(JINSA/PNAC associated) Cheney favors attack on Iran (for Israel, of course!)

http://www.upi.com/International_Int..._on_iran/6974/

International Intelligence - Analysis

Published: July 30, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Analysis: Cheney favors attack on IranBy CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI International Editor
WASHINGTON, July 30 (UPI) -- Diplomatic arm-wrestling between Iran and
the West over the future of the Islamic republic's nuclear program has
not prevented talk of the military option as a solution to the crisis,
despite the tsunami-like reaction such a military adventure would
generate in the Arab and Islamic world.

Of late, there has been much speculation regarding the probability of
U.S. and/or Israeli military strikes intended to destroy the Islamic
republic's nuclear power sites before they become fully operational.
The Iranians say the plants are being built for peaceful purposes, but
Western sources believe Iran's intention is to develop military-grade
nuclear material.

In fact, President George W. Bush has reiterated on numerous occasions
that "everything is still on the table" when it comes to discussing
Iran's nuclear development and how to sanction Iran over its
continuing refusal to abide by directives from the international
community.

But a well-informed source tells United Press International that
according to senior U.S. intelligence officials, President Bush has
definitely decided not to strike any of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons
production facilities this year.

The sources say the officials stressed the words "this year," meaning
in 2007. That, however, does not rule out the possibility of military
intervention in 2008, right until January 2009, when Bush's term in
the White House comes to an end.

This information seems to back up a report published in the July 16
issue of the London Guardian that claims President Bush gave in to
Vice President Dick Cheney, accepting to carry out military action
against Iran before he leaves office.

According to the Guardian, a series of meetings held during June and
July involving top White House, Pentagon and State Department
officials was used by the vice president to stress the point that the
diplomatic approach to solving the crisis had failed. The London
newspaper went on to say that the vice president was able to convince
the president by saying that no future U.S. administration would have
the courage to act militarily against Tehran.

At the same time, sources familiar with the intelligence community
report that there have been "a lot of stories about bunker buster
bombs being moved to the region." The source says, however, that there
is no basis for these reports, which, according to them, are being
floated by Israeli intelligence.

"This is 'PSYOP' rubbish," a well-informed source told UPI. PSYOP
stands for psychological operations; or in other words, playing mind
games with the enemy.

The aim of PSYOP is to demoralize the enemy by inseminating doubt
among his troops as well as the local population. Psychological
operations play a vital role in military and political planning of
most countries.

One prime example of PSYOPs was used during Operation Desert Storm in
1990-91, when the United States led an international coalition to oust
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, which he had occupied in August 1990. By
placing a Marine expeditionary force aboard Navy vessels anchored off
the coast, U.S. military planners had Saddam believe that the U.S.
Marines would launch a seaborne assault on Kuwait, therefore tying
down large numbers of Iraqi forces and building massive defenses along
Kuwait's beachfront for an attack that never materialized. Instead,
the major thrust came across the desert from Saudi Arabia, a move the
Iraqi leader did not expect.

Part of the task performed by PSYOPs includes developing and employing
propaganda in a convincing manner.

Instead of a direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Vice
President Cheney has proposed a measure that would launch a very
limited military strike at one or more known Iranian training centers
whose forces are being deployed to Iraq.

Cheney's proposal has gotten no approval, so far, say the sources.

Indeed, the Bush administration accuses Iran of supporting terrorism,
primarily groups in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories, groups
Washington considers to engage in terrorist activities. A particular
point of contention between Iran and the Bush administration are
accusations from Washington over the nefarious role Iran continues to
play in neighboring Iraq, while Iran accuses the United States of
trying to implement regime change in Iran.

One of the primary culprits accused by the Bush administration of
fomenting trouble in Iraq is Moqtada Sadr, the pro-Iranian firebrand
young Shiite cleric, and his Mahdi Army. It is believed that Iran
supplies Sadr and his fighters with logistic and financial support, as
well as weapons and improvised explosive devices.

U.S. intelligence sources, however, say that the White House estimates
of the assistance provided to the Iraqi Shiite community by Iran, as
well as the amounts, "are exaggerated."

Launching a war against Iran in 2008 -- their last year in office --
the Bush administration would in fact be leaving a second war they
started in the Middle East for the next administration to resolve.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham

CASMII Press Release
28 July 2007
In an alarming exposure of the acceleration and urgency of the
American war party's push towards catastrophic war with Iran, Philip
Giraldi, former CIA counter terrorism officer, in an interview [1] on
24th July with Anti War Radio debunked the NeoCons' repeated myth of
Iran's support for AlQaeda as a pretext for war. Whilst acknowledging
Iran's helpfulness in trying to establish security in both Afghanistan
and Iraq, Giraldi spoke of the United States' hypocritical and illegal
support for terrorist separatists groups inside Iran, and various
plans and scenarios which have been drawn up to destroy Iran's
military and economic infrastructure by massive bombardment, with the
use of nuclear bombs a real and stated possibility.
Giraldi refuted the assumption that sharing hostilities towards the
US, placed Iran and AlQaeda in the same camp and sharing similar
agenda, arguing that Iran followed a very different agenda in its
dealings with the US. He emphasised both the fact of Iranians'
helpfulness in Iraq, in terms of pushing for greater stability, and
also their help and cooperation in Afghanistan, as well as the reality
of the deep hostilities between Shiia Iran and Sunni extremism of
AlQaeda. Giraldi recalled the major attack against the Iranian
consulate general in Afghanistan by the Taliban, a close ally of
AlQaeda, in which 11 Iranian diplomats were killed, and the regular
AlQaeda violent attacks against Shiia population in Iraq, and
concluded that a Shiia Iranian-AlQaeda alliance was not a plausible
possibility.
He described the recent New York Sun's allegation [2] that AlQaeda
prisoners in Iran led terrorist operations inside Iraq under the
advice of the Iranian government, as one of many propaganda pieces
making a case for war. He said how in 2003, the Iranian government,
through the Swiss embassy, had offered to hand over the six AlQaeda
prisoners kept in Iran, which includes Osama Bin Laden's son, in
exchange for the US ceasing its support for the MEK, and how this
offer was rejected by the US. He said of the MEK that it was sheltered
and armed by Saddam against Iran, and now supported and armed by
Pentagon against Iran.
Highlighting what he called American "ultimate hypocrisy", Giraldi
explained how the US government is supporting terrorist groups and
ethnic division in Iran and charging the Iranians in Iraq for what the
US was doing in Iran itself and with a lot more evidence. Giraldi
talked of US's support for Jundullah which he described as a Sunni
Baluchi separatist group in eastern Iran that has launched deadly
terrorist attacks inside Iran. He also spoke of US support for
separatists amongst the Arab minority which is closer to the border
with Iraq.
Giraldi repeated the alarm call he first made in his revelations in
the American Conservative Magazine in 2005 that Dick Cheney, who has
no authority under the constitution, had ordered the air force to draw
up plans for air strike against Iran that even included the use of
nuclear weapons. He said he thought there was a lot of evidence since
then to suggest that nuclear weapons are still very much on the table
and named Republican Senators such as McCain, Gilliani and Romney who
had not "flinched at all" in the debate about the prospect of using
nuclear weapons against Iran.
He spoke of various war scenarios cooked up by the war party. One
scenario was of the automatic use of the nuclear weapons in order to
reach and destroy the Iranian nuclear sites buried under ground.
Another scenario was to use the nuclear threat if the "Iranians
continue to fight back after we staged our attack", the idea being
"that's what the nukes are for, our nukes that everybody knows that we
in fact do have, is to tell them, listen, you are going to sit there
and take it while we bomb you for a week or two and you are not going
to fight back and if you do fight back then we will use nuclear
weapons on you", and he cited the example scenario of Iranians
resisting by staging attack in the Strait of Hormouz or destabilising
Afghanistan.
Setting out the horrifying context of the possibility of the US using
nuclear strikes against Iran, under the pretext of destroying Iranian
nuclear bombs which do not exist and Iran's cooperation with AlQaeda,
another propaganda fabrication, Giraldi drew attention to the recent
warning to Iran and the threat of war issued by AlQaeda for Iran's
support for the Shiia government in Iraq, as well as AlQaeda's
constant horrific attacks inside Iraq targeting Shiia population and
mosques.
Prof. Abbas Edalat of CASMII said today: "Giraldi's revelations is
consistent with and confirms the emergence of a shift in the dynamics
of the American foreign policy decision making away from dialogue and
in favour of the war. The reality of the shared strategic interests
between Iran and the US in stabilising Iraq and the possibility and
great benefits for both countries in reaching a rapprochement in their
bilateral relationship, based on mutual respect and cooperation rather
than threat and coercion, is persistently obscured and sabotaged by
the fanatical warmongers of Cheney camp and the Israeli lobby, who are
relentlessly pushing for war".
It is incumbent upon the media and journalists to give active voice to
informed and conscientious individuals like Giraldi who have well-
established connections within the intelligence community and are
warning the international community about the impending catastrophic
war against Iran.
For more information please contact CASMII or visit http://www.campaigniran.org
Notes
[1] http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/07/...lip-giraldi-5/
[2] http://www.nysun.com/article/58599
[END]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email to Jeff Fager (who is the executive producer of CBS '60
Minutes'):

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: For Jeff Fager


Dear Mr. Fager,

I would like to know if '60 Minutes' has a segment in the works to
interview respected political science professors John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt about their soon to be released book (it will be
available on September 4th, 2007) which was expanded from their paper
( http://tinyurl.com/obe2j ) on the pro-Israel lobby and how it pushed
US to attack Iraq and is doing similar to get US to attack Iran. If
'60 Minutes' does not plan to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt
book, I would like to know why (I have a pretty good idea already
though). The following currently can be found at www.amazon.com after
doing a search there for 'Mearsheimer':

Editorial Reviews
Book Description
The Israel Lobby," by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago
and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government,
was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory.
Originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it
provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging
what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby
on U.S. foreign policy.

Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and
expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and
Iran. They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic
support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this
support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral
grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political
influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that
actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.
Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-
reaching impact on America's posture throughout the Middle East-in
Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict-and
the policies it has encouraged are in neither America's national
interest nor Israel's long-term interest. The lobby's influence also
affects America's relationship with important allies and increases
dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.

Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared,
"Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington's 'The
Clash of Civilizations?' in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with
such force." The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy is certain to widen the debate and to be one of the most talked-
about books of the year.
About the Author
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service
Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on
International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. He has
published several books, including The Tragedy of Great Power
Politics.
Stephen M. Walt is the Belfer Professor of International Affairs at
the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and
was academic dean of the Kennedy School from 2002 to 2006. He is the
author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy,
among other books.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Details
Hardcover
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (September 4, 2007)
Language: English


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli Interrogators in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3863235.stm

See the following URL for more about the 'A Clean Break' as discussed
by Bamford on pages 261-269/318-321 of 'A Pretext for War' (the
paperback version of 'A Pretext for War' includes an additional
chapter about the AIPAC espionage case which the pro-Israel biased US
media is not covering either for the most part - neither is the BBC!):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=28769

Bamford also had the following 'Iran: The Next War' article for
Rolling Stone magazine which mentions the AIPAC espionage case as
well:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...n_the_next_war

Tam Dalyell exposed the 'JINSA crowd' did initially in 'Vanity Fair'
and via the articles linked at the bottom of the following URL:

http://www.democracynow.org/article....3/05/13/179248


Even Colin Powell conveyed for Washington Post editor Karen DeYoung's
new bio book about him that the 'JINSA crowd' was in control of the
Pentagon - one can look up 'Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs'/JINSA in the index:


A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=61128

BBC: The War Party (if only Americans could see such a program!)



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...e+War+Party%22


PS: Please take a look at the exchange with 9/11 Commission co-chair
Lee Hamilton via the 'What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?' link at the
upper left of the following URL which includes a transcript of the
exchange with Hamilton:

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

http://representativepress.blogspot....pport-for.html

SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive
for the 9/11 Attacks:

http://representativepress.blogspot....nt-inside.html


You might also be interested in viewing the following youtube video
short which has the moderator of the terrorism 'expert' panel trying
to cut off the 'Q & A' at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books at
UCLA this past April before the main motivation for 9/11 was conveyed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ

Additional at the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=39590