Two More US Carrier Groups Heading Towards Iran
Oppose Israeli/US Neo-Fascism, Aggression | 08.08.2008 18:47 | Anti-militarism | World
'2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf'
By ADAM GONN, THE MEDIA LINE NEWS AGENCY
Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.
Kuwait began finalizing its "emergency war plan" on being told the vessels were bound for the region.
The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed "force-protection policy."
While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line's defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.
Within the last month, the Roosevelt completed an exercise along the US east coast focusing on communication among navies of different countries. It has since been declared ready for operational duties. The Reagan, currently with the Seventh Fleet, had just set sail from Japan.
The Seventh Fleet area of operation stretches from the East Coast of Africa to the International Date Line.
Meanwhile, the Arabic news agency Moheet reported at the end of July that an unnamed American destroyer, accompanied by two Israeli naval vessels traveled through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean. A week earlier, a US nuclear submarine accompanied by a destroyer and a supply ship moved into the Mediterranean, according to Moheet.
Currently there are two US naval battle groups operating in the Gulf: one is an aircraft carrier group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, which carries some 65 fighter aircraft. The other group is headed by the USS Peleliu which maintains a variety of planes and strike helicopters.
The ship movements coincide with the latest downturn in relations between Washington and Teheran.
(Meaning the Bush/PNAC Regime's continuing belligerence towards the country it is readying along with Israel to attack without justification.)
The US and Iran are at odds over Iran's nuclear program, which the Bush administration claims is aimed at producing material for nuclear weapons; however, Teheran argues it is only for power generation.
(They are not 'at odds' over anything. The IAEA and intelligence community knows there is no weapons program, and the US and Israel are repeating this LIE in order to try and start another disastrous war of aggression.)
Kuwait, like other Arab countries in the Gulf, fears it will be caught in the middle should the US decide to launch an air strike against Iran if negotiations fail. The Kuwaitis are finalizing details of their security, humanitarian and vital services, the newspaper reported.
(There is no need for 'negotiations', since there is no 'crisis', Iran has done nothing wrong, and the illusion of a crisis has been invented for the sole purpose of again feigning justification for an illegal and unnecessary war.)
The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman - lie just across the Gulf from Iran. Generals in the Iranian military have repeatedly warned that American interests in the region would be targeted if Iran is subjected to any military strike by the US or its Western allies.
(Or Israel.)
Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, while there is a sizeable American base in Qatar. It is assumed the US also has military personnel in the other Gulf states, The Media Line's defense analyst said.
Iran is thought to have intelligence operatives working in the GCC states, according to Dubai-based military analysts.
The standoff between the US and Iran has left the Arab nations' political leaders in something of a bind, as they were being used as pawns by Washington and Teheran, according to The Media Line analyst.
(Again, there is no 'standoff'. Israel and the US are trying to start another illegal war. Period.)
Iran has offered them economic and industrial sweeteners, while the US is boosting their defense capabilities. US President George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have paid visits to the GCC states in a bid to win their support.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
US Distances Itself Publicly From Israeli Drive for Iran War
Can Israel start an attack on Iran all on its lonely?
Probably, yes.
But can it finish such an attack without the help of US air power?
Probably not.
And remember: Bush has promised that the US will support Israel military, no matter who starts the shooting.
It looks as though Israel's plan is to start an attack, and expect that the US will finish it for Israel.
I'd love to believe that there are some in congress, the military, and the executive who would be willing to throw cold water on such foolishness, but unfortunately, considering the stranglehold Israel has over this government, that's not about to happen.
Iran and Washington's Israeli option
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The possible timing of any Israeli attack on Iran remains uncertain
(This is an interestingly benign statement, considering that Israel has no just cause for attacking another sovereign state, and any attack would constitute "The Supreme International Crime", demanding immediate sanctions and/or intervention by the International Community.)
The warning by the senior US military commander Adm Mike Mullen that an attack on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces must lessen the chances of the US taking part in any strike against Iran.
(Don't count on it. We're not dealing with rational people here ...)
But the admiral, who is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and who has just visited Israel, spoke of Israel's vulnerability to "very real threats".
(However, Israeli and American insiders have published reports which contradict this assessment, saying Israel is acting from a position of military superiority, and the only real threat facing Israel is that its ruling Extremists will start another illegal war.)
So the possibility remains that Israel might undertake an operation against Iran by itself. Recent large-scale Israeli air force exercises have strengthened this possibility, according to military observers.
(However - and this is an issue the media is conspicuously avoiding - Bush has signed agreements which state that the US military will intervene in any war between Iran and Israel - even if Israel is the Aggressor.)
Nor does Adm Mullen's intervention resolve the ambiguity of the Bush administration's position that "all options" are on the table.
(There is no 'abiguity' ...)
But his views do indicate that the body of US military opinion is that they have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Or the US military is at odds with their own ruling Extremists, or the Neo-Fascists are making a public show of pretending they are not interested in another war.)
Administration at odds
Adm Mullen's opinion echoes what the then head of Central Command, Adm William Fallon, said last November, that an attack on Iran was not "in the offing".
(Bush/PNAC have planned a war. Whether or not their military will allow them to prosecute another illegal war of aggression, based solely on a violent ideology, is the only question.)
"Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel"
Adm Fallon resigned in March amid reports that he was at odds with the administration over Iran.
Increasingly, the military option seems to be narrowing to an Israeli option.
(Which only means that Israel will now be the ones to start the war, which will then draw the US military in.)
While Adm Mullen did not diverge from the Bush administration's line that the military option remains for the US and also said that in his view Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons, he stressed that "the solution still lies in using... diplomatic, financial and international pressure".
(However, since there is no 'nuclear crisis', and this LIE is simply a reenactment of the "Iraq Treatment", these are hollow and empty words. This is about starting a war in order to try and gain control over Iran. Period.)
Military opposition to an attack on Iran is bound to weigh heavily on President George W Bush but would not necessarily be the determining factor.
(No, these Extremists don't consider the people who will be forced to do the fighting an dying because of their Madness ...)
Whether President Bush would dissuade Israel from launching its own attack is not known.
(If he wanted to ...)
Iran has warned that any attack would bring consequences, one of which could be an Iranian move to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil is transported from the Gulf. The effect on oil prices would be serious.
(Another powerful motive for these Extremists, most, if not all, of whom draw wealth from the oil and arms industries, and therefore, profit directly from conflict.)
An Israeli cabinet minister and former chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, has said that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if it "continues with its nuclear programme".
(However, Iran has done absolutely nothing wrong, and Israel and the US have deliberately engineered the illusion of a crisis, in order to pretend they are not aggressively pursuing more illegal war.)
However, the timing of any attack remains uncertain.
Red lines
A recent ABC News report suggested that Israel might act before two "red lines" are reached.
The first would be the production by Iran of enough highly-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb and the second would be its acquisition of a new Russian anti-aircraft system, the S-300.
(The first of which is impossible, given the small scale of Iran's current program. Enriching weapons-grade material would involve a massive addition to their program, a move which would be immediately to the many eyes intently watching Iran. Neither of these would legitimize Israel's aggression against a sovereign state, and member of the United Nations.)
However, Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel.
The International Atomic Energy Agency would probably spot any move to change this. So exactly how and when this "red line" might be reached is unclear.
(It won't. Israel is simply using the same fearmongering deceit they, the Bush and Bliar Regimes used in order to create an illusion of a threat posed by Iraq, which necessitated their illegal aggression.)
As for the S-300, it was only in December that Iran indicated that it would buy this very advanced anti-aircraft system. It has only recently taken possession of the Tor-MI and it could be many months before the S-300 is delivered.
(And they have only requested these defensive weapons because of the conspiracy by the Israeli and American Governments to attack it without cause. It should also be noted here that Iran maintains a defence pact with Russia.)
Iran says that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and a US National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
(No, despite the media's narrow focus on this claim, the NIE said they have no current program, and the singular claim that they once had a program came from a dubious source, another of the CIA's infamous 'defectors', reminiscent of the phony information provided by the criminal Ahmed Chalabi. The IAEA has also ssupported the fact that there is no such program.
Israel and the US have yet to produce one piece of contrary evidence ...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486971.stm
Since the US has signed 'defence' agreements saying they will side with Israel even if Israel fires the first shot, this should read "US fears Israel will start a war it will have to fight".
'US fears Israel preparing Iran strike'
Jul. 3, 2008
Herb Keinon, jpost.com staff and AP , THE JERUSALEM POST
This week's warnings from US President George W. Bush and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of America's Joint Chiefs of Staff, against an IDF strike on Iran are a sign that Washington is concerned that Jerusalem may indeed attack the Islamic Republic, Israeli government officials said Thursday.
(Or is perhaps a way for these War Criminals to publicly create the false impression that they are not interested in this war, which it appears Israel will start for them this time around.)
Also on Thursday, Channel 2 analyst Ehud Ya'ari reported that Iran had expressed readiness to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for the lifting of the international sanctions imposed on it.
(Despite the fact that Iran has done absolutely nothing wrong ...)
Citing unnamed Western officials, he said the Iranians had conveyed messages indicating they could accept the latest incentive package offered by the West in return for halting its enrichment program.
Meanwhile, a State Department spokesman said the US was sticking to its demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment as a precondition for US participation in negotiations with the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.
(Like Israel, they make the object of 'negotiations' a precondition to negotiations, in order to scuttle a diplomatic process they are not interested in pursuing, but must appear to support, in order to hide their identity as the beliigerent aggressors.)
He added, however, that the US would not rule out early consultations with Iran before official talks begin on resolving its standoff with the West.
(This isn't a stand-off with 'the West'. Israel and the US have created the illusion of a crisis, in the hopes they can manipulate the illusion into a war, and fool the world into not viewing them as the aggressors.)
The spokesman went on to say that Washington would not dismiss the option of Iran stopping enrichment for a limited time in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, he stressed that Teheran must first give a detailed response to the EU incentive package, Israel Radio reported.
The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report.
(Note that much of this speculative nonsense is unsourced, and the J. Post and its Zionist owners are well-known for their willingness to distort the truth in order to further their ideological goals.)
Mullen said late Wednesday that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a high-risk move that could destabilize the Middle East. At a Defense Department news conference, he refused to say what Israeli leaders had told him during meetings last week about any intentions to strike Iran.
(Which further reinforces the fear that Israel is readying this illegal Act of Aggression.)
Asked whether he was concerned Israel would strike before the end of the year, Mullen said: "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable."
Israeli officials said the fact that Mullen gave a press conference on the matter indicated he was not reassured by what he heard on his visit to Israel.
One of the purposes of his visit was to see whether recent comments made here, such as those made by Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who said Israel might have no choice but to act against the Islamic Republic, were "just words" or indicated real intent.
Israel's large air force exercise over the eastern Mediterranean in the first week of June, which was widely described as a "dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran, has also caused concern in Washington, the officials said.
(Indeed, since it appears that Israel will use the strikes in order to start the US/Israeli war on Iran which has been planned since before the Neo-Fascists were installed to the White House.)
Mullen's visit was his second in seven months. Prior to December, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs had not been in Israel in more than 10 years.
He said Thursday that opening a third front now, with the US military already stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "would be extremely stressful on us."
(Snip)
Israeli officials said Iran was also the main topic of conversation when Bush called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday to express his condolences for the victims of the bulldozer attack in Jerusalem.
"All this is designed to throw cold water on any possible Israeli intentions," the officials said.
"They are worried by the atmosphere in Israel, and that reports of an inevitable attack have suddenly started to dominate the debate."
("Suddenly"? This is what this has been about from the beginning.)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726206803&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
Iran: Any attack on our nuclear facility will be beginning of war
By Amir Oren, Haaretz Correspondent
Tehran will consider any military action against its nuclear facilities as the beginning of a war, Iran's official news agency IRNA reported Friday.
(Which is exactly what the 'Neo-Conservatives' are hoping for.)
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, was quoted as saying that any country that attacks Iran would regret doing so.
According to the report, Jafari has warned that such a step would be the beginning of war.
However, the general was also quoted as saying that he considers it unlikely Iran's adversaries would attempt an attack.
In a newspaper interview last week, Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would barrage Israel with missiles and choke off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.
Israel carried out a large military exercise last month, seen throughout the media as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran.
(And throughout the intelligence community.)
U.S. admiral: Iran likely to attack Israel
Meanwhile, a U.S. admiral warned earlier this week that Iran is likely to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and the United States and the NATO alliance should prepare for it.
(So this is how they will get their war, a False Flag Attack? Iran wouldn't be so foolish as to try something like this, as they are trying to avoid a war, while only Israel and the US are trying to start one. However, according the Neo-Cons' definition of 'preemption', they would be well within their rights, since both countries' Extremists are conspiring to attack Iran ...)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999009.html
Iran Will Cooperate with UN Probe into US/Israeli Allegations
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?13896S
Israel's Syrian Air Strike Was Aimed at Iran
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8196S
The ME has had a Secretive Nuclear Power in its Midst for Years
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8195S
Spooks Refuse to Toe Cheney's Line on Iran
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8173S
IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8130S
Israel Considering Strike on Iran Despite US Intelligence Report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2224052,00.html
US intelligence report heightens danger of Israeli strike on Iran
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/isra-d06.shtml
'Laptop of Death': Revising the NIE on Iran
The entire claim that Iran was building nuclear weapons rests on a laptop provided by a single, dubious source.
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=12028 www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12025
Israeli Extremists Prep for Nuclear Strike on Iran http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7903/index.php
Hersh: Israel Pressed me to Write Syrian Site was Nuclear http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Sy_Hersh_Israeli_raid_on_Syria_0208.html
Sy Hersh confirms: Syrian Facility Bombed by Israel Not Nuclear
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?10935S
A Strike in the Dark - What did Israel bomb in Syria?
by Seymour M. Hersh http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/080211fa_fact_hersh/?printable=tr
War Clouds Over Mideast
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=108719&d=8&m=4&y=2008
Israel & The 'Clash of Civilizations'
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?11022S
The largest threat to the region doesn't come from Iran: it comes from Israel's success in having had the US "neutralize" countries which it believes to be an existential threat to it's existence. However, there's just one little problem with this approach concerning Iran. Russia's diplomats have stated unequivocally that any attack against Iran will be perceived as an attack on Russia.
UN Nuclear Watchdog in Milestone Iran Deal
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14262S
Iran Dumps US Dollar in Oil Trading, US Preps War
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14276S
Israel's Extremists STILL Beating Iran War Drums
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14360S
Iran Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14997S
Israel, US Joint Plotting Against Iran, Attack ElBaredei http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7888/index.php llll
ElBaradei: Iran Not After Bomb
www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399278.html
Israel Calls for US Blockade of Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399342.html
US Report on 'Iranian Weapons' Postponed Due to Lack of Evidence
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?17560C
Pakistan May Turn Over U.S. Terrorists To Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399471.html
Iranian Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399467.html
Bombing Iran: Extremists' Mad Clamor Persists
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399468.html
Carter: Israel Has At Least 150 Nukes
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399591.html
IAEA Again Confirms: No Weaponization in Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399625.html
McLellan's Warning on Iran
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?15853S
'Hate Iran Week' at AIPAC
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?15852S
Israel Launches 'Iran Command' for War
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?16362S
Bush Resurrects a Whopper
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400896.html
US Distances Itself Publicly From Israeli Drive for Iran War
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402553.html
Anti-Iran Arguments Belie Fearmongering
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402416.html
Israel "Reassures West": No Iran Attack in 2008
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402411.html
Iran is Not the Belligerent Party
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402407.html
US Escalates 'Covert Operations' Against Iran
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402400.html
By ADAM GONN, THE MEDIA LINE NEWS AGENCY
Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.
Kuwait began finalizing its "emergency war plan" on being told the vessels were bound for the region.
The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed "force-protection policy."
While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line's defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.
Within the last month, the Roosevelt completed an exercise along the US east coast focusing on communication among navies of different countries. It has since been declared ready for operational duties. The Reagan, currently with the Seventh Fleet, had just set sail from Japan.
The Seventh Fleet area of operation stretches from the East Coast of Africa to the International Date Line.
Meanwhile, the Arabic news agency Moheet reported at the end of July that an unnamed American destroyer, accompanied by two Israeli naval vessels traveled through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean. A week earlier, a US nuclear submarine accompanied by a destroyer and a supply ship moved into the Mediterranean, according to Moheet.
Currently there are two US naval battle groups operating in the Gulf: one is an aircraft carrier group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, which carries some 65 fighter aircraft. The other group is headed by the USS Peleliu which maintains a variety of planes and strike helicopters.
The ship movements coincide with the latest downturn in relations between Washington and Teheran.
(Meaning the Bush/PNAC Regime's continuing belligerence towards the country it is readying along with Israel to attack without justification.)
The US and Iran are at odds over Iran's nuclear program, which the Bush administration claims is aimed at producing material for nuclear weapons; however, Teheran argues it is only for power generation.
(They are not 'at odds' over anything. The IAEA and intelligence community knows there is no weapons program, and the US and Israel are repeating this LIE in order to try and start another disastrous war of aggression.)
Kuwait, like other Arab countries in the Gulf, fears it will be caught in the middle should the US decide to launch an air strike against Iran if negotiations fail. The Kuwaitis are finalizing details of their security, humanitarian and vital services, the newspaper reported.
(There is no need for 'negotiations', since there is no 'crisis', Iran has done nothing wrong, and the illusion of a crisis has been invented for the sole purpose of again feigning justification for an illegal and unnecessary war.)
The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman - lie just across the Gulf from Iran. Generals in the Iranian military have repeatedly warned that American interests in the region would be targeted if Iran is subjected to any military strike by the US or its Western allies.
(Or Israel.)
Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, while there is a sizeable American base in Qatar. It is assumed the US also has military personnel in the other Gulf states, The Media Line's defense analyst said.
Iran is thought to have intelligence operatives working in the GCC states, according to Dubai-based military analysts.
The standoff between the US and Iran has left the Arab nations' political leaders in something of a bind, as they were being used as pawns by Washington and Teheran, according to The Media Line analyst.
(Again, there is no 'standoff'. Israel and the US are trying to start another illegal war. Period.)
Iran has offered them economic and industrial sweeteners, while the US is boosting their defense capabilities. US President George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have paid visits to the GCC states in a bid to win their support.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull US Distances Itself Publicly From Israeli Drive for Iran War
Can Israel start an attack on Iran all on its lonely?
Probably, yes.
But can it finish such an attack without the help of US air power?
Probably not.
And remember: Bush has promised that the US will support Israel military, no matter who starts the shooting.
It looks as though Israel's plan is to start an attack, and expect that the US will finish it for Israel.
I'd love to believe that there are some in congress, the military, and the executive who would be willing to throw cold water on such foolishness, but unfortunately, considering the stranglehold Israel has over this government, that's not about to happen.
Iran and Washington's Israeli option
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The possible timing of any Israeli attack on Iran remains uncertain
(This is an interestingly benign statement, considering that Israel has no just cause for attacking another sovereign state, and any attack would constitute "The Supreme International Crime", demanding immediate sanctions and/or intervention by the International Community.)
The warning by the senior US military commander Adm Mike Mullen that an attack on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces must lessen the chances of the US taking part in any strike against Iran.
(Don't count on it. We're not dealing with rational people here ...)
But the admiral, who is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and who has just visited Israel, spoke of Israel's vulnerability to "very real threats".
(However, Israeli and American insiders have published reports which contradict this assessment, saying Israel is acting from a position of military superiority, and the only real threat facing Israel is that its ruling Extremists will start another illegal war.)
So the possibility remains that Israel might undertake an operation against Iran by itself. Recent large-scale Israeli air force exercises have strengthened this possibility, according to military observers.
(However - and this is an issue the media is conspicuously avoiding - Bush has signed agreements which state that the US military will intervene in any war between Iran and Israel - even if Israel is the Aggressor.)
Nor does Adm Mullen's intervention resolve the ambiguity of the Bush administration's position that "all options" are on the table.
(There is no 'abiguity' ...)
But his views do indicate that the body of US military opinion is that they have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Or the US military is at odds with their own ruling Extremists, or the Neo-Fascists are making a public show of pretending they are not interested in another war.)
Administration at odds
Adm Mullen's opinion echoes what the then head of Central Command, Adm William Fallon, said last November, that an attack on Iran was not "in the offing".
(Bush/PNAC have planned a war. Whether or not their military will allow them to prosecute another illegal war of aggression, based solely on a violent ideology, is the only question.)
"Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel"
Adm Fallon resigned in March amid reports that he was at odds with the administration over Iran.
Increasingly, the military option seems to be narrowing to an Israeli option.
(Which only means that Israel will now be the ones to start the war, which will then draw the US military in.)
While Adm Mullen did not diverge from the Bush administration's line that the military option remains for the US and also said that in his view Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons, he stressed that "the solution still lies in using... diplomatic, financial and international pressure".
(However, since there is no 'nuclear crisis', and this LIE is simply a reenactment of the "Iraq Treatment", these are hollow and empty words. This is about starting a war in order to try and gain control over Iran. Period.)
Military opposition to an attack on Iran is bound to weigh heavily on President George W Bush but would not necessarily be the determining factor.
(No, these Extremists don't consider the people who will be forced to do the fighting an dying because of their Madness ...)
Whether President Bush would dissuade Israel from launching its own attack is not known.
(If he wanted to ...)
Iran has warned that any attack would bring consequences, one of which could be an Iranian move to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil is transported from the Gulf. The effect on oil prices would be serious.
(Another powerful motive for these Extremists, most, if not all, of whom draw wealth from the oil and arms industries, and therefore, profit directly from conflict.)
An Israeli cabinet minister and former chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, has said that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if it "continues with its nuclear programme".
(However, Iran has done absolutely nothing wrong, and Israel and the US have deliberately engineered the illusion of a crisis, in order to pretend they are not aggressively pursuing more illegal war.)
However, the timing of any attack remains uncertain.
Red lines
A recent ABC News report suggested that Israel might act before two "red lines" are reached.
The first would be the production by Iran of enough highly-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb and the second would be its acquisition of a new Russian anti-aircraft system, the S-300.
(The first of which is impossible, given the small scale of Iran's current program. Enriching weapons-grade material would involve a massive addition to their program, a move which would be immediately to the many eyes intently watching Iran. Neither of these would legitimize Israel's aggression against a sovereign state, and member of the United Nations.)
However, Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel.
The International Atomic Energy Agency would probably spot any move to change this. So exactly how and when this "red line" might be reached is unclear.
(It won't. Israel is simply using the same fearmongering deceit they, the Bush and Bliar Regimes used in order to create an illusion of a threat posed by Iraq, which necessitated their illegal aggression.)
As for the S-300, it was only in December that Iran indicated that it would buy this very advanced anti-aircraft system. It has only recently taken possession of the Tor-MI and it could be many months before the S-300 is delivered.
(And they have only requested these defensive weapons because of the conspiracy by the Israeli and American Governments to attack it without cause. It should also be noted here that Iran maintains a defence pact with Russia.)
Iran says that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and a US National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
(No, despite the media's narrow focus on this claim, the NIE said they have no current program, and the singular claim that they once had a program came from a dubious source, another of the CIA's infamous 'defectors', reminiscent of the phony information provided by the criminal Ahmed Chalabi. The IAEA has also ssupported the fact that there is no such program.
Israel and the US have yet to produce one piece of contrary evidence ...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486971.stm Since the US has signed 'defence' agreements saying they will side with Israel even if Israel fires the first shot, this should read "US fears Israel will start a war it will have to fight".
'US fears Israel preparing Iran strike'
Jul. 3, 2008
Herb Keinon, jpost.com staff and AP , THE JERUSALEM POST
This week's warnings from US President George W. Bush and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of America's Joint Chiefs of Staff, against an IDF strike on Iran are a sign that Washington is concerned that Jerusalem may indeed attack the Islamic Republic, Israeli government officials said Thursday.
(Or is perhaps a way for these War Criminals to publicly create the false impression that they are not interested in this war, which it appears Israel will start for them this time around.)
Also on Thursday, Channel 2 analyst Ehud Ya'ari reported that Iran had expressed readiness to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for the lifting of the international sanctions imposed on it.
(Despite the fact that Iran has done absolutely nothing wrong ...)
Citing unnamed Western officials, he said the Iranians had conveyed messages indicating they could accept the latest incentive package offered by the West in return for halting its enrichment program.
Meanwhile, a State Department spokesman said the US was sticking to its demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment as a precondition for US participation in negotiations with the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.
(Like Israel, they make the object of 'negotiations' a precondition to negotiations, in order to scuttle a diplomatic process they are not interested in pursuing, but must appear to support, in order to hide their identity as the beliigerent aggressors.)
He added, however, that the US would not rule out early consultations with Iran before official talks begin on resolving its standoff with the West.
(This isn't a stand-off with 'the West'. Israel and the US have created the illusion of a crisis, in the hopes they can manipulate the illusion into a war, and fool the world into not viewing them as the aggressors.)
The spokesman went on to say that Washington would not dismiss the option of Iran stopping enrichment for a limited time in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, he stressed that Teheran must first give a detailed response to the EU incentive package, Israel Radio reported.
The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report.
(Note that much of this speculative nonsense is unsourced, and the J. Post and its Zionist owners are well-known for their willingness to distort the truth in order to further their ideological goals.)
Mullen said late Wednesday that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a high-risk move that could destabilize the Middle East. At a Defense Department news conference, he refused to say what Israeli leaders had told him during meetings last week about any intentions to strike Iran.
(Which further reinforces the fear that Israel is readying this illegal Act of Aggression.)
Asked whether he was concerned Israel would strike before the end of the year, Mullen said: "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable."
Israeli officials said the fact that Mullen gave a press conference on the matter indicated he was not reassured by what he heard on his visit to Israel.
One of the purposes of his visit was to see whether recent comments made here, such as those made by Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who said Israel might have no choice but to act against the Islamic Republic, were "just words" or indicated real intent.
Israel's large air force exercise over the eastern Mediterranean in the first week of June, which was widely described as a "dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran, has also caused concern in Washington, the officials said.
(Indeed, since it appears that Israel will use the strikes in order to start the US/Israeli war on Iran which has been planned since before the Neo-Fascists were installed to the White House.)
Mullen's visit was his second in seven months. Prior to December, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs had not been in Israel in more than 10 years.
He said Thursday that opening a third front now, with the US military already stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "would be extremely stressful on us."
(Snip)
Israeli officials said Iran was also the main topic of conversation when Bush called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday to express his condolences for the victims of the bulldozer attack in Jerusalem.
"All this is designed to throw cold water on any possible Israeli intentions," the officials said.
"They are worried by the atmosphere in Israel, and that reports of an inevitable attack have suddenly started to dominate the debate."
("Suddenly"? This is what this has been about from the beginning.)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726206803&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer Iran: Any attack on our nuclear facility will be beginning of war
By Amir Oren, Haaretz Correspondent
Tehran will consider any military action against its nuclear facilities as the beginning of a war, Iran's official news agency IRNA reported Friday.
(Which is exactly what the 'Neo-Conservatives' are hoping for.)
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, was quoted as saying that any country that attacks Iran would regret doing so.
According to the report, Jafari has warned that such a step would be the beginning of war.
However, the general was also quoted as saying that he considers it unlikely Iran's adversaries would attempt an attack.
In a newspaper interview last week, Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would barrage Israel with missiles and choke off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.
Israel carried out a large military exercise last month, seen throughout the media as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran.
(And throughout the intelligence community.)
U.S. admiral: Iran likely to attack Israel
Meanwhile, a U.S. admiral warned earlier this week that Iran is likely to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and the United States and the NATO alliance should prepare for it.
(So this is how they will get their war, a False Flag Attack? Iran wouldn't be so foolish as to try something like this, as they are trying to avoid a war, while only Israel and the US are trying to start one. However, according the Neo-Cons' definition of 'preemption', they would be well within their rights, since both countries' Extremists are conspiring to attack Iran ...)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999009.html Iran Will Cooperate with UN Probe into US/Israeli Allegations
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?13896S Israel's Syrian Air Strike Was Aimed at Iran
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8196S The ME has had a Secretive Nuclear Power in its Midst for Years
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8195S Spooks Refuse to Toe Cheney's Line on Iran
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8173S IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance
http://www.winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8130S Israel Considering Strike on Iran Despite US Intelligence Report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2224052,00.html US intelligence report heightens danger of Israeli strike on Iran
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/isra-d06.shtml 'Laptop of Death': Revising the NIE on Iran
The entire claim that Iran was building nuclear weapons rests on a laptop provided by a single, dubious source.
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=12028 www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12025 Israeli Extremists Prep for Nuclear Strike on Iran
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7903/index.php Hersh: Israel Pressed me to Write Syrian Site was Nuclear
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Sy_Hersh_Israeli_raid_on_Syria_0208.html Sy Hersh confirms: Syrian Facility Bombed by Israel Not Nuclear
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?10935S A Strike in the Dark - What did Israel bomb in Syria?
by Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/080211fa_fact_hersh/?printable=tr War Clouds Over Mideast
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=108719&d=8&m=4&y=2008 Israel & The 'Clash of Civilizations'
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?11022S The largest threat to the region doesn't come from Iran: it comes from Israel's success in having had the US "neutralize" countries which it believes to be an existential threat to it's existence. However, there's just one little problem with this approach concerning Iran. Russia's diplomats have stated unequivocally that any attack against Iran will be perceived as an attack on Russia.
UN Nuclear Watchdog in Milestone Iran Deal
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14262S Iran Dumps US Dollar in Oil Trading, US Preps War
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14276S Israel's Extremists STILL Beating Iran War Drums
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14360S Iran Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?14997S Israel, US Joint Plotting Against Iran, Attack ElBaredei
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7888/index.php llll ElBaradei: Iran Not After Bomb
www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399278.html
Israel Calls for US Blockade of Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399342.html US Report on 'Iranian Weapons' Postponed Due to Lack of Evidence
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?17560C Pakistan May Turn Over U.S. Terrorists To Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399471.html Iranian Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399467.html Bombing Iran: Extremists' Mad Clamor Persists
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399468.html Carter: Israel Has At Least 150 Nukes
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399591.html IAEA Again Confirms: No Weaponization in Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399625.html McLellan's Warning on Iran
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?15853S 'Hate Iran Week' at AIPAC
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?15852S Israel Launches 'Iran Command' for War
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?16362S Bush Resurrects a Whopper
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400896.html US Distances Itself Publicly From Israeli Drive for Iran War
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402553.html Anti-Iran Arguments Belie Fearmongering
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402416.html Israel "Reassures West": No Iran Attack in 2008
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402411.html Iran is Not the Belligerent Party
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402407.html US Escalates 'Covert Operations' Against Iran
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402400.html
Oppose Israeli/US Neo-Fascism, Aggression