French foreign minister: France must be ready for Iran war

Interesting statement from the French...

They've also advised French firms not to business in Iran...interesting.

The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said yesterday his country had to prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear programme, but added that he did not believe any such action was imminent.

Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Mr Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's main powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting nuclear weapons, and said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic.

"We must prepare for the worst," Mr Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."

Did Israel get green light from Turkey to target Iran?

Is it all systems go?

As the mystery continues over Syrian allegations that Israeli F-15 jets flew over its territory on Sept. 6, bombing some cities near the Turkish border, there has been increased speculation in Ankara that Tel Aviv received secret permission from the Turkish military for the fight by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) fighters.

"Israeli pilots conducted a training mission using a longer route while equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks, dropping them on their way in order to also test their maneuvering without the tanks. I am sure Israel informed the Turkish military about the mission and that it needed to enter into Turkish airspace. During the Sept. 6 event Israeli pilots were on a training mission to test their ability to reach Iran," speculated Ankara-based Western military sources.

Those speculations may also explain the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s relatively low-profile position on the issue, so far refraining from issuing a statement through which it could have sought official explanation from Israel.

Israel hit Syrian base financed by Iran

Saw this just now:

JERUSALEM - Israeli warplanes last week bombed and destroyed a northern Syrian missile base that was financed by Iran, an Arab Israeli newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Citing anonymous Israeli sources, the Assennara newspaper said that Israeli jets “bombed in northern Syria a Syrian-Iranian missile base financed by Iran... It appears that the base was completely destroyed.”

Syria on Tuesday lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations over the “flagrant violation” of its airspace last Thursday, during which it said its air defences opened fire on Israeli warplanes flying over the northeast of the country.

Israeli officials have refused to comment on the report, as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “specifically instructed ministers not to talk about the incident related to Syria at all,” one senior Israeli government official said.

A US defence official said on Tuesday that Israel had launched an air strike well inside Syria, apparently to send Damascus a message not to rearm Shiite Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

The official did not know the target of the strike.

“The Israelis are trying to tell the Syrians: “Don’t support a resurgence of Hezbollah in Lebanon.’”

Video: John Bolton wants the US to hit Iran

iran-us@war.com

Guardian: Bush leaning towards military action on Iran

Saw this in The Guardian...starts like this:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." ...

...The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Norman Podhoretz: bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

He's got good points if you listen to them.

Israeli Air Force preparing for Iran strike

Jpost reports:

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been training on long-range flights, including refueling in mid-flight, in preparation for potential strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

The training program has been taking place for some time but has only been released for publication Friday, the Ma'ariv daily reported.

Intelligence assessments received by the defense establishment concur that once Iran passes the point of no return in its nuclear efforts, the entire Middle East will enter a frantic nuclear armament race. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are expected to take the lead should such a scenario become reality.

At the end of 2007 the US and Israel are expected to hold a joint assessment to ascertain the influence of economic sanctions against Iran.

In case you were wondering...

Bush is leaving 'all options' on the table with Iran - reaffirmed yesterday.

Fred Thompson highlights serious Iran threat

Right said Fred.

Tougher sanctions or a blockade on Iran could help foment growing internal dissent to topple the government, former U.S. Republican senator Fred Thompson, a potential presidential candidate, said on Tuesday.

Military action must always remain an option and world powers must agree on the nature of what Thompson called the "very, very serious threat" from Tehran.

Thompson, who has taken an early step toward a 2008 presidential bid for the Republicans, suggested most Europeans did not view the threat from "radical Islamic fundamentalism" with the same gravity as most Americans.

Iran's poor economy and domestic opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could prompt "regime change", Thompson said.

"We have a lot of friends in Iran who apparently feel their leader is trying to drive them off of a militant, religious extremism cliff," he said.

"Some of these problems might work in our favour especially if we ratcheted the sanctions a bit more. I would think that certainly a blockade would be a possibility if we could get the international cooperation to do that.

"I think regime change might be an option ... but you can't take the military option off the table." Thompson, an actor, answered questions after giving a speech in London.

Are Iran and Syria preparing for war?

Crusade Media thinks so. Some excerpts are below - the full shebang can be found here (some interesting bits of information in there).

...Sources report that last week, Tehran sent Moscow a check for $327 m to pay for assorted missiles consigned to Damascus. A further $438 m has been pledged by the end of June for more hardware to Syria.

Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki’s three days of talks in Damascus at the end of May further consolidated the strategic partnership between the two governments under the mutual defense pact they signed a year ago....

...The regime heads in Tehran are basing their common front with Damascus on intelligence reports whereby the US and Israel have drawn up plans for coordinated military action against Iran, Syria and Hizballah in the summer.

According to this hypothesis, Iranian leaders foresee the next UN Security Council in New York at the end of June or early July ending with an American announcement that the sanctions against Tehran are inadequate because Russia and China has toned them down. Therefore, the military option is the only one left on the table. The ayatollahs have concluded that US president George W. Bush is determined to bow out of office on the high note of a glittering military success against Iran to eclipse his failures in Iraq.

They believe he will not risk the lives of more Americans by mounting a ground operation, but rather unleash a broad missile assault that will wipe out Iran’s nuclear facilities and seriously cripple its economic infrastructure.

According to the Iranian scenario, the timeline for hostilities has already been fixed between Washington and Jerusalem - and so has the plan of action. The US will strike Iran first, after which Israel will use the opportunity to go for Syria, targeting its air force, missile bases and deployments, as well as Hizballah’s missile and weapons stocks which Iran replenished this year....

Gulf Arabs won't be base for attack on Iran

No strke from Qatar. Well, there's always Turkey...

US talks with Iran geared to pave way for war option

Brzezinski is more than an evil a-hole, but this time maybe (hopefully?) he's right (instead of left - hehe). Here's the gist of what he said.

A top official in the Carter administration on Tuesday suggested the United States was conducting negotiations on Iran's nuclear program in a way designed for failure, giving an opening for some political leaders, "echoed by some powerful lobbyists," to push for war with Iran.

The oblique lobbyist reference was combined with criticism of the national security policies of Israel and the US, which he likened to that of Iran.

IAEA chief is mad

He says it would be 'madness' to attack Iran. I think it's more mad to support the mullahs, but, hey, that's what he's been doing for a long time now. You can read the full article on al-Beeb; excerpts below. He (and his bribers) must be getting worried about something, no?

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog has warned that resorting to military action against Iran over its nuclear programme would be "an act of madness".

Mohammed ElBaradei also said Iran was close to reaching large-scale levels of uranium enrichment without providing assurances its programme was peaceful.

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear reactors but can also be made into nuclear weapons material.

The West has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.
Mr ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) , said the stalemate between Iran and the UN Security Council was leading to confrontation.

He said any use of force to shut down Iran's nuclear programme "would be catastrophic, it would be an act of madness, and it would not solve the issue".

With whom does Reza Pahlavi's allegiance lie?

At a recent conference held in Prague, he reiterated that he doesn't want a military attack on Iran. He says this will give the regime a carte blanche to do what they want and instill nationalist sentiment which would be counterproductive to regime change. But what is he proposing as an alternative. And why is he backing down so much on supporting his father?

He does say one interesting thing:

"One of the options is indeed a parliamentary monarchy. That suits the character of our people. In heterogeneous societies, the monarchy is a symbol of unity".

That may indeed be true. Hopefully something will happen soon to turn things for the better in Iran...

Senator Lieberman advocates striking at Iran

I saw this in the Chicago Tribune. Good for Joe.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday that the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."...

..."We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them."

He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

Lieberman said much of the action could probably be done by air, although he would leave the strategy to the generals in charge. "I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran," Lieberman said.

"They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part, and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."

Richard Perle: Democratic transformation is possible in Iran

He said so during a recent interview with Radio Free Europe:

RFE/RL: What should be done about Iran now?

Perle: Well, I'm saddened by the fact that we don't have a political strategy for Iran. It's an unpopular regime -- and deservedly unpopular, because it's an oppressive regime. Most Iranians would rather be governed differently, and we're doing, as far as I can tell, almost nothing to help those Iranians.

RFE/RL: What should be done? What political strategy should be adopted?

Perle: Well, one thing we should be doing is communicating a great deal more with the Iranians and facilitating the communication among Iranians. You and I are broadcasting right now. We should be doing a lot more of that into Iran. We should be working with those Iranians who want to change things inside Iran in a multiplicity of ways. We did it during the Cold War with Solidarity in Poland. We did it in Spain and Portugal when they had dictatorships. We had political strategies for encouraging the evolution of free institutions. And we should be doing that in Iran, as well.

RFE/RL: But in the United States, Iran seems to be threat No. 1 of the day, and you're saying Washington doesn't have a political strategy for the country?

Perle: I'm afraid we have no political strategy at all. And one result of that is that we will find ourselves, because of a failure to have a political strategy, with only a military option.

RFE/RL: Do you think that's a reasonable option right now with Iran -- the military option -- if things reach a critical mass with their uranium enrichment?

Perle: It's important to define what is meant by a military option in the Iranian context. It is not an invasion of Iran. It is nothing like what has happened in Iraq. But no one can exclude the possibility that precision air strikes against critical infrastructure supporting a nuclear-weapons program could be undertaken as a last resort. And I believe that such strikes, if it came to that, would be effective in significantly impairing the Iranian nuclear program. I'm not advocating it. And as far as I know, no one else is advocating it. But in the real world, if you're the president of the United States, and you're informed that the last moment has arrived at which it is possible to stop Iranian nuclear weapons, but it will require precision strikes against a dozen targets, can you rule that out?

Gates urges more pressure now on Iran

Blah blah blah blah...let's see some real action, Gates/White House. Here's some of what he said:

Stronger penalties are needed against Iran "not next year or the year after, but right now" because of the uncertainty over how soon Tehran may acquire a nuclear weapon, President Bush's defense secretary said Saturday.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates did not rule out military action to stop Iran's program, though he said it was an unattractive option.

Probably everybody in this room wants there to be a diplomatic solution to this problem," he told an international audience of military officers, government officials and private security experts.

Asked about U.S. intelligence estimates of Iran's progress toward getting nuclear arms, Gates said, "Having to take care of this problem militarily is in no one's interest."

Pentagon to conduct exercise for Iranian crisis

It's gettin' hot in here...

The Pentagon will hold a special table top exercise targeting a possible crisis involving Iran. The exercise is being scheduled for this summer.

The exercise comes amid growing tensions between Iran and the United States over the Iranian nuclear program and recent media reports of increased US military planning against Iran. The Iranian president has also made threats of using 14,000 suicide bombers against Israel and the United States.

The exercise will be conducted at the National Defense University with the specific goal of helping senior US policymakers, military brass and members of Congress to explore various options in the scenario of an Iranian crisis, according to the Pentagon.

Military officials stated in a USA Today report that the July 18 exercise will develop scenarios based on things that are "fairly current in the real world, but the schedule is set way in advance," and it is designed to "teach and educate people about the complexity of decisions in formulating policy."

Israel to ready public for 'all-out war'

From Jpost. Starts like this...

With Iran racing toward nuclear power and IDF preparations for the possibility of a conflict with Syria and Hizbullah in high gear, the Home Front Command plans to launch a publicity campaign to prepare the public for war.

Within a few weeks it intends to inform the public about what people need to do in the event of attack.

The campaign was not connected to a specific event or threat but was meant to brace the public for war in general, senior IDF officers said.

"Our job is to prepare for an all-out war," Col. Hilik Sofer, head of the Home Front Command Population Division, told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday. "We prepare for a wide range of possibilities since it doesn't make a difference where the threat comes from."