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
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
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 Obama admin. skeptical of Iran's election results.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/13/official-obama-administration-skeptical-irans-election-results/
U.S. officials are casting doubt over the results of Iran's election, in which the government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday.
U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini apparently has released a statement calling the results "final" and hailing the election as a legitimization of the regime and its elections.
Turnout appears to have reached 82 percent, an all-time high. But when asked if the turnout figures should be considered suspect, given the "not credible" counts for Mousavi and Karoubi, the official said: "Oh, it has to be [considered suspect]."
There are already reports of violence outside Mousavi's campaign headquarters, and of huge demonstrations for both sides in central Tehran, with Mousavi trying to make his way to the one in his behalf. Even if widespread violence occurs, analysts see no prospect that this event would lead to a full-scale attempt at revolution or the toppling of the regime.
The dominant view among Obama administration officials, though not uncontested, is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to President Obama's gestures of engagement.
Probably all of the Middle East has ties in some way to 9/11 and terrorism. Even Great Britain had terrorist cells as well as North Africa. We just can't invade/bomb them all, that will only further increase their hatred for us.
Most of the unrest in Iraq is not U.S.-mainland threatening terrorism, it is sectarian violence. The groups that are fighting each other, Sunni versus Shia, do not pose a threat to the U.S. mainland, never did. They only pose a threat to the Iraquis themselves.
The information you rely on is from a small and slanted informational source. The bigger picture would point toward a different set of facts than those you use to form your theories. So there will never be any agreement on this board between the far rights and the liberals.
I've seen violence too......
the Teamsters get VERY violent when scabs come in and take their jobs. Wouldn't you? I think "yes." Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about using guns to protect our food and our families.
They have done nothing to incite violence
I may not agree with them all the time (and I watch all the shows), but I have never seen anything where they are inciting violence.
Anarchy and violence in New Orleans
Lots of news that there just isn't enough help and the whole city is breaking down. Bush has turned down planes and able-bodied assistance from Canada and Russia as well as offers from many other countries. Says we can handle it ourselves. Folks in New Orleans say FEMA is there but totally unorganized and not providing enough help. I'm thinking this is in the U.S. and it's a MESS. What kind of message are we sending to the world?
I'm getting pretty darn uptight about this whole situation.
Liberals don't promote violence, huh? How about the gay rights protestors who physically knocked a cross out of an older woman's hands because how dare she oppose their opinion?
1 March 2002 Liberals steal entire press run of a monthly conservative publication at the University of California-Berkeley and harass and intimidate its staff http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26652
October 1999 Liberals at California State University at Sacramento stole 3,000 copies of the student newspaper. They were enraged because the paper, The State Hornet, had published the picture of a Hispanic man being arrested and charged with resisting arrest at a football game. Nat Hentoff
Agreed. Teach no bullying or violence, period.
"Lifestyle acceptance" doesn't have to come into it at all. I don't have to accept anyone's lifestyle in order to learn that bullying and violence are not acceptable ways of expressing my disagreement with them.
You see, there's a conflation between the principle of "nonviolence" and "acceptance of lifestyles" going on here, and it's very, very calculated and it's very, very deliberate.
In fact, "acceptance" is really an inadequate basis for nonviolence - if you stop for a moment to think about it - because I am obliged to be nonviolent toward people whose lifestyles not even you would suggest that that I (or my children) should EVER "accept". Unprovoked Israel on Palestinian settler violence caught on tape
http://sabbah.blip.tv/#1586762
Settler Violence in Hebron
http://sabbah.blip.tv/#1550798
Israeli Settler Shooting Palestinians in Hebron
http://sabbah.blip.tv/#999702
Jewish Settlers Attack Elderly Shepherd and His Wife
http://sabbah.blip.tv/#916017
More Settler Violence in Hebron
http://sabbah.blip.tv/#1653918
CNN Rick Sanchez report on who really broke the cease fire, 01/07/2009 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!
There's a difference between inciting hate and inciting violence
I don't really even think that MSNBC incites hate, but that could be that I lean a little more left than right. I don't know what you know about Savage, but I do think he has been suspended a time or two for attempts to incite mob type violence. And I personally never said anybody should be banned from this country...the topic of this thread was Great Britain banning Savage. But there is a degree of hypocrisy coming from the right on this issue, though. You tell "us" (which is really pretty crazy because my politics are all over the place, left and right) that because we expressed our views, we should head for Russia, which, correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, seems to be like you are not in favor of "our" free speech.
Olbermann makes me laugh, I like Chris Mathews because he will occasionally surprise me and ask the tough questions. I didn't care for Rush before, but when he mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease, I wrote him off forever. I find myself agreeing with Bill O on some social issues, at least until he gets a little too pompous. I just like looking at Anderson Cooper and don't care what he's saying, I'm buying it. For the most part, though, I listen to my local newscast and sometimes network news, but that's usually just so I know what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are talking about, who are my favorite source of news.
Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying. Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically. ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII.
FYI, even though born in Iran, she is....sm
a natural-born American citizen.
why to worry about Iran
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89476
Acorn is over in Iran too?
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.
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.
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.
marks the location of current message within thread!["](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.
