US jet fighters violate Iran's airspace: military

[seemslikeadream]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070401/1/47k8w.html

US warplanes have violated Iranian airspace in the southwestern oil-rich province of Khuzestan, Al-Alam Arabic language news satellite channel quoted a local military chief as saying on Sunday.

"Two US aircraft trespassed into Iranian airspace northwest of (the southwestern port city of) Abadan before flying southwest into Iraq," a local Revolutionary Guards commander in Abadan identified only as Colonel Aqili was quoted as saying on the channel's website.

"The planes left white vapour trails, attracting the local people's attention," he said, without elaborating on when the alleged incursion took place.

The incident happened close to Iran's border with Iraq, where the US and British military are deployed in force.

The US is in a mounting diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its uranium enrichment and Western suspicions that Tehran is bent on developing nuclear weapons, a charge vehemently denied by Iran.

Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff, but it has never ruled out a military option.

Tensions have spiked since Iran's seizure on March 23 of 15 British marines and sailors for allegedly entering Iranian waters.

Iran says the Britons illegally entered its territorial waters while London insists they were in Iraqi waters on a anti-smuggling patrol under UN mandate.

[RL3AO]

1. Que 50 DU'ers over reacting in....3...2...1...

[11 Bravo]

2. Pithy.

Unintelligible and somewhat questionable, but pithy nonetheless.

[RL3AO]

3. You know someone will say Bush told them to do it to make Iran respond

even though most likely it was an accident.

[Forkboy]

5. I know,Bush is above that sort of thing.

[RL3AO]

6. Or maybe it was an accident...but of course its most likley

Bush trying to get Iran to attack a U.S. plane so we can bomb them on April 4th.

:sarcasm:

[seemslikeadream]

9. No it's April 6

on edit it's April 6

[Forkboy]

10. Maybe it was....I didn't say otherwise.

You seem pretty disdainful of DUers already.

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. Bush came up with that precise scheme (as ridiculous as it may sound) to Blair in 2002.

[Richard Steele]

16. Because B*sh would never do such a thing, right?

Pfft. :eyes:

[seemslikeadream]

4. Former Pentagon Staff Speaks Out on Crimes of Doug Feith, Dick Cheney, and Planning of Iran War

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00070.htm
Karen Kwiatkowski On Feith, Cheney & Planning Iran
Monday, 5 March 2007, 8:33 pm
Article: David Swanson

Former Pentagon Staff Speaks Out on Crimes of Doug Feith, Dick Cheney, and Planning of Iran War

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19202
By David Swanson
The following is a remarkable interview of Karen Kwiatkowski who retired from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel in early 2003. Her final assignment was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under Secretary for Policy Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorate. In her responses below, Kwiatkowski describes the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq and Iran and what it would take to avoid an attack on the latter.

I began the interview by asking about Undersecretary of Defense for policy Douglas Feith, whose actions in the Pentagon in the lead-up to the Iraq War were the subject of a recent report by the Pentagon Inspector General.

SWANSON: Did the operations led by Doug Feith gather intelligence?

KWIATKOWSKI: When I spoke to the DoD IG over a year ago (regarding the investigation that recently produced a report pronouncing the Feith operations as inappropriate), I tried to explain to the IG that what the Feith group and the Office of Special Plans was doing was information manipulation, not the production of what we legitimately call "intelligence." Intelligence is vetted, contextualized, and conservative. What Feith's OSP wanted, needed and produced was inflammatory bits of data, cherry-picked statements, and isolated observations by often shady characters, presented as if they were vetted, contextualized and conservative intelligence. Unlike intelligence, this effort was designed not to inform decision makers, but to shape a national conversation such that decisions already made by the administration (to topple Saddam and get bases in Iraq) could be pursued without political backlash. That's what Doug Feith and his folks did for Bush and Cheney in the Pentagon.

SWANSON: Did they do so without informing Congress of the fact?

KWIATKOWSKI: I can't verify that Feith's office, and others in the Pentagon did or didn't talk to some Congressmen about their little information operation. It has been shown by the Senate investigation that the CIA itself was not aware that some of the results of the OSP effort had been inserted into their system as if it was intelligence, without full disclosure of sources, etc. It seems clear that many in the Congress were fed OSP derived and developed information and talking points from the Pentagon -- and that this information was believed by those Congressmen to be "intelligence" instead of propaganda and falsehoods. Frankly, I believe that many in Congress wanted this invasion of Iraq, and didn't care if what they were seeing from Feith, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld was true or not. This is why "politicized" intelligence – the focus of the so-called Part II investigation was so critical, and so successfully opposed and blocked by many Senators and Congressmen.

[seemslikeadream]

7. "The Dire Strait" yes I know, overreacting

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/816/1/

By John Damien

The most valuable piece of real estate in the world is not to be found in New York, London or Tokyo. The world's most valuable real estate is comprised of two imaginary boxes

03/07/07 "ICH" -- -- They are the international shipping lanes at the apex of the Strait of Hormuz. Each day, tankers carrying 16 million barrels of oil worth $800 million pass through these boxes. If oil is the blood supply of the industrial economy, the Strait of Hormuz is the jugular. In any conflict between the US and Iran, control of those shipping lanes will instantly become the focus of the entire conflict. The main job of the US Navy would be to ensure the Strait remains open. That implies pre-emptive action against any Iranian facility or emplacement capable of launching anti-ship missiles against targets in the area of the Strait.

The use by Iran of "the oil weapon" has been widely discussed and examined. What has attracted less attention is the ability of the Untied States to use the oil weapon against Iran. By occupying three key islands on the Gulf approaches to the Strait, the US could deny passage to any ship it pleases. America could thus close Iran's only major route for oil exports, while ensuring safe passage for the rest. Although 20% of the world's oil trade passes through the Strait, Iran accounts for only 2.5 million bbl/day of world exports, or just over 15% of the traffic in the Strait. Because of their disputed legal status, it would be possible to extend a US presence indefinitely. Occupation of these islands could thus deliver to the US a strategic coup great enough to justify a war with Iran in the first place. The US has two Marine Expeditionary groups in the area capable of such an operation.

It is no secret that the US Government wants regime change in Tehran. Their problem is the inability of us military, economic or diplomatic power to deliver. As discussed in a previous article, there are urgent reasons for the US to escalate the war to Iran that have nothing to do with regime change. However, for a lasting strategic re-alignment in the region, regime change is highly desirable. One must assume that even the most hawkish agitators in Washington and Jerusalem don't believe bombing alone will bring down the Iranian government. The only feasible means of damaging the political stability of the clerical regime is by attacking the Iranian economy. Despite the oil money flowing into the country, the economy is shaky. Unemployment and economic dissatisfaction run high. This represents the only significant point of contention between the regime and its citizens. A blockade of Iranian oil exports would bring the fragile economy to its knees in a matter of weeks. If, and its a big if, the citizens of Iran blame their government for the economic ruin, there is a possibility of regime change.

Stopping Iranian oil exports is an easy thing to do militarily. One simply destroys the export facilities. Unfortunately, it could take years to rebuild those facilities. If a new government were to take power in Tehran, a lack of ability to export oil would become acutely inconvenient for everyone. Better to find a way that allows the US to turn the exports on and off at will. Interdicting Iranian bound tankers would be ideal as virtually all Iranian oil exports pass through the Straits. 200 Marines and 10 Blackhawk Helicopters would be sufficient to impose US directives on all the traffic in the area. However, parking an aircraft carrier in the Strait would be inviting disaster. No nearby bases are available because of the political problems a US presence would bring. Occupying several key islands astride the shipping lanes themselves would be ideal.

[Lerkfish]

18. That would be "cue" not "que" which is really pronounced "kay", perhaps you really meant

"queue" which means to stand in a line?

spelling is tough to learn, I'm series!

besides which, if there is any overreacting going on ,I'd say shrub has the monopoly.

[stirlingsliver]

8. "The Planes Left White Vapour Trails"

It's bad enough that * and his thugs have really engaged in such provocotive behavior.

They really REALLY do want to provoke an incident with Iran.

But there can be no real doubt that those "white vapour trails" are really chemtrails -- poisoning the Iranian territory.

* is beneath contempt.

[originalpckelly]

13. "white vapour trails" are really chemtrails

You know honestly, I can't tell if you're joking or not.

[Bluedogvoter]

11. Right yeah, sure they did.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Of course. Iran is ITCHING for a reason to have war with the USA, so they make up lies

to further that goal. :sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

12. Oh I think this sounds like the little tit-for-tat incidents...

by our side that were intended to get a larger war going. If Iran is smart, they'll just return the sailors to avoid a confrontation. If not they'll continue with these provocations, just like with Iraq.

[Jcrowley]

21. IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS BECOMES CLEARER

IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS BECOMES CLEARER
By Rowan Wolf of Uncommon Thought Journal

4/1/07

The headline reads "US rejects Iran captives exchange." My initial response was "What is the US doing rejecting a captive exchange"? My second thought was, "not those hostages". Yes, Iran has asked for the five Iranian Consulate staff seized from Irbil, Kirkuk in January, 2007. You may recall that Bush had approved an attack on the Iranian Consulate in Kirkuk.

Why did it take from March 23rd to March 31st for the issue at play in the holding of 15 UK sailors to be brought to light? Iran's arrest of 15 UK sailors has largely been painted as a "provocative" move by Iran. Presented as another "crazy" move by Ahmadinejad. However, now a totally different issue arises.

In January, more than two months ago, the US raids a recognized Iranian Consulate in Kirkuk, Iraq. Along with taking computers and files, the US military also takes into custody, five staff people from the Consulate. Kirkuk and Iran issue a protest and a demand for the release of the captive consulate staff. The US claims they are part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard al-Qods force, and refuse to release them.

We can imagine what has happened in the ensuing time. Through back channels and intermediaries, Iran has continued to demand the release of their five consulate staff. The US has denied or ignored the requests - through back channels and intermediaries as the US won't talk to Iran. Instead, the US decided to launch massive "war games off the coast of Iran." However, they were not seen as games by Iran.

http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/04/iran-hostage-crisis-becomes-clearer.html

[seemslikeadream]

14. oil-rich province of Khuzestan - Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran

Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11743.htm

Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran
By Mike Whitney

02/01/06 "ICH" -- -- In less than 24 hours the Bush administration has won impressive victories on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. At home, the far-right Federalist Society alum, Sam Alito, has overcome the feeble resistance from Democratic senators; ensuring his confirmation to the Supreme Court. Equally astonishing, the administration has coerced both Russia and China into bringing Iran before the United Nations Security Council although (as Mohamed ElBaradei says) “There’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.” The surprising capitulation of Russia and China has forced Iran to abandon its efforts for further negotiations; cutting off dialogue that might diffuse the volatile situation.

“We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television.

The administration’s success with Iran ends the diplomatic charade and paves the way for war. Now, UN Ambassador John Bolton will appear before the Security Council making spurious allegations of “noncompliance” that will rattle through the corporate media and prepare the world for unilateral military action.

The administration has no hope of securing the votes needed for sanctions or punitive action. The trip to the Security Council is purely a ploy to provide the cover of international legitimacy to another act of unprovoked aggression. The case has gone as far as it will go excluding the requisite “touched up” satellite photos and bogus allegations of unreliable dissidents.

We should now be focused on how Washington intends to carry out its war plans, since war appears to be inevitable.

[seemslikeadream]

15. Iran: We Will Know Soon…

http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_180_iran_we_will_know_soon

by Richard Heinberg

Iran: We Will Know Soon…

For the past two years or so informed commentators (including Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter, among others) have been predicting a US air attack on Iran. MuseLetter for March 2005, titled “Onward to Iran,” summarized relevant information available at that time. In recent months concern over America’s intentions has grown even more intense, to the point that it has become the fulcrum of nearly every discussion about the future of world affairs.

As many have pointed out, an attack could have cataclysmic implications for the region, for the world economy, and not least for the oil import-dependent and nearly bankrupt US. Recently Rolling Stone magazine convened a panel of experts to assess the situation in Iraq (“Leaving Iraq: The Grim Truth,” by Tom Dickinson, March 7, www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth). The panel, which included such policy luminaries as Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor) and Richard Clarke (counter-terrorism advisor to four presidents), concluded that the war in Iraq is lost. In the course of the discussion, Bob Graham, former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made the following comment: “This administration seems to be getting ready to make—at a much more significant, escalated level—the same mistake we made in Iran that we made in Iraq. If Iraq has been a disaster, this would be multiple times Iraq. The extent to which this could be the horror of the twenty-first century is hard to exaggerate.”

Recent crucial events include the passing of the UN-imposed deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment, the stationing by the US of two aircraft carrier battle groups—the Eisenhower and the Stennis—in the Persian Gulf, a meeting in Baghdad attended by delegations from both Iran and the US, and the imposition of toughened economic sanctions by the UN Security Council.

The conjunction of the negotiations in Baghdad over regional issues (the US cannot extricate itself from Iraq without help from Iran and Syria) with the successful drive for increased UN economic sanctions (a drive led, of course, by the US) suggests that conflicting policies are being pursued in Washington. This appearance may result from an intentional effort to pressure the Iranians at the bargaining table. However, another interpretation of the situation is gaining ground among curious observers—that there is no single pilot steering the US ship of state, and that at least two groups are struggling to control the wheel (see Kaveh L Afrasiabi, “US and Iran: Squint-eyed double-dealing,” Asia Times online, March 17, www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC17Ak01.html)

[kitty1]

17. Maybe It's an F... You; You can't take us hostage statement.....nt

[RedCappedBandit]

20. True.. nt

[Jcrowley]

19. Selective Outrage in New Iran Crisis

Prisoner's Dilemma: Selective Outrage in New Iran Crisis
Written by Chris Floyd
Friday, 30 March 2007

The excellent novelist Ronan Bennett speaks poniards about "The Peculiar Outrage" being shown by those Christian Coalitionists, Blair and Bush, over the capture of 15 UK sailors in the disputed waters between Iraq and Iran.

Excerpts from the Guardian:
It's right that the government and media should be concerned about the treatment the 15 captured marines and sailors are receiving in Iran. Faye Turney's letters bear the marks of coercion, while parading the prisoners in front of TV cameras was demeaning. But the outrage expressed by ministers and leader writers is curious given the recent record of the "coalition of the willing" on the way it deals with prisoners.

Turney may have been "forced to wear the hijab", as the Daily Mail noted with fury, but so far as we know she has not been forced into an orange jumpsuit. Her comrades have not been shackled, blindfolded, forced into excruciating physical contortions for long periods, or denied liquids and food. As far as we know they have not had the Bible spat on, torn up or urinated on in front of their faces. They have not had electrodes attached to their genitals or been set on by attack dogs.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1086&Itemid=135

[lovuian]

23. Latest I heard in the rumour mill that April 6 0040 was the

date we go to war with Iran

whether America wants to or not

I'm disgusted with Supreme Court Congress And Bush
the whole lot of them