Podhoretz Urges Aggression Against Iran
Oppose Fascism | 27.10.2007 23:59 | Anti-militarism | World
We must bomb Iran, says US Republican guru
By Toby Harnden in New York
Last Updated: 2:14am BST 27/10/2007
A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.
The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.
Podhoretz is a founder of neoconservatism
"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.
(Work at what? Iran hasn't DONE anything!)
"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful.
(Even though top-ranking Pentagon analysts have stated exactly the opposite. This is about Regime Change, not a nuclear program. This war was plotted along with the Iraq war.)
"People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set it back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions."
Although Mr Podhoretz said he did not speak for Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor whom he briefs daily appears to have embraced at least the logic of his hard-line views.
During a visit to London last month, Mr Giuliani said Iran should be given "an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years".
Mr Podhoretz said: "I was very pleased to see him say that. I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow ... I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out and say we have to bomb - it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign."
But Mr Podhoretz’s 77 years and his position as a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual means he can not only think the unthinkable but say the unsayable.
"My role has simply been to say what I think," he said, explaining that he takes part in weekly conference calls and is in daily email contact with the Giuliani campaign.
He is the most eminent of a clutch of uncompromisingly hawkish aides assembled by Mr Giuliani. They include Daniel Pipes, (a racist hatemonger) who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should "inspire fear, not affection", and Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official (Behind the lies about Iraq) who has argued that Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is "dangerous" and signals American "weakness" to Teheran.
(Rice's 'diplomacy' is just a smokescreen. There's nothing real to it. It's a game, intended to convince the world that, just as Bush/PNAC assured us before the attack on Iraq, war is the Regime's last resort.)
"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."
Mr Podhoretz’s thesis is that the war on terror is in fact World War Four and that the 42-year-long Cold War should be more properly described as World War Three.
Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, by President George W. Bush in 2004, Mr Podhoretz later sought a rare one-on-on audience with the US commander-in-chief. They met in New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel in the spring.
The author of the recent World War IV: the Long Struggle Against Islamofacsism spent about 35 minutes outlining his case for air strikes against Iran as Mr Bush’s then chief adviser Karl Rove took notes.
"Whether I had any effect on him I truly don’t know but I sure tried my best to persuade him," he said.
"He was very cordial. He was warm. He listened. He occasionally asked a question as I made the case but he was truly poker faced."
Mr Podhoretz left the meeting unshaken in his belief that Mr Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office.
(Knowing this, by the Neo-Fascists' own terms, Iran would be well within its rights in attacking both the US and Israel ...)
"The spirit of the questions was not to try to refute or contradict what I was saying. I didn’t get any negative vibes."
He said that now "the debate [over Iran] is secretly over and the people who are against military action are now preparing to make the case that we can live with an Iranian bomb".
(While the military itself is outlining why they can't live with an unnecessary war with on Iran, from which they may never recover. Of course, they're the ones who have to do the actual fighting, not simply dreaming up acts of aggression out of thin air, driven by fanatical racism and hatred of 'the other'.)
Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Giuliani, however, would countenance Teheran acquiring a nuclear weapon and either one would authorise military action once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programme.
"Unlike a ground invasion where you’ve got to mass hundreds of thousands of troops, it takes six months and everybody knows you’re mobilising, with air strikes, we’ve got three carriers in the region and a lot of submarines," Mr Podhoretz said.
"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/27/wbomb127.xml
Memo to Norman Podhoretz: Your writings, over the years, make it very clear that you are infinitely more interested in the safety and prosperity of Israel than you are this country.
This call to bomb Iran is nothing more than an extension of this position, and the expression of a very concrete wish to have the US "neutralize" the countries Israel sees as an eminent, existential threat (which means almost all countries in the region).
Note that it is always Americans who are supposed to go to war, fight, get maimed, and die to accomplish this end.
Mr. Podhortez, where are the people of appropriate military age in your family?
Has your passion for this military action inspired them to join any branch of the service, and are they serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or will they be (soon) serving in the attack on Iran?
Were I a betting person, I would bet that the answer would be a big, fat, hairy "no".
Israel and the USA plotting to attack Iran
By Uri Avnery
29 September 2007
Uri Avnery argues that Israel and its lobby in the USA – “the (mostly Jewish) neo-conservatives and the Christian Zionists” – may be plotting to attack Iran but they “may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire”.
A respected American paper posted a scoop this week: Vice-President Dick Cheney, the king of hawks, has thought up a Machiavellian scheme for an attack on Iran. Its main point: Israel will start by bombing an Iranian nuclear installation, Iran will respond by launching missiles at Israel, and this will serve as a pretext for an American attack on Iran.
Far-fetched? Not really. It is rather like what happened in 1956. Then France, Israel and Britain secretly planned to attack Egypt in order to topple Gamal Abd-al-Nasser ("regime change" in today's lingo.) It was agreed that Israeli paratroops would be dropped near the Suez Canal, and that the resulting conflict would serve as a pretext for the French and British to occupy the canal area in order to "secure" the waterway. This plan was implemented (and failed miserably).
What would happen to us [i.e. to Israelis] if we agreed to Cheney's plan? Our pilots would risk their lives to bomb the heavily defended Iranian installations. Then, Iranian missiles would rain down on our cities. Hundreds, perhaps thousands would be killed. All this in order to supply the Americans with a pretext to go to war.
Would the pretext have stood up? In other words, is the US obliged to enter a war on our side, even when that war is caused by us? In theory, the answer is yes. The current agreements between the US and Israel say that America has to come to Israel's aid in any war – whoever started it.
Is there any substance to this leak? Hard to know. But it strengthens the suspicion that an attack on Iran is more imminent than people imagine.
Do Bush, Cheney & Co. indeed intend to attack Iran?
I don't know, but my suspicion that they might is getting stronger.
Why? Because George Bush is nearing the end of his term of office. If it ends the way things look now, he will be remembered as a very bad – if not the worst – president in the annals of the republic. His term started with the Twin Towers catastrophe, which reflected no great credit on the intelligence agencies, and would come to a close with the grievous Iraq fiasco.
There is only one year left to do something impressive and save his name in the history books. In such situations, leaders tend to look for military adventures. Taking into account the man's demonstrated character traits, the war option suddenly seems quite frightening.
True, the American army is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even people like Bush and Cheney could not dream, at this time, of invading a country four times larger than Iraq, with three times the population.
But, quite possibly the warmongers are whispering in Bush's ear: what are you worrying about? No need for an invasion. Enough to bomb Iran, as we bombed Serbia and Afghanistan. We shall use the smartest bombs and the most sophisticated missiles against the 2,000 or so targets, in order to destroy not only the Iranian nuclear sites but also their military installations and government offices. "We shall bomb them back into the stone age," as an American general once said about Vietnam, or "turn their clock back 20 years", as the Israeli air force general Dan Halutz said about Lebanon.
That's a tempting idea. The US will only use its mighty air force, missiles of all kinds and the powerful aircraft-carriers, which are already deployed in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. All these can be sent into action at any time on short notice. For a failed president approaching the end of his term, the idea of an easy, short war must have an immense attraction. And this president has already shown how hard it is for him to resist temptations of this kind.
Would this indeed be such an easy operation, a "piece of cake" in American parlance? I doubt it.
Even "smart" bombs kill people. The Iranians are a proud, resolute and highly motivated people. They point out that for 2000 years they have never attacked another country, but during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war they have amply proved their determination to defend their own when attacked.
Their first reaction to an American attack would be to close the Straits of Hormuz, the entrance to the Gulf. That would choke off a large part of the world's oil supply and cause an unprecedented world-wide economic crisis. To open the straits (if this is at all possible), the US army would have to capture and hold large areas of Iranian territory.
The short and easy war would turn into a long and hard war. What does that mean for us in Israel?
There can be little doubt that, if attacked, Iran will respond as it has promised: by bombarding us with the rockets it is preparing for this precise purpose. That will not endanger Israel's existence, but it will not be pleasant either.
If the American attack turns into a long war of attrition, and if the American public comes to see it as a disaster (as is happening right now with the Iraqi adventure), some will surely put the blame on Israel. It is no secret that the pro-Israel lobby and its allies – the (mostly Jewish) neo-conservatives and the Christian Zionists – are pushing America into this war, just as they pushed it into Iraq. For Israeli policy, the hoped-for gains of this war may turn into giant losses not only for Israel, but also for the American Jewish community...
This week, the pro-Israel lobby organized big demonstrations against his visit to New York. They were a huge success – for Ahmadinejad. He has realized his dream of becoming the centre of world attention. He has been given the opportunity to voice his arguments against Israel – some outrageous, some valid – before a worldwide audience.
But Ahmadinejad is not Iran. True, he has won popular elections, but Iran is like the orthodox parties in Israel: it is not their politicians who count, but their rabbis. The Shi’i religious leadership makes the decisions and commands the armed forces, and this body is neither boastful nor vociferous not scandal-mongering. It exercises a lot of caution.
If Iran was really so eager to obtain a nuclear bomb, it would have acted in utmost silence and kept as low a profile as possible (as Israel did). The swaggering of Ahmadinejad would hurt this effort more than any enemy of Iran could...
One thing I am ready to predict with confidence: whoever pushes for war against Iran will come to regret it.
Some adventures are easy to get into but hard to get out of.
The last one to find this out was Saddam Hussein. He thought that it would be a cakewalk... He believed that one quick Iraqi blow would be enough to bring about the collapse of Iran. He had eight long years of war to regret it.
Both the Americans and we may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
http://www.redress.cc/global/uavnery20070929
I'm beginning to understand the role of electronic vote (rigging) machines used in the last election. A Republican win would have been unbelievable, so these machines were used to install "friendly" Democrats (members of the RepubliCrat Party) to the halls of power, ensuring nothing would change, and that this Madness could expand.
September 29, 2007 at 00:02:14
Democrats were Charged to End a War, Not Start One
by Mike Gravel
09/28/07 "ICH" -- - -Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.
I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists쳌 before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization쳌 is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.쳌
As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors쳌 who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.
The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.
Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.
Mike Gravel is a former US Senator from Alaska and is currently running for the Democratic Nomination for President.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_mike_gra_070929_democrats_were_charg.htm
WHO IS THE US CONGRESS LISTENING TO?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com /whoiscongresslisteningto.html
Senate Urges Bush To Attack Iran
Yesterday, Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Chuck Schumer (NY), Bob Menendez (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Ben Cardin (MD) all voted in favor of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment." This piece of legislation actually encourages the practitioner of cowboy diplomacy, George W. Bush, to be even more belligerent in his foreign policy. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 22. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted against it, and Barack Obama missed the vote.
The amendment states: "The United State should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
Kyl-Lieberman is the first step in providing Congressional legitimacy for military action against Iran. The 76 to 22 vote, which also had the support of Majority Leader Harry Reid, codifies U.S. Iran policy and comes very close to sounding like a declaration of war. Designating a four decades old military branch of a sovereign state a "foreign terrorist organization" is an extreme step that is only necessary or useful if there are plans "on the table" to do something about it.
The U.S. troops in Iraq are not considered "foreign." The U.S. calls those Iraqis who are resisting occupation "terrorists." Now a segment of the Iranian armed forces is being labeled a terrorist organization. Such a step is tantamount to a foreign government designating the U.S. Marines a "foreign terrorist organization."
The Democratic Senate is playing right into the hands of those neo-cons and crazies who think a military strike against Iran will improve the situation in the Middle East. On the contrary, it will magnify the current disaster in Iraq tenfold.
If the Senate and the Neo-Cons convince Bush to strike Iran they will be sparking a real war with a nation that can fight back. With its 70 million people, high literacy rate, key geographic location, level of economic development, and its control of a significant share of the world's oil production, Iran is a nation that could cause quite a stir if Bush is dim-witted enough to go down that terrible road.
I can envision a scenario where the United States launches a sustained set of air raids against most of the infrastructure of Iran, specifically targeting the "nuclear facilities" that are widely dispersed throughout the country. The Democrats in Congress will be jumping through hoops like well-trained circus dogs as they vote for resolutions and give speeches validating the aggression. And then we're off to the races in another illegal war against a nation that has not attacked us.
Iran accounts for about 4 percent of the world's daily oil production, and will surely shut off the spigots if it is attacked sending the price of oil skyward. (Iran's ally Venezuela might follow suit.) Petroleum analysts estimate that the world runs only about a 2 percent excess capacity of oil production, which could mean an instant drop to a negative world supply if Iran chooses to stop pumping. This reduction in output alone could wreak havoc with global energy markets.
Iran might also take the step of disrupting the oil production of neighboring Gulf States through missile attacks on their oil infrastructure and sabotage. The world production of oil could then drop to a negative 10 percent or more, and the price could shoot up even higher. The American people, who consume more oil per capita than any people on earth, will be waiting in long lines to fill up our tanks as we did during the Iranian revolution in 1978-79. Ordinary Americans don't only get the privilege of paying for the costs of the missiles and ordnance Bush will throw at Iran, but we also get the honor of paying triple the amount for a gallon of gas while we are queued up at the pump.
The Iranian silkworm missiles, supplied by China, (which recently signed a $100 billion oil and gas deal with Iran), will rip through the shipping of the Persian Gulf. Explosions of undetermined origin will rake through the oil platforms and infrastructure of the Gulf States. Iraq's civil war will reach a new intensity. And bombs will go off throughout the region wreaking havoc with the smooth transport of oil.
The Iranians and their allies in the Gulf will cause trouble in the Straights of Hormuz where 40 percent of the world's oil passes. They will turn the Gulf into a garbage dump of damaged ships and flaming oil dereks. Russia and China will supply arms to Iran and the conflict will continue, like Iraq, for as long as the United States tries to impose its will on the region through brute force.
They will also probably have agents blow up U.S. embassies and other targets all over the world. The war will be the most destabilizing the Persian Gulf has ever seen.
Compounded with the financial strains of the $600 billion Iraq occupation, the new war with Iran will run the risk of bankrupting the United States. China might cash in some of its $1 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds and exchange them for Euros. The value of the dollar could then be suddenly devalued. The life savings of millions of Americans could be threatened as the dollar tanks, and interest rates shoot up when the central banks try to entice foreigners' to hang on to their dollars to stop the hemorrhaging. And this devaluing of the dollar could occur in an environment of hyperinflation because the high price of oil will drive up the costs of everything.
So let's not let those narrow interests who seek another wider war in the Middle East prevail. They don't really know what they're getting themselves into.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com /joseph-a-palermo/senate-urges-.us h-to-atta_b_66223.html
The Self-Indulgent Fantasies of Warmongers
2007-09-29 | The warmongers – who never personally experience battle – are attempting to prepare us for another extension of the Middle East Wars, this time, into Iran.
Their pornographic self-indulgent fantasies lead them to believe that such a war is “winnable”. This time, even the mental masturbators who send the young to die will not remain untouched, for in their wild fantasies, they dream of using nuclear weapons.
(Please see: Bush Administration War Plans directed against Iran http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6792 )
Fortunately, there are still those in the United States Military who are Real Men and Real Women and not merely programmed killers who mindlessly obey commands.
(Please see: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theatre
B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909)
IF – as some pundits claim – an attack on Iran would be for the benefit of Israel, then the use of nuclear weapons in such a crime would send radiation throughout the region, even into Israel - and beyond. They are no friends of Israel !
(Please see: Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour
http://www.huffingtonpost.com /max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html
Of course, everyone in Iran and Iraq will be the first victims, including the invading troops, but when did the warmongers ever care about casualties ?
IF – as some pundits claim – Iran is “a threat to the world”, can someone, somewhere, please explain HOW ?
Iran has exhibited no imperialistic ambitions and has been merely attempting to preserve its own territorial integrity, ever since the Ayatollah Khomenei assumed power, after a popular revolt which overthrew the Shah, in 1979 and Saddam Hussein’s forces – backed, encouraged and supplied by the USA – attempted to overthrow the new Government. Both Iran and Iraq are still recovering from that ill-fated and ill-conceived war.
Is the current Bush Regime fantasising about “completing the job” ?
Anyone who has ever experienced combat KNOWS that there are never any real victors. There are only degrees of loss. Those with fewer losses are considered “winners”.
One wishes the civilian warmongers could learn the basic facts of Life and find fulfilment in a lover - if they have the capacity – and if anyone wants them.
Perhaps, it is time for the Military leaders of the USA to assert the Authority of Experience and refuse to follow the orders of the insane and amoral.
Paul V. Rafferty
U.N. OBSERVER & International Report
http://www.unobserver.com /index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=3895&blz=1
Bolton calls for bombing of Iran
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tory2007/story/0,,2180555,00.html
Bolton: Attack Iran, 'remove' its leader
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1189411516007
Remember the last time the UN was labeled "irrelevant"?
That was right before we invaded Iraq.
Bolton, ever on the band wagon to bomb rather than negotiate, is simply echoing this administration's drumbeat toward war with Iran.
And where, oh where are the people of appropriate military-service age in Bolton's family?
Are any of them serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I'd be willing to bet at least one penny that the answer is a resounding "no".
Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq' Greg Wasserstrom and Mike Aivaz
Published: Sunday September 30, 2007
The only thing different about the Bush Administration's rhetoric about Iran and statements made regarding Iraq before the US invasion in 2003 are the words chosen, says journalist Seymour Hersh.
"They've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be nuclear threat," Hersh said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, adding a moment later, "They've come to the realization that it's not selling, it isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat certainly as they were about Iraq. So they've switched, really."
http://rawstory.com //news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_War_with_Iran_will_0930.html
The Iran War is on the Front Burner
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MIR20070928&articleId=6927
So let me see if I’ve got this right: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is demanding that George W. Bush take a more belligerent posture toward Iran.
http://www.consortiumnews.com /2007/092707.html
But "the Lobby" has no power ...
I hate all Iranians, US aide tells MPs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770
US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran
By Tim Shipman in Washington
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran130.xml
Shifting Targets
The Administration’s plan for Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com /reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh
By Toby Harnden in New York
Last Updated: 2:14am BST 27/10/2007
A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.
The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.
Podhoretz is a founder of neoconservatism
"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.
(Work at what? Iran hasn't DONE anything!)
"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful.
(Even though top-ranking Pentagon analysts have stated exactly the opposite. This is about Regime Change, not a nuclear program. This war was plotted along with the Iraq war.)
"People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set it back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions."
Although Mr Podhoretz said he did not speak for Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor whom he briefs daily appears to have embraced at least the logic of his hard-line views.
During a visit to London last month, Mr Giuliani said Iran should be given "an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years".
Mr Podhoretz said: "I was very pleased to see him say that. I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow ... I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out and say we have to bomb - it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign."
But Mr Podhoretz’s 77 years and his position as a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual means he can not only think the unthinkable but say the unsayable.
"My role has simply been to say what I think," he said, explaining that he takes part in weekly conference calls and is in daily email contact with the Giuliani campaign.
He is the most eminent of a clutch of uncompromisingly hawkish aides assembled by Mr Giuliani. They include Daniel Pipes, (a racist hatemonger) who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should "inspire fear, not affection", and Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official (Behind the lies about Iraq) who has argued that Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is "dangerous" and signals American "weakness" to Teheran.
(Rice's 'diplomacy' is just a smokescreen. There's nothing real to it. It's a game, intended to convince the world that, just as Bush/PNAC assured us before the attack on Iraq, war is the Regime's last resort.)
"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."
Mr Podhoretz’s thesis is that the war on terror is in fact World War Four and that the 42-year-long Cold War should be more properly described as World War Three.
Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, by President George W. Bush in 2004, Mr Podhoretz later sought a rare one-on-on audience with the US commander-in-chief. They met in New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel in the spring.
The author of the recent World War IV: the Long Struggle Against Islamofacsism spent about 35 minutes outlining his case for air strikes against Iran as Mr Bush’s then chief adviser Karl Rove took notes.
"Whether I had any effect on him I truly don’t know but I sure tried my best to persuade him," he said.
"He was very cordial. He was warm. He listened. He occasionally asked a question as I made the case but he was truly poker faced."
Mr Podhoretz left the meeting unshaken in his belief that Mr Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office.
(Knowing this, by the Neo-Fascists' own terms, Iran would be well within its rights in attacking both the US and Israel ...)
"The spirit of the questions was not to try to refute or contradict what I was saying. I didn’t get any negative vibes."
He said that now "the debate [over Iran] is secretly over and the people who are against military action are now preparing to make the case that we can live with an Iranian bomb".
(While the military itself is outlining why they can't live with an unnecessary war with on Iran, from which they may never recover. Of course, they're the ones who have to do the actual fighting, not simply dreaming up acts of aggression out of thin air, driven by fanatical racism and hatred of 'the other'.)
Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Giuliani, however, would countenance Teheran acquiring a nuclear weapon and either one would authorise military action once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programme.
"Unlike a ground invasion where you’ve got to mass hundreds of thousands of troops, it takes six months and everybody knows you’re mobilising, with air strikes, we’ve got three carriers in the region and a lot of submarines," Mr Podhoretz said.
"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/27/wbomb127.xml Memo to Norman Podhoretz: Your writings, over the years, make it very clear that you are infinitely more interested in the safety and prosperity of Israel than you are this country.
This call to bomb Iran is nothing more than an extension of this position, and the expression of a very concrete wish to have the US "neutralize" the countries Israel sees as an eminent, existential threat (which means almost all countries in the region).
Note that it is always Americans who are supposed to go to war, fight, get maimed, and die to accomplish this end.
Mr. Podhortez, where are the people of appropriate military age in your family?
Has your passion for this military action inspired them to join any branch of the service, and are they serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or will they be (soon) serving in the attack on Iran?
Were I a betting person, I would bet that the answer would be a big, fat, hairy "no".
Israel and the USA plotting to attack Iran
By Uri Avnery
29 September 2007
Uri Avnery argues that Israel and its lobby in the USA – “the (mostly Jewish) neo-conservatives and the Christian Zionists” – may be plotting to attack Iran but they “may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire”.
A respected American paper posted a scoop this week: Vice-President Dick Cheney, the king of hawks, has thought up a Machiavellian scheme for an attack on Iran. Its main point: Israel will start by bombing an Iranian nuclear installation, Iran will respond by launching missiles at Israel, and this will serve as a pretext for an American attack on Iran.
Far-fetched? Not really. It is rather like what happened in 1956. Then France, Israel and Britain secretly planned to attack Egypt in order to topple Gamal Abd-al-Nasser ("regime change" in today's lingo.) It was agreed that Israeli paratroops would be dropped near the Suez Canal, and that the resulting conflict would serve as a pretext for the French and British to occupy the canal area in order to "secure" the waterway. This plan was implemented (and failed miserably).
What would happen to us [i.e. to Israelis] if we agreed to Cheney's plan? Our pilots would risk their lives to bomb the heavily defended Iranian installations. Then, Iranian missiles would rain down on our cities. Hundreds, perhaps thousands would be killed. All this in order to supply the Americans with a pretext to go to war.
Would the pretext have stood up? In other words, is the US obliged to enter a war on our side, even when that war is caused by us? In theory, the answer is yes. The current agreements between the US and Israel say that America has to come to Israel's aid in any war – whoever started it.
Is there any substance to this leak? Hard to know. But it strengthens the suspicion that an attack on Iran is more imminent than people imagine.
Do Bush, Cheney & Co. indeed intend to attack Iran?
I don't know, but my suspicion that they might is getting stronger.
Why? Because George Bush is nearing the end of his term of office. If it ends the way things look now, he will be remembered as a very bad – if not the worst – president in the annals of the republic. His term started with the Twin Towers catastrophe, which reflected no great credit on the intelligence agencies, and would come to a close with the grievous Iraq fiasco.
There is only one year left to do something impressive and save his name in the history books. In such situations, leaders tend to look for military adventures. Taking into account the man's demonstrated character traits, the war option suddenly seems quite frightening.
True, the American army is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even people like Bush and Cheney could not dream, at this time, of invading a country four times larger than Iraq, with three times the population.
But, quite possibly the warmongers are whispering in Bush's ear: what are you worrying about? No need for an invasion. Enough to bomb Iran, as we bombed Serbia and Afghanistan. We shall use the smartest bombs and the most sophisticated missiles against the 2,000 or so targets, in order to destroy not only the Iranian nuclear sites but also their military installations and government offices. "We shall bomb them back into the stone age," as an American general once said about Vietnam, or "turn their clock back 20 years", as the Israeli air force general Dan Halutz said about Lebanon.
That's a tempting idea. The US will only use its mighty air force, missiles of all kinds and the powerful aircraft-carriers, which are already deployed in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. All these can be sent into action at any time on short notice. For a failed president approaching the end of his term, the idea of an easy, short war must have an immense attraction. And this president has already shown how hard it is for him to resist temptations of this kind.
Would this indeed be such an easy operation, a "piece of cake" in American parlance? I doubt it.
Even "smart" bombs kill people. The Iranians are a proud, resolute and highly motivated people. They point out that for 2000 years they have never attacked another country, but during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war they have amply proved their determination to defend their own when attacked.
Their first reaction to an American attack would be to close the Straits of Hormuz, the entrance to the Gulf. That would choke off a large part of the world's oil supply and cause an unprecedented world-wide economic crisis. To open the straits (if this is at all possible), the US army would have to capture and hold large areas of Iranian territory.
The short and easy war would turn into a long and hard war. What does that mean for us in Israel?
There can be little doubt that, if attacked, Iran will respond as it has promised: by bombarding us with the rockets it is preparing for this precise purpose. That will not endanger Israel's existence, but it will not be pleasant either.
If the American attack turns into a long war of attrition, and if the American public comes to see it as a disaster (as is happening right now with the Iraqi adventure), some will surely put the blame on Israel. It is no secret that the pro-Israel lobby and its allies – the (mostly Jewish) neo-conservatives and the Christian Zionists – are pushing America into this war, just as they pushed it into Iraq. For Israeli policy, the hoped-for gains of this war may turn into giant losses not only for Israel, but also for the American Jewish community...
This week, the pro-Israel lobby organized big demonstrations against his visit to New York. They were a huge success – for Ahmadinejad. He has realized his dream of becoming the centre of world attention. He has been given the opportunity to voice his arguments against Israel – some outrageous, some valid – before a worldwide audience.
But Ahmadinejad is not Iran. True, he has won popular elections, but Iran is like the orthodox parties in Israel: it is not their politicians who count, but their rabbis. The Shi’i religious leadership makes the decisions and commands the armed forces, and this body is neither boastful nor vociferous not scandal-mongering. It exercises a lot of caution.
If Iran was really so eager to obtain a nuclear bomb, it would have acted in utmost silence and kept as low a profile as possible (as Israel did). The swaggering of Ahmadinejad would hurt this effort more than any enemy of Iran could...
One thing I am ready to predict with confidence: whoever pushes for war against Iran will come to regret it.
Some adventures are easy to get into but hard to get out of.
The last one to find this out was Saddam Hussein. He thought that it would be a cakewalk... He believed that one quick Iraqi blow would be enough to bring about the collapse of Iran. He had eight long years of war to regret it.
Both the Americans and we may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
http://www.redress.cc/global/uavnery20070929 I'm beginning to understand the role of electronic vote (rigging) machines used in the last election. A Republican win would have been unbelievable, so these machines were used to install "friendly" Democrats (members of the RepubliCrat Party) to the halls of power, ensuring nothing would change, and that this Madness could expand.
September 29, 2007 at 00:02:14
Democrats were Charged to End a War, Not Start One
by Mike Gravel
09/28/07 "ICH" -- - -Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.
I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists쳌 before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization쳌 is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.쳌
As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors쳌 who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.
The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.
Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.
Mike Gravel is a former US Senator from Alaska and is currently running for the Democratic Nomination for President.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_mike_gra_070929_democrats_were_charg.htm WHO IS THE US CONGRESS LISTENING TO?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com /whoiscongresslisteningto.html Senate Urges Bush To Attack Iran
Yesterday, Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Chuck Schumer (NY), Bob Menendez (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Ben Cardin (MD) all voted in favor of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment." This piece of legislation actually encourages the practitioner of cowboy diplomacy, George W. Bush, to be even more belligerent in his foreign policy. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 22. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted against it, and Barack Obama missed the vote.
The amendment states: "The United State should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
Kyl-Lieberman is the first step in providing Congressional legitimacy for military action against Iran. The 76 to 22 vote, which also had the support of Majority Leader Harry Reid, codifies U.S. Iran policy and comes very close to sounding like a declaration of war. Designating a four decades old military branch of a sovereign state a "foreign terrorist organization" is an extreme step that is only necessary or useful if there are plans "on the table" to do something about it.
The U.S. troops in Iraq are not considered "foreign." The U.S. calls those Iraqis who are resisting occupation "terrorists." Now a segment of the Iranian armed forces is being labeled a terrorist organization. Such a step is tantamount to a foreign government designating the U.S. Marines a "foreign terrorist organization."
The Democratic Senate is playing right into the hands of those neo-cons and crazies who think a military strike against Iran will improve the situation in the Middle East. On the contrary, it will magnify the current disaster in Iraq tenfold.
If the Senate and the Neo-Cons convince Bush to strike Iran they will be sparking a real war with a nation that can fight back. With its 70 million people, high literacy rate, key geographic location, level of economic development, and its control of a significant share of the world's oil production, Iran is a nation that could cause quite a stir if Bush is dim-witted enough to go down that terrible road.
I can envision a scenario where the United States launches a sustained set of air raids against most of the infrastructure of Iran, specifically targeting the "nuclear facilities" that are widely dispersed throughout the country. The Democrats in Congress will be jumping through hoops like well-trained circus dogs as they vote for resolutions and give speeches validating the aggression. And then we're off to the races in another illegal war against a nation that has not attacked us.
Iran accounts for about 4 percent of the world's daily oil production, and will surely shut off the spigots if it is attacked sending the price of oil skyward. (Iran's ally Venezuela might follow suit.) Petroleum analysts estimate that the world runs only about a 2 percent excess capacity of oil production, which could mean an instant drop to a negative world supply if Iran chooses to stop pumping. This reduction in output alone could wreak havoc with global energy markets.
Iran might also take the step of disrupting the oil production of neighboring Gulf States through missile attacks on their oil infrastructure and sabotage. The world production of oil could then drop to a negative 10 percent or more, and the price could shoot up even higher. The American people, who consume more oil per capita than any people on earth, will be waiting in long lines to fill up our tanks as we did during the Iranian revolution in 1978-79. Ordinary Americans don't only get the privilege of paying for the costs of the missiles and ordnance Bush will throw at Iran, but we also get the honor of paying triple the amount for a gallon of gas while we are queued up at the pump.
The Iranian silkworm missiles, supplied by China, (which recently signed a $100 billion oil and gas deal with Iran), will rip through the shipping of the Persian Gulf. Explosions of undetermined origin will rake through the oil platforms and infrastructure of the Gulf States. Iraq's civil war will reach a new intensity. And bombs will go off throughout the region wreaking havoc with the smooth transport of oil.
The Iranians and their allies in the Gulf will cause trouble in the Straights of Hormuz where 40 percent of the world's oil passes. They will turn the Gulf into a garbage dump of damaged ships and flaming oil dereks. Russia and China will supply arms to Iran and the conflict will continue, like Iraq, for as long as the United States tries to impose its will on the region through brute force.
They will also probably have agents blow up U.S. embassies and other targets all over the world. The war will be the most destabilizing the Persian Gulf has ever seen.
Compounded with the financial strains of the $600 billion Iraq occupation, the new war with Iran will run the risk of bankrupting the United States. China might cash in some of its $1 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds and exchange them for Euros. The value of the dollar could then be suddenly devalued. The life savings of millions of Americans could be threatened as the dollar tanks, and interest rates shoot up when the central banks try to entice foreigners' to hang on to their dollars to stop the hemorrhaging. And this devaluing of the dollar could occur in an environment of hyperinflation because the high price of oil will drive up the costs of everything.
So let's not let those narrow interests who seek another wider war in the Middle East prevail. They don't really know what they're getting themselves into.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com /joseph-a-palermo/senate-urges-.us h-to-atta_b_66223.html The Self-Indulgent Fantasies of Warmongers
2007-09-29 | The warmongers – who never personally experience battle – are attempting to prepare us for another extension of the Middle East Wars, this time, into Iran.
Their pornographic self-indulgent fantasies lead them to believe that such a war is “winnable”. This time, even the mental masturbators who send the young to die will not remain untouched, for in their wild fantasies, they dream of using nuclear weapons.
(Please see: Bush Administration War Plans directed against Iran
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6792 ) Fortunately, there are still those in the United States Military who are Real Men and Real Women and not merely programmed killers who mindlessly obey commands.
(Please see: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theatre
B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909) IF – as some pundits claim – an attack on Iran would be for the benefit of Israel, then the use of nuclear weapons in such a crime would send radiation throughout the region, even into Israel - and beyond. They are no friends of Israel !
(Please see: Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour
http://www.huffingtonpost.com /max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html Of course, everyone in Iran and Iraq will be the first victims, including the invading troops, but when did the warmongers ever care about casualties ?
IF – as some pundits claim – Iran is “a threat to the world”, can someone, somewhere, please explain HOW ?
Iran has exhibited no imperialistic ambitions and has been merely attempting to preserve its own territorial integrity, ever since the Ayatollah Khomenei assumed power, after a popular revolt which overthrew the Shah, in 1979 and Saddam Hussein’s forces – backed, encouraged and supplied by the USA – attempted to overthrow the new Government. Both Iran and Iraq are still recovering from that ill-fated and ill-conceived war.
Is the current Bush Regime fantasising about “completing the job” ?
Anyone who has ever experienced combat KNOWS that there are never any real victors. There are only degrees of loss. Those with fewer losses are considered “winners”.
One wishes the civilian warmongers could learn the basic facts of Life and find fulfilment in a lover - if they have the capacity – and if anyone wants them.
Perhaps, it is time for the Military leaders of the USA to assert the Authority of Experience and refuse to follow the orders of the insane and amoral.
Paul V. Rafferty
U.N. OBSERVER & International Report
http://www.unobserver.com /index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=3895&blz=1 Bolton calls for bombing of Iran
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tory2007/story/0,,2180555,00.html Bolton: Attack Iran, 'remove' its leader
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1189411516007 Remember the last time the UN was labeled "irrelevant"?
That was right before we invaded Iraq.
Bolton, ever on the band wagon to bomb rather than negotiate, is simply echoing this administration's drumbeat toward war with Iran.
And where, oh where are the people of appropriate military-service age in Bolton's family?
Are any of them serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I'd be willing to bet at least one penny that the answer is a resounding "no".
Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq' Greg Wasserstrom and Mike Aivaz
Published: Sunday September 30, 2007
The only thing different about the Bush Administration's rhetoric about Iran and statements made regarding Iraq before the US invasion in 2003 are the words chosen, says journalist Seymour Hersh.
"They've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be nuclear threat," Hersh said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, adding a moment later, "They've come to the realization that it's not selling, it isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat certainly as they were about Iraq. So they've switched, really."
http://rawstory.com //news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_War_with_Iran_will_0930.html The Iran War is on the Front Burner
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MIR20070928&articleId=6927 So let me see if I’ve got this right: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is demanding that George W. Bush take a more belligerent posture toward Iran.
http://www.consortiumnews.com /2007/092707.html But "the Lobby" has no power ...
I hate all Iranians, US aide tells MPs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770 US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran
By Tim Shipman in Washington
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran130.xml Shifting Targets
The Administration’s plan for Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com /reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh
Oppose Fascism
