Bush may strike Iran near end of term -  15/05/2007 -  by Steve Linde, THE JERUSALEM POST
While arguing that economic sanctions against Teheran still have a chance of bearing fruit, a top strategic expert predicted on Tuesday that the Bush administration could conduct a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities toward the end of its term in office. "I, for one, don't exclude the possibility that the US will act," Shai Feldman, currently director of the Crown Center for Middle East studies at Brandeis University, told an editorial meeting of The Jerusalem Post. 
"My feeling, though, is that if it will act, it will act in the last months of the administration, mostly because I think that they are inclined to try to give the other options the fullest possible chance." US President George W. Bush, still embroiled in the war in Iraq, would be reluctant to take action against Iran until the the latter part of his term, which concludes on January 20, 2009, Feldman said.  "The paradox of this is that the closer you are to a position of being a lame-duck president, the more freedom of action you have," he said.
Feldman, a former head of Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, said he believed that international sanctions were taking their toll on the Iranians. "Right now it seems that the squeeze is not ineffective," he said. "It's not clear at all in my view at this point that the economic sanctions won't work, and I don't mean the formal sanctions by the UN or by the EU, but more the unilateral pressures that the US and key European countries are putting on Iran through the international financial system. "That feeds into lots of discontent within Iran focused on President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad regarding the economic situation." 
Feldman said a debate is still raging in the US over whether to engage in a dialogue with Iran (as advocated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) or continue to isolate it as part of the "axis of evil" (as Vice President Dick Cheney would have it.) "I think that there is incomplete discussion within the US administration on dealing with Iran," he said. "I think there is a monumental debate that is still going on, and it may not be over until January 2009." Sidestepping questions on what Israel should do, he said that while the Iranian issue was always on the table in bilateral talks with the US, this didn't mean that the two countries had synchronized positions. "I think Israel raises this issue with the Americans, and the Americans raise the issue the Israelis, and there is not a JPMG [Joint Political Military Group] meeting in which Iran doesn't come up," he said. "But does this really amount to the two sides coordinating?" 
Coming out in support of a US dialogue with Teheran, Feldman said the American war in Iraq had left Iran "the sole power in the Persian Gulf." Calling himself "a deterrence theorist," he said he was convinced that deterrence could work because there is a clear address in Iran for dialogue, the regime is aware of the costs of war, and it is sensitive to outside forces. "This is not an isolated regime like North Korea and like Saddam was," he said. "It's a regime that's got extremely good sensors and in the past, it has reacted to international pressures." Nevertheless, he added: "If I were the decision-maker, and everything else failed, and if I were presented with a plausible scenario for military interdiction, I would take that action despite my logical analysis that leads me to believe that actually it's more probable than not that we will be able to establish a stable balance of deterrence with Iran." "I would take [the decision] because of the residual uncertainty that my analysis may be wrong."

Countdown to War on Iran - 2007-05-14 - Middle East Online
The United States continues to apply destabilizing pressure on Iran. Europe continues complicit with the US strategy. George Bush has shown no evidence he has given up the idea of attacking Iran. Such an attack would be a disaster for European relations with the Middle East warns Alain Gresh.
Silently, stealthily, unseen by cameras, the war on Iran has already begun. Many sources confirm that the United States, bent on destabilising the Islamic Republic, has increased its aid to armed movements among the Azeri, Baluchi, Arab and Kurdish ethnic minorities that make up about 40% of the Iranian population. ABC News reported in April that the US had secretly assisted the Baluchi group Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), responsible for a recent attack in which some 20 members of the Revolutionary Guard were killed. According to an American Foundation report, US commandos have operated inside Iran since 2004.
President George Bush categorised Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, as the “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address in January 2002. Then in June 2003 he said the US and its allies should make it clear that they “would not tolerate” the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran.
It is worth recalling the context in which these statements were made. President Mohammed Khatami had repeatedly called for “dialogue among civilisations.” Tehran had actively supported the US in Afghanistan, providing many contacts that Washington had used to facilitate the overthrow of the Taliban regime. At a meeting in Geneva on 2 May 2003 between Javad Zaraf, the Iranian ambassador, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s special envoy to Afghanistan, the Tehran government submitted a proposal to the White House for general negotiations on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and security, and economic cooperation. The Islamic Republic said it was ready to support the Arab peace initiative tabled at the Beirut summit in 2002 and help to transform the Lebanese Hizbullah into a political party. Tehran signed the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty on 18 December 2003, which considerably strengthens the supervisory powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but which only a few countries have ratified.
The US administration swept all these overtures aside since its only objective is to overthrow the mullahs. To create the conditions for military intervention, it constantly brandishes “the nuclear threat.” Year after year US administrations have produced alarmist reports, always proved wrong. In January 1995 the director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency said Iran could have the bomb by 2003, while the US defence secretary, William Perry, predicted it would have the bomb by 2000. These forecasts were repeated by Israel’s Shimon Peres a year later. Yet last month, despite Iran’s progress in uranium enrichment, the IAEA considered that it would be four to six years before Tehran had the capability to produce the bomb.
What is the truth? Since the 1960s, long before the Islamic revolution, Iran has sought to develop nuclear power in preparation for the post-oil era. Technological developments have made it easier to pass from civil to military applications once the processes have been mastered. Have Tehran’s leaders decided to do so? There is no evidence that they have. Is there a risk that they may? Yes, there is, for obvious reasons.
During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein’s regime, in breach of every international treaty, used chemical weapons against Iran, but there was no outcry in the US, or in France, against these weapons of mass destruction, which had a traumatic effect on the Iranian people. US troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is surrounded by a network of foreign military bases. Two neighbouring countries, Pakistan and Israel, have nuclear weapons. No Iranian political leader could fail to be aware of this situation.
So how is Tehran to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, a move that would start a new arms race in a region that is already highly unstable and deal a fatal blow to the non-proliferation treaty? Contrary to common assumptions, the main obstacle is not Tehran’s determination to enrich uranium. Iran has a right to do so under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty but it has always said it was prepared to impose voluntary restrictions on that right and to agree to increased IAEA inspections to prevent any possible use of enriched uranium for military purposes.
The Islamic Republic’s fundamental concern lies elsewhere. Witness the agreement signed on 14 November 2004 with France, Britain and Germany, under which Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment temporarily on the understanding that a long-term agreement would “provide firm commitments on security issues.” Washington refused to give any such commitments and Iran resumed its enrichment programme.
The European Union chose not to pursue an independent line but to follow Washington’s lead. The new proposals produced by the five members of the Security Council and Germany in June 2006 contained no guarantee of non-intervention in Iranian affairs. In Tehran’s reply to the proposals, delivered in August, it again “suggest[ed] that the western parties who want to participate in the negotiation team announce on behalf of their own and other European countries, to set aside the policy of intimidation, pressure and sanctions against Iran.” Only if such a commitment was made could negotiations be resumed.
If not, escalation is inevitable. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election as president in June 2005 has not made dialogue any easier, given his taste for provocative statements, particularly about the Holocaust and Israel. But Iran is a big country rich in history and there is more to it than its president. There is much tension within the government and Ahmadinejad had severe setbacks both in the local elections and in elections to the Assembly of Experts in December 2006. There are substantial challenges, economic and social, and forceful demands for more freedom, especially among women and young people. Iranians refuse to be regimented and the only strong card the regime has to win their loyalty is nationalism, a refusal to accept the kind of foreign interference suffered throughout the 20th century.
Despite the disaster in Iraq, there is no indication that Bush has given up the idea of attacking Iran. This is part of his vision of a “third world war” against “Islamic fascism,” an ideological war that can end only in complete victory. The demonisation of Iran, aggravated by the attitude of its president, is part of this strategy and may culminate in yet another military venture. That would be a disaster, not only for Iran and the Arab world, but for western, especially European, relations with the Middle East.
Translated by Barbara Wilson
Alain Gresh is editor of Le Monde diplomatique and a specialist on the Middle East

The War on Iran. By Michel Chossudovsky. Global Research, April 1, 2007  "The US has completed major military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf  within a short distance of Iranian territorial waters.  This naval deployment is meant to "send a warning to Tehran" following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which imposes major economic sanctions on Iran in retaliation for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its uranium enrichment program. The US war games off the Iranian coastline involved the participation of two aircraft carriers, the USS John Stennis carrier group and the USS Eisenhower with some 10,000 navy personnel and more than 100 warplanes. The USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group, which is part of the US Fifth Fleet, entered the Persian Gulf on March 27, escorted by guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54). (see http://www.navy.mil/). USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) and its air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9 is said to have conducted "a dual-carrier exercise" together with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG):     " This marks the first time the Stennis and Eisenhower strike groups have operated together in a joint exercise while deployed to 5th Fleet. This exercise demonstrates the importance the ability for both strike groups to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the Navy's commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in the region." The war games were conducted at a time of diplomatic tension and confrontation following the arrest by Iran of 15 British Royal navy personnel, who were allegedly patrolling inside Iranian territorial waters. The British government, supported by media disinformation, has been using this incident, with a view to creating a situation of confrontation with Iran. The maneuvers coupled with British threats in relation to the unfolding  "Iran Hostage Crisis" constitute an act of provocation on the part of the Anglo-American military alliance..."

Zum Atomstreit mit dem Iran. "Eine Gruppe ehemaliger Diplomaten und die Arbeitsgruppe Friedensforschung an der Universität Kassel haben das Papier »Fünf Minuten vor zwölf« verfaßt, um die Bundeskanzlerin, den Bundesaußenminister und die Bundestagsfraktionen zu einem Überdenken ihrer bisherigen Haltung zum Atomstreit mit dem Iran zu bewegen. Im Streit um das iranische Atomprogramm hat der UN-Sicherheitsrat mit seiner jüngsten Resolution 1747 (2007), den Ton weiter verschärft und das Zeitfenster, das noch für konstruktive Verhandlungen bleibt, enger gemacht. Die in der Resolution vor allem auf Druck der westlichen Staaten genannten Forderungen und Maßnahmen zielen darauf ab, den Iran wirtschaftlich zu treffen. (...) Dies erinnert auf fatale Weise an das Sanktionsregime, das seinerzeit gegen den Irak verhängt wurde und bekanntlich zu unsäglichem Leid unter der Zivilbevölkerung geführt hat. Ähnlich verhält es sich mit dem beschlossenen Waffenembargo, dessen Durchsetzung mittelfristig nur den Sinn haben kann, die militärischen Fähigkeiten Irans zu schwächen. In eine ähnliche Situation war der Irak vor dem US-amerikanisch-britischen Angriff im März 2003 gebracht worden. Mit dem angeblichen Atomwaffenprogramm des Iran haben die militärbezogenen Forderungen des Sicherheitsrats jedenfalls nichts zu tun. (...) Als eine Art Beruhigungspille hat der UN-Sicherheitsrat in seiner Resolution festgelegt, daß die nächste Stufe der Sanktionseskalation »im Rahmen des Artikels 41« UN Charta verbleiben müsse. Artikel 41 sieht keine militärischen Maßnahmen vor (die folgen erst in Artikel 42). Außerdem wird in der Präambel auf einen Antrag islamischer Staaten (u.a. Katar und Indone­sien) hin darauf hingewiesen, daß »die Einrichtung einer von Massenvernichtungswaffen freien Zone im Nahen Osten« den Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit in dieser Region und in der Welt »begünstigen« würde. Eine konkrete Aufforderung an die Staaten des Nahen Ostens, insbesondere an Israel, dieses Ziel umzusetzen, enthält die Resolution allerdings nicht. (...) In letzter Zeit häufen sich die Signale, wonach die militärischen Angriffsplanungen der USA weitgehend abgeschlossen seien und ein Angriff unmittelbar bevorstünde. (...) Die von renommierten Atomwissenschaftlern betriebene »Doomsday Clock«  steht mittlerweile wieder auf fünf Minuten vor zwölf. (...) Der folgende Vorschlag geht von der Notwendigkeit und Möglichkeit aus, die Regelung der Schlüsselelemente der gegenwärtigen Krise miteinander zu verkoppeln. Diese sind einerseits das von der iranischen Führung wahrgenommene Sicherheitsdefizit und andererseits deren wiederholte Versicherung, nicht nach atomaren Waffen zu streben. Die Verkoppelung jener beiden Schlüsselelemente ließe folgende Regelungskonstruktion zu:  1. Der Westen nimmt die iranische Führung beim Wort und geht auf deren erklärte Bereitschaft ein, Urananreicherung nicht für die Entwicklung von Atomwaffen zu nutzen. 2. Als Gegenleistung räumt der Westen die Sicherheitsbefürchtungen der iranischen Führung hinsichtlich einer westlichen Intervention zu ihrem Sturz aus.(...) PD Dr. Michael Berndt, Dr. Ingrid el Masry, Prof. Dr. Werner Ruf, Dr. Arne Seifert, Dr. Peter Strutynski "

Gary Leupp: Iran, a Chronology of Disinformation.    BY Dissident News. (27/03/07) 

Sanctioning the next war of aggression. By Daniel M Pourkesali (26/03/07)  "United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has once again voted to impose yet another sanction on Iran for its failure to suspend a legal activity allowed by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to which Iran remains a signatory state, and that the IAEA itself has found no indication of any nuclear material being diverted to military purposes. As in case of the UNSC resolution 1737 approved in December 2006,  the United States has played a key roll in draft of the language used and the push for its passage, in a continued effort to lay the ground for a planned military action against Iran. In an op-ed  written days following the ratification of resolution 1737, this writer urged readers and all those outraged by the Iraqi deception to stand up and repeatedly make it known, over the deafening megaphones of the war-mongers that:1) Iran is not in breach of any international conventions or agreements. Processing of uranium is entirely within the guidelines of the NPT, and according to the IAEA, all fissile material have been accounted for and confirmed as not diverted to prohibited activities. Above remains true today as it has been since the inception of Iranian nuclear program in 1957 with the help of the United States. In that year a civil nuclear cooperation program was established under the U.S. 'Atoms for Peace' program. In 1959, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor that became operational in 1967 fuelled with highly enriched uranium.  Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place, the Shah approved plans to construct, again with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000. 2) The UN Security Council is not the world and hence does not reflect the will of the 'international community' – it represents the views and positions of 15 nations five of which are undemocratically assigned as permanent members including the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia. The 118 United Nations member states of the Nonaligned Movement have repeatedly confirmed and recognized Iran's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Yet a handful of powerful nations led by the U.S., continue to portray their own narrow and self-serving objectives as the will of the entire international community. 3) Any military action against Iran regardless of the Security Council approval would be ethically and morally void of any legitimacy. The UNSC is the organ of the United Nations charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. Under Chapter Six of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security." The key phrase is endangering of 'international peace and security'. A simple question to ask here is this -- How can a legal activity allowed by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty constitute a danger to world "peace and security" and prompt an international body charged with maintaining the same to impose such unwarranted sanctions that as witnessed in case of Iraq can be used as plain justification to invade and occupy a sovereign nation? But the far grimmer question to ask is – Are we as world citizens going to idly stand by and allow yet another illegal act of treachery be carried out under the pretext of protecting 'international peace and security'?..."

Russischer General erwartet Irak-Szenario - Britische Soldaten gefangen genommen - Iran: Über den Kriegsbeginn wird weiter spekuliert - über Kriegsanlässe nicht (25. März 2007).

Security Council tightens sanctions against Iran over uranium enrichment. By UN News Centre (24/03/07) "...Resolution 1747 reaffirms that Iran must take the steps required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, which has called for a full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities; and ratification and implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's (NPT) Additional Protocol granting the IAEA expanded rights of access to information and sites, as well as additional authority to use the most advanced technologies during the verification process..."

Exclusive: Embassies in Teheran prepare escape plans. By Amir Mizroch, THE JERUSALEM POST (23/03/07) 

US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07.  By Ahmed Al-Jarallah. Arab Times (17/03/07) 

Ungebremst in den Krieg. Von Knut Mellenthin. (17/03/07)

Seymour Hersh on planned invasion of Iran (27/02/07)CNN Report 

Investigative Reporter Seymour Hersh: US Indirectly Funding Al-Qaeda Linked Sunni Groups in Move to Counter Iran 

Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran  (27 February  2007) 

US accused of drawing up plan to bomb Iran. - Guardian (26 February  2007) 

US developing plan to bomb Iran, report says- Israel News, Ynetnews (25 February  2007) 

"An American Strike on Iran is Essential for Our Existence". AIPAC Demands "Action" on Iran. By Gerry Leup (24/02/2007) 

Report: Israel asks for ‘air corridor’ to attack Iran  - Israel News, Ynetnews (24 February  2007) 

"Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT) - by Michel Chossudovsky. Global Research. (21 February  2007) 

StratCom already planning pre-emptive strike on Iran (21 February  2007) 

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed. BBC NEWS | Middle East | (20 February  2007) +  Broadcast  BBC News

American preparations for invading Iran are complete. By Dan Plesch - New Statesman (19 February  2007) 

The US propaganda campaign against Iran. By Jeremy R. Hammond - Online Journal Contributing Writer (16 February 2007) "The US government has stepped up its rhetoric against Iran this week with a presentation held in Baghdad designed to support the claim that, as worded by President Bush last month, “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.”[1] But, as the Washington Post observed, “The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the ‘highest levels’ of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops.”[3] That conclusion was admittedly an “inference,” and the defense analyst present acknowledged the inconclusiveness of the evidence, saying, “The smoking gun of an Iranian standing over an American with a gun, it’s never going to happen.”[4] The reason for the buzz, as the Post also accurately noted, was that, “Although the administration has made many assertions about Iran’s nuclear program, its role in Iraq and its ties to groups on the State Department’s terrorism list, the U.S. government has never publicly offered evidence proving the allegations.” The presentation was the first attempt by the government to offer what it regards as evidence to substantiate the claims being made. In the spotlight was the “explosively formed penetrator,” or EFP, made from a cylinder of PVC pipe. The EFP projects a slug of metal when it explodes and has components that require precision machining, which, according to the officials, links the weapons to Iran, since “We have no evidence that this has ever been done in Iraq.”[5] They offered no evidence it had ever been done in Iran, either, though we may assume Iranians would be capable of doing so. Of course, Iraqis are likely capable of doing so, as well. An article in Jane’s Intelligence Review last month reported that the required tools “can easily be found in Iraqi metalworking shops and garages.” The author of the article, Michael Knights, told IPS, “I’m surprised that they haven’t found evidence of making EFPs in Iraq. That doesn’t ring true for me.”[6] The existing administration convinced the public of the need for war against Iraq by invoking images of a “mushroom cloud” and said Iraq was close to developing a nuclear bomb. There is no slight irony, as Patrick Cockburn noted in the Independent, that “Washington is now saying Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.”[7] Also offered as evidence were mortars and rocket-propelled grenades said to have come from Iran. The argument that EFP components and other weapons ostensibly manufactured in Iran constitute evidence of Iranian government involvement assumes that they can’t be obtained through the black-market.[8] This is a dubious assumption. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged to reporters two days after the presentation that the case “does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.”[9] ran has consistently denied the charges that it supports attacks against US troops. In response to the most recent effort, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini observed, “The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence.” The allegations are, needless to say, reminiscent of government claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was intent on collaborating with the al Qaeda terrorist organization to use them against the US. In the PowerPoint presentation offered to journalists, entitled “Iranian Support for Lethal Activity in Iraq,” references are made to “extremist groups” rather than specifying whether the groups supposedly being armed by Iran are Sunni or Shiite.[10] The US is struggling with a predominately Sunni resistance movement in Iraq. Iran is a Shiite country friendly to the majority population of Iraq who share that faith. The government propped up by US forces is dominated by Shiites, and the death squads principally target Sunnis. As Iranian leaders have noted, it is in Iran’s best interest to promote a stable Shiite-dominated government in Iraq. As Patrick Cockburn noted, the evidence presented “implies the Shiites have been at war with the U.S., when in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.”[11] What is interesting about the framework for discussion of Iranian support for attacks on US troops in Iraq is the underlying assumption that it would be most heinous for Iran to involve itself with its next-door neighbor. The US, on the other hand, has every right to interfere, politically and militarily, in the affairs of the Mesopotamian country on the other side of the world. This declared right for the US to use violence to meet political ends (which, incidentally, meets the definition of terrorism) is never questioned in Washington or the corporate media, while the conjecture about Iranian involvement in Iraq rages on. An alternative framework for discussion is possible. It could be assumed that the same standards must apply to the US as to Iran. But that would be unthinkable. The US is instead absurdly portrayed as the defender of Iraq, struggling to keep other parties from destabilizing the country. Iraq is preposterously “the front line” in the “war on terrorism” as a result of waging a “war on terrorism” against Iraq. Aside from claims of Iranian support for attacks on US troops in Iraq, the government has also charged that Iran is intent on producing nuclear weapons and the president has declared that “all options are on the table” for dealing with the alleged threat, including the use of military force, presumably in the form of air strikes against targets inside Iran.[12]  Evidence that Iran has military intentions for its nuclear program is scant, however. When Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, traveled to Belgium this week, the Western media largely noted his comment that “full transparency” was required from Iran. Ignored were other remarks he also made, just the most recent reiteration from the IAEA of the lack of evidence supporting US government allegations: “I don’t see a military solution of the Iranian issue. First of all, as far as we know what Iran has now today is knowledge. We do not know that Iran has the industrial capacity to enrich uranium. We don’t know, we haven’t seen indication or concrete proof of a nuclear weapons program. So I don’t see that people talk about a military solution. I don’t know what they mean by that. You cannot bomb knowledge as I said before. I think it would also be completely counterproductive.”[13]  But then the predicted consequences didn’t stop the US government from invading Iraq, and we should not presume that an attack on Iran is off the table, particularly when we are repeatedly reminded otherwise. Any such attack would certainly be counterproductive. One predictable result would be Iran’s expulsion of the IAEA and withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And if Iran currently has no intention of making a bomb, an attack would virtually guarantee that the effort would get underway, underground and without international oversight, just as occurred after Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. But besides being “counterproductive,” like the invasion of Iraq it would also be a crime; in fact, as defined at Nuremberg, “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” But that’s an inconvenient truth many are reluctant to include in the accepted framework...." 

Nuclear War against Iran. By Michel Chossudovsky. Global Research (3 January  2007)

Iran offered ‘to make peace with Israel’ in 2003. By  Gareth Porter (26. Mai 2006) 

Falschmeldung? Na wenn schon!  Von Knut Mellenthin.  (23.Mai.2006 ) 

Mediale Kriegsvorbereitung - Rassismus-Vorwurf gegen Iran. (20. Mai 2006) 

Israel and Iran: Ideological Foes or Strategic Rivals? ( 9 May 2006) Lecture  by Dr. Trita Parsi  (Video -1h 1min 59 sec)

THE IRAN PLANS. By SEYMOUR M. HERSH (18 April 2006) 

President Bush's statement: nuclear strike option is "on the table" (18 April 2006) 

Pragmatische Außenpolitik, unerträgliche Propaganda. Der iranische Präsident und die Haltung Teherans zum Staat Israel. Was Ahmadinedschad wirklich sagte und was nicht. Von Knut Mellenthin (7. April 2006)

Der Krieg gegen den Iran hat längst begonnen - Israel von der Landkarte löschen - Über die angeblichen Äußerungen des iranischen Präsidenten Ahmadinedschad" eine Medienanalyse von Anneliese Fikenscher und Andreas Neumann (19. März 2006). (English Version: Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Of The Map - Does He Deny Te Holocaust?)

Iran was not referred to the Security Council for Noncompliance. By Mike Whitney. "ICH" - 02/21/06

The US war with Iran has already begun.   (20 June 2005) - Former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter stated: "...The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier. This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past. It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question. But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran. As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.  But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.  As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream. The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities. The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase. President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran. The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations. It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror. But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran. The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran. But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran. In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence. No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated. A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran. US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan. Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan. Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003. America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere. Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States. Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003. We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran." [Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.]

Will Iran Be Next? By Mark Gaffney: Information Clearing House -   (05.08. 2003)  "Those who have hoped that a U.S. military victory in Iraq would somehow bring about a more peaceful world are in for a rude awakening. The final resolution of this war and the U.S. occupation of Iraq will likely not be the end, rather, only the prelude to a succession of future crises: in Kashmir, Syria, North Korea, and Iran. This article will focus primarily on the latter case. In the coming months the United States and its ally Israel will either accede to the existence of an Iranian nuclear power program, or take steps to prevent it. At the eye of the storm is Iran’s nuclear power plant at Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, currently under construction. The reactor is scheduled for completion later this year. Its nuclear fuel rods will then be delivered. By June 2004 it should be fully operational. The controversial project has been in the works for more than a quarter century. As it nears completion, tensions between Iran and the U.S./Israel are sure to rise. Iran is a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which affirms the right of states in good standing to develop nuclear power for peaceful use. Although there is no evidence Iran has yet violated the NPT, the U.S. and Israel believe that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. This is the crux of the problem. And two recently discovered Iranian nuclear sites, at Arak and at Natanz, have only heightened suspicions. It is very possible--some would say probable--that the U.S., possibly in conjunction with Israel, will launch a "preventive" raid and destroy the Bushehr reactor before it goes on line. Such a raid would be fateful for the region and the world. It would trigger another Mideast war, and possibly a confrontation with Russia, with effects that are difficult to predict. A war with Iran might bring about the collapse of the NPT, lead to a new arms race, and plunge the world into nuclear chaos. Such a crisis holds the potential to bring the world to the nuclear brink. This article will review the background, and provide an analysis. I will discuss the reactor at Bushehr first, then the other suspect sites..."