Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nice job OE, really. I wasn't arguing that Iraq wasn't BS. My personal belief is they lied believing they were telling the truth

If lying is a crime there has to be two factors in determining guilt, guilty act and guilty mind. The guilty act in this case is speaking the untrue words (no doubt they said over and over that Iraq had wmd) but what you describe above Bill is more akin to an honest mistake. If they gave false information knowing it to be false then that is certainly a lie and guilt is proven.

A couple of years back this very point got the UK government very agitated. Dr David Kelly, probably the UK's foremost expert on Iraqi biological weapons was exposed as the source of a leak from MI6 where he said the UK government "sexed up" their intelligence dossier on Iraqi wmd with stuff they knew was probably false. This was passed to Andrew Gillighan BBC journalist who gave a live very brief report on it once at 6am.

But this did not go unnoticed. The govt forced the BBC to sack Gillighan. The BBC governors resisted saying it was fair reporting. The govt then forced the board of directors of the BBC to get rid of the chairman and chief exectutive. In short they nuked them. Eventually the BBC meekly gave in. (Well they had to, although nominally independent, the Govt holds the BBC purse strings in the form of the license fee)

Some while later David Kelly was found dead in the woods. A government appointed enquiry found it to be suicide. (The cause of death was disputed by pathologists).

So the government here maintains the position that if there were no wmd in Iraq, it was an honest mistake. They thought there were wmd, but there were none. No-one LIED. It was an honest mistake, which anyone could make, even if it did take the country to war. This the the ludicrous position the UK government clings to.

0 Replies

New tensions over Iran's nuclear plans

Quote:

Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 17:35 GMT

The tension over Iran's nuclear programme is increasing, with the expiry on Wednesday of a Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

At the same time, the BBC has reported that the United States has drawn up plans for an attack on Iran to cover two contingencies - the confirmed development of nuclear weapons by Iran, or backing by Iran for a major attack on US troops in Iraq.

... ... ...

All this makes for an extremely delicate and dangerous period ahead.

It does not mean that a US attack on Iran is imminent. The BBC information is that the US has chosen targets in Iran and has considered two scenarios for an attack.

The targets include not only Iranian nuclear sites but Iranian missile sites and other major military infrastructure.

This would be in line with US doctrine that, in a conflict, an attack has to cover the range of military targets. This happened in the two Gulf wars and Israel adopted similar tactics in its attacks on Hezbollah last year.

But it is not an either-or situation.

...

It is also not clear that within the Bush administration these days there is total support for any attack on Iran. The influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to be growing at the expense of Vice-President Cheney.
...

0 Replies

Paper: Iran's oil production is drying up Michael Roston
Published: Tuesday February 20, 2007

A report in today's Wall Street Journal paints a picture of an Iran in the early stages of an energy crisis. Although long considered an energy giant, the Persian Gulf country is facing the prospect of an oil output crash within a decade, and it may start rationing gasoline next month.

Bill Spindle writes in the Journal this morning that Iran's oil production is stagnating. Demand in the country is high because the government makes the price of gasoline very cheap. At the same time, "a combination of Western sanctions and Iranian policies has discouraged foreign investment in oil fields," resulting in a lull in production growth. The problem is so severe that Iran's government "shelled out at least $7 billion on gasoline imports alone so far this fiscal year."

In response, Iran is hoping to expand its production abilities. But the US government and others see political implications from the current state of affairs in the Iranian energy sector.

"Iran's energy woes could make it more vulnerable to international economic sanctions," Spindle writes. "Even many Iranian officials concede that the longstanding ban the U.S. has placed on American oil companies working in Iran has hampered the country's ability to develop its oil fields adequately."

The full article can be accessed by Wall Street Journal subscribers at this link. An excerpt is provided below.

#
At the same time, a combination of Western sanctions and Iranian policies has discouraged foreign investment in oil fields, causing production to stagnate. The result: Iran's oil exports could dry up in as little as a decade, according to some who have studied the situation.

That's a looming disaster for Iran, which derives about 85% of its export income from the sale of oil. "The industry is in a crisis," says Mehdi Varzi, a former Iranian diplomat and national oil company official who heads a London-based consulting company, Varzi Energy.

The impact would be felt far beyond Iran. The country produced 3.8 million barrels of oil a day in 2006, almost 5% of the world's total supply, according to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It exported an average of about 2.5 million barrels of that each day. Should those sales decline, Iran's largest customers, Japan and China, would scramble for other supplies, pushing up prices for everyone.

Avoiding an export squeeze is one reason Iran argues it needs to consider nuclear energy. But that ambition has contributed to a diplomatic impasse with the West. Bush administration officials describe Iran's nuclear program as little more than a ruse to conceal what they say is a hidden effort to build nuclear weapons. Iranian officials deny that, arguing that nuclear plants could handle some of the soaring domestic energy demand, leaving more oil and gas to export and avoiding difficult domestic choices.

0 Replies

Quote:

Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq.

He's making his pre able now. Putting a good gloss on the situation to explain why we are running away.

0 Replies

From my reading, steve, it looks like Blair is moving this way as a consequence of pressure from his military and from his party (electoral considerations). The early White House spin is that this is "good news". Well, what else can they say, being who they are?

As regards the US initiating an attack on Iran, I doubt it now even more than six months ago. The neocon crowd wants it, of course, but it is hard to imagine another policy that the WH might adopt which would have greater negative consequences for them electorally. The present sound and fury seems rather more likely motivated by a notion that keeping the Iranian president's feet to the fire might encourage change in the country AND distract Americans from the growing failure in Iraq.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

As regards the US initiating an attack on Iran, I doubt it now even more than six months ago.

Well I value your assessment on these things Bernie and I sincerely hope you are right.

But after Afghanistan, I never thought the US would invade Iraq, at least not until it was patently clear that that was going to happen. I think Bush would be crazy to attack Iran. But then he is crazy no?

The British withdrawal to Basra airport is a significant move I think. Its not impossible they are worried about an Iranian invasion of southern Iraq if the US launches a strike. British troops would be horribly vulnerable. Iran could take the whole lot capitve.

0 Replies

Not innocent, exactly, Steve... but not guilty, exactly, either. Of the available data and history I could rely on, even after you factor out the claims later shown to be bogus, I still believed they would find WMD... and was damn near certain about it. I further believe the chances of it were sufficient for the war, all things considered... but that's irrelevant to the lie question. I seem to recall enough could be's, don't want to wait until's, we have a high degree of confidence's to cover their butts, that I don't think I could convict beyond a reasonable doubt... but ya, I think they lied... and know they exaggerated all the while believing the truth would exonerate them for it.

Holding Ahmadinejad's "feet to the fire" is a good thing. If the Mullah's caved in to the Resistance, even a little, it would be a very good thing. A coup could very well start a chain reaction. My fingers are way crossed!

0 Replies

Russia warns U.S. on Iran moves
MOSCOW, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Russia's foreign minister Wednesday warned the United States not to take military action against Iran.

"The Russian foreign minister said Wednesday U.S.-led multinational foreign forces in Iraq must not conduct military operations outside the country, including against Iran," the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

"The multinational force in Iraq should abide strictly by the UN Security Council's mandate, which does not provide for any operations outside the country," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Lebanese magazine Al-Watan Al-Arabi in an interview.

"The escalation of the conflict and its possible spread beyond the Iraqi borders will inevitably result in catastrophic consequences and not for the Middle East alone," Lavrov said according to the report. "I believe Washington understands this."

Lavrov told Al-Watan Al-Arabi that a timetable needed to be drawn up for the coordinated and gradual evacuation of all foreign military forces from Iraq. He said that was essential to bring stability to the troubled Middle eastern nation.

"But at the same time we believe that U.S. Army detachments and their coalition allies should not leave Iraq tomorrow," Lavrov said.

Lavrov also said that Iraq's own police, army and other security forces needed to be increased in size and strength to prepare for the pull out of U.S. and other forces.

"The long-standing confrontation between the U.S. and Iran deteriorated further Jan. 11 when American servicemen burst into Iran's mission in Erbil (Kurdistan) and detained five officials. American troops disarmed guards and confiscated computers and documents without providing any explanation," RIA Novosti noted.

The Russian news agency also noted that "earlier this month the United States accused Iran of backing the insurgency and unrest in Iraq, and suspects the Islamic Republic of pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program."

0 Replies

I think they lied too, O'Bill, but still, there's that shadow of doubt. They could really be that stupid.

0 Replies

0 Replies

I think the depth of cynicism of USUK action in Iraq (and Iran and other ME countries) has no bounds. What matters is oil and Israel. Not wmd. Not human rights. Not democracy. Not freedom. These latter issues are merely used periodically as cover to mask the aggesssive pursuit of the West's real interests.

How else (post Saddam and wmd) do you explain USUK continuing interest in Iraq? The US troops are guarding the Green Zone and the oil fields. The rest of Iraq can and is going to hell, and although they wish it otherwise, it really doesnt matter. Oil is what interests US in Iraq as it does in Iran and Afghanistan* and throughout the middle east.

* oil transit route.

0 Replies

It seems to be the way empires operate, steve. There's always an explanatory or cover story...the primitive natives deserve to hear word of the glory of God... or deserve liberation which they don't yet know they want being oppressed and a bit slow like colored people always are...or deserve new Acme Slicer/Dicers and the happiness that attends owning them. And the folks back home swallow the narrative because it is far, far easier to operate emotionally, mentally and socially when they do.

There was a VERY interesting discussion on Joe Scarborough's show last night. What made it interesting was that it happened. Scarborough (Republican and former governor) and Pat Buchanan (Republican from Nixon administration and former presidential candidate) were proposing the serious hypothesis that America was an empire which had passed its zenith and was moving rapidly off the world stage. There's always been, running through the conservative side of American thought, a notion of imminent demise through internal moral decay, but this was something quite different. It was a fear, or an acknowledgement, that world events and forces are now out of America's control and that this administration (and other who think as they do) are "delusional" (their term). It is quite similar to the sobriety and the surprise in Israel following what everyone there understands was a failure in Lebanon along with the moral and financial corruption presently so visible in their government.

Just under the surface in this discussion (they hinted at it) was how this change had arrived so quickly and precipitously. This was NOT the outlook a mere six years ago. It isn't easy for serious Republicans, particularly in the media spotlight, to face or discuss the disastrous consequences of this administration's ideas and policies but it is simply becoming undeniable to anyone of even slightly independent mind.

It's an incredible tragedy.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It seems to be the way empires operate, steve. There's always an explanatory or cover story...the primitive natives deserve to hear word of the glory of God... or deserve liberation which they don't yet know they want being oppressed and a bit slow like colored people always are...or deserve new Acme Slicer/Dicers and the happiness that attends owning them. And the folks back home swallow the narrative because it is far, far easier to operate emotionally, mentally and socially when they do.

There was a VERY interesting discussion on Joe Scarborough's show last night. What made it interesting was that it happened. Scarborough (Republican and former governor) and Pat Buchanan (Republican from Nixon administration and former presidential candidate) were proposing the serious hypothesis that America was an empire which had passed its zenith and was moving rapidly off the world stage. There's always been, running through the conservative side of American thought, a notion of imminent demise through internal moral decay, but this was something quite different. It was a fear, or an acknowledgement, that world events and forces are now out of America's control and that this administration (and other who think as they do) are "delusional" (their term). It is quite similar to the sobriety and the surprise in Israel following what everyone there understands was a failure in Lebanon along with the moral and financial corruption presently so visible in their government.

Just under the surface in this discussion (they hinted at it) was how this change had arrived so quickly and precipitously. This was NOT the outlook a mere six years ago. It isn't easy for serious Republicans, particularly in the media spotlight, to face or discuss the disastrous consequences of this administration's ideas and policies but it is simply becoming undeniable to anyone of even slightly independent mind.

It's an incredible tragedy.

One of the best nutshell statements about this I've lately seen.

0 Replies

yes very well expressed Bernie

I cant get out of my head words like zenith, oil, and peak

http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=35

0 Replies

steve

With no valid justification - in fact, with complete honesty regarding certain tendencies towards intellectual laziness - I skitter away from such reading like a pig-tailled virgin from Italians.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

steve

With no valid justification - in fact, with complete honesty regarding certain tendencies towards intellectual laziness - I skitter away from such reading like a pig-tailled virgin from Italians.

ok I'll summarise for any pig tailled virgin or amorous Italian

...the oils running out, we're all ****ed.

0 Replies

LOL

Whether by fire or by ice...

I find in myself a surprising level of primitive zest on imagining being part of a rather smelly crowd heading down towards Wall Street with our torches and pitchforks.

0 Replies

Something of a treasure-chest here (thanks to Eric Alterman)...
http://www.comw.org/pda/0702iran.html

0 Replies

thanks

bookmarked the page

will peruse later

(I'm a good peruser in the mood)

0 Replies

From The American Conservative...

Quote:

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article3.html

I don't think the fellow has his conclusion right, but he's clear-headed on much else.

0 Replies

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know