On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.

The article entitled “New Beltway Debate: What to do about Iran” noted with a degree of alarm: “It is a frightening notion, but it not just the trigger-happy Bush administration discussing—if only theoretically—the possibility of military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program… [R]easonable people from both parties are examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.”

Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.

A key member of the Center’s task force was Obama’s top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, who is well known for his hawkish views. He backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—and signed up as a foreign policy analyst for Fox News.

Full Article

In a widely reproduced piece first published on the web site Japan Focus on Mar. 22, John McGlynn goes into detail about a fact that we have emphasized several times but that has never appeared in the U.S. mainstream press: that the increasingly harsh economic and financial measures taken by the U.S. vis-à-vis Iran are acts of war. -- In his article, McGlynn, an economic and financial analyst based in Tokyo, proclaimed that Fri., Mar. 20, 2008, was the day that "the U.S. officially declared war on Iran" because it was the day that the the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Treasury Department issued an "advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: 'Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity.

'"[1] -- "Iran's complete financial and economic destruction is the goal of U.S. policy," McGlynn said. -- The "legal" basis of these measures is the cobbling together of certain parts of the U.S.A. Patriot Act and arbitrary U.S. declarations about "terrorist organizations." -- At the end of his 4,500-word article, McGlynn proposes that the financial and economic measures that are supposed to be an alternative to military means can be better understood as an aspect of the so-called "Shock and Awe" doctrine. -- McGlynn quotes the 1996 article that outlined that doctrine, in which Harlan Ullman and James Wade wrote: "Economic sanctions are likely to continue to be a preferable political alternative or a necessary political prelude to an offensive military step . . . In a world in which nonlethal sanctions are a political imperative, we will continue to need the ability to shut down all commerce into and out of any country from shipping, air, rail, and roads. We ought to be able to do this in a much more thorough, decisive, and shocking way than we have in the past . . . Weapons that shock and awe, stun and paralyze, but do not kill in significant numbers may be the only ones that are politically acceptable in the future." -- Thanks to Tim Smith for posting this piece, which is reposted below.

NOTE: McGlynn exaggerates the significance of the Mar. 20 advisory from the Treasury Department. -- In fact, the U.S. has been engaged in such warfare for a long time; the U.S. national security state has never accepted the legitimacy of the Iranian revolution (despite its manifestly popular nature) and the political régime it established and has been working and planning to overthrow it for decades...

Full Article

Two items stand out in the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program. The first is that in all but two areas, Iran made progress in addressing unresolved issues outlined in the so-called Workplan agreed upon in August 2007. In the IAEA’s assessment, Iran has provided plausible explanations for sources of uranium contamination found on equipment at a technical university, its research into Polonium-210 and activities at the Gchine uranium mine.

“Verification” needed on procurements
Iran also insists that procurement by the Physics Research Center for items such as balancing machines, magnets, fluorine handling equipment, and mass spectrometers, which could be useful in uranium enrichment or conversion activities, was all intended for other purposes, primarily educational. The IAEA reports that it “took note” of the information provided by Iran substantiating its claims, concluded that it was “not inconsistent” with the stated use of the equipment, but acknowledged in a discussion with reporters that “verification of completeness” was still necessary. This is safeguards-speak for saying that while the IAEA is, for now, accepting Iran’s statements, it is continuing to evaluate them against other information to determine if the Iranian information is the complete truth. Traditionally this step is the more important and far more difficult one, particularly if the country is not cooperating adequately, as is the case with Iran.

No progress on “Alleged Studies”
A bigger issue identified in the report is Iran’s continued stonewalling on the information contained in the “laptop documents” and from other member states, referred to by the IAEA as the “alleged studies.” According to the IAEA, when confronted with information contained in the documents, Iran insists that the information is either fabricated outright or relevant to conventional weapons or civilian applications.

Full Article

Gulf states no longer want to isolate Iran.

Washington - 'Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos," Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Gulf dignitaries in Bahrain last month. But in reality, everywhere you turn, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia to Egypt, you now see Iranian leaders shattering longstanding taboos by meeting cordially with their Arab counterparts.

The Gulf has moved away from American arguments for isolating Iran. American policymakers need to do the same. The states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are accommodating themselves to Iran's growing weight in the region's politics.

They remain key parts of America's security architecture in the region, hosting massive US military bases and underwriting the American economy in exchange for protection. But as Saudi analyst Khalid al-Dakheel argues, they are no longer content sitting passively beneath the US security umbrella and want to avoid being a pawn in the US-Iranian struggle for power. Flush with cash, they are not interested in a war that would mess up business.

Full Article

A split between Western powers and Russia and China over a proposed sanctions resolution against Iran has forced the U.N. Security Council to table any action on the measure until next year, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 13).

A 90-minute telephone discussion Tuesday between political directors from China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States drew attention to the emerging rift between the major players regarding Iran’s nuclear program, leading them to postpone a vote on the resolution until 2008.

“I think it unlikely, unfortunately, that we will be able to make progress during 2007,” said British Ambassador to the United Nations John Sauers. “We will come back to this issue in 2008.”

China and Russia have opposed imposing additional strong penalties on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment activities. Chinese U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said the governments of the six nations continue to consider the sanctions and little time remains this year to reach a consensus.

“I think it's more likely that it will come in January to the Security Council,” Wang told AP. “I think we all start from the presumption now things have changed,” Wang said last week, referring to the recent U.S. intelligence conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Full Article

I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile gesture. But an attack on Iran -- which appears increasingly likely before the coming presidential election -- will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions.

...A country that exists in a state of permanent war cannot exist as a democracy. Our long row of candles is being snuffed out. We may soon be in darkness. Any resistance, however symbolic, is essential. There are ways to resist without being jailed.

If you owe money on your federal tax return, refuse to pay some or all of it, should Bush attack Iran. If you have a telephone, do not pay the 3 percent excise tax. If you do not owe federal taxes, reduce what is withheld by claiming at least one additional allowance on your W-4 form -- and write to the IRS to explain the reasons for your protest. Many of the details and their legal ramifications are available on the War Resisters League's website.

I will put the taxes I owe in an escrow account. I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war. Maybe a courageous judge will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of aggression. Maybe not. I do not know. But I do know this: I have friends in Tehran, Gaza, Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Cairo. They will endure far greater suffering and deprivation. I want to be able, once the slaughter is over, to at least earn the right to ask for their forgiveness.

Full Article

Some Democrats are worried that President Bush’s funding request to enable B-2 “stealth” bombers to carry a new 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb is a sign of plans for an attack on Iran.

Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon designed to destroy targets deep underground.

A White House summary accompanying the supplemental spending proposal said the request for money to modify ¬B-2s to carry the bombs came in response to “an urgent operational need from theater commanders.” The summary provided no further details. The White House and the Air Force, in response to queries, did not provide additional clarification.

Previous statements by the Defense Department and the program’s contractors, along with interviews with military experts, suggest the weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found chiefly in Iran, which Bush suspects of developing nuclear weapons capability, and North Korea, which already has tested a nuclear device.

Bush has said repeatedly that he prefers to use diplomacy to resolve tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. But his request for funding to deliver the new bunker buster comes amid a sharp escalation of tough White House rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program in recent days.

On Oct. 18, Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Three days later, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of “serious consequences” if Tehran continued to enrich uranium.

Full Article

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late.”

Full Article

George Bush, speaking before yet another military audience, yesterday delivered what might actually be the most disturbing speech of his presidency, in which he issued more overt war threats than ever before towards Iran:

"The other strain of radicalism in the Middle East is Shia extremism, supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories.

Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late" (Applause.)

Leave aside all of the dubious premises -- the fact that the U.S. is supposed to consider Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" because of its support for groups that are hostile to Israel; that Iran is arming its longstanding Taliban enemies; that Iran is some sort of threat to Iraq's future even though it is an ally of Iraq's government; and that Iran's detention of American-Iranians inside its own country is anything other than retaliation for our own equally pointless detention of Iranians inside of Iraq, to say nothing of a whole slew of other provacative acts we have recently undertaken towards Iran. Leave all of that aside for the moment.

Full Article