USAs engasjement i Irak ser ut til å trekke ut. Nye kontrakter kontrakter reflekter fortsatt tilstedeværelse i Irak. Det vil bli vanskelig å trekke seg ut av landet. Kontraktene inkluderer mer penger, som vil gå til alt fra å forsyne mentorer til å ansette offiserer i det irakiske forsvar og Innenriksministerier samt å etabere et amerikansk system for å forsvare irakiske domstoler, ansette mer enn 100 lingvister med hemmelige klarering og forsyne mat til irakiske fanger ved et nytt USA drevet fengsel.
Forslagene reflekterer fortsatt tilstedeværelse
Dokumenter viser at det amerikanske militære forsøker å få til en avtale med den irakiske regjeringen som ville skape en permanent okkupasjon av Irak. Planen var å ha mer enn 50 amerikanske militærbaser og tillate USA å gjennomføre militæroperasjoner, arrestere irakere, samt gi amerikanske styrker og kontraktører total immunitet fra irakisk lov. Men voksende bevissthet om dette har ført til så utbredt opposisjon i Irak at selv al-Maliki har annonsert at diskusjoner med Bush regjeringen var lagt døde. Her
Men på tross av at opposisjon til okkupasjonen av Irak har tiltatt stiller få amerikanere spørsmål ved okkupasjonen av Afghanistan. Så langt har Bush sin plan om å opprettholde en permanent amerikansk tilstedeværelse i Irak blitt motarbeidet av den irakiske regjeringen. Barack Obamas tidstabell for tilbaketrekking av amerikanske tropper har blitt fulgt opp av den irakiske statsminister Nuri al-Maliki. Bush har nevnt en tidshorisont og John McCain har vært usikker. Men også Obama, som vil ha mellom 35.000-80.000 okkupasjonstropper i Irak på uviss tid for å trene opp irakiske sikkerhetsstyrker og utføre «counter-insurgency operations», vil fortsette okkupasjonen.
Det som nå må til er at man sender alle soldatene og leiesoldatene ut av Irak og tilbake til der de kom fra, stenge alle amerikanske militærbaser og stanse alle tiltak for å få kontrollen over den irakiske oljen. …
Her – Av Howard Zinn
Her – Av Marjorie Cohn
Tekst Dagbladet om Statoil og Irak
Det bør være innlysende at USA ikke har den fjerneste tanke om å avvikle okkupasjonen, men bare om å gi den en form som er billigere for den amerikanske statskassa og mer appetittvekkende på diplomatiske festmiddager.
Jan R. Steinholt
Komiteen for et fritt Irak
Ali Khamenei og andre iranske politikere har gjentatte ganger oppfordret Iraks regjering ikke å signere avtalen USA forsøker å komme frem til og Tehran har bedt iranske banker om å overføre eiendeler og investeringer fra europeiske banker til landets sentralbank.
Nouri_al-Maliki, i et besøk til Iran, hvor han møttes med Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ba om tettere band mellom de to nabolandene samtidig som Bagdad er ved å forhandle frem en langtidssikkerhetsavtale med USA, som forsøker å etablere et juridisk rammeverk for fortsatt tilstedeværelse av amerikanske tropper i Irak etter at FNs mandat går ut på slutten av året.
In a roundtable public affairs program broadcast on Iranian television, one panelist compared U.S. bases in Iraq to the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba during the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union. But al-Maliki, after meeting with Ahmadinejad, said the agreement would help maintain and enhance Iraq’s still-fragile security situation. Ahmadinejad, for his part, indicated concern that an agreement could lead to long-term American domination of Iraq.
Al-Maliki, after arriving Saturday in Tehran, the Iranian capital, had said his government «will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran,» according to the semi-official Fars News Agency. Early this month, the George W. Bush administration’s plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shiite militias in Iraq encountered not just one but two setbacks.
Al Maliki pushed Iran on Sunday to back off its fierce opposition to a U.S.-Iraqi security pact, Iraqi officials said, as he promised Iranian leaders that Iraq will not be a launching pad for any attack on their country.
The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to endorse US charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to the Mahdi Army, and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in andaround Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms were of Iranian origin.
Iraq‘s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday tried to allay Iranian fears over a planned U.S.-Iraq security pact, saying his government would not allow Iraq to become a launching pad for an attack on its neighbor. Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980s. But ties between the mainly Shia Iran and the Shia-dominated Iraqi government have become increasingly close. Earlier, Iran’s state-run news agency IRNA quoted the Iraqi leader as saying that «Baghdad would not allow its soil to be used as a base to damage the security of the neighboring countries, including Iran.»
Speaking at AIPAC Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) mocked the idea of direct talks with Iranian leadership, specifically rejecting “sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them.”
McCain top adviser Steve Schmidt ridiculed the notion of talking to Iranian leaders, disingenuously claiming that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is “arrogant” and would be trying to “charm” Iran to change its ways: Iran is supplying deadly munitions used to kill Americans in Iraq. … Is Senator Obama so arrogant that he believes that he will charm his way into getting the Iranians to change their policies, supporting terrorist organizations?
Two hard-line newspapers seen as speaking for Iran’s establishment called for Iraqis to oppose a strategic framework deal with the United States, Tehran’s first public condemnation of the arrangement. The papers accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of caving in to American demands over the pact. Al-Maliki’s government and the U.S. began negotiations in March on the deal meant to provide for long-term bilateral ties and a status of forces arrangement regulating U.S. military operations in Iraq.
The Jomhuri-e-Eslami daily said in a front-page editorial that the deal would be «capitulation the U.S. has imposed on the oppressed Iraqi people,» and urged Iraqis to turn to «a popular revolution» that would bring about the «expulsion of the occupiers» from Iraq.
When Gen. David Petraeus along with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker gave their testimony to the Senate on April 9, they did nothing more than to confirm in spades what had been mooted and duly leaked by the Washington-based press: that the Bush-Cheney Administration had officially endorsed the line that Iran should be set up for attack, on grounds that it–and not any indigenous resistance–were responsible for the mounting death toll among American troops in Iraq.
Israel has reportedly started to set up an Iran Command within its air force as part of preparations for a possible war against Iran. According to reports by unnamed Israeli military sources, the regime’s air force has launched ‘Iran Command’ to coordinate operations to ‘confront the growing threat from Tehran’.
Israeli deputy prime minister Shaoul Mofaz accused Iran of running a nuclear weapons program and threatened to launch a military strike on Iran with the help of US if Tehran continues with its nuclear program. This is while Iran insists that it is conducting its nuclear program under the regulations of the UN nuclear watchdog and insists that its program is aimed at generating electricity for a growing population.
The command’s operations are aimed at improving coordination among Israeli ballistic missiles and air and missile brigades which deploy the Arrow and Patriot missile systems. Israel, believed to be the sole possessor of ‘at least 150 nuclear warheads’ in the Middle East, seeks to persuade US President George W. Bush to halt Iran’s nuclear program by military rather than diplomatic means before the end of his term in office.
Mr Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran would be «incredibly dangerous» to peace. «They can either face isolation or they can have a better relationship with all of us if they verifiably suspend their nuclear enrichment programme,» he said.
The EU and the US have threatened Iran with further sanctions unless it verifiably suspends nuclear enrichment. The «additional measures» would include «steps to ensure Iranian banks cannot… support proliferation and terrorism», said a joint statement.
The UN Security Council has approved three rounds of sanctions against Iran. These include asset restrictions and travel bans on Iranian individuals and companies said to be involved in nuclear work. The sanctions also ban the sale to Iran of so-called dual-use items, which can have either a military or civilian purpose.
Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former George W. Bush administration official.
Iran appealed to the United Nations Security Council on Saturday for protection from Israel after Transportation Minister Sha’ul Mofaz commented that Israel would move to end the nuclear threat if necessary.
The former Defense Minister was quoted Friday in the Hebrew-language Yediot Acharonot newspaper as saying that military action might necessary in order to stop Iran’s from achieving nuclear power.
«If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it,» Mofaz said simply. «The sanctions are ineffective. Attacking Iran in order to stop its nuclear plans will be unavoidable.» Also Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who distanced himself from a Cabinet minister’s suggestion that Israel will be forced to attack Iran, refused to discount the possibility of a military strike against Iran. Just back from talks in Washington with President George Bush, Mr Olmert said a strike against Iran remained an option.
Ehud Olmert will urge President Bush to prepare an attack on Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported. Citing sources close to the Israeli prime minister, Yediot Achronot reported on its front page Wednesday that Olmert, who is due to hold closed-door talks with Bush in Washington, will say that «time is running out» on diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The United States should therefore prepare to attack Iran, Olmert will tell Bush, according to Yediot.
As the USS Liberty Affair and the Lavon Affair has demonstrated in the past, the Israelis are not above committing crimes themselves and then deflecting blame for those crimes onto others in order to get other nations to help their fight wars with them or, better still, for them. Nor are the Israelis above getting non-Israeli. Diaspora Jews that support the Zionist dream to work toward those ends.
Jewish-American neoconservatives whose loyalties to Israel are stronger than their loyalties to the US together with their non-Jewish supporters have orchestrated and manipulated US governmental affairs over the last eight years in such a way as to benefit Israel. As a direct result of the 9/11, a crime that is now increasingly being questioned with regard to who the true perpetrators were, has resulted in the US launching an all out propaganda war against Islam. It also provided the casus belli for an attack against the peoples of Afghanistan where Israel says its enemies hide, and it also provided the casus belli for the invasion and destruction of Iraq, a country led by Saddam Hussein who financially supported the Palestinian cause but had nothing to do with 9/11.
It’s been a year since Hamas asserted its rightful role as the democratically elected government in the Gaza Strip after corrupt Fatah forces there had unsuccessfully tried to usurp Hamas’s governance of the Palestinian enclave. Hamas’s victory in the January 2006 elections was not recognised by Israel or the US, the two nations on our planet that scream loudest about the necessity of democracy in the region. Instead, they ensured that the corrupt Fatah organisation under Abbas took control of Palestinian affairs, a move that, while successful in the West Bank, was unsuccessful in the Gaza.
Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer accused the international community of failing to halt Iran’s nuclear drive and the West of being «resigned» to Tehran’s development of nuclear weapons. «My feeling is that the enlightened Western world — and I don’t know if it still is — is resigned to the development of a nuclear bomb in Iran,» Ben-Eliezer told Israeli public radio. He accused the international community of limiting its response to Tehran’s accelerating nuclear programme to «words» alone. He added that the Islamic republic «only understands one language» and that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly predicted Israel’s demise, is «laughing at the whole world.» «We must tell them: ‘If you so much as dream of attacking Israel, before you even finish dreaming there won’t be an Iran anymore,'» he said.
Israel, believed to be the Middle East’s sole if undeclared nuclear power, has long accused Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian programme and has come to consider Iran its greatest threat. Iran denies the accusations, insisting its nuclear programme is peaceful.
Ben-Eliezer insisted he was not advocating a preventive military strike on Iran but said «Iran should know the price it will have to pay when it begins to think concretely about attacking Israel.» The minister’s remarks came a day after an Israeli deputy prime minister warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.
«If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it,» said Shaul Mofaz, who is also transportation minister. «Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme,» Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot daily. He stressed such an operation could only be conducted with US support. A former defence minister and armed forces chief of staff, Mofaz hopes to replace embattled Ehud Olmert as prime minister and at the helm of the Kadima party.
”Unilateral military actions undermine international agreements,” ElBardei tells German weekly Der Spiegel in reference to Israeli aerial strike on Syrian nuclear facility in September and Mofaz’s threats regarding possible attack on Iran.
In 2007 the head of Israel’s airforce, Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, was visiting a base in the coastal city of Herziliya last week. For the 50-year-old general, also the head of Israel’s Iran Command, which would fight a war with Tehran if ordered, it was a morale-boosting affair, a meet-and-greet with pilots and navigators who had flown during last summer’s month-long war against Lebanon. The journalists who had turned out in large numbers were there for another reason: to question Shkedi about a mysterious air raid that happened this month, codenamed Operation_Orchard, carried out deep in Syrian territory by his pilots.
Shkedi ignored all questions. It set a pattern for the days to follow as he and Israel’s politicians and officials maintained a steely silence, even when the questions came from the visiting French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner. Those journalists who thought of reporting the story were discouraged by the threat of Israel’s military censor.
But the rumors were in circulation, not just in Israel but in Washington and elsewhere. In the days that followed, the sketchy details of the raid were accompanied by contradictory claims even as US and British officials admitted knowledge of the raid. The New York Times described the target of the raid as a nuclear site being run in collaboration with North Korean technicians. Others reported that the jets had hit either a Hizbollah convoy, a missile facility or a terrorist camp.
Needless to say, an Israeli or American-Israeli attack on Iran would be a blatant and unprovoked aggression on a sovereign nation. It would also plunge the world into an unpredictable phase of violence and turbulence, with deep and far-reaching ramifications. Iran, although hostile to Israel because of the latter’s Nazi-like occupation of Palestine and oppression of the Palestinian people, has never attacked Israel.
The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI), which bills itself as transpartisan, consists of more than three dozen organizations, most of them left-leaning, such as the American Friends Service Committee, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Open Society Policy Center, which is backed by George Soros.
However, the campaign also has the backing of a smattering of right-of-center groups, including the American Conservative Defense Alliance, the Libertarian Party, and the American Cause, which is headed by Patrick Buchanan.
«The current rumor here in Washington is that Bush will attack after the November elections so it won’t hurt the Republican nominee politically. Many around him say he feels he has to do something before he leaves office,» a campaign organizer, Carah Ong of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, said. «Part of this is to raise the fact that a military attack is likely and it needs to be prevented.»
Leading neocon Daniel Pipes (director of the Middle East Forum) said in an interview posted Wednesday at National Review Online, that if Barack Obama is elected, George Bush would attack Iran in the remaining ten weeks of his term. “Should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will ‘do something.’ and should it be Mr. McCain who wins, he’ll ‘punt,’ and let Mr. McCain decide what to do.
The campaign to push for direct talks with Iran’s mullahs is kicking off with a press conference this morning on Capitol Hill expected to feature the Libertarian nominee for president, Robert Barr, as well as several members of Congress, including Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Barbara Lee of California, both Democrats, and Rep. Ron Paul, who mounted a bid for this year’s Republican presidential nomination. Brandishing red telephones supposed to symbolize a hotline to Tehran, the group will urge supporters to call Congress and press for talks.
The campaign’s lobbying day follows close on the heels of a lobbying effort last week by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which encouraged its members to promote legislation that would put stricter sanctions on Iran. Ms. Ong said the timing was a coincidence.
Others involved in the talk-to-Iran campaign include a former CIA official, Philip Giraldi; a former adviser to President Reagan, Douglas Bandow; a former State Department official, Flynt Leverett, and the president and founder of the National Iranian American Council, Trita Parsi.
Of course, Israel’s first command to the US will be that the US do the fighting, getting maimed, and dying in a US-led military strike against Iran.
What Really Happened – Iran