[Previous entry: "Partisan Quarrel Forces Senators to Bar the Doors"] [Next entry: "article from September 2002:The president's real goal in Iraq"]

11/02/2005:

"The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a Nuclear Attack is on the Neo-con Agenda"

The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago. Tactics adjust to unpredictable events as they unfold.

There was such an event last week, when Iran's president declared that Israel must be "wiped off" the map. The surprise was not the statement, which was an often-repeated quote by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, directed at a domestic student audience. What was surprising was both the timing (amid discussions about whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium) and the relatively low-key U.S. response. Tony Blair expressed "revulsion," Chirac was "profoundly shocked," the European Union in a joint statement "condemned [it] in the strongest terms." Instead, Bush was quiet.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan commented, "It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," and the usually vociferous U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton only said that Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel were "pernicious and unacceptable." Those are uncharacteristically mild statements for this administration in the face of such a provocative statement by Iran against one of the U.S.' closest allies. Why?

Because Iran's intended underlying message to the U.S., which was ill-timed only in appearance, was: If you nuke us, the world will know that you did it because Iran supports the Palestinian cause.

...The real reason for nuking Iran, however, is none of the above. It was spelled out with surprising candor in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf] as one of several possible reasons geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons:

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

Yes, you read it right: The U.S. is prepared to break a 60-year-old taboo on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries – not because the survival of the country is at stake, not because the lives of many Americans or allies are at stake – just to demonstrate that it can do it.
antiwar.com

Iranian envoys sacked as hardliners' influence grows

Five Iranian ambassadors have been sacked as the country's hardliners tighten their grip on foreign policy following the election of the conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iran's ambassador to Britain, Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli, is among the casualties of the purge. A press spokesman for the Iranian embassy said: "The ambassador's term has been terminated after one year of serving in London."

Mr Adeli, an experienced hand who is close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the unsuccessful candidate in the Iranian presidential election, is returning to Tehran. The other envoys recalled to Tehran are the ambassadors to Paris, Geneva, Berlin and Kuala Lumpur.

Western diplomats and analysts in Tehran said the decision had been brewing for some time, even though it was announced days after the new Iranian president sent shock waves across the world by declaring that Israel should be "wiped off the map". The sacking of the five envoys "is of a piece with the more strident hardline foreign policy", said a Western diplomat.

Even before the election in June, the hardliners in Mr Ahmadinejad's camp had been critical of the government's handling of the nuclear negotiations with the EU. Following Mr Ahmadinejad's surprise victory, Iran caused the talks to break down by announcing the resumption of uranium conversion, a possible first step towards building a nuclear weapon.
independent.co.uk

Bashing Syria

It's happening all over again. This time Syria has received the kiss of the White House don just as laid-out in the 1996 neo-con rule book "Clean Break", conceived on the bidding of none other than the Israel far-right's chief thug Benjamin Netanyahu.

The fact that the cabal is religiously sticking to its agenda is predictable but it's, surely, shocking that world leaders seem bent on bowing to the Bush bullies like a bunch of sycophantic schoolboys even as the Italian premier Berlusconi is saying his mea culpas over Iraq.

...Since when has the UN been involved with investigating the demise of individuals, even ones as beloved as Hariri?

So here was a country which does not have weapons of mass destruction, was not threatening or occupying its neighbors, had cooperated with Bush's war on terror and which has long been asking to return to the peace table with Israel offering peace in exchange for occupied Syrian territory including the strategically important Golan Heights. Ah! Here we may be onto something.

A return to "Clean Break", whose authors are all current or former members of the Bush administration and include Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz as well as David and Meyrav Wurmser, may give us a clue.

Given a hearty stamp of approval by Dick Cheney and Daniel Pipes, the document calls for the overthrow of both the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order to secure Israel as the dominant regional power, along with an end to the 'land for peace' policy.

In light of the sheer ruthlessness of the above in pursuing their Straussian goals, as evidenced by the recent CIA leak case, and their need for a cassus belli to go after Syria, one must take their crocodile tears over Hariri's death with a huge shovel of salt.

Why would the Syrian government on the brink of quitting Lebanon and in the knowledge that it was being squeezed by the White House and Downing Street itching for a fight murder a Lebanese out-of-power politician and with such dramatic fanfare entailing the use of elaborate planning and sophisticated equipment?