[NV Greens] Fwd: [usgp-dx] Scott.Ritter: US air attack on Iran planned for June 2005 (Aljazeera)

Fri Apr 1 23:41:49 PST 2005

>
>
>Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran
>By Scott Ritter 
>
>Aljazeera, 30 March 2005
>http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5FCF4A-FBF6-443A-93A9-5E37C43FDE0B.htm
>
>
>Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004
>Presidential election, I was contacted by someone
>close to the Bush administration about the
>situation in Iraq.
>
>There was a growing concern inside the Bush
>administration, this source said, about the
>direction the occupation was
>going. 
>
>The Bush administration was keen on achieving
>some semblance of stability in Iraq before June
>2005, I was told. 
>
>When I asked why that date, the source dropped
>the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon
>was told to be prepared to launch a massive
>aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to
>the east, in order to destroy the
>Iranian nuclear programme.      
>
>Why June 2005?, I asked. "The Israelis are
>concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear
>enrichment programme up and running, then there
>will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting
>a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the
>decisive date."
>
>To be clear, the source did not say that
>President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in
>June 2005, as has been widely reported. 
>
>The president had reviewed plans being prepared
>by the Pentagon to have the military capability
>in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the
>president ordered. 
>
>But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told
>America's European allies in February 2005, in
>response to press reports about a pending June
>2005 American attack against Iran, she said that
>"the question [of a military strike] is simply
>not on the agenda at this point - we have
>diplomatic means to do this".
>
>President Bush himself followed up on Rice's
>statement by stating that "this notion that the
>United States is getting ready to attack Iran is
>simply ridiculous". He quickly added: "Having
>said that, all options are on the table."
>
>In short, both the president and the secretary of
>state were being honest, and disingenuous, at the
>same time. 
>
>Truth to be told, there is no American military
>strike on the agenda; that is, until June 2005.
>
>It was curious that no one in the American media
>took it upon themselves to confront the president
>or his secretary of state about the June 2005
>date, or for that matter the October 2004 review
>by the president of military plans to attack Iran
>in June 2005. 
>
>The American media today is sleepwalking towards
>an American war with Iran with all of the
>incompetence and lack of integrity that it
>displayed during a similar path trodden during
>the buildup to our current war with Iraq.
>
>On the surface, there is nothing extraordinary
>about the news that the president of the United
>States would order the Pentagon to be prepared to
>launch military strikes on Iran in June 2005. 
>
>That Iran has been a target of the Bush
>administration's ideologues is no secret: the
>president himself placed Iran in the "axis of
>evil" back in 2002, and has said that the world
>would be a better place with the current Iranian
>government relegated to the trash bin of history.
>
>
>The Bush administration has also expressed its
>concern about Iran's nuclear programmes -
>concerns shared by Israel and the European Union,
>although to different degrees. 
>
>In September 2004, Iran rejected the
>International Atomic Energy Agency's call for
>closing down its nuclear fuel production
>programme (which many in the United States and
>Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear
>weapons programme). 
>
>Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with
>sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well
>as US military installations in Iraq and
>throughout the Middle East. 
>
>The Iranian response triggered a serious
>re-examination of policy by both Israel and the
>United States.
>
>The Israeli policy review was driven in part by
>the Iranian actions, and in part by Israel's own
>intelligence assessment regarding the Iranian
>nuclear programme, made in August 2004. 
>
>This assessment held that Iran was "less than a
>year" away from completing its uranium enrichment
>programme. If Iran was allowed to reach this
>benchmark, the assessment went on to say, then it
>had reached the "point of no return" for a
>nuclear weapons programme. The date set for this
>"point of no return" was June 2005. 
>
>Israel's Defence Minister, Shaul Mofaz, declared
>that "under no circumstances would Israel be able
>to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian
>possession". 
>
>Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for
>a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear
>facilities, including the nuclear reactor
>facility in Busher (scheduled to become active in
>2005). 
>
>These plans were constantly being updated,
>something that did not escape the attention of
>the Bush White House.
>
>The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to
>stopping the Iranian nuclear programme, has
>always been for the US to lead the way. 
>
>"The way to stop Iran", a senior Israeli official
>has said, "is by the leadership of the US,
>supported by European countries and taking this
>issue to the UN, and using the diplomatic channel
>with sanctions as a tool and a very deep
>inspection regime and full transparency".
>
>It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't
>too far removed on their Iranian policy
>objectives, except that there  is always the
>unspoken "twist": what if the United States does
>not fully support European diplomatic
>initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA
>inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a
>permanent means of containment until regime
>change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a
>tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on
>eliminating its nuclear programme? 
>
>Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks
>by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not
>fully embrace the EU's Iran diplomacy, viewing it
>as a programme "doomed to fail". 
>
>The IAEA has come out with an official report,
>after extensive inspections of declared Iranian
>nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says
>there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear
>weapons programme; the Bush administration
>responded by trying to oust the IAEA's lead
>inspector, Muhammad al-Baradai. 
>
>And the Bush administration's push for UN
>sanctions shows every intention of making such
>sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting.
>
>Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's
>move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is
>June 2005. 
>
>According to a US position paper circulated in
>Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give
>the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to
>resolve the Iranian standoff.
>
>"Ultimately only the full cessation and
>dismantling of Iran's fissile material production
>efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has
>abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions," the US
>draft position paper said. 
>
>Iran has called such thinking "hallucinations" on
>the part of the Bush administration. 
>
>Economic sanctions and military attacks are not
>one and the same. Unless, of course, the
>architect of America's Iran policy never intends
>to give sanctions a chance.  
>
>Enter John Bolton, who, as the former US
>undersecretary of state for arms control and
>international security for the Bush
>administration, is responsible for drafting the
>current US policy towards Iran. 
>
>In February 2004, Bolton threw down the gauntlet
>by stating that Iran had a "secret nuclear weapon
>s programme" that was unknown to the IAEA. "There
>is no doubt that Iran has a secret nuclear
>weapons production programme," Bolton said,
>without providing any source to back up his
>assertions. 
>
>This is the same John Bolton who had in the past
>accused Cuba of having an offensive biological
>weapons programme, a claim even Bush
>administration hardliners had to distance
>themselves from.
>
>John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the
>European Union's engagement with Iran "doomed to
>fail". He is the Bush administration official who
>led the charge to remove al-Baradai from the
>IAEA.
>
>And he is the one who, in drafting the US
>strategy to get the UN Security Council to impose
>economic sanctions against Iran, asked the
>Pentagon to be prepared to launch "robust"
>military attacks against Iran should the UN fail
>to agree on sanctions. 
>
>Bolton understands better than most the slim
>chances any US-brokered sanctions regime against
>Iran has in getting through the Security Council.
>
>
>The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member
>of the Security Council who not only possesses a
>veto, but also is Iran's main supporter (and
>supplier) when it comes to its nuclear power
>programme. 
>
>Bolton has made a career out of alienating the
>Russians. He was one of the key figures who
>helped negotiate a May 2002 arms reduction treaty
>signed by Presidents George Bush and Vladimir
>Putin in Moscow. 
>
>This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear
>arsenals of both America and Russia by two-thirds
>over a 10 year period. 
>
>But that treaty - to Russia's immense displeasure
>- now appears to have been made mute thanks to a
>Bolton-inspired legal loophole that the Bush
>administration had built into the treaty
>language. 
>
>Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN
>sanctions against Iran, which makes the military
>planning being conducted by the Pentagon all the
>more relevant.
>
>Bolton's nomination as the next US Ambassador to
>the United Nations is as curious as it is
>worrying. This is the man who, before a panel
>discussion sponsored by the World Federalist
>Association in 1994, said: "There is no such
>thing as the United Nations."
>
>For the United States to submit to the will of
>the Security Council, Bolton wrote in a 1999
>Weekly Standard article, would mean that "its
>discretion in using force to advance its national
>interests is likely to be inhibited in the
>future."
>
>But Bolton doesn't let treaty obligations, such
>as those incurred by the United States when it
>signed and ratified the UN Charter, get in the
>way. "Treaties are law only for US domestic
>purposes", he wrote in a 17 November 1997 Wall
>Street Journal Op Ed. "In their international
>operation, treaties are simply political
>obligations."
>
>Bolton believes that Iran should be isolated by
>United Nations sanctions and, if Iran will not
>back down from its nuclear programme, confronted
>with the threat of military action. 
>
>And as the Bush administration has noted in the
>past, particularly in the case of Iraq, such
>threat must be real and meaningful, and backed by
>the will and determination to use it. 
>
>Bolton and others in the Bush administration
>contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran's
>nuclear intentions are obvious. 
>
>In response, the IAEA's al-Baradai has pointed
>out the lack of a "smoking gun" which would prove
>Iran's involvement in a nuclear weapons
>programme. "We are not God," he said. "We cannot
>read intentions."
>
>But, based upon history, precedent, and
>personalities, the intent of the United States
>regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush
>administration intends to bomb Iran. 
>
>Whether this attack takes place in June 2005,
>when the Pentagon has been instructed to be
>ready, or at a later date, once all other
>preparations have been made, is really the only
>question that remains to be answered. 
>
>That, and whether the journalists who populate
>the mainstream American media will continue to
>sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet
>another disaster in the Middle East.
>
>
>Scott Ritter is the former UN Chief Weapons
>Inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 and author of Iraq
>Confidential: The Untold Story of America's
>Intelligence Conspiracy, published by IB.
>
>The opinions expressed here are the author's and
>do not necessarily reflect the editorial position
>or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! Messenger
>Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
>http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
>_______________________________________________
>Natlcomaffairs mailing list
>To send a message to the list, write to:
>Natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
>To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs
>
>You must know your password to do this.
>
>If you can't figure out how to
>unsubscribe, as a last resort only,
>send a message OFF LIST to
>steveh at wagreens.us
>
>If your state delegation changes, please see:
>http://gp.org/committees/cc/documents/delegate_change.html
>
>For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:
>http://gp.org/committees/cc/


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand