Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter and the 'Imminent' War on Iran
I have been saying this for a long time that; there will be no attack on Iran. But some of the writers on this blog kept plugging the "Attack on Iran" story. MParent7777 was especially forceful in promoting this idea. I don't know if that was wishful thinking or if he was getting deliberate mis-information.
I hope he will realise that there will be no attack on Iran. Especially because U.S. is in very deep and serious trouble on all fronts.
America is no longer the power that it was immediately after the fall of Berlin wall.
It has declined even faster after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now on the decline rapidly.
Sorry fellas your favourite power is going down the tubes fast. Won't be missed by me!
awakenedgoyim.
----------
Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter and the 'Imminent' War on Iran
Written by Andrew Winkler, The Rebel Media Group
Thursday, 25 October 2007
For the past couple of years, the dissident media scene has been abuzz with warnings of an imminent USraeli attack on Iran. First, the reason given was the opening of the Tehran oil bourse, then Ahmadinejad's 'wipe Israel off the map' remark. When that was debunked as fabricated by MEMRI, Mossad's free translation service, we were told it's because of Ahmadinejad's persistent questioning of the Holocaust, and the unfounded hysteria about Iran's nuclear programme.
I must admit that at first I was sucked in like everybody else. We are all so convinced of the sheer evilness of the people in control of the governments in Washington and Tel Aviv, that we believe just about anything we read, as long as it confirms our prejudices.
We all wanted to believe the much publicised warnings written by the likes of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter, not withstanding their career background. Seymour Hersh works for the New Yorker, owned by probably the most predatory Jewish print media group in the U.S., Newhouse, who puts even fascist crypto-Jew Rupert Murdoch to shame. And Scott Ritters, a former U.S. Navy Intelligence officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector, his career smacks more of CIA than Satan of sulphur.
Fair enough, people can change, and we shouldn't refuse redemption for those once involved in supporting the government. But when those self-proclaimed converts tell us exactly the same stories as psychopaths such as Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz, I'm more inclined to think that they haven't changed at all, but are part of a concerted psy-ops effort. The ruling elite knows all too well that America's corporate media have lost much of their credibility over recent years, especially abroad. That is why they are using the Internet to spread the word that the U.S. and Israel intend to attack Iran. A few ‘leaks' here, a couple of ‘reformed' experts there, throwing dirt at the government and re-packaging the same genocidal phantasies as criticism, and we suddenly believe their stories.
Israel and America's Jewish lobby have been pushing for war on Iran for as long as they have been pushing against Saddam Hussein. That was many years before Ahmadinejad started hitting back where it hurts most: Israel's right to exist, the U.S. Dollar monopoly in the international oil trade and the dogmatic belief in the Jewish Holocaust. If the Neocons had ever intended to start a war with Iran, they would have done so immediately after conquering Iraq. However they need Iran as much as they need Israel and Turkey to control the Middle-East, in fact they always intended to split up Iraq between those three countries. All they want is a more cooperative Iranian government, headed by a USraeli puppet like the former Shah. Bush's advisers know all too well that a war against Iran would make it impossible for that to happen. It would only increase anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment in the country.
The only question is, what will happen if all that concerted bullying effort in mainstream and alternative media doesn't have the desired result of making the powerbrokers behind President Ahmadinejad install a more cooperative administration. Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure; America's ruling elite knows very well that a war against Iran would trigger an open revolt of the American people against its own government. It is far more likely that the next U.S. administration will make amends with the Tehran leaders and solve the problem that way.
Related Articles:
Ruling Elite calls off war against Iran (if it was ever on in the first place)
The war of nerves continues
Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of Jews Anonymous. He can be contacted on editor@ziopedia.org.This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it You can find more of his articles in the Editorial Section of the ZioPedia.org site.
I agree somewhat. I've been saying for some time that the U.S. pressure on Iran is primarily saber-rattling and psyops, there is no real attack planned outside of the war-gaming, theoretical examinations in the Pentagon. However I couldn't confidently rule out an attack absolutely.
Meanwhile, the Iranians would be foolish not to prepare for hostilities in the face of continual not-so-veiled threats from the United States. The American leadership is mentally unstable to the point that they may just decide to do something that's completely ill-advised and illogical (again).
By the way, Marc Parent would not post several of my comments stating that an American attack on Iran is unlikely.
Stratfor Morning Intel Brief - 071024A
Geopolitical Diary: Iran's Intense Foreign Policy Debate
Iran is at a stage where friction in its policymaking is to be expected. Iran survives by having a very conservative foreign policy, but conservative does not mean quiet. During the past century all of Iran's meaningful regional rivals -- the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, the Taliban and Iraq -- have collapsed. For the first time in centuries, Tehran has the opportunity to venture out of its redoubt in the Zagros Mountains and establish a buffer in Mesopotamia. Deciding the pace, tone and force to use in that task is the stuff of high policy, and Iran is understandably of many minds over which specific path to follow.
These debates are now coming to a boil within Iran. The confusion surrounding the surprise resignation of Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, followed by false rumors of a resignation by Iran's foreign minister are all manifestations of an intense policy debate brewing in Tehran over the course Iran should take in pursuing its Iraq policy. The Iranians can either move toward a comprehensive agreement with the United States over Iraq that would come with security guarantees and involve a capitulation of sorts on its nuclear program; or it could choose to align with the Russians for some short-term, albeit shaky, security guarantees against a U.S. attack while it stays the course and tries to make things difficult enough in Iraq that the United States will change its mind and withdraw. In any case, the Iranians have clearly not made up their mind, and this debate is getting more intense by the day.
And the debate is not taking place in a vacuum. On Oct. 23 in Prague, Czech Republic, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates informed the Russians that the United States -- in order to reach an accommodation with the Russians over National Missile Defense (NMD) policy -- would not "activate" its planned Polish/Czech system until Iran's ballistic missile program was more clearly a threat. Russia feels that the system is the first step toward the United States nullifying the Russian nuclear deterrent. The United States insists it is about preparing for the day that Iran's missile program is ready for intercontinental prime time.
While subtle, Gates' offer is nonetheless a policy shift. Washington has moved from "we have to complete NMD because Iran is an immediate threat" to "we have to complete NMD, but we do not need to switch it on until Iran is close to having ICBMs." All Gates has really done is note that there is a little wiggle room in the construction schedule -- a move so subtle that Stratfor would brush off a single mention of it as unimportant. But Gates has persisted in offering and reoffering the deal, most recently in front of the Czechs. Place that repetition in the context of relations among the United States, Russia and Iran and it becomes of critical importance -- and the friction in Iran's inner circle is brought into sharp focus.
Russia is offering itself to Iran as a sort of informal security guarantor in order to gain influence with the Americans. The Iranians are seeking out Russian backing in order to gain influence with the Americans. Now the Americans are in essence telling the Russians that if they can keep Iran from developing intercontinental missiles, then the United States does not necessarily need to complete the NMD system that so concerns the Kremlin.
The Russian response came from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who -- in the middle of an agonizingly long speech -- noted that Russia wanted "the joint work of Russian and American specialists to be more efficient." For those of you not fluent in Russian bureaucratese, that translates to, "Interesting. Let's talk details."
So we have the Russians and Americans groping toward some sort of talks on the NMD issue, something that by definition would involve the two powers actively putting limitations on Iranian weapons development. And we have a fierce debate in Tehran -- likely over how far it can trust the Russians, who are perfectly willing to sell Iran out if it means brokering a deal with the United States. To complete the picture all that is needed is a sudden change in the American-Iranian impasse over Iraq.
And that happened in an interview Gen. David Petraeus gave the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Baghdad bureau. Since testifying to the U.S. Congress in September, Petraeus has more or less spouted on about how evil the Iranians are for their anti-American efforts in Iraq. In the interview published on Wednesday he flatly called for a new round of talks with Iran on the topic of Iraqi security questions.
So the Russians and Iranians are baiting each other while the Americans are sounding out the Russians, and now the Iranians are entertaining an American offer to negotiate on Iraq. Where all this will develop is of course entirely up in the air. An American-Russian deal would isolate Iran just as easily as an American-Iranian deal would cut out Russia or a serious Russian-Iranian deal would hamstring Washington. But for the first time in several weeks there is a hint that Russia and Iran are not actually in lockstep and that there is room to maneuver on the American side. This could still all go straight to hell, but Washington is still in the game.
Situation Reports
1152 GMT -- LEBANON, ISRAEL -- Lebanese troops opened fire Oct. 25 on two Israeli warplanes flying low just east of the town of Marjayoun in southern Lebanon, but apparently did not hit the planes, The Associated Press reported, citing Lebanese officials. A Lebanese security official said a total of 150 rounds were fired. A Lebanese army spokesman said the jets headed back toward Israel at around 11:10 a.m. local time.
1145 GMT -- UNITED STATES, ISRAEL -- The Pentagon had agreed to supply the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Israel as early as 2012, when the U.S. Air Force is scheduled to receive the first of the radar-evading jets, the Jerusalem Post reported Oct. 25, citing unnamed defense officials. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to accelerate the sale during talks in Washington with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak last week. Barak was able to overcome some U.S. objections to Israel installing its own technology on the F-35, according to the report.
1137 GMT -- UNITED STATES, IRAN -- The Bush administration plans to present an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran on Oct. 25, the Washington Post reported, citing senior administration officials. The package includes designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson are scheduled to announce the package, according to the report. The new sanctions will empower the United States to financially isolate a large part of Iran's military and anyone inside or outside Iran who does business with it, U.S. officials told the Post.
1130 GMT -- TURKEY -- The Turkish Cabinet and military generals met Oct. 25 to discuss a possible operation in northern Iraq, but decided to recommend that Turkey take economic measures first to force cooperation by Iraqis against Kurdish rebels, The Associated Press reported. Residents in the Iraqi Kurdish village of Derishkit told AP that two Turkish jet fighters struck a target on the banks of the Zey-Gowra River about four miles inside Iraq. Some 100 members of the official defense forces of Iraq's Kurdish region were headed Oct. 24 for a camp near the border city of Dahuk, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, AP reported.
1124 GMT -- CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA -- The foreign ministers of Russia, China and India met in Harbin, China, on Oct. 24, Kommersant reported Oct. 25, adding that the meeting was held to demonstrate that an alliance between the three countries is gaining momentum amid discussions over the U.S.-Japanese missile defense shield in the Pacific Ocean and U.S. attempts to gain influence in Central Asia.
1118 GMT -- CHILE -- Chile plans to reopen the rundown Arturo Prat naval base on Greenwich Island, Antarctica, in 2008, the British Telegraph newspaper reported Oct. 25, citing Chilean Sen. Roberto Muñoz Barra. The base was closed five years ago in a budget cutback. The United Kingdom recently announced plans to extend its claims on the continent by another 386,000 square miles. All nations claiming a part of Antarctica must outline their case before the United Nations by May 13, 2009.
Contact Us
Analysis Comments - analysis @ stratfor.com
Customer Service, Access, Account Issues - service @ stratfor.com
Stratfor is a Mossad outfit and their reports are biased or even outright misleading.
They are to be put in the same category as MEMRI (Middle East Media Review), another Israeli Zionist Neo-con outfit that twists and turns facts and fabricates news reports.
I would not believe anything coming out of both Stratfor and MEMRI.
Surprise that you would even read stratfor reports, let alone quoting them.
Not only do they try to charge for their often erroneous information they also fabricate data. This became obvious while researching a post I did on Algeria. They outright fabricated an event concerning the leader of the GPSC. Stratfor claimed an arrest at some cafe was made along with some other militant who was taking advantage of the amnesty law. But who apparently, betrayed the arrested person.
Well, I always try to check multiple sources, lo and behold, Stratfor was the only outlet to state that the event was an arrest and not an arranged amnesty / surrender.
Ever since then, I don't even bother reading their free reports. Jamestown is a much better intelligence site. I recommend them until such time when they too, begin to manufacture material and pass them on as news.
_________________
"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, most of mankind are Nazis"
--Isaac Bashevis