War Against Iran - So What Really Happened In The Gulf?

"Iran on Saturday insisted that 15 British sailors it seized had illegally entered Iranian waters, denouncing what it called a 'blatant aggression' and accusing Britain of trying to cover up an incursion into its territory. The tough comment came after Britain demanded the return of the sailors and denied they had strayed into Iranian waters while searching for smugglers off Iraq's coast.....The incident came at a time of heightened tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions and allegations that Iran is arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini ...... described the incident as a 'suspicious move' and accused Britain of trying to cover up the illegal entry. 'The British officials instead of making up for their blunders should try to refrain from putting the blame on others by way of irrelevant interpretations,' he said."
Iran: UK troops illegally entered waters
Associated Press, 24 March 2007

Within A Whisker Of War With Iran
Six of the 15 freed British Navy marines and sailors held in Iran speak about their experience at
a news conference 6 April

"It was during the boarding that we noticed the helicopter had returned to 'Mother,' and we started calling the ship on VHF to find out why. A short while later two [Iranian] speed boats were spotted approaching rapidly about 400 meters away..... Another six boats were closing in on us... we realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact......"
British sailors' statement: Full text
CNN, 6 April 2007

"US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office. Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed... Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. 'Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place.' He added: 'We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous.'... Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made. Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action. In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.... Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: 'Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording. 'All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation.'..."
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
Guardian, 10 February 2007

"Here, for instance, is a plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran: Iraq fails to meet the benchmarks for progress toward stability set by the Bush administration. This is followed by U.S. accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq..... culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military action against Iran."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter
A road map out of Iraq
Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2007

Zbigniew Brzezinski
(Former US National Security Adviser)
Exchange With Reporter Following Session
Of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1 February 2007
On The Potential To Provoke War With Iran

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?
A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?
A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

How To Start A War
Brzezinski And Robert Gates (Now US Defense Secretary)
Know How Such Things Work
And The Reality Can Be Very Different To What Is Perceived
By The Media At The Time

Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

"Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ['From the Shadows'], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would."

"A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines. Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds. In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment. Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. "
The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis
Independent, 3 April 2007

"Iran was no doubt hoping that in the country and across the Middle East, people would compare Iran’s decision to free the Britons for the holidays and the US refusal to release the five Iranian officials seized in northern Iraq in January. The Iraqi government had pleaded with the US military to free the Iranians before the Iranian new year holiday, which began on March 21 – but to no avail. ... such are the historical suspicions about Britain that many Iranians apparently believed London had deliberately provoked Tehran into capturing the sailors and marines."
Theatre in Tehran as Iran releases sailors
Financial Times, 4 April 2007

The following memorandum by the steering group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
is signed by Ray Close [ex-CIA] , Princeton, N.J.; Larry Johnson [ex-CIA], Bethesda, Md.;
David MacMichael [ex-CIA], Linden, Va.; Ray McGovern [ex-CIA], Arlington, Va.; and Coleen Rowley [ex-FBI], Apple Valley, Minn.

"At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days. There is real danger that this incident, and the way it plays out, may turn out to be outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s last gesture of fealty to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and 'neo-conservative' advisers who, this time, are looking for a casus belli to 'justify' air and missile strikes on Iran.... Intelligence analysts place great store in a sources’ record for reliability and the historical record. We would be forced to classify Tony Blair as a known prevaricator who, for reasons still not entirely clear, has a five-year record of acting as man’s best friend for Bush. If the president needs a casus belli, Blair will probably fetch it...... The way the UK and U.S. media has been stoked..... suggests that both London and Washington may decide to represent the intransigence of Iranian hotheads as a casus belli for the long prepared air strikes on Iran. And not to be ruled out is the possibility that we are dealing with a provocation ab initio. Intelligence analysts look to precedent, and what seems entirely relevant in this connection is the discussion between Bush and Blair on Jan. 31, 2003, six weeks before the attack on Iraq. The 'White House Memo' (like the famous 'Downing Street Memo' leaked earlier to the British press) shows George Bush broaching to Blair various options to provoke war with Iraq. The British minutes (the authenticity of which is not disputed by the British government) of the Jan. 31, 2003 meeting stated the first option as: 'The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.' Not to mention the (in)famous Tonkin Gulf non-incident, used by President Lyndon Johnson as the 'provocation' to justify bombing North Vietnam."
Unwise Brinkmanship In Iran
Tom Pain.com, 29 March 2007

"It is a highly-charged atmosphere in the Middle East and although there is a purely British-Iranian dimension to the tensions, the British are also caught up in the ongoing US-Iranian animosity and sabre-rattling. An issue like this could be hijacked by Americans or Iranians wishing to grandstand and we know there are people at both ends of the US-Iran spectrum, as well as some Arabs and Israelis, who would like a casus belli."
Rosemary Hollis, director of research at the London-based foreign affairs think-tank Chatham House
The experts - 'There is a lot to be learned here'
Guardian, 5 April 2007

Those In Control Of The HMS Cornwall In The Persian Gulf
Have Some Serious Questions To Answer In An Incident Which Nearly Gave The United States A Casus Belli To Attack Iran

"The boarding team had communications equipment broadcasting their position back to HMS Cornwall. The Ministry of Defence has declined to provide computer printouts....The timing has changed. On Friday the MoD said that it happened at 10.30am. By Wednesday, it said that communications went dead at 9.10am. The boarded vessel has changed. Early reports described it as a dhow or Arab sailing craft. The MoD says it was a cargo ship.....The MoD says that debriefing of the helicopter crew indicates that the team was ambushed leaving the merchant vessel. But the helicopter had flown back to the Cornwall..."
Blair livid as hostage letter seeks withdrawal from Iraq
London Times, 30 March 2007

"It also remained a mystery how the Cornwall’s advanced radar and sonar systems failed to alert its crew to a problem. As a type 22 frigate, the Cornwall has the capability to track ships up to 200 miles away. One recently retired naval officer said even basic navigation radar should have picked up motorboats at shorter range, assuming someone was looking out for them."
Focus: In the eye of the storm
Sunday Times, 1 April 2007

"It is hardly surprising that the crisis is proving fertile ground for Iranian conspiracy theorists..... Britain, according to the theory, wants to put Iran under pressure on one of its most sensitive territorial issues – the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms the historical, racial and religious divide between Persians and Arabs and has been disputed for centuries. The Royal Navy had deliberately used the 15 as bait for the Revolutionary Guards naval units, according to the theory. Why else were they so exposed so far from HMS Cornwall, their mother ship?' Historically, Iranians have some ammunition for viewing Britain as perfidious. It was a British-inspired coup, engineered by MI6 with the CIA, that in 1953 toppled Mohammad Mossadegh, the popular Prime Minister, two years after he nationalised Iran’s oil industry, which had been controlled by Britain."
Conspiracy theories bubbling under
London Times, 3 April 2007

"The Iranians made it clear more than three weeks ago that they were looking to capture 'blond-haired and blue-eyed officers'."
Patrick Mercer, Conservative MP for Newark, and former Army colonel
We showed weakness and will pay the price
Sunday Telegraph, 8 April 2007

"Iranian intelligence officers told the 15 British captives they first became suspicious about their activities after watching an interview with one of them on British television. Families of the hostages said that their loved ones had told them the Iranians had made the claim soon after capturing them. The revelation is likely to raise questions about the Ministry of Defence's decision to allow the media to accompany Cornwall, the ship on which the service personnel were based, and report on its activities. On 13 March - 10 days before the 15 were seized - Channel 5 broadcast an interview with Captain Chris Air, one of the captured Royal Marines, in which he stated that his crew's role was to liaise with Iraqi vessels to 'let them know we are here to protect them, protect their fishing and to stop any terrorism or any piracy in the area'. The Iranian interrogators told their captives, who were seized while travelling in two dinghies during a patrol, that this had alerted them to Cornwall's role. ..... The MoD confirmed last night that the Iranians had made the claim that they had become interested in Cornwall's activities after learning about it on British television, but denied the decision to allow the ship's crew to be interviewed while on active duty had jeopardised the mission.... The MoD's decision to allow media access to Cornwall had been welcomed by newspapers and broadcasters keen to tell the story of the navy's role in patrolling the seas off Iraq. Also on board the frigate was a BBC film crew and a journalist from the Independent. But as attention now turns to the MoD's role in handling the affair, questions are likely to be asked as to whether lessons will have to be learnt regarding the media's relationship with the armed forces."
TV interview 'tipped off' Iran about ship's intelligence role
Observer, 8 April 2007

"The British lapse was all the more surprising because the same thing happened in June 2004, when eight sailors and marines were seized in the same area and released three days later. The defence ministry compiled a 'lessons learnt' paper to ensure that those mistakes were not repeated. The Sunday Times has learnt that the paper highlighted the need for 'top cover' for boarding parties, which should always have been covered from the air by the presence of a helicopter. The Cornwall’s Lynx – armed with a .50 machinegun that could have caused serious damage to the Iranian fast boats – had apparently been overhead when the sailors boarded the Indian freighter. Why did it turn back, leaving the sailors exposed? The ministry initially said last week that it needed to refuel before retreating behind an insistence that there was no standard procedure for keeping a helicopter in place. "
Focus: In the eye of the storm
Sunday Times, 1 April 2007

"[Capt. Air:] It was during the boarding that we noticed the helicopter had returned to 'Mother,' and we started calling the ship on VHF to find out why. "
British sailors' statement: Full text
CNN, 6 April 2007

"The Times understands that appeals for more firepower to protect Britain’s UN-mandated patrols in the Gulf were repeatedly turned down by Whitehall."
Deaths fuel Iran row
London Times, 6 April 2007

"Royal Navy commanders are furious that the Ministry of Defence and senior Fleet officers have failed to order a full inquiry into the debacle surrounding the capture by Iranians of 15 servicemen. There is a growing belief that the furore over the media payments story is acting as a smokescreen to the 'national scandal' of the mistakes made that have substantially undermined Britain's international standing, Fleet sources said. Officers believe a board of inquiry would reveal what led to the decision to allow 15 troops so close to the Iranian border without support.... "
Officers fear furore hides real 'scandal'
Daily Telegraph, 13 April 2007

'Set Aside The Nuclear Question'
It's The Oil Stupid - Cheney Still Wants His War

"Although Downing Street publicly insists that Bush and Blair remain 'closely in touch' on the Iranian threat, some British officials are privately concerned that Dick Cheney, the hardline American vice-president, is driving the administration’s policy on Iran.... One well known US weapons specialist last week described the Iranian nuclear issue as 'the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion'.... "
Blair’s loyalty tested as Bush menaces Iran
Sunday Times, 23 January 2005

"Q: And what are the stakes here? The diplomatic effort has been going on for a long time and it has not worked. In fact, Iran has gone in the other direction. So what are the stakes here?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, remember where Iran sits. It's important to backup I think for a minute and set aside the nuclear question, just look at what Iran represents in terms of their physical location. They occupy one whole side of the Persian Gulf, clearly have the capacity to influence the world's supply of oil, about 20 percent of the daily production comes out through the Straits of Hormuz."
Interview of US Vice President Dick Cheney
ABC News (Australia), 23 February 2007

"The US is to continue holding five Iranians captured in Iraq despite protests from Tehran, US media said. The fate of the five sparked disagreement, with the White House overruling the State Department on the issue, the Washington Post reported. Administration officials have not commented on the report. The US says the men seized in a January raid on Iran's consulate in Irbil are linked to the Revolutionary Guard. Iran says they are diplomats. The US accuses the Revolutionary Guard of providing support to insurgents. The issue has further raised tension between the US and Iran, which has demanded that the men be released. The decision was made at a high-level meeting on Tuesday, the Washington Post said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly argued that the five Iranians be released because they were 'no longer useful'. But Vice President Dick Cheney's office said their capture signalled that Iranian activities were monitored and their operatives at risk of detention, the daily said."
US 'will keep Iranian detainees'
BBC Online, 14 April 2007

"Sources close to the office of Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) confirmed that the progressive Democratic congressman and Democratic presidential aspirant intends to introduce a bill of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, April 25.... Kucinich's bill will go to the Judiciary Committee, where Chairman John Conyers (R-MI) and the other members will have to decide whether to request subpoena powers and to begin a hearing into impeachable offenses by the vice president. Kucinich's action marks a major step forward for impeachment activists, who have been frustrated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has repeatedly stated that she has no interest in having the House hold impeachment hearings against president or vice president (and who has been leaning hard on Democratic caucus members in the House not to file impeachment bills). By bucking Pelosi and filing his bill, Kucinich may force the mainstream corporate media to start discussing the idea. There has been a virtual blackout on impeachment in the media, which has not even been asking the question in polls, since a year ago, when Pelosi made it clear she had no interest in impeachment. Kucinich's move comes as citizens across the country are bringing impeachment resolutions to town meetings, city councils, Democratic Party county and state committees, and even state legislatures--and getting them passed."
Impeaching Cheney First. Finally!
Baltimore Chronicle And Sentinel, 19 April 2007

"Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and the U.S. 'raise serious questions of constitutionality.'.... The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, 'raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust.'"
Vermont Senate calls for impeachment of Bush
Associated Press, 20 April 2007

"But as Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran's territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei's advisers began to have second thoughts [about holding the British captives]. Adding to those doubts were reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf – making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area. The Nimitz is expected to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS John C. Stennis, both currently in the Persian Gulf, in the coming weeks."
USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision
Newsmax, 4 April 2007

"Israel will be at war by summer, a prominent opposition member of the Israeli Knesset told NewsMax in an exclusive interview this week.... Like most Israeli leaders, Dr. Eldad would prefer that the United States and its partners take out Iranian nuclear and missile sites, if for no other reason than the vastly superior conventional firepower the U.S. could bring to bear."
Israel Will be at War by Summer, Politician Says
Newsmax, 31 March 2007

2007 Armedinejad And The Bushehr Nuclear Power Station
1956 Nasser And The Suez Canal

The Eden And MI6 Secret Plots Against Nasser

"All the time here he [British Prime Minister Anthony Eden] was with this personal [secret] declaration of war against Nasser, but no means of putting it into effect. Because although Nasser had nationalised the Suez Canal Company he hadn't given us any casus belli, he hadn't actually stopped a ship, or arrested a British subject, or shot anybody, or done anything which would give us the opportunity to go in and invade. And then suddenly the French came up with this plan ..... It was as if suddenly the heavens had opened, and here was the opportunity at last. I was allowed to consult two officials at the Foreign Office - Permanent Under Secretary, and the Under Secretary in charge of the Middle Eastern area. Nobody was to be told."
Anthony Nutting, Foreign Office Minister of State 1956, interviewed decades later
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

"You find that people in MI6 were conducting quite separate policies..... quite regardless of what the Foreign Office view was. I was astonished when somebody showed me some document written by an acquaintance of mine in MI6. I wouldn't have recognised it at all as being anything like British policy, but it was set out as being so. These secret people, you see, they get so above themselves, if I might say so."
Evelyn Shuckburgh, Assistant Under Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs at the Foreign Office in 1956, interviewed decades later
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

"With hindsight it's clear that Eden was already committed to military action [against Egypt in 1956]. Approaching the problem through the United Nations was unlikely to work, since in international law Nasser probably was within his rights to nationalise the Suez Canal Company. With the likelihood of armed conflict in mind, in fact Eden would ultimately engage in an illegal secret pact with France and Israel to provide a pretext to start it..... no one outside of a very few close confidants knew of Eden's single minded commitment to a military solution, and still less about the very secret plan hatched with the French and Israelis to provide a pretext for that military action to start.... Government preparations for war went largely unreported in detail having been the subject of two 'D' notices. That's the system by which press and broadcasters agree voluntarily to restrict reporting of matters relating to national security. Meanwhile unknown to any but his closest inner circle the plan for the Israelis to invade Egypt, thus allowing Britain and France to intervene on the pretext of keeping the waring sides apart, was ready to be put into action."
'A Comfort to the Enemy'
BBC Archive Hour, Saturday 4 November 2006 20:00-21:00 (Radio 4 FM)

"The British hostage crisis was a byproduct of a game of brinkmanship, which could ultimately make war more likely. For now, perhaps, a sense of relief is justified. But for how long? As Massey heads off for 'a couple of days with my girlfriend', the next crisis may already be brewing."
Iran laughs at Easter 'gift' of humiliation
Sunday Times, 8 April 2007

'If At First You Don't Succeed, Try, Try, Again'
Another 'Yoo Hoo!' Target Brewing

"Iraqi militia groups have drawn up detailed plans to seize Prince Harry as a hostage when he arrives in Iraq next month, The Observer can reveal. Some of the most notorious paramilitary factions in southern Iraq claim they have informants placed inside British military barracks in Iraq monitoring the third in line to the throne. The claims call into question the Ministry of Defence's decision to allow Harry to serve in Iraq where he and his unit will be seen as a valuable target. Last night an MoD spokesman said: 'We have not concealed the fact that he [Harry] is going out there and the bad guys know that he's coming, and we expect that they will consider him a high-profile scalp.' Despite the threats, Whitehall officials ruled out the possibility that the prince might not be sent to Maysan, the most volatile province in southern Iraq, where British casualties are mounting. Harry will serve with the Blues and Royals for a six-month tour of duty. He is trained as a troop leader to take command of four Scimitars and will be deployed in Iraq alongside 11 men who will serve under him. Militia leaders claim that photographs of Harry have already been downloaded from the internet and disseminated to insurgent groups."
Harry is militia target in Iraq, admits army
Observer, 22 April 2007

By Providing This Much Scope For A Truly Incendiary Hostage Crisis In An Altogether Different League
Somebody In Whitehall Is Doing A Very Passable Impression Of Planning Serious Escalation In The Gulf
Otherwise They Would Simply Be Saying
'Sorry Harry Old Boy, Very Honourable And All That. But No Thank You. Now Off You Go To The Falklands'

"Abu Zaid, commander of the Malik Ibn Al Ashtar Brigade of the notorious Mehdi Army militia, said: 'We are awaiting the arrival of the young, handsome, spoilt prince with baited breath and we confidently expect he will come out into the open on the battlefield. 'We will be generous with him. For he will return him to his grandmother [the Queen] but without ears,' added Zaid, a senior figure within the largest and strongest Shia militia group operating where British troops are deployed. We have printed out many photographs of him from the internet and given them to all other groups. 'They know the prince is their main objective and I have every confidence he will be targeted and attacked.' Abu Samir, a leader of the Iranian-backed Sunni group Thar-allah - meaning God's revenge - added: 'Our people are ready to welcome him in their special way - like Leachman.' This was a reference to a British officer Colonel Gerard Leachman who was murdered by Sheikh Dhari, a tribal leader, in Iraq in 1920. Dhari is still considered by many Iraqis as a hero. While news of his death shocked the British public, it is credited with inspiring Arab tribes to revolt against Western occupying forces. Samir added it would be impossible for Harry to avoid detection once in Iraq, describing his face as more familiar to Iraqis than world-famous footballers....Another senior Sunni militia source said: 'Plans [to abduct] are already in place. As soon as the prince arrives, the race will be on to seize him as a trophy and then to decide his fate.'.... Zaid, who commands an arm of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army which has been responsible for attacks against British troops, said that if plans to abduct the prince failed then militias would try and assassinate the prince. He said: 'Our sniper teams have also been issued with pictures so they will know his face long before he arrives in our land.'....Experts believe the international media coverage towards Iran's capture of the 15 British soldiers and Marines from the Shatt al Arab waterway in March will have underlined the value of taking Harry hostage."
Harry 'the mother of all targets' in Iraq
Observer, 22 April 2007

Coming Soon In A Tabloid Near You - 'It Was The Iranians Wot Dun It'
How To Create World War III

"Twelve years ago, para-bolas of green, red and yellow tracer fire used to arch over the city of Sarajevo at night, accompanied by deadly artillery shells. When Maja heads for home, I walk with her as far as the cobbled span of the Latin Bridge - also known as the Gavrilo Princip Bridge, being the place at which, in 1914, the young Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, thus sparking the First World War."
Bright lights, hopeful city
Scotsman, 21 April 2007

Message From Stop The War Coalition

"There are many rumours of an imminent attack on Iran. If an attack takes place, Stop the War Coalition, in conjunction with CND, will call an emergency protest outside Downing Street at 6pm on the day of the attack. We are asking all our supporters to join this protest. (If the attack takes place at night, the protest will take place at 6pm on the following day, or if on a weekend, at 12 noon on the appropriate day). If you need information and the Stop the War office is closed (evenings, weekends) call 07951 579 064 for information. If unable to speak directly to us leave a message and we will return your call or send you a text message if using a mobile."
(full details here: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/)

PUBLIC MEETINGS ON IRAN

Tues 24 April: South Tyneside StWC
Trinity House Social Centre, 134 Laygate lane, Laygate,
South Shields. (Nearest Metro Chichester)
7.30pm - 8.30pm
Thurs 26 April: Bristol StWC
Opposite Caf� Bar, Park Street Avenue, BRISTOL, BS1 5JU
7.30pm
Mon 30 April: Debyshire STW
Friends Meeting Hall, St Helens Street, Derby DE1
7pm - 9pm
Weds 9 May: Canterbury Kent
Westgate Hall, Canterbury Kent
7.30pm
Weds 9 May: London, Goldsmith's College
Ian Gulland lecture theatre, Whitehead Building, Lewisham Way, London SE14 7.30 pm

"The next 48 hours will be crucial to securing the release of the 15 British sailors and Marines held by Iran, Tony Blair said yesterday. But Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, cautioned against expecting 'a swift resolution' to the crisis, which enters its thirteenth day today. And British officials said that the state of dialogue between London and Tehran was 'confused'.... Mr Blair, visiting Glasgow yesterday, said: 'The next 48 hours will be fairly critical.' He did not elaborate..."
Iran softens stance over captured crew but Beckett calls for caution
London Times, 4 April 2007

"When Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington, published his memoirs DC Confidential 18 months ago, Tony Blair reportedly called him 'a complete pr**k'. .... So Downing Street residents are unlikely to be tossing ticker tape over an interview that Sir Christopher's wife, Lady Catherine Meyer has granted Whitehall and Westminster World magazine, in which she mentions the famously testy subject of Blair and George Bush's shared Christianity. 'They are both very religious and I believe that they both feel that what they are doing - especially Blair - is what God wants them to do and that God has chosen their way,' says Lady Meyer, a Conservative who (regardless of the Meyers' pillow talk) had opportunity to observe both leaders closely. 'This is why they bonded immediately.' She adds: 'Blair started talking about getting rid of Saddam Hussein way before September 11 ... in 1998. So I think that on Iraq he was more ready than Bush, who only really came into this conversation after 9/11.' Lady Meyer goes on to accuse Blair's government of 'astounding hypocrisy'."
Lady Catherine Meyer, wife of former British US Ambassador, Christopher Meyer
Independent, 20 March 2007

"'The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened. There are 50 million Christians standing up and applauding the State of Israel.' So began a speech by Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United For Israel, before an AIPAC Policy Conference plenary earlier this week.....offers of Christian assistance will continue to be met with a considerable degree of wariness...... their support is colored by doctrines of 'rapture' and the apocalypse, in which a catastrophic global war plays an important part..... Hagee reports that CUFI now has 13 regional directors, 40 state directors, 80 city directors, and is aiming to organize in every Congressional district. After only four months in operation, CUFI brought 3,500 members to Washington, DC to lobby Congress last July. That is already over half the size of the AIPAC conference, and the numbers are growing quickly. The objective, Hagee told AIPAC, is to signal to Congress that American support for Israel 'is no longer just a Jewish issue, but a Christian-Jewish issue from this day forward.' The political importance and value of such a transformation, if successful, is difficult to overstate."
Christians For Israel
Jerusalem Post, 14 March 2007

"Israel's military campaign in southern Lebanon is still being backed by most American voters, according to a survey published yesterday that shows public opinion in the US once again sharply at odds with views in Europe.... Last month the Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas, convened a meeting in Washington of 3,500 members of Christians Unified for Israel. The organisation is dedicated to building support for Israel, even in states where there are few Jewish voters. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican presidential hopeful, attended the rally, as did Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador. Mr Hagee called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a 'miracle of God' and suggested that a ceasefire would violate 'God’s foreign policy statement' towards Jews. The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ’s return ushers in a 1,000-year period of grace. 'The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching . . . Rejoice and be exceeding glad — the best is yet to be,' Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies. President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for 'spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom'. He is said to have added: 'God bless and stand by the people of Israel and God bless the United States.' The support for Israel of 50 million American evangelicals chimes with the reality of the Administration’s foreign policy, which refuses to tolerate terrorist organisations — or the Middle Eastern regimes linked to them. Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy in the administrations of the first President Bush and Bill Clinton, said recently that evangelical supporters of Israel were now an 'important part of the landscape'."
Bombing is backed by most American voters
London Times, 4 August 2006

"Looking to their American counterparts on Monday, Knesset members were surprised at the solidarity and support being shown among key US politicians. Several top US political figures, including Sen. John McCain (R) Arizona, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Rep.) called the current Middle East crisis the beginning of 'World War III' and said they were 'gravely concerned' in an interview on CNN's Larry King Live.... 'They said this because they think it will lead to Iran getting involved, which they believe will set off World War III,' said MK Benny Elon (National Union-National Religious Party)...... Elon said that the comments originated with American evangelist John Hagee, who published a book in 2006 called Jerusalem Countdown, which predicted that World War III would begin in Jerusalem and spread to Western states."
Is this the start of World War III?
Jerusalem Post, 17 July 2006

"The final instalment of an evangelical Christian publishing phenomenon which has spawned 16 novels and sold 64 million copies arrived in shops across the United States yesterday. Kingdom Come, the last of the 'Left Behind' series of Bible-inspired thrillers written by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, tells the story of the final postmillennial battle between Jesus and Satan.... The Left Behind series appeared to chime with the sense of the impending Apocalypse among many Americans, reinforced by the election of President Bush on a faith-based platform and global events which — in some eyes — confirm biblical prophecy. Sales elsewhere in the world have been meagre.... A 2006 survey for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 79 per cent of American Christians believe in the Second Coming, with 20 per cent believing it will happen in their lifetime. The Left Behind series begins with all born-again Christians being summoned to heaven in the Rapture, as predicted by the Book of Revelation. Those left behind, struggling to make sense of what has happened, are then ruled by a Romanian politician named Nicolae Carpathia who becomes United Nations Secretary-General. He turns out to be the Anti-Christ who sets up a world government, as well as establishing his capital in the biblical Babylon, Baghdad. Jesus then returns for the Second Coming and slaughters nonbelievers including Hindus, Muslims, Jews, atheists, as well as many Catholics and mainstream Protestants. The books have attracted a fair share of controversy, not least from mainstream Christian theologians and other religions. American Muslims, for instance, have asked Wal-Mart to stop stocking the Left Behind video game which encourages children to zap the AntiChrist’s team which includes a lot of Arab and Islamic-sounding names."
Revelations of the last battle as US Bible thriller series comes to end
London Times, 4 April 2007

"The former technician jailed for 18 years for leaking Israel's nuclear secrets has said he was trying to prevent a nuclear holocaust. In his first interview since his release, Mordechai Vanunu said he did not feel he was a traitor. 'I felt it was not about betraying; it was about reporting. It was about saving Israel from a new holocaust.' In the interview for the BBC's This World programme, Mr Vanunu said he had no regrets over his actions. 'I have no regrets despite the fact I have paid a heavy punishment, a large price,' he said. Mr Vanunu, 50, who is widely regarded as a traitor in Israel, spent nearly 18 years in prison for revealing details of Israel's clandestine nuclear arms programme. Supporters welcomed his release in April, calling him a 'hero of peace'.... Mr Vanunu was kidnapped in Italy by Israeli agents in 1986 following a Sunday Times article, based on an interview with him, which exposed Israel's atomic secrets. He described how a female secret agent lured him from London to Rome and distracted him in the car.... In Rome, Mr Vanunu was overpowered and drugged, then shipped back to Israel to be tried in secret. Now living in Jerusalem's St George's Anglican cathedral, Mr Vanunu is banned from using the internet or mobile phones, and may not approach embassies or borders."
Vanunu 'wanted to avert holocaust'
BBC Online, 29 May 2004

"All I can say is this: the Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. The Israeli Defense Ministry has long had a nuclear arsenal. Israeli intelligence tried to keep the existence of this arsenal secret from the outside world, but fortunately did not succeed. Nevertheless, they are still trying to silence me - even now, after seventeen-and-a-half years in prison."
Interview with Mordechai Vanunu: Israel preparing to use nuclear weapons against Iran
Voyenny Parad, No. 4, 2005 (original Russian) - Globalresearch.ca

"The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, said Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, a Russian think tank. 'Preparations to strike Iran's strategic facilities continue.... If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran,' Ivashov said, adding that such a 'development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world.'"
Russian general says U.S. continues preparations for military action against Iran
Interfax (Russia), 8 April 2007

“Who was responsible for exposing the sailors within reach of one of the most reckless nations in the world? This was a kidnapping waiting to happen. ”
The Iran Crisis Is Blair’s True Legacy
Mail On Sunday, 1 April 2007

"... The Royal Navy and Royal Marines have huge experience of operating in the narrow Gulf waterway and there is concern, if not bewilderment, over the manner in which the 14 service-men and one servicewoman were so easily seized by the Iranian gunmen."
Browne apologises, offers two inquiries . . . and keeps his job
London Times, 17 April 2007

"General Sir Michael Rose, [is] former head of the SAS, ex-commander of UN forces in Bosnia, and formerly in charge of standards in the Army as Adjutant General..... 'The overall system should have responded in some way,' he says, referring to the mother ship, the heavily armed HMS Cornwall which was nearby when the hostages were taken. He also criticises the ship’s crew for not detecting the Iranian approach on their radar screens..... 'I am amazed that the Navy hasn’t had a Board of Inquiry about what happened. Who put them in that situation? They should be held responsible. .... Yes, there should indeed have been charges, and the senior officers should have been asked how come they allowed this situation to occur. '..."
J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of government and military chiefs
Dail Mail, 12 April 2007

"A catalogue of errors, from poor intelligence to inadequate training and lack of firepower, was blamed yesterday for the capture of the 15 British Marines and sailors by Iranian forces two weeks ago. As the Ministry of Defence began an inquiry into the circumstances of the incident on March 23, when a lightly armed Royal Navy boarding party was ambushed and taken hostage by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, naval sources said that clear failings had already been identified... The inquiry will want to know why the Lynx helicopter flying from HMS Cornwall, which was equipped with a heavy machinegun, had already returned to the ship before the mission was complete. It was scrambled when the ambush was under way but arrived back on the scene too late to save the Marines and sailors. ' 'I understand that HMS Cornwall had requested a sniper team be added to its crew but this was turned down by the Ministry of Defence,' one naval source said. 'That has now been rectified.' There are also concerns that Royal Navy commanders had inadequate intelligence that may have made them complacent. Iranian military commanders had been giving warning publicly for weeks that they intended to capture American or British forces in Iraq in retaliation for the arrest in January of five Iranian officials by US troops. British servicemen were particularly at risk on March 23 since Britain was pushing through a UN Security Council resolution the next day, imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme. British soldiers operating in southern Iraq were put on alert earlier this year against the hostage threat. They were authorised to use 'maximum force' to avoid being captured while on patrol. The same rules of engagement clearly did not apply to naval personnel patrolling Iraqi waters."
Inquiry begins into errors that led to crew’s ambush
London Times, 6 April 2007

"Intelligence failures are also being blamed for the incident. British troops in southern Iraq had been warned of the dangers of being taken hostage, after Iran openly threatened to capture American or British soldiers. They had been authorised to use 'maximum force' to protect themselves. And yet, on the eve of a UN Security Council vote on a British resolution to impose sanctions against Iran, no warning was given to the boarding party about the dangers to which they were being exposed."
Deaths fuel Iran row
London Times, 6 April 2007

"... it is hard to think of anything in modern times that has held Britain up to such, and such richly deserved, international contempt as the case of the 15 captured mariners in the Shatt al Arab. There was the original sin; messing about in lightly armed little boats in a waterway contested by Iran — a bit like poking a mad dog in the eye without being prepared to clobber it with a big stick if it bites."
Why Old Britain's Time is Up
TIME, 12 April 2007

"Iranian intelligence officers told the 15 British captives they first became suspicious about their activities after watching an interview with one of them on British television. Families of the hostages said that their loved ones had told them the Iranians had made the claim soon after capturing them. The revelation is likely to raise questions about the Ministry of Defence's decision to allow the media to accompany Cornwall, the ship on which the service personnel were based, and report on its activities. On 13 March - 10 days before the 15 were seized - Channel 5 broadcast an interview with Captain Chris Air, one of the captured Royal Marines, in which he stated that his crew's role was to liaise with Iraqi vessels to 'let them know we are here to protect them, protect their fishing and to stop any terrorism or any piracy in the area'. The Iranian interrogators told their captives, who were seized while travelling in two dinghies during a patrol, that this had alerted them to Cornwall's role. ..... The MoD confirmed last night that the Iranians had made the claim that they had become interested in Cornwall's activities after learning about it on British television, but denied the decision to allow the ship's crew to be interviewed while on active duty had jeopardised the mission.... The MoD's decision to allow media access to Cornwall had been welcomed by newspapers and broadcasters keen to tell the story of the navy's role in patrolling the seas off Iraq. Also on board the frigate was a BBC film crew and a journalist from the Independent. But as attention now turns to the MoD's role in handling the affair, questions are likely to be asked as to whether lessons will have to be learnt regarding the media's relationship with the armed forces."
TV interview 'tipped off' Iran about ship's intelligence role
Observer, 8 April 2007

The White House And Downing St -V - The State Department And The Foreign Office

"When Jack Straw was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced. I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be 'nuts' to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon......The Bush-Blair partnership is still poised uneasily between the hawks of the Pentagon and the doves of the State Department. It was a bad mistake for Tony Blair to sack Jack Straw, who was handling this divergence rather well. It was also an insult to our national independence."
Lord Rees-Mogg - How the US fired Jack Straw
London Times, 7 August 2007

"Dramatic new evidence that Cabinet rebel Jack Straw was sacked as Foreign Secretary as a result of pressure from George W. Bush has been revealed. Senior sources close to the US Government told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Straw's outspoken opposition to America's policies on the Middle East was discussed by White House aides weeks before his shock dismissal by Tony Blair in May.... He angered the White House by saying that threats to bomb Iran to stop it acquiring nuclear weapons - a course of action which Mr Bush and Mr Blair have refused to rule out - were 'nuts'. A US source told The Mail on Sunday: 'Mr Straw's views did not find favour in the White House and its concerns were passed on to the British Government.... Some Foreign Office insiders say it could be part of an American plan to pave the way for an attack on Iran next year."
U.S. 'told Blair to sack Straw after Condi's Blackburn trip'
Mail On Sunday, 6 August 2006

"The next 48 hours will be crucial to securing the release of the 15 British sailors and Marines held by Iran, Tony Blair said yesterday. But Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, cautioned against expecting 'a swift resolution' to the crisis, which enters its thirteenth day today. And British officials said that the state of dialogue between London and Tehran was 'confused'.... Mr Blair, visiting Glasgow yesterday, said: 'The next 48 hours will be fairly critical.' He did not elaborate....."
Iran softens stance over captured crew but Beckett calls for caution
London Times, 4 April 2007

"When the Iranian leader suddenly announced that he was letting the British sailors and marines go, no one was more surprised than the officials involved in securing their freedom at Downing Street, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.... The Iranians did not reveal what had prompted them to make such a dramatic public climbdown....Downing Street did not expect that the captives would be freed in less than 24 hours. "
Sudden decision owes more to tension in Tehran than to Britain’s diplomacy
London Times, 5 April 2007

"The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, said Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, a Russian think tank. 'Preparations to strike Iran's strategic facilities continue. Three major groups of U.S. forces are still in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Altogether, they have up to 450 cruise missiles on alert,' the general told Interfax-AVN. 'Military operations against Tehran will begin with the launch of at least two unexpected strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles and air power in order to disable Iran's air defense capabilities,' he said. 'According to our data, up to 150 aircraft are to be involved in each strike on Iran. Land-based air defense systems will be disabled in the first place, then mobile short-range systems, which Tehran has (including some 30 new systems),' he said. Primary targets will include command centers, air defense installations, the navy, airfields, ports and docking facilities, the general said. 'Nuclear facilities may be secondary targets. According to expert assessments, at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed in order to stop Iran's nuclear program,' Ivashov said. Ivashov did not rule out that nuclear weapons may be used against Iran. 'Combat nuclear weapons may be used for bombing. This will result in radioactive contamination of the Iranian territory, which could possibly spread to neighboring countries,' he said. 'If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran,' Ivashov said, adding that such a 'development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world.'"
Russian general says U.S. continues preparations for military action against Iran
Interfax (Russia), 8 April 2007

"The media's requests were passed on by the 'shielders' and were dealt with at Fleet Headquarters in Portsmouth by the man in charge of personnel issues, Second Sea Lord Vice-Adml Adrian Johns. Back in London, the second permanent secretary at the MoD, Sir Ian Andrews, was kept informed as was Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of Defence Staff..... Normally members of the Armed Forces are not allowed to profit from telling stories to the press unless they receive permission in 'exceptional circumstances'. But on this occasion they were actively encouraged to do so. The Navy feared that after the euphoria of the hostages' return had passed, the Navy itself would face a wave of criticism for allowing them to be seized by the Iranians in the first place. Getting their stories out in full, and under the controlling eye of Navy and MoD officials, would, they believed, deflect attention from what had gone wrong.... Tony Blair was informed while Mr Browne formally 'signed off' on the deal."
How the Navy spun its way into a PR disaster
Daily Telegraph, 10 April 2007

"The British lapse was all the more surprising because the same thing happened in June 2004, when eight sailors and marines were seized in the same area and released three days later. The defence ministry compiled a 'lessons learnt' paper to ensure that those mistakes were not repeated. The Sunday Times has learnt that the paper highlighted the need for 'top cover' for boarding parties, which should always have been covered from the air by the presence of a helicopter. The Cornwall’s Lynx – armed with a .50 machinegun that could have caused serious damage to the Iranian fast boats – had apparently been overhead when the sailors boarded the Indian freighter. Why did it turn back, leaving the sailors exposed? The ministry initially said last week that it needed to refuel before retreating behind an insistence that there was no standard procedure for keeping a helicopter in place. "
Focus: In the eye of the storm
Sunday Times, 1 April 2007

"Defence Secretary Des Browne admitted he 'made a mistake in not blocking sailors from selling their stories of their Iran ordeal to the media.....Announcing the investigation into how the sailors and Marines came to be snatched during a routine patrol, he said it had been 'an unusual situation with wide and far-reaching consequences. It would be led by the Governor General of Gibraltar, Lieutenant General Sir Rob Fulton, Royal Marines, a retired former commander of UK Amphibious Task Forces. The six-week inquiry would cover 'all operational aspects' and the full results would be presented to the Commons defence committee but not published, he said.... An inquiry into the media handling aspects would be conducted by a senior military officer and a senior MoD official both unconnected with the decision and led by an independent figure 'with wide media experience', he told MPs. But it would not be a 'witch hunt', he insisted."
Browne 'sorry' over sailor stories
Guardian, 16 April 2007

"Making a skilful defence of his much-criticised report into the pre-war intelligence, Lord Butler insisted that no one - neither Tony Blair nor John Scarlett, now head of M16 - could be held responsible.... In a rare foray into details, Lord Butler, cabinet secretary under John Major and Mr Blair, said he was satisfied that he was not prevented from a proper investigation - nor that he should have passed judgment on policy decisions.... Nor was it his job to apportion specific blame, Lord Butler told sceptical members of the Commons public administration select committee. 'Our conclusion was that you could not pick out anyone who bore special responsibility for (the dossier's retrospective weaknesses). I think that is often the case in government. 'We did look for evidence whether there was distortion or negligence that you could pin on individuals. If we could have found that, we might have commented on it. But that was not the position.' Pressed by Tony Wright, the committee's Labour chairman, to concede that 'parliament and the public were misled', Lord Butler, now, master of University College, Oxford, insisted that Mr Scarlett - then head of the joint intelligence committee (JIC) - was 'not solely responsible for the contents of the dossier'.Throughout his two hour session Lord Butler insisted the Blair regime was not basically different from the other five premierships he had witnessed. The circulation of papers to cabinet ministers before their Thursday meetings - which his committee said should be improved - had been declining since 1945. Faced with the charge that the decision to go to war was the most personal by a prime minister since Sir Anthony Eden invaded Suez in 1956, Lord Butler countered that Lady Thatcher had done the same over the Falklands crisis."
'No one to blame' for flaws in Iraq dossier, Butler tells MPs
Guardian, 22 October 2004

"If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, you can bet your bottom dollar that there also will be immediate charges that Iran was responsible in order to generate public hysteria in favor of military action. But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities... For now, our choice is either to be stampeded into a reckless adventure profoundly damaging to long-term U.S. national interests or to become serious about giving negotiations with Iran a genuine chance. The mullahs were on the skids several years ago but were given a new burst of life by the intensifying confrontation with the United States. Our strategic goal, pursued by real negotiations and not by posturing, should be to separate Iranian nationalism from religious fundamentalism. Treating Iran with respect and within a historical perspective would help to advance that objective. American policy should not be swayed by the current contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the misguided intervention in Iraq."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter
Los Angeles Times, 23 April 2006

More Bait On Its Way From Whitehall
How Can The MOD Possibly Justify This Decision?

"Iraqi militia groups have drawn up detailed plans to seize Prince Harry as a hostage when he arrives in Iraq next month, The Observer can reveal. Some of the most notorious paramilitary factions in southern Iraq claim they have informants placed inside British military barracks in Iraq monitoring the third in line to the throne. The claims call into question the Ministry of Defence's decision to allow Harry to serve in Iraq where he and his unit will be seen as a valuable target. Last night an MoD spokesman said: 'We have not concealed the fact that he [Harry] is going out there and the bad guys know that he's coming, and we expect that they will consider him a high-profile scalp.' Despite the threats, Whitehall officials ruled out the possibility that the prince might not be sent to Maysan, the most volatile province in southern Iraq, where British casualties are mounting. Harry will serve with the Blues and Royals for a six-month tour of duty. He is trained as a troop leader to take command of four Scimitars and will be deployed in Iraq alongside 11 men who will serve under him. Militia leaders claim that photographs of Harry have already been downloaded from the internet and disseminated to insurgent groups."
Harry is militia target in Iraq, admits army
Observer, 22 April 2007

"Abu Zaid, commander of the Malik Ibn Al Ashtar Brigade of the notorious Mehdi Army militia, said: 'We are awaiting the arrival of the young, handsome, spoilt prince with baited breath and we confidently expect he will come out into the open on the battlefield. We will be generous with him. For he will return him to his grandmother [the Queen] but without ears,' added Zaid, a senior figure within the largest and strongest Shia militia group operating where British troops are deployed. We have printed out many photographs of him from the internet and given them to all other groups... Abu Samir, a leader of the Iranian-backed Sunni group Thar-allah - meaning God's revenge - added: 'Our people are ready to welcome him in their special way - like Leachman.' This was a reference to a British officer Colonel Gerard Leachman who was murdered by Sheikh Dhari, a tribal leader, in Iraq in 1920. Dhari is still considered by many Iraqis as a hero. While news of his death shocked the British public, it is credited with inspiring Arab tribes to revolt against Western occupying forces. Samir added it would be impossible for Harry to avoid detection once in Iraq, describing his face as more familiar to Iraqis than world-famous footballers.... One prominent member of the insurgency indicated that Harry might also be targeted by militias for religious reasons. Abu Ahmed, another commander within the Mehdi Army, said: 'He should follow his mother, Diana, and rebel against the imperialistic family and not come here as a crusader, or his blood will flow into our desert.'... Experts believe the international media coverage towards Iran's capture of the 15 British soldiers and Marines from the Shatt al Arab waterway in March will have underlined the value of taking Harry hostage."
Harry 'the mother of all targets' in Iraq
Observer, 22 April 2007

"Forced to react to both events at the same time, the Prime Minister spoke of the welcome return of the captured servicemen and one woman, 'safe and unharmed', before turning to the 'sober and ugly reality' of Iraq. It was far too early to say that any elements of the Iranian regime had been involved in the Basra attack, but 'the general picture ... is that there are elements at least of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming, supporting terrorism in Iraq'. This is an accusation that has been made regularly in the past four years, but in the absence of specific proof, such claims tend to fade away after an initial flurry. Basra's police chief said the device that destroyed a Warrior armoured vehicle, killing most of its occupants, had not been seen in the area before, and was a shaped charge of the kind the US has accused Iran of supplying to insurgents further north. British military sources did not confirm his claim, however. What Mr Blair was at pains not to say in his reaction, but many would have been thinking, was that neither the hostage drama nor the bombing in Basra would have happened if he had not taken the decision to invade Iraq in partnership with President George Bush in 2003."
Pawns in a losing game: Britain's policy in tatters
Independent, 8 April 2007

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.... He said they were being pardoned to mark both the Prophet Muhammad's birthday on 30 March, and the upcoming Easter holiday."
Iranians release British sailors
BBC Online, 4 April 2007

"Washington did not launch air strikes against Iran early Friday despite recent media reports, but expectations of the attack have driven Brent price to $70 per barrel. Russian and foreign media have recently reported the U.S. could launch an operation, codenamed Bite, against Iran at 4:00 a.m. local time April 6. The operation was expected to deliver air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over a 12-hour period to prevent the country from obtaining nuclear weapons.....Iran's Defense Ministry declined to comment on possible U.S. strikes Thursday night, saying it was closed for Thursday and Friday, which are days off in the republic. Israel's DEBKAfile Web site quoted intelligence sources in Moscow in late March as saying a U.S. strike against Iranian nuclear sites had been scheduled for April 6 and aimed at setting Tehran's nuclear program back several years."
No U.S. attack on Iran, oil price hits $70 in expectation
RIA Novosti (Russia), 6 April 2007

The Final Stage Of The Neocon 'Strategy' Has To Be Stopped
Cheney And MI6 May Want 'Eternal Oil' But Bush And Blair Want 'Eternal Life' As Well
Delivered At The Expense Of Others

"There is still time this year to deal with Iran diplomatically to halt its nuclear program, but a military option may await if such pressure fails, Israel's envoy to the United States said on Wednesday."
Israel urges tough diplomacy this year on Iran
Reuters, 18 April 2007

"Israeli television on Wednesday aired for the first time footage of a bombing on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and minute preparations leading up to the widely condemned attack. The 90-minute film directed by Nir Toyb showed how the Israeli secret service and the army planned the attack and prepared the pilots for any eventuality and the actual June 7 1981 raid on the Tammouz reactor, west of Baghdad. Eight F-16 US fighter jets were used in the attack and the pilots were trained for low-altitude flights in secret in Cyprus and the Red Sea. Tammouz was beleived to be key to an Iraqi nuclear bomb programme."
Israeli television airs footage of Iraqi nuclear reactor's bombing
Turkish Press, 18 April 2007

"While domestically he [Blair] favours 'what works', when it comes to international affairs he rejects the Foreign Office's traditional commitment to realpolitik in favour of an almost messianic desire to change the world."
Iraq has tested Mr Blair's interventionism to destruction
Daily Telegraph, 23 May 2006

"Last September 24th, as Congress prepared to vote on the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq, a group of senior intelligence officials, including George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq’s weapons capability.....According to two of those present at the briefing.... this time the argument that Iraq had a nuclear program under way was buttressed by a new and striking fact: the C.I.A. had recently received intelligence showing that, between 1999 and 2001, .....On the same day, in London, Tony Blair’s government made public a dossier containing much of the information that the Senate committee was being given in secret—that Iraq had sought to buy 'significant quantities of uranium' from an unnamed African country... President Bush cited the uranium deal, along with the aluminum tubes, in his State of the Union Message, on January 28th, while crediting Britain as the source of the information: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought 'significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'....Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes.... Some I.A.E.A. investigators.... speculated that MI6—the branch of British intelligence responsible for foreign operations—had become involved, perhaps through contacts in Italy.... Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in U.S. and British policy toward Iraq at least since the fall of 1997, after an impasse over U.N. inspections....A former Clinton Administration official told me that London had resorted to, among other things, spreading false information about Iraq. The British propaganda program—part of its Information Operations, or I/Ops—was known to a few senior officials in Washington.... dozens of unverified and unverifiable intelligence reports and tips—data known as inactionable intelligence—[were] to be funnelled to MI6 operatives and quietly passed along to newspapers in London and elsewhere. 'It was intelligence that was crap, and that we couldn’t move on, but the Brits wanted to plant stories in England and around the world,' the former officer said. There was a series of clandestine meetings with MI6, at which documents were provided, as well as quiet meetings, usually at safe houses in the Washington area..... None of the past and present officials I spoke with were able to categorically state that the fake Niger documents were created or instigated by the same propaganda office in MI6 that had been part of the anti-Iraq propaganda wars in the late nineteen-nineties (An MI6 intelligence source declined to comment.)....[However] What is generally agreed upon, a congressional intelligence-committee staff member told me, is that the Niger documents were initially circulated by the British—President Bush said as much in his State of the Union speech—and that 'the Brits placed more stock in them than we did.' It is also clear, as the former high-level intelligence official told me, that 'something as bizarre as Niger raises suspicions everywhere.'... "
WHO LIED TO WHOM?
New Yorker, 24 March 2003

"'The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened. There are 50 million Christians standing up and applauding the State of Israel.' So began a speech by Pastor John Hagee