A letter from the front

I have to be honest, I do not know if what I am about to post is legit or not. Pedestrian Infidel has not provided corroborating links to the source.

Even as I typed that first sentence it dawned on me that I now live in the information age. So I Googled “Lt. Tom Cotton” and found a source immediately.

So here is the deal: Lt. Cotton is a lieutenant in the United States Army. Lt. Cotton is unhappy with the New York Times (as he should be).

Here is the reason Lt. Cotton’s perspective has piqued my interest: every once in awhile I receive comments from those that purport to be in the military and complain about my conservative slant on politics. I know that those few are the minority if they are even in the military (liberals lie). I read a comment some time ago from someone claiming to be in the Navy and about to be deployed on a ship to Iraq. He claimed he and his buddies think the War in Iraq is a s**t hole of a war and America should not be there. When I told him my son was in Navy on a Carrier and that his fellow sailors did not agree, I never receive another response. So this post is for the deluded few who do not realize that the American military personnel are fighting for your freedom, liberty and security at to be maintained at home. AND they are happy to do so; however they are unhappy with hearing the kind of propaganda that the New York Times is reporting.

I am going to post in entirety from Pedestrian Infidel.
This US Army lieutenant, Lt. Cotton of Texas, USA, on duty in the combat zone, writes this scathing letter about the Traitor Times (AKA the New York Times).

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government’s highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato’s guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months’ salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion — or next time I feel it — I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

No End But Victory

The blog "No End But Victory" provides a portrayel of the progress of the war in Iraq that the MSM would hardly ever consider publishing. That blog has recently published a war update entitled "The Current Bleak Situation". The title is tongue-in-cheek. It is a harangue on the lack of MSM coverage on the successes in Iraq. The MSM focuses on the negative deliberately portraying the American military in a hostile unfriendly picture.
There is some paranoia among Iraqis pertaining to America. That is related to a life time of Islamofascist anti-American propaganda campaign by Saddam Hussein. Nonetheless, successes are slowly tilting appreciation in Iraq, particularly among the younger generation. At the same time the American will need to deal with a religion that is hostile to foreign interaction on Mohammedan soil. Without enlightenment in Christ, I perceive that hostility will continue; however the degree of hostility is managable is the good works continue and the new Iraqi government takes on more and more responsibility.
Good place to visit for a pro-American Iraqi’s perception is Iraq The Model.

Future: China and America at War?

There is a book published by Regnery Publishing entitled "Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States". I have been having a sense that China has began the same self-perception that Japan had in the 1930’s; Viz. that America has the resources that China craves in order to be a Super Power.
So what is China’s choice? Eventual confrontation with America is the only choice with global designs in mind. Now I don’t know if this book addresses that line of thinking. Below is the summary of its reasoning:

Are China and the United States headed for war? Yes, say bestselling authors Jed Babbin and Edward Timperlake in their riveting new book, Showdown. Babbin (former deputy undersecretary of defense) and Timperlake (veteran defense analyst) warn that World War III with China is not a question of IF, but WHEN. They assert that "China may soon have the capacity to shut down the stock market, take out air traffic control and telephone satellite networks, and hijack our electric power grid."

Offering more than expert analysis. Showdown takes you into the field with Navy SEALs and Air Force bomber pilots, invites you inside the war councils at the White House and the Pentagon, and peers within China’s own Politburo in an exciting—and all too likely—series of war scenarios.

In Showdown, Babbin and Timperlake reveal:

  • The unholy alliance between Communist China and radical Islam—and a possible war over Middle Eastern oil

  • How China is infiltrating Latin America—including oil-rich Venezuela—to create an anti-American axis

  • How a Chinese attack on Taiwan could spark the biggest war in the Pacific since World War II

  • The vulnerability of Japan and the United States to Chinese cyber-warfare

  • The likelihood of a second Korean War . . . only this time, the madmen in North Korea have nuclear weapons

In Showdown, Babbin and Timperlake make it clear, China is the greatest—and most dangerously ignored—threat to America’s national security. If America does not deter China’s aggressive ambitions, the result could be global war.

Provocative and thrilling, Showdown is a wake-up call for America.

Middle Eastern Hitler Given More Time to Militarize

Apparently the lessons of WWII have been lost on the governments of the world. Ostriches of Appeasement and petroleum politics are giving Ahmadinejad a pass on nuclear capability. When Europe, Russia and China have said there will be no Security Council coercion against Iran, it is like Hitler re-arming Germany in the 1930’s.

The United States is forced to go along with diplomacy  because of over-extension. Without supportive allies America cannot confront Iran. Ahmadinejad knows that America is spread thin. With the backing of Russia and China the Iranian President’s boldness has increased to show the true nature of his political intentions.

That nature is Shi’ite Messianism to provoke global circumstances for the perceived return of the 12th Imam – The Mahdi. Russian and Chinese backing as allowed Ahmadinejad to express in bellicose terms militaristic intentions toward Israel and America. His agenda is clouded by his Islamofascist pretensions. I am certain Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs believe they are invulnerable to harm.

The question becomes: What is the motivation behind Russia and China?

It is obvious that Oil and sticking a nail in American hegemony are involved. Nonetheless, it is a dangerous game for both those nations to support Iran. They have to know the Mohammedan concept of al-Taqiyya (the art of lying and deception to non-Mohammedans) is part of the Iranian agenda toward Russia and China. Russia is nominally a Christian nation that has endured to nearly a century state enforced atheism. China is officially an atheistic Communist nation. Both concepts are contrary to Iranian Shi’ite Messianism. Eventually Jihad will be moved on them as well.

The Middle East’s Hitler will make his move; it is only a matter of time.

Rice says US could pressure Iran outside UN

Condoleezza Rice appeared on several Sunday television Talk Shows. Rice warned that America might operate outside the jurisdiction of the United Nation to increase pressure on Iran. The threat is veiled yet stern.
Rice reiterates that there are diplomatic options still to be exercised. The hint is America will not be patient forever. If the Security Council via Iran friendly Russia and China refuse to engage Iran concerning the danger of emerging WMD, America will begin to exercise alternatives.
I suspect there will be one more combined America/Allies diplomatic play offered to Iran, then the fireworks will begin. This will be a message to the UN, Russia and China: America is the Big Dog and we are beyond tolerating Islamofascist saber rattling.
Depending on reactions, this could be the prelude to a World War. It will actually depend on how much support Russia and China is willing to give Iran after the military action is taken against Islamofascist Rogue State.
Time will tell.

The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton’s bombing of Iran in 2009

In retaliation, suicide bombers trained by Tehran massacred civilians in Tel Aviv, London and New York

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday April 20, 2006
The Guardian

May 7 2009 will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic Republic of Iran’s response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009.

Despite massive protests across the Islamic world, and in many European capitals, the US-led military operation had initially appeared to be successful. The US, supported by British and Israeli special forces, had bombed 37 sites, including underground facilities in which Iran was said to be on the verge of making a nuclear weapon using its own version of P-2 centrifuges. The model for these had been originally supplied by AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist. US forces had taken down Iran’s air defences and destroyed much of its air force. Inevitably, there were civilian casualties – estimated by the Iranian government at 197 dead and 533 injured. A Pentagon spokesman insisted that "collateral damage" had been confined to "an acceptable level". He claimed Iran’s nuclear weapons programme had been "knocked back to first base".

The US navy had also successfully broken an attempted Iranian naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the main arteries of the world’s oil supplies. A US gunship had been damaged by an Iranian underwater missile attack, but with no loss of American lives. In panic on the oil markets, the price of crude oil had soared to more than $100 a barrel, but the Bush administration had built up America’s strategic oil reserves and the new Clinton administration was able to draw on these. European economies were worse hit.

As experts had predicted, however, the biggest challenge for the west was Iran’s ability to wage asymmetric warfare through Hizbullah, Hamas and its own suicide-bombing brigades. The Islamic Republic had for years been openly recruiting suicide bombers through an organisation described as the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement. As early as April 2006, it had held a recruitment fair in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran, claiming it already had more than 50,000 volunteers for operations against "the al-Quds occupiers" (that is, Israel), "the occupiers of Islamic lands", especially the US and Britain, and the British writer Salman Rushdie. Recruits could also sign up through the internet (www.esteshhad.com) While Hizbullah and Hamas provided the infrastructure for the Tel Aviv bombings, the key to the attacks on London and New York was the recruitment of British and American Muslims through this group. The man who detonated the dirty bomb at Euston station, Bradford-born Muhammad Hussein, had been secretly trained by the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs at a camp in northern Iran.

With hindsight, it appears that the turning point may have come in the spring of 2006. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, having proclaimed his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, announced that his country had already successfully enriched uranium and hinted that it had the superior P-2 centrifuge technology. Whether true or not, these claims effectively destroyed the last hopes of achieving a diplomatic solution through negotiations led by the so-called E3 – France, Germany and Britain.

A long, tortuous diplomatic dance followed, with China and Russia eventually agreeing to minimal UN sanctions on Iran, including visa bans on selected members of the regime. These had little perceptible impact on the Iranian nuclear programme, but were successfully exploited by the regime to stoke up an always strong national sense of victimisation. Meanwhile, the exposure of the clumsy channelling of US government financial support through a California-based monarchist exile organisation to a student group in Isfahan was used as a pretext for a brutal clampdown on all potentially dissident groups. Several show trials for "treason" were staged despite international protests. This produced a further hardening of US policy in the last years of the Bush administration. In the 2008 US presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, felt compelled – perhaps against her own better judgment – to use the Iran issue to demonstrate that she could be tougher than John McCain on national security issues.

When she came into office, she was already committed to preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, by military means if necessary. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime had abandoned all restraint in its pursuit of that objective, calculating that its own best chances of survival lay in the swiftest possible acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. In February 2009, an alarming intelligence report reached Washington, suggesting that Tehran – using a secret cascade of its version of the P-2 centrifuge – was much closer to obtaining a bomb than had been thought. In a series of crisis meetings, President Clinton, her new secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, and her new secretary of defence, Joe Biden, decided that they could afford to wait no longer. Operation Gulf Peace, for which the Pentagon had long made detailed contingency plans, started on March 6 2009.

Washington claimed that it had legal authorisation under earlier UN security council resolutions sanctioning Iran for its non-compliance on the nuclear issue, but these claims were disputed by China and Russia. Most European countries did not back the operation either, producing another big transatlantic rift. However, under enormous pressure from his close friends among US Democrats, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, reluctantly decided to give it his approval, and allowed the token deployment of a small number of British special forces in a supporting role. This provoked a revolt from the Labour backbenches – led by the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw – and a demonstration of more than 1 million people in London. Even the Conservative leader, David Cameron, mindful that a general election was expected soon, criticised Brown’s support for the American action. Brown therefore postponed the British election, which had been provisionally scheduled for May 2009. Instead of an election, the country experienced a tragedy.

Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad faced a presidential election in June 2009. Unlike Brown, he was riding high on a wave of national solidarity. Even the many millions of Iranians disappointed by his failure to deliver on his material promises, and those who despaired of their country’s international isolation, felt impelled to rally round the leader in time of war.

Many prominent Americans criticised the US military action. Some claimed to know that the presidential spouse, Bill Clinton, was privately among those critics, although in public he was loyalty itself. But Dr Patrick Smith of the Washington-based Committee for a Better World, which had long advocated bombing Iran, demanded of the critics: "What was your alternative?"




The Gruesome Continuation

By John R. Houk



Soon after the devastating attacks by Iranian homicidal suicide bombers, the government of President Hillary Clinton called an emergency summit between America, the EU, Russia and China. The interesting choice for the Summit was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.


The heads of State became known as Quadruple Council on the Middle East (QCME). It was so graciously hosted by the King of Saudi Arabia.


The QCME unanimously decided that there was only one solution to solve the insidious Shi’ite Messianism of Iran’s Mullahs and President Ahmadinejad. The QCME decided to protect Saudi Oil production and invade Iran.


The joint QCME military command would be led by an American commander. Once the Iranian nation was militarily secure, the land would be divided into military zones administered by each of member of the QCME.


The Mullahs and President Ahmadinejad’s Administration personal were to be arrested as war criminals and put on trial. The QCME military zones would secure the production of Iranian oil. Russia, China and the EU are to be guaranteed delivery of petroleum as war reparations for the cost of expediting and neutralizing Messianic Shi’ite Iranian government. Each military zone is responsible for quelling terrorist uprising as their governments see fit insure the peaceful supply of oil to the world’s economy.


The QCME will meet at a later date in New Delhi to work out the details of an Iranian government that is not susceptible to the extremism of the previous Iranian Administration.


See also the "The Time Traveler" by Dan Simmons. 

Bush ‘is planning nuclear strikes on Iran’s secret sites’

How is the Daily Telegraph acquiring information about the Bush Administration war plans against Iran? I presume this is information that would be in the realm of National Security. Is there a mole in Bush Administration? Does the Bush Administration share information with our most trusted ally – Great Britain – and they have a mole?
Any way I believe a strike is necessary against Iran. I am also certain that Mahdi (Twelfth Imam) minded Iran will retaliate in some way. Consider the alternative consequences if America does not act against Iran threatenings. If America does not act here are some considerations which are very possible:
    "… with an intermediate-range strategic nuclear capacity (Iran) could deter American intervention, reign over the Gulf, further separate Europe from American Middle East policy, correct a nuclear imbalance with Pakistan, lead and perhaps unify the Islamic world, and thus create the chance to end Western dominance of the Middle East, and, with a single shot, destroy Israel." (Mark Helprin from Slantright.com)

This threat assessment are possibilities which are potentially worse by nothing to stop Iran from acquiring WMD.

So let us consider the Telegraph story is correct, let us hope it is awesomely successful. The Story Below:


Bush ‘is planning nuclear strikes on Iran’s secret sites’
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

Jack Straw: Iran attack would be ‘nuts’

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran’s hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.


Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran’s nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran’s plans.


This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran’s nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain’s role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran’s buried nuclear plants.


Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.

The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.

The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.

Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ "

Despite America’s public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.

The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".


© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.

Hat tip to Sound An Alarm.

U.S. plans air attack on Iran

Jewish Newspaper Haaretz reports online that America is preparing air strikes against Iranian nuke positions.
Let us pray two things: (1) That it is true; (2) The news article is not a security leak that will hamper the execution of destroying Iranian WMD capabilities.
 Hat tip: Sound An Alarm
Report: U.S. plans air attack on Iran; IAEA inspectors in Tehran

By Haaretz Service and Agencies

Last update – 19:21 08/04/2006


The Bush administration is planning for a major air attack on Iran, according to an article published on the New Yorker magazine website Saturday.

According to the article by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour M. Hersh, U.S. undercover troops are in Iran collecting data and working to establish contacts with anti-government groups, and the Air Force is drawing up lists of targets, despite publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

According to the report, the U.S. military and the international community believe that President George W. Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. The article quotes a former senior intelligence official as saying that Bush and others in the White House view Iran’s president as a potential Adolf Hitler, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be "wiped off the map."


The article goes on to say that one of the option plans presented to the White House by the Pentagon calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon against underground nuclear sites such as the Natanz centrifuge plant.

Fire breaks out adjacent to nuclear facilities outside Tehran
A fire broke out in a forest north of Tehran on Saturday, not far from an area intelligence agencies suspected illegal nuclear activity. It took firefighters some seven hours to contain the blaze.

A previous fire in the same forest occurred after Tehran municipality workers chopped town trees in the area, after which arsons set a fire. Analysts believe that the two fires may be linked and that they were set by intelligence officers or members of the Iranian Atomic Energy Committee, so that remnants of various materials, mainly enriched uranium, would not be detected.

There had been a military base in the vicinity of Lavizan, near where the fire raged, where, according to the Central Intelligence Agency, uranium had been enriched. The information was transferred to the International Atomic Energy Agency six months ago, and the United Nations nuclear watchdog called for inspections at the site. The Iranian government rejected the request, only allowing IAEA inspectors to visit after significant changes had been implemented.

The changes are visible in satellite images, which indicate that the Iranians destroyed the military base and built a soccer stadium and other sports facilities in the area. Constructing the stadium provided an excuse for overturning and replacing the soil in the area, so that if samples were to be taken, remnants of illegal materials would not be detected.

IAEA inspectors arrive in Iran to visit nuclear facilities
Five inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency have arrived in Tehran to visit Iran’s uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities, state-run television reported Saturday.

Iran’s deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi said the inspectors would visit the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, both in central Iran, later Saturday.

The scheduled inspection comes just head of a key visit to Iran by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei is expected to visit Iran next week to try to wrest concessions from Tehran on its atomic program, diplomats and officials said Friday.

The official Islamic Republic News Agency said the IAEA chief might arrive in Iran as early as Sunday or Monday.

The five inspectors, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, will stay in Iran for five days, state-run television reported.

Iran had permitted IAEA inspections of its facilities until January when it forbade snap inspections after its nuclear dossier was reported to the UN Security Council.

Natanz is the facility where Iran resumed research-scale uranium enrichment in February and the Isfahan site reprocesses raw uranium into hexaflouride gas, the feedstock for enrichment.

The U.S. accuses Iran of using its civilian nuclear facilities as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied the charges saying its nuclear program is merely for generating electricity.

The Security Council demanded on March 29 that Iran suspend enrichment and asked the IAEA to report back in 30 days on whether it had complied. Iran has rejected the demand, saying the small-scale enrichment project was strictly for research and was within its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

While ElBaradei’s trip is meant to defuse tensions caused by fears Iran could be seeking nuclear weapons, a partial success could actually exacerbate differences among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

If Iran commits to some Security Council requests but does not meet demands to freeze uranium enrichment that might placate Russia and China, which oppose tough measures against Iran. It would, however, fall short of the full compliance sought by the U.S., France and Britain on enrichment and other issues.


© Copyright 

2006 Haaretz. All rights reserved

The unthinkable—perhaps the inevitable…

It is becoming more and more apparent that a war or military confrontations will occur in the Middle East. Israel and Palestinian Islamofascist terrorists have been going at a for half a century. That conflict exists not because Israel took land, but because received Land that is theirs by Divine Promise. Hitler’s Nazi program is both the cause and the perpetuation eliyah to Israel and continuing conflict in the Land Israel.
The old Mufti of Jerusalem and a few others (like an Arab named Barna) worked directly with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi SS. They were trained to hate Jews and the plan was to exterminate them in the Middle East as Hitler was doing in Europe. The Mufti was setting himself up to be the ruler of the Mohammedan Middle East with his hero Adolf Hitler securing his power base.
The Mufti ran into a problem: Hitler lost.
Thus was born the Muslim Brotherhood the daddy to Hamas. Indeed Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Arab Middle East second only to the Koran.
Enters psychos such as Saddam Hussein, Assad of Syria, the mullahs and Ahmadinejad of Iran and not least of all bin Laden’s al Qaeda: the recipe for WMD conflageration in the Middle East.
Below is an on this empending catastrophe:

The unthinkable—perhaps the inevitable…

The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/)

31 March 2006 Patriot No. 06-13

The Cold War nuclear threat may have subsided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but The Long War, our campaign to secure the U.S. and our national interests and allies against Islamist terror, is heating up. Also on the rise is the risk of nuclear attack on Western targets. Albeit limited in scope, such attacks are much more probable now than during the Cold War. Preventing nuclear attack is more difficult today because our Jihadi foes are asymmetric rather than symmetric entities.

For most of U.S. history, perilous national security threats were symmetric, emanating from distinct nation-states or alliances with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests. In the last century, World Wars I and II, Korea, and Vietnam involved symmetric threats—that is, well-defined adversaries. Symmetric threats are tangible and easier for our political leaders to define. For the American people, this enemy is easier to identify.

Ronald Reagan tagged the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire," and Americans understood this enemy and its characterization. Similarly, George W. Bush called our post-Cold War symmetric adversaries—Iraq, Iran and North Korea—the "Axis of Evil."

When a symmetric adversary like the USSR possessed large quantities of WMD and a proven delivery capability, the principle method for preventing their use was deterrence. Throughout the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction stayed offensive strikes, and limited conflicts between communist and democratic nations to conventional warfare

Saddam possessed substantial quantities of WMD and used them on Iraqi civilians.

When symmetric adversaries do not possess, or have obtained only limited quantities of WMD, our method of damage control is active nonproliferation—using all political, economic and diplomatic means to prevent, constrain, or reverse their spread. In the case of Saddam’s regime in Iraq, which possessed substantial quantities of WMD (and used them on Iraqi civilians), the failure of nonproliferation efforts led to Operation Iraqi Freedom—the deposition of Saddam and seeding of democracy in place of his tyrannical regime.

But OIF was more than the enforcement of a nonproliferation policy, because another adversary had emerged which defied political, economic and geographical definition. OIF was, more accurately, an act of Counter proliferation—using all means to protect against the threat of a WMD attack by non-state actors (terrorists surrogates) who have been provided WMD by their state sponsors.

In 2001, President Bush estimated, correctly, that Iraq had, and was prepared to provide, WMD to Islamist terrorists like al-Qaeda. As The Patriot reported in October 2002 our well-placed sources in the Southwest Asia theater and intelligence sources within the NSA and NRO estimated that the UN Security Council’s foot-dragging (with substantial help from the French and Russians) provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his WMD to Syria and Iran prior to the launch of OIF. It now appears that they may have done so with the help of Russian Special Forces.

At that time, we reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover any WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped its nuclear WMD components—including two ‘crude nuclear devices’ designed to utilize U235 cores—through Syria to southern Lebanon’s heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." In December 2002 our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq’s biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and possibly Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN’s ruse.

General Georges Sada supervised the export of Saddam’s WMD to Syria.

In January of this year, Saddam’s air force deputy commander, General Georges Sada, now a national-security advisor for Iraq’s new government, confirmed that in June, 2002, under Saddam’s direction, he arranged transportation of WMD and related technology to Syria aboard retrofitted commercial jets under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission on behalf of flood victims. The Patriot has corroborated evidence that there were such flights during that timeframe, though our sources would not confirm the manifest—other than to suggest that the flights did not contain humanitarian relief.

It is worth noting here that the major intelligence failure in Iraq was not about WMD but about how long it would take to stabilize Iraq after removing Saddam. The original estimate, based primarily on assurances from Dr. Ahmed Chalabi, the man who was scripted to replace Saddam after the invasion, was 90-180 days.

Of course, we thought we would only be in Japan and Germany for 5years after the cessation of WWII hostilities—yet we are still in both countries today. As The Patriot noted prior to the invasion of Iraq, we clearly have long-term objectives to establish one or more bases in southern Iraq as forward deployment strongholds in the region.

Currently, there is mounting evidence that Saddam’s government did provide significant intelligence and operational support for al-Qaeda. The burning question remains, were any of Saddam’s nuclear components, in whatever state of readiness, acquired by al-Qaeda?

Unfortunately, there is no neat Cold War doctrine—no Mutually Assured Destruction—to stave off a nuclear attack from an asymmetric threat such as al-Qaeda. The only counter-proliferation doctrine capable of keeping this enemy at bay is that of pre-emption—initiating first strikes on their turf to keep them off our own.

"We love death. The U.S. loves life." —Osama bin Laden

Al-Qaeda’s protagonist, Osama bin Laden, has called for an "American Hiroshima" in which al-Qaeda cells detonate multiple nukes in U.S. urban centers. Al-Qaeda has made it clear that they will use any means at hand to disrupt continuity of government and commerce in the U.S. in an effort to impede our influence in the Middle East. As Osama put it, “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us." Osama’s lieutenant Sulaiman Abu Ghaith says al-Qaeda aspires “to kill 4 million Americans, including 1 million children."

Why does al-Qaeda choose nuclear weapons? Because chemical weapons are low consequence, and biological weapons are indiscriminate—more likely to inflict mass casualties among Muslims in Asia and Africa than Christians in the West.

And what is al-Qaeda’s nuclear weapon of choice? While radiological dispersal devices (dirty bombs) are low tech, they are also, like chemical weapons, low consequence. The highest consequence nuclear weapon would be one utilizing U239, but plutonium is extremely hard to produce, unstable, easily detectable, and the bomb hardware is highly sophisticated, requiring great precision in the manufacture and machining of its parts.

A nuclear device utilizing U235 is therefore the weapon al-Qaeda will use. Highly enriched uranium is more accessible and stable, and it requires a comparatively low-tech detonation sequence. This is precisely the type of weapon our sources indicate Saddam had in production.

Al-Qaeda has a broad and amorphous network, including cells in North America. It is unlikely that these cells are in possession of a nuclear weapon, because moving such a device subjects both the mover and the weapon to detection—and our methods for detecting nuclear devices are very good.

"We’re living on borrowed time." —Dr. Graham Allison

But they are not infallible. As Harvard’s Graham Allison, author of “Nuclear Terrorism," grimly notes, "It’s a great puzzle… I think that we should be very thankful that it hasn’t happened already… We’re living on borrowed time."

To be sure, an asymmetric nuclear threat is not the greatest potential hazard we face as a nation. That would be the very real threat of another Pandemic. Still, the nuclear threat remains very real—and it is greatly enhanced by the political infighting over OIF and domestic security issues such as the USA Patriot Act and our NSA terrorist surveillance programs.


Secret Talks to Bomb Iran

Aparently the British Daily Telegraph is reporting that Britain is involved in higl level talks with America to bomb Iranian nuclear capabilities. The story in the Telegraph goes to report that an Iranian invasion is being taken off the table. The end game is to disparage and destroy Iranian capability to enrich WMD level uranium.
The question then becomes: How or What will Iran do in response to an American/British bombing on their sovereign soil? Iran has already talked big in that they will respond with a reprisal to any interference on their sovereign soil.
America and the West must stop Iran, ergo we will find out if Iran is just a blustering Mohammedan state attempting to use words to intimidate or if they are as psychotic as their rhetoric and engage in a military confrontation with the West.
 UK Government in secret talks about strike against Iran
David Campbell
Apr 1 2006 11:53PM

Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 02/04/2006)



The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran’s leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence
Tomorrow’s meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.

The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran’s programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants – a land assault is not being considered at the moment.

But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was "inconceivable".

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, insisted, during a visit to Blackburn yesterday, that all negotiating options – including the use of force – remained open in an attempt to resolve the crisis.

General Sir Michael Walker
Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf would, it is believed, target Iran’s air defence systems at the nuclear installations.

That would enable attacks by B2 stealth bombers equipped with eight 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs, flying from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.

It is understood that any direct British involvement in an attack would be limited but may extend to the use of the RAF’s highly secret airborne early warning aircraft.

At the centre of the crisis is Washington’s fear that an Iranian nuclear weapon could be used against Israel or US forces in the region, such as the American air base at Incirlik in Turkey.

The UN also believes that the production of a bomb could also lead to further destabilisation in the Middle East, which would result in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia all developing nuclear weapons programmes.

A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday’s meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [chiefs of defence staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days.

"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq.

"Then the Government said the war was neither inevitable or imminent and then attacked."

The source said that the Israeli attack against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 proved that a limited operation was the best military option.

The Israeli air force launched raids against the plant, which intelligence suggested was being used to develop a nuclear bomb for use against Israel.

Military chiefs also plan tomorrow to discuss fears that an attack within Iran will "unhinge" southern Iraq – where British troops are based – an area mainly populated by Shia Muslims who have strong political and religious links to Iran.

They are concerned that this could delay any withdrawal of troops this year or next. There could also be consequences for British and US troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.

The MoD meeting will address the economic issues that could arise if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president – who became the subject of international condemnation last year when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" – cuts off oil supplies to the West in reprisal.

There are thought to be at least eight known sites within Iran involved in the production of nuclear materials, although it is generally accepted that there are many more secret installations.

Iran has successfully tested a Fajr-3 missile that can reach Israel, avoiding radar and hitting several targets using multiple warheads, its military has confirmed.