Iran, in Today's News 03.18.10

Iran.   Michael Hoffman has an absolute must-read on false-flag operations against Iran. He comments on an article by Paul Craig Roberts which Hoffman reprints.

Roberts refers to an article, "The Rogue Nation" by Phillip Giraldi, in his commentary. Rogue Nation is also a must-read and may be viewed here.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.18.10

Afghanistan. The media seems to think that there is little to say about Afghanistan since Obama made his troop decision. But, in actuality, significant events are occurring there which indicate Obama is headed for big trouble.

It was minimally reported today that the Taliban fought government forces in the streets of Kabul on Monday. From the AP, "Taliban militants launched a series of attacks Monday in the heart of the Afghan capital, prompting fierce gun-battles with Afghan troops after a suicide bomber blew himself up near the presidential palace.

"It was the latest attack showing the insurgents' ability to penetrate the heavily secured city, even near the presidential palace and government ministries. The attackers also targeted the Defense Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the luxury Serena Hotel, which is frequented by Westerners."

Attacks on the central organs of political power in a capital city usually occur near the end of a civil war. That the Taliban could pull off such an attack and maintain it for a day or so, indicates that the Afghan government's isolation is near complete. No amount of American troops can save the regime in such a situation. For example, several hundred thousand US troops could not prevent the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government.

It will take some time for all this to play out, but the handwriting is clearly on the wall for those who want to look. Certainly the brain-trust of the Obama administration is aware of the deteriorating conditions throughout Afghanistan. Their lack of response would tend to indicate that they have no viable options.

The US does have one option, and it is a scary one. One way to solve Afghanistan is to subsume that war into a larger war. Turning Pakistan and Afghanistan into one big war zone is one possibility. Another is the Israeli proposal to militarily attack Iran, which would precipitate a wider mideast war.

The Obama team is content for now to try to disrupt Iran through CIA intrigues and through supporting opposition elements, in the hope of an Iranian regime change. But, when that particular gambit turns up little, Obama will be faced with the Israeli alternative.

The media may give the impression that the world is basically stable, but the reality is that a big-time war is close at hand. 

Iran, in Today's News 01.09.10

Iran. In a Wall Street Journal article today titled "U.S. Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition" the following sentence occurs:

"In recent weeks, senior [Iranian] Green Movement figures -- who have been speaking at major Washington think tanks....."

And what do you think this means? It does not mean they were 'speaking.' It means these figures have been meeting with the senior cryptocracy brain trust to plan the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

The headline is misleading. The US is not shifting focus. Its focus has always been to create, fund, and build an internal opposition within Iran that seeks to take power. The US call for negotiations with the Iranian regime has simply been cover to give the CIA and others the opportunity to go to work within Iran.

In other words, the US policy has been to foment civil war in Iran. A senior State Department official is quoted in the article, "Do we expect the current government to be overthrown? I wouldn't say that at the current time. But a crack can certainly grow over time."

The media likes to make a big point about the alleged differences between Israel's orientation to Iran and the US's. But there is no difference. Both policies are for the destruction of the Iranian government and its replacement with a regime that Israel can tolerate. The US negotiation gambit and its sponsorship of an internal opposition only lay the basis for the Israeli desire for military action against Iran.

The US and Israel are playing with fire, of course. In the context of several civil wars or pre-civil war situations throughout the mid-east, to try to overthrow the Iranian government can have widespread and unpredictable consequences. Any dramatic occurrence could result in a full mid-east war on multiple fronts. Russia and China could not ignore such a development.

Pray that these mad-men will exercise some restraint.

[By the way, the Iranian movement calling itself "green" is a give-away of American involvement. Giving the movement a color-name is the standard way of providing an intervention with personality and to make it easier to identify with. The parallel is the Soros-CIA intervention in the Ukraine under the Orange revolution.] 

Yemen, in Today's News 01.08.10

Yemen. In case no one has noticed, the United States and the world are edging ever closer to an all-out mid-east war. The slope to this disaster is becoming more and more slippery. Only major policy changes by key governments and by the Church will prevent this turning point in human history.

The United States or Israel are at war or engaged in a war-like intervention in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, and now Yemen. In addition, many mid-east governments are not partial to the US and Israel, such as Syria, Algeria, and Lebanon. and to some degree Egypt. The client states of Saudi Arabia and Jordan are quite vulnerable to influence by Arab popular pressure. 

This volatile mix is in effect waiting for the fuse to burn down. It would not take much to transform these engagements into a general war. An invasion of Iran could do it, as could any number of unpredictable events. 

What unifies the various regimes and combatants is militant opposition to Israel and thereby to the United States for its unqualified support to the Israeli foreign policy. Israel actually is surrounded by the sea on one side and all these battles in a wide semi-circle on the other. A provocation by the US or Israel could easily inflame these struggles into a generalized war.

So far, oil is not directly involved in the various mid-east confrontations. But if it were, as when the Saudis become militarily involved or feel threatened, then a most powerful dimension will be added. China, for one, would become very interested and directly engaged to protect its oil supply. Russia, with its soft underbelly bordering the mideast, is already staking out its position in case of dramatic developments.

In short, the Israelis are steering the world into a cataclysmic war that would forever change the face of the world. World Wars I and II would seem like trifles in comparison to a mid-east war involving all the world's major powers and the billions of Arabs and their governments.

Can anything stop this growing possibility? Were the United States to develop and follow a foreign policy that actually was in the national interests, this war-threat would end immediately. But, such is not going to happen. Decades of work by Zionists have transformed the American government into a colony-like status to Israel. The web of control is so complete that any attempt to break out of it, would be instantly thwarted.

The other possibility is the Church. Shouldn't the leaders of the Church and the various Catholic organizations be sounding the alarm that the Christ-haters of this world are pushing the planet into a conflagration that will set back humanity? Shouldn't these leaders explain to the faithful and the rest of the population that the policies of Israel and the United States will inevitable lead to another world war, this time of far graver consequences. Shouldn't these leaders use their influence to help stay the hands of the mad men who think nothing of starting such a war? Shouldn't these leaders call the faithful to prayer, asking almighty God to help us prevent this disaster?

The Church leaders instead act according to an accommodationist policy. The Vatican seems to be on a permanent effort to make nice to the Israelis and their rabbinic spiritual leaders. Barely a month goes by without the Pope saying something positive about the religion inspired by the Talmud or actually visiting a synagog or some shrine of holocaustianity.

This orientation will spell doom for the human race because it forfeits the Church's power as the prime human instrument to stop diabolic actions designed to destroy God's creation. Prayers that the hierarchy of Catholicism will see the light before it is too late are much needed.

Israel, in Today's News 10.06.09

Israel. One of the risks taken by Obama in delaying an attack on Iran, is that the Israelis will take action anyway that would precipitate American involvement in militarily confronting Iran. Obama is undoubtedly acutely aware of this danger. If he is smart he is having the US intelligence agencies working extra hours to keep track of what the Israelis are up to.

But, as time marches on, the Israelis become more and more frustrated with Obama trying to buy time as he pretends to negotiate with the Iranians. One can be sure that Israel has a plan to force the US into an attack on Iran. Sooner or later, and sooner is getting closer and closer, they will implement their plan.

On October 5 the US took an unprecedented action to deter Israel. The US actually abstained on a resolution before the United Nations Security Council that Israel give up its nuclear weapons!! Diplomatic circles were stunned by the US failure to defend Israeli nuclear weapons, as they had done repeatedly in the past. Usually the US votes 'no' on such resolutions, ignoring the nuclear weapons in Israel while demanding Iran produce none.

In effect, the US was making a shot across the bow of Israel. The message certainly was that if Israel attacks Iran directly or indirectly, the backing of US is not assured. 

The US did this because they are getting worried about Israel's plans. As a discussion piece in today's Wall Street Journal (page A21) said, "Also factoring in the administration's thinking are reports that the Israelis are in the final stages of planning an attack on Iran's nuclear installations." [!!!!!!!!]

Be prepared for all kinds of fireworks on the Iran issue in the next few months.

BTW, the strain between Obama and Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu was shown in Netanyahu characterizing Obama over an accidentally open microphone as "worse than Chamberlain" .

Iran, in Today's News 10.02.09

Iran. The United States-Israel hype about Iran's potential for nuclear weapons is all a ruse, of course. The real goal of these two powers is to bring Iran to its knees so that Israel has predominant power in the middle east. The nuclear-weapons accusation is just the best way of covering the real aim.

But, since the accusation is false, it is relatively easy for Iran to defuse the propaganda. They just stick to the facts and its disarms the opposition.

Case in point is today's reported events. Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit the now famous 'secret' new nuclear facility that got Obama and his buddies so excited a few days ago. Because there is no nuclear weapons production or potential at the site, the inspection should go moderately well and Iran will have undermined the recent widely trumpeted charges of secret facilities.

One can almost hear the frustration of the war planners. Here they had a perfectly nice little justification for war building up, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad goes and spoils everything.

Another case in point. Iran has agreed to transfer the bulk of its nuclear fuel to other countries to enrich it. This decision so upset the war-planners that the Wall Street Journal couldn't help editorializing that Iran was faking it. Here's a first-paragraph quote from the page one WSJ article, "The officials said the surprise move could temporarily reduce Tehran's potential to make bombs, but analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program."

Translated: they completely out-maneuver us, but we are  going to keep saying the same things anyway.

Iran, in Today's News 09.28.09

Iran. One of the pleasures of political commentary is that every once in a while Hillary Clinton will step forward with some stupidity. Clinton can be relied upon to provide comic relief to the serious business of world politics.

Clinton never does anything unless it is strictly in her own interests. Now she has figured out that Iran is a big deal and will provide many opportunities to get her face before the public. So, she steps in on the action.

Yesterday, she horned in on a media conference by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Her amateur contribution: She said to the Iranian government, "Don't assert it [peaceful intentions], prove it..." Someone should tell Hillary that this kind of bluster is best suited to a high school political campaign.

And just how is Iran supposed to prove it? "...they can open their entire system to the kind of extensive investigation that the facts call for." [!!!] Extensive investigation of the entire system?????? Is there a country in the world that would be so out of their mind as to allow this? Let alone a country that everyday has to listen to threats from Israel and the United States to destroy their country as it exists today. The only way any government would permit this is if they were militarily smashed.

The reaction that could be expected from the Iranians would be some raucous guffaws. Members of the State Department and Obama's team probably also got a few laughs out it. The Obama-team resolution to keep Clinton away from the central issues could only be reinforced by her remarks.

Iran, in Today's News 09.26.09

Iran. Many newspapers today ran major stories on President Obama's statement on Iran. He and the leaders of France and Britain charged that (in the words of the Wall Street Journal) "Iran has built a secret nuclear facility designed to give the Islamic republic the ability to build an atomic weapon..." The Wall Street Journal comments that this revelation "significantly raises the stakes in the West's intensifying face-off with Tehran."

Revelation it isn't. The US has known about this reactor for a few years, according to the WSJ. So, why is the US now making a big deal about this?

Well, once again Obama got caught in an awkwardness. He too had been keeping the reactor secret so he could use it to convince the 'allies' of the danger of Iran. But then Iran decided to report the construction to the world nuclear regulatory bodies. Suddenly Obama's little secret would be public knowledge and it would be ruined as tool to convince others.

So, what to do? Simple, Obama decided to beat Iran to the punch. He made his dramatic statement before Iran could explain itself.

By the way, the reactor in question is a typical reactor for producing energy. It has no immediate capacity for weapons production.

The US says that the fact that Iran was hiding the facility and heavily reinforcing it indicates its non-peaceful intended use.

Well, gee, it that so hard to figure out? If major military powers in the world were threatening to bomb my nuclear facilities, I'd certainly go out of my way to protect a new one under construction.

This commentary is not to minimize the growing danger of a military attack on Iran. Obama, not wanting to attack now without preparation, has tried to buy time by projecting negotiations and setting deadlines far off in the future. This little maneuver has grown thin as time runs out on his deadlines. Thus he is brought back to Israel's plan to attack now.

The differences between Israel and the US never really existed. The 'differences' were just the media playing along trying to convince everyone that the US is really an independent force on this question. But now we are beginning to see that the US is once again supporting fully the foreign policy of Israel.

*******

Today's Wall Street Journal has a major, major article, "The Iran Attack Plan." The article details who should attack what in Iran, when, and by what means. The article has a map of the Iranian facilities and individual descriptions of each plant.

The publication of such an article underlines the growing danger of an attack on Iran by the US and Israel. The publication indicates that the US and Israel are very close to taking this decisive step that would seriously and permanently disrupt world relations and world peace, such as it is.

Iran, in Today's News 09.24.09

Iran. Today's Wall Street Journal headline: "Obama Gains Russian Support on Iran". The reality is actually quite a bit different.

The Obama administration announced a week or so ago that the US would unilaterally abandon its effort to build missile interceptors and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. The goal was to make a concession to the Russians in the hope that Russia would modify its support of Iran. Russian support to Iran is a major obstacle to US and Israel efforts to confront Iran. It would be a help to the US if the Russians did nothing when the US and Israel attack Iran.

This diplomatic maneuver was to bring results this week when Obama and Russian President Medvedev met at the G-20 meeting.

So, what happened? The Russians agreed....to a proposal that they had already supported!!!! "The US and its allies [read Israel] have decided to present Iran once more with a version of an offer they have made previously: They would halt efforts to enact new economic sanctions against Tehran in exchange for it freezing it production of nuclear fuel..." This stance is know as the 'freeze for freeze' proposal.

So, in other words, what the US achieved with its overture to the Russians was absolutely nothing!!! Even worse Obama managed to give away a key bargaining chip in exchange for zilch. Experienced negotiators must be stunned by the incompetence of Obama and his team.

The WSJ and others in the media are portraying this development as a great victory for Obama. "President Obama scored a potential victory in his diplomatic engagement with Iran by gaining what appeared to be a commitment from...Medvedev..."

Note that the puff language to build up Obama is qualified by 'potential victory' and 'appeared to be'. The heavy thinkers on the cryptocracy team know what happened (or didn't happen), but they must nonetheless build up their spokesman Obama.

The truth is this little diplomatic adventure was debacle. The cryptocracy for one and the Israelis for two are not going to be pleased. Their desired war on Iran remains stalled.

Iran, in Today's News 09.17.09

Iran. The preparations for a United States confrontation with Iran are growing more serious. The US is now trying to clear some of the obstacles to the US-Israel plan to bring Iran to its knees. One of the principle obstacles is Russia's support to Iran.

On September 16 the Wall Street Journal ran a story covered by all the media. The headline: "Medvedev Blasts Russian System." If one reads the article one learns that Medvedev did no such thing. His criticisms of Russian corruption, etc., were the same as Putin's, with whom Medvedev says he talks regularly. The article implies a break between Putin and Medvedev which exists only in the imagination of the author.

What's going on here? Believe it or not, but the cryptocracy's employees actually think that they can drive a wedge between Medvedev and Putin, by indicating to Medvedev that if he plays ball they will be helpful to him. Somehow the foreign policy experts think they have a better chance of neutralizing Russia on the Iran issue with Medvedev. Fat chance.

Then today, the White House leaked that the "US to Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield" (page one headline in the Wall Street Journal). The US is now abandoning the Bush Administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The idea is to please Russia, but the 'allies' will be infuriated. That the US is willing to make such a dramatic move indicates how seriously the US wants the confrontation with Iran and wants it with no opposition from Russia.

The message to Medvedev is pretty clear: the US is willing to make big efforts to show that Russia is better off under him than Putin. The US may have some intelligence to show that these maneuvers may actually work, but success is highly doubtful. The US actions seem to be a fairly desperate attempt to get Russia out of the way.

Israel keeps pushing the US to end Iran's nuclear efforts and to secure Israel's position of dominance in the middle east. The pressure keeps mounting and Obama's time to make some sort of decision grows short. 

The decision to confront Iran is a 'lose-lose' proposition, but Obama has little choice than to go ahead. 

These American maneuvers are part of the build up to a meeting between Medvedev and Obama at the G-20 meeting next week.

Obama, in Today's News 09.15.09

Obama. The left tends to see Obama in messiah-like terms and the right tends to see him as evil-incarnate. The truth is that Obama is just a central employee of the cryptocracy and he does what they want. And right now his handling of several of the cryptocracy's projects is no doubt causing the cryptocracy some displeasure.

Twice in one week Obama has had to give speeches that he shouldn't have had to make. It is always a sign of trouble when the top guy has to intervene to try to salvage a project that a subordinate should have handled. Obama last week tried to save the health plan in a speech to congress and the nation, and to save the reorganization of financial regulation in a speech on Wall Street.

Both projects are high priority for the cryptocracy and both are stumbling badly. So bad that Obama is trying to make a last desperate gamble to save them. Especially with the health issue Obama is staking his political capital. His prospects for success are not great.

The health reform is now tied up in a myriad of disputes, objections, partisan politics, public opposition, and you name it. About all that Obama and the cryptocracy can hope for is to pass something that gets the health reform off the ground.

Obama's speech on Wall Street yesterday appealed for support for his plan to transfer powers to the Fed. Not one CEO of a top bank attended his talk in an amazing display of opposition and lack of respect!! That dramatic rudeness just about says all that needs to be said about Obama's prospects on financial regulation reform.

The cryptocracy precipitated the economic crisis in part to establish an atmosphere that would better enable adoption of the health reform and the financial re-regulation. Both reforms are crucial for the cryptocracy to ensure the security of their wealth-producing set-up. Obama's failure to shepherd these projects to a successful conclusion has to cause pause for thought about Obama among the cryptocrats.

Obama's difficulties are complicated by two other situations: Afghanistan and Iran. Very soon Obama will have to make a decision on how to salvage the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. Any decision he makes will increase his problems. If he sends in more troops the American people and the left of his own party will object. If he leaves the situation to its own devices, he faces the possibility of a soviet-type debacle in Afghanistan.

The cryptocracy would very much like to see Iran brought to its knees so that the cryptocracy's mother country, Israel, will have dominance in the middle east. While the US and Israel both agree on what should be done to Iran in the long run, some tactical differences have emerged under the Obama regime. Probably what has happened is that Obama has far too many central projects to be able to spend time and effort on Iran. Thus he has consistently pushed for negotiations to gain some time.

Israel, on the other, hand is becoming quite impatient. Israel has, in effect, given the US until spring 2010 to do something or Israel itself will militarily attack Iran. Today's Wall Street Journal has a column by Bret Stephens, "Obama is Pushing Israel Toward War." Stephens diligently puts together all the Israeli threats to the US if the US doesn't act. The column is meant as a shot-across-the-bow for Obama.

********

Incidentally, Obama's speech on Wall Street contains a quote that is pure bluster and also almost a declaration of war on the street. "Hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses."

One can almost hear the central bankers thinking, "Who the hell does guy think he is? 'Hear my words.' Give me a break!!!!" 

Behind the bluster, though, Obama is asserting that he is more powerful than the street, and he intends to exert that power. One wonders how he thinks he can carry this threat out. At the very minimum he has made permanent enemies of the financial chiefs, and he will face a stupendous political fight.

Israel, in Today's News 07.28.09

Israel. Headline on page A8 of today's Wall Street Journal: "U.S., Israel Divide on Iran Nuclear Program".

The media and various commentators are working hard to convince the public that there is a growing difference between Israel and the US over how to handle Iran. The headline refers to a news conference with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, where they did not say exactly the same thing.

The talk of differences, however, is all baloney. What we have here is a classic case of good-cop/bad-cop. The US tries to inveigle Iran into negotiations and Israel rattles sabers. The two sides support the single, agreed-to aim of bringing Iran to its knees. The US and Israel agree that Iran cannot be allowed to become a pole of attraction in the mideast, and cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

At the present time the US Mideast Envoy, the National Security Advisor, the White House Mideast Advisor, and Gates are in Israel. They are not there to take in the sights or make a religious pilgrimage. This concentration of American decision-makers in Israel can only mean they are there to discuss the next steps in the confrontation with Iran.

Israel may be a little nervous because it seems to some of their leaders that Washington is over-playing its good-cop role, but don't be fooled -- each side knows exactly what the other is doing.

The media's cry of differences sells papers and programs, but it greatly exaggerates what are just tactical differences.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 07.23.09

Hillary Clinton. Clinton's foot-in-mouth tour of Asia continues. Today's display of total ineptitude involves her statement on Iran in which she managed to anger the Arab client-countries, Iran, Israel, and Asian nations, and embarrassed the Obama administration.

Wall Street Journal: "...Hillary Clinton caused waves in the Middle East during her visit to Southeast Asia, telling a Thai television program that Washington could extend a 'defense umbrella' to protect its Arab allies if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons."

"...her comments...left the impression among some Middle East diplomats Wednesday that the U.S. envisions having to find ways to defend its Persian Gulf allies from a nuclear-armed Iran -- rather than preventing Tehran from ever getting that far."

Washington tried to spin her statement into something supporting what Obama has said, but the attempt was pretty lame, and not worth quoting.

Israel, of course, was none-too-happy. The minister of intelligence and atomic energy said that Clinton's remarks indicated the U.S. had "already come to terms with a nuclear Iran." He added, "I think that's a mistake." Those who can read Israeli diplomatic language will realize that Israel saying the U.S. has made a mistake is tantamount to accusing the U.S. of betrayal. Which, of course, is a serious, serious charge coming from Israel.

Clinton may well have been expressing where Obama wants to go on Iran policy, but her communication handicap has managed to put Obama in a very tight spot.

Clinton is so used to having a back-up squad to tailor and explain her remarks that she feels she can just shoot off her mouth anytime. But there is no such squad now; she's on her own; and Obama must be losing patience.

What will she do next? Stay tuned.

Iran, in Today's News 07.10.09

Iran. Today's Wall Street Journal page one headline; "Protesters Return to the Streets of Tehran."

Memo to Iran protesters: It may be in your better interests to recall that when push came to shove in Georgia and the Ukraine, the American sponsors of those protests disappeared, leaving the protesters high and dry.

Iran, in Today's News 07.08.09

Iran. President Obama over the weekend gave interviews in which he, in effect, rebuffed Vice President Biden's remarks on July 5 that indicated a change in US policy toward military action against Iran. 

Obama's statements seem to be pro forma, and nothing more. It is the old game of asserting something baldly, and then 'retracting' it via a more reasoned statement that still supports the original. Biden has an inability to state things without causing controversy, and so Obama had to 'clarify' the US position.

The United States still is not ready to militarily attack Iran, but it is proceeding with preparations behind the scenes and in cooperation with Israel. This is shown by a statement made by the top US military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday.

Adm. Mullen, according to today's Wall Street Journal (page A9)"...told a Washington think tank that Iran was likely just one to three years away from successfully building a nuclear weapon, which means that U.S. and its allies are running out of time to persuade Iran to abandon it nuclear program."

Further WSJ: "In his remarks Tuesday, Adm. Mullen said that the U.S. is keeping all options on the table as it worked to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, 'including certainly military options.'" [Emphasis added.]

WSJ: "Still, Adm. Mullen made clear that an Israeli strike was far more likely than an American one."

Clear enough? Be prepared at any time for any option from the current diplomatic busywork, to an Israeli military attack, to a US military attack.

And now for the double-standard and a full dose of hypocrisy. All this hullabaloo is over Iran and nuclear weapons.  And yet, (WSJ) "Earlier this week, an Israeli submarine believed to be carrying nuclear-tipped missiles returned to the Mediterranean after crossing the Red Sea and moving towards Iran. An Israeli official said in an interview that the maneuver was meant to show Iran that 'they are not beyond our reach.'" [Emphasis added.]

So, it is forbidden for Iran to try to produce nuclear weapons, but not only is it okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but is also okay for them to sail around the mideast threatening to actually use them.

This is the double-standard epitomized. And it is also more than alarming that Israel is so close to using nuclear weapons. (See Michael Collins Piper's book, "The Golem," published by American Free Press, for background on Israel's nuclear threat.)

Iran, in Today's News 07.06.09

Iran. Today's Wall Street Journal (page A8): "Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden suggested that Washington wouldn't stand in the way of a possible Israeli-led military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities."

Biden sometimes shoots off his mouth, but in this case he seems to be articulating America's slight shift in policy. 

Now that the American and British intelligence operations have had their fun in the Iranian post-election period, it is now time to move on to a new stage of the confrontation with Iran.

Note that WSJ paraphrases Biden as saying "Israeli-led." Israeli-led means the involvement of more than Israel. And the only more-than that is available is the United States. Even if Israel bombs Iran by itself, Biden's statement commits the US to full participation in the aftermath. And Biden's statement leaves plenty of room for the US to be completely involved in a military attack on Iran. The question is when.

Iran, in Today's News 06.25.09

Iran. The media seems all enthralled by an alleged 'toughening' by President Obama toward Iran in the last few days. As usual the media provides no insights whatsoever; it just repeats what the White House tells them.

Nothing much has changed re: Iran. The US is simply taking advantage of the post-election situation in Iran to score a few propaganda points. The basic orientation of the US toward Iran remains, which is to engage them in diplomatic busy work until the US is ready to take more aggressive action. Israel's orientation remains to attack Iran militarily at the first opportunity. Obama's new rhetoric can have the effect of making Israel feel a little closer to its goal, but Israel knows that US will not budge on military action until it is ready. (Or until the US is forced into action by some unforeseen event.) 

Iran, in Today's News 06.17.09

Iran. It is difficult to say something meaningful and accurate about the post-election demonstrations in Iran because sources of actual fact are lost in the media frenzy. Michael Hoffman has an article today on the media's hypocrisy in relation to Iran.  It may be read here.  

Here are some random comments on the situation:

First, demonstrations like this don't just occur. Even if there is popular support for a cause, it takes organization by someone(s) to bring off and sustain the demonstrations. The media doesn't report who these someone's are. The media confines itself to reporting that the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the defeated candidate, are attending. But who brought them out demonstrating? Was it Mousavi? Not likely because if he were so capable of mobilizing people, it would have been seen earlier.

Second, the media is so biased that it is impossible to determine how much genuine popular support there is. As far as the media is concerned these demonstrations are the biggest 'uprising' since Tiananmen Square. Of course, that event also had some question marks. Heretofore President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has enjoyed wide popular support.

Third, it now becomes a little clearer why the United States was anxious to hold off Israel on an attack on Iran. If the American leaders had some inkling that such demonstrations were going to occur, it is far wiser to promote the demonstrations than to cut them off by military attack.

Fourth, there is always the consideration of who benefits. Mousavi probably will benefit, although there is a lot of water to flow under that bridge yet. The biggest benefactors so far are those who want to cause trouble or overthrow the regime in Iran. Those benefactors, of course, are the United States and Israel.

Fifth, the demonstrations have a remarkable similarity to such events in the Ukraine and Georgia. It is now recognized that the CIA and George Soros-funded forces were quite active in those countries at the time. It will take time to see if the same is true in the Iranian events.

Sixth, the charge of election fraud seems a little weak. After all Ahmadinejad won the election by a 2-1 margin, an enormous amount. Even if there were fraud it would take a giant effort, easily discernible, to create such a winning margin. No such fraud seems evident, and the accusers are remarkably short on details of the supposed fraud. Every election has some fraud, even in the United States (sarcasm). But a little fraud is not going to change a 2-1 margin very much.

The post-election demonstrations in Iran are one of those events where it will take time to determine what really occurred and what it represents. We have to wait for the sources that the media ignores to find their voice to the public.

 

Israel and Iran, in Today's News 06.11.09

Israel and Iran. When we left off from this saga the United States had made clear to Israel that the US is not interested in a direct confrontation with Iran at this time. The Obama administration has enough to do to prevent Pakistan and 

Afghanistan from deteriorating further. Delay in taking on Iran, of course, doesn't hold much interest for Israel. They prefer now. And so, the US has to worry about Israel taking action on their own that would force the US into the confrontation.

Today's WSJ has an opinion piece by John R. Bolton of the American Enterprise Institute titled, "What if Israel Strikes Iran?". The article is mostly a discussion of possible retaliations by Iran in case of an Israeli attack. He then concludes by pointing out that the longer Israel waits to attack the more difficult Israel's predicament becomes.

"Although there is no profit now in complaining that Israel should have struck during the Bush years, the missed opportunity is palpable. For the remainder of Mr. Obama's term, uncertainty about his administration's support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and play it for all it's worth. This is yet another reason why Israel's risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time."

Bolton and Israel need have no worries about US support. There is complete agreement on attacking Iran, just a disagreement on when. But, Bolton's article makes a case for action alone by Israel now. He writes to do otherwise only complicates Israel's situation. IOW, the longer Israel waits, the more difficult the eventual attack becomes.

This, of course, is a nightmare for Obama and company. They really dislike the possibility of their freedom of action being taking away by unilateral Israeli action. The American intelligence apparatus therefore is probably working overtime to try to detect any Israeli preparations.

It has happened before and could happen in this situation, that the Israeli preparations (which could included the usual blackmail, intimidation, and bribery) can sway the US to go along with the Israeli plans. So far the US is resisting, using a complaint about Israeli settlements to keep Israel on the defensive.

But, this situation is volatile and could change at any time.

in Today's News 05.20.09

1.  Iran.  Just to ensure that Israel gets the point that the United States is not ready now to take action against Iran, two prominent think tanks issued reports today saying Iran is not an immediate threat.  The reports just happened to be released one day after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting.

The reports were issued by the East-West Institute and by the Rand Corporation.

The cryptocracy is unbelievably transparent.  If the United States was ready to take military action, you can be sure that both these groups would have issued reports justifying the action.

2.  Credit Cards.  The credit card bill now making its way though Congress seems to have some much needed reforms.  The media, however, is reluctant to discuss the costs of the reforms.  Here's what the Wall Street Journal has to say about the price:

"The new rules still allow card companies to raise interest rates on consumer's future charges.  And they will do little to stop banks from cutting credit lines for consumers deemed risky.  Issuers are already increasing rates for swaths of consumers ahead of the new rules as they try to protect against losses."

And:

"As banks look to off-set the loss in revenues from this new law, they will likely scale back their reward programs, bring back annual fees and make promotional offers less attractive, according to industry watchers.  In the long run, the banking industry has said it will have to scale back available credit and raise interest rates for new customers, because banks will have to rework their risk models."

One way or another, the credit card issuers are going to maintain their profits.