increasing growth of the Animal exploitation industry. The more prosperous that developing countries become, the more their middle classes imitate the appallingly self-destructive consumption habits of their counterparts in the developed world. As a consequence, increasing quantities of grains are being fed to increasing numbers of livestock Animals some of which might otherwise have been used to feed humans. The huge increase in global meat and dairy production must have had a significant impact on global grain prices and thus global poverty. If the biggest contributor to recent food price increases has been the dramatic rise in energy costs, the huge increases in meat and dairy production can’t be that far behind as the second biggest contributor. However, this is not a fact that bryce wishes to confront since to him it would smack of blaming the developing world for the rising cost of food and increasing global poverty. He fears this might tempt the developed world to try and deter the developing world from eating meat. It should also be pointed out that the Animal exploitation industry is the biggest contributor to the destruction of the Earth’s life sustaining processes and thus anthropogenic global warming which boosts crop failures further adding to food price increases and global starvation. The continuing expansion of the Animal exploitation industry will increasingly destabilize the climate which could eventually result in ecocide.

In a global laisser faire system, the rich increasingly eat grain intensive meat and dairy products whilst the poor starve because the grains that would nourish them are given to livestock Animals. The Animal exploitation industry not merely deprives the poor of the grains they need to survive, it triggers climate instabilities leading to increasing crop failures and thus increasing levels of global malnutrition. There is only one way of avoiding this double calamity and this is to ration out grains to each country around the world.

Bryce admits that the expansion in biofuel crops is not "the main factor in rising food prices" but continues to stress its infamy by suggesting it is "the one that could have been easily avoided". But is this really true? Is meat and dairy consumption unavoidable especially given its colossal negative impacts on human health? Just how tasty are meat and dairy products given the stench of global starvation? Just how attractive is the consumption of meat and dairy products given the prevalence of obesity in the developed world in stark contrast to the repulsiveness of increasing numbers of people wasting away from malnutrition?

Bryce provides figures to support his thesis that biofuel production is increasing food prices but a closer analysis of these figures suggests the Animal exploitation industry is making a bigger contribution. For example, he points out, "Since 2000, the amount of corn used to make ethanol has increased nearly six fold. By next year, according to the National Corn Growers Association, some 4 billion bushels of corn, about one-third of the expected crop, will be used to make motor fuel." If one third of corn is being used for biofuels then what is the other two-thirds being used for? It is more than likely that a significant proportion is being used for livestock feed.

Another example. "The USDA estimates that global grain demand will grow by 5.4 percent this year. Fully half of that growth will come from U.S. consumption of corn for ethanol." But how much of total corn production goes to feed livestock Animals?

If biofuel production goes on expanding at the rate it has since bush’s declaration of energy independence then it will come into increasing conflict with the global Animal exploitation industry which has also been expanding at a rapid rate. Competition between biofuels, the livestock industry, and the needs of human consumption, will drive up grain prices. More crop production will be devoted to feeding cars and livestock Animals leaving less for the world’s poor. As the world’s rich appropriate increasing amounts of grains for their high grain diets and their grain-powered cars, more people will find themselves driven into malnutrition and starvation. This competition for grains will not eventually stabilize into the modern day equivalent of the medieval world where the rich remain comfortable as long as they can suppress food riots. As the biofuel and the Animal exploitation industries increasingly destabilize the climate, crop failures will become common enough to threaten even the survival of the rich. Its true that the poor will starve first but, as the momentum of global warming quickens, the rich will also eventually succumb.

The conflict between crops for livestock Animals, cars, and humans, will be fought between various political forces. Those supporting crops for livestock Animals include a significant section of the world’s landowning elites and lobbyists for the Animal exploitation industry such as "‘Balanced Food and Fuel’, a Washington, DC-based coalition of eight associations that represent the meat, dairy, and egg producers" (Robert Bryce ‘The Mandates Aren't Just Wrong, They're Immoral: The Ethanol Apologists’ http://www.counterpunch.com/bryce04172008.html April 17, 2008). Those supporting crops for cars include the biofuel industry, reformist environmentalists, the car industry, and, in america, a rather surprising defender, the jewish lobby. It was the jewish lobby that initiated and publicized the idea of energy independence and had the political clout to pressure the bush regime into adopting extreme policies that might help to undermine arab oil producers but which were otherwise not in america’s national interests. The jewish lobby will help the biofuel industry to compete for grains against the Animal exploitation industry and the world’s poor. The world’s poor do not stand a chance against these major political powers.

Bryce’s focus on the biofuels industry for increasing food prices is inadequate and dangerous. He ignores the important critique of biofuels as contributing to climate instability and exacerbating global poverty because he’s a global warming agnostic. He fails to mention the critical role of the Animal exploitation industry in driving up food prices, causing climatic instability, crop failures and thus further global starvation. What is the point of condemning the biofuel industry when the Animal exploitation industry is causing exactly the same problems but on an even grander scale? If it is so wrong to feed grains to cars why is it not also wrong to feed so many grains to livestock Animals?

The Animal exploitation industry is far more dangerous morally, politically, and environmentally, than the biofuel industry. Even if the biofuel industry was aborted the huge expansion of the global Animal exploitation industry would continue driving up food prices, destabilizing the climate, and boosting global starvation. It is quite true that if the Animal exploitation industry was abolished then, hypothetically, the biofuel industry could grow to replace it so it is imperative to tackle both industries as if they are one and the same. The competition for grains will lead, with malthusian certainty, towards mass immizerization and perhaps even ecocide. The only solution to this is to replace global capitalism with a rationing system to share out resources fairly and sustainably. No rationing, no survival.

Bryce’s political stance is odd. He claims to be concerned about the world’s poor and yet firstly, he ignores the criticism that biofuels contribute to climate instability and thus crop failures which boost global starvation. Secondly, he refuses to take a stand against global warming because he believes policies to oppose it would allegedly harm the world’s poor and yet, by not making a stand, global warming is likely to continue getting worse thereby exacerbating the plight of the world’s poor. And, thirdly, he condemns biofuels for adding to global poverty and yet ignores a vastly larger industry causing exactly the same problems but on a correspondingly larger scale.

If bryce was as concerned about the world’s poor as he says he is, he wouldn’t focus exclusively on biofuels. He wouldn’t believe that abolishing the biofuel industry is going to achieve anything given the colossal damages being caused by the Animal exploitation industry. It is a waste of time condemning the biofuel industry without also condemning the Animal exploitation industry.

Petraeus using the ‘Battle for Basra’ as a preliminary to an attack Iran.

There have been few analyzes concerning the events leading up to the ‘battle for basra’ primarily, it has to be suspected, because the attack was such a surprise. "Mystery surrounds Mr Maliki's motive in launching an assault on the Mehdi Army after Mr Sadr renewed his six-month ceasefire last month." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Iraqi Police Refuse to Back Maliki's Attacks on Mehdi Army’ http://www.counterpunch.com/patrick03292008.html March 29/30, 2008). Hindsight suggests the primary force behind these events seems to have been general david petraeus, the likudnik dominated bush regime’s political commissar in the american military.

Events leading up to the attacks on the Green Zone.
For the last year or so, petraeus has been condemning iran for funding, training, and arming, ‘rogue elements of the mahdi army’. "The idea of Iranian-backed "rogue" Shi'ite militia groups undermining Sadr's efforts to pursue a more moderate course was introduced by the U.S. military command in early 2007. These alleged Iranian proxies were called "Special Groups", a term that came not from Iran or the Shi'ites themselves but from the Bush administration." (Gareth Porter ‘Petraeus Testimony to Defend False 'Proxy War' Line’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12649 April 8, 2008).

At the beginning of march 2008 the iranian president, mahmoud ahmadinejad, made a historic visit to iraq where he was given a warm welcome by the iraqi president al-maliki. At that point in time, it seemed inconceivable that a few weeks later maliki, an iranian ally, would suddenly announce the launch of a military offensive against the mahdi army, also allied to iran. Iran has been trying to keep the shia community unified and would have been appalled by conflicts within that community.

In mid-march 2008, fallon was forced to resign. Doubtlessly cheney and general petraeus immediately start working out a new strategy for the american military in iraq. Petraeus could promote his own objectives within the american military: curbing the alleged rogue elements of the mahdi army which he’d complained about so often in the past. Dick cheney announced he would be going on a tour of the middle east. This was unlikely to have been a coincidence. In baghdad cheney announced that provincial elections would be held in iraq in october 2008. One commentator believes cheney had to compel agreement from maliki, "According to Leila Fadel of the McClatchy newspaper chain, when Vice-President Dick Cheney visited Iraq Mar. 17-18, he "strong armed" Iraq's Presidency Council into passing a provincial election law. The law sets up an October election in which the various provinces will vote on whether they want to remain a unified country or splinter into separate provinces." (Conn Hallinan ‘Ignition Point? Another Defining Moment in Iraq’ http://www.counterpunch.com/hallinan04122008.html April 12/13, 2008).

It is also likely that cheney pressured maliki into agreeing that the iraqi army would take decisive action, with the backing of the american military, against the mahdi army. "The hardline US vice-president, Dick Cheney, was in Baghdad two weeks earlier and may well have urged Maliki to go ahead." (Jonathan Steele ‘In backing the Basra assault, the US has only helped Sadr’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/usa.iraq April 04 2008).

Was Iran behind attacks on the Green Zone?
In february 2007, moqtada al-sadr had ordered the mahdi army to stand down and, in august, to desist from any militarily action for six months. Sadr ".. stood down the Mehdi Army in February (2007) at the start of the US "surge", and in September, when he declared a six-month ceasefire after fighting with the police and Badr Organisation during the 15 Shaaban pilgrimage to Karbala." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Warlord: The rise of Muqtada al-Sadr’ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/warlord-the-rise-of-muqtada-alsadr-807698.html April 11, 2008). Nevertheless, both the american and iraqi militaries continued harassing and arresting members of the mahdi army. "According to a senior Sadrist parliamentarian, between 2,000 and 2,500 Mahdi Army militiamen had been detained since Sadr declared a cease-fire last August." (Gareth Porter ‘Sadr Offensive Shows Failure of Petraeus Strategy’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589 March 27, 2008). Despite these attacks, last month sadr renewed his stance for another six month period.

It is possible that by march 23, 2008 sadr had had enough of maliki’s and america’s military attacks on his supporters and ordered retaliation against the green zone. Sadr may have acted alone but is it possible iran encouraged such a response? Perhaps iran, noting fallon’s resignation, petraeus’s newly established dominance over the american military, cheney’s tour of the middle east, and the increased attacks on the mahdi army, concluded that the americans were trying to clear the way for an attack on iran. It is possible iran encouraged the mahdi army to bombard the green zone as a warning to the americans not to attack iran.

On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest iran had nothing to do with the attacks on the green zone. Firstly, it would have meant that one set of iranian allies was attacking another i.e. the iraqi government. "Suleimani's role in reducing the violence in Basra underlines the reality that Iranian power in Shi'ite Iraq is based on its having worked with and provided assistance to all the Shi'ite parties and factions. Iran's determination to stay on good terms with all the Shi'ite factions has made it the primary arbiter of conflicts among them. Iran has no reason to look for a small splinter group to advance its interests when it already enjoys a relationship of strategic cooperation with the government itself." (Gareth Porter ‘Petraeus Testimony to Defend False 'Proxy War' Line’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12649 April 8, 2008). Secondly, whilst the battle for basra was in progress, iran insisted the two sides should stop fighting. See section 226. Iran demands an end to fighting in Iraq - March 29, 2008. Thirdly, it then negotiated an agreement between them to restore some peace and stability to iraq. Finally, it condemned the attacks on the green zone. "Iran's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday condemned for the first time rocket and mortar attacks against the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad by supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini also denounced raids by U.S. forces against Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad that al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia has been using to launch the attacks." (Nasser Karimi ‘Iran Condemns Iraq Green Zone Attacks’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/08/international/i041756D74.DTL April 8, 2008).

These factors strongly suggest firstly, that iran had not wanted to use the mahdi army to threaten the american military and, secondly, that iran had the most to lose from a civil war between shiites. Conversely, it was much more likely that it was america which sought the confrontation. After all, america was one of the participants in the battle and didn’t want the conflict to end. And, consequently, it did nothing to contribute to negotiations between the two sides.

Who initiated the attack on the Mahdi Army?
After the bombardment of the green zone, it seemed as if maliki suddenly ordered the iraqi army to crush the mahdi army. It is possible he made this decision himself. But, there are many factors suggesting it is much more likely that petraeus, with the backing of the bush regime, was responsible for initiating and planning for the attack.

* with fallon out of the way petraeus had the opportunity to increase attacks on the alleged ‘rogue elements of the mahdi army’. This forced the mahdi army to respond with a bombardment of the green zone. Such a response was precisely the sort of opportunity petraeus had been waiting for to launch a decisive attack on the mahdi army.

* petraeus and cheney must have known that the biggest beneficiary of provincial elections in iraq in october 2008 would be moqtada al-sadr. This led them to conclude that thet would have to severely curb, if not destroy, sadr’s military and political prospects to ensure he couldn’t get elected to a position of power where he could oppose america’s long term occupation of iraq.

* given the successes of the american/iraqi army attacks on the mahdi army since august 2007, petraeus may have believed a quick military victory over the mahdi army was possible and that this would boost his stature when giving testimony to congress on april 08, 2008. "They (crocker and petraeus) hoped for a triumph to boast about in Congress. Now they must explain a disaster." (Jonathan Steele ‘In backing the Basra assault, the US has only helped Sadr’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/usa.iraq April 04 2008).

* petraeus could spin the conflict against the mahdi army to insist that reductions in the size of the american military in iraq should be stopped.

* no sooner had moqtada al sadr’s mahdi army attacked the green zone, march 23 2008, than petraeus was ready and waiting to denounce iran for supplying the mahdi army with weapons. "In remarks interpreted as signalling a change in his approach to Iran, Gen Petraeus last week hit out at the Iranian leadership. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said." (Damien McElroy ‘British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml April 05, 2008). Petraeus’s efforts to stir up accusations against iran seem to suggest that his primary objective was not just an attack on an alleged iranian allies in iraq but a proxy war against iran. "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies." (Damien McElroy ‘British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml April 05, 2008); "The neocons may yet get their war on Iran. Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East. Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Petraeus Points to War With Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 April 11, 2008). There are commentators who dispute whether fallon’s resignation was brought about by differences of opinion with the bush regime over iraq or iran. Another possibility is that it was about both. If the american military could dismantle the mahdi army, it would face less of a threat from iran’s allies in iraq if the bush regime launched a military attack on iran.

* bush had been well-prepped about the objectives of the attack on the mahdi army and made a series of dramatic announcements about the iraqi military’s impending victory. "At the start of the military offensive launched last week into Basra by US-trained Iraqi army forces, President Bush called the action by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "a bold decision." He added: "I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."" (Robert Dreyfuss ‘The Lessons of Basra’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/dreyfuss March 31, 2008).

* the bush regime wanted to wrest control over southern iraq’s oil from the mahdi army. This provides sadr with an income in the region of $2bn a year .. "the Mahdi Army is siphoning off a good $2 bn. a year in embezzled gasoline and kerosene …" (Juan Cole ‘5 US Troops Die in Iraq’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 07, 2008).

It has been concluded, "It is increasingly obvious that the White House planned the entire operation." (Conn Hallinan ‘Ignition Point? Another Defining Moment in Iraq’ http://www.counterpunch.com/hallinan04122008.html April 12/13, 2008).

A number of commentators have speculated that maliki was responsible for initiating the plan to attack the mahdi army. "The most likely explanation is that the Americans approved the assault, confidently expecting it would succeed within a few days." (Jonathan Steele ‘In backing the Basra assault, the US has only helped Sadr’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/usa.iraq April 04 2008). However, it is unlikely that maliki would have supported the idea before the bush regime announced the date of provincial elections. Another commentator implied maliki had so much military power at his disposal that he could even ignore the views of the american military. "Not a very good performance, to be sure, (the iraqi army’s attack on the mahdi army) and Maliki's American sponsors were clearly perturbed that he went ahead with this operation without consulting them first." (Justin Raimondo ‘Endless Enemies’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12663 April 9, 2008). It is unlikely that maliki initiated the attack and it borders on the absurd to believe he could order the iraqi military to carry out a full scale military attack without telling the americans.

Once the date for elections had been announced maliki acquired his own incentives to weaken sadr’s militia, both militarily and politically, before the october 2008 provincial elections. "A likely explanation is (for maliki’s assault on basra) that Mr Maliki, who has little support outside the holy city of Kerbala, was under pressure from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), his main ally, to attack the Sadrists now. The Sadrists were expected to do well against ISCI in provincial elections which are to be held in October ..." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Iraqi Police Refuse to Back Maliki's Attacks on Mehdi Army’ http://www.counterpunch.com/patrick03292008.html March 29/30, 2008). Maliki, like the americans, also had an incentive to wrest control of southern iraq’s oil from the mahdi army. The badr militia may also have been willing to support the attack in order to dispose of a major rival militia and to gain some influence over the country’s oil industry.

The failure of the Battle for Basra.
Both maliki and the americans were expecting an easy victory in the so-called battle for basra. Both were taken aback that the mahdi army was able to repulse their attacks. Petraeus may have been misled by his own propaganda and misjudged the mahdi army’s military capabilities. He’d been complaining for over a year about iran training and arming rogue elements of the mahdi army when, in reality, it had been training the core of the mahdi army. "Based on preliminary indications of his spin on the surprisingly effective armed resistance to the joint U.S.-Iraqi Operation Knights Assault in Basra, Petraeus will testify that it was caused by Iran through a group of rogue militiamen who had split off from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and came under Iranian control. But the U.S. military's contention that "rogue elements" have been carrying out the resistance to coalition forces was refuted by Sadr himself in an interview with al-Jazeera aired March 29 in which he called for the release from U.S. detention of the individual previously identified by Petraeus as the head of the alleged breakaway faction." (Gareth Porter ‘Petraeus Testimony to Defend False 'Proxy War' Line’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12649 April 8, 2008).

Secondly, petraeus suspected that the reason sadr had ordered the mahdi army to abide by a ceasefire in august 2007 was because it was on the verge of defeat. In reality moqtada was simply trying to strengthen its military capabilities. "That assumption ignored the evidence that Sadr had been avoiding major combat because he was in the process of reorganizing and rebuilding the Mahdi Army into a more effective force. Thousands of Mahdi Army fighters, including top commanders, were sent to Iran for training, not as "rogue element," as suggested by the U.S. command, but with Sadr's full support. One veteran Mahdi Army fighter who had undergone such training told The Independent last April that the retraining was "part of a new strategy. We know we are against a strong enemy and we must learn proper methods and techniques."" (Gareth Porter ‘Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12613 April 01, 2008).

The mahdi army and iran have benefited considerably, both politically and militarily, from their victories in the battle for basra – at least temporarily. Everyone now knows it would take the american and iraqi militaries an enormous military effort to defeat the mahdi army. This effort may be beyond america’s current military capabilities. This failure has two major implications. Firstly, the americans now realize that the mahdi army would pose a formidable threat against the american military in iraq if the bush regime decided to attack iran. This would seem to suggest there is now much less likelihood of an american military attack on iran. After all, if the american military can’t defeat the mahdi army just how is it going to cope with iran’s vastly larger military forces? And, secondly, the iraqi oil industry in southern iraq will continue to remain under sadr’s control.

Both Petraeus and Maliki determined to gamble on their Losses.
Despite the calamity of the battle in basra, neither petraeus nor maliki have shown any sign of abandoning their goals. They both seem to believe that a bigger military effort will succeed in destroying the mahdi army. Maliki has inducted the badr militia into the iraqi army and imposed a tribal levy in order to raise a new militia composed of tens of thousands of shiites who are fearful of the mahdi army.

Petraeus has been hyping up his proposition that iran is arming rogue elements of the mahdi army by alleging that iranians were fighting alongside the mahdi army in basra. "Iranian forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week. Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think. Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces." (Sarah Baxter and Marie Colvin ‘Iran joined militias in battle for Basra’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3690010.ece April 6, 2008).

Juan cole scoffs at the idea. "But that Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei of Iran deliberately sent Iranian troops or agents into Basra to undermine ISCI, Badr, and al-Maliki's Da'wa (Islamic Missionary) Party on behalf of the Sadr Movement just strikes me as daft. It flies in the face of everything else we know about the relationship of these groups with Iran. In fact, the Iranian leadership benefits from a united Iraqi Shiite community and the head of the Expediency Council, Akbar Rafsanajani, expressed concern about the faction-fighting among Iraqi Shiites. Iran brokered the cease-fire. If it wanted Shiite on Shiite fighting, why would it do that?" (Juan Cole ‘5 US Troops Die in Iraq’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 07, 2008).

The bush regime and the american military must have been shocked to find that iran had secretly negotiated a truce behind their backs as if they were just some bit players in an iranian soap. So the american military has taken a much more prominent role in the continuing attacks on the mahdi army since the end of the battle for basra. "This week, it transformed into a conflict largely between the Mahdi Army and U.S. forces. Twelve U.S. troops were killed since Sunday, at least eight of them in the capital, several of them from rocket and mortar attacks into the Green Zone." (Leila Fadel ‘As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080408/wl_mcclatchy/2903213 April 08, 2008).

America being pushed into another Proxy Zionist War.
The american and iraqi militaries wanted to defeat the mahdi army to establish their dominance over southern iraq. If this attack had been successful it would also have opened up the prospect for an attack on iran. It is possible the american and iraqi militaries’ objective was solely confined to overcoming the mahdi army in southern iraq and had no secondary interest in preparing for an attack on iran. However, it is much more than likely that this was not just an incidental, secondary goal but its prime purpose.

Jewish Nazis pushing America into World War Three.
An american attack on iran is not merely likely to provoke a war with iran it could trigger a wider american war against other countries in the middle east. In other words, world war three. The more absurd that the proposal for an american attack on iran becomes, the more the jewish neocons around the world demand world war three!

Roberts argues the ‘war on terror’ is just a likudnik front for the jewish theft of land and resources from palestinians, lebanese, and syrians. ""Finishing the job" means to destroy the ability of Iraq, Iran, and Syria to provide support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Syria might simply give up and become another American client state. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Israel can steal the rest of the West Bank along with the water resources in southern Lebanon. That is what "the war on terror" is really about." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Petraeus Testimony May Signal Iran Attack’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12644 April 7, 2008). Jewish lobbies in the western world are solely concerned with provoking a third world war in order to boost jewish supremacism in the middle east no matter what a catastrophe this would be militarily, politically and economically, for the west.

The Drumbeat for a War against Iran – March 2008

167. Zionist State moves American Navy to protect flanks during massacre in Gaza? - March 01, 2008.
Jews threaten Holocaust.
A member of olmert’s cabinet has threatened to wreak a Shoah (Holocaust) upon the palestinians. "An Israeli minister gave warning yesterday that the Gaza faces a "holocaust" if Islamist militants there do not end their daily barrages of home-made Qassam rockets, and their increasing use of Iranian-built Grad missiles. "The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Matan Vilnai, the Deputy Defence Minister said." (James Hider ‘Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3459144.ece March 1, 2008). Please see ‘Hitler’s Second State: Jewish Nazis Committing a Genocidal Holocaust in the Gazan Concentration Camp.
http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2008/03/hitlers-second-state.html

Arrival of USS Cole.
Zionist State dictating to American Navy.
In what seems like a pre-planned move co-ordinated with their zionist masters, the united states navy sends a warship to the eastern mediterranean in case hezbollah attempted to retaliate for the jews’ holocaust against palestinian civilians. "America deployed a warship off the coast of Lebanon yesterday prompting anger from Iran-backed Hizbollah and surprise from the pro-Washington Lebanese prime minister. Fouad Saniora said that he had not requested the display of naval power. The USS Cole, a guided missile destroyer that was almost sunk by al-Qa'eda in a terrorist attack off Yemen eight years ago, was steaming in international waters just off the Lebanese coast." (Tim Butcher ‘US Navy flexes its muscles in front of Lebanon’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/01/wleb101.xml March 01, 2008).

Commentators’ Views.
View of Nabih Berri.
"(Lebanese parliamentary speaker nabih) Berri also accused the US of deploying the USS Cole and other warships to the Eastern Mediterranean to support and cover up Israel's deadly attacks in the Gaza Strip. "It they want to send a message to Syria, they could have done so by deploying near Syrian shores," Berri said." (‘Berri sees American hand in failure of Arab mediation’ http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=89441 March 01, 2008).

View of Franklin Lamb.
"Over the past few days these groups have become activated by the deployment of the guided missile destroyer USS Cole, which reportedly left Malta on February 26 en route to a position over the horizon from Beirut. Its imminent arrival is seen in Lebanon as a warning to Syria, Iran and the Lebanese Resistance, led by Hezbollah. Its meaning is that while the Bush administration has arguably 'lost' Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps soon Pakistan and parts of the Gulf, that it is ready to join the fight with Israel in order not to' lose' Lebanon." (Franklin Lamb ‘Lebanon Awaits the Arrival of the USS Cole’ http://www.counterpunch.com/lamb03012008.html March 1 / 2, 2008).

View of Justin Raimondo.
"The USS Cole and accompanying warships are not merely making a strong gesture; they have also effectively blockaded the Lebanese coast and will surely be intercepting any arms coming from Turkey or elsewhere, readying the battleground for the Israeli incursion. The first stages of the coming conflict with Iran will be fought as a proxy war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and Syria, as anticipated in this space on at least one occasion." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: The Unknown Crisis: What is the USS Cole doing off the Lebanese coast? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12452 March 3, 2008).

View of Nicholas Blanford.
"While the US State Department says the Cole and other warships are being sent to the eastern Mediterranean to support regional stability amid Lebanon's political crisis, the move seems to have embarrassed the besieged Western-backed administration of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and provided ammunition for the pro-Syrian opposition, led by the militant Shiite Hizbullah, to accuse the government of being a US pawn. "It has done Hizbullah a huge favor," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle East Center in Beirut. "It's a sign of political bankruptcy on the part of the US. They have failed to achieve anything in Lebanon; all they have left is military muscle-flexing." Analysts here are divided over whether the USS Cole's presence is intended as warning for Hizbullah or Syria. But it has reminded Lebanese of the last time the US sought to intervene militarily in Lebanon, an involvement that had disastrous consequences." (Nicholas Blanford ‘U.S. warship stirs Lebanese fear of war’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s01-wome.html March 4, 2008).

Departure of USS Cole.
The flotilla disappeared almost as quickly as it had appeared. There are commentators who seemed to believe the cole was still in the med. However, the cole has been replaced by other us warships. "4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks." (Terry Atlas ‘6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran’ http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/3/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html March 11, 2008).


168. Ahmadinejad’s Historic Visit to Iraq - March 02, 2008.
Media Reports.
Ahmadinejad insists America should leave the Middle East.
"Iran's firebrand president wrapped up his landmark visit to Iraq with a bit of added swagger Monday, insisting that U.S. power is crippling the region and portraying himself as the enduring partner of Baghdad's Shiite-led government. Iran already has appeared to cut its backing for radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who directs the vast Mahdi Army militia. Instead, Tehran has thrown its weight behind al-Sadr's rival, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the country's most powerful Shiite political insider and supporter of al-Maliki's government. Ahmadinejad met with al-Hakim during his visit. In front of live TV crews, Ahmadinejad also held hands and exchanged kisses with the president, Talabani, who told Ahmadinejad to call him "Uncle Jalal." Ahmadinejad repeatedly referred to Iraq as a "brotherly" neighbor, but showed no gentler side toward Baghdad's American allies. He blamed the United States for spreading terrorism in the region, demanded the United States withdraw its forces and dismissed allegations that Tehran is training Shiite militants who target U.S. troops. "The presence of foreigners in the region has been to the detriment of the nations of the region," Ahmadinejad said during a news conference. "It is nothing but a humiliation to the regional nations." He even took a swipe at President Bush for the tight security bubble around his visits to the country." (Anna Johnson ‘Ahmadinejad: US power crippling in Iraq’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=69840 March 03, 2008).

Commentators’ Views.
Views of Juan Cole.
"Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Baghdad on Sunday morning, to be greeted by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Ahmadinejad was invited by President Jalal Talabani (who, like Zebari, is Kurdish). Talabani has old links of clientelage with Tehran. Ahmadinejad's visit is designed to help shore up the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of the Islamic Call (Da'wa Islamiyyah) Party. Bilateral agreements in 10 fields of endeavor are expected to be signed. Although the US keeps accusing the Iranian government of deliberately trying to destabilize Iraq, President Talabani and PM al-Maliki steadfastly deny Washington's accusations. And, of course, it does not in fact make sense that Iran would try to topple the first friendly Shiite regime ever to come to power in Baghdad." (Juan Cole ‘Ahmadinejad in Baghdad’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 02, 2008).

Views of George Bush.
"US President George W Bush had some advice for the leaders of Iran and Iraq as they prepared for a historic visit on Sunday. In remarks at his Texas ranch on Saturday, Bush suggested that Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "stop exporting terror" and "come clean about their nuclear weapons ambitions." But he also said that Iraq's leaders, President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, should tell the Iranian leader to "quit sending in sophisticated equipment that's killing" Iraqi citizens and back off "because we want enough breathing space for our democracy to develop."" (‘Bush warns ahead of historic visit by Iran's leader to Iraq’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=67442 March 01, 2008).

Views of Leon Hadar.
"They say a picture is worth a thousand words. And the image of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad glowing, radiating a Bush-like smugness, some might say, during a red-carpet welcome in the American-occupied "Green Zone" in Baghdad last week was no exception. That picture was more powerful than a thousand pages in illuminating who has emerged as the big winner after the United States ousted Saddam Hussein. By contrast, recall the images of U.S. President Bush's brief and somewhat stealthy outings in Iraq. The commander of the most powerful military in the world, whose 160,000 troops are occupying Iraq, resembled a thief sneaking under cover of night into Aladdin's cave. The Iranian leader's two-day visit proved anything but stealthy. Ahmadinejad was received with great fanfare by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, supposedly an ally of Washington, who, not unlike many of the other members of Iraq's ruling Shiite leadership had spent several years in exile in Iran and maintains close political, religious and personal ties with the Shiite ayatollahs in Tehran." (Leon Hadar ‘Outside View: Iran upstages U.S. in Iraq’ http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2008/03/14/outside_view_iran_upstages_us_in_iraq/6507/ March 14, 2008).

169. Britain’s Zionist funded MPs stir it up over Iran - March 02, 2008.
The house of commons’ foreign affairs committee is composed of labour and tory mps most of whom belong to their parties’ ‘friends of israel’ groups. In other words, its dominated primarily by zionists who put the interests of the zionist state first and want war against iran no matter how much damage this might do to british people and british interests. "The Foreign Affairs Committee said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, saying that if it did so, it would be likely to lead to other states in the Middle East seeking to do the same." (Adrian Croft ‘Iran may be able to make nuclear bomb by 2015-UK panel’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=67085 March 01, 2008). These mps clearly believe that the jews nuclear weapons are not an incentive for other countries to develop such weapons. Only iran’s nukes provoke imitation.

These zionist loving mps want a war against iran. They know, however, that the british public is strongly opposed to a third world war so, as a long term tactic, they pretend they want peace and denounce iran to prepare the british public for the eventual military attack. "Iran retains nuclear weapons ambitions and there is a "strong possibility" it could be in a position to quickly make a nuclear bomb by 2015, British lawmakers said on Sunday. Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee said in a report that sanctions were unlikely to persuade Iran to halt work that could be aimed at building nuclear weapons and said a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities was also unlikely to work. It urged Britain to press Washington to talk to Tehran directly about its nuclear programme, which Iran says is solely to generate power but which Washington alleges is aimed at building nuclear weapons." (Adrian Croft ‘Iran may be able to make nuclear bomb by 2015-UK panel’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=67085 March 01, 2008).

170. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls for Defense of Palestine - March 02, 2008.
"Iran's supreme leader on Sunday called on Muslims to rise up and their leaders to hit Israel "in the face with their nations' anger" over the Jewish state's offensive in Gaza that has killed more than 100 Palestinians. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also blamed Iran's other arch foe, the United States, for the violence in Gaza. "It is with the support of that (the U.S.) oppressive government that the Zionists (Israel) are committing these unforgivable sins with impudence," a statement read out on state television quoted him as saying. "The Islamic (people) must rise and the Islamic leaders must hit the occupying regime in the face with their nations' anger," Khamenei's statement said." (‘Iran leader calls on Muslims to hit Israel "in face"’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=68097 March 02, 2008).

171. The so-called Bush doctrine is nothing but a Likudnik Strategy - March 02, 2008.
Jim lobe talks about the origins of the bush doctrine but anyone who looks at the source of the ideas behind this doctrine and the people involved in promoting this policy would have to conclude it would be much more accurate to call it bush’s ‘likudnik doctrine’. The source of this doctrine was the zionist state’s military strategy and the people involved in promoting the doctrine were all likudniks. All they did was to import the jews’ defence strategy and call it america’s defence strategy. "The independent National Security Archive has just published recently declassified documents regarding the birth and evolution of the infamous Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) that was leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post in early 1992 and that later became the inspiration for the Project for the New American Century in 1997 and eventually codified in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America in September 2002, the codification of the so-called "Bush Doctrine." The document, which Sen. Joseph Biden, among others, denounced as a "Pax Americana" at the time, called, among other things, for a global strategy based on U.S. military pre-eminence, pre-emption of rogue states and possible rivals, and coalitions of the willing (which it called "ad hoc assemblies"). The 15 documents featured by the Archive was drafted between June 5, 1991, just after the first Gulf War, and January 1993 when then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney released an official, if euphemistic, version of the controversial document. Most of the documents, however, are heavily redacted. Among other things, the document illustrates the important role played by Scooter Libby, as well as Paul Wolfowitz (who is generally given credit or blame for the document) in coordinating the project, an additional piece of evidence that Libby, rather than Wolfowitz or Elliott Abrams, was probably the most important and influential neo-conservative in the current administration. It’s increasingly clear that Libby’s demise in October 2005 marked a heavy blow to neo-conservative hopes of retaining decisive influence in the administration. Unmentioned, however, is the informal role played by Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle, among others, in helping to shape the outcome through Abram Shulsky, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, and Libby." (Jim Lobe ‘The Bush Doctrine in Embryo’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=113 February 29, 2008).

The main planks of the jews’ defence strategy are:
Unilateralism – ignoring united nations resolutions.
Regional Supremacism - "According to the original draft, preventing the emergence of a rival superpower "is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."" (Jim Lobe ‘Bush’s Foreign Policy Blueprint: A Grand Global Plan’ http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/5345.html March 26, 2002).
Pre-emptive military strikes.
Pre-emptive military strikes using nuclear weapons.

These are now the main planks in the bush mafia’s defence strategy.

172. U.N. Security Council imposes third round of Likudnik Sanctions on Iran - March 03, 2008.
Types of Sanctions.
"The U.N. Security Council voted Monday to impose more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, including travel bans and asset freezes against named individuals and calls for vigilance over banks in Iran." (‘New U.N. sanctions resolution on Iran’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=69999 March 03, 2008 ); "For the first time, the council has banned trade with Iran in goods that have both civilian and military uses. The resolution authorizes inspection of cargo suspected of containing banned items on planes and ships owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line." (Edith M. Lederer ‘Iran defiant over new UN nuke sanctions’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=69841 March 03, 2008).

Threat posed by Sanctions.
Very few commentators have evaluated the implications of the sanctions imposed on iran. Afrasiabi believes the sanctions are punitive. "The UN's broad ban on trade with Iran with "dual purpose" goods, that have both civilian and military usefulness, alone belies the impression of "weak sanctions" and, on the contrary, reinforces the opposite image of "punitive sanctions" openly urged by US officials during the past few weeks." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘UN deepens the Iran nuclear crisis’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC05Ak01.html March 5, 2008). He also believes they create the possibility of a violent confrontation at sea. "On Monday, the United Nations Security Council adopted a third round of sanctions on Iran that will likely escalate the nuclear crisis, given Tehran's stated promise to resist "unlawful" pressures and demands. This may well mean resisting a key aspect of the UN resolution that calls for the interdiction of ships and airplanes carrying suspected nuclear cargo to and from Iran. With US and French ships poised to carry out this duty in and around the Persian Gulf, the stage has now been set for the next chapter in the nuclear standoff, that is, physical confrontation." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘UN deepens the Iran nuclear crisis’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC05Ak01.html March 5, 2008).

Conclusions.
The likudnik mafia behind the bush regime successfully managed to politically neutralize the nie’s statement in december last year that iran had given up its nuclear weapons programme. It then used a wholly bogus dossier of accusations against iran as a fig leaf for further sanctions on iran. Commentators continually insist that the neocons inside the bush regime have been defeated but, given the likudniks’ huge success at the un security council, they seem to be as powerful as ever. Even though the likudniks keep losing prominent members from the bush regime, so many of them still remain they are able to continue forcing through their own warmongering policies.

173. Jewish Nazis condemn Iran for their siege of the Gazan Concentration Camp - March 03, 2008.
"The Israeli army on Monday said that all the long-range rockets fired by Gaza militants against southern Israel during the latest round of violence were manufactured in arch-foe Iran. Speaking to the parliament's powerful foreign affairs and defence committee, a senior military intelligence official said that over 20 Katyusha-type rockets, also known as Grad, were fired against Israel since last Thursday. "We are talking about regular Iranian-made rockets," an official quoted the intelligence official as saying. The 122-millimetre rockets have a range of about 20 kilometres (12.5 miles) and carry a large payload which caused heavy damage to buildings in the southern coastal town of Ashkelon, which bore the brunt of the Grad rocket fire." (‘Long-range rockets fired from Gaza are Iranian: Israel army’ http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5itkdF7p7tVsP_Jf__B6PtQKFiVoQ March 03, 2008).

174. Odierno complains Iran is the biggest threat to America’s continuing Devastation of Iraq - March 04, 2008.
"Iran may pose the greatest long-term threat to Iraq's stability, a U.S. general said Tuesday, the day after Iran's president wrapped up a visit to Baghdad. Army Lt. Gen Ray Odierno, who recently ended a 15-month assignment as the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, said Iran continued to train extremist militia groups in Iraq. Odierno also said he was not surprised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was able to move around without security problems during his two-day visit to Baghdad as the groups that often target high-profile visitors are Iranian-backed. "Over the last 12 months, every time a visitor would come from the United States, we'd either foil a rocket attack or the rocket attack happened. And guess what? That's because it was being done by Iranian surrogates," Odierno said. Odierno singled out Iran as a factor of particular concern. Asked if he saw Iran as the greatest long-term threat to Iraq's stability, he said: "If you ask me what I worry about most, I do. I do worry about that as a long-term threat."" (Andrew Gray ‘Iran may be biggest threat to Iraq’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=71030 U.S. general March 04, 2008). Why would iran want to destabilize iraq when one of their allies is in power?

175. Iran wants to ban Nukes - March 04, 2008.
"Iran wants to ban all nuclear weapons through an international treaty, the country's foreign minister said at the UN's Conference on Disarmament. "The time has come to ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons," Manouchehr Mottaki told the conference. Iran's foreign minister said during Tuesday's meeting in Geneva that it is necessary to "start negotiations to reach a convention on the ban of stocks and the production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction". During the conference, he questioned the right of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear arms. "The winners of the Second World War have claimed this right and imposed it on the international community," he said. "Today, the right of veto and the right to possess nuclear arms has become a monetary exchange to obtain illegitimate rights," he added." (Iran wants world ban on nuclear weapons’ http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23322497-5005961,00.html March 05, 2008).

176. The Likudniks take their Persecution of Iran to the IAEA - March 04, 2008.
"Russia and China on Tuesday scuttled a Western attempt to introduce a resolution on Iran's nuclear defiance at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, diplomats said. The decision appeared to be the result of lingering unhappiness by the two world powers about not being informed earlier of plans for such a resolution." (George Jahn ‘Russia, China scuttle resolution plans’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23050577/ March 04, 2008).

177. Petraeus keeping up the Islamophobia - March 04, 2008.
"The top two U.S. officials in Iraq said this week that Iran was still training Iraqi Shiite Muslim militias, in violation of its promises to Iraqi leaders. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to halt all support of extremist Shiite militias, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq , told McClatchy on Wednesday. But Petraeus said the American military continued to capture Iranian-trained militants and to sustain attacks from insurgents using Iranian-made weapons. "There is no question that Iran has continued to train the so-called special groups," Petraeus said, referring to what the U.S. military calls "rogue" elements of the militia that's loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. "We have individuals in detention, and have detained them fairly recently, who had explained how they received the training, the whole process for going to and from Iran ," he said. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker made a similar point in an interview Tuesday. "We believe they continue to train the Iraqis," he said. "We know it because we picked up some of these guys and they told us they've been trained in Iran ."" (Leila Fadel ‘U.S.: Iran reneged on pledge to quit supporting Iraqi militias’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080305/wl_mcclatchy/2870153 March 05, 2008). Perhaps petraeus is trying to undermine maliki’s close relationship with iran by suggesting that iran is training and arming his enemies in the mahdi army?

178. Russia using the UN Security Council to pressure Iran into buying Russian Nuclear Fuel - March 05, 2008.
It is in russia’s interests to stop iran from enriching nuclear fuel because then iran would have to spend billions on buying fuel from russia. "Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said there is broader consensus among the world's powers today on how to deal with Iran and a new reality on the ground that will hopefully create the right conditions for Tehran to halt enrichment. But in Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini on Tuesday called a new Security Council resolution imposing a third round of sanctions "worthless" and politically motivated. Churkin said Iran does not have to worry about supplies of enriched uranium for years, anyway, now that Russia has provided the fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant it helped Iran build. "That new reality on the ground should provide another incentive, another opportunity for Iran to be more accommodating to the requirement of enrichment suspension," he said. Churkin said the U.S. has shifted from objecting to Russian participation in Bushehr to supporting the reactor project, which he called "an indication of the goodwill of the international community."" (Edith M. Lederer ‘Russia tells Iran to suspend enrichment http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=72278 March 05, 2008).

179. Esquire triggers Rumours that Bush is dumping Fallon to dump on Iran - March 05, 2008.
Thomas P.M. Barnett.
"What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage." Those are fighting words to your average neocon, not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform. But utter those words for print and you can easily find yourself defending your indifference to "nuclear holocaust." How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief? The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way. And Fallon is in no hurry to call Iran's hand on the nuclear question. He is as patient as the White House is impatient, as methodical as President Bush is mercurial, and simply has, as one aide put it, "other bright ideas about the region." Fallon is even more direct: In a part of the world with "five or six pots boiling over, our nation can't afford to be mesmerized by one problem." And if it comes to war? "Get serious," the admiral says. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them." Freeing the United States from being tied down in Iraq means a stronger effort in Afghanistan, more focus on Pakistan, and more time spent creating networks of relationships in Central Asia. With Syria and Lebanon recently added to Centcom's area of responsibility, look to see Fallon popping up in Beirut and Damascus regularly. And he says he is more than willing to take on Israel and Palestine to boot, which for now remains a bastard stepchild of European Command." (Thomas P.M. Barnett ‘The Man Between War and Peace’ http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon March 5, 2008).

The Views of Gareth Porter.
"Barnett recalls that when Fallon was in Cairo in November, the lead story in that day's edition of the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette carried the headline "US Rules Out Strike against Iran" over a picture of Fallon meeting with President Hosni Mubarak. That story, published Nov. 19 and not picked up by any US news media, reported that Fallon had "ruled out a possible strike against Iran and said Washington was mulling nonmilitary options instead." That was the second time in less than a week and the third time in seven weeks that Fallon had publicly declared that there would be no war against Iran. In an interview with Al-Jazeera television in September, which Fallon himself had requested, according to a source at Al-Jazeera, he had said, "This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful." And only a week before the trip to Egypt, in an interview with Financial Times, Fallon had said, a military strike was not "in the offing," adding, "Another war is just not where we want to go." These statements represented an extraordinary exercise of power by a combat commander, because it contradicted a central feature of the Bush-Cheney strategy on Iran. High-ranking Bush administration officials had been routinely repeating the administration's line that no option had been taken "off the table" since early 2005. Fallon told Barnett that his ruling out of military action against Iran was necessary to calm the very regimes the Bush administration was hoping to enlist to support its anti-Iran line." (Gareth Porter ‘Fallon's 'No Iran War' Line Angered White House’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12483 March 8, 2008).

180. Henry Paulson: Jewish Extremist using America to inflict sanctions on Iran - March 05, 2008.
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson accused Iranian banks of deception Wednesday and said the U.S. Treasury was pressuring foreign banks dealing with Tehran to respect United Nations sanctions. "We're continuing to work in every country where there are banks that have business. But remember, all business with Iran is not illegal under these sanctions. It is business with the sanctioned entities, so we're pointing out the risks."" (David Lawder ‘Paulson says Iranian banks engaged in deception’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=72843 March 05, 2008). Let’s be clear. The likudnik paulson doesn’t give a toss about united nations’ sanctions. He’s just using a particular set of sanctions to attack iran. Perhaps if he spent more time prevent scandals in america’s financial world he’d be doing everyone a favour.

181. James Risen alleges America tries to provide Iran with Nuclear Bomb - March 06, 2008.
James Risen’s Allegations.
CIA-Mossad Plot to Sabotage Iran’s Electricity Supply.
"The Bush administration is prolonging the hunting season against journalists. The latest victim is James Risen, The New York Times reporter for national security and intelligence affairs. About three months ago, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena against him, ordering Risen to give evidence in court. A heavy blackout has been imposed on the affair, with the only hint being that it has to do with sensitive matters of "national security." But conversations with several sources who are familiar with the affair indicate that Risen has been asked to testify as part of an investigation aimed at revealing who leaked apparently confidential information about the planning of secret Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad missions concerning Iran's nuclear program. Risen included this information in his book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," which was published in 2006. In the book, he discusses a number of ideas which he says were thought up jointly by CIA and Mossad operatives to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities. One of these ideas was to build electromagnetic devices, smuggling them inside Iran to sabotage electricity lines leading to the country's central nuclear sites. According to the plan, the operation was supposed to cause a series of chain reactions which would damage extremely powerful short circuits in the electrical supply that would have led to failures of the super computers of Iran's nuclear sites." (Yossi Melman ‘Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran?’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961337.html March 06, 2008).

Operation Merlin.
"Another of the book's important revelations, which made the administration's blood boil about James Risen, appeared in a chapter describing what was known as Operation Merlin, the code name for another CIA operation supposed to penetrate the heart of Iran's nuclear activity, collect information about it and eventually disrupt it. The CIA counter proliferation department hired a Soviet nuclear engineer who had previously, in the 1990s, defected to the United States and revealed secrets from the Soviet Union's nuclear program. His speciality was in the field of what is called weaponization, the final stage of assembling a nuclear bomb. The scientist was equipped with blueprints for assembling a nuclear bomb in which, without his knowledge, false drawings and information blueprints were planted about a nuclear warhead that was supposedly manufactured in the Soviet Union. The plan's details had been fabricated by CIA experts, and so while they appeared authentic, they had no engineering or technological value. The intention was to fool the scientist and send him to make contact with the Iranians to whom he would offer his services and blueprints. The American plot was aimed at getting the Iranians to invest a great deal of effort in studying the plans and to attempt to assemble a faulty warhead. But when the time came, they would not have a nuclear bomb but rather a dud." (Yossi Melman ‘Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran?’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961337.html March 06, 2008).

Commentators Views.
Gordon Prather.
"The grand jury wants to know Risen's sources for his revelations about a CIA covert program called Operation Merlin, among other things. According to Risen, back in February 2000, the CIA (reportedly in collusion with Israeli intelligence and with the approval of President Clinton) sent a "Russian defector" to IAEA headquarters in Vienna with what Risen characterized as "blueprints for a nuclear bomb" with instructions to give them to the Iranian delegate to the IAEA." (Gordon Prather ‘Operation Merlin II http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12481 March 8, 2008).

182. Brown’s Chamberlain government insists NIE is wrong - March 06, 2008.
Press Reports.
The gordon brown government believes america’s nie conclusions are wrong. But who could believe britain’s intelligence services after they were duped into accepting the preposterous notion that saddam possessed nuclear weapons that could hit britain within 45 minutes: quite a feat since they didn’t exist. "A senior British diplomat has for the first time challenged the findings of a crucial American intelligence report which was considered to have removed the justification for military strikes against Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. The conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate, reflecting a consensus of 16 US intelligence agencies, that it had "high confidence" Iran had shelved a nuclear weapons programme in 2003 was too "emphatic", the diplomat said. "Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers of it were. That all the activities stopped in 2003 and had not resumed. "I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed. So we just don't know," the diplomat told journalists yesterday. The US intelligence report in December "had an impact on the international debate, but I don't think it ever took the military option off the table", he added, saying that the Iranians "continue to pursue a dangerous path, and we shouldn't underestimate the risk of miscalculation"." (Anne Penketh ‘Iran 'may not have ended search for nuclear bomb'’ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-may-not-have-ended-search-for-nuclear-bomb-792083.html March 6, 2008).

The Views of Scoitt Ritter.
"With all the courage of conviction that comes from being anonymously sourced, a "senior British diplomat" has cast doubt on the veracity of a recent US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. This unnamed official was backed up by Simon Smith, the British representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who noted that a recent briefing given by the IAEA had raised doubts about Iran's claims that it never had a nuclear weapons programme. The British government rejects the American NIE's conclusions that Iran's nuclear weapons efforts have been suspended, while hanging its hat on the case for its existence. The heart of this case continues to be a laptop computer of questionable provenance. In a classic case of double-dipping, data alleged to be contained in this laptop has been cited in both the NIE claiming that Iran's programme was halted in 2003, and in the American/EU-3's claims today of an ongoing effort. Iran has rejected as irrelevant or fabricated the data presented by the IAEA on behalf of the United States and the EU-3." (Scott Ritter ‘The losers' game’ http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/scott_ritter/2008/03/the_losers_game.html March 6, 2008).

183. Arabs play the Jews’ game of Invisible Nuclear Weapons - March 06, 2008.
"Arab countries will walk away from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if Israel ever officially acknowledges it has nuclear weapons, the Arab League announced in a statement Wednesday. As Arab foreign ministers met at the Cairo headquarters of the Arab League to prepare for their annual summit at the end of the month, they also issued a series of statements on regional issues, including extremely sensitive matter of Israel's refusal to join the NPT. As soon as Israel announces it has nuclear weapons, the Arabs will announce their withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty, the statement said. Israel is widely believed to be the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons, though it maintains a policy of ambiguity, insisting it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, without confirming or denying their existence. That policy was shaken late last year when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared to acknowledge Israel's possession of nuclear weapons in an interview with German television. He later maintained he was misunderstood." (Arab League vows to drop out of NPT if Israel admits it has nuclear weapons http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961275.html March 05, 2008). Quite why arab leaders sustain the jews’ lies and allow the jews to demand sanctions against a country which does not have nuclear weapons is bizarre. This shows the power of global jewish ideology at its most virulent.

184. Stuart Levey: Jewish Extremist boasts how much pain he’s inflicting on Iran - March 06, 2008.
The likudnik dominated bush regime gave the job of imposing unilateral american sanctions on iran to a likudnik extremist. "Targeted financial sanctions have been effective in isolating Iran, causing a "painful" situation for Tehran's leaders and raising questions about the Iranian administration, a U.S. Treasury official said Thursday."Iran has found itself increasingly isolated from the international financial system as banks around the world decide that maintaining their Iranian clientele is not worth the risk of unwittingly facilitating (weapons) proliferation or terrorism," Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey said in remarks prepared for delivery to an American Bar Association conference in Miami. "That self-imposed isolation combined with the Iranian regime's mismanagement of their country's economy is beginning to generate a debate about the wisdom of the current regime's policies," he added." (US official-financial sanctions "painful" for Iran http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=74459 March 06, 2008).

185. David Wurmser: Jewish Militant suggests Bush doesn’t want war against Iran - March 07, 2008.
Wurmser makes the quite shocking statement that despite bush’s continual harangues against iran he has no appetite for a military confrontation with Iran. "Speaking to an audience of about 70 gathered by the Middle East Forum, Wurmser said we are on our way to a catastrophic war with Iran whether we like it or not. He poured the straight old 150 proof moonshine from the old neocon jug. His extremism was untempered by the experience of the last six years. He conceded that George W. Bush has no appetite for a military confrontation with Iran (I wonder why!). And this is what I found so mindblowing. That a man who has such feverish and melodramatic ideas of a showdown between the east and the west, and who is so separated from reality that he regards Iraq as a triumph and Israel's policy toward the Palestinians as one of forbearance, had so much power for so long. Scary. "Israel doesn't seem to have the will to go back in [to Gaza]," he said with disappointment. "I don't see any will." What a tragedy for the U.S. that this man had so much power. And for my people that prominent Jewish intellectuals are taking their lessons from Nazis." (Philip Weiss ‘Unreconstructed Neocon Wurmser Decants 'Regime Change,' Holy War, and 'Goodbye to 2-State Solution' to a Thin Crowd’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/when-i-signed-u.html March 07, 2008).

186. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami calls for Anti-American Vote - March 07, 2008.
"A senior member of Iran's hard-line clerical establishment urged voters to pick anti-American candidates for parliament in a Friday speech seen as reflecting the views of the country's supreme leader. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said Iranians would "rush" to the polling stations on March 14 in support of those "whose record shows opposition to the United States." "Our people vote for such people," Khatami told worshippers on the campus of Tehran University, where the Friday sermon is broadcast on state television and radio. Khatami's remarks were one of the only public political statements since the start of campaigning Thursday, which was immediately followed by a two-day religious holiday. Reformist former President Mohammad Khatami urged people Thursday to vote for the remaining reformists as the only way to counter the hard-line establishment's efforts to strengthen its grip on power." (Ali Akbar Dareini ‘Iranian cleric calls for anti-US votes’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=76413 March 07, 2008). Khatami makes such a statement only because he’s opposed to ahmadinejad’s hardline approach to iran and seeks to attract some of the voters opposed to america to vote for him rather than ahmadinejad. It was the pre ahmadinejad regime which capitulated to the bush regime by suspending its nuclear enrichment programme for two years and got nothing in return.

187. Peres: The Zionist state won’t attack Iran - March 08, 2008.
Peres’s Statement.
"Israel does not rule out a military solution in the nuclear row with Iran, but it will not unilaterally attack the country, President Shimon Peres said in an interview published in France's Le Figaro newspaper Saturday. "If the development of the bomb is not stopped economically (with sanctions), the non-military options are exhausted," Peres told the Paris-based newspaper. "I prefer to stop the development of the bomb without having to resort to war." Israel would "under no circumstances" act unilaterally he said. "We are not so imprudent as to focus the Iranian danger on Israel. "It is a problem that the rest of the world has to resolve. With the long-range missiles developed by Iran, it is no longer solely an Israeli problem."" (‘Peres: Israel will not unilaterally attack Iran’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=77306 March 08, 2008). The jews aren’t going to attack iran if they believe they can get the americans and brits to do it.

Peres then proceeded to outline the deterrent value of the jews non-existent nuclear weapons. "Peres is due to meet French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris on Monday at the start of an official state visit. Figaro called him the "father of the Israeli nuclear programme" and asked whether the transfer of French atomic know-how had been crucial for the Israeli deterrent. Peres said that the "suspicion" that Israel had atomic weapons was an "essential" component of the deterrent. "I know of no other country that helped Israel as much as France did."" (‘Peres: Israel will not unilaterally attack Iran’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=77306 March 08, 2008).

Commentators’ Views.
Terry Atlas.
"Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone, if that becomes necessary, to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?" (Terry Atlas ‘6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran’ http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/3/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html March 11, 2008).

188. Iran predicts fall in the price of Oil - March 08, 2008.
"A senior Iranian oil official said on Saturday he expected the oil price to fall ahead of November’s US presidential election, suggesting Washington would seek to push it down for political reasons. Hojjatollah Ghanimifard told the Fars News Agency that ‘those in political power in the (United States) will try to (influence) the market through various factors to create interest in voters to elect individuals of their preference. In view of the US presidential election and the fact that the US is the biggest consumer of oil products, oil prices will face a decline in summer,’ Ghanimifard, international affairs director of the National Iranian Oil Company, said." (‘Iran sees pre-election US bid to reduce oil price’ http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/business/2008/March/business_March268.xml&section=business&col= March 08, 2008).

189. Zionist wishful Thinking on the effects of Sanctions on Iran - March 09, 2008.
Zionists are doing their best to pretend that united nations, and american, sanctions are crippling the iranian economy. "Karim Sadjadpour, a Carnegie Endowment Iran analyst, said the latest resolution's "goal was to send a signal to Iranian voters" to chose "more pragmatic and moderate officials" who can end Iran's isolation and economic malaise. "By and large, he (Ahmadinejad) hasn't delivered on his economic promises," Sadjadpour told AFP." (Lachlan Carmichael ‘US admits no silver bullet in US-led drive against Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080309/pl_afp/iranvotenuclearpoliticsus March 9, 2008).

190. Ze'ev Boim: Yet another Zionist Fruitcake - March 09, 2008.
"Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim has accused the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog of acting as an agent for Iran and of allowing the Islamic Republic to proceed with its uranium enrichment without international intervention. "When you examine his behaviour you cannot but reach the conclusion that he is a sort of planted agent ... who has served well the interests of Iran," Boim, a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party said in an interview Sunday with Channel One television." (‘Minister Boim accuses IAEA chief of serving as agent for Iran’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/962351.html March 09, 2008).

191. Allegedly Iran has given up Hezbollah and Hamas for Iraq - March 11, 2008.
"True, both the White House and the US State Department have been very articulate about Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs, but they have still done nothing to end it. Some speculate that some kind of under-the-table deal has been made between Washington and Tehran. This "deal" is believed to be: we the Americans give you a free hand in Iraq (provided that you do not harm our interests) while you abandon your proxies in Lebanon and Palestine." (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran shifts focus fully on Iraq’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC11Ak03.html March 11, 2008).

192. Renewed Drumbeat against Iran - March 11, 2008.
"A high-ranking U.S. military officer Sunday described new details of allegations that Iran is meddling in Iraq, accusing the Islamic Republic of training Iraqi operatives to direct militants in their homeland. The latest accusations, made during a news conference here, were part of a renewed drumbeat of U.S. charges over Tehran's role in Iraq after a period of faint improvement in relations. Last week, after a visit to Baghdad by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and Navy Adm. William J. Fallon accused his government of destabilizing Iraq. Odierno, speaking at the Pentagon, had called Iran the greatest long-term threat to Iraq and accused it of trying to keep the Baghdad government weak for its own benefit. Fallon told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there was evidence that Iran continued to train and equip militants in Iraq. On Sunday in Baghdad, Rear Adm. Greg Smith, a spokesman for American forces in Iraq, fleshed out some of the details of those allegations. He said U.S. troops recently discovered a cache of weapons south of Baghdad with markings indicating they had been made recently in Iran. He also alleged that Tehran had been recruiting Iraqis for training in Iran, citing statements by Iraqi detainees. "All told the same story," Smith said of the detainees. "Handlers trained by Hezbollah inside Iran came back here purposefully to support anti-coalition and anti-security elements."" (Borzou Daragahi ‘Iran fomenting violence in Iraq, U.S. says’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0143.html March 10, 2008).

193. Bush removes Fallon, a major obstacle to war with Iran - March 12, 2008.
Media Reports.
"Admiral William Fallon's resignation as U.S. commander in the Middle East provoked criticism that President George W. Bush won't tolerate dissent and fed speculation his Iran policy could become more confrontational. Fallon's resignation came after publication of an article in Esquire magazine, written by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, that portrayed the admiral as the bulwark against a U.S. offensive against Iran. "A senior defense official said the Esquire article was the latest and most serious instance in which Fallon appeared to be partially out of step with the rest of the administration. The official, who spoke with reporters on condition of anonymity, said the cumulative effect was to create a perception that Fallon was operating on his own, even though his actual views weren't significantly different from those of others in the administration." (Janine Zacharia and Ken Fireman ‘Fallon's Exit Provokes Concern on Path of Bush's Iran Policy’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aBGINjvWpLaU&refer=us March 12, 2008).

American Military Pushing for War again.
Bush’s Men putting the Boot in.
"Adm. William J. Fallon had genuine disagreements with senior military and White House officials, said some who reacted to the commander's resignation. Current and former military officials welcomed the resignation of Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, saying he failed to prevent foreign fighters and munitions from entering Iraq. "The fact is that [Central Command] had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. "We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq."" (Sara Carter ‘Warriors welcome Fallon's resignation’ http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080313/NATION/442198655/1002 March 13, 2008).

Now that Fallon is out of the Way Bush can emphasize the role of Foreign Fighters as a Prelude to War.
"A Pentagon report, "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq," released Tuesday, emphasized that as much as 90 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq cross the border from Syria and that Iran's support for Shi'ite militants is hurting efforts to improve security in Iraq. The Defense Department's quarterly report, from December to February, said militants continue to find safe havens and logistical support in Syria. It also states that Tehran's support for Shi'ite militant groups remains a sizable threat to stability in Iraq. The Quds Force, the elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, still provides much of the munitions for militants inside the country, the report said. Military intelligence officials said many of these foreign fighters are finding sanctuary along Iran's border region as well." (Sara Carter ‘Warriors welcome Fallon's resignation’ http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080313/NATION/442198655/1002 March 13, 2008).

Gordon Prather.
"According to the Washington Times, a "former senior Defense official" (SecDef Cheney?) knows "for a fact" that Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of all U.S. armed forces in the MidEast and Persian Gulf regions, "was fired" last week because Iran and Syria were allegedly allowing "foreign fighters" to cross into Iraq and "kill our soldiers" and "Fallon was unwilling to do anything to hold those countries accountable." How does this "former senior Defense official" expect Syria and Iran to close their borders with Iraq? The same way the Israelis closed Gaza's border with Egypt? Or the same way Bush intends to close our border with Mexico? And, since closing their borders is obviously impossible, what does Bush expect Fallon to do to hold Syria and Iran "accountable"? Nuke ‘em?" (Gordon Prather ‘Unwilling to Nuke?’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12525 March 15, 2008).

Commentators who believe it means War.
Justin Raimondo.
"Do I really need to draw you a picture to get you to imagine what's coming next? This is as clear a signal as any that the Bush administration intends to go out with a bang: one that will shake not only the Middle East but this country to its very foundations. That's why U.S. warships are patrolling the Lebanese coast; and why our warships are playing hide-and-go-seek with Iranian gunboats in the Gulf. It's the reason the Israel lobby has been beating the tom-toms for war, and the reason the anti-Fallon, Petraeus, has been so vocal about the Iranian roots of our Iraqi problem. With Fallon out of the way, the road to war, a regional conflagration that will make the invasion of Iraq seem like a holiday picnic, is cleared. Get ready for World War III." (Justin Raimondo ‘'Fox' Fallon Fired. And we're f*cked…’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12503 March 12, 2008).

Terry Atlas: 6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.
"The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances." (Terry Atlas ‘6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran’ http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/3/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html March 11, 2008).

Neocon Max Boot stirring up Third World War.
"Neoconservatives celebrated Fallon's departure. Max Boot was the foreign policy pundit who labeled Fallon as "unimpressive" in January this year. In an opinion piece in Wednesday's L.A. Times, he argues that Fallon just didn't get it, with regard to Iran: "Fallon's very public assurances that America has no plans to use force against Iran embolden the mullahs to continue developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorist groups that are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.... By irresponsibly taking the option of force off the table, Fallon makes it more likely, not less, that there will ultimately be an armed confrontation with Iran." (Borzou Daragahi ‘Fallon’s fall highlights debate over U.S. policy on Iran’ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/middle-east-fal.html March 12, 2008).

Jim Lobe.
"As much as I would like to agree with Steve Clemons and Chris Nelson, I think Adm. Fallon’s resignation is very bad news, less because it signals war with Iran, as a few analysts have argued (although it certainly makes war more possible), than it suggests rather strongly that the "realists," have lost ground in their never-ending war with the hawks in and outside the administration over control of the "global war on terror."" (Jim Lobe ‘Fallon’s Fall Is Bad News’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=115 March 13, 2008).

Paul Craig Roberts.
"The resignation of Admiral William Fallon as US military commander in the Middle East probably signals a Bush Regime attack on Iran. Fallon said that there would be no US attack on Iran on his watch. As there was no reason for Fallon to resign, it is not farfetched to conclude that Bush has removed an obstacle to war with Iran. The US is already over stretched both militarily and economically. An attack on Iran is likely to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Watching the Dollar Die’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03142008.html March 14, 2008).

Marjorie Cohn.
"Is the Bush administration ramping up for an attack on Iran? The signs seem to point in that direction. On March 11, Navy Adm. William Fallon, commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East, retired early because of differences with Washington on Iran policy. And now, Dick Cheney's current Middle East tour may be designed to prepare our Arab allies for an imminent "preemptive" war against Iran." (Marjorie Cohn ‘Beware an Attack on Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.com/cohn03182008.html March 18, 2008).

Commentators who believe it doesn’t mean War.
Gareth Porter.
"Fallon's greatest concern appears to have been preventing war with Iran. He was one of a group of senior military officers, apparently including most of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were alarmed in late 2006 and early 2007 by indications that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were contemplating a possible attack on Iran." (Gareth Porter ‘Dissenting Views Made Fallon's Fall Inevitable http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12505 March 12, 2008).

Mark Perry.
Perry has access to america’s top military brass and thus has a completely different view of fallon’s resignation than the commentators in the previous section. "There is a view abroad, commonly held, that Fallon has been sacrificed, has been gotten out of the way, by the Bush administration because he disagreed with its policies on Iran. That Fallon stood in the way of the neo-conservative cabal which is bent on expanding the Middle East conflict and that, when given the order for the attack (at some point in the future), Fallon would have courageously refused the order and reversed the tide or history. What bunk. Fallon was and is a navy officer and a patriot. As such, if given a legitimate order from the president of the United States, as passed through the legally constituted chain of command, he would have obeyed the order. Of this we can have absolutely no doubt. To do otherwise is treason and to believe otherwise is to believe that Fallon would have rejected every moment of training, every tradition of his service, every law and custom that has governed US civilian-military relations." (Mark Perry ‘American Icarus flirted with fire’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC13Ak03.html March 13, 2008).

Tony Karon.
"But to put Cheney’s tough talk and saber-rattling in context, I’d suggest those worried that he means business watch the YouTube clip above, taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in which the Black Knight refuses to let King Arthur pass, and continues to issue bloodcurdling threats even as the English king lops off his limbs. The Black Knight hopping about on one leg screaming "I am invincible!" is an apt analogy for Dick Cheney threatening Iran, right now." (Tony Karon ‘Who’s Afraid of Dick Cheney?’ http://tonykaron.com/2008/03/17/whos-afraid-of-dick-cheney/ March 17, 2008).

Commentators who believe it was more about Iraq than Iran.
A number of commentators believe that fallon’s conflict with the likudniks was primarily to do with iraq rather than with iran.

Fred Kaplan: No Implications for Iran.
"It's a shame that Adm. William "Fox" Fallon has resigned, or been ousted, as commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. But he brought it entirely on himself. Contrary to the charges of some Democratic lawmakers, this is not another case of an officer's dissent being stifled. Nor does Fallon's departure herald a tilt in U.S. policy toward war with Iran. To the extent that policy disputes are behind the move, they are much more about Iraq." (Fred Kaplan ‘"Fox" Fallon Wasn't Hounded Out: The Centcom commander brought about his own ouster’ http://www.slate.com/id/2186456/ March 12, 2008). Cole provided a link to this article to express his support for it. "Fred Kaplan at Slate on why Admiral Fallon resigned as CENTCOM commander; it was not about Iran." (Juan Cole ‘Bomber Kills 18, Wounds 64’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 14, 2008).

Juan Cole.
"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied Tuesday that the abrupt resignation of Admiral William Fallon as CENTCOM commander indicates an imminent war against Iran. I think Gates's denial is credible. There is no sign of an American war on Iran, which would involve key positioning of warships, materiel and troops. There is no congressional mandate for such a thing, despite the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman resolution in the senate. A provocation is not out of the question, but it would be a risky move in an election year and could easily backfire on the Republican Party (ask Aznar in Spain). My guess is that the real reason for moving Fallon out is not Iran but Iraq, and that he is being made to step down for the same reason that Donald Rumsfeld was. He does not agree with the long-term troop escalation or 'surge' in Iraq. He doesn't believe that counter-insurgency will work in Iraq in the medium term. And as an admiral, he has his eye on potential trouble spots such as Taiwan and North Korea, and is frustrated that the hands of the US are tied as long as it is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire." (Juan Cole ‘Is Fallon Fall Guy for McCain?’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 12, 2008).

David Bromwich.
"Yet Iran was not the short-term object when Fallon was asked to resign. A few days earlier, he had publicly declared his view that American troops should start their withdrawal from Iraq. General Petraeus's design for an indefinite prolongation of the surge was subject to Fallon's approval; and Fallon let it be known that he would not approve. Rather, there would be a short pause, and then the first steps of the drawing-down. It was this that got him fired." (David Bromwich ‘McCain, Iraq, and Bush's Third Term’ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/mccain-iraq-and-bushs-_b_93412.html March 25, 2008).

194. Cheney announces tour of the Middle East - March 12, 2008.
Bush’s tour of the middle east earlier this year was a diplomatic disaster. The arab world dismissed his demands for them to join an alliance with america and the jews against iran and it also refused to raise oil production. Perhaps cheney believed he could achieve more than bush.

Cheney’s Visit to Middle East Symbolizes ‘Blame the Arabs’ Bigotry.
"Vice President Dick Cheney travels next week to the Middle East to confront a host of challenges that include record oil prices of more than $108 a barrel, Lebanon in a political crisis and a U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian peace effort at a standstill." (Janine Zacharia and Ken Fireman ‘Fallon's Exit Provokes Concern on Path of Bush's Iran Policy’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aBGINjvWpLaU&refer=us March 12, 2008); "With oil soaring to a record $108 a barrel amid mounting signs of U.S. economic turbulence, President George W. Bush said Monday that he was sending Vice President Dick Cheney to the Middle East to raise concerns about oil prices and to press Israeli and Palestinian leaders to move toward peace. Cheney, who leaves Sunday, will meet with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer and the de facto leader of OPEC. At a meeting Wednesday in Vienna, OPEC rebuffed a Bush statement two days earlier calling for increased output. OPEC said speculators and what it called the "mismanagement" of the U.S. economy were to blame for high oil prices. The cartel left its production levels unchanged, saying that the market did not need more oil." (Brian Knowlton ‘Bush hopes Cheney's Mideast visit will rein in oil prices’ http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/mideast/cheney.php March 10, 2008).

Commentators’ Views.
Jim Lobe.
"In that respect, the juxtaposition of Fallon’s resignation with Cheney’s trip to the region has to be seen as particularly worrisome. While I have no doubt a major purpose of the trip is to jawbone the Saudis and the UAE into increasing their oil production as a way of enhancing the chances of a Republican victory in the November presidential elections, the Israel leg of the trip seems particularly fraught. On the one hand, it may be that, given the part played by Cheney in undermining Powell’s efforts to resume peace Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in early 2002, Bush and Rice decided that the vice president would be especially effective in persuading Israel’s leaders to make serious concessions to Abbas, including a real freeze on settlement activity, to get make the Annapolis process more credible. But I have my doubts. With Fallon’s departure, not to mention the administration’s last-minute efforts to make it more difficult for the media and the public to get their hands on the Pentagon report detailing just how wrong the hawks were in trying to connect Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda, Cheney and his allies may be feeling their oats." (Jim Lobe ‘Fallon’s Fall Is Bad News’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=115 March 13, 2008).

195. Americans want to punish Iran for 1979 - March 12, 2008.
"Why is the U.S., which maintains good relations with other odious regimes, unable to offer a hand of peace to Iran? The reasons are psychological as much as political. Powerful Americans have never forgiven Iran's mullahs for overthrowing the shah in 1979, taking U.S. diplomats hostage and opposing Western interests in the Middle East and beyond. They feel the mullahs must be given the punishment they have thus far escaped. That punishment, in the form of bombs, could rain down on Iran at any moment. Believing it can't happen increases the possibility that it will." (Stephen Kinzer ‘Iran still a target?’ www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.iran12mar12,0,5070600.storybaltimoresun.com March 12, 2008).

196. David M. Walker: Last day for the Iconic Accountant - March 12, 2008.
David m. walker was the united states’ comptroller general, the head of the government accountability office. Last year his office released a damning report about the state of america’s finances and the colossal build up of future debts to pay for the provision of future government services. In january this year his office released a report stating that american and united nations sanctions against iran were not working. ""Iran's global trade ties and leading role in energy production make it difficult for the United States to isolate Iran and pressure it to reduce proliferation and support for terrorism," the Government Accountability Office said. "Iran's overall trade with the world has grown since the U.S. imposed sanctions, although this trade has fluctuated."" (Robin Wright ‘GAO Report Challenges Effect of Longtime U.S. Sanctions on Iran’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603711.html January 17, 2008). Please see section 113. US Government Accountability Office releases report on Iran Sanctions - January 16, 2008.

Today was walker’s last day in office. "It was sheer coincidence that David M. Walker spent his last day Wednesday (March 12, 2008) as comptroller general of the United States at the same time that the House and Senate were beginning to debate their budget resolutions for next year. As the head of the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, Walker has been perhaps the most outspoken official in Washington warning of the fiscal train wreck that awaits this country unless it mends its ways. Meanwhile, over the next five years, independent estimates are that the national debt, already $9 trillion, will grow by $2 trillion more. Almost half the government debt owed to banks or individuals is held by foreign creditors, notably China, Japan and the OPEC nations, up from 13 percent five years ago. For much of his nine years as comptroller general, and with increasing urgency in recent times, Walker has been warning policymakers in Washington and audiences around the country that this nation is courting disaster by not paying its bills." (David S. Broder ‘U.S. chief auditor leaves, giving dire warning about national debt’ http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN08031608.htm March 16, 2008). He was basically an accountant with a huge degree of integrity which made him stand out amongst the bush mafia’s freeloaders. Why should these jewish likudniks bother about sensible economic accounting practices when it could manipulate the american government and people into spending huge amounts of money to defend the jews-only state in palestine?

197. Tzipi Livni: Jewish Third World War proponent on the War Path - March 12, 2008.
"Earlier Wednesday, Livni urged the international community to tighten pressure, including economic sanctions, on Iran to halt its nuclear program and said: "The clock is ticking." "We must increase the pressure on the Iranian leadership now if we want to avoid difficult dilemmas in the future," Livni said in a speech to Massachusetts state lawmakers after a visit to Washington this week." (‘Livni: Israel to halt West Bank settlement activities’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/963691.html March 13, 2008). The nazis started world war two. Those who want to trigger world war three are also nazis. It has to be wondered when the west’s chamberlains are going to pluck up the courage to confront the world’s jewish nazis?

198. Zionist Media linking Palestinians to Hezbollah/Iran to block peace in Palestine - March 13, 2008.
"Hezbollah is coming," mourners chanted at Thursday's funeral of a Palestinian militant killed by Israel, his body wrapped in the flag of the Lebanese guerrilla group. A Hezbollah flag, along with Hamas banners, also adorned the home of a Palestinian man who was killed after gunning down eight Israeli students at a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem last week. A shadowy group Palestinian security officials say is a front for Hezbollah claimed responsibility for the rampage. A group calling itself "Galilee Freedom Battalions, the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza" has claimed responsibility for last week's shooting attack in Jerusalem." (‘Hezbollah becoming more visible in West Bank after assassination of its military chief’ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/13/africa/ME-GEN-Palestinians-Hezbollah.php March 13, 2008).

199. War with Iran to help McCain? - March 13, 2008.
"Yet some believe the Bush administration could still choose to attack Iran, perhaps so as to ensure a Republican victory in the upcoming November presidential election. "Their intention to use fear is very clear, and I think that you have to understand how they manipulate American fear to keep power," said Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from the state of Washington. "[President Bush] wants to find a way to provoke a military confrontation, or gin up some data to frighten the American people into believing a preemptive strike is defensible," McDermott said at a recent forum in Washington organized by the group Just Foreign Policy. "And I live in constant fear that he intends to do just that," he said." (Charles Davis ‘Blowback of Iran War Likely to Be 'Terrible'’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cdavis.php?articleid=12514 March 13, 2008).

200. Likudnik propaganda that ‘Iran is in bed with the Taliban and al-Qaeda’ - March 14, 2008.
Here we have an example of the notorious jewish scandalmongering that all the world’s moslems are engaged in a global conspiracy to destroy western civilization. "Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is on a speaking tour in the United States, putting her considerable personal charm in the service of a shrewd salesmanship: of a US war on Iran. This time, however, with the stakes on Iran relatively higher, the discrete charm of the affable Livni is fully required to pave the way for another disastrous war in the Middle East, since Israel is incapable of peace with the Palestinians and is in dire need of other pretexts to channel public attention away from its oppressive policies against the Palestinian people. No matter how many US editorials spin their services in this direction, the fact remains there is a growing healthy concern in the US regarding the undue influence of Israel on US foreign policy. Unfortunately, that healthy skepticism is presently staved off by a sophisticated public relations ploy on Israel's part that blames Iran for the death of the peace process and exonerates Israel, while presenting a caricature of independence-seeking Palestinians as mere proxies of Iran's "messianic fundamentalists". So, the clever Israelis and their friends have mounted a serious campaign to convince the world that Iran is in bed with the Taliban and also with al-Qaeda, as well as with practically "every terror group opposed to the US", to paraphrase Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns at his recent talk at Harvard University. In conclusion, the waning months of the George W Bush administration represent a golden opportunity for Israel to ignite another Middle East conflict that, in essence, is rooted in Israel's structural inability to make peace with the Arab and Muslim world." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Israel raises the ante against Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC14Ak02.html March 14, 2008).

201. Jews marginalizing Rice’s efforts for peace in Palestine - March 14, 2008.
Afrasiabi believes that the jews-only state has successfully marginalized condi rice’s nominal efforts to bring peace to palestine. "Last week, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's pressure on Israel "to honor peace obligations" fell on deaf ears and as far as Israel is concerned the so-called "Annapolis roadmap", to have a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, is a sideshow to a sideshow, with the central focus on the "Iran threat", just as it was on the "Iraq threat" a mere few years ago. This is reflected in the Israeli government's blunt announcement of a new settlement in the West Bank, timed with Rice's visit, which must have surely sent a signal that no matter how it may be interpreted as a provocation that belies the peace process, Israel's policy of annexation and confiscation of Palestinian lands will continue unabated." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Israel raises the ante against Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC14Ak02.html March 14, 2008).

Afrasiabi’s analysis of rice as a marginal political figure is in stark contrast to that created by neo-lefties like tony karon who were trying to minimize the jews’ responsibility for their war crimes against lebanese civilians during the summer 2006. Karon made the absurd allegation that rice was so powerful she had even directed the jewish wehrmacht’s attacks on hezbollah. "It was clear, at the time, that the neophyte Olmert was outsourcing his decision-making to Condi Rice. I wrote at the time of the sense that Israel was waging a proxy war for the Bush Administration, a sense confirmed at the time by the hawkish dean of Israeli military correspondents, Ze’ev Schiff, who wrote at the height of the conflict: "U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure leading the strategy of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international pressure in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain its status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria." (Tony Karon ‘Olmert: His Own Shlemiel, or Bush’s?’ http://tonykaron.com/2008/01/31/olmert-his-own-shlemiel-or-bushs/ January 31, 2008). It just goes to show how far neo-lefties will go to defend their beloved jews only state that they’ll blame anyone no matter how insignificant if it distracts attention from jewish barbarism.

202. Iranian Parliamentary Elections - March 14, 2008.
Lee Keath suspects Ahmadinejad Loses out.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be vulnerable when he stands for re-election next year, after Iranian parliamentary elections showed discontent among fellow conservatives. Conservatives maintained their hold on the parliament in Friday's election, but their camp is split over Ahmadinejad. His conservative opponents won a solid bloc that will likely clash with the president over the next year. "If the government continues the policies that have been controversial, the majority of the parliament will be against it," said Amir Ali Amiri, spokesman of the Inclusive Coalition of Principlists, an election slate of conservatives who have broken with the hard-line president. The strength of Ahmadinejad's conservative opponents likely won't mean changes in Iran's tough line toward the United States. Still, Khamenei has become more overt in his backing for Ahmadinejad, despite grumblings in the conservative camp. The supreme leader, as head of Iran's clerical leadership, has final word in all state matters." (Lee Keath ‘Stormy parliament ahead for Ahmadinejad’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=89976 March 17, 2008).

M K Bhadrakumar believes it’s a Victory for Ahmadinejad and the IRGC.
"Following the recent parliamentary elections in Iran on March 14, the regime has greatly consolidated. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), custodians of the Iranian revolution of 1979, are finally on the threshold of consolidating their political power in addition to the considerable economic and administrative power they already enjoy. The so-called "reformist" platform, comprising 21 moderate parties that included the allies of former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former parliament speaker Mehdi Karroubi, could together muster only less than 20% of seats in the new Parliament. The "reformist" coalition was the Bush administration's best hope. In effect, the "reformist' coalition has become a spent force and is now likely to disintegrate. Already by end-February, Rafsanjani seems to have sensed this defeat of "black Shi'ism" by "red Shi'ism". He quickly changed tack and made up with Ahmadinejad. The ultimate clincher, of course, was the extraordinary gesture of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to publicly voice support of Ahmadinejad. Addressing the powerful Assembly of Experts (headed by Rafsanjani) on February 26, Khamenei praised the role of Ahmadinejad for "great success" on the nuclear issue. Later in the evening on the same day, Rafsanjani visited Ahmadinejad. The IRGC has cadres numbering 10 million. Late spiritual leader ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had envisaged the IRGC to be the core of the Iranian revolution. The parliamentary elections have created a new power calculus devolving on the IRGC. The high turnout at the elections, over 60%, lends unquestionable legitimacy to this extraordinary political transformation of the Iranian regime, returning it, as it were, to its revolutionary moorings. But it has not been the kind of "regime change" the Bush administration sought. Khamenei has emerged more powerful than ever and Ahmadinejad has considerably strengthened his political standing." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008).

203. Jewish Lobby forcing Bush to Sacrifice America’s Oil Supplies - March 17, 2008.
"It does not take much expertise to understand that the current tightness of the oil market is in large part due to the situation in Iran and Iraq. As is well-known, Iran and Iraq have the highest proven oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Iran also has the highest proven natural gas reserves after Russia. But oil and gas production in both countries remains far behind their capacities. The case of Iraq is too well-known to require elaboration. But Iran also produces much less oil and gas than it could. The main reasons are the U.S.-led sanctions regime and the international economic boycott of Iran. To break this deadlock, what the West needs to do is to stop treating Iran as its worst enemy, put an end to sanctions, and instead encourage business and political relations as much as possible. That way the position of the hardliners inside Iran would be undermined and the prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East would be greatly enhanced." (Karel Beckman ‘The West vs. Iran: A Simple Story of Good vs. Evil?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/beckman.php?articleid=12535 March 17, 2008).

204. Karel Beckman argues UN Sanctions are Illegal - March 17, 2008.
"The U.S. and Europe continue to insist that Iran end its uranium enrichment program, which they claim is part of an Iranian plan to develop an atomic bomb. They have persuaded the Security Council of the United Nations to join in this demand. Iran refuses to give up enrichment. The fact is that Iran is acting within its rights. It is entitled under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue enrichment of uranium. The NPT requires that member countries cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose task it is to see to it that their nuclear projects are used for peaceful purposes only. Iran does so, and the IAEA has repeatedly stated that it has found no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. There is thus no legal basis for instituting sanctions against Iran, as the Security Council has done, let alone for tightening these sanctions or taking military action against Iran. Clearly there is no moral or historical justification for the current U.S. and Western policy of confrontation toward Iran." (Karel Beckman ‘The West vs. Iran: A Simple Story of Good vs. Evil?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/beckman.php?articleid=12535 March 17, 2008).

205. The Morally, Politically, and Financially, Bankrupt Cheney on a Tour of Middle East - March 17, 2008.
First Port of Call: Iraq.
"Mr Cheney's visit (to iraq) is the first stop on a nine-day tour of the Middle East and beyond, with scheduled landings in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the West Bank, and Turkey." (‘Cheney wants Arab envoys curb Iran's role’ http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23394346-5005961,00.html March 18, 2008).

Have you thought about my idea for invading Iran?
Although the arab world is sick and tired of the bush mafia’s demands for a war against iran the deluded cheney still hasn’t quite got the message. "US Vice President Dick Cheney during a surprise visit to Baghdad today strongly urged Washington's Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, to send envoys to Iraq, as a key step toward curbing Iranian influence. "Our Arab friends would do well to send ambassadors to Iraq," Mr Cheney said during the unannounced visit to Baghdad just days before the fifth anniversary of the March 2003 US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein. "I think, especially if Arab states (are) concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq, one of the ways for them to counter that is to make a commitment to have a presence here as well," he said." (‘Cheney wants Arab envoys curb Iran's role’ http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23394346-5005961,00.html March 18, 2008).

What a wonderful Country Iraq has become under American Bombs. So full of promise.
""It's especially significant I think to be able to return this week as we mark the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the campaign that liberated the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's tyranny and launched them on the difficult but historic road to democracy," Mr Cheney said after meeting Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki." (‘Cheney wants Arab envoys curb Iran's role’ http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23394346-5005961,00.html March 18, 2008).

Second Port of Call: Oman.
Oman’s response to cheney’s agenda could hardly be called positive. In fact oman made no response at all. "US Vice President Dick Cheney met Oman's Sultan Qaboos on Wednesday for talks expected to focus on US efforts to contain Iran's influence and curb its nuclear programme. The two leaders reviewed "cooperation between Oman and the United States in all fields in light of the close relations" between their countries, the sultanate's state news agency ONA without giving details." (Olivier Knox ‘Cheney meets Oman sultan with spotlight on Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080319/wl_mideast_afp/mideastdiplomacyuscheney March 19, 2008).

Third Port of Call: Afghanistan.
"Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, has triggered speculation that he has been using a tour of the Middle East to prepare Iran's neighbours for a possible war with Tehran. "The important thing to keep in mind is the objective that we share with many of our friends in the region, and that is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be very destabilising for the entire area," Mr Cheney told ABC News before arriving in Kabul, the Afghan capital, after a visit to Oman. A senior aide to Mr Cheney was forced to deny that the nine-day trip to Turkey and the Middle East was part of a strategy by the vice-president to build support for military action against Iran. The official acknowledged that Mr Cheney's talks with the Oman government focused on "the concerns we have about the full range of their [Iran's] activities". These included the country's links to the radical Hamas authorities in Gaza and Washington's belief that Iran has become the dominant power in Lebanon through its sponsorship of Hizbollah." (Tom Coghlan ‘Dick Cheney tour sparks Iran war rumours’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/21/wiran121.xml March 21, 2008).

Fourth Port of Call: The Jews-only State.
"US Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday warned the Palestinians that attacks on Israel were killing hopes for their "long overdue" state, as the sun set on his Easter weekend peace push. US President George W. Bush hopes for an agreement by year's end, ahead of leaving office in January 2009. "This can be done, and if all concerned stay at the work, success will be achieved," said Cheney. "The establishment of a state of Palestine is long overdue and the Palestinian people deserve it."" (Olivier Knox ‘Cheney warns Palestinians over anti-Israel violence’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080323/wl_afp/mideastusdiplomacycheney March 23, 2008); US Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday hit out at Iran and Syria as he wrapped up a Middle East peace push, saying they were undermining the renewed but faltering Israeli-Palestinian talks. Iran and Syria "are doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process," Cheney told reporters in Jerusalem as he wrapped up a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories before heading to Turkey. The talks with the Palestinian leadership came as Abbas's secular Fatah party and the Hamas movement penned a deal in Yemen to hold their first direct talks since the Islamists' bloody seizure of Gaza nine months ago. "My conclusion in talking with the Palestinian leadership is that they have established preconditions which would have to be filled before they would ever agree to a reconciliation including a complete reversal of the Hamas takeover of Gaza," Cheney said. A senior US administration official told reporters that Cheney told Abbas that Washington will not "support working with Hamas unless they were to fundamentally change their stripes."" (Olivier Knox ‘Cheney hits out at Iran, Syria as he wraps up Mideast peace push’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080324/wl_mideast_afp/mideastdiplomacyus Mar 24, 2008).

Commentators’ Views of Tour.
Tony Karon.
Karon presented a strong military case for america avoiding war with iran. "The air-strike scenario holds far greater perils than those it would currently eliminate, and no rational strategic establishment would consider it. (That may be why there are such over signs of resistance from within the security bureaucracy to Cheney’s efforts, from last year’s National Intelligence Estimate to Fallon’s blunt comments about war-talk in Washington)." (Tony Karon ‘Who’s Afraid of Dick Cheney?’ http://tonykaron.com/2008/03/17/whos-afraid-of-dick-cheney/ March 17, 2008). He also pointed out that arab countries are ignoring the bush mafia’s insane plans for world war three for the sake of developing closer relationships with iran. "Moreover, the Arab allies on whom Cheney is calling over the next ten days have long ago concluded that the Bush Administration’s prescriptions for dealing with the Middle East are dysfunctional to the point of self-destruction, and have long since begun going their own way, even as they politely indulge emissaries from Washington. While the Bush Administration insists that Iran must be pressed and isolated, the Egyptians and Saudis are openly engaging in the warmest diplomatic ties with Tehran since 1979, aware that only a cooperative and mutually accommodating relationship can stabilize the consequences of the strategic rivalries of the region." (Tony Karon ‘Who’s Afraid of Dick Cheney?’ http://tonykaron.com/2008/03/17/whos-afraid-of-dick-cheney/ March 17, 2008). Please see section 110. Jewish Muppet on Middle East Tour, January 10, 2008: Bush suffers considerable Diplomatic Setbacks on Tour. Strangely karon doesn’t mention that america no longer has the money to finance another world war.

Wei Jianhua.
"U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has not made meaningful headway on the thorny issues of Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the world energy crisis during his 10-day trip to the volatile Middle East, analysts said. Cheney's tour, which included surprise stops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and scheduled visits to Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the West Bank, "won't produce anything meaningful because he (Cheney) has got nothing to offer," Steven Simon, a U.S. expert on Middle Eastern issues, said. "He represents a lame duck president, a floundering economy, a situation in which the U.S., for all its efforts in Iraq, has no leverage on the government in Baghdad," said Simon, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations." (Wei Jianhua ‘Cheney wraps up Mideast trip with little to show’ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/25/content_7857154.htm March 25, 2008).

206. Swiss Gas deal with Iran: the Likudnik dominated Bush Mafia sacrifices America’s Oil Giants yet again - March 17, 2008.
The swiss have taken the opportunity to sign a major gas deal with iran. The deal will not only be beneficial to switzerland but also for europe since the swiss intend to export any surplus gas. However, the deal must rankle considerably with america’s energy companies which for the last decade or so have been banned by the likudniks from doing business with iran.

Iran signs Gas deal with the Swiss.
"Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey signed the agreement with her Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki in Tehran on Monday. Financial details were not disclosed but the contract between Iran's state gas firm and Switzerland's Elektrizitaets-Gesellschaft (EGL) Laufenburg reportedly envisages Iran supplying 5.5 billion cubic metres (194 trillion cubic feet) of gas annually from 2011." (‘US slams Swiss-Iranian gas deal for sending 'wrong message'" http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080317/pl_afp/usiranswitzerlandenergygas March 17, 2008).

Likudniks’ Reaction to the Gas deal.
"The United States said a deal signed on Monday between Switzerland and Iran's state gas firm sends "precisely the wrong message" amid the continued crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme. "We have conveyed to the Swiss that major new oil and gas deals with Iran send precisely the wrong message at a time when Iran continues to defy UN Security Council resolutions," the US embassy in Bern said in a statement. The US embassy said it believes the deal "violates the spirit of the sanctions" imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council in a bid to try to force Iran to give up its programme of uranium enrichment and cooperate further with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "We are disappointed, and will continue our discussions with the Swiss regarding the need to maintain pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations," the US statement said." (‘US slams Swiss-Iranian gas deal for sending 'wrong message'" http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080317/pl_afp/usiranswitzerlandenergygas March 17, 2008).

Swiss tell the Likudniks to stick it up their Nether Regions.
"Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey says her country does not need Washington's permission to advance its strategic interests. "Switzerland is an independent country that has its own strategic interests to defend," Calmy-Rey said after the signing of a multibillion-dollar gas deal. She shrugged off US criticism of her trip to Iran, in which she met the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Swiss minister added that the Alpine republic, which excessively attempted to bring the deal to fruition, considers the agreement with Tehran a success for both diplomacy and business. Her remarks comes a day after the US embassy in Bern warned Switzerland against a 25-year natural gas contract between Swiss energy trading company EGL and state-owned National Iranian Gas Export Company." ('Bern does not need US permission' http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=48040&sectionid=351020101 March 18, 2008).

Likudniks tell the Americans to investigate Swiss deal with Iran.
"The United States on Wednesday warned that it was launching a legal review of a gas deal signed earlier this week between Iran and Switzerland to see whether it violates terms of US sanctions. "We don't think that now is the time for people to be investing in Iran, not only in its petroleum or natural gas area, but in any sector of its economy," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey. "Certainly, in terms of US domestic law and policy, there are implications or potential implications for any kind of arrangement of this sort in terms of the Iran Sanctions Act," he said. "And, obviously, as we get more details about this, we'll be looking at that particular deal in the light of US law and see whether it crosses any lines there." US law regarding sanctions on Iran forbids US businesses from any business dealings with foreign companies that have links to Iranian companies." (‘US launches legal review of Swiss-Iran gas deal’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080319/pl_afp/iranswitzerlandenergygasussanctions March 19, 2008).

Likudniks imply the Swiss oil deal is Anti-semitic.
"Israel summoned Swiss Ambassador Walter Haffner to its Foreign Ministry offices in Jerusalem Wednesday, protesting an energy deal Switzerland signed with Iran. A senior Israeli official told Haffner that Israel "regrets" Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey's trip to Tehran this week and views it as an "unfriendly act" toward Israel. Israel believes that this is "not the appropriate time" to advance economic deals with Iran, Rafi Barak, the ministry's deputy head for Western Europe, told the Swiss ambassador, according to a government statement." (‘Israel summons Swiss ambassador over energy deal with Iran’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=93625 March 19, 2008); "Israel summons the Swiss Ambassador Walter Haffner to its foreign ministry to protest against a gas deal between Iran and Switzerland. The Israeli foreign ministry's deputy head for Western Europe, Rafi Barak, told the Swiss envoy on Wednesday that Israel believes that this is "not the appropriate time" to advance economic deals with Iran, DPA reported. "Iran is continuing with its nuclear program, aids extremist organizations, supports terrorism, tramples human rights and denies an independent UN member state's (Israel) right to exist," the Zionist regime's government said in a statement." (‘Israel slams Swiss-Iran gas deal’ http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=48206&sectionid=351020101 March 20, 2008).

207. Corrupt Likudnik Financiers destroying American Lives - March 17, 2008.
America’s Corrupt Financiers.
Let’s be honest about this: america’s current financial crisis has been brought about america’s jewish elite. Firstly because it manipulated the country into proxy zionist invasions of afghanistan and iraq which have turned out to be prohibitively expensive. And, secondly, because of its financial shenanigans which have resulted in huge economic losses brought about by the gargantuan securitization and sub-prime loans scandals.

Damien Millet and Eric Toussaint.
"Eager for profit, mortgage companies made loans to a sector of the population that was already heavily indebted. The conditions attached to these mortgages, highly profitable for the lender, amounted to daylight robbery for the borrower: the interest rate was fixed and reasonable for the first two years but thereafter rose sharply. Lenders assured borrowers that the property they were buying would quickly appreciate thanks to the boom in the real estate sector. The problem was that the real estate bubble burst in 2007 and house prices started to go steadily down. The number of defaults on payment soared and mortgage brokers had trouble repaying their own loans." (Damien Millet and Eric Toussaint ‘The Daylight Robbery of Borrowers: The Triple Failing of the Big Private Banks’ http://www.counterpunch.com/toussaint03202008.html March 20, 2008).

The Victims of America’s Corrupt Financiers.
The adverse consequences of the jewish elite’s massive financial corruption will affect millions of ordinary americans. "Financially strapped states are looking to take away government health insurance and benefits from millions of Americans already struggling with a souring economy. An Associated Press review of the budgets in all 50 states reveals coverage would be eliminated for hundreds of thousands of poor children, disabled and the elderly. More than 10 million people would lose dental care, access to specialists, name-brand prescription drugs or other benefits. About 20 million could see their care jeopardized by further cuts to doctors' reimbursements. Health care is a choice target as governors and legislators confront the worst deficits they've faced in a decade or more, but that's not their only target: They're also considering cuts in aid to schools and universities, shrinking state workforces and even releasing prisoners before their sentences are completed. Safety-net programs for the elderly, disabled and out-of-work also could be cut, even as the demand for those services is on the rise. Despite the dire conditions, only a handful of states are seriously considering general tax increases or even modest hikes on the wealthy to close the gaps. Lawmakers say they fear such actions would only further stress the economy. Nearly two dozen states are grappling with deep cuts and tax proposals to close shortfalls totaling more than $34 billion. Unlike the federal government, which can spend more than the revenue it takes in, almost all states are bound by their constitutions to maintain balanced budgets." (‘States' budget crises will hurt millions’ http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/03/17/states_budget_crises_will_hurt_millions/ March 17, 2008).

208. Bush can’t afford a war against Iran - March 18, 2008.
Although there are still many factors suggesting that the bush kosher mafia is doing its best to stoke up an attack iran there is one big obstacle in its way.

The Views of Paul Craig Roberts.
According to the inimitable, ruthlessly honest, paul craig roberts, the bush regime is intent on attacking iran and yet america is so financially bankrupt that it would have trouble financing the return of its troops from iraq. "The American economy has been devastated by offshoring, by foreign competition, and by the importation of foreigners on work visas, while it holds to a free trade ideology that benefits corporate fat cats and shareholders at the expense of American labor. The dollar is failing in its role as reserve currency and will soon be abandoned. When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, the US will no longer be able to pay its bills by borrowing more from foreigners. I sometimes wonder if the bankrupt "superpower" will be able to scrape together the resources to bring home the troops stationed in its hundreds of bases overseas, or whether they will just be abandoned." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘A Bankrupt Superpower: The Collapse of American Power’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03182008.html March 18, 2008).

The Views of M K Bhadrakumar.
"Any number of reasons could be attributed to the Bush administration finally jettisoning a war strategy toward Iran. First and foremost comes the unbearable financial cost of waging a war with Iran, which would have to be underwritten by China, Saudi Arabia and Japan." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008).

209. McCain rails against the non-existent Saddam, Al Quaeda, Taliban, Shiite, Sunni, Iran, Terrorist Front - March 18, 2008.
It has been pointed out above that the zionist state’s foreign minister, tzipi livni, has been scandalmongering by alleging that the world’s moslems are engaged in a global conspiracy to destroy western civilization. Please see section 200. Likudnik propaganda that ‘Iran is in bed with the Taliban and al-Qaeda’ - March 14, 2008. Mccain, financed by the jewish lobby, regurgitates this likudnik propaganda: that saddam, osama bin laden, mullah omar, moktada al-sadr, sunni baathists, and iranians, are engaged in a war against america.

Media Reports.
"Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, mistakenly said Tuesday that Iran was allowing al-Qaida fighters into the country to be trained and returned to Iraq. McCain, expressing concern about Iran's rising sway in the Mideast, said, "Al-Qaida is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." He made the comments Tuesday at a news conference in Jordan; he made similar comments earlier to radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Iran is a predominantly Shiite Muslim country and has been at pains to close its borders to al-Qaida fighters of the rival Sunni sect. Iran has been accused by the United States of funding, training and arming Iraqi Shiite militants in their uprising against the United States. But there have been no allegations by Washington and no evidence that al-Qaida has benefited from Iranian assistance. After Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who was traveling with McCain, stepped forward to whisper in the candidate's ear, McCain said: "I'm sorry; the Iranians are training the extremists, not al-Qaida. Not al-Qaida. I'm sorry."" (Alfred de Montesquiou ‘McCain mistaken on Iran and al-Qaida’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=91861 March 18, 2008).

Commentators’ Views.
Glenn Greenwald.
"Regarding John McCain's patently false statement that Shiite Iran is training Sunni Al Qaeda members in Iraq, a falsehood which the McCain campaign attributed merely to the fact that "John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself" … But that attempt to excuse McCain's ignorance about the most basic facts in Iraq is clearly frivolous, because McCain had been making the same exact statement before Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear. On Monday, McCain was on the Hugh Hewitt Show, and this exchange occurred:
HH: What's the concern you have about Iran, and about, in particular, Ahmadinejad? Some people want to meet with him. He's not on your agenda this trip.
JM: (laughing) The day I meet with the president of Iran will be the day after he announces his country no longer is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel, the day after they stop exporting these most lethal explosives into Iraq. Just yesterday, up in the Mosul area, they uncovered a cache of weapons, and a lot of it was these Iranian copper, high . . .st lethal explosives. As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq. I think Americans should be very angry when we know that Iran is exporting weapons into Iraq that kill Americans. And so all I can say is that I think they continue to be a threat." There are only two plausible possibilities which could account for McCain's false statements: (1) he was engaged in the standard tactic of war advocates, perpetrated ever since 9/11, of just asserting that disparate (and even warring) Muslim factions are allies with one another in the Endless War without there being any evidence that this is so (Saddam loves Al Qaeda which loves Hezbollah which loves the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood which loves Iran which loves the Taliban which loves Hamas which loves Osama bin Laden, etc. etc.), or (2) McCain is just completely ignorant of the most elementary facts about the region and the war in which the media has decreed him to be a Great Expert." (Glenn Greenwald ‘McCain's repeated "slips of the tongue" on Iran and al-Qaida’ http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/19/mccain/index.html March 19, 2008).

Gareth Porter.
"McCain's confusion has been widely characterized as demonstrating his inability to distinguish Sunni al-Qaeda from Shi'ite Mahdi Army. But more fundamentally, McCain's gaffes were a reflection of how thoroughly he had internalized a favorite theme of the Bush administration and neoconservatives, that Iran has tolerated and even covertly assisted al-Qaeda agents operating inside Iran." (Gareth Porter ‘McCain's Gaffes Reflect Bush's Iran-al-Qaeda Myth’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12566 March 22, 2008). Porter provides a detailed history of the bush mafia’s allegations of iranian collaboration with al quaeda.

210. Likudnik Merkel says Iran must prove non-Existence of Nukes - March 19, 2008.
"The chancellor also singled out the Iranian nuclear threat. "It is not up to the world to prove that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb, but rather up to Iran to that it is not," said Merkel. "If Iran does not accept this, Germany will push for further sanctions. If Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would have disastrous consequences," she said. "We have to prevent this." Merkel's visit was emotionally charged due to the memory of the Holocaust, and in her Knesset address the chancellor said the murder of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis continues to be a source of shame for Germans. "The Shoah fills us Germans with shame. I bow before the victims. I bow before the survivors and before all those who helped them survive," she said, using the Hebrew word for Holocaust." (Shahar Ilan and Anshel Pfeffer ‘Merkel to Knesset: Germany will always stand by Israel’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/965602.html March 19, 2008). The holocaust exploitation industry has clearly succeeded in foisting guilt for the second world war even on germans who were born after the war was over. This is either gross stupidity or gross subservience to their jewish masters.

211. Bush’s Radio Farda interview insists Iran wants Nukes - March 19, 2008.
Bush has already made the allegation that iran has declared that it wants nuclear weapons and today he repeated the lie. "President Bush contended that Iran has "declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people" and that the Islamic Republic could be hiding a secret program. Iran, however, has never publicly proclaimed a desire for nuclear weapons and has repeatedly insisted that the uranium enrichment program it's operating in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions is for civilian power plants, not warheads. The president reiterated his view that Iran has a right to civilian nuclear power. But, he said, the low-enriched uranium fuel for its reactors should be supplied by Russia, a proposal that Tehran has repeatedly rejected. "The problem is the (Iranian) government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because one, they've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now. Who knows?" said Bush. "Secondly, they've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people, some in the Middle East. And that is unacceptable to the United States and it's unacceptable to the world."" (Jonathan S. Landay ‘Bush erroneously says Iran announced desire for nuclear weapons’ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31114.html March 20, 2008); "The White House on Friday sought to back pedal on comments by President George W. Bush accusing Iran of having said it was seeking a nuclear bomb. The Islamic regime has always denied in recent years trying to arm itself with an atomic bomb, saying its nuclear program was a peaceful, civilian effort to meet its electricity needs. But Bush in an interview with a US-controlled Farsi-language radio station said Iran has declared it wants nuclear weapons "to destroy people." Bush told Radio Farda, which broadcasts from Europe to Iran, that he supported Iran developing a civilian nuclear power program. "It's in their right to have it," Bush said, according to a White House transcript of the interview made on Wednesday. "The problem is the government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because one, they've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now, who knows; and secondly, they've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people, some in the Middle East." The White House on Friday sought to downplay the remarks, saying Bush was merely speaking in shorthand." (‘White House back pedals on Bush comments on Iran bomb’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080321/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsusbush March 21, 2008). America is facing challenges around the world but the likudnik dominated bush regime has successfully forced the bush regime to focus almost exclusively on the middle east for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine at the expense of america’s national interests.

Juan cole retorted: "On Thursday, Bush lied about Iran again: "President Bush said the Iranian government has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people . . ." The Iranian leaders have consistently condemned nuclear weapons as inhumane and denounced them and said that they don't want them and it would be illegal in Islamic law to use them. Bush is welcome to disbelieve them, but he is not welcome to lie about what they said. He again hinted around that they might have a nuclear weapons program, for which there is no evidence and which flies in the face of the findings of his own intelligence analysts, in the National Intelligence Estimate." (Juan Cole ‘Bush Lies about Iran on Now-Ruz’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 21, 2008).

212. Jewish Likudniks using the International Banking system to undermine Iran - March 20, 2008.
Jewish Likudniks in the Bush Mafia attacking the Iranian economy.
"March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. But it’s not going to be the kind of war many have been expecting. No, there was no dramatic televised announcement by President George W. Bush from the White House oval office. Over at the US Congress, no war resolution was passed, no debate transpired, no last-minute hearing on the Iran "threat" was held. The Pentagon did not put its forces on red alert and cancel all leave. But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran. So who made it official? A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity." FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN’s role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) "calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad." As of March 20, however, the US, speaking through FinCEN, is now telling all banks around the world "to take into account the risk arising from the deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism] regime, as well as all applicable U.S. and international sanctions programs, with regard to any possible transactions" with, and this is important, not just the above three banks but every remaining state-owned, private and special government bank in Iran. In other words, FinCEN charges, all of Iran’s banks, including the central bank (also on FinCEN’s list), represent a risk to the international financial system, no exceptions. Confirmation is possible by comparing FinCEN's list of risky Iranian banks with the listing of Iranian banks provided by Iran’s central bank. The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" is important because it provides the rationale FinCEN will now use to deliver the ultimate death blow to Iran’s ability to participate in the international banking system. The language is borrowed from Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a group of 32 countries and two territories set up by the G-7 in 1989 to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. As the FinCEN advisory describes, in October 2007 the FATF stated "that Iran's lack of a comprehensive anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime represents a significant vulnerability in the international financial system. In response to the FATF statement, Iran passed its first AML law in February 2008. The FATF, however, reiterated its concern about continuing deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT system in a statement on February 28, 2008." What it really means is that the US, again through FinCEN, has declared two acts of war: one against Iran’s banks and one against any financial institution anywhere in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank. So look for the following to happen in the coming weeks: FinCEN will probably issue a Patriot Act Section 311 finding that Iran's central bank is a "primary laundering concern." The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" wording lifted from the FATF statement will be a key reason for that finding. But a Section 311 designation of Iran’s central bank would have a powerful coercive effect on the world’s banks. For any bank in Europe, Asia or anywhere else that goes near the central bank once the 311 blacklist is on, it would be the kiss of death for that bank’s participation in the international banking community, as it was (and remains today) for BDA. In short, the US has in effect declared war on Iran. No bombs need fall as long as the US strategy relies solely on financial sanctions. But if the US Section 311 designates Iran's central bank as a financial criminal, the impact will be the financial equivalent to the first bombs falling on Baghdad at the start of the US-UK invasion of Iraq in March 2003. What then will the impact be of this US-Iran banking standoff? For the US, almost no impact at all. Iran, however, will become another Gaza or Iraq under the economic sanctions of the 1990s, with devastating impact on economy and society. That Iran’s complete financial and economic destruction is the goal of US policy was spelled out by the State Department the day before the FinCEN announcement. Reportedly, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also been involved in high-level meetings around the world concerning Iran, which presumably includes presentations on the arsenal of US financial sanctions. The message he imparts is unknown, but hints of the likely content can be found in public statements. Among Treasury officials Paulson has used the most dramatic language by making the argument that not only is Iran a danger to the international community but that this danger permeates virtually all of Iranian society. In a June 14, 2007 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations he first makes the point that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a "paramilitary" organization "directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts, as well as funding and training other terrorist groups." Then he offers the alarming revelation that 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 somehow doing business with the IRGC." With such language, Treasury lays the groundwork for applying financial sanctions against the entirety of Iran. All this makes clear that the growing coalition of bankers against Iran the US likes to trumpet may not be such a willing group." (John McGlynn ‘The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran’ http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2707 March 22, 2008).

Resistance to the Jewish Likudniks’ attacks on the Iranian economy.
"Some indication of how unwilling can be found in the pages of Der Spiegel (English edition). In July 2007 the German news magazine reported that "anyone wishing to do business in the United States or hoping to attract US investors had best tread softly when it comes to Iran. Germany’s Commerzbank stopped financing trade with Iran in US dollars in January, after the Americans piled on the pressure." One German banker interviewed said: "German financial institutions feel the United States government has been engaging in ‘downright blackmail’." The magazine goes on to report: "Anti-terror officials from the US Treasury are constantly showing up to demand they cut their traditionally good relations with Iran. The underlying threat from the men from Washington is that they wouldn’t want to support terrorism, would they?" Also, an April 2007 report from the UK’s House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee states that the Confederation of British Industry indicated "strong concern" about Patriot Act provisions and other US extra-territorial sanctions. The Committee recognized the need for "vigorous action" in response to terrorist threats but also "endorse[d] the condemnation by the EU of the extra-territorial application of US sanctions legislation as a violation of international law."" (John McGlynn ‘The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran’ http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2707 March 22, 2008).

The Jewish Quisling Angela Merkel.
Merkel seems to have thrown herself wholeheartedly into the zionist cause. "Thus the US will need help from European government leaders to overcome resistance among major European financial institutions to US-led financial sanctions. Such help has already come from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. During her recent state visit to Israel, Merkel told the Knesset that Iran was global enemy number one. "What do we do when a majority says the greatest threat to the world comes from Israel and not from Iran?" she asked. "Do we bow our heads? Do we give up our efforts to combat the Iranian threat? However inconvenient and uncomfortable the alternative is, we do not do that." Iran is public enemy #1 in the world, and everyone, including the European banking establishment it would seem, has to accept that." (John McGlynn ‘The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran’ http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2707 March 22, 2008). Merkel seems to be saying here that she is not bothered about representing the views of her own countrymen who do not believe iran is a global threat. She is much more concerned with representing the views of the jews-only state in palestine. She is, in other words, a quisling to the jews-only state and a traitor to her own country – a phenomenon which now commonplace amongst european governments.

213. A Tale of Three Conferences - March 21, 2008.
Coincidentally, the media reports on the same day about the jews’ attitude towards two proposed conferences. Their preference in supporting one but not the other says all that is needed to be said about their real objectives. At the same time as discussion have been taking place about these two conferences, the russians have also been promoting a third conference on the middle east.

Jews support Conference to promote war against Iran.
The jews want to organize an international conference on iran. It will discuss iran’s alleged possession of nuclear weapons whilst ignoring the jews’ actual possession of nuclear weapons. Once again the jews will have an enormous amount of fun pulling the strings of their puppets to maintain the zionists’ fantasies and taboos. "Germany and Israel will try to initiate an international conference aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed during their working meeting in Jerusalem on Monday. A senior source said that Olmert had suggested holding an international conference on Iran. The two leaders decided to advance the initiative and will try to enlist other states to back it, including the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China, as well as other European states and Arab countries that are threatened by Iran's nuclear program. Israel hopes that states from the moderate Sunni bloc in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and others would take part in the conference. Olmert said a widely supported international gathering would initiate diplomatic pressure on Iran. A government source said such a conference could discuss practical suggestions for dealing with the nuclear issue, while sending a message to Tehran." (Barak Ravid ‘Israel, Germany plan int'l summit to stop Iran nuke program’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966833.html March 21, 2008).

Jews refuse to support Conference to promote peace in Palestine.
"A senior Israeli official on Friday expressed reservations over a proposal for a Middle East conference in Moscow promoted by visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. "Out of diplomatic courtesy, we didn't reject the plan, but the truth is, we are not enthusiastic," the official said, asking not to be named. "There have been enough international conferences. What is needed is to move forward in direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority," he said. Lavrov has said he was discussing the proposed Moscow conference with all interested parties. He was scheduled to meet Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas in the occupied West Bank on Friday, following talks on Thursday with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Tel Aviv. "Nothing has been finalised," Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said after Thursday's talks. "Israel supports any action that will move direct negotiation forward," he said." (‘Israel shows little enthusiasm for Moscow peace conference’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080321/wl_mideast_afp/mideastrussiadiplomacyisrael March 21, 2008).

Jews refuse to support Russian Conference on the Middle East.
"Russia is now shifting gear and is extending its involvement in the Middle East by directly challenging the US's traditional dominance of the region. Lavrov made as the signal tune of his regional tour the Russian proposal to sponsor an international conference on the Middle East. The Arab countries have nothing against the Russian proposal, though they doubt its efficacy, but Israel bristles. Moscow is aware that Washington expects Israel to stifle the proposal. The issue, again, becomes one of public perceptions. Lavrov tauntingly told the Western media while on a visit to Paris on March 11, "My trip to the Middle East next week will make it clear finally who is ready for a [international] conference, and who is not. If all the parties are ready for that, we will hold such a conference."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russia challenges US in the Islamic world’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JC29Ag01.html March 29, 2008).

214. The Likudnik Sarkozy fears Iranian Missiles - March 22, 2008.
The likudnik extremist nicolas sarkozy is trying to legitimize the zionists’ efforts to provoke the western world into an attack on iran. What sarkozy refuses to take into account is that if iranian missiles are a miniscule threat to france then french nuclear missiles a gigantic threat to iran. "Iran Saturday said remarks by French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Iranian missiles being a threat to France and Europe were "baseless." "The baseless claims were made to secure the interests of hard- liners in the United States, support the Zionist (Israeli) media propaganda (against Iran) and increase arms sales to the regional (Gulf) states," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said. Speaking Friday in the northern French port of Cherbourg, Sarkozy had singled out Iran as a threat, noting that Tehran "is increasing the range of its missiles while there are serious suspicions over its nuclear programme. European security is at stake."" (Tehran: Sarkozy remarks on Iranian missile threat "baseless"’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=97002 March 22, 2008).

215. What are the West’s major Economic Incentives to Iran? - March 22, 2008.
In britain, the zionist loving guardian newspaper provides a platform for jewish racists, neo-lefties, and neo-liberal supporters of the jews-only state. Julian borger comes up with the laughable proposition that if only the iranian people knew about the west’s wonderful economic incentives being offered to iran in return for the country giving up on nuclear enrichment then they’d vote out iran’s conservatives. "It is impossible to gauge real public opinion on the nuclear issue, in part because those newspapers and broadcasters still allowed to operate are forbidden from casting doubt on Iran's right to enrich uranium. The ban has allowed the Iranian government to frame the issue, portraying it as a matter of national sovereignty. The details of economic incentives, including help in developing a civilian nuclear programme in return for suspension of enrichment, are not widely known." (Julian Borger ‘Conservative wins in Iran poll show sanctions are failing, say analysts’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/22/iran March 22 2008). In the zionist dominated world in which borger lives to paraphrase ‘those newspapers and broadcasters still allowed to operate are forbidden from casting doubt on the zionist state's right to exist’.

Firstly, the economic incentives the west is offering are paltry. If iran gave up nuclear enrichment it would have to buy new nuclear fuel from russia which would cost it far more than it would to do the job itself. Secondly, economic incentives are irrelevant to iran when the west refuses to offer the country a security guarantee. Surely if the west refuses to negotiate over security guarantees for iran in exchange for iran giving up nuclear enrichment then it can’t be trusted to deliver on its economic incentives.

216. Likudniks rearranging America’s Military Forces after Fallon’s Departure? - March 24, 2008.
It is suspected that fallon positioned american forces in the middle east in such a way as to make it impracticable for bush to launch an immediate military attack on iran. Is it possible these forces are now being repositioned to create such an option? "An American nuclear submarine has crossed the Suez Canal to join the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf, Egyptian sources say. Egyptian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed the canal along with a destroyer on Friday and Egyptian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal. The deployment comes as recent reports allege that US Vice President Dick Cheney is seeking to rally the support of Middle Eastern states for launching an attack on Iran. This is while US officials deny that Cheney’s Mideast tour is linked to a possible military attack on Iran. According to the latest reports, in recent months a major part of the US Navy has been deployed in and around the Persian Gulf." (‘US deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf’ http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=102736 March 24, 2008).

217. Paul Craig Roberts believes the Neocon Nazis still intent on war with Iran - March 24, 2008.
"We know that the Bush regime wants to attack Iran. Despite the NIE report that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program several years ago and despite no signs of a weapons program having been uncovered by IAEA inspectors, Bush, Cheney, and the neocon nazis continue to agitate for striking Iran "before it is too late." Their politicized military commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, keeps insisting that Iran is training Iraqi insurgents and supplying weapons that are killing US troops. Bush and Cheney themselves have made trips to Europe and the Middle East trying to marshall support for an attack on Iran. Anyone who is not deaf, blind and stupid knows that the Bush regime is doing everything it can to create circumstances that will permit a US attack on Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Secret Schemes and Undeclared Agendas: Inside the Shell Game’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03242008.html March 24, 2008).

218. Petraeus blames Iran for Green Zone Attacks - March 24, 2008.
Petraeus’s Allegations against Iran.
"The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's (march 23, 2008) bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets. In an interview with BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Gen Petraeus said violence in Iraq was being perpetuated by Iran's Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example ... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force. "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts." The barrage hit the Green Zone on Sunday morning. Some rockets missed their targets killing 15 Iraqi civilians." (‘Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311565.stm March 24, 2008); "Rockets fired from the capital's Shiite district of Sadr City slammed into the Green Zone Tuesday, the second time in three days, and firefights erupted around Baghdad pitting government and US forces against the militia allied to the influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The US blames the latest attacks on rogue Mahdi Army elements tied to Iran, but analysts say the spike in fighting with Shiite militants potentially opens a second front in the war when the American military is still doing battle with the Sunni extremists of Al Qaeda in Iraq. On Tuesday, Rear Adm. Greg Smith, spokesman for US-led multinational forces in Iraq, blamed the elite Quds units of Iran's Revolutionary Guards for supplying the 22 107-mm and 122-mm rockets that hit the heavily fortified area of Baghdad that is home to the US Embassy." (Sam Dagher ‘Across Iraq, battles erupt with Mahdi Army’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0326/p01s13-woiq.html March 26, 2008).

Gareth Porter: No Evidence to back up Petraeus’s Lies.
"The Petraeus assertion that the rocket attacks on the Green Zone were Iranian-inspired strongly implied that Iran is still providing arms to Shi'ite militias. However, Odierno told a press briefing in mid-January, "We are not sure if they're still importing [sic] weapons into Iraq." That admission came only after many months in which U.S. officers in the border provinces were unable to find any evidence of arms coming across the border from Iran. Those officers also found no trace of the alleged presence of the IRGC personnel in Iraq. Last November, the French weekly news magazine Le Point quoted Maj. Scott A. Pettigrew, the military intelligence chief in Diyala province on the Iranian border, as saying, "I have never seen any activity or presence of the Quds Force. I see nothing here that resembles a proxy war with Iran."" (Gareth Porter ‘Sadr Offensive Shows Failure of Petraeus Strategy’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589 March 27, 2008).

219. Jews speculate on war with Iran - March 24, 2008.
"Hundreds of dead, thousands of injured, missile barrages on central Israel, full paralysis at Ben-Gurion Airport, constantly bombed roads, nationwide power outages that last for long hours, and whole regions' water supply being cut off, this is what the next war could look like. A secret report recently distributed among government ministries and local municipalities details various wartime scenarios. The report deals with very harsh possibilities, including some that are downright horrifying, formulated as part of the lessons drawn in the wake of the Second Lebanon War. Such hypothetical war, according to the assessment, will leave 100-230 civilians dead, and 1,900-3,200 Israelis wounded. However, should Israel be attacked with chemical weapons, the number of killed and wounded Israelis would skyrocket to 16,000." (Itamar Eichner ‘Report: Iranian, Syrian missiles to pound Israel in next war’ http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3522937,00.html March 24, 2008).

220. China wants Iran to become member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - March 25, 2008.
"Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced on Monday (march 24, 2008) that Tehran "recently requested for membership" of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Ahmadinejad will be attending the SCO's summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Meanwhile, Iran's proposal to Russia to form a gas cartel is set to take off at a meeting of gas-producing countries in Moscow in June." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008).

"China welcomes Iran's wish to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which groups China, Russia and Central Asian nations, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tuesday. But Tehran's wish to be upgraded from observer status still requires discussion by the group, Qin Gang said at a regular press conference. The organization is considered by some in the region as a counterbalance to influence from the United States. Iran has participated in SCO meetings in the past as an observer." (China welcomes Iran's wish to become full member of Shanghai group http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VKFCP80&show_article=1 March 25, 2008).

221. Egypt signs Nuclear Power agreement with Russia - March 26, 2008.
Egypt intends to be the next islamic country, after iran, to develop nuclear power. It may then find the jews-only state in palestine putting the country into the firing line to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. "Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin oversaw the signing on Tuesday of a deal that will enable Moscow to bid for the construction of Egypt’s first atomic power station. The head of Russia’s Rosatom nuclear energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, and Egyptian Energy Minister Hassan Younis signed the civilian nuclear cooperation accord at Putin’s residence just outside Moscow. The agreement, which has taken years to draw up, will allow Russia to bid in an international tender for a $1.5-1.8 billion reactor project on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. Mubarak said the deal was reached after "difficult" negotiations, Inter fax news agency reported." (‘Russia, Egypt seal nuclear power deal’ http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=103023 March 26, 2008); "On Tuesday, Russia signed a path-breaking agreement with Egypt allowing Russian companies to build nuclear power plants in Egypt and envisaging Russia providing training for Egyptian nuclear technicians and supplying nuclear fuel. Evidently, Cairo expects that cooperation with Russia will be more advantageous since the US imposes strict conditions, including regular inspections and control. The US has been pressuring Egypt to place its nuclear program under American control, even as a tender is expected to be floated later this year for Egypt's first nuclear power plant estimated to cost about $2 billion." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russia challenges US in the Islamic world’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JC29Ag01.html March 29, 2008).

Iran is leading the way for countries in the middle east to acquire nuclear power industries. "Two years ago, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told international atomic regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors. So, too, Turkey is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East. "The rules have changed," King Abdullah II of Jordan recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Everybody’s going for nuclear programs."" (William J. Broad and David E. Sanger ‘Eye on Iran, Rivals Pursuing Nuclear Power’ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/world/middleeast/15sunnis.html?ex=1334289600&en=5de163506ca635ee&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss April 15, 2007). How are the jews going to control the nuclear power industries of every country in the middle east? It can’t. It’s only real option is preventing them from acquiring nuclear power industries by launching a third world war to emasculate the middle east economically and militarily so they become incapable of developing such an industry.

222. Petreus, blaming Sadr for being pro-Iran, supports pro-Iran Maliki - March 26, 2008.
The Mahdi Army’s attacks on the Green Zone.
The mahdi army started attacked the green zone on sunday march 23, 2008. "The rocket attacks appear to have been one of several actions by the Mahdi Army to warn the United States and the Iraqi government to halt their systematic raids aimed at driving the Sadrists out of key Shi'ite centers in the south. They were followed almost immediately by Mahdi Army clashes with rival Shi'ite militiamen in Basra, Sadr City, and Kut and a call for a nationwide general strike to demand the release of Sadrist detainees." (Gareth Porter ‘Sadr Offensive Shows Failure of Petraeus Strategy’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589 March 27, 2008). See also section 218. Petraeus blames Green Zone Attacks on Iran - March 24, 2008.

On wednesday march 26, 2008 the iraqi prime minister al maliki ordered sadr’s mahdi army to surrender its weapons. It seems as if the iraqi government, the american military, the iraqi military, and the badr brigade, have decided it is time to dismantle sadr’s mahdi army. "Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that the Mahdi Army still controls its neighborhoods in Basra. It says that there are reports that rival militiamen, presumably the Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, have converged on the Sadrist neighborhoods and have joined the fight against the Mahdi Army side by side with government troops." (Juan Cole ‘Dozens Dead in Basra Clashes; Mahdi Army Occupies Kut’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 27, 2008).

Maliki is believed to be much more pro-iranian than sadr and yet the american military is portraying this battle as one in which the iraqi government is trying to crush iran’s influence over the mahdi army even though, if maliki wins, it would reinforce iranian influence over iraq. "The latest round of fighting prompted a call from one of America's most respected retired officers, General Jack Keane …. to fight Iranian-backed gangs in Basra." (Damien McElroy ‘Moqtada al-Sadr orders Iraq PM out of Basra’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/wiraq326.xml March 27, 2008). Porter calls this a contradiction in american policy. "Revealing the contradictions built into the U.S. position in Iraq, even as it was blaming Iran for the alleged renegade units of the Mahdi Army, the U.S. was using the Badr Organization, the military arm of the ISCI, to carry out raids against the Mahdi Army. The Badr Organization and the ISCI had always been and remained the most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq, having been established, trained, and funded by the IRGC from Shi'ite exiles in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war." (Gareth Porter ‘Sadr Offensive Shows Failure of Petraeus Strategy’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589 March 27, 2008).

The Need to weaken Sadr before elections are held in October 2008.
A number of commentators have speculated that the maliki government has had to try and weaken sadr prior to elections in october this year because sadr is expected to win considerable political support.

Gareth Porter.
"The Mahdi Army's blunt warnings of military countermeasures followed months of raids against Sadr's political-military organization by both U.S. forces and the Badr Organization. According to a senior Sadrist parliamentarian, between 2,000 and 2,500 Mahdi Army militiamen had been detained since Sadr declared a cease-fire last August. The raids have been aimed at weakening the Madhi Army's political hold on Shi'ite cities in anticipation of eventual provincial elections. During 2007 there were signs of strong support for Sadr in Najaf, Basra, and Karbala, as Sudarsan Raghavan reported in the Washington Post last December. In Najaf, portraits of Sadr and his father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq Sadr, who was assassinated by Saddam Hussein's security forces in 1999, had "mushroomed defiantly in the streets." Sadr's image had also been "pervasive" in Karbala, according to Raghavan, until security forces loyal to the ISCI arrested more than 400 of Sadr's followers in an obvious effort to destroy its organization in the city." (Gareth Porter ‘Sadr Offensive Shows Failure of Petraeus Strategy’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589 March 27, 2008).

Americans and Maliki want to wrest control over Oil in Basra.
Bhadrakumar is one of the few commentators who has proposed that america insisted that maliki and the iraqi army destroy the mahdi army in order to regain control over southern iraq’s oil fields. "Yet, all in all, (Ayatollah Ahmad) Jannati politely refrained from expressing Iran's complete disapproval of the conduct of Maliki in carrying out the offensive as part of the US game plan to establish control of Basra, which is the principal artery for American oil majors to evacuate Iraqi oil. The Sadrists oppose the current plans for opening up the nationalized Iraqi oil industry to foreign exploitation. What has happened is essentially that Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which the strategy of establishing control over the fabulous oil fields of southern Iraq will not work. Control of Basra is a pre-requisite before American oil majors make their multi-billion investments to kick start large-scale oil production in Iraq. Iraq's Southern Oil Company is headquartered in Basra. Highly strategic installations are concentrated in the region, such as pipeline networks, pumping stations, refineries and loading terminals. The American oil majors will insist on fastening these installations." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html April 03, 2008). However, the fact remains that america’s attack on the mahdi army would have served two goals. Not merely regaining control over southern iraq’s oil but preparing the way for a war against iran.

Americans cannot tolerate Sadr coming to Power.
The americans may have forced maliki into taking action against the mahdi army because they know that sadr would do well in the forthcoming elections and that he would be much less easy to manipulate than maliki. Sadr’s opposition to the american occupation makes it impossible for him to work with the american and allow them to remain in iraq.

223. Iran wants compensation for illegal UN Sanctions - March 26, 2008.
"Iran has threatened legal action against Western states to seek compensation for losses it said it had suffered from U.N. Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program. The threat came in a 20-page letter from Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, obtained by Reuters Wednesday. It rejects as illegal the latest sanctions resolution, passed on March 3, and says Tehran would not comply with it. Iran's letter dwelt on a clause of the resolution calling on countries to inspect cargoes to and from Iran of aircraft and vessels owned or operated by two named Iranian companies if they believed they were carrying prohibited goods. It said that if such inspections were carried out "on baseless and unfounded pretexts ... Iran reserves its right to follow the case before the competent fora." Western diplomats have said some Security Council members were concerned about possible legal implications of the inspections provision." (Patrick Worsnip ‘Iran threatens legal action over U.N. sanctions’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=102484 March 26, 2008).

224. Bush: Iraq is back to Normal - March 27, 2008.
"President Bush, saying that "normalcy is returning back to Iraq," argued Thursday (march 27) that last year's U.S. troop "surge" has improved Iraq's security to the point where political and economic progress are blossoming as well." (Warren P. Strobel and David Lightman ‘Bush: Iraq is returning to normal’ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31825.html March 27, 2008). The reality? "Meanwhile, Iraq weighs around the American neck as an albatross. Moscow has sized up that the US is bogged down in a protracted guerrilla war in Iraq. As a Moscow commentator wrote recently, "The end of this conflict is not in sight. Intensive mine warfare is being waged on Iraqi roads. Not a single allied convoy passes without an explosion. Road mining has assumed such a scale that the US Air Force is using its strategic B-1B bombers for remote mine clearance. Weapons and ammunitions are freely crossing Iraq's lengthy and difficult-to-control borders, while the continued occupation is increasing the mobilization potential of the guerrilla movement."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russia challenges US in the Islamic world’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JC29Ag01.html March 29, 2008).

225. Iran-Syria axis holds firm against the Likudniks - March 27, 2008.
Syria was to host an arab summit and wanted all arab leaders to attend. However many arab leaders were wary of attending the summit because they wanted syria to solve the political impasse in lebanon and didn’t want to upset their american and jewish friends. The americans used their arab allies to put pressure on syria to give way over lebanon. However, syria resisted the pressure and maintained its loyalty to iran. "More Arab kings and presidents on Friday joined the list of leaders staying away from an Arab summit hit by a campaign to punish the Syrian hosts for backing the Lebanese opposition. Diplomats and commentators say the United States has been the driving force behind the campaign to dissuade Arab leaders from going to Syria, which prides itself on its resistance to U.S. and Israeli policies. Veteran Syrian journalist Thabet Salem said Syria still aimed to show it was a "no surrender" country whose policies were in line with popular Arab sentiment. "The United States has been working non-stop to weaken the summit, which confirms the emergence of two axes in the Arab world. Syria is virtually alone on one side," Salem told Reuters. But this year conservative Arab leaders tried to use the threat of a poor turnout at the summit to put pressure on Syria to give the green light to the election of a new Lebanese president on terms acceptable to the Lebanese government and parliamentary majority, diplomats say. When the Lebanese parliament missed this week its last chance to choose a president before the summit, the stage was set for the conservatives to act. Saudi Arabia, which along with the United States and France backs Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, is sending only its Arab League representative to the event. A junior minister will represent Egypt. The struggle in Lebanon is part of the international conflict between the United States and Iran, each with allies inside the Arab world. The pro-Iranian parties, Syria, the Shi'ite Muslim movement Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian Islamists of Hamas, are much weaker than the American-backed governments arrayed against them, but their opposition to U.S. policies gives them some popular appeal." (‘More Arab leaders snub Syria, skip summit’ http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2892344820080328?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true March 28, 2008).

Over the last couple of years the likudniks like tony blair and the neocons have been arguing that the west, the jews-only state and their arab allies are facing a threat from a shia crescent stretching from iran to lebanon. However, there is no such grand conflict between sunnis and shias. The division is between those regimes loyal to the jews-only state in palestine and those who are opposed to it.

226. Iran demands an end to fighting in Iraq - March 29, 2008.
"Iran called on Saturday for an end to fighting between Iraqi government forces and Shi'ite Muslim militants to remove any "pretext" for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, himself a Shi'ite, launched a crackdown against the Mehdi Army militia in the southern Iraqi city of Basra this week. Fighting has spread and exposed a deep rift within Iraq's majority Shi'ites. "The Islamic Republic of Iran does not regard the recent clashes in Iraq as being in the interest of the people of that country and calls for a speedy end to the clashes," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hossein said. Speaking to the official IRNA news agency, he called for the "continuation of dialogue to find ways of establishing peace, stability and security". He added that by avoiding clashes "the people of Iraq take away any pretext for the continued illegal presence of the occupiers." Washington accuses Tehran of stoking violence by funding, training and equipping Iraqi militants. Iran denies this. U.S. President George W. Bush sought to bolster Maliki in remarks on Friday and said he wanted to send a "clear message" to Iran that it could not have its way in the Middle East." (‘Iran urges end to Iraq fighting, says helps US’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=106609 March 29, 2008); "The Iranian foreign ministry called Saturday for an end to the fighting, saying that it strengthens the US hand in Iraq and may have the consequence of prolonging the US presence. Iran tends to back the Da'wa Party of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, so it is significant that Tehran is criticizing this push by those two to destroy the Sadr Movement. I take them at their word. They are genuinely afraid that al-Maliki's poorly conceived campaign will backfire and that Bush will use it to insist on keeping troops in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Mahdi Army Unsubdued’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 30, 2008).

227. Michael Hayden: Anti-Iranian Paranoia at the top of the CIA - March 30, 2008.
Media Reports.
"CIA chief Michael Hayden expressed his personal belief Sunday that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, but also stood by the agency's assessment that the program was suspended in 2003. "Personal belief, yes. It's hard for me to explain. This is not court of law stuff," the Central Intelligence Agency director said on NBC television. Iran's defiance of UN Security Council sanctions showed the Islamic republic had something to hide with its production of enriched uranium, Hayden said." (‘CIA chief says Iran has nuclear weapons drive’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080330/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearweaponscia March 30, 2008).

Views of Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"You know something is amiss when Central Intelligence Agency director Michael Hayden defends the recent US intelligence finding on Iran, that claims Tehran stopped its nuclear weapon program in 2003, and, in the same breath, alleges Iran has a "nuclear weapons drive". Although in sharp contrast with recent statements by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, who is seeking damage control by saying that the NIE report he supervised should have put it differently, Hayden's "double-speak" at least has the protean value of neutralizing the anti-Iran war drive led by Vice President Dick Cheney, who in his recent tour of the Middle East stated unequivocally that Iran is enriching uranium to "weapons grade". There is no empirical support for Cheney's claim, that puts him at odds with the various International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports on Iran that consistently cite low-grade enrichment on Iran's part, ie, about 4%, that is fully monitored by the IAEA's robust inspection regime. In comparison, Hayden's carefully-chosen vocabulary, emphasizing Iran's tendency or "drive" to be more precise, has the advantage of heating up the pot of allegations against Iran without necessarily bringing it to boiling point." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Iran sees hope in war of words’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD02Ak01.html April 02, 2008).

228. Likudnik Traitors in America still kicking up a fuss about Iran-Swiss Gas Deal - March 30, 2008.
The swiss oil deal with iran has been highlighted above. 206. Swiss Gas deal with Iran: the Likudnik dominated Bush Mafia sacrifices America’s Oil Giants yet again - March 17, 2008. The likudniks cannot afford to allow the swiss to blatantly ignore their desire to shut down trade with iran.

Likudniks applying pressure on the Swiss.
"The U.S. has demanded to see a Swiss contract for natural gas supplies from Iran to see whether it violates an American sanctions law against Tehran, the U.S. Embassy in Switzerland said Sunday. A posting on the U.S. Embassy Web site raises the question of whether neutral Switzerland's position as representative of American interests in Iran and Cuba could be affected. "At this time, the Swiss have a mandate as our protecting power in Cuba and Iran," the Web site said in response to a "frequently asked question" on whether the Swiss role was "in jeopardy." The Swiss have represented U.S. interests in Havana since diplomatic relations with Cuba were broken nearly 50 years ago, and in Tehran since Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in 1979. Washington, which already had objected to the deal with Iran as violating the spirit of U.N. sanctions against Iran, made a formal request to see the contract March 17, the Embassy said. U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Lisbeth Keefe said Washington originally had asked to see the contract last summer, long before the signing. The Swiss have yet to produce the contract, the embassy said." (Balz Bruppacher ‘US demands to see Swiss-Iran contract’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=107787 March 30, 2008).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi sees growing split between Europe and America over the Swiss oil deal.
"The Iranians see more and more nations, not only in the Third World, becoming convinced of the unfairness of the UN sanctions. The recent US$10-22 billion Iran-Swiss gas deal, raising the ire of US officials without a comparable negative backlash in Berlin and a number of other European capitals, points at frustration in the US's policy of isolating Iran, a main energy hub for Europe. Signs of a discrete parting of the ways between the US and the European Union are already discernible in the controversy about this gas deal. This is bound to encourage similar deals between Iran and European gas and oil companies; the net of sanctions is wearing thin and gaping holes in it will soon be so huge as to make it irrelevant." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Iran sees hope in war of words’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD02Ak01.html April 02, 2008).

229. Paul Craig Roberts once again denounces Bush’s War on Iran - March 31, 2008.
It has been pointed out above that paul craig roberts’s suspected that fallon’s resignation opened the way for bush to order an american military attack on iran. See section 193. Bush removes Fallon, a major obstacle to war with Iran - March 12, 2008. A fortnight later he repeated his belief that bush is intent on war. See section 217. Paul Craig Roberts believes the Neocon Nazis still intent on war with Iran - March 24, 2008. And a week later he repeats his growing suspicions. "The US Congress, the US media, the American people, and the United Nations, are looking the other way as Cheney prepares his attack on Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Iran in the Crosshairs: A Third American War in the Making?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03312008.html March 31, 2008).

Roberts rightly points out that the iranians do not believe that america will attack iran. "The Iranians don't seem to believe it, despite the dispatch of US nuclear submarines and another aircraft carrier attack group to the Persian Gulf. To counter any Iranian missiles launched in response to an attack, the US is deploying anti-missile defenses to protect US bases and Saudi oil fields. Just as the world could not believe Hitler's next horror and thus was always unprepared, the Iranians despite all the evidence cannot believe that even the Great Satan would gratuitously attack Iran based on nothing but lies about non-existent nuclear weapons." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Iran in the Crosshairs: A Third American War in the Making?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03312008.html March 31, 2008).

Roberts provides an astute insight into iran’s role in iraq. "If Iran were arming insurgents, the insurgents would have two weapons that would neutralize the US advantage in the Iraqi conflict: missiles to knock down US helicopter gunships and rocket-propelled grenades that knock out American tanks. The insurgents do not have these weapons and must construct clumsy anti-tank weapons out of artillery shells. The insurgents are helpless against US air power and cannot mass forces to take on the American troops." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Iran in the Crosshairs: A Third American War in the Making?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03312008.html March 31, 2008).

He believes iran’s best chance for survival is to strike first. "Iran's only chance would be to strike before the US delivers the first blow. Instead of using its missiles to take out the Saudi oil fields and to sink the US aircraft carriers, instead of closing the Strait of Hormuz, instead of arming the Iraqi Shi'ites and moving them to insurgency, Iran is perched like a sitting duck in denial even as the US and its Iraqi puppet Maliki move to eliminate Al Sadr's Iraqi Shi'ite militia in order to avoid supply disruptions and a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq when the US attack on Iran comes." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Iran in the Crosshairs: A Third American War in the Making?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03312008.html March 31, 2008). However, this is the point at which roberts’s analysis starts unravelling. Maliki is not an american puppet and he has no chance of squashing the mahdi army in order to enable america to launch an invasion of iran.

230. Victory for the Mahdi Army … and Iran - March 31, 2008.
Iran negotiates Truce in Iraq.
Barnett R. Rubin.
"Iran was integral in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to halt attacks by his militia on Iraqi security forces, an Iraqi lawmaker said Monday. "Haidar al-Abadi, who is with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa Party, said Iraqi Shiite lawmakers traveled Friday to Iran to meet with al-Sadr. They returned Sunday, the day al-Sadr told his Mehdi Army fighters to stand down. . . . The lawmakers who traveled to Iran to broker the cease-fire were from five Shiite parties, including the Sadrist movement. Al-Abadi would not say where in Iran the meeting was held." When Iran Revolutionary Guards helped the U.S. destroy al-Qaida's bases in Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and form an interim government under UN supervision, the Bush administration responded by putting Iran (then led by President Muhammad Khatami) on the "axis of evil." Now battles between the pro-Iranian militia brought to power by the U.S. (al-Da'wa) and a more Iraqi nationalist Shi'a militia (the Sadr movement) threaten to reverse the precarious security gains of the surge by dividing the ruling coalition of Shi'a parties. Iran convenes them on its territory, and the battle is calmed." (Barnett R. Rubin ‘Iran Saves the Surge’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/03/rubin-iran-saves-surge.html March 31, 2008).

Pepe Escobar: Terrorist negotiates peace in Iraqi Civil War.
President George W Bush's self-described "defining moment" in Iraq amounted to this: General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) , brokered a deal in Qom, Iran, between Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's envoys and Hadi al-Amri, the head of the Badr Organization and number two to Adbul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and a key player of the government in Baghdad. That sealed the end of the battle of Basra." (Pepe Escobar ‘The other Iraqi civil war’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak01.html April 3, 2008).

M K Bhadrakumar: Terrorist negotiates peace in Iraqi Civil War.
"By all accounts, Iran played a decisive role in hammering out the peace deal among the Shi'ite factions in Iraq. Details are sketchy, however, since they must come from non-Iranian sources. Tehran keeps silent about its role. The deal was brokered after negotiations in the holy city of Qom in Iran involving the two Shi'ite factions, the Da'wa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), which have been locked in conflict with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in southern Iraq. It appears that one of the most shadowy figures of the Iranian security establishment, General Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) personally mediated in the intra-Iraqi Shi'ite negotiations. Suleimani is in charge of the IRGC's operations abroad. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who was camping in Basra and personally supervising the operations against the Mahdi Army, was not in the loop about the goings-on. As for US President George W Bush, he had just spoken praising Maliki for waging a "historic and decisive" battle against the Mahdi Army, which he said was "a defining moment" in the history of a "free Iraq". Both Maliki and Bush look very foolish." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html April 03, 2008).

Sadr and Iran emerge more Powerful.
Robert Dreyfuss.
"At the start of the military offensive launched last week into Basra by US-trained Iraqi army forces, President Bush called the action by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "a bold decision." He added: "I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq." That's true, but not in the way the President meant it. As the smoke clears over new rubble in Iraq's second city, at the heart of Iraq's oil region, it's apparent that the big winner of the Six-Day War in Basra are the forces of rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army faced down the Iraqi armed forces not only in Basra, but in Baghdad, as well as in Kut, Amarah, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniya, capitals of four key southern provinces. That leaves Sadr, an anti-American rabble rouser and nationalist who demands an end to the US occupation of Iraq, and who has grown increasingly close to Iran of late, in a far stronger position that he was a week ago. In Basra, he's the boss. An Iraqi reporter for the New York Times, who managed to get into Basra during the fighting, concluded that the thousands of Mahdi Army militiamen that control most of the city remained in charge. "There was nowhere the Mahdi either did not control or could not strike at will," he wrote. But it's far worse for the United States. President Bush strongly backed Maliki since the Battle of Basra started. According to Steve Hadley, the president's national security adviser, the decision to act in Basra was taken jointly between Washington and Baghdad. And US air power and even some ground units supported the floundering Iraqi forces, whose weakness and incompetence were revealed for all to see. After five years of massive US training and equipment, the Iraqi armed forces weren't even able to take control of Iraq's second-largest city." (Robert Dreyfuss ‘The Lessons of Basra’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/dreyfuss March 31, 2008).

M K Bhadrakumar.
"But why isn't Tehran in any hurry to claim victory? But the most important Iranian calculation would be not to provoke the Americans unnecessarily by rubbing in the true import of what happened. Tehran would be gratified that in any case it has made the point that it possesses awesome influence within Iraq. Anyone who knows today's anarchic Iraq would realize that triggering a new spiral of violence in that country may not require much ingenuity, muscle power or political clout. But to be able to summarily cry halt to cascading violence, and to achieve that precisely in about 48 hours, well, that's an altogether impressive capability in political terms. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it?" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html April 03, 2008).

Bush Mafia so embarrassed about Military Failure it disowns attack.
Bush and the american military were fully behind maliki’s atttack on the mahdi army. They may even have forced maliki into taking such action. See section 226. Iran demands an end to fighting in Iraq - March 29, 2008. "U.S. President George W. Bush sought to bolster Maliki in remarks on Friday and said he wanted to send a "clear message" to Iran that it could not have its way in the Middle East." (‘Iran urges end to Iraq fighting, says helps US’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=106609 March 29, 2008).

"As it became clear last week that the Operation Knights Assault in Basra was in serious trouble, the George W. Bush administration began to claim in off-the-record statements to journalists that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had launched the operation without consulting Washington. These suggestions that it was Maliki who miscalculated in Basra are clearly false. No significant Iraqi military action can be planned without a range of military support functions being undertaken by the U.S. command. On March 25, just as the operation was getting under way in Basra, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said "coalition forces" were providing intelligence, surveillance, and support aircraft for the operation. Furthermore, the embedded role of the U.S. Military Transition Teams (MTTs) makes it impossible that any Iraqi military operation could be planned without their full involvement." (Gareth Porter ‘Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12613 April 1, 2008).

‘Iran Saves the Surge’
What this victory for the mahdi army reveals is that the so-called success of america’s surge has been down to iran rather than the american military.

Gareth Porter.
"In an interview with the Washington Post Dec. 23, 2007 David Satterfield, a senior advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and coordinator for Iraq, said the decline in the number of attacks by Mahdi Army militiamen "has to be attributed to an Iranian policy decision" and suggested that the policy decision had been made "at the most senior level" in Tehran." (Gareth Porter ‘Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12613 April 1, 2008).

231. Opposing views on America’s Likudnik war with Iran.
In this month alone, a considerable amount of evidence has emerged suggesting that the likudnik dominated bush mafia is actively working towards launching a war against iran: to such an extent that some commentators suspect it might be willing to fabricate an incident leading to such a war. And yet the evidence against bush being able to launch such a war is also stacking up.

Factors pointing towards an American attack on Iran.
167. Zionist State moves American Navy to protect flanks during massacre in Gaza? - March 01, 2008.
172. U.N. Security Council imposes third round of Likudnik Sanctions on Iran - March 03, 2008.
174. Odierno complains Iran is the biggest threat to America’s continuing Devastation of Iraq - March 04, 2008.
176. The Likudniks take their Persecution of Iran to the IAEA - March 04, 2008.
177. Petraeus keeping up the Islamophobia - March 04, 2008.
180. Henry Paulson: Jewish Extremist using America to inflict sanctions on Iran - March 05, 2008.
193. Bush removes Fallon, a major obstacle to war with Iran - March 12, 2008.
199. War with Iran to help McCain? - March 13, 2008.
199. Tzipi Livni: Jewish Third World War proponent on the War Path - March 14, 2008.
205. The Morally, Politically, and Financially, Bankrupt Cheney on a Tour of Middle East - March 17, 2008.
211. Bush’s Radio Farda interview insists Iran wants Nukes - March 19, 2008.
212. Jewish Likudniks using the International Banking system to undermine Iran - March 20, 2008.
218. Petraeus blames Green Zone Attacks on Iran - March 24, 2008.

Factors suggesting there won’t be an American attack on Iran.
185. David Wurmser: Jewish Militant suggests Bush doesn’t want war against Iran - March 07, 2008.
208. Bush can’t afford a war against Iran - March 18, 2008.
230. Victory for the Mahdi Army … and Iran - March 31, 2008.

William S. Lind speculates there will be War.
Lind suspects the bush mafia will attack iran and that, as a consequence, the american military could lose its army in iraq. "Adm. Fallon's (forced?) resignation was the last warning we are likely to get of an attack on Iran. It does not mean an attack is certain, but the U.S. could not attack Iran so long as he was the Centcom commander. That obstacle is now gone. Vice President Cheney's Middle East tour is another indicator. According to a report in The American Conservative, on his previous trip Cheney told our allies, including the Saudis, that Bush would attack Iran before the end of his term. If that report was correct, then his current tour might have the purpose of telling them when it is coming. The purpose of this column is not to warn of an imminent assault on Iran, though personally I think it is coming, and soon. Rather, it is to warn of a possible consequence of such an attack. Let me state it here, again, as plainly as I can: an American attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we now have in Iraq. As I have warned before, every American ground unit in Iraq needs its own plan to get itself out of the country using only its own resources and whatever it can scrounge locally. Retreat to the north, through Kurdistan into Turkey, will be the only alternative open to most U.S. Army units, other than ending up in an Iranian POW camp." (William S. Lind ‘Operation Cassandra’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=12583 March 26, 2008).

Lind had issued such a dire warning to the american military in iraq over a year ago. "As I have said before and will say again, the price of an attack on Iran could easily be the loss of the army we have in Iraq. No conceivable action would be more foolish than adding war with Iran to the war we have already lost in Iraq. Regrettably, it is impossible to read Mr. Bush's dispatch of a carrier and Patriot batteries any other way than as harbingers of just such an action." (William S Lind ‘Cliff Ahead! Stomp on the Gas!’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lind01122007.html January 12/14, 2007).

There are, however, three big differences between now and the last time he made such a statement.

Firstly, the kurdish peshmerga is better trained and armed than it has ever been. It may well be willing to fight alongside the americans in an attack on iran or help to defend the american military from an iranian attack if bush launches a war against iran.

Secondly, in conjunction with the ‘surge’, the american military adopted a new counterinsurgency approach - "clear, hold and build". It decided to bribe sunni militias into attacking al quaeda rather than the american military. The success of this u-turn may have tempted the americans to believe that the sunnis might fight alongside them if iran retaliated against the american military in iraq for an american attack on iran. "U.S. Marines in Iraq, who are mostly in Anbar province, are the only force we have left. Their lines of supply and retreat through Jordan are intact. The local Sunnis want to join them in fighting the hated Persians. What do they do at that point? Good question." (William S. Lind ‘Operation Cassandra’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=12583 March 26, 2008).

Thirdly, the american, and british, militaries have been training and arming the iraqi military for the last four years. The bush regime may have come to believe that this force is now powerful and loyal enough to fight alongside the american military if it launched a war on iran.

Although there is incessant talk of america’s army and marines being seriously battle fatigued, the bush regime had reasons to believe the american military was in a far more powerful position militarily today than it was prior to the surge. Bush’s best case scenario was that the american military could use the peshmerga, sunni militias, and the iraqi army, to attack iran or, at the very least, to defend american troops if iran retaliated against an american attack on iran.

But just how feasible is such a best case scenario? Would the peshmerga be willing to join in an attack on iran, perhaps in the hope that this would enable them to liberate iranian kurdistan, knowing that their participation in an attack might trigger a response from the turkish military which opposes any extension of kurdish sovereignty? Would sunni militias be willing to fight alongside the peshmerga in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would sunni militias be willing to fight alongside the shiite iraqi army in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would the shiite iraqi army be willing to support an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would the shiite iraqi army be willing to fight alongside sunni militias in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would all three militias fight alongside each other and the american military against iran? It is difficult to imagine this. Even worse from america’s perspective is that the iraqi military’s recent failure to defeat the mahdi army seems to suggest that it is simply not skilled or committed enough to make a substantial contribution to an american war against iran.

Tony Karon speculates there won’t be War.
Tony karon likens the situation that america is in to a monty python sketch. He believes dick cheney is the black knight. "But to put Cheney’s tough talk and saber-rattling in context, I’d suggest those worried that he means business watch the YouTube clip above, taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in which the Black Knight refuses to let King Arthur pass, and continues to issue bloodcurdling threats even as the English king lops off his limbs. The Black Knight hopping about on one leg screaming "I am invincible!" is an apt analogy for Dick Cheney threatening Iran, right now." (Tony Karon ‘Who’s Afraid of Dick Cheney?’ http://tonykaron.com/2008/03/17/whos-afraid-of-dick-cheney/ March 17, 2008).

However, karon may be mistaken in believing the american military in iraq is still as vulnerable as it was prior to the surge. The more the americans can win the allegiance of the peshmerga, sunni militias, and the shiite iraqi army, the greater would be their military capabilities to attack iran or to defend itself from iranian retaliation inside iraq after an american attack on iran. It is highly unlikely they could win over all three militias but two out of three could be counted as a success. So perhaps dick cheney wouldn’t find himself legless or armless after all.

M K Bhadrakumar believes Reconciliation with Iran is on the Way.
It was pointed out above that during his radio farda interview, bush seemed to have taken his usual, highly aggressive, stance towards iran (see section 211. Bush’s Radio Farda interview insists Iran wants Nukes - March 19, 2008). However, the great geopolitical analyst mk bhadrakumar, who thrives on diplomatic nuances, has a contrary interpretation. "A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz. Significantly, ahead of Bush's interviews, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger spoke. Kissinger, incidentally, is a foreign policy advisor to the Republican Party's presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. For the first time, Kissinger called for unconditional talks with Iran. That is a remarkable shift in his position. Interestingly, Kissinger's call was also echoed by Dennis Ross, who used to be a key negotiator in the Middle East, and carries much respect in Israel. Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go [in reform]." Arguably, Bush's interviews signify that "unconditional talks" may have begun with Iran. Thus, from Washington's perspective, the new Iranian Parliament will have a preponderant share of "hardliners" and will be more radical and more "loyal" to the regime, to use Western cliches. Bush's interviews on the occasion of Nauroz are a grudging admission of the emergent political alignment in Tehran. The Bush administration is pragmatic enough to estimate the need to engage Iran." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008).

Bhadrakumar believes there are grounds for a reconciliation between bush and iran. Firstly, it is in america’s geostrategic interest to use iran’s vast fossil fuel resources to undermine russia’s fossil fuel grip over europe. The construction of the nabucco gas pipeline is the key to such a strategy. Secondly, iran supports the construction of such a pipeline and would welcome a more co-operative american strategy. "Besides, Tehran remains on the lookout for a shift in the US stance on the Nabucco gas pipeline sourcing Iranian gas via Turkey for the European market. Without Nabucco, the US strategy to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas supplies will remain a pipedream, and without Iranian gas, Nabucco itself makes little sense, while Nabucco will be Iran's passport to integration with Europe." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008). It should also be added that it is also in america’s geostrategic interests to win over iran as an ally as a means of containing the dramatic rise of china as a global player. The proposed construction of the nabucco pipeline would not merely undermine russia’s geostrategic interests it would also undermine china’s geostrategic interests by piping iran’s fossil fuels westwards rather than eastwards. If america and the west could understand their own national interests, they would have to conclude that iran is pivotal in boosting their own interests at the expense of both russia and china.

There are a number of factors which undermine bhadrakumar’s thesis that bush is putting out ‘peace feelers’ to iran. Firstly, even bhadrakumar admits that bush’s funding and arming of sunni militias is having a negative impact on iran. "The Bush administration needs to count on Tehran's tacit cooperation with the US to use its formidable influence with Iraqi groups. Belligerence toward Iran is hardly the way the Bush administration can realize this objective. But after a recent visit to Iran, prominent US author and commentator Selig Harrison wrote in The Boston Globe newspaper, "Tehran is seething over what it sees as a new 'divide and rule' US strategy designed to make Iraq a permanent US protectorate". He was referring to the current US strategy of building up rival Sunni militias, euphemistically called the "Sunni Awakening", so as to fence in the Shi'ite-dominated government in Baghdad. But, as Harrison recounted his conversations in Iran, "The message was clear: Unless [US General David] Petraeus drastically cuts back the Sunni militias, Tehran will unleash the Shi'ite militias against US forces again."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008). Is it really feasible that the bush mafia would be seeking peace with iran after spending so much time funding and arming sunni militias?

Secondly, an even starker contradiction of bhadrakumar’s proposition is that deep within the bowels of the bush regime, two hardline, militant, likudnik fundamentalists are manipulating america’s money laundering laws to financially isolate iran from the rest of the world. "March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. So who made it official? A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity." Among Treasury officials Paulson has used the most dramatic language by making the argument that not only is Iran a danger to the international community but that this danger permeates virtually all of Iranian society. With such language, Treasury lays the groundwork for applying financial sanctions against the entirety of Iran." (John McGlynn ‘The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran’ http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2707 March 22, 2008). This could have a crippling effect on the iranian economy. Perhaps bush is not aware of what these extremists are doing. Perhaps bhadrakumar was not aware of what they are doing and did not take such a development into consideration.

Thirdly, as politically sophisticated and perceptive as bhadrakumar may be, he refuses to contemplate the influence of the jewish lobby on the american political system and america’s, especially bush’s, foreign policies. This seriously undermines all of his comprehensive geostrategic analyzes. The jews-only state in palestine, and its allies in the american jewish lobby, are utterly opposed to any reconciliation between america and iran. They would do all they could to stop iran participating in the nabucco project, even though this would doom the project to failure and both america and europe would suffer a considerable geostrategic setback. The bush regime stands no chance of reaching an agreement with iran on the nabucco pipeline when hardline jewish militants in the treasury department are busy trying to prevent any country around the world from trading with iran. The bush regime has just condemned switzerland for reaching a fossil fuel agreement with iran. It is hardly going to turn around now and agree to an even bigger deal with iran on the construction of the nabucco pipeline.

The likudniks’ ability to sabotage the viability of the nabucco pipeline is yet another piece of evidence revealing their domination over the bush regime and their ability to force the bush regime to implement foreign policies completely at odds with america’s national interests. It is in the national interests of america, europe, and iran, to co-operate on the construction of this pipeline but the jews-only state, and its allies around the world, have the political and economic power to stir up anti-iranian hostilities to prevent america and europe from co-operating with iran. The only way america and europe could reach an agreement with iran to further their national interests is if they curb the corrupt political influence of their jewish lobbies. And this is not going to happen. Jewish lobbies are going to continue to set america and europe against iran just as they are also antagonizing america and europe against russia. Their ability to pressure the american government and european governments into islamophobia against iran is so profound they are driving russia and iran together to create a fossil fuel dominance which will significantly boost their economic and political leverage over the rest of the world. Even worse is that the jewish lobbies are doing something similar to america and europe as regards and having the same effect. America and europe desperately need iranian fossil fuels as a means of countering the rise of china and yet jewish lobbies are engendering hatred in these governments against iran which is driving the iranians into an even closer alliance with china further boosting china’s rise as a world power.

Jewish likudnik extremists have pressured the bush mafia into focussing so much political attention on the middle east for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine that this has allowed china to flourish around the world considerably undermining america’s status as the world’s superpower. A significant proportion of america’s political, military, and economic, resources have disappeared into the quagmire of america’s zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq that could have been used around the world to counter china’s rise as a global power. China must marvel at the benefits it has acquired from the likudniks’ manipulation of the bush regime which has become totally locked into the nonsensical war on terror. Basically the likudniks have allowed china to expand around the world almost unchallenged by the world’s hyperpower.

America and europe need iran to enhance their global interests but the likudniks on these continents have generated so much animosity against iran they have pushed iran into developing an alliance with russia and china that will have a seriously detrimental impact on american and european interests. By stirring up american and european islamophobia against iran, the jews couldn’t inflict more geostrategic damage on america and europe to the enormous benefit of russia, china, and iran. In the decades to come, when the world is a much more multi-polar place than it is now, bush may look back on his period in office and be utterly aghast at how much he boosted the political and economic power of china and russia by sacrificing american and european interests to jewish supremacism in the middle east. He will realize just how successful the jewish lobby was in turning him into a complete dupe.

It is beyond belief how successful jewish extremists have been in perverting america’s national interests. Within the space of two presidential terms of office they have transformed america from the world’s sole hyper-power and the world’s most admired country, into a country close to financial and military bankruptcy which is detested around the world almost as much as the hideously racist jews-only state.

Bhadrakumar’s proposition about bush’s peace feelers to iran was being rendered obsolete even as it was being formulated. At the moment that bhadrakumar was composing his article, bush was pressuring the maliki government into using the iraqi military to attack the mahdi army. Once bhadrakumar had caught up with events, he explained bush’s objective for the attack as being a desire to gain control over the oil fields in southern iraq for america’s multinational energy corporations. "What has happened is essentially that Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which the strategy of establishing control over the fabulous oil fields of southern Iraq will not work. Control of Basra is a pre-requisite before American oil majors make their multi-billion investments to kick start large-scale oil production in Iraq." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html April 03, 2008). It might have been thought that by now even someone as stupid as bush would have realized that military invasions were not the best way to secure the interests of america’s energy companies. Even if it was the case that bush was hoping to gain control over southern iraq’s oil fields there is no doubt that he supported the attack on the mahdi army primarily because it would keep open the option of an attack on iran.

Did Iran ask the Mahdi Army to launch attacks on the Green Zone to deter an American attack on Iran?
After cheney’s tour of the middle east, the iranian government may have feared there was a dramatic increase in the risk of an american attack on iran. It might have asked the mahdi army to bombard the green zone as a warning to the americans not to attack iran. The bush regime may have decided that the time was now ripe for the maliki government to dismantle the mahdi army. Bush wanted sadr out of the way not merely to keep open the option of an attack on iran but to ensure sadr wouldn’t gain the political power to oppose america’s long term occupation of iraq. Maliki may have complied with bush’s request because he hoped this would strengthen his political power in southern iraq especially with provincial elections coming up in october 2008. The badr militia may also have been willing to support the attack in order to dispose of a major rival militia and to gain control over the lucrative oil industry. When iran unleashed the mahdi army it may not have intended to provoke such a major response from the american, and the iraqi, militaries but it has benefited considerably from sadr’s victory. Everyone now knows that it would take an enormous military effort for the american and iraqi militaries to defeat the mahdi army in southern iraq. This effort may be beyond america’s current military capabilities. So the oil industry in southern iraq will remain under sadr’s control and there is now less likelihood of an american military to attack iran. After all, if the american military can’t defeat the mahdi army just how is it going to cope with iran’s military forces?

Conclusions.
There are two huge factors working against an american attack on iran. Firstly, america would suffer an even greater military catastrophe than it has already suffered as a result of its zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq. It may be in a militarily stronger position than it was in prior to the surge since it is no longer being attacked by sunni militias and the mahdi army. However, the american military has no real allies in iraq that would join an invasion of iran nor protect it if iran retaliated for an american attack on iran. It has the support of the peshmerga. It has won over sunni militias. But would they fight alongside the shiite iraqi army? America might have come to believe it could use the iraqi military against iran but the iraqi military’s recent failure against the mahdi army must have rendered such a belief delusory. Some commentators believe that america forced maliki into attacking the mahdi army in order to prepare the way for an invasion of iran but after the recent fiasco the americans must have realized that if they can’t defeat the mahdi army how are they going to fare against iran’s enormous military forces. The mahdi army, having been trained and armed by iran, is now powerful enough to take on american troops in iraq if bush is foolish enough to order the american military to attack iran. The prospects for an attack on iran have diminished considerably as a result of this disastrous american inspired attack on the mahdi army.

Secondly, america simply cannot afford a war against iran. It would have to be funded by china, japan, and/or saudi arabia and they don’t want a war against iran. If america invaded iran it would suffer an even greater financial, and political, catastrophe than it has already suffered as a result of its zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq. A war against iran would be economically and militarily suicidal.

But, then again, we are dealing with a presidential regime which is dominated by traitorous likudnik fanatics who simply do not care what happens to america as long as it benefits the military supremacism of the zionist state in the middle east. The likudniks may have reached the conclusion that america is heading for an economic recession that will necessitate a considerable contraction of america’s military forces. If this is so then the most opportune moment for an attack might be now before america is forced to start reducing its military capabilities.