Why Iran will lead to World War 3

"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News

by Mike Whitney

08/08/05 "ICH" -- -- The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war.

Sound familiar?

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple.

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack.

Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran."

Asefi did the right thing; the offer was con****uously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground.

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake.

The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep the peace.

Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.

No way.

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda.

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts.

Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Never the less, they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.

The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt.

We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war.

Isn't that so?

If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future.

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain.

It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists.

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence.

The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails.

When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.

This thread should hopefully motivate lots of interesting thoughts.
Personally I think that that WWIII (that is a dirty thing to type), started on Sept. 11th, or the day George W. Bush was elected the first time. It was like the drop that hit the water and then the ripple grows and expands. I'd be interested to research what type of posturing was taking place in the 3 to 4 years leading to WWI and WWII. You know, not the stuff we learnt in school, but the stuff that was actually happening behind the scenes and correlate that with what is happening now and today. It scares me, quite frankly that I look at the possibility of living the next 60 or so years in a decaying situation toward war.

It's interesting that you use the word 'posturing' because that's exactly (well, in my view anyway) what led to WW1. Britain, like the US now, had no intention of allowing any other nation to match it militarily, but had no stomach for battle in Europe. It relied on the navy to deter any rivals. Austria still had delusions of grandeur and though it feared Russia, felt threatened by the strong and growing German economy and military. Old Kaiser Bill was determined to equal Britain, and his close relationship with the British monarchy only fuelled his desire. France resented British power, but feared Germany moreso. So all the grand alliances were wheeled out to show unity in strength, but the Kaiser was unimpressed. He wanted more power and influence and he would use war if he had to. In a pre-echo of the 1930's, the generals were against it but he was still an almost absolute ruler. Anyway, Europe and the world stumbled into war and slaughter unseen before, for the ambitions of a few men (Iraq anyone?).
WW2 was wholly different. Germany had been humiliated at the first wars end and deliberately humbled by the French, The financial collapse hit Germany harder than any other country and so someone like Hitler had no difficulty in convincing a starving and degraded people to give him the wherewithal to improve their lot in any way possible. Hitler was gonna have his war come what may, we know that now and wrongly damn the appeasers. The fight against Naziism and Fascism and genocide was one of the few wars in history that was justified on every level.

Now we have the suited face of modern Fascism in the form of the Brush junta. It wants to guarantee oils supplies (nothing wrong in that by itself) and like Hitler, it doesn't care what it takes to do it. Personally, apart from a few professional military analysts, I doubt that a large war with Iran is being considered, but now the Brush has destabilised the region in such a spectacular way and alienated any Arab and Muslim good-will, anything is possible.

__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.

Your comparison of Hitler and BRUSH ?? is bizarre !!!

Not really. You will notice I called it 'modern' Fascism. You will also notice I called the 'suited face of Fascism'. It's not a direct comparison with Hitler, that would be stupid but the Brush junta is a perhaps mildly Fascist regime.

The illegal invasion of Iraq.
The killing of 100's of thousands of Iraqis.
The complete disregard fro the international community.
The imprisonment, indefinitely, of so-called 'combatants' with no legal representation and no access to international organisations.
The so-called 'Patriot Act' which has stripped many cherished rights from Americans.

I call that Fascist.

__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.

Who said the invasion was illegal ?

I think you'll find the civilian casualties are nowhere near that figure .

The UN or International community passed numerous Resolutions on Iraq .Out of sheer politeness we tried to get a final one which actually wasn't needed .We already had a resolution stating Failure to comply with the weapons inspection team "will result in the severist Consequences ". (this did not mean another game of hide and seek )

POW'S tend to accumulate during war .Countries to my knowledge tend to put them in POW camps which is what has happened . Canada had many German POW camps during WW2.I bet those poor Germans didn't get the latest Harry Potter novel equivalent .No nice book ......just forced labour!

The patriot act is a common sence reaction to a serious security problem .

How can you be "mildly Fascist "A Fascist is somebody who has Extreme right wing Authoritarian views .Has a tendency to murder his opponents and stop all Democratic Government .George Bush has been Elected twice and John Kerry is very much a live .
I guess old george could mildly fight a war with his hands tied behind his back

Many people in my contry for example. And in many other.
International community was making its mind about Iraq
and U.S. just went like "well screw that" and conquered
and occupyed a nation. Right or Wrong...
U.S. did not have a "green light" to start a war.
this made many people worried. Because
it demonstrates how the Bush's goverment
works aparently..


23456-26559 according to iraq bodycount.
and from this number 37% have been killed by US-lead forces.
over half of all civilians were killed by explosive devices...
(64% by airstrikes)
At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
and thease figures are deaths by direct action only.

You are there, where are the WMD's? all U.S. found was cheap oil.
Blimey... thats lucky.

yep. and thats why people can stand by a little while. but not long anymore.
their war is fought and war is over.

a large step torward police state. insecure people have larger tendency to
pull the trigger. Just what the Bush's goverment needs.

Thease Elections have been quite interesting indeed.
While Bush Jr. is not a Fascist. He is something else.
Extreme capitalist?

but all this is just off topic nonsense....

WW3?
perhaps.

1) From Wikipedia. More below fromother scources.
'The 2003 invasion of Iraq was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, with support from 48 other governments, making up what was described as the coalition of the willing. Of those 48 other governments, only 24 provided any military support, and as the war continued on 12 of those governments withdrew their support. The invasion's legitimacy has been disputed pertaining to international law ever since.'

2) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/content/v...elease.shtml#1
'The inadequacy of the current US/UK policy was highlighted when the Lancet published research suggesting that Iraq had suffered around 100,000 excess deaths since the 2003 invasion'
If you question these figures from the UK British medical Journal, then debate is futile.

3) If, by 'sheer politeness' you mean the US & UK had already made the plans for war and were gonna go with or without UN sanction, yes. The invasion of Iraq was a pre-emptive strike (something most civilised nations like to point out that democracies don't do) against a sovereign state, without legal nor international basis.
'International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

4) Prisoners of war? Find me any article where US officials call the illegally detained POW's. The Fascists invented a whole new catagory (in 1984 it's called 'new-speak', IE lies) of prisoner, the most favoured being 'detainee'.
'It seems rather contrary to an idea of a Constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check.'
US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, 20 April 2004(3)
'In late December 2001, a memorandum was sent from the United States Justice Department to the Department of Defense.(4) It advised the Pentagon that no US District Court could "properly entertain" appeals from "enemy aliens" detained at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Because Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty" over Guantánamo, the memorandum asserted, US Supreme Court jurisprudence meant that a foreign national in custody in the naval base should not have access to the US courts. The first "war on terror" detainees were transferred to the base two weeks later. The memorandum remained secret until it was leaked to the media in mid-2004 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

Not long after this leak, on 28 June 2004, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that the federal courts in fact do have jurisdiction to hear appeals from foreign nationals detained in Guantánamo Bay.(5) Yet almost a year later, none of the more than 500 detainees of some 35 nationalities still held in the base – believed to include at least three people, from Canada, Chad and Saudi Arabia, who were minors at the time of being taken into custody – has had the lawfulness of his detention judicially reviewed. The US administration continues to argue in the courts to block any judicial review of the detentions or to keep any such review as limited as possible and as far from a judicial process as possible. Its actions are ensuring that the detainees are kept in their legal limbo, denied a right that serves as a basic safeguard against arbitrary detention, "disappearance" and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Amnesty International believes, as explained in Section 3, that all those currently held in Guantánamo are arbitrarily and unlawfully detained'

5) 'It is most controversial among critics for its section 216, which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal phone and internet records on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation", rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.'
'This history of the USA PATRIOT Act begins with the perceived abuse of power by the CIA and FBI from McCarthy's Red Scare to Nixon's Watergate scandal. In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed to produce legal guidelines for federal investigations............
..........Much of the backlash against the USA PATRIOT Act has been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches. Critics[2] argue that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided."...........
............A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person............
..............On July 31, 2003, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), introduced the "Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act" (S. 1552) [5]. This bill would revise several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to increase judicial review. ................
...............On September 24, 2003, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, introduced legislation into the US House of Representatives to repeal more than ten sections of the Act. The bill, titled the "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act", looks to review certain sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, including those that authorize sneak and peek searches, library, medical, and financial record searches, and the detention and deportation of non-citizens without meaningful judicial review............
.................Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), C. L. Otter (R-Idaho), and Ron Paul (R-Texas) proposed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill of 2005 which would cut off funding to the Department of Justice for searches conducted under Section 215. The amendment initially failed to pass the House with a tie vote, 210–210. Although the original vote came down in favor of the amendment, the vote was held open and several House members were persuaded to change their votes..............
................On January 23, 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that Section 805 (which classifies "expert advice or assistance" as material support to terrorism) was vague and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, marking the first legal decision to set a part of the Act aside.............
..............On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505—which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight—was in violation of the First and Fourth Amendment................

Now see how even the average American has been waking up to the acts dangers.

Does the USA PATRIOT Act go too far?
Date Too Far Not Too Far*
Aug 25-26 2003 22% 69%
Nov 10-12 2003 25% 65%
Feb 16-17 2004 26% 64%
Apr 13-16 2005 45% 49%'

6) I was trying and failing to talk in a fashion you might understand. You're wrong, German Naziism was a quantum leap more antihuman than Italy's Fascism and Francos special blend was somewhere in the middle.

__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.

Thank you for pointing out the Iraqi body count ,I was going to use that as a source .No argument here about Bush being a capaitalist .But a suited fascist is pushing the bounderies and is asking for a response .

Legality.

27 January 2003 UN inspectors present key evidence to the UN Security Council about their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Iraqi co-operation with UN Security Council resolution 1441. The report is seen by the US and UK as proof that Iraq is not disarming.

Action was therefore allowed to restore "peace and security" which was the original intention of 678 (allowing the removal of Iraq from Kuwait) and which was only suspended by the ceasefire resolution 687.


As for a second resolution, Lord Goldsmith said: "Resolution 1441 would in terms (i.e., it would have used the exact words) have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."
All 1441 needed, he claimed, was a discussion of Iraq's failures, not a further decision or resolution.