This video from the USA is called Moyers on Murdoch; PBS.
By Peter Symonds:
Murdoch’s media empire girds up for a war against Iran
9 September 2006
An editorial in Monday’s Australian entitled “Endgame for Iran” is another sign that the vast resources of the Murdoch global media empire are being mobilised to support a new US war of aggression against Iran.
A similar editorial headed “A nuclear Iran is not an option” appeared in the same newspaper last week, along with an opinion piece in the London-based Times entitled “What a shambles over Iran” and continuing agitation by Fox News commentators in the US. …
The sense of panic that permeates the Australian editorial is bound up with the profound political crisis engulfing the White House.
The US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have become unmitigated disasters, the US-backed Israeli war against Hezbollah in Lebanon was a debacle and, at home, there is broad hostility to the Bush administration, particularly over the continued US military presence in Iraq.
Yet, far from pulling back, the US is preparing to lurch into another military adventure.
Its agenda is nothing less than the assertion of American hegemony over the resource-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia and the stirring up of war fever to intimidate domestic opposition and justify further attacks on basic democratic rights.
CIA: no Iranian nuclear weapons drive.
Update: here.
And here.
Older News Line article here.
MySpace users rebel against Murdoch.
More Murdoch here.
Murdoch empire in Britain: here.
Murdoch empire and Venezuela: here.
Murdoch’s Fox News: here.
Blair and Murdoch: here.
Fox News and racism: here.
1986-87 strike in Wapping, Britain against Murdoch: here.
Disgraced media mogul Conrad Black: here.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
Kucinich Warns of New War Plans
Posted by: “Ell Kinder” lk3bk@yahoo.com lk3bk
Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:15 pm (PST)
Urgent Letter from Dennis Kucinich
about Bush Administration Plans for a US War vs. Iran
..
http://www.kucinich.us
Dear Friends, The Bush Administration is preparing for war against
Iran, using an almost identical drumbeat of weapons of mass
destruction, imminent threat, alleged links to Al Queda, and even
linking Iran with a future 911.
..
In the past few months reports have been published in Newsweek, ABC
News and GQ Magazine that indicate the US is recruiting members of
paramilitary groups to destabilize Iran through violence. The New
Yorker magazine and the Guardian have written that US has already
deployed military inside Iran. The latest issue of Time writes of
plans for a naval blockade of Iran at the Port of Hormuz, through
which 40% of the world’s oil supply passes. Other news reports have
claimed that an air strike, using a variety of bombs including
bunker busters to be dropped on over 1,000 targets, including
nuclear facilities. This could obviously result in a great long term
humanitarian and environmental disaster.
..
Earlier this year, I demanded congressional hearings on Iran and was
able to secure the promise of a classified briefing from the
Department of Defense, the State Department and the CIA. When the
briefing was held, the Department of Defense and the State
Department refused to show and are continuing to block any
congressional inquiry into plans to attack Iran.
..
Just this past week, the International Atomic Energy Agency
called “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated” statements
relating to Iran’s nuclear program which came from a staff report of
the House Intelligence committee. Other intelligence officials have
claimed over a dozen distortions in the report which, among other
things, said Iran is producing weapons grade uranium. The Washington
Post wrote: “The IAEA called that ‘incorrect’ noting that weapons
grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has
enriched uranium to 3.5% under IAEA monitoring.”
..
I have demanded that the Government Oversight subcommittee on
National Security and International Relations, of which I am the
ranking Democrat, hold hearings to determine how in the world the
Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, viewed the
report without correcting the obvious inaccuracies before it was
published. Once again a case for war is being built on lies.
..
You will recall that four and a half years ago I warned this nation
about the deception behind the build up to war against Iraq.
Everything I said then turned out to be 100% right. I led 125
Democrats in opposing the Iraq war resolution in March of 2003. The
very same people who brought us Iraq in 2003 are getting ready to
bring us a war against Iran.
..
With your help, I will lead the way to challenge the Bush
Administration’s march to war against Iran. Please support my
campaign for re-election with a generous donation to help continue
my work in the Congress. The plan to attack Iran, on its face,
threatens the safety of every US soldier serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan, not to mention the countless Iranian lives at risk and
the threat to world peace and environmental catastrophes.
..
With your support, I intend to continue to insist upon:
(1) Direct negotiations with Iran.
(2) The US must guarantee Iran and the world community that it will
not attack Iran.
(3) Iran must open once again to international inspections of its
nuclear program.
(4) Iran must agree not to build nuclear weapons.
Many of you joined me three years ago as I ran for President to
challenge the deliberate lies about WMDs, Iraq and 911, Iraq and Al
Queda and the Niger “yellowcake” claims which put us onto the path
of an unnecessary, illegal, costly war in Iraq. The Iraq war has
caused greater instability and violence in the world community. In
the meantime, our government has used the oxymoronic war on terror
to trample our Constitution, rip up the Bill of Rights and rule by
fear.
..
Please join with me as we continue our efforts for the end of fear
and the beginning of hope, for international dialogue, for
cooperation and for peace.
Thank you, Dennis
LikeLike
THE NEXT ACT
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?
Issue of 2006-11-27
Posted 2006-11-20
A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in
on a
national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a
political
turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that
affect
policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear
power? At
that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began
reminiscing
about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company
in
Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return
all unused
pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that
resulted,
Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting “shorteners” on
the
wire-that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end
of the
workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that
victory
would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The
White
House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and
thus stop
Congress from getting in its way.
The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the
war in
Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations
targeted at
overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting
the bomb.
“They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a
hit on
Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official
told me.
In late 1982, Edward P. Boland, a Democratic representative, introduced the
first in a
series of “Boland amendments,” which limited the Reagan Administration’s ability
to
support the Contras, who were working to overthrow Nicaragua’s left-wing
Sandinista
government. The Boland restrictions led White House officials to orchestrate
illegal
fund-raising activities for the Contras, including the sale of American weapons,
via
Israel, to Iran. The result was the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-eighties.
Cheney’s
story, according to the source, was his way of saying that, whatever a
Democratic
Congress might do next year to limit the President’s authority, the
Administration would
find a way to work around it. (In response to a request for comment, the
Vice-President’s
office said that it had no record of the discussion.)
In interviews, current and former Administration officials returned to one
question:
whether Cheney would be as influential in the last two years of George W. Bush’s
Presidency as he was in its first six. Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late
October, he
told Time, “I know what the President thinks,” about Iraq. “I know what I think.
And
we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.” He is
equally clear
that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. “The United
States
is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of
the
regime,” he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. “And we join other
nations in
sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear
weapon.”
On November 8th, the day after the Republicans lost both the House and the
Senate, Bush
announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the
nomination of
his successor, Robert Gates, a former director of Central Intelligence. The move
was
widely seen as an acknowledgment that the Administration was paying a political
price for
the debacle in Iraq. Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group-headed by former
Secretary of State James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic
congressman-which
has been charged with examining new approaches to Iraq, and he has publicly
urged for
more than a year that the U.S. begin direct talks with Iran. President Bush’s
decision to
turn to Gates was a sign of the White House’s “desperation,” a former high-level
C.I.A.
official, who worked with the White House after September 11th, told me.
Cheney’s
relationship with Rumsfeld was among the closest inside the Administration, and
Gates’s
nomination was seen by some Republicans as a clear signal that the
Vice-President’s
influence in the White House could be challenged. The only reason Gates would
take the
job, after turning down an earlier offer to serve as the new Director of
National
Intelligence, the former high-level C.I.A. official said, was that “the
President’s
father, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker”-former aides of the first President
Bush-“piled
on, and the President finally had to accept adult supervision.”
Critical decisions will be made in the next few months, the former C.I.A.
official said.
“Bush has followed Cheney’s advice for six years, and the story line will be:
‘Will he
continue to choose Cheney over his father?’ We’ll know soon.” (The White House
and the
Pentagon declined to respond to detailed requests for comment about this
article, other
than to say that there were unspecified inaccuracies.)
A retired four-star general who worked closely with the first Bush
Administration told me
that the Gates nomination means that Scowcroft, Baker, the elder Bush, and his
son “are
saying that winning the election in 2008 is more important than the individual.
The issue
for them is how to preserve the Republican agenda. The Old Guard wants to
isolate Cheney
and give their girl, Condoleezza Rice”-the Secretary of State-“a chance to
perform.” The
combination of Scowcroft, Baker, and the senior Bush working together is, the
general
added, “tough enough to take on Cheney. One guy can’t do it.”
Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term, told me
that he
believed the Democratic election victory, followed by Rumsfeld’s dismissal,
meant that
the Administration “has backed off,” in terms of the pace of its planning for a
military
campaign against Iran. Gates and other decision-makers would now have more time
to push
for a diplomatic solution in Iran and deal with other, arguably more immediate
issues.
“Iraq is as bad as it looks, and Afghanistan is worse than it looks,” Armitage
said. “A
year ago, the Taliban were fighting us in units of eight to twelve, and now
they’re
sometimes in company-size, and even larger.” Bombing Iran and expecting the
Iranian
public “to rise up” and overthrow the government, as some in the White House
believe,
Armitage added, “is a fool’s errand.”
“Iraq is the disaster we have to get rid of, and Iran is the disaster we have to
avoid,”
Joseph Cirincione, the vice-president for national security at the liberal
Center for
American Progress, said. “Gates will be in favor of talking to Iran and
listening to the
advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the neoconservatives are still
there”-in the
White House-“and still believe that chaos would be a small price for getting rid
of the
threat. The danger is that Gates could be the new Colin Powell-the one who
opposes the
policy but ends up briefing the Congress and publicly supporting it.”
Other sources close to the Bush family said that the machinations behind
Rumsfeld’s
resignation and the Gates nomination were complex, and the seeming triumph of
the Old
Guard may be illusory. The former senior intelligence official, who once worked
closely
with Gates and with the President’s father, said that Bush and his immediate
advisers in
the White House understood by mid-October that Rumsfeld would have to resign if
the
result of the midterm election was a resounding defeat. Rumsfeld was involved in
conversations about the timing of his departure with Cheney, Gates, and the
President
before the election, the former senior intelligence official said. Critics who
asked why
Rumsfeld wasn’t fired earlier, a move that might have given the Republicans a
boost, were
missing the point. “A week before the election, the Republicans were saying that
a
Democratic victory was the seed of American retreat, and now Bush and Cheney are
going to
change their national-security policies?” the former senior intelligence
official said.
“Cheney knew this was coming. Dropping Rummy after the election looked like a
conciliatory move-‘You’re right, Democrats. We got a new guy and we’re looking
at all the
options. Nothing is ruled out.’ ” But the conciliatory gesture would not be
accompanied
by a significant change in policy; instead, the White House saw Gates as someone
who
would have the credibility to help it stay the course on Iran and Iraq. Gates
would also
be an asset before Congress. If the Administration needed to make the case that
Iran’s
weapons program posed an imminent threat, Gates would be a better advocate than
someone
who had been associated with the flawed intelligence about Iraq. The former
official
said, “He’s not the guy who told us there were weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, and
he’ll be taken seriously by Congress.”
Once Gates is installed at the Pentagon, he will have to contend with Iran,
Iraq,
Afghanistan, the Rumsfeld legacy-and Dick Cheney. A former senior Bush
Administration
official, who has also worked with Gates, told me that Gates was well aware of
the
difficulties of his new job. He added that Gates would not simply endorse the
Administration’s policies and say, “with a flag waving, ‘Go, go’ “-especially at
the cost
of his own reputation. “He does not want to see thirty-five years of government
service
go out the window,” the former official said. However, on the question of
whether Gates
would actively stand up to Cheney, the former official said, after a pause, “I
don’t
know.”
Another critical issue for Gates will be the Pentagon’s expanding effort to
conduct
clandestine and covert intelligence missions overseas. Such activity has
traditionally
been the C.I.A.’s responsibility, but, as the result of a systematic push by
Rumsfeld,
military covert actions have been substantially increased. In the past six
months, Israel
and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish
resistance
group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been
conducting
clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant
with
close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as “part of an effort to explore
alternative means of applying pressure on Iran.” (The Pentagon has established
covert
relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged
their
efforts to undermine the regime’s authority in northern and southeastern Iran.)
The
government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group “equipment
and
training.” The group has also been given “a list of targets inside Iran of
interest to
the U.S.” (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)
Such activities, if they are considered military rather than intelligence
operations, do
not require congressional briefings. For a similar C.I.A. operation, the
President would,
by law, have to issue a formal finding that the mission was necessary, and the
Administration would have to brief the senior leadership of the House and the
Senate. The
lack of such consultation annoyed some Democrats in Congress. This fall, I was
told,
Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House
Appropriations
subcommittee that finances classified military activity, pointedly asked, during
a closed
meeting of House and Senate members, whether “anyone has been briefing on the
Administration’s plan for military activity in Iran.” The answer was no. (A
spokesman for
Obey confirmed this account.)
The Democratic victories this month led to a surge of calls for the
Administration to
begin direct talks with Iran, in part to get its help in settling the conflict
in Iraq.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair broke ranks with President Bush after the
election and
declared that Iran should be offered “a clear strategic choice” that could
include a “new
partnership” with the West. But many in the White House and the Pentagon insist
that
getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. “It’s a classic case of
‘failure
forward,'” a Pentagon consultant said. “They believe that by tipping over Iran
they would
recover their losses in Iraq-like doubling your bet. It would be an attempt to
revive the
concept of spreading democracy in the Middle East by creating one new model
state.”
The view that there is a nexus between Iran and Iraq has been endorsed by
Condoleezza
Rice, who said last month that Iran “does need to understand that it is not
going to
improve its own situation by stirring instability in Iraq,” and by the
President, who
said, in August, that “Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping
democracy
from taking hold” in Iraq. The government consultant told me, “More and more
people see
the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq.”
The consultant added that, for some advocates of military action, “the goal in
Iran is
not regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America still can
accomplish
its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran’s nuclear network, there are many
who think
that thirty-six hours of bombing is the only way to remind the Iranians of the
very high
cost of going forward with the bomb-and of supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and his
pro-Iran
element in Iraq.” (Sadr, who commands a Shiite militia, has religious ties to
Iran.)
In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent
neoconservative,
argued that the Administration had little choice. “Make no mistake: President
Bush will
need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,” he wrote. The
President
would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said,
and so
neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to
defend the
action when it comes.”
The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President’s staff is David Wurmser, a
neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the
overthrow of
Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser “believes that, so far, there’s
been no
price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and
intervention inside Iraq,” the consultant said. But, unlike those in the
Administration
who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney’s office “want
to end
the regime,” the consultant said. “They argue that there can be no settlement of
the Iraq
war without regime change in Iran.”
The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more
complicated
earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A.
challenging the
White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear
bomb. The
C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons
program
running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the
International
Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)
The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment,
was based
on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other
empirical
evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke
plumes
from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered,
intelligence sources
told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices
that
clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons
facilities
inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were
found.
A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A.
analysis,
and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House’s
dismissal of
the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community.
Cheney and his
aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said.
“They’re
not looking for a smoking gun,” the official added, referring to specific
intelligence
about Iranian nuclear planning. “They’re looking for the degree of comfort level
they
think they need to accomplish the mission.” The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence
Agency
also challenged the C.I.A.’s analysis. “The D.I.A. is fighting the agency’s
conclusions,
and disputing its approach,” the former senior intelligence official said. Bush
and
Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being
incorporated into a
forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, “but
they
can’t stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence
community.”
The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to
conclude that
the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that
the
Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence
official noted
that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception
and
misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to
unravel the
details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in
the White
House, including in Cheney’s office, had made just such an assumption-that “the
lack of
evidence means they must have it,” the former official said.
Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, under which it is entitled
to
conduct nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Despite the offer of trade
agreements and
the prospect of military action, it defied a demand by the I.A.E.A. and the
Security
Council, earlier this year, that it stop enriching uranium-a process that can
produce
material for nuclear power plants as well as for weapons-and it has been unable,
or
unwilling, to account for traces of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that
have been
detected during I.A.E.A. inspections. The I.A.E.A. has complained about a lack
of
“transparency,” although, like the C.I.A., it has not found unambiguous evidence
of a
secret weapons program.
Last week, Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that Iran had made
further
progress in its enrichment research program, and said, “We know that some
countries may
not be pleased.” He insisted that Iran was abiding by international agreements,
but said,
“Time is now completely on the side of the Iranian people.” A diplomat in
Vienna, where
the I.A.E.A. has its headquarters, told me that the agency was skeptical of the
claim,
for technical reasons. But Ahmadinejad’s defiant tone did nothing to diminish
suspicions
about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“There is no evidence of a large-scale covert enrichment program inside Iran,”
one
involved European diplomat said. “But the Iranians would not have launched
themselves
into a very dangerous confrontation with the West on the basis of a weapons
program that
they no longer pursue. Their enrichment program makes sense only in terms of
wanting
nuclear weapons. It would be inconceivable if they weren’t cheating to some
degree. You
don’t need a covert program to be concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We
have
enough information to be concerned without one. It’s not a slam dunk, but it’s
close to
it.”
There are, however, other possible reasons for Iran’s obstinacy. The nuclear
program-peaceful or not-is a source of great national pride, and President
Ahmadinejad’s
support for it has helped to propel him to enormous popularity. (Saddam Hussein
created
confusion for years, inside and outside his country, about whether Iraq had
weapons of
mass destruction, in part to project an image of strength.) According to the
former
senior intelligence official, the C.I.A.’s assessment suggested that Iran might
even see
some benefits in a limited military strike-especially one that did not succeed
in fully
destroying its nuclear program-in that an attack might enhance its position in
the
Islamic world. “They learned that in the Iraqi experience, and relearned it in
southern
Lebanon,” the former senior official said. In both cases, a more powerful
military force
had trouble achieving its military or political goals; in Lebanon, Israel’s war
against
Hezbollah did not destroy the group’s entire arsenal of rockets, and increased
the
popularity of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised
the
possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying
point to
unite Sunni and Shiite populations. “An American attack will paper over any
differences
in the Arab world, and we’ll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah
fighting
against us-and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West.
It’s an
analyst’s worst nightmare-for the first time since the caliphate there will be
common
cause in the Middle East.” (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over
six
hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)
According to the Pentagon consultant, “The C.I.A.’s view is that, without more
intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran’s nuclear
program. And a
low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran’s
hands-bolstering
support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage.”
The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military
believe
that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But he added that
the Bush
Administration’s options for dealing with that threat are diminished, because of
a lack
of good intelligence and also because “we’ve cried wolf” before.
As the C.I.A.’s assessment was making its way through the government, late this
summer,
current and former military officers and consultants told me, a new element
suddenly
emerged: intelligence from Israeli spies operating inside Iran claimed that Iran
has
developed and tested a trigger device for a nuclear bomb. The provenance and
significance
of the human intelligence, or HUMINT, are controversial. “The problem is that no
one can
verify it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “We don’t know who
the
Israeli source is. The briefing says the Iranians are testing trigger
mechanisms”-simulating a zero-yield nuclear explosion without any weapons-grade
materials-“but there are no diagrams, no significant facts. Where is the test
site? How
often have they done it? How big is the warhead-a breadbox or a refrigerator?
They don’t
have that.” And yet, he said, the report was being used by White House hawks
within the
Administration to “prove the White House’s theory that the Iranians are on
track. And
tests leave no radioactive track, which is why we can’t find it.” Still, he
said, “The
agency is standing its ground.”
The Pentagon consultant, however, told me that he and other intelligence
professionals
believe that the Israeli intelligence should be taken more seriously. “We live
in an era
when national technical intelligence”-data from satellites and on-the-ground
sensors-“will not get us what we need. HUMINT may not be hard evidence by that
standard,
but very often it’s the best intelligence we can get.” He added, with obvious
exasperation, that within the intelligence community “we’re going to be fighting
over the
quality of the information for the next year.” One reason for the dispute, he
said, was
that the White House had asked to see the “raw”-the original, unanalyzed and
unvetted-Israeli intelligence. Such “stovepiping” of intelligence had led to
faulty
conclusions about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction during the buildup to
the 2003
Iraq war. “Many Presidents in the past have done the same thing,” the consultant
said,
“but intelligence professionals are always aghast when Presidents ask for stuff
in the
raw. They see it as asking a second grader to read ‘Ulysses.’ ”
HUMINT can be difficult to assess. Some of the most politically significant-and
most
inaccurate-intelligence about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction came
from an
operative, known as Curveball, who was initially supplied to the C.I.A. by
German
intelligence. But the Pentagon consultant insisted that, in this case, “the
Israeli
intelligence is apparently very strong.” He said that the information about the
trigger
device had been buttressed by another form of highly classified data, known as
MASINT,
for “measuring and signature” intelligence. The Defense Intelligence Agency is
the
central processing and dissemination point for such intelligence, which includes
radar,
radio, nuclear, and electro-optical data. The consultant said that the MASINT
indicated
activities that “are not consistent with the programs” Iran has declared to the
I.A.E.A.
“The intelligence suggests far greater sophistication and more advanced
development,” the
consultant said. “The indications don’t make sense, unless they’re farther along
in some
aspects of their nuclear-weapons program than we know.”
In early 2004, John Bolton, who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Arms
Control
(he is now the United Nations Ambassador), privately conveyed to the I.A.E.A.
suspicions
that Iran was conducting research into the intricately timed detonation of
conventional
explosives needed to trigger a nuclear warhead at Parchin, a sensitive facility
twenty
miles southeast of Tehran that serves as the center of Iran’s Defense Industries
Organization. A wide array of chemical munitions and fuels, as well as advanced
antitank
and ground-to-air missiles, are manufactured there, and satellite imagery
appeared to
show a bunker suitable for testing very large explosions.
A senior diplomat in Vienna told me that, in response to the allegations,
I.A.E.A.
inspectors went to Parchin in November of 2005, after months of negotiation. An
inspection team was allowed to single out a specific site at the base, and then
was
granted access to a few buildings there. “We found no evidence of nuclear
materials,” the
diplomat said. The inspectors looked hard at an underground explosive-testing
pit that,
he said, “resembled what South Africa had when it developed its nuclear
weapons,” three
decades ago. The pit could have been used for the kind of kinetic research
needed to test
a nuclear trigger. But, like so many military facilities with dual-use
potential, “it
also could be used for other things,” such as testing fuel for rockets, which
routinely
takes place at Parchin. “The Iranians have demonstrated that they can enrich
uranium,”
the diplomat added, “and trigger tests without nuclear yield can be done. But
it’s a very
sophisticated process-it’s also known as hydrodynamic testing-and only countries
with
suitably advanced nuclear testing facilities as well as the necessary scientific
expertise can do it. I’d be very skeptical that Iran could do it.”
Earlier this month, the allegations about Parchin reëmerged when Yediot
Ahronot,
Israel’s largest newspaper, reported that recent satellite imagery showed new
“massive
construction” at Parchin, suggesting an expansion of underground tunnels and
chambers.
The newspaper sharply criticized the I.A.E.A.’s inspection process and its
director, Dr.
Mohamed ElBaradei, for his insistence on “using very neutral wording for his
findings and
his conclusions.”
Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran who is the deputy director for research at
the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank, told me
that the
“biggest moment” of tension has yet to arrive: “How does the United States keep
an
Israeli decision point-one that may come sooner than we want-from being
reached?” Clawson
noted that there is evidence that Iran has been slowed by technical problems in
the
construction and operation of two small centrifuge cascades, which are essential
for the
pilot production of enriched uranium. Both are now under I.A.E.A. supervision.
“Why were
they so slow in getting the second cascade up and running?” Clawson asked. “And
why
haven’t they run the first one as much as they said they would? Do we have more
time?
“Why talk about war?” he said. “We’re not talking about going to war with North
Korea or
Venezuela. It’s not necessarily the case that Iran has started a weapons
program, and
it’s conceivable-just conceivable-that Iran does not have a nuclear-weapons
program yet.
We can slow them down-force them to reinvent the wheel-without bombing,
especially if the
international conditions get better.”
Clawson added that Secretary of State Rice has “staked her reputation on
diplomacy, and
she will not risk her career without evidence. Her team is saying, ‘What’s the
rush?’ The
President wants to solve the Iranian issue before leaving office, but he may
have to say,
‘Darn, I wish I could have solved it.’ ”
Earlier this year, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert created
a task
force to coördinate all the available intelligence on Iran. The task force,
which is led
by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force, reports
directly to
the Prime Minister. In late October, Olmert appointed Ephraim Sneh, a Labor
Party member
of the Knesset, to serve as Deputy Defense Minister. Sneh, who served previously
in that
position under Ehud Barak, has for years insisted that action be taken to
prevent Iran
from getting the bomb. In an interview this month with the Jerusalem Post, Sneh
expressed
skepticism about the effectiveness of diplomacy or international sanctions in
curbing
Iran:
The danger isn’t as much Ahmadinejad’s deciding to launch an attack but Israel’s
living
under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction. . . .
Most
Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here
with
families, and Israelis who can live abroad will . . . I am afraid Ahmadinejad
will be
able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That’s why we must
prevent this
regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.
A similar message was delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, in a
speech in
Los Angeles last week. “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm
itself
with atomic bombs,” he said, adding that there was “still time” to stop the
Iranians.
The Pentagon consultant told me that, while there may be pressure from the
Israelis,
“they won’t do anything on their own without our green light.” That assurance,
he said,
“comes from the Cheney shop. It’s Cheney himself who is saying, ‘We’re not going
to leave
you high and dry, but don’t go without us.’ ” A senior European diplomat agreed:
“For
Israel, it is a question of life or death. The United States does not want to go
into
Iran, but, if Israel feels more and more cornered, there may be no other
choice.”
A nuclear-armed Iran would not only threaten Israel. It could trigger a
strategic-arms
race throughout the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt-all led by
Sunni
governments-would be compelled to take steps to defend themselves. The Bush
Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support
from
Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and
Evan Bayh,
of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned
that Iran
cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that-as Clinton said earlier this
year-“we cannot
take any option off the table.” Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic
National
Committee, has also endorsed this view. Last May, Olmert was given a rousing
reception
when he addressed a joint session of Congress and declared, “A nuclear Iran
means a
terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and
die-the
mass destruction of innocent human life. This challenge, which I believe is the
test of
our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail.”
Despite such rhetoric, Leslie Gelb, a former State Department official who is a
president
emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said he believes that, “when push
comes to
shove, the Israelis will have a hard time selling the idea that an Iranian
nuclear
capability is imminent. The military and the State Department will be flat
against a
preëmptive bombing campaign.” Gelb said he hoped that Gates’s appointment would
add
weight to America’s most pressing issue-“to get some level of Iranian restraint
inside
Iraq. In the next year or two, we’re much more likely to be negotiating with
Iran than
bombing it.”
The Bush Administration remains publicly committed to a diplomatic solution to
the
Iranian nuclear impasse, and has been working with China, Russia, France,
Germany, and
Britain to get negotiations under way. So far, that effort has foundered; the
most recent
round of talks broke up early in November, amid growing disagreements with
Russia and
China about the necessity of imposing harsh United Nations sanctions on the
Iranian
regime. President Bush is adamant that Iran must stop all of its enrichment
programs
before any direct talks involving the United States can begin.
The senior European diplomat told me that the French President, Jacques Chirac,
and
President Bush met in New York on September 19th, as the new U.N. session was
beginning,
and agreed on what the French called the “Big Bang” approach to breaking the
deadlock
with Iran. A scenario was presented to Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian
negotiator on
nuclear issues. The Western delegation would sit down at a negotiating table
with Iran.
The diplomat told me, “We would say, ‘We’re beginning the negotiations without
preconditions,’ and the Iranians would respond, ‘We will suspend.’ Our side
would
register great satisfaction, and the Iranians would agree to accept I.A.E.A.
inspection
of their enrichment facilities. And then the West would announce, in return,
that they
would suspend any U.N. sanctions.” The United States would not be at the table
when the
talks began but would join later. Larijani took the offer to Tehran; the answer,
as
relayed by Larijani, was no, the diplomat said. “We were trying to compromise,
for all
sides, but Ahmadinejad did not want to save face,” the diplomat said. “The
beautiful
scenario has gone nowhere.”
Last week, there was a heightened expectation that the Iraq Study Group would
produce a
set of recommendations that could win bipartisan approval and guide America out
of the
quagmire in Iraq. Sources with direct knowledge of the panel’s proceedings have
told me
that the group, as of mid-November, had ruled out calling for an immediate and
complete
American withdrawal but would recommend focussing on the improved training of
Iraqi
forces and on redeploying American troops. In the most significant
recommendation, Baker
and Hamilton were expected to urge President Bush to do what he has thus far
refused to
do-bring Syria and Iran into a regional conference to help stabilize Iraq.
It is not clear whether the Administration will be receptive. In August,
according to the
former senior intelligence official, Rumsfeld asked the Joint Chiefs to quietly
devise
alternative plans for Iraq, to preëmpt new proposals, whether they come from
the new
Democratic majority or from the Iraq Study Group. “The option of last resort is
to move
American forces out of the cities and relocate them along the Syrian and Iranian
border,”
the former official said. “Civilians would be hired to train the Iraqi police,
with the
eventual goal of separating the local police from the Iraqi military. The White
House
believes that if American troops stay in Iraq long enough-with enough troops-the
bad guys
will end up killing each other, and Iraqi citizens, fed up with internal strife,
will
come up with a solution. It’ll take a long time to move the troops and train the
police.
It’s a time line to infinity.”
In a subsequent interview, the former senior Bush Administration official said
that he
had also been told that the Pentagon has been at work on a plan in Iraq that
called for a
military withdrawal from the major urban areas to a series of fortified bases
near the
borders. The working assumption was that, with the American troops gone from the
most
heavily populated places, the sectarian violence would “burn out.” “The White
House is
saying it’s going to stabilize,” the former senior Administration official said,
“but it
may stabilize the wrong way.”
One problem with the proposal that the Administration enlist Iran in reaching a
settlement of the conflict in Iraq is that it’s not clear that Iran would be
interested,
especially if the goal is to help the Bush Administration extricate itself from
a bad
situation.
“Iran is emerging as a dominant power in the Middle East,” I was told by a
Middle East
expert and former senior Administration official. “With a nuclear program, and
an ability
to interfere throughout the region, it’s basically calling the shots. Why should
they
coöperate with us over Iraq?” He recounted a recent meeting with Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad,
who challenged Bush’s right to tell Iran that it could not enrich uranium. “Why
doesn’t
America stop enriching uranium?” the Iranian President asked. He laughed, and
added,
“We’ll enrich it for you and sell it to you at a fifty-per-cent discount.”
LikeLike
San Francisco Labor Council Resolution – Adopted by Unanimous Vote Nov. 27, 2006
Resolution on Threat of Military Action Against Iran
Whereas, no evidence has been offered that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction, even after many inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency; yet the Bush administration continues to threaten aggressive measures against Iran on the grounds that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons; and
Whereas, the U.S. government seeks to impose U.N. sanctions on Iran for continuing to develop its uranium enrichment program, which Iran asserts is strictly for non-military production of nuclear energy. At least ten other nations enrich uranium in order to produce nuclear energy, and the US is not threatening to attack them; and
Whereas, Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and was the first state to call for a Nuclear-Free Zone in the Middle East; and
Whereas, Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, as well as China, France, the U.S., Russia, and Great Britain — all have nuclear weapons, with the U.S. possessing a larger stockpile than of all the rest of the world combined; and
Whereas, the U.S. government campaign against Iran’s development of enriched uranium appears to be much like the misinformation campaign waged by the Bush administration before the war on Iraq to justify its unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq; now the Bush administration once again seeks to stoke unjustified fears to win public support for military action against Iran; and.
Whereas, the U.S. government has dispatched a Navy carrier group to the Persian Gulf off Iran’s western coast, as well as ships capable of mining harbors, for naval exercises that some observers believe could serve as the prelude to an attack or other military action, such as mining Iran’s harbors; and
Whereas, published reports of intelligence recently gathered by U.S. Special Operations forces in Iran suggest that the U.S. has identified hundreds of targets in Iran, in preparation for a possible military attack on that country; and
Whereas, the U.S. government has a long history of interference in the internal affairs of Iran, including the well-documented CIA-engineered 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who nationalized Iran’s oil; and the US role in installing and backing the brutal regime of the Shah of Iran;
Therefore be it resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, hereby declares its opposition to U.S. military action against Iran, and urges all organizations with which it is affiliated to demand that Congress take measures to prevent any such military assault, and rather, to promote diplomatic non-military solutions to any disputes with Iran; and
Be it finally resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council join with other antiwar forces to organize mass popular opposition to any military assault on Iran, and to respond rapidly should such an assault occur.
LikeLike
MySpace users angry about Fox’ Rupert Murdoch Comments: 3
Date: 8/2/05 at 10:48PM
Mood: Looking Playing: Hit the road, Rupert
ABC, SAN FRANCISCO Aug 2, 2005 — There’s a Fox in MySpace, and bloggers are squawking.
Nervous members of the wildly popular online social networking spot are blasting its purchase by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., expressing dark fears about the powerful billionaire’s alleged motives and the possibility of privacy breaches, monitoring, censorship and access fees.
“It’s something we’re very concerned about,” said Scott Swiecki, 34, of Tempe Ariz., who’s a member of the MySpace group “Faux News” as well as another group that combines the Murdoch name with an expletive.
“There are a lot of counterculture people on MySpace. My concern is Fox will add fees and censor content.”
News Corp. purchased Intermix Media Inc., the owner of MySpace, for $580 million last month, mainly so that Fox Interactive Media can reach the site’s 22 million registered users.
MySpace, which launched just two years ago, is currently the most popular social networking site in the world.
It makes it easy for people to customize their home pages with personal photos, art, color and music, along with market-revealing lists of favorite activities, books, music and films.
Users can get site-wide bulletins, but they mostly communicate with friends or intriguing strangers they’ve expressly allowed into a network.
Bands often use the site to debut their music.
LikeLike
Google cache of Dear Kitty Modblog:
MySpace users angry about Fox’ Rupert Murdoch Linking: 2 Comments: 3
Date: 8/2/05 at 10:48PM
Mood: Looking Playing: Hit the road, Rupert
SAN FRANCISCO Aug 2, 2005 — There’s a Fox in MySpace, and bloggers are squawking.
Nervous members of the wildly popular online social networking spot are blasting its purchase by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., expressing dark fears about the powerful billionaire’s alleged motives and the possibility of privacy breaches, monitoring, censorship and access fees.
“It’s something we’re very concerned about,” said Scott Swiecki, 34, of Tempe Ariz., who’s a member of the MySpace group “Faux News” as well as another group that combines the Murdoch name with an expletive.
“There are a lot of counterculture people on MySpace. My concern is Fox will add fees and censor content.”
News Corp. purchased Intermix Media Inc., the owner of MySpace, for $580 million last month, mainly so that Fox Interactive Media can reach the site’s 22 million registered users.
MySpace, which launched just two years ago, is currently the most popular social networking site in the world.
It makes it easy for people to customize their home pages with personal photos, art, color and music, along with market-revealing lists of favorite activities, books, music and films.
Users can get site-wide bulletins, but they mostly communicate with friends or intriguing strangers they’ve expressly allowed into a network.
Bands often use the site to debut their music.
LikeLike
2/4/05 at 7:26PM
Mood: Guess Playing: California girly men, by the Beach Girls
Again, from US blog Thinkprogress, with different hyperlinks there than here:
“Fox Bankrolling Schwarzenegger
According to the San Jose Mercury News, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Republican-California) pocketed “more than $450,000 from Fox subsidiary News America, which owns newspapers, including the New York Post, and the book publisher HarperCollins.”
It’s pretty clear, as the Mercury News notes, that despite his promises to rid California of special interests, Schwarzenegger’s administration is being “fueled by six- and seven-figure special-interest donations.”
What’ s news here is that Fox is now in the business of financially supporting economically conservative political candidates for high office. Sure, General Electric may own NBC and it makes political donations.
But that is a far cry from a major news organization giving directly to candidates. Granted, it’s the right-wing cabal of Fox/NY Post/HarperCollins, so we all knew where their ideology was anyway. But this sure does put a fork in the whole “fair and balanced,” “We report, you decide” mantra.”
LikeLike
Pingback: US military censors own paper in Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Can Iranian-Israeli singer stop war? | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch’s scandals get bigger and bigger | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: After Iraq, will Bush destroy archaeological treasures of Iran? | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Briton refuses honour because of Blair’s Iraq war | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch’s anti-refugee witchhunt | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Australia: modern art conflict in 1930s | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Australia: book banned which was OK when Bin Laden was official US ally | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: A Christmas poem on US soldiers in Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch endangers Indonesian wildlife | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch sacks Sarah Palin | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: British Conservatives link up with Latvian Waffen SS | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: George W Bush: 600, 000 dead Iraqis, 3,000 dead US soldiers, are still not enough | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Britain: Blair up to his neck in arms corruption and other scandals | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Tony Blair’s lying memoirs | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Blackwater defrauded taxpayers in Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch, warmonger, phone hacker, burglar … and mystic? | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Military sonar kills dolphins | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: British Labour paper the Daily Herald | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Fukushima disaster continues | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: US construction workers boo Republican Iraq war propaganda | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Murdoch’s Fox News discriminates against women | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Trillion-dollar F-35 stealth fighter, latest disaster | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch’s witchhunt against Scottish socialist Tommy Sheridan | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: NATO ‘covered up’ killing Afghan civilians | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: World War I start, don´t celebrate, interview | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Korean religious cults’ pseudo-peace movements | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Iraq war re-start, satire | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Vote Green party, British fashion designer Vivienne Westwood says | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Stop cooperation with Bahraini, Saudi dictatorships | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: American football quarterback Colin Kaepernick protests police killings | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: USA: Fox News silent on Iraq war now when ‘Mission Accomplished’ proves untrue | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Fox censors anti war remark by actress Sally Field | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Rupert Murdoch, warmonger, phone hacker, burglar … and mystic? | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: WikiLeaks founder arrested | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: American journalist William Arkin resigns from pro-war NBC | Dear Kitty. Some blog