Cheney, on Carrier, Sends Warning to Iran
12 May NY Times - Cheney, on Carrier, Sends Warning to Iran by David Sanger.
Quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney used the deck of an American aircraft carrier just 150 miles off Iran’s coast as the backdrop yesterday to warn that the United States was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”
Mr. Cheney said little new in his speech, delivered from the cavernous hangar bay of the John C. Stennis, one of the two carriers in the Persian Gulf. Each line had, in some form, been said before at various points in the four-year nuclear standoff with Iran, and during the increasingly tense arguments over whether Tehran is aiding insurgents in Iraq.
But Mr. Cheney stitched all of those warnings together, and the symbolism of sending the administration’s most famous hawk to deliver them so close to Iran’s coast was unmistakable. It also came just a week after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had talked briefly and inconclusively with Iran’s foreign minister, a step toward re-engagement with Iran that some in the administration have opposed...
More meat for the stew...
From the NY Times:
LINK
"""Hard Realities of Soft Power
As a senior adviser to the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, David Denehy is charged with overseeing the distribution of millions of dollars to advance the cause of a more democratic Iran. Affable, charming and approachable, he is bearlike in stature and manner. His voice is pleasantly rumbly; his smile is so wide that it seems to have been drawn onto his face with a crayon. Over the last two years, Denehy has canvassed dozens of pundits, students, journalists, bloggers and activists across the world about how he might best go about his work — what he calls, echoing President Bush, “the freedom agenda.” He has shaken hands with millionaire exiles, dissidents, monarchists, Communists, self-styled Mandelas and would-be Chalabis. He is the public face of “the democracy fund,” as it has come to be known, or simply “the $75 million.”
On Feb. 14, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and called for $75 million to be spent on advancing freedom and human rights within Iran. Though this would be the third year of requests for such financing, previous appropriations had been much smaller, ranging from $1.5 million to $11 million; $75 million was a considerable jump. “We are going to work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom in their own country,” Rice told the assembled senators. The initiative would pour $36.1 million into existing television and radio programs beaming into Iran, while $10 million would pay for public diplomacy and exchange programs, including helping Iranians who hope to study in America. (“I’ve read that it is forbidden in some quarters to play Beethoven and Mozart in Tehran,” Rice said. “We hope that Iranians can play it in New York or Los Angeles.”) Perhaps most contentiously, $20 million would support the efforts of civil-society groups — media, legal and human rights nongovernmental organizations — both outside and inside Iran."""
As the World Turns, A ME Soap Opera
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that al-Shammari of the Islamic Army in Iraq has claimed to al-Jazeera that al-Maliki's loyalties are with Iran.....
Word is out too that ol' Dagan, head spook of Mossad, had some of his lads on the ground in that recent IDF strike in Syria and not just using lasers to tag bunkers......
Assar Iran, a news website, is telling the world that Iran will fire 600 missles at Israel if attacked. Their Shihab missles reportedly have a 1300km range.....
French Foregin Minister Kouchner has said the Iran crisis forces the world to prepare for the worst......
The JP is also reporting that the US and Jordan have signed an agreement so Jordan can start a nuclear program......
My advice to young male readers is to buy some Gold coins for your family to have and head to the nearest Recruiting station
JP link:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Former Mossad Chief Advocates Striking Iran's Nuke Sites
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
"Speaking to The Jerusalem Post ahead of next week's Seventh Annual International Institute of Counter-Terrorism (ICT) Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, former Mossad chief and current ICT chairman Shabtai Shavit says only military force can stop an Iran bent on achieving nuclear capability.
Looking across the Middle East, Shavit argues that the US cannot afford to retreat from Iraq to "Fortress America"; decries the Israeli government's lack of a pro-active strategy against Hamas in Gaza; and says an open conflict between Fatah and Hamas in the West Bank is not far down the road.
It hasn't always been easy to convince partners that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, says Shavit, who directed the Mossad from 1989 to 1996. Even today, there are people who still believe the Iranians are enriching uranium for energy purposes.
"When the first Gulf War ended in 1991, we raised the red flag: The Iranians were taking steps to achieve unconventional weapons capability. People looked at us like aliens who landed here from outer space. Nobody believed us. And when nobody believes you, what can you do? You carry on monitoring and collecting intelligence, analyzing and accompanying processes. Along this road you eventually manage to convince people of your assessment, and you win over supporters, both at home and in America. One morning they wake up and say, 'Oh, that's right, the Iranians really are working to produce a nuclear bomb, as well as surface-to-surface missiles with warheads that can carry nuclear bombs.' At that stage the issue becomes very relevant, very acute and very pressing," he says.
Nothing short of military intervention will stop the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear weapons program, says Shavit, careful with his choice of words: military intervention, not war - as war carries with it connotations of land, sea and air forces. He is equally cautious with his use of the word "stop" - as in stop the Iranian nuclear march. He prefers "set it back."
The other side of the argumaent?
A view from the other side.
A proud nation once a great global power. In more recent times Iran has had its natural resources plundered by western powers, democratically elected a popular leader to have him assassinated by the west and replaced with the west’s totalitarian puppet whose security apparatus inflicted atrocities upon the people, eventually overthrown by a popular uprising. A war of aggression by a neighbour – again with the west backing the aggressor – and surrounded by Sunni states which are being armed to the teeth by western powers with high end weapons.
Now they are endeavouring to develop a domestic energy production program in accordance with IAEA & NTP rules and having sanctions imposed upon them, they have stated they have no nuclear weapons intentions. The countries pushing for sanctions are trading with, and arming states, that have developed nuclear weapons outside the NTP and making noises about attacking them and regime change in contravention of the UN charter they have signed up to. These same countries are accusing them of state sponsored terrorism while being the main exporters of the exactly that. Why is it OK to arm and train the Mujahideen in an attempt to overthrow a Soviet puppet in Afghanistan but not to remove the occupying coalition forces in Iraq? We are back to the one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter argument.
Personally I not convinced that Iran might not try and build a bomb and if I was Iranian – given their history and the US, French and Israeli positions I would be in favour of it as the only viable means of self-defence – it would not be of any greater concern than the Israeli or Pakistani bombs. While the US has such disparity in conventional military hardware and declares its unilateral declaration of independence from the jus cogens through its adoption of the doctrine of pre-emptive war, not being a nuclear power seems a dereliction of duty by any state that the US might view unfavourably.
I know the above is not likely to be popular given this forums political equilibrium but I am here not as agent provocateur but to try and understand the position of those who do not think like me.