WMD! Yeah, that's it. Ooops.. No.. that wasn't it.
So we can achieve our very realistic goals of spreading freedom and create a democracy that respects human rights! Uh...nnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Oooopss, we can't do that either, just figured out they aren't all that realistic.
Okay. Got it! To create "some form of Islamic republic" for the Iraqi people. Yeah. THAT'S the ticket! Dang, they're lucky we're there!!!
I, for one, am certainly relieved that all our soldiers and innocent Iraqis died and continue to die for such a good cause ... and... except... but... uh.. EXACTLY WHY DID WE INVADE, DECLARE WAR ON, AND OCCUPY IRAQ AGAIN?
I can totally understand why Cindy Sheehan put herself in Crawford. I'm just at an increasing loss to be able to understand why Bush put America in Iraq.
US scales back expectations on gains during Iraq transition
Officials now say goals unrealistic
By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post | August 14, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to US officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry, or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, US officials say.
''What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. ''We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the postwar chaos and escalating insurgency. ''Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.
Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by tomorrow's deadline so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.
But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how initial US ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.
Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.
US officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. ''It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to US personnel changes in Baghdad.
The debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original US goals and realities after almost 28 months. The US decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.
But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shi'ites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, US officials and Iraq analysts say.
''We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another US official familiar with policy-making from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. ''That process is being repeated all over."
US officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of sentiment among Kurds and Shi'ites to create a special status. The Shi'ites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.
In the race to meet fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.
The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, US officials say.
Meanwhile, the US military reported today that three US soldiers were killed and another was wounded when their patrol struck a roadside bomb in northern Iraq, according to the Associated Press. The attack at Tuz, about 110 miles north of Baghdad, occurred late on Friday, the military said in a statement.
New War? U.S. forces have invaded Syria by Dan Simpson (Member of the editorial boards of The [Toledo] Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
AS I suspected six months ago, and U.S. military and Bush Administration civilian officials confirmed, U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.
An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans - if any - who have died so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who, by the way, insist on remaining faceless and nameless.
On the U.S. side, no declaration of war preceded the invasion of Syria, in spite of the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. There is no indication that Congress was involved in the decision to go in. If members were briefed, none of them has chosen to share that important information with the American people.
Presumably, the Bush Administration's intention is simply to add any casualties of the Syrian conflict to those of the war in Iraq, which now stand at 1,970. The financial cost of expanding the war to Syria would also presumably be added to the cost of the Iraq war, now estimated at $201 billion.
Is there any advantage at all to the United States, or to Israel, in replicating Iraq in Syria? For that is what is at stake. Syria in its political, ethnic, and religious structure is very similar to Iraq. Iraq, prior to the U.S. bust-up, was ruled by a Sunni minority, with a Shiite majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities.
Syria is ruled by an Alawite minority, with a Sunni majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities. That is the structure, not unlike many states in the Middle East, that the Bush Administration is in the process of hacking away at.
What needs to be done now is for the Congress, and through them, the American people, the United Nations, and America's allies, the ones who are left, to have the opportunity to express their thoughts on America's expanding the Iraq war to Syria. A decision to invade Syria is not a decision for Mr. Bush, heading a beleaguered administration, to make for us on his own.
--Toledo Blade, October 19, 2005 ****************************************************
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051019/OPINION04/510190380/-1/OPINION He invaded a country and committed horrible atrocities there...
we beat him back, should have taken him in the first Gulf war. But we're always going overboard trying to be nice and where does that get us? Same place it got us with N. Korea. Jimmy Carter barters a deal with them for food, and they take the money and use it to build nukes. Where's the outrage over that? Sometimes a people just cannot rise up and oust a dictator. They need help. And now the time has come for them to quit squabbling amongst themselves and make something out of their country. Let's not forget how many years it took for Japan and Germany to get on their feet. We need to give them a little more time. Heck, this country dissolved into civil war after 100 years. Time and patience.
If your country were being occupied, blockaded, constantly invaded...
its economy sabotaged, the geography shrunk and splintered beyond recognition, its population systematically starved in a war of attrition, and the purveyors of apartheid were armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction of all sorts, including nukes, tanks, F-16s and biologic and chemical weapons and a military bankrolled by an arrogant world super power while the rest of the world throws up their hands in disgust and turns a blind eye, would you lay down like a dog and take it year, after year, after year for decades on end?
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
Iran....
But, governments do speak for their people in diplomatic circles and at the United Nations, regional conferences with other nations where they live, etc.
It is not possible for other countries to differentiate between the people of Iran and the government leaders. They deal with the leaders.
You know, we were fed a line in this country as far as back the first George Bush administration back in 1988-1992 that the people of Iraq did not support Hussein and that he would be overthrown by internal forces. That did not happen. We went in there 3 years ago to free the Iraqi people and it is now a huge mess that has cost thousands of lives, mostly Iraqi, and cost an unbelievable amount of money. Now Iran is making more noise. They hated the Shah because of his close ties to the West, so they put in a lunatic Islamic cleric and turned the country into a religious state. Islam teaches brotherhood and tolerance, so why are the leaders of this religious state so full of hate and spite?
Frankly, I think we should completely withdraw from the Middle East, including Israel. We should deport all Middle Easterners from this this country and from our American territories. We should quit buying your oil and anything else you produce. Leave us alone and we'll return the favor.
I think it is apparent that democracy is not possible in Arab Islamic countries. It works in other Muslim countries, like Turkey and some other places, but obviously the Middle East is not evolved enough to be able to tolerate other people's viewpoints and value systems. Until that happens, there can be no democracy.
Iran
" Rafsanjani, one of the most influential politicians in Iran, supports opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that June 12 elections were rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That puts him in conflict with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has approved of the electoral win. "
" In Washington, President Barack Obama urged an end to the crackdown. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,” he said in an e-mailed statement. "
Till now the verbal support of Obama suffice to give the protesters enough moral support to continue with their just protests. Khatami is detaining his own people and their relatives!
I was listening to a variety of news shows and visiting a number of news sites this morning for my "daily dose" when it struck me that the coverage about Iran is already diminishing - even on sites like Fox News.
Sometimes I think that we Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly...and I also think that people like the Ayatollah rely on the fact that after a brief period of outrage, Americans will forget that there may be thousands of Iranians either in hospitals or sitting in cells waiting to hear exactly how they will be executed.
Iran's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in street protests, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies. A leading cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of the unrest be punished harshly and that some are "worthy of execution."
Well, here it is, folks. The beginning of the end of humanity, as Congress sits paralyzed and watches it happen (unless they finally grow a backbone and say *ENOUGH* to Bush).
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
That's the name they're using, the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as enormous, hectic and operational, Hersh writes.
One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government, The New Yorker pointed out.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.
But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.
There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries, the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.
The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke a chain reaction of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.
If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle, the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
I believe he made the statement concerning Iran...
because Ahmadinejad has said publically that Israel should be wiped off the map and he had a vision of the world without the United States. Don't recall North Korea saying anything remotely like that. The big difference in Kim Jong IL and Ahmadinejad is that Ahmadinejad does not care what happen if he nuked Israel or the US...because to him, being martyred is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anyone. And if his attack ushered in the coming of the 12th Imam, mores the better. If you will look at his statements, especially the one about the 12th Imam...that will tell you why he could very well be the one to start a world war III if he had nukes. I believe that is what was meant.
And one could surmise he used that word to shock some out of their complacency.
And Let's face it...if Iran nuked Israel, WW III would be on.
oops: I did mean Israel & Iran.
Afghanistan & Pakistan are no picnic, either.
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat. setting the stage for a war with iran
Maybe this will come to nothing, but the NYT reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html?hp) that ''the amount of uranium that Tehran had now amassed — more than a ton — was sufficient, with added purification, to make an atom bomb.''
So here we go again, people nudging us towards war, with the complicity of the Times. We'll pretend that a nuclear weapon is something you can cook up in your kitchen, once you have the requisite number of atoms. We'll pretend that this is The Greatest Threat We Have Ever Known. Even bigger than Saddam, who ended up not having all the WMD the NYT said he did. We've already begun playing around with 2007's National Intelligence Estimate (see LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story) to make Iran seem more dangerous.
We really just can't leave *anyone* alone, can we?
I think if Israel slings anything at Iran....
it would not just be rockets, and if someone had said I had no right to exist, I might consider slinging some rockets at them myself. I'm just sayin.
And as to Obama being able to hold them back...if he can't be bothered to shake his finger at Iran for crushing protests on worldwide TV, what on earth would make you think he could or would if he could hold Israel back? I have seen nothing to indicate that Barack Obama cares a hoot in heck what happens to Israel. If you look at his connections and who he has loaded his administration with...their agenda is certainly not pro Israel and to be frank I believe they consider Israel expendable, and if the palestinians get taken out as collateral damage...well...you should watch that posted video, and then you should look at a list of the Bilderberg group. Funny how the left always wanted to talk about it because there were many of right in the group...well, there are certainly a lot more of the left in it, and a ton of those are in the present administration. But now that they are in power, amazing how the Bilderberg group is no longer the big bad...sorry for borrowing your moniker there. lol.
Iran's meddling accusations....sm
I disagree TOTALLY with your suggestion how O should have reacted to the ongoing protests, I quote from your psot:
'Yes, it would have been better if he had just said ANYthing just a wee bit strong...hey Mahmoud...couldn't you just stop beating the crap out of protestors in front of the TV cameras? Bad form old boy. Makes you look bad.'
Bad tactic and bad advice.
Sounds like 'cowboy-jargon' to me.
BTW, read the accusations of the Iranian government, although Obama stayed passive and restraint:
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.
Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.
U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter is consuming a lot of time throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. It's a huge issue, another said.
Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.
Bigger threat than al-Qaeda? But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation, said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.
The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll, although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about.
Rise in tension raises stakes Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives.
U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory would be regarded as an act of war by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action.
History of reprisals Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.
Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.
Iran's intelligence services are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades, said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished.
Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls plots and acts of meddling by the United States.
Given the uptick in interest in Iran on the part of the United States, it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely, said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options.
Agencies mum on true threat The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests.
We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner, a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query.
The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.
Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran.
As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this.
Facilities make difficult targets Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.
A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran.
Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites.
Iran certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur, said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance.
Bush sent weapons to Israel. Iran sent weapons to Hezbollah. Bush must have figured that Americans wouldn't tolerate any more of his wars, so we're fighting Iran through Hezbollah via Israel. Reminds me of a chess game. I think this is the fault of Papa Bush. He should have given Georgie more GI Joes to play with as a kid.
Now that there is an agreed cease fire, Israel is stepping up the offensive. (Any surprises here?) I wonder how many more innocent people they will kill in Lebanon - including Christians - and how much more of Lebanon's infrastructure they will destroy before they finally cease their fire.
It looks pretty much the same in these pictures as it did in the 70s when I was there. We would leave Bahrain and go there because it was so western, industrialized, nice but had the most wonderful antiquities and special places. When you look at these pictures it is hard (for me) to believe that all of these people want to kill us. They do not all practice Islam in Iran so maybe that is a fact.
My guess is most Iranians don't want war with the US, it's their leader - sound familiar?
Ahmadinejad is scared Iran is next in line for a preemptive strike, as he should be. That's why he is either calling our bluff or really is prepared to go to war with the US.
McCain makes another joke about Iran. sm
Any thoughts on this???
By Michael D. Shear Sen. John McCain hasn't had good luck joking about Iran. But he tried it again Tuesday.
Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."
He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.
Last time, it was also Iran. His singing about bombing Iran to the theme of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Ann" drew derision from many quarters but a "lighten up" response from McCain
Ummm....what about that whole Iran-Contra Scandal...LOL (nm)
x
To be safe from terrorists and nukes from Iran
x
I assumed you meant Israel and Iran.
Iran's potential for nuclear weapons? A war between them is not likely, unless Israel initiates a Bush-style "premptive strike." Given their history of aggressive militarism, this is not entirely inconceivable. Ask yourself a few questions. When was the last time in modern history that Iran declared war or invaded another country, keeping in mind that Iraq invade Iran, not the other way around? Now, when was the last time Israel declared war and/or invaded another country, i.e., Syria, Egypt, Lebanon multiple times?
Despite Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric, thanks to the US taxpayers, he can never hope to catch up with the nuclear arsenals now housed in Israel....and he knows that. Consider the case of Korea. Bush bullied North Korea around relentlessly UNTIL they succeeded in developing nukes. After that, W sure did start singing a different tune, didn't he? Stunning reversal in attitude.
As long as US nuclear policy is "do as I say, not as I do" and continues to bankroll nuclear stockpile arsenals in their Middle East military staging base, the region will remain unstable....just the way the US likes it, at least so far. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran just MIGHT bring about the same sort of results it did in Korea and serve as a moderating force. This is where diplomacy comes into play. Open discussions held in good faith (so far not possible in view of sanctions and all those Israeli NUKES) that encourage nuclear energy and discourage nuclear weaponry in Iran along with incentives (such as easing sanctions, for starters) would go a long way in at least bringing some HOPE for stability in the region. War there is not a foregone conclusion...unless we elect another saber-rattler.
Oh, I think Iran calling for the obliteration of Israel...
from the map, to me, gives them a right to be be concerned, doncha think? Oh my all means, given Iran a nuke and see how that stabilizes everything. Even Obama is not goofy enough to say that...HE said a nuke in the hands of Iran was unacceptable. Now whether that means Ahmadinejad would not be welcome for tea...not altogether sure.
What's listed here for Iran-Iraq War time
USA (as in us). We already knew about that stuff. In terms of these 2006 links, you might want to try reading up on this subject a little more. There are whole libraries of publications, including exhaustive US govermental studies, that refute your claim and, in fact, WMDs have yet to be found there. Saddam had abandoned this program, but of course, we hung him anyway. This is what we do with uppety puppets that go rogue on us.
Violence flares in Iran after election.
Look at MSNBC website. Lots of protests.
TEHRAN, Iran - Riot police battled with protesters Saturday as officials announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a landslide election victory. His opponent denounced the results as "treason".
The violence broke out as Iran's interior minister said that Ahmadinejad had gained 62.6 percent of the vote.
NBC News reported "violent clashes" between rock-throwing protesters and police in the center of Tehran.
*********************************
*********************************
ALSO, some think this election as voting fraud.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's Interior Ministry claimed hard-line incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was heading for a surprise landslide victory Saturday in the country's stormy presidential elections. But his pro-reform rival countered that he was the clear victor and accused authorities of voter fraud.
The dispute sharply boosted tensions and raised fears of a standoff after an intense monthlong race between the combative president and his main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi. A large turnout at the polls had boosted victory hopes for Mousavi, who is backed by a growing youth-oriented movement Violence flares in Iran after election.
Look at MSNBC website. Lots of protests.
TEHRAN, Iran - Riot police battled with protesters Saturday as officials announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a landslide election victory. His opponent denounced the results as "treason".
The violence broke out as Iran's interior minister said that Ahmadinejad had gained 62.6 percent of the vote.
NBC News reported "violent clashes" between rock-throwing protesters and police in the center of Tehran.
*********************************
*********************************
ALSO, some think this election as voting fraud.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's Interior Ministry claimed hard-line incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was heading for a surprise landslide victory Saturday in the country's stormy presidential elections. But his pro-reform rival countered that he was the clear victor and accused authorities of voter fraud.
The dispute sharply boosted tensions and raised fears of a standoff after an intense monthlong race between the combative president and his main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi. A large turnout at the polls had boosted victory hopes for Mousavi, who is backed by a growing youth-oriented movement One million people are protesting in Iran...sm
What the Mousvi supporters are trying to do in Iran is to show the world that they can bring down the Ahmedinejad and hopefully also the leader of the theocray
WITHOUT
the meddling of the US for which they did not ask.
There are also in the cleric council contradicting opinions regarding the legitimate outcome of the election and how to proceed in solving this massive protests.
Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, left the country to Russia!!
This shows AGAIN the diplomatic excellence of Obama AND Biden when they held back their meddling and interfering, letting the people try it on their own!
If it were up to McCain and Cheney they would have made out of this conflict a 2nd-Iraq siituation, probaly invaded Iran!
US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike
05/11/2006 @ 10:53 am
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna
Use of Iraq terror group bypassed Congress, sources say
Advertisement
Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness, RAW STORY has learned.
According to military and intelligence sources, an air strike on Iran could be doable in June of this year, with military assets in key positions ready to go and a possible plan already on the table.
Speculation has been growing on a possible air strike against Iran. But with the failure of the Bush administration to present a convincing case to the UN Security Council and to secure political backing domestically, some experts say the march toward war with Iran is on pause barring an immediate need.
In March/April of this year [the US] was pushing for quick closure, a thirty day window, says a source close to the UN Security Council, describing efforts by the Administration to shore up enough support to get a UN Chapter 7 resolution.
A UN Chapter 7 resolution makes it possible for sanctions to be imposed against an uncooperative nation and leaves the door open to military action.
The UN source also says that a military analysis suggests that no military action should be undertaken in Iran until spring of 2007, but that things remain volatile given this administration’s penchant for having their own way.
Strike could come earlier than thought
Other military and intelligence sources are expressing concern both privately and publicly that air strikes on Iran could come earlier than believed.
Retired Air Force Colonel and former faculty member at the National War College Sam Gardiner has heard some military suggestions of a possible air campaign in the near future, and although he has no intimate knowledge of such plans, he says recent aircraft carrier activity and current operations on the ground in Iran have raised red flags.
Gardiner says his concerns have kept him busy attempting to create the most likely scenario should such an attack occur.
I would expect two or three aircraft carriers would be moved into the area, Gardner said, describing what he thinks is the best way air strikes could be carried out without disengaging assets from US fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Two air-craft carriers are already en route to the region, RAW STORY has found. The USS Abraham Lincoln, which recently made a port call in Singapore, and the USS Enterprise which left Norfolk, Virginia earlier this month, are headed for the Western Pacific and Middle East. The USS Ronald Reagan is already operating in the Gulf.
In addition to aircraft carrier activity, Gardiner says, B-2 bombers would be critical.
I would expect the B-2's, the main firepower asset, to be flown on missions directly from the United States, Gardiner explained. I would expect B-52's to be flown in strikes from the UK and Diego Garcia.
Finally, he added, a large number of cruise missiles would be fired from the carrier support ships.
Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, says that the B-2 bomber is capable of such long range activity.
The B2 bomber was designed, with the Soviet Union in mind, for intercontinental operations, Aftergood said. With aerial refueling, it has a range of up to 10,000 miles.
Like Gardiner, Aftergood has heard similar claims with regard to a June strike, but has not been able to confirm them independently.
Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have previously reported that the Pentagon is studying military options on Iran.
All sources, however, agree that given the administration’s interest in regime change, an attack on Iran is likely, regardless of international support or UN backing. Furthermore, all sources agree that Gardiner’s scenario is the most probable, including an estimated duration and pause assessment.
Gardiner believes that the entire initial operation could run quickly, roughly 24-72 hours. Most of the strikes would be at night, he said. The Iranian nuclear facilities will be targeted; more important however, a major effort would focus on Iran's capability to retaliate. The US will target missile facilities, air bases and naval assets.
After the initial effort, there will be a pause during which time the Iranians will be told that if they retaliate, the air strikes would continue, he added.
The Pentagon did not return calls for comment.
Advance teams under way; Congress ‘bypassed’
As previously reported by Raw Story, a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is being used on the ground in Iran by the Pentegon, bypassing US intelligence channels. The report was subsequently covered by the Asia Times (Article).
Military and intelligence sources now say no Presidential finding exists on MEK ops. Without a presidential finding, the operation circumvents the oversight of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
Congressional aides for the relevant oversight committees would not confirm or deny allegations that no Presidential finding had been done. One Democratic aide, however, wishing to remain anonymous for this article, did say that any use of the MEK would be illegal.
In addition, sources say that a March attack that killed 22 Iranian officials in the province of Sistan va Baluchistan was carried out by the MEK.
According to a report by Iran Focus filed Mar. 23, the twenty-two people killed in the ambush included high ranking officials, including the governor of Zahedan.
Hours after the attack took place, Ahmadi-Moqaddam announced there was evidence the assailants had held meetings with British intelligence officers, the Iranian news service reported.
Radical Shiite cleric Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi also claimed the people behind the attack were the same as those behind a spate of bombings in Iran’s south-western province of Khuzestan earlier this year and in 2005, it added.
Military and intelligence sources say that MEK assets were responsible for this attack, but did not know if the US military was involved or if US military assets were part of the ambush.
One former high ranking US intelligence official described the use of MEK as more of a Cambone operation than a Department of Defense operation.
Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Stephen Cambone, a stalwart neo-conservative, is considered by many to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s right-hand man.
During a White House briefing in early May, outgoing press secretary Scott McClellan denied that the administration was using MEK, among several other terrorist organizations named, for ground activity in Iran.
There are numerous reports about low-intensity operations ongoing in Iran from three different places -- PKK going over the border into Iraq, the MEK southern border of Iraq into Iran, and also certain operations from Balochistan involving also the Pakistanis, a reporter asked. Does the U.S. have a policy, given also reports which I know you won't comment on, on possible special forces operations in Iran?
Our policies haven't changed on those organizations, McClellan said. They remain the same. And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations.
We would never cooperate with them, in terms of— the questioner continued.
Our policy hasn't changed, McClellan replied.
Military, intelligence community alarmed
According to a New Yorker article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, other activities aimed at intimidating and agitating Iranian leadership are also underway.
One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of ‘coercion’ aimed at Iran, Hersh wrote.
The increase in violence on the southern border of Iran, the movement of aircraft carriers into the region, the insistence of Iran’s leadership that they intend to be a player on the nuclear stage and the Bush Administration’s focus on regime change make military and intelligence sources nervous.
[President] Bush thinks that history will judge him as a great leader, not unlike Winston Churchill, one former high-ranking military intelligence official remarked.
For now, Gardiner and others remain on the sidelines as the Administration plots their next move.
U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran
By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01
President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.
Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.
The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.
In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.
At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.
You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.
Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.
The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.
Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.
But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.
Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.
The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.
Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.
But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.
Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.
The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.
The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.
Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.
This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.
Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.
The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.
capable of making nuclear bomb. I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran. My question is if the US is going to help? I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel. I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states.
The first 2 links are about Israel ready to attack Iran.
0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
Who is this human being promised to all?
Their new messiah. The way this new messiah appears is by getting rid of little Satan and big Satan. Iran muslims,(I was told there are 2 type of muslims) believe when messiah appears, there has to be a lot of blood shed.
WHO IS THE LITTLE SATAN AND BIG SATAN?:
Israel's role is first of all to protect itself, but also to alert others to the danger of militant Islam. They intend to go after Israel, but for them Israel is merely the "little Satan," one stepping stone on the march to world domination. For Ahmadinejad's Iran, Europe is a "middle-sized Satan" and the United States is the "great Satan."
So, how can you reason and do talks with president Iran when he thinks this way and muslims think this way? It is not all muslims that do, but this one particular type. How can you reason with Ahmadinejad when United States in his eyes is Satan? He wants us dead so this new messiah will come to them.
0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
Who is this human being promised to all?
Their new messiah. The way this new messiah appears is by getting rid of little Satan and big Satan. Iran muslims,(I was told there are 2 type of muslims) believe when messiah appears, there has to be a lot of blood shed.
WHO IS THE LITTLE SATAN AND BIG SATAN?:
Israel's role is first of all to protect itself, but also to alert others to the danger of militant Islam. They intend to go after Israel, but for them Israel is merely the "little Satan," one stepping stone on the march to world domination. For Ahmadinejad's Iran, Europe is a "middle-sized Satan" and the United States is the "great Satan."
So, how can you reason and do talks with president Iran when he thinks this way and muslims think this way? It is not all muslims that do, but this one particular type. How can you reason with Ahmadinejad when United States in his eyes is Satan? He wants us dead so this new messiah will come to them.
From his speech today: He also said if the demonstrations didn't stop there might be chaos and bloodshed, and that rival candidates calling for protests would be blamed. See link for full details.
U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest
By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 14, 2006; A17
U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document outrageous and dishonest and offering evidence to refute its central claims.
Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements. The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.
The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.
After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown.
Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that incorrect, noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.
When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra said his intent was to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat. Spokesman Jamal Ware said yesterday that Hoekstra will respond to the IAEA letter.
Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a committee member, said the report was clearly not prepared in a manner that we can rely on. He agreed to send it to the full committee for review, but the Republicans decided to make it public before then, he said in an interview.
The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e-mail that the report took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are.
Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.
Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06. He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities.
This is like prewar Iraq all over again, said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors.
The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.
It concluded that the lack of intelligence made it impossible to support talks with Tehran. Democrats on the committee saw it as an attempt from within conservative Republican circles to undermine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has agreed to talk with the Iranians under certain conditions.
The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a onetime CIA officer and special assistant to John R. Bolton, the administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Bolton, who is now ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President Bush's first term in drawing up a tough policy that rejected talks with Tehran.
Among the allegations in Fleitz's Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program. The agency said the inspector has not been removed.
A suggestion that ElBaradei had an unstated policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program was particularly outrageous and dishonest, according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador.
Hoekstra's committee is working on a separate report about North Korea that is also being written principally by Fleitz. A draft of the report, provided to The Post, includes several assertions about North Korea's weapons program that the intelligence officials said they cannot substantiate, including one that Pyongyang is already enriching uranium.
The intelligence community believes North Korea is trying to acquire an enrichment capability but has no proof that an enrichment facility has been built, the officials said.
marks the location of current message within thread![Boston.com](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/bcom_logo_printerfriendly.gif" "Boston.com"){kind=logo}
!["](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif"){kind=spacer}
![The](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/from_provider_globe.gif" "The"){kind=small}
!["](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif"){kind=icon}
![](http://te.boston.com/tte/blank.gif?0.7382666201214663&snippet_version=1.3a&referrer=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/08/14/us_scales_back_expectations_on_gains_during_iraq_transition/&page=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/08/14/us_scales_back_expectations_on_gains_during_iraq_transition%3Fmode%3DPF&timezone=240&clist_TID=3ldm0oo114vt6l&var_t_section=News%20%7C%20World%20%7C%20US%20scales%20back%20expectations%20on%20gains%20during%20Iraq%20transition&var_site=boston.com"){kind=spacer}
!["](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/global/odot.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_tl.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_bl.gif"){kind=small}
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
MSNBC.com
Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness, RAW STORY has learned.
