From info at j-n-v.org Wed Jul 16 11:52:14 2008 From: info at j-n-v.org (Justice Not Vengeance) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:52:14 +0100 Subject: [JNV] Israeli threats against Iran / Justice for Iraq conference Message-ID: 1) Israeli threats against Iran 2) Justice for Iraq conference on Saturday, London ----- 1) Israeli threats against Iran Dear friends This is a short note about the recent sabre-rattling towards Iran. What is the right way to interpret the Sunday Times report that Bush has given an "amber light" to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear programme (entirely peaceful so far as is known)? The references below suggest that the current administration (a) has decided not to strike Iran directly and (b) is very unlikely to support an Israeli strike. More information will follow about the lack of solidity to Israeli attack plans. The full Sunday Times article is at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece The key paragraphs are these: --- "Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support. Nor is it certain that Bush's amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran's test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets. "It's really all down to the Israelis," the Pentagon official added. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran." The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. "If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said. --- The following reports suggest that what is going on is 'signalling' by both Iran and Israel. Best wishes Milan Rai JNV --- US Says Iran's Missile Tests Do Not Make Conflict More Likely By Al Pessin Voice of America, 09 July 2008 Iran's missile tests were accompanied by sharp rhetoric. The chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said the country's missile arsenal is ready to be fired at "any time, quickly and with accuracy," and that "enemy targets are under surveillance. On Tuesday, another Iranian official said Israel and U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf would be targeted if Iran is attacked. Asked whether those statements and Wednesday's missile tests make a military confrontation with Iran more likely, Secretary Gates said he does not think so. "There is a lot of signaling going on," he said. "But I think everybody recognizes what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be. And I will tell you that this government is working hard to make sure that the diplomatic and economic approach to dealing with Iran, and trying to get the Iranian government to change its policies is the strategy and is the approach that continues to dominate." http://voanews.com/english/2008-07-09-voa56.cfm ----- Iran missile tests seen more as theater By Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi, Special to The LA Times July 11, 2008 TEHRAN -- A two-day show of force by Iran through the launching of medium- and long-range test missiles was meant to strike fear in the hearts of the country's rivals. Instead, many officials and experts Thursday downplayed the Iranian war games near the Persian Gulf as more propaganda than peril. News reports emerged indicating that Tehran doctored a photo of the launches, and analysts questioned whether the tests revealed any new Iranian capability to strike Israel or other U.S. allies and interests in the Middle East. A U.S. intelligence official said the missile launches appeared to be in response to recent Israeli military exercises. "When the Iranians see exercises in the region, this is their way of saying, 'Look, we have capabilities too,' " said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing intelligence assessments. "There does seem to be at a minimum a great deal of signaling going on here. But in terms of dramatic new capabilities from the Iranians, that hasn't been seen to this point." http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iran11-2008jul11,0,= 775077.story ----- Jitters Over Iran By Jim Hoagland Washington Post, Sunday, July 13, 2008; Page B07 As U.S. officials ritualistically repeat when questioned about Iran, the bombing option may still be on the table. But it has been pushed beyond reach under almost all circumstances. In its past six months, the Bush administration has stopped playing into Ahmadinejad's political need for conflict and tension. The most significant indication of that change comes from strong U.S. public and private pressure on Israel to forgo military strikes while Washington seeks new U.N. economic and travel sanctions against Tehran. Neither government will confirm that such pressure was exerted. Bush hates to say no to Israel, and he and Olmert do not want Iran to think that it now has a free hand on enrichment. But diplomatic and U.S. sources describe the pushback by Washington as intense and say it included indications that the United States would not clear Israeli bombers through Iraqi airspace or provide other logistical support in the event of attack now. Instead, Washington wants the focus kept on expanding financial and trade restrictions triggered by three U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Iran's enrichment program. An interagency working group headed by the Treasury Department is drafting a plan to get international insurance companies to withdraw coverage from Iranian cargo shipments, infrastructure and businesses rather than face the "reputational risks" of maintaining links with Iran. Israel sees this as a good first step but expects even greater pressures to be adopted urgently, Ambassador Sallai Meridor emphasized to me last week. Asian and Persian Gulf ports "take major risks by handling Iranian cargo that could contain contraband nuclear-related items" and must restrict Iranian shipping by air and sea, he said. "Sanctions on insurance and maritime and air transportation would raise the cost of Iran's doing business. But effective sanctions on the import of refined petroleum products could be a game-changer," since Iran produces crude oil but lacks refining capacity. The world's oil companies "should not sell gasoline that is used by Iran's nuclear scientists and its terror chiefs to drive to 'work,' " Meridor said. Without such dramatic steps, Meridor fears that Iran could obtain nuclear bomb-building capabilities by the end of 2009. "Military action is truly a last resort for Israel," he said. "But time can quickly run out on all the other resorts." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR200807110= 2546.html ----- Ex-IDF generals: Is bellicose Israeli prattle on Iran strike necessary? By Haaretz Staff and Channel 10 Haaretz.com/Channel 10 daily feature for July 14, 2008. Israel and Iran's recent displays of their capabilities to strike each other have contributed to the escalating tensions between the two enemy states, centered on the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions. Alongside holding missile tests and air force maneuvers, Israel and Iran have also been engaging in a war of words. Some former Israel Defense Forces generals have questioned the wisdom of Jerusalem's policy towards Iran, citing in particular belligerent Israeli declarations. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1001995.html ----- An Open Letter to Barack Obama on Iran (4 July 2008) Dear Senator Obama, We the undersigned may have different views on U.S. foreign policy with respect to Iran. We all, however, are deeply concerned about the stories in the press in the past few weeks suggesting that the Bush administration might be considering a military strike on Iran, that it might give a green light to such an attack by Israel, or that it might engage in other acts of war, such as imposing a blockade against Iran. We welcomed your stand against the war on Iraq in 2002. And we were encouraged by your early campaign statements emphasizing diplomacy over military action against Iran. Today, you have an opportunity to forestall a repeat of the tragic Iraq war. We hope you will use that opportunity. We agree with the conclusion of Muhammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that "A military strike ... would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball..." A military attack, he said, "will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West." (Reuters, June 20, 2008.) We don't know, of course, whether an attack on Iran is in fact being considered, or if there are serious plans to initiate other acts of war, such as a blockade of the country. But we call on you to issue a public statement warning of the grave dangers that any of these actions would entail, and pointing out how inappropriate and undemocratic it would be for the Bush administration to undertake them, or encourage Israel to do so, in its closing months in office. An attack on Iran would violate the UN Charter's prohibition against the use or threat of force and the Congress's authority to declare war. Moreover, the public right to decide should not be foreclosed by last-minute actions of the Bush administration, which will set U.S. policy in stone now. We were heartened by your earlier comments suggesting that an Obama administration would act on the understanding that genuine security requires a willingness to talk without preconditions (something Iran has offered several times to no avail), and that threats and military action are counterproductive. We hope you will follow through on these commitments once in office, but also that you will speak out now against any acts of war by the Bush administration. Sincerely, Michael Albert ZNet John W. Amidon U.S. Veterans for Peace Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies Noam Chomsky Institute Professor (retired), MIT Ray Close retired CIA Middle East specialist; Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Ariel Dorfman author Nikki Keddie UCLA (emeritus), historian, Iran specialist Rabbi Michael Lerner chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives; editor, Tikkun mag. Manning Marable director, Center for Contemporary Black History, Columbia U= niv. David McReynolds former chair, War Resisters Internat'l and others http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18096 Sign the letter at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ObamaIran/ ----- 2) Justice for Iraq conference, London A day conference Saturday 19 July, London Justice for Iraq is a call to action =96 a campaign that demands a complete policy reversal of those countries who have invaded and occupied Iraq since 2003. Ending the military occupation remains the most urgent priority. But Iraq will remain a broken nation without urgent measures aimed at delivering lasting peace and justice for its people and healing some of the wounds caused by this disastrous war. Justice for Iraq will pressure Iraq's occupiers to: * withdraw their troops and privatised security forces; * restore Iraq's full economic, legal and political sovereignty; * dismantle the Green Zone and the other occupation walls; * clean up toxic and unexploded weapons of war; * release and compensate detainees; * assist refugees and displaced persons; * help Iraq to relieve dire shortages in food, water, energy and medical supplies; * agree to pay reparations for waging a war of aggression; * ensure that war criminals face justice. These demands do not represent a complete or final list. This campaign is in the process of emerging and we are reaching out to build a network of organisations and individuals who share a similar goal. Join us on 19th July to be a part of debating, building and launching this campaign. Speakers confirmed so far: * Hans von Sponeck, Former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq * Haifa Zangana, Iraqi writer and activist * Sami Ramadani, Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation * Kamil Mahdi, Senior lecturer in Middle East economics at University of Exeter * Mazin Younis, Iraqi League * John McDonnell MP * Ewa Jasiewicz, Hand Off Iraqi Oil * Greg Muttitt, PLATFORM * John Hilary, War on Want * Jehangir Jilani, Public Interest Lawyers * Liz Davies, Iraq Occupation Focus * Marion Birch, Medact * Milan Rai, Justice Not Vengeance / Peace News * Sarah Parker, Coalition to Stop Deportations to Iraq 11.00-17.00, Saturday 19 July 2008 United Reformed Church Buck Street, Camden (close to Camden Town tube) London NW1 8NJ Entry by donation (suggested amount: =A37/=A35 unwaged) http://www.iraqoccupationfocus.org.uk/ From info at j-n-v.org Fri Jul 18 02:16:11 2008 From: info at j-n-v.org (Justice Not Vengeance) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:16:11 +0100 Subject: [JNV] Iran briefing Message-ID: Dear friends Please find below a JNV briefing on the current, rather confusing, Iran situation. Best wishes Milan Rai JNV ------ Israel's Amber Light ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN NOT IMMEDIATE: BUSH TRIES DIPLOMACY HALF-HEARTEDLY JNV Anti-War Briefing 115 (17 July 2008) BUSH SENDS DIPLOMAT TO MEET IRANIANS On 16 July, US President George W. Bush stunned observers by agreeing to send a high-level US diplomat to Geneva to meet Iranian negotiators face-to-face as part of the EU-led talks to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. As the Independent pointed out, State Dept. spokesperson Sean McCormack had said just the month before that the US would boycott such meetings unless 'Iran suddenly has a change of tune'. (17 July, p.23 ) In the event, it was the US that 'changed its tune'. Analyst Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation said: 'I think it's clear that Bush has pushed Cheney back twice now' (referring to the recent decision to remove North Korea from the US 'terrorist' list). (FT, 17 July, p.5 ) The Bush U-turn on Iraq had two features. First, he dropped the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before being allowed face-to-face meetings on the subject (US officials have met Iranian diplomats, but only to discuss security in Iraq). Secondly, he accepted the EU 'freeze-for-freeze' proposal, whereby the West holds off on further sanctions for a set period while Iran holds off on escalating uranium enrichment. 'Previously, Washington had stated that if Iran continued enriching uranium, the international pressure would only increase.' (Telegraph, 17 July, p.15 ) The Bush diplomatic opening is very limited, however. William Burns, the third most senior State Department official, an undersecretary of state, is indeed being sent to Geneva to sit in the same room as Iranian negotiators, but his role is officially to do no more than reiterate the US line - on this one occasion. THE OTHER PROPOSALS The coverage of these recent developments has conformed to the Chomsky-Herman propaganda model of the mass media, demonstrating once again the key role of media self-censorship in maintaining what they call 'brainwashing under freedom'. In the current reporting, the starting point of discussion is invariably the EU-led proposals put to Iran on 14 June, and the question is whether Tehran will accept this framework for negotiations. What is almost totally absent is any awareness that Iran had made its own highly significant proposals on 13 May this year. One rare recognition of this simple reality came in an important commentary by Sir John Thomson. Thomson, a former UK Permanent Representative at the UN, was told by Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, in early July that EU negotiator Javier Solana 'had assured him the Iranian package could be part of the agenda for substantive negotiations between Iran and the 5-plus-1' (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany). (Independent on Sunday, 13 July, p.56 ) So the negotiations are proceeding because Iran's negotiating proposals (which have been almost entirely erased from history by the Western media) have been admitted to the negotiating chamber. RED LINES Ali-Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister who advises Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, on foreign affairs, made a critical point on 1 July. Apart from saying it was 'expedient' for Iran to resume nuclear negotiations on the 5-plus-1 offer, Velayati said: 'They say Iran should not make an atomic bomb and we say Iran needs nuclear energy. These two principles are your and our red lines which should be the basis for negotiations and [can be] agreed on'. (FT, 2 July, ) But how can these two 'red lines' both be agreed as a basis for negotiation? By going back to Iran's 13 May proposal for uranium enrichment to continue on Iranian soil=97but under international control. On the basis of his discussions with Foreign Minister Mottaki, Thomson believes that Iran is 'ready to make some compromise agreements (as yet unspecified) on Middle Eastern issues that worry the west'. And on the nuclear issue 'it is ready to compromise to the extent of putting its enrichment-related facilities under the control of an international consortium=97including, for example, France, Germany and the UK=97which would then operate a modern, commercially oriented business producing nuclear fuel in Iran for sale globally. This is not what the 5-plus-1 are asking for, but in my view it is the best that is obtainable, and so long as it remains in force it precludes Iran from making a nuclear weapon.' (IOS, 13 July, as above. See also .) WHAT OF THE ISRAELI THREATS? So while Ayatollah Khamanei gives the 'green light' for negotiations on the basis of rather vague 5-plus-1 proposals, President Bush is reported to have given the 'amber light' for an Israeli airstrike on Iran. Despite this, an Israeli strike looks unlikely, for the next few months at least. The Sunday Times reported: ' "Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.' This is not a formality: 'Nor is it certain that Bush's amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran's test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets. "It's really all down to the Israelis," the Pentagon official added. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran." The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. "If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said.' (Sunday Times, 13 July ) Retired US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, concluded from the Israeli aerial exercises in June that 'Israel does not have the capability to effectively attack Iran's nuclear facilities.' Interviewed by Robert Naiman of the Huffington Post website, Gardiner pointed to a 2006 MIT paper by Whitney Raas and Austin Long, assessing Israeli military planners' think ing. Raas and Long believe Israel would want to attack the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan and the heavy water plant at Arak=97with a combined total of 36 aircraft. (With supporting aircraft, this would match up with the reports of a 100-aircraft exercise in June.) 'An Israeli strike would not be much of a strike,' Gardiner says. The US would probably think in terms of about 10 times more aim points for a similar strike, he observes. (Robert Naiman, 'Is Israel Really Preparing to Attack Iran? Col. Gardiner Says No', 20 June ) On this analysis, an Israeli strike could not destroy even the three best-known Iranian nuclear facilities, never mind facilities which might be hidden. The strike could not meet the minimum required by the US, which would want the assault to 'set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success', according to the Pentagon source consulted by the Sunday Times. It appears, therefore, that there will never be a 'solid' Israeli plan to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, and so, if it acts rationally, the White House will never green light such an attack. OBAMA MANIA The danger, of course, is that the White House will not act rationally, particularly if it sees the Bush 'legacy' being lost to an incoming Obama administration. Hence, perhaps, the startling decision to mimic the Democratic presidential candidate in his popular decision to offer unconditional talks with official enemies. In Nov. 2007, before the publication of the NIE that Iran had no nuclear weapons programme, a poll found 73% of people in the US favouring nonviolent options in dealing with Iran; 45% opposed violence even if diplomacy and sanctions failed (only 46% favoured force in those circumstances).