Monday, January 30, 2006

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part One: The War against Iran is getting Closer.

Updated March 7th 2006.
The Israelis’ Domination of the Bush Administration.
The neocons, mainly israelis, were primarily responsible for lying and manipulating america into the invasion of iraq in march 2003. And yet, by the end of 2004, despite the increasing economic, and military, damage suffered by america as a result of the invasion, and despite the public exposure of their lies over iraq, the neocons had consolidated their dominance of the bush administration. "Most indicative is the fact that not a single neocon has been given his walking papers. So long as they are running the show, substantive change is unlikely." (William S. Lind ‘Last Exit Before Gas’ November 25, 2004)." John hulsman concluded, "Simply put, despite Iraq, despite the failure of the "greater middle east" project, despite a non–existent Iran policy, despite it all – there is no doubt that the neo–conservatives have emerged victorious in their struggle with realists for control of American foreign policy during the remainder of the Bush administration. In fact it was a rout." (John C Hulsman ‘Bush’s home run: neocon victory, realist world’ November 23rd 2004). The people currently being purged from america’s intelligence agencies are not the israelis who fabricated phoney evidence for a war against iraq but those who refused to go along with such traitorous activities, "It appears as though the long knives are out in Washington. Career operatives in the CIA and State Department who opposed the neocons’ attempt to "sex up" the intel during the run-up to the Iraq War are being purged wholesale."

In america, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the jewish dominated media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration who, with the help of the jews-only state in palestine, manipulated the country into a war against iraq are now busy repeating the same tactics as regards iran. "Like the Downing Street memo stated, "The facts and intelligence are being fit to meet the policy". It’s the same here. No amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Bush once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The Big-3 would be better off sending arms and ammo to Iran so the people can defend themselves once the bombs start dropping." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ September 23rd 2005). America’s jewish elite pushed the bush administration into a proxy zionist war against iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and it is currently pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran over non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

When will the War Start?
The bush administration is following the same tactic of trying to win international support for a war against iran that it followed in the lead up to the war against iraq. In february 2006 it won support amongst countries on the international atomic energy agency to refer iran to the security council. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ February 8, 2006). It is hoping the security council will either impose economic sanctions on iran, as it did against iraq in 1991, or issue an ultimatum to iran that will lead eventually to war. If america’s jewish elite fails to get the security council to take any action against iran, then it will pressure the bush administration into declaring the united nations redundant and taking unilateral action. This is what happened when bush failed to win security council approval for the invasion of iraq.

The main question then is when the attack will be launched. A number of commentators believed the attack would happen in june 2005. Many believe the most likely date is the end of march: some argue it will be before iran establishes its new oil bourse whilst others point out that it is unlikely to take place before the jews-only state has elected a new jews-only government. The most confident speculation that could be made is that it will be before the russians provide nuclear fuel to start up iran’s bushehr nuclear reactor. But basically the bush administration has the luxury of choosing the best time for such an attack. Over the last few years, america’s jewish elite has primed the american public for a war against iran. "The public mindset has been thoroughly prepared for war by a barrage of untrue propaganda against Iran, extending over many years and gradually escalating in volume and tone. Iran has been demonized as the pure incarnation of evil: the foremost sponsor of terrorism, pursuing nuclear weapons, intent on harming America, harboring al-Qaeda, hiding arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, oppressing its own people, intent on destroying Israel and the West." (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ February 20, 2006). As a consequence, america could go to war at any time with a popular wind behind it. The latest barrage of anti-iranian propaganda began after january 14th 2006 when iran broke the united nations’ seals on its nuclear facilities, and within a matter of weeks opinion polls showed there was a majority of americans willing to support a war against iran. "Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found." (Greg Miller ‘57% Americans support military action in Iran’ Los Angeles Times January 27 2006).

It is possible the war will not take place for many years. When the neocons were unable to get the gulf war allies to invade iraq in 1991, they insisted the united nations should impose severe sanctions against iraq which lasted for 12 years before the invasion eventually materialized. The same could also be true of iran. "The regionalization of the war, and the widening split in Islam, are successes so far as the War Party is concerned. "Creative destruction is our middle name," says neoconservative guru Michael Ledeen, and there is no better phrase for a civil war. For the Iraqis and U.S. policymakers – as well as the Republicans – the chaos in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. For the neocons, however, it is a great victory. They have achieved half of exactly what they wanted, and now it remains for them to lure us into war with Iran and push their project to completion. If they have to do that under a Democratic administration, then so be it. Whether the Republican establishment succeeds in keeping John McCain at bay, or whether he bolts the party to lead a "Bull Moose" bipartisan coalition, the neocons – the vanguard of the War Party – will prove strategically flexible enough to attach themselves to whomever is left standing. In any case, they see this as a long-term commitment: it took them a decade to foment this war, and it will doubtless take another decade – they figure – to win it." (Justin Raimondo ‘On the Road to Empire’ March 1, 2006).

There are still many reasons for suggesting the bush administration will not launch an attack on iran. When bush ordered the invasion of iraq many americans were still angry about the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings and demanded retaliation against those responsible. They were pleased with the successful invasion of afghanistan and the routing of the taliban and had become confident the american military could quickly overpower any nation. The american economy was ticking over. As a consequence, there was widespread public support for bush’s invasion of iraq. Today, however, the political and economic conditions in america are much different and do not lend themselves to another war especially another military invasion. Much of the american public has become weary of america’s continued occupation of iraq and many have become opposed to it. The president is becoming increasingly unpopular since many americans believe he lied about the pretext for the invasion of iraq. However, it has to be suggested these are not critical factors that could deter a war against iran. It is more than likely that the first shots in a war against iran would instantly transform public attitudes and lead, at least in the short term, to a huge boost in the president’s popularity.

Iran’s Desire to Exploit Its Natural Resources.
Why the Rush to War?
Jewish advocates for an american war against iran are whipping up a sense of urgency over the issue by claiming that iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. According to one leading israeli in america, "Within a very few years, in all likelihood, Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles." (Mortimer B. Zuckerman ‘Moscow's Mad Gamble’ January 30th 2006). Another israeli living in america concurs, "Some experts estimate that Iran will need only three more years to build its first nuclear bomb, and it will pass the point of no return much sooner. Within six to 12 months, Tehran might be able to finish the enrichment facilities that will make the Persian bomb a foregone conclusion." (Max Boot ‘Iran's threat, Bush's dilemma’,0,5533737.column?coll=la-news-columns January 25, 2006). But this is just another israeli lie.

Most objective, impartial experts estimate that iran is about a decade away from constructing a nuclear bomb. "In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives."" (Mark Gaffney ‘Iran: A Bridge too Far?’ October 26th 2004); "Even if Iran wanted to develop nuclear weaponry, the CIA estimates that it would take years before anything of any significance could be produced." (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ September 30, 2004); "And, again, just how imminent is this "grave threat"? "We don't see a clear and present danger," Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has just told Newsweek. Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away. Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb – in three years." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Another Undeclared War? January 18, 2006); "Never mind that Iran is 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate: "Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be 'within five years' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not. "The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before 'early to mid-next decade,' according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures. The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Hillary Clinton, War Goddess’ January 23, 2006).

The israelis in america pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran allege that iran’s bushehr reactor could be used to produce nuclear weapons. This is another israeli lie. "Just as there are many different kinds of nuclear reactors, there are different forms of plutonium, distinctions that are almost never made in public discussions of nuclear proliferation. There are two different kinds of reactors, heavy-water or graphite-moderated reactors; and pressurized, or "light water" reactors (PWRs). The Dimona nuclear power plant in Israel is an example of the former. The Bushehr plant is the latter. The Israeli plant is ideal for yielding the desirable isotope of Plutonium (Pu 239) necessary for making bombs. The Iranian plant will produce plutonium, but the wrong kind. It will produce the heavier isotopes, Pu240, Pu241 and Pu242 - almost impossible to use in making bombs. Crucial to extracting weapons-grade plutonium is the type of reactor and the mode in which it is operated. The Israeli-type plant can be refueled "on line," without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously. In the Iranian plant, the entire reactor will have to be shut down - a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources - in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin." (William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer ‘Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1)’
article_id=1b68abecee07b0cb8cf9ed0bc9de5954 Jun 26, 2003); "The reactor at Bushehr was specifically designed to use light-water to make recovery of plutonium more difficult." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ May 8th 2003); "It is worth noting the admission of many nuclear experts, including Mike Levi of King's College of London, that "it is impossible to enrich uranium to weapons grade in bomb quantities using the pilot facilities that the Iranians have"." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Russia's Iran gamble’ Jan 18, 2006).

The reason jews in america and palestine are lying about the immediate threat posed by iran is to prime the american public for a war so the bush administration can launch an attack when the political and military conditions are most favourable. Basically all the jewish lobby needs to do is continually exert pressure on politicians to agree to a war in principle so the attack can take place when the time is right. The slightest incident with iran, which will doubtlessly be fabricated by mossad, or its chums in the bush administration, will provide the justification for the bush administration to conclude it is time to launch the war.

Iran has a Right to develop Civil Nuclear Power.
As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, iran is legally entitled under international law i.e. the non-proliferation treaty, to develop civilian nuclear power although it is not legally entitled to acquire nuclear weapons.

The ZOGs do not want Iran to use Civilian Nuclear Power.
The zionist occupied governments (zogs) of america, britain, and palestine, are trying to overthrow the non-proliferation treaty because it provides iran with the right to develop civilian nuclear power. They have decided the most effective way of deterring iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is by using the threat of military power to prevent it from developing civilian nuclear power. "For example, American and European officials said the statements made clear that the West would not tolerate Iran's enriching uranium for civilian nuclear energy, despite international accords that allow it." (Steven R. Weisman ‘Europe and U.S. Agree on Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Iran’
?ex=1111208400&en=635e786cbef515b0&ei=5070 March 12, 2005). They are unwilling to go down the path of allowing iran to develop civilian nuclear power but prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons by instituting a stiff regime of united nations’ inspections. In general, therefore, the zionist occupied governments of america, britain, and palestine, are saying that no country which is not subservient to their military power will be allowed to develop civilian nuclear power.

Why does Iran want Nuclear Power when it has so many Oil and Gas Resources?
The israelis in the bush administration are whipping up public support for a war against iran by asking why iran needs nuclear energy when it has vast fossil fuel resources. Surely, the question implies, the only reason it seeks to acquire nuclear power is because it wants to develop nuclear weapons. Even the shabbat goy george bush has asked this question and come to such a conclusion, "I'm, kind of, wondering why they need one, since they've got all the oil." (‘Arming an Israeli Attack on Iran: Why the US should cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs for Israel’ May 1st 2005). There are several reasons why iran wants to develop nuclear energy.

Firstly, to exploit its vast uranium resources. "Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year." (George Jahn Associated Press ‘Diplomats: Iran Readying Nuke Processes’ November 19th 2004).

Iran has a growing nuclear industry to economically exploit its abundant uranium resources. It mines uranium; it is creating milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium; conversion plants to create uranium hexafluoride; and can manufacture gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants. "Furthermore, Iran has uranium mines in Yazd and is in the process of constructing milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium and conversion plants that convert it to UF6 gas. Iran has also begun manufacturing its own gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium." (Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster ‘A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences’ CNS Research Story September 9, 2004). Iran’s nuclear power industry could process the country’s vast uranium resources and export nuclear fuels around the world making substantial profits.

Secondly, iran’s nuclear power industry could generate huge amounts of nuclear electricity and export it to surrounding countries in order to make even more profits.

Thirdly, another major consideration is that the domestic consumption of nuclear energy would enable iran to export more fossil fuels, "They have a reasonable explanation for why they want to develop nuclear power. Oil is their biggest and most valuable export. The less they use for domestic purposes, the more they will have to export." (Charley Reese ‘Iran's Bomb’ January 21, 2006).

The fourth major factor is that a nuclear energy industry would extend the life of iran’s fossil fuel resources. Given that, in the future, the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels will boost the price of fossil fuels, then current efforts to preserve fossil fuels will eventually reap huge financial benefits.

The Factors pushing Iran Towards the Development of a Nuclear Power Industry.
Another important factor pushing iran towards the development of nuclear energy is a problem commonly discussed in the west – looming energy shortages brought about by the depletion of fossil fuels. Although iran currently possesses an abundance of fossil fuels, it too faces the prospect of a depletion in its fossil fuel resources and thus, in the long term, energy shortages. Iran’s predicament is rarely discussed in the west – primarily because it make iran’s plans for development of nuclear power seem much more rational. What makes the nuclear option even more attractive to iran is its peculiar demographic problem. Half of iran’s population is currently under the age of 16. This is a considerable demographic time-bomb which will have significant economic repercussions in the decades to come. "Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush its state finances ..." (Spengler ‘Why the West will attack Iran’ Jan 24, 2006); "If Dr. Rice has done her homework, she is aware that in 1975 President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, Dick Cheney, and his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, bought Iran's argument that it needed a nuclear program to meet future energy requirements. This is what Iranian officials are saying today, and they are supported by energy experts who point out that oil extraction in Iran is already at or near peak and that the country will need alternatives to oil in coming decades." (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ February 8, 2006).

Controlling Iran’s Nuclear Power Industry through Uranium Imports.
The russians and europeans are trying to mediate between the israeli dominated bush administration and iran by suggesting it might be possible to allow iran to use civil nuclear power without developing nuclear weapons if they were given control over uranium supplies to iran. George bush has acknowledged russia’s offer to do this, "Vladimir Putin pledged increased vigilance of expended uranium and the fuel cycle as part of Russian assistance in the construction and operation of Iranian reactors. President Bush mentioned this progress in Iran and even empathy for their development goals during his April 28, 2005 press conference: "As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity, power purposes. That's what they've decided to do. And I appreciate that gesture. And what Russia said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium. We'll enrich it for you and provide it to you and then we'll collect it. And I appreciate that gesture. So I think Vladimir was trying to help there."" (‘Arming an Israeli Attack on Iran: Why the US should cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs for Israel’ May 1st 2005).

The europeans are also interested in such a strategy, "The Europeans are aiming to get Tehran to cease all uranium-related activity permanently and depend instead exclusively on imports of low-enriched fissile material produced by the Europeans for Iran's civilian nuclear program. This is totally unacceptable to the Iranians." (Dilip Hiro ‘The Iranian Nuclear Issue in a Global Context’ May 14th 2005).

In other words, the russians and the europeans want to prevent iran from exploiting its own uranium resources and force it to pay vast amounts of money to import a commodity which it has in abundance. It’s good to think that they are trying to uphold the moral principles of the non-proliferation treaty rather than finding a means for promoting their material interests.

The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ attitudes towards Iran concerning Energy Shortages.
It is hypocritical for the zogs of america, britain and palestine, to use nuclear energy and yet deny iran such a right. Over the last few years, increasing numbers of politicians in the over-industrialized world have been advocating an increase in their countries’ use of nuclear energy to meet predicted energy shortages so it is hypocritical for them to stop other countries using this form of energy. Iran has just as much right as any other country around the world to develop nuclear energy. (This statement is not meant to imply support for nuclear energy. It is designed only to put pressure on all to give up the civil use of nuclear power).

Whilst the blair government insists that iran stops any further development of nuclear energy it is also demanding that britain needs to increase its reliance on nuclear energy. Blair wants to revive britain’s nuclear power industry in order to combat a predicted energy shortage even though there are plenty of energy saving measures that could make nuclear energy redundant. The blair government sees no contradiction in its bizarre double standards. "Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and has worked on several diplomatic fronts to resolve its problems with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Meanwhile, Israel is yet to join the NPT community and is under no pressure to do so. Israel’s superior stance continues despite the call made by the IAEA’s chief, Mohamed ElBaradei to surrender its nuclear weapons and to sign the non-proliferation treaty." (Ramzy Baroud ‘Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?’ August 13, 2005).