Update On the Mass Naval Ships Being Deployed to Iran & Persian Gulf

Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force". The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan. They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group. Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone. The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.

The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:

Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M.
Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St.
George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer

Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer

USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer

USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship

Also likely to join the battle armada:

UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships

French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships

Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships.
The following USN ships took part (as the "enemy" forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in:

USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser
USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser
USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser
USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer
USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer
USS Winston S.
Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer
USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate

The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps).

The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with. This is a most serious game of military brinkmanship with major nuclear armed powers that have profound objections to the neo-con grand strategy and to western control of all of the Middle East's oil supply.

The Russian Navy this spring sent a major battle fleet into the Mediterranean headed by the modern aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov and the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Moskva. This powerful fleet has at least 11 surface ships and unknown numbers of subs and can use the Russian naval facility at Syria's Tartous port for resupply. The Admiral Kuznetsov carries approximately 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The warplanes are mostly the powerful Su-33, a naval version (with mid-air refueling capability) of the Su-27 family. While the Su-33 is a very powerful warplane it lacks the power of the stealth USAF F-22. However, the Russians insist that they have developed a plasma based system that allows them to stealth any aircraft and a recent incident where Russian fighters were able to appear unannounced over a US Navy carrier battle group tends to confirm their claims. The Su-33 can be armed with the 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missile (NATO code name SS-N-22 Sunburn) and the even more powerful P-800 Oniks (also named Yakhonts; NATO code name SS-N-26 Onyx). Both missiles are designed to kill US Navy supercarriers by getting past the cruiser/destroyer screen and the USN point-defense Phalanx system by using high supersonic speeds and violent end maneuvers. Russian subs currently use the underwater rocket VA-111 Shkval (Squall), which is fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes and reaches a speed of 360kph (230mph) underwater. There is no effective countermeasures to this system and no western counterpart.

A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons. UPDATE 8 August 2008 ~ War has broken out between Georgia and South Ossetia. At least 10 Russian troops have been killed and 30 wounded and 2 Russian fighter jets downed. American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces. Several European nations stopped Bush and others from allowing Georgia into NATO. Russia is moving a large military force with armor towards the area. This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion....but one that could have horrific effects. Link to story "Russia sends forces into Georgia rebel conflict". FURTHER UPDATE ~ Russian military forces in active combat; now total of four Russian fighter jets reported downed. ADDITIONAL UPDATE ~ Georgia calls for US help; Russian Air Force bombs Georgian air bases. DEBKA, the Israeli strategy and military site, states that Israeli military officers are advising the Georgian armed forces in combat operations and that 1,000 Israelis are in-combat on the side of Georgia at this time.

Kuwait has activated its "Emergency War Plan" as it and other Gulf nations prepare for the likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East involving weapons of mass destruction.

The two-ton elephant in the living room of the neo-con strategy is the advanced biowar (ABW) that Iran, and to a lessor extent Syria, has. This places the motherlands of the major neo-con nations (America, France, the United Kingdom), as well as Israel, in grave danger. When the Soviet Union fell the Iranians hired as many out-of-work former Soviet advanced biowar experts as possible. In the last 15 or so years they have helped to develop a truly world class ABW program utilizing recombination DNA genetic engineering technology to create a large number of man made killer viruses. This form of weapon system does not require high tech military delivery systems. The viruses are sub-microscopic and once seeded in a population use the population itself as vectors. Seeding can be done without notice in shopping malls, churches, and other public places. The only real defense to an advanced global strategic biowar attack is to lock down the population as rapidly as possible and let those infected die off. Unless the public gets it act together and forces the neo-cons to stop the march to yet another war in the Middle East we are apt to see a truly horrific nightmare unfold in OUR COUNTRIES.

Haji Az Khob Bidar Show.... Va Way La Dar Rahe,,,

Nine U.S. warships enter Gulf for training : Wed May 23, 2007 1:35AM EDT

ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS (Reuters) - Nine U.S. military ships entered the Gulf on Wednesday for a rare daylight assembly off Iran's coast in what naval officials said was the largest such move since the 2003 Iraq war. U.S. Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the vessels, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran's coast and a major artery for global oil shipments. Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers. Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason. Tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions and Iraq has raised regional fears of a possible military confrontation that could hit Gulf economies and threaten vital oil exports. But Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, leading the group, said the ships would start conducting exercises after passing through the straits as part of a long-planned effort to reassure nearby countries of U.S. commitment to regional security. "There's always the threat of any state or non state actor that might decide to close one of the international straits, and the biggest one is the Straits of Hormuz," he told reporters on the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier before the crossing.
POWERFUL
On the way to the straits, a public announcement called on crew to witness "some of the most powerful ships in the world", whose tight formation against a backdrop of the setting sun created a dramatic image of American naval might. The group of ships, carrying around 17,000 personnel, crossed at roughly 0355 GMT. The maneuvers come less than two weeks after U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking aboard the Stennis during a tour of the Gulf, said the United States would stand with others to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons and "dominating the region". On a visit to Abu Dhabi a few days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened "severe" retaliation if the United States attacked his country, which is locked in a standoff with the United States over its nuclear programme. He also urged Gulf countries to "get rid of" foreign forces, blaming them for insecurity in the region. The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, and has sought tougher U.N. sanctions against Iran. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only. U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused Iran of fomenting violence by backing Shi'ite militia there, and of providing weapons and the technology for roadside bombs. Iran has denied the accusations. Last month, the U.S. Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain conducted its biggest crisis response drill and in March, the U.S. navy conducted its biggest war drills in the Gulf since 2003.

Russian Intelligence Sees U.S. Military Buildup on Iran Border

March 27, 2007 RIA Novosti Russian News and Information Agency
MOSCOW -- Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday. "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched. He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost." He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future. A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 23:36:35 GMTIranian Official Denies Report of British Servicewoman's Early ReleaseRIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Iran's foreign minister backed off a prediction that a detained British servicewoman could be freed Wednesday or Thursday but said Tehran agreed to allow British officials to meet with 15 sailors and marines in Iranian custody. more By The Associated Press

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 23:31:54 GMTFury as Iran Shows Footage of Captured SailorsIran dramatically raised the stakes in its tense diplomatic stand-off with Britain last night, broadcasting a propaganda video of the British sailors and marines seized last week, including a "confession" that they had entered Iranian waters. more By The Guardian

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 23:26:38 GMTUnacceptable BehaviourWith each day that passes, the crisis triggered by Iran's seizure of 15 British marines and sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway on Friday grows. Last night leading seaman Faye Turney was paraded on Iranian television, "admitting" they had trespassed into Iranian waters. The video was heavily edited and there was no way of telling under what duress it had been filmed. The video and the accompanying letter, apologising to the Iranian people, was reminiscent of all the worst Iranian hostage dramas. Earlier, the Iranians promised British officials they would not parade crew members on television, which contravenes the Geneva convention (even if it is only deemed to apply in a state of war) and last night they broke that promise too. more By The Guardian

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 23:13:36 GMTHow Britons Were Conned by Iranian Gunboat TrickThe British sailors and marines being held by Iran were ambushed at their most vulnerable moment, while climbing down the ladder of a merchant ship and trying to get into their bobbing inflatables. Out of sight of their warship and without any helicopter cover, their only link to their commanders was a communications device beaming their position by satellite. more By The Times

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 23:10:8 GMTA Mother On Parade in Iran's Propaganda WarHer blonde hair covered with a black headscarf and puffing on a cigarette, Faye Turney enunciated each word carefully to her unseen interviewer. Her patrol boat had “obviously” trespassed into Iranian waters, she said. But she and her fellow servicemen were being treated well by their “friendly, hospitable, thoughtful and nice” captors. more By The Times

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 17:36:35 GMTIran Shows Video of Captured BritonsIranian state TV showed video Wednesday of the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized last week, including a female captive who wore a white tunic and a black head scarf and said the British boats "had trespassed" in Iranian waters. more By The Associated Press

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 17:16:35 GMTIranian TV Shows Captured SailorsThe British Foreign Office condemned the broadcast of footage on Iranian television showing sailors and marines detained last week as "completely unacceptable". Iranian television showed footage on Wednesday of several British sailors held in Iran and said they were safe and well. more By Northern Territory News

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 16:40:41 GMTIran Foreign Minister Says Iran Will Release Female SailorIran said a female British sailor seized with 14 other crew members would be released Wednesday or Thursday, softening Tehran's position by suggesting their boats' alleged entry into Iranian waters may have been a mistake. more By The Associated Press

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 14:59:20 GMTThe Iran Crisis DeepensPRAGUE, Czech Republic -- We have seen this movie before. One of the West's leading statesmen, and a powerful advocate for human rights, is deliberately humiliated by hostage-seizing Iranian radicals. Moreover, the Iranian radicals believe they can get away with it because they know perfectly well that the Western leaders are constrained by their own moral code to abide, as far as they can, by international law. more By United Press International

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 14:23:46 GMTU.A. Emirates Won't Participate in US Moves Against IranThe president of the United Arab Emirates forbade the US military from using bases in his country to attack or spy on Iran as mammoth US Navy maneuvers in the Gulf entered their second day. Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who leads this key US ally, said Tuesday that the Emirates had assured Iran that it was not siding with Washington in its dispute over Teheran's nuclear program. more By The Associated Press

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 13:50:51 GMTShould Iran Rush into War?MOSCOW -- There are many indications that in the past 12-13 months, Iran has been intentionally escalating the military tensions surrounding its nuclear program. The rhetoric of the Iranian political and military elite has become much tougher; Tehran has been flexing its military muscle over the same issue, and has ostentatiously turned down the IAEA and UN Security Council proposals to return to the negotiating table in order to resolve the problem; and finally, the Iranian Navy captured 15 British sailors before the Security Council adopted its latest resolution on tougher sanctions against Tehran. more By RIA Novosti

Posted 28/3/2007 @ 13:37:22 GMTBritain Freezing Talks With Iran LONDON -- Britain said it was freezing talks on all other issues with Iran until it freed 15 Royal Navy crew members seized last week, and the British military released what it said was proof its boats were within Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized. more By The Associated Press

U.S. Navy Shows Force in Persian Gulf : By JIM KRANE Associated Press

March 27, 2007, 4:54 AM EDTDUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, officials said.

High alert at US and UK bases, Middle East armies on the ready lest Iran’s seizure of 15 British seamen Friday is only first Iranian reprisal action

Our military sources report that Middle East and Persian Gulf nations as well as the US and UK are bracing for further Iranian marine, air or terrorist operations in Iraq and other places in reprisal for the sanctions measure before the UN Security Council in New York. On the ready too are the Saudi armed forces and some Israeli air and naval units. According to Iranian sources the 15 British Royal navy seamen and marines which an Iranian warship seized with their commando craft Friday, March 23, will be put on trial. London insists the UK marines routinely inspecting merchant vessels for smuggled goods were on the Iraqi side of the divided Shat al Arb waterway which flows into the Persian Gulf. Tehran accuses them of entering Iranian waters. DEBKAfile’s military sources say the incident was but a pretext. According to incoming intelligence, Tehran plans to release a series of reprisals after sanctions are approved in New York Saturday evening, March 24. The Islamic Republic is also cautioning its Gulf neighbors Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, whose foreign ministers meet visiting US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in Assuan Saturday morning, not to cooperate with Washington’s regional policies and to stay neutral in the US-Iran dispute. President Mahmoud Admadinejad’s last-minute cancellation of his appearance before the Security Council is further indication that Tehran gave up on diplomatic maneuvers for pre-empting the sanctions resolution and, assuming their approval was not preventable, turned instead to ramping up military tensions. Thursday, DEBKAfile reported exclusively a rendezvous Wednesday between the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force with the USS John C. Stennis in the Arabian Sea Wednesday for joint missions in the global war on terror. The next day, Iran launched a new naval war game in the Persian Gulf. Just before the British sailors were seized, UK commanders in Basra accused Iran of being behind 90% of the violence in S. Iraq and paying out $250 to anyone willing to attack British troops.





Amid rising tensions in the strategic Gulf waters, DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose the American-French rendezvous was timed to coincide with the UN Security Council session Wednesday to debate expanded sanctions against Iran for continuing its banned uranium enrichment program. The Iranians were bowled over by the appearance of the Charles de Gaulle opposite their southern coast, having assumed that Paris took issue with Washington’s tough stand on their nuclear activities and was seeking improved relations with Tehran.
However, Western military circles explain that the French president Jacques Chirac decided before he leaves office in May to repair the bad impression he left in early February when he urged the world - and Israel in particular - to learn to live with “an Iranian nuclear bomb or two.” - Rafale fighter-bombers on the French carrier’s decks will fly missions over Afghanistan alongside US warplanes. Its arrival raises to four the number of Western aircraft carriers cruising within striking distance of Iran, including the USS Eisenhower and USS Boxer.
The Charles de Gaulle is accompanied by French Task Force 473, which consists of five warships: the FNS Cassard guided missile destroyer, the FNS Tourville anti-submarine frigate, the FNS Dupleix destroyer adapted for escorting oil tankers and the FNS Marne, a command and supply vessel. Captain of the French task force is Rear Adm. Xavier Magne. Commander of the American flotilla is Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn.

Iran says that the Britons have Confess to Entering Iranian Waters Illegally

Conflict Comes as U.N. Security Council Prepares to Vote on Further Sanctions . By William Branigin, Mary Jordan and Robin WrightWashington Post Staff Writers



Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the Royal Navy frigate HMS Cornwall, speaks aboard his ship Friday March 23, 2007in this image made from television. Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors from HMS Cornwall, who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf as part of efforts to protect the Iraqi coastline and its oil terminals, U.S. and British officials Friday March 23, 2007. The British government summoned the Iranian ambassador in London and demanded "the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment." The U.S. Navy, which operates off the Iraqi coast along with British forces, said Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces were responsible.(AP Photo/AP Television News) (AP)


Saturday, The Iranian military asserted today that British naval personnel captured in the Persian Gulf "confessed" to entering Iranian waters illegally after being transferred to Tehran for interrogation, an Iranian news agency reported. But Britain insisted that its 15 sailors and marines were seized in Iraqi waters and demanded their immediate release.There was no immediate independent confirmation of the Iranian claim that the British detainees had admitted entering Iran's territorial waters in the northern part of the gulf, and the two sides issued conflicting statements citing proof from satellite positioning systems.The standoff came as the U.N. Security Council prepared to vote this afternoon on a resolution imposing further sanction on Iran because of its nuclear program. The proposed resolution requires Iran to halt its programs to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel within 60 days or face additional penalties. It would also ban Iranian arms sales and freeze the assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities, including several commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iranian news media reported that a Revolutionary Guard naval force carried out the capture of the 15 Britons Friday morning in the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the northern Gulf. State-run news agencies did not quote any officials as linking the seizure with the U.N. Security Council action or any other issues. However, hard-line Iranian student groups called on the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not to release the 15 until U.S forces freed five Iranians captured in Iraq earlier this year and the U.N. Security Council dropped plans for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. About 500 Iranian students gathered on the shore of the Shatt al-Arab and shouted slogans such as "Death to Britain" and "Death to America," the Fars News Agency reported. In Tehran, Ali Reza Afshar, a senior military spokesman, said the 15 "have confessed that they have aggressed against the waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran," the news agency said. It identified Afshar as "manager of the cultural and defensive propaganda division" of the general staff of the Iranian armed forces. Two other Iranian news agencies also quoted Afshar as saying the Britons "are being interrogated and have confessed to aggression into [Iranian] waters." The Fars News Agency earlier reported that the eight British sailors and seven Royal Marines, including one female marine, were transferred to Tehran today to "provide more explanations" of their actions. A spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, charged that the British had made an "illegal and interventionist" incursion into Iranian waters in a "suspicious move" that violated international commitments, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. He said Iran was conducting "further investigation of the blatant aggression." According to the Iranians, global positioning devices carried by the British proved that they were on the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab, which Iran calls the Arvand River, when they were seized. However, British officials said there was no doubt that the sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters, where they had just completed a routine inspection of an Iraqi merchant ship for possible smuggling. The officials said the 15 were on their way back to the HMS Cornwall in two rigid inflatable boats when the Iranians raced out, seized them and took them to the Iranian side of the waterway. The Cornwall is a frigate that helps patrol the Persian Gulf, along with U.S. Navy ships, under a U.N. Security Council mandate. In London, the Foreign Office summoned Iran's ambassador to a meeting today to demand the immediate release of the captured Britons. The European Union also called for the "immediate liberation" of the captured sailors and marines. U.S. and Western officials said the 15 may have been seized in reprisal for the U.S. detention of five Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives during a January raid of the Iranian government's liaison office in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. The five, picked up as part of an intensifying U.S. effort to counter Iran's growing influence in Iraq, were members of the elite al-Quds Brigade that officials said has been deeply involved in arming and aiding Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq. Iran has been demanding their release publicly and in private meetings, including at the first conference of Iraq's neighbors in Baghdad on March 10, a senior U.S. official said Friday. Two other al-Quds members had been picked up by the United States in Baghdad in December, but were released after a formal request by the Iraqi government. Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval corps, which carried out Friday's capture, operates separately from Iran's navy. The Revolutionary Guards Corps is the hard-line wing of Iran's multifaceted military and security services. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Friday that Britain had left Iran "in no doubt that we expect the immediate and safe return of our personnel." Other Western capitals have also weighed in with Iran, and the incident was discussed Friday on the margins of U.N. talks on a new punitive resolution against Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used for both peaceful nuclear energy as well as a weapons program. U.S. officials said they believe Iran's move was calculated to get something in return. "This was deliberate, no kidding. Anyone with six working brain cells understands that. The Iranians raced in and seized these guys and raced back," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of the sensitive diplomacy. "The Iranians are under significant worldwide pressure over their failure to comply with demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency and now the U.N. Security Council. The radicals are particularly under enormous pressure." In 2004, eight British servicemen were held for three days after their boats strayed into Iranian waters. They were freed after being blindfolded, interrogated, and forced to read apologies on Iranian TV. Some of the sensitive British equipment from 2004 has not been returned, British officials say. Commodore Nick Lambert, the commander of the Cornwall, told the BBC Friday that he hoped the latest detention was the result of a "simple mistake" over the border between Iran and Iraq.
"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian waters," Lambert said. "I hope we find this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level."

Latest News

Tehran's Power Play on the WaterIranian forces reportedly operating in Iraqi waters captured 15 sailors and members of the British marines on March 23 in the Persian Gulf. This incident comes as the U.N. Security Council is preparing to vote on a new resolution imposing additional sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its controversial nuclear activities -- meaning it likely represents an Iranian attempt to underscore its resolve in the face of mounting international pressure. It also could complicate U.S.-Iranian negotiations on Iraq. more By Stratfor

Posted 24/3/2007 @ 14:54:53 GMTHostage Fears Over Ttroops Seized by IranBritain’s crisis with Iran deepened last night after Tehran justified seizing 15 British servicemen by claiming that they had strayed into Iranian territorial waters “illegally”. The announcement appeared to rule out any hope that the incident was a simple mistake that could be quickly rectified. more By The Times

Posted 24/3/2007 @ 14:40:38 GMTMarines Seized by Iranian GuardsA diplomatic crisis between London and Teheran erupted yesterday after 15 British sailors and Royal Marines carrying out a search of a cargo ship in the Gulf were seized at gunpoint by Iranian forces. more By Telegraph

Posted 24/3/2007 @ 14:34:5 GMTArrested British Sailors Confess Violating Iran's Waters: Official Deputy Commander in Chief of Armed Forces General Staff by confirming arrest of 15 British sailors by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval forces in Iran's territorial waters on Friday March 23, 2007, said the sailors were under interrogation and have confessed violating Iranian territorial waters. more By Islamic Republic News Agency

Posted 23/3/2007 @ 17:21:21 GMTDiplomatic Row Comes Amid Tensions Over Iran SanctionsSeizure of 15 British sailors and marines by Iranian forces threatens major fall-out on eve of expected vote by UN Security Council on imposing fresh sanctions on Iran, says Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor. more By Times Online

Britain: Iran Seizes 15 Sailors, Marines : By JIM KRANE

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors and marines who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf, British and U.S. officials said. Britain immediately protested the detentions, which come at a time of high tension between the West and Iran. In London, the British government summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office and demanded ``the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment.'' Iran had no immediate comment. The U.S. Navy, which operates off the Iraqi coast along with British forces, said the British sailors appeared unharmed and that Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces were responsible. Britain's Defense Ministry said the British Navy personnel were ``engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters,'' and had completed a ship inspection when they were accosted by the Iranian vessels. ``We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level,'' the ministry said. No one could be immediately reached for comment at either government offices in Iran or at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad. An Iranian official at the U.N. mission in New York said he was not aware of the report and could not immediately comment.
Iran is in the middle of its New Year holiday when almost all government offices close.
The U.S. Navy said the incident occurred just outside a long-disputed waterway called the Shatt al-Arab dividing Iraq and Iran. It came as the U.N. Security Council debates further sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program, and amid U.S. allegations that Iran is arming Shiite militias in Iraq.

U.S. officials had expressed concern that with so much military hardware concentrated in the Persian Gulf, just such a small incident could spiral out of control and trigger a major armed confrontation. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration was monitoring the situation. ``The British government is demanding the immediate safe return of the people and equipment and we are keeping watch on the situation,'' Snow said. The United States, Britain's chief ally, has built up its naval forces in the Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. Two American carriers, including the USS John C. Stennis - backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines and with additional minesweeping ships - arrived in the region in recent months.

The Foreign Office said the Iranian ambassador, Rasoul Movahedian, met with Sir Peter Ricketts, the senior civil servant in the department.
``The meeting was brisk but cordial. Sir Peter demanded the safe return of our personnel and equipment,'' said a spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity according to government policy. Rhetoric between Western nations and Iran has escalated in recent months. Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said if Western countries ``want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack.'' In February, President Bush said: ``The Iranian people are good, honest, decent people and they've got a government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening - a government which is in defiance of the rest of the world and says, 'We want a nuclear weapon.''' The Britons were in two boats from the frigate H.M.S. Cornwall during a routine smuggling investigation, said the British Defense Ministry.
According to a statement from the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain and operates jointly with the British forces off the coast of Iraq, the British sailors had just finished inspecting the merchant ship abou 10:30 a.m. ``when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.''

Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the Fifth Fleet said the British crew members were intercepted by several larger patrol boats operated by Iranian sailors belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, a radical force that operates separately from the country's regular navy.
The Iranian boats normally carry bow-mounted machine guns, while the British boarding party carried only sidearms, Aandahl said. No shots were fired and there appeared to be no physical harm done to any personnel involved or their vessels, Aandahl said. The seizure of the British vessels, a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs, took place in long-disputed waters just outside of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iraq from Iran, Aandahl said. A 1975 treaty gave the waters to Iraq and U.S. and British ships commonly operate there, but Aandahl said Iran disputes Iraq's jurisdiction over the waters. ``It's been in dispute for some time,'' Aandahl said. ``We've been operating there for a couple of years and we know the lines very well. This was a compliant boarding, this happens routinely. What's out of the ordinary is the Iranian response.'' Aandahl said the U.S.-led task force has touchier relations with the Revolutionary Guard, which often ignores normal maritime operating traditions, than with the regular Iranian navy. The Shatt al-Arab waterway is formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers at the town of Al-Qurnah. It flows southeastward for 120 miles and passes the port of Basra and the Iranian port of Abadan before emptying into the Persian Gulf. A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from the southern city of Basra fishing in Iraqi waters in the northern area of the Gulf said he saw the Iranian seizure. The fisherman, reached by telephone by an AP reporter in Basra, declined to be identified because of security concerns.
``Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters.''
The Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said the frigate lost communication with the boarding party, but a helicopter crew saw the Iranian vessels approach.

`I've got 15 sailors and marines who have been arrested by the Iranians and my immediate concern is their safety,'' Lambert told British Broadcasting Corp. television. In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

Iranian sleeper cells poised to strike in Gulf

IRAN has trained secret networks of agents across the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event of a military strike against its nuclear program, a former Iranian diplomat has told London's Sunday Telegraph. Spies working as teachers, doctors and nurses at Iranian-owned schools and hospitals have formed sleeper cells ready to be "unleashed" at the first sign of any serious threat to Tehran, it is claimed. Trained by Iranian intelligence, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shiites in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalised by the Gulf's ruling Arab clans. Were the US or Israel to attack Iran, such cells would be instructed to foment long-dormant sectarian grievances and attack the extensive US and European business interests in wealthy states such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario would bring chaos to the Gulf region, one of the few areas of the Middle East that is still prosperous and has largely pro-Western governments. The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran's consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian Foreign Ministry. They coincided with a visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, to Saudi Arabia on Saturday in what was widely seen as an attempt to defuse growing Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of backing Shiite death squads killing Sunnis in Iraq and of backing the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia in its efforts to bring down the government in Beirut. "The two parties have agreed to stop any attempt aimed at spreading sectarian strife in the region," Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, said. Meanwhile, a US naval build-up has continued in the Gulf waters south of Iran, a move intended to show Washington's readiness to strike against Tehran's nuclear installations for defying United Nations orders to cease uranium enrichment. Major powers failed on Saturday to settle all their differences over a second UN sanctions resolution against Iran for its nuclear work. Mr Assadinia, who fled Iran after blowing the whistle on corruption among the country's all-powerful theocrats, said: "The Iranian Government believes that to survive it needs permanent bases throughout the Middle East. Anybody who contemplates threatening or invading Iran will have those cells unleashed against them." Trained by Iranian intelligence, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shiites in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalised by the Gulf's ruling Arab clans. Were the US or Israel to attack Iran, such cells would be instructed to foment long-dormant sectarian grievances and attack the extensive US and European business interests in wealthy states such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario would bring chaos to the Gulf region, one of the few areas of the Middle East that is still prosperous and has largely pro-Western governments. The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran's consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian Foreign Ministry. They coincided with a visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, to Saudi Arabia on Saturday in what was widely seen as an attempt to defuse growing Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of backing Shiite death squads killing Sunnis in Iraq and of backing the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia in its efforts to bring down the government in Beirut."The two parties have agreed to stop any attempt aimed at spreading sectarian strife in the region," Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, said.
Meanwhile, a US naval build-up has continued in the Gulf waters south of Iran, a move intended to show Washington's readiness to strike against Tehran's nuclear installations for defying United Nations orders to cease uranium enrichment. Major powers failed on Saturday to settle all their differences over a second UN sanctions resolution against Iran for its nuclear work.
Mr Assadinia, who fled Iran after blowing the whistle on corruption among the country's all-powerful theocrats, said: "The Iranian Government believes that to survive it needs permanent bases throughout the Middle East. Anybody who contemplates threatening or invading Iran will have those cells unleashed against them." Mr Assadinia, 50, served for two years at the Iranian consulate in Dubai, which he says was also used as a conduit for illicit funding of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Shiite militant group that waged a six-week war with Israel last year. Iranian Foreign Ministry agents would frequently pass through with suitcases containing up to $A27 million, using diplomatic baggage channels to bypass customs scrutiny. "The amounts varied, but it would come through on average twice a month," he said. "I would see it sometimes. As far as I know, that money always went to Hezbollah." His consulate, he said, was a hub for regional intelligence operations because of the huge number of Iranians working in Dubai, which is the main trade port for the Middle East. "People were encouraged to tell the Europeans that Iran wanted a good relationship with them, when in fact Iran was involved in terrorism," Mr Assadinia said. Asked whether it was an attempt to divert attention from a covert nuclear weapons program, he replied: "Precisely". Of greatest potential concern is Mr Assadinia's claim that Iran has established networks of agents to liaise with Shiites across the Gulf, particularly in Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. Although most of the Gulf states oppose US military intervention against Iran, privately they fear that a nuclear-armed Tehran would dominate the Middle East. A spokesman for the Iranian embassy in London described Mr Assadinia's claims as "baseless and fabricated".

THE LATEST NEWS...Don't Negotiate with Pariahs

America should attend regional talks that may include Syria and Iran, in support of stabilizing the democracy in Iraq. But the United States should not negotiate directly with these terrorist states until they cooperate with ongoing United Nations investigations and cease trying to destroy neighboring democracies.
By Victor Davis Hanson
>Read the Article
Posted 3/3/2007 @ 10:26:54 GMTWhat Iran Means by 'Yes' I can now understand why Ali Larijani was chosen as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, and can sympathize with those who sit opposite him at the negotiating table. more By NBC News

Posted 3/3/2007 @ 10:6:24 GMTThe Iraq Conference: Iran and Syria's Engagement Brings Unrealistic Hopes and Diplomatic RisksThe upcoming international conference on Iraq has raised unrealistic expectations about the prospects of gaining the cooperation of Iran and Syria, the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism, in stabilizing Iraq. more By Heritage Foundation

Posted 3/3/2007 @ 9:59:54 GMTIran Crisis Hits German TradeGerman firms have found the crisis regarding Iran's nuclear policy is having a negative impact on their ability to do business in the country, according to a survey by the DIHK industry group cited by Reuters. more By AMI Info Fn

Posted 3/3/2007 @ 1:34:30 GMTObama Blames Bush for Iran TroublesCHICAGO -- Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday blamed Bush Administration failings in Iraq for strengthening the strategic position of Iran, which he says must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. more By The Associated Press

Posted 3/3/2007 @ 0:48:41 GMTLatest Reports on Iran Show a Newfound Caution Among AnalystsThe new caution among US intelligence officials reflects adherence to what some now call "the Powell Rule." For more than three years, American intelligence officials have insisted that they learned from their mistakes in the months leading to the Iraq war, when murky information about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs was presented as fact and inconclusive judgments were hardened into statements of near certainty. more By Spiegel Online

TELL THE DOOR .....HOPING THAT THE WALL TOO WILL HEAR......

"Algeria became the pivotal Third World state, but the cost of its status - above all the financial cost - was staggering. It ate up millions of dollars for which the country had a crying need ... Gradually, the gap between Ben Bella's domestic and foreign policies grew wider. The contrast deepened. Algeria had earned an international reputation as a revolution state ... it was an example for the non-European continents, a model, bright and entrancing; while at home, the country was stagnating; the unemployed filled the square of every city; there was no investment; illiteracy ruled, bureaucracy, reaction, fanaticism ran riot; intrigues absorbed the attention of the government ... The country cannot carry the burden of these polices. It cannot afford to and it has no interest in them."

The matter with Iran Fred Halliday 1 - 3 - 2007

Fred Halliday is professor of international relations at the LSE, and visiting professor at the Barcelona Institute of International Studies (IBEI). His books include Islam and the Myth of Confrontation (IB Tauris, 2003) and 100 Myths About the Middle East (Saqi, 2005)

The key to understanding Iran's contemporary role in the middle east is less its millennia of statehood or its Shi'a identity than its political dynamic as a revolutionary state, says Fred Halliday. A few years ago, during a visit to Tehran to give some lectures at the foreign ministry research and training institute, I was taken to lunch by a senior Iranian diplomat at a once fashionable Italian restaurant in the northern middle-class suburb of Tajrish. Educated as a scientist in the United States before the 1979 revolution, he had been an important figure in the post-revolutionary regime, and later a senior diplomat. I had met him at various conferences on European-Iranian relations and we had struck up something of a rapport. On this occasion, after the usual semi-official tour d'horizon, we began talking about the early history of the Iranian revolution and of its foreign policy.

"We made three big mistakes", he said: first, in holding the American diplomats hostages for a year and a half and thereby deeply antagonising the US; second, by not accepting the very favourable peace which Saddam Hussein had offered in the summer of 1982, when Iran had the upper hand in the war, then already two years old; and third - to me the most surprising of his points - in not supporting the communist regime that came to power in Afghanistan in 1978, and instead backing the pro-American guerrillas that (with eventual success) opposed them.

The reflections of this diplomat are of considerable relevance to the situation in which Iran finds itself today. For sure, the pressure being put on Iran by the US is arrogant and in many ways illegal. For Washington to protest about Iranian "interference" in Iraq when it is the US which invaded the country in 2003, and when it is Iranian allies (if not clients) who staff much of the government and armed forces of Iraq, is also ridiculous. So too is the attempt to blame Iran for the spread of Sunni terrorism, including al-Qaida activities, in the region. No country has a greater interest in the stability of Iraq than Iran, a point Washington has stupidly failed to note these four years past.
Read the rest here :http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?id=6&articleId=4396

Greatest Expectations

Meanwhile, ............. we wait to see if the US and Iran go for a compromise proposal tendered by the Swiss to allow "dry enrichment" (suspension of uranium enrichment, but not centrifuge operations).
Follow this link : http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russ_wel_070301_greatest_expectation.htm

HOT NEWS OFF THE PRESS

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 20:17:4 GMTUS Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme. In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions. more By Sunday Telegraph

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 20:13:28 GMTBush Camp Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The Bush administration will be taking a massive gamble if it presses ahead with plans to attend a regional conference on the future of Iraq later this month. more By Daily Telegraph

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 19:55:32 GMTWashington's Mixed Signals on Iran
One day the Bush administration is bashing Iran, pushing U.N. Security Council sanctions, cutting off its credit, arresting its nationals and sending more warships into the Persian Gulf. Then, practically the next day it seems, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is announcing plans for U.S. and Iranian diplomats to meet in Baghdad to discuss cooperating to quell the carnage in Iraq. more By Time Magazine

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 19:3:28 GMTBolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises Europeans
John Bolton, the former American envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. should pursue ``regime change'' in Iran because European governments refuse to back sanctions tough enough to halt the suspected Iranian nuclear-bomb program. more By Bloomberg

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 18:21:4 GMTThe Negotiations Hoax
Talking with Iran—and we’ve done plenty of it—has gotten us nothing. more By National Review Online

IRAN: HUNDREDS DEMANDING STUDENT'S RELEASE TO GO ON HUNGER STRIKE

Hundreds of students, journalists and intellectuals have announced a 24-hour hunger strike on Friday to demand the release from jail of political prisoners including Ahmad Batebi, detained after the July 1999 students' protests. His father Bagher Batebi has also launched an appeal for the international public opinion demanding the release of his son which has been published by Amnesty International.Batebi was arrested in July 1999 after he became a symbol of the students' movement following the publication on the British-based Economist magazine's front page of a picture of him holding the bloodied shirt of a fellow student killed by police at a student rally. His wife Sommayah Batinat was arrested last week after disclosing to the international media, that her husband was still in detention despite his poor health. Plainclothes officials reportedly brought the woman to an undisclosed location . Batebi's parents have since Thursday morning also started a sit-in protest at Tehran's Daneshjoo( Students) park where they say they will remain until their son is freed. "For the past eight years I have been watching the famous picture of my son while waiting for his release and I have no intention to sit still," said Bagher Batebi in his appeal. "I ask the entire world to help us free Ahmad before he is handed back to us inside a coffin."

Bolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises Europeans

By Janine Zacharia and Bill Varner
March 1 (Bloomberg) -- John Bolton, the former American envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. should pursue ``regime change'' in Iran because European governments refuse to back sanctions tough enough to halt the suspected Iranian nuclear-bomb program. ``I believe that either regime change in Iran or, as a last resort, military action is the only thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons,'' Bolton said in an interview today in Washington.
Bolton, a 58-year-old former arms-control official, said the Bush administration had allowed Britain, France and Germany to ``screw around'' in nuclear talks. The diplomacy has gone on for ``three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make enormous progress on their nuclear-weapons program,'' he said. President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran and North Korea part of an ``axis of evil'' in 2002, has said their nuclear programs could pose a direct threat to the U.S., and that either nation might hand over atomic weapons to terrorists. The U.S. has pursued negotiated settlements with both countries while crafting UN sanctions aimed at cutting off nuclear trade with them. Bolton left the UN in December after failing to win congressional support to extend his tenure. He has emerged as a gadfly, criticizing the administration for its strategy on nuclear proliferation. He assailed Bush and his diplomats on Iran and for a deal with North Korea to trade energy aid for the closing of nuclear-arms-related facilities. Bolton said that accord is doomed to fail because of North Korea's record of cheating on similar arrangements.
`Fruitless' Effort
Broadly, Bolton said any negotiation with either North Korea or Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear ambitions won't work. ``Unless you're prepared to believe that the Iranians are voluntarily going to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the idea of pursuing negotiations is ultimately going to be fruitless,'' Bolton said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma- deen-ah-ZHAD, on Feb. 25 compared Iran's nuclear development to an unstoppable train and said there would be no turning back. Iran ``threw away a while ago the reverse gear and brakes of this train,'' he said, in remarks carried by the state-run Iranian Students News Agency. Iranian officials insist the nuclear push is for commercial power generation, not weapons.
Intelligence Gap
Bolton, now with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said one drawback of any military strike on Iran is that the Iranians may have a secret uranium-enrichment facility that weapons inspectors will never find. ``The downside of the military option is that you would incur all of the costs of having undertaken military action but potentially not gotten the benefits of decisively breaking the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more points,'' he said. ``What that says is we need better intelligence about what the Iranians are actually up to beyond what is already in the public domain.'' Because of all of this, the U.S. needs to tap the ``substantial Iranian diaspora,'' which the U.S. is ``not using as effectively as we might,'' and ``exploit'' the dissatisfaction inside Iran to topple the cleric-led government that has ruled the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Bolton said. The United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program for the first time, including a ban on acquisition of materials and technology that might be used to build an atomic bomb.
The U.S. was forced to agree to a watered-down version of what it sought in negotiations in the Security Council.
Enrichment Expands
Since the resolution's passage, Iran expanded its capacity to enrich uranium, defying a Security Council demand to halt its atomic work, and plans to install 3,000 centrifuges designed to produce nuclear fuel at its underground facility in Natanz by May, according to a Feb. 22 International Atomic Energy Agency report. The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany met in London on Feb. 26 to discuss a draft resolution that would impose further penalties on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. Germany's envoy to the UN said Feb. 23 there should be only ``modest'' expansion of UN sanctions. Bolton said European reticence reflects a core problem: that those governments are ``overcome by their economic interests'' in the Iranian market. Countries and companies from Spain to Malaysia are pursuing long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran, rebuffing Bush's campaign to turn Iran into an economic pariah.
Bolton, who blasted the agreement the U.S., China, South Korea, Japan and Russia reached with North Korea that requires the country to scrap its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program in return for energy aid, criticized scheduled talks next week.
Talks Set
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's meeting with North Korea in New York, aimed at normalizing relations between the countries, won't lead Kim Jong Il's dictatorship to abandon nuclear weapons, Bolton said. Eventually the failure of diplomacy to disarm North Korea will force the U.S. to consider a military strike, he said. Hill is set to meet March 5 and 6 with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan. ``This is all a part of re-legitimizing them,'' Bolton said of the North Korean dictatorship. Hill, the U.S. envoy who negotiated the North Korea deal, said Feb. 22, ``We ultimately decided that, even though North Korea does need to make a strategic decision to get out of this nuclear weapons business, to realize that decision is going to require a step-by-step process.'' Bolton expressed concern that the new deal doesn't address North Korea's chemical weapons arsenal. He said the U.S. government estimates North Korea has up to 12,000 artillery tubes along the demilitarized zone with South Korea and that an initial attack on South Korea would be with chemical weapons.

Bolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises Europeans

By Janine Zacharia and Bill Varner
March 1 (Bloomberg) -- John Bolton, the former American envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. should pursue ``regime change'' in Iran because European governments refuse to back sanctions tough enough to halt the suspected Iranian nuclear-bomb program. ``I believe that either regime change in Iran or, as a last resort, military action is the only thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons,'' Bolton said in an interview today in Washington.
Bolton, a 58-year-old former arms-control official, said the Bush administration had allowed Britain, France and Germany to ``screw around'' in nuclear talks. The diplomacy has gone on for ``three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make enormous progress on their nuclear-weapons program,'' he said. President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran and North Korea part of an ``axis of evil'' in 2002, has said their nuclear programs could pose a direct threat to the U.S., and that either nation might hand over atomic weapons to terrorists. The U.S. has pursued negotiated settlements with both countries while crafting UN sanctions aimed at cutting off nuclear trade with them. Bolton left the UN in December after failing to win congressional support to extend his tenure. He has emerged as a gadfly, criticizing the administration for its strategy on nuclear proliferation. He assailed Bush and his diplomats on Iran and for a deal with North Korea to trade energy aid for the closing of nuclear-arms-related facilities. Bolton said that accord is doomed to fail because of North Korea's record of cheating on similar arrangements.
`Fruitless' Effort
Broadly, Bolton said any negotiation with either North Korea or Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear ambitions won't work. ``Unless you're prepared to believe that the Iranians are voluntarily going to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the idea of pursuing negotiations is ultimately going to be fruitless,'' Bolton said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma- deen-ah-ZHAD, on Feb. 25 compared Iran's nuclear development to an unstoppable train and said there would be no turning back. Iran ``threw away a while ago the reverse gear and brakes of this train,'' he said, in remarks carried by the state-run Iranian Students News Agency. Iranian officials insist the nuclear push is for commercial power generation, not weapons.
Intelligence Gap
Bolton, now with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said one drawback of any military strike on Iran is that the Iranians may have a secret uranium-enrichment facility that weapons inspectors will never find. ``The downside of the military option is that you would incur all of the costs of having undertaken military action but potentially not gotten the benefits of decisively breaking the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more points,'' he said. ``What that says is we need better intelligence about what the Iranians are actually up to beyond what is already in the public domain.'' Because of all of this, the U.S. needs to tap the ``substantial Iranian diaspora,'' which the U.S. is ``not using as effectively as we might,'' and ``exploit'' the dissatisfaction inside Iran to topple the cleric-led government that has ruled the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Bolton said. The United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program for the first time, including a ban on acquisition of materials and technology that might be used to build an atomic bomb.
The U.S. was forced to agree to a watered-down version of what it sought in negotiations in the Security Council.
Enrichment Expands
Since the resolution's passage, Iran expanded its capacity to enrich uranium, defying a Security Council demand to halt its atomic work, and plans to install 3,000 centrifuges designed to produce nuclear fuel at its underground facility in Natanz by May, according to a Feb. 22 International Atomic Energy Agency report. The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany met in London on Feb. 26 to discuss a draft resolution that would impose further penalties on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. Germany's envoy to the UN said Feb. 23 there should be only ``modest'' expansion of UN sanctions. Bolton said European reticence reflects a core problem: that those governments are ``overcome by their economic interests'' in the Iranian market. Countries and companies from Spain to Malaysia are pursuing long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran, rebuffing Bush's campaign to turn Iran into an economic pariah.
Bolton, who blasted the agreement the U.S., China, South Korea, Japan and Russia reached with North Korea that requires the country to scrap its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program in return for energy aid, criticized scheduled talks next week.
Talks Set
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's meeting with North Korea in New York, aimed at normalizing relations between the countries, won't lead Kim Jong Il's dictatorship to abandon nuclear weapons, Bolton said. Eventually the failure of diplomacy to disarm North Korea will force the U.S. to consider a military strike, he said. Hill is set to meet March 5 and 6 with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan. ``This is all a part of re-legitimizing them,'' Bolton said of the North Korean dictatorship. Hill, the U.S. envoy who negotiated the North Korea deal, said Feb. 22, ``We ultimately decided that, even though North Korea does need to make a strategic decision to get out of this nuclear weapons business, to realize that decision is going to require a step-by-step process.'' Bolton expressed concern that the new deal doesn't address North Korea's chemical weapons arsenal. He said the U.S. government estimates North Korea has up to 12,000 artillery tubes along the demilitarized zone with South Korea and that an initial attack on South Korea would be with chemical weapons.

"A cemetery of dreams."

Maintaining Perspective
By Fouad Ajami / Posted 2/25/07 -
'It's too soon to tell," The late Chinese leader Zhou Enlai is reported to have answered when asked for an evaluation of the significance of the French Revolution of 1789. This was nearly two centuries after the great upheaval of France. evolutions are full of cunning, and the Iranian Revolution, now almost three decades old, has been no exception-cunning and ferocity side by side, the talk of a revolutionary millennium often concealing the skills of a leadership steeped in the ways of the bazaar. Shrewd players, these clerical leaders have found the cracks in the order of states around them. Brutal men, they rule a society of great historical sophistication. Given room to maneuver by a substantial windfall of oil income, they have made their nation a player of consequence in its neighborhood. Sly and opportunistic, Iran's rulers have been able to pick and choose at a time, and in a place, of great volatility. American power swept away two regimes that the Iranians dreaded-the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. True, America was now a land power on Iran's flanks; the Iranians ducked at first, then gathered themselves as the American burden grew. Mixing bravado and bluff, and granting proxies in Palestine and Lebanon, the leaders of the Iranian theocracy appear to have succeeded in spreading the image of a mighty power able to have its way in the world. For some, that great arc stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean is now a battleground between Pax Americana and the Persians. This belief is in part due to the abdication of the Arab states, their virtual absence from the contest of nations.



There is bigotry in Arab lands, an animus on the part of the Sunni majority toward the political emancipation of the Arab Shiites. Arab diplomats and leaders shy away from Iraq-the pitiless jihadists are the only Arabs who come to Iraq-but the Iranians are present in force as pilgrims and traders and troublemakers and intelligence operatives. "A cemetery of dreams." Iran is a radical player in the world of states, to be sure, but we should not overstate its power. We should not fall for the Persian bluff. It is important that we do all we can to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions and to checkmate it in arenas that count, but we should always remember that this is a society swimming against the tide of history and confronting the limits of its capabilities. There is an Iranian role in Iraq, but it should not be exaggerated. It is not true that the Iraqi political class marches to the Iranian drummer. It is well known that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spent his years of exile in Syria and kept his distance from the Iranians.




"Iraq is a cemetery of dreams," a thoughtful Iraqi observed to me of his country. "Iranian dreams, no less than American dreams perhaps." Iraqis are a tough breed, and the notion that they are eager to take their country into a Persian dominion is unconvincing. The Iranians dwell virtually alone in the House of Islam, separated by language and culture, marked by their Shiism. Then there are the troubles that count-the disabilities at home. Iran's deranged president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came into power promising to put Iran's oil wealth "on the dinner table." But the Iranian economy is on the ropes. Hyperinflation, the drying up of international credit lines, and the astounding growth in energy consumption in Iran are bringing the country to the edge of crisis. The price of bread and meat and basic commodities has risen by as much as 25 percent. To tranquilize the realm, gasoline is subsidized well below its cost, and domestic consumption now accounts for a stunning 40 percent of Iran's oil production. Dire predictions now hold that the country will be unable to export much oil a decade from now. The true believers will proclaim that revolutionary purity trumps all, but worldly needs and affairs ultimately prevail. A society that spends $20 billion a year to subsidize the price of energy, electricity, and gasoline will in the end have to contend with the wrath and disappointment of its people. There is swagger in Iran, and there is menace, for its rulers are without scruples. Terrorism, for them, is always an option. But theirs is a vulnerable and brittle society. There is no need to "engage" them and bail them out as they stumble. The regime should be harassed, contained, and held to account. We may not have to wait two centuries to pronounce on the fate of this revolution. The swagger abroad and the rot at home: It is a trajectory we are all too familiar with by now.This story appears in the March 5, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.

US or Israeli Military Strike against Iran Hinges on Secret Saudi Diplomacy

There is no knowing at this moment where these hectic war preparations by the US, Israel and Iran - joined by Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas - are leading. Neither can the prospects be weighed of the floating Saudi effort to halt or curtail Iran’s advance towards nuclear armament. However, a rogue factor must be taken into account: an unforeseen military or terrorist act against US targets in Iraq, against Lebanon and Israel - or a clandestine operation inside Iran - may well overload the delicate balance of terror and tip the crisis into dangerous waters. The outcome would depend on who pulled the wires of such a provocation. Intelligence leading to Tehran would pile up more pressure for an American answer in kind. If it led to Syria, Hizballah or Hamas, Israel would face a hard decision, in consultation with Washington. The standoff at this stage has too many unknown and changeable elements and is therefore too volatile for responsible predictions one way or the other.
Please follow this link : http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1258

The Redirection, New Yorker , Seymour M. Hersh

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.” After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.” Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.” The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”) .The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations. The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.” “It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.” Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that “the Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War.” Indyk, who is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear whether the White House was fully aware of the strategic implications of its new policy. “The White House is not just doubling the bet in Iraq,” he said. “It’s doubling the bet across the region. This could get very complicated. Everything is upside down.” The Administration’s new policy for containing Iran seems to complicate its strategy for winning the war in Iraq. Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued, however, that closer ties between the United States and moderate or even radical Sunnis could put “fear” into the government of Prime Minister Maliki and “make him worry that the Sunnis could actually win” the civil war there. Clawson said that this might give Maliki an incentive to coöperate with the United States in suppressing radical Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Even so, for the moment, the U.S. remains dependent on the coöperation of Iraqi Shiite leaders. The Mahdi Army may be openly hostile to American interests, but other Shiite militias are counted as U.S. allies. Both Moqtada al-Sadr and the White House back Maliki. A memorandum written late last year by Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser, suggested that the Administration try to separate Maliki from his more radical Shiite allies by building his base among moderate Sunnis and Kurds, but so far the trends have been in the opposite direction. As the Iraqi Army continues to founder in its confrontations with insurgents, the power of the Shiite militias has steadily increased. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.” President George W. Bush, in a speech on January 10th, partially spelled out this approach. “These two regimes”—Iran and Syria—“are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq,” Bush said. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” In the following weeks, there was a wave of allegations from the Administration about Iranian involvement in the Iraq war. On February 11th, reporters were shown sophisticated explosive devices, captured in Iraq, that the Administration claimed had come from Iran. The Administration’s message was, in essence, that the bleak situation in Iraq was the result not of its own failures of planning and execution but of Iran’s interference. The U.S. military also has arrested and interrogated hundreds of Iranians in Iraq. “The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can,” a former senior intelligence official said. “They had five hundred locked up at one time. We’re working these guys and getting information from them. The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they’ve been doing it all along—that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.” The Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months. But he told me that that total includes many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who “get scooped up and released in a short time,” after they have been interrogated. “We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Robert Gates, the new Defense Secretary, announced on February 2nd, and yet the atmosphere of confrontation has deepened. According to current and former American intelligence and military officials, secret operations in Lebanon have been accompanied by clandestine operations targeting Iran. American military and special-operations teams have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence and, according to a Pentagon consultant on terrorism and the former senior intelligence official, have also crossed the border in pursuit of Iranian operatives from Iraq. At Rice’s Senate appearance in January, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, of Delaware, pointedly asked her whether the U.S. planned to cross the Iranian or the Syrian border in the course of a pursuit. “Obviously, the President isn’t going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq,” Rice said, adding, “I do think that everyone will understand that—the American people and I assume the Congress expect the President to do what is necessary to protect our forces.” The ambiguity of Rice’s reply prompted a response from Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who has been critical of the Administration: Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary. And that was Cambodia. And when our government lied to the American people and said, “We didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia,” in fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee. So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the President is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. The Administration’s concern about Iran’s role in Iraq is coupled with its long-standing alarm over Iran’s nuclear program. On Fox News on January 14th, Cheney warned of the possibility, in a few years, “of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world’s supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world.” He also said, “If you go and talk with the Gulf states or if you talk with the Saudis or if you talk with the Israelis or the Jordanians, the entire region is worried. . . . The threat Iran represents is growing.” The Administration is now examining a wave of new intelligence on Iran’s weapons programs. Current and former American officials told me that the intelligence, which came from Israeli agents operating in Iran, includes a claim that Iran has developed a three-stage solid-fuelled intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads—each with limited accuracy—inside Europe. The validity of this human intelligence is still being debated. A similar argument about an imminent threat posed by weapons of mass destruction—and questions about the intelligence used to make that case—formed the prelude to the invasion of Iraq. Many in Congress have greeted the claims about Iran with wariness; in the Senate on February 14th, Hillary Clinton said, “We have all learned lessons from the conflict in Iraq, and we have to apply those lessons to any allegations that are being raised about Iran. Because, Mr. President, what we are hearing has too familiar a ring and we must be on guard that we never again make decisions on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be faulty.” Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours. In the past month, I was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change. Two carrier strike groups—the Eisenhower and the Stennis—are now in the Arabian Sea. One plan is for them to be relieved early in the spring, but there is worry within the military that they may be ordered to stay in the area after the new carriers arrive, according to several sources. (Among other concerns, war games have shown that the carriers could be vulnerable to swarming tactics involving large numbers of small boats, a technique that the Iranians have practiced in the past; carriers have limited maneuverability in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, off Iran’s southern coast.) The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008.”
Please read the rest of this article by following this link : http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh