Posted on 04/17/2005 3:26:53 AM PDT by Ardavan Bahrami
Dog Skin Report: Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran
Below is a piece by former US Marine and UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. It deserves to be read and re-read. And passed on. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, information that completely contradicted the BushCo. line was readily available for all those with an open mind and anything beyond flat-line brain activity. Dogskinreport.com published many of these reports. I can say with more than a little pride that 99% of what we reported proved true. Contrast that with the claims from BushCo.
We’ve moved far beyond Fox News’ “We lie, you lap it up.” Put that shit away. If you can’t distinguish lies for what they are, then apply for the always-open “Denial Emeritus” post at the American Enterprise Institute.
Below you will read a piece in the purest tradition of Dogskinreport.com. This is why we do what we do.
I suffer no illusions about changing the world. What I hope and pray for is to change a few minds. One at a time. Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
- Top Dog
Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran by Scott Ritter Al Jazeera - March 30, 2005 Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq. There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.
When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq’s neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme.
Why June 2005?, I asked. ‘The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.’
To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the President ordered.
But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America’s European allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that ‘the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point—we have diplomatic means to do this.’
President Bush himself followed up on Rice’s statement by stating that ‘This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.’ He quickly added, ‘Having said that, all options are on the table.’ In short, both the President and the Secretary of State were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time.
Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the agenda; that is, until June 2005.
It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005.
The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our current war with Iraq.
On the surface, there is nothing extraordinary about the news that the President of the United States would order the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes on Iran in June 2005 . That Iran has been a target of the Bush administration’s ideologues is no secret: the President himself placed Iran in the ‘axis of evil’ back in 2002, and has said that the world would be a better place with the current Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history.
The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran’s nuclear programmes - concerns shared by Israel and the European Union, although to different degrees.
In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency’s call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme).
Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
The Iranian response triggered a serious re-examination of policy by both Israel and the United States.
The Israeli policy review was driven in part by the Iranian actions, and in part by Israel’s own intelligence assessment regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, made in August 2004 .
This assessment held that Iran was ‘less than a year’ away from completing its uranium enrichment programme. If Iran was allowed to reach this benchmark, the assessment went on to say, then it had reached the ‘point of no return’ for a nuclear weapons programme. The date set for this ‘point of no return’ was June 2005.
Israel’s Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, declared that ‘under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession’.
Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s major nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor facility in Busher (scheduled to become active in 2005).
These plans were constantly being updated, something that did not escape the attention of the Bush White House.
The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead the way.
‘The way to stop Iran’, a senior Israeli official has said, ‘is by the leadership of the US, supported by European countries and taking this issue to the UN, and using the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool and a very deep inspection regime and full transparency.’
It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren’t too far removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the unspoken ‘twist’: what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear programme?
Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU’s Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a programme ‘doomed to fail’.
The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA’s lead inspector, Mohammed al-Baradei.
And the Bush administration’s push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting.
Curiously, the date for the Bush administration’s move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005.
According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff.
‘Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran’s fissile material production efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions,’ the US draft position paper said.
Iran has called such thinking ‘hallucinations’ on the part of the Bush administration.
The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran Economic sanctions and military attacks are not one and the same. Unless, of course, the architect of America’s Iran policy never intends to give sanctions a chance.
Enter John Bolton, who, as the former US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security for the Bush administration, is responsible for drafting the current US policy towards Iran.
In February 2004, Bolton threw down the gauntlet by stating that Iran had a ‘secret nuclear weapons programme’ that was unknown to the IAEA. ‘There is no doubt that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons production programme’, Bolton said, without providing any source to back up his assertions.
This is the same John Bolton who had in the past accused Cuba of having an offensive biological weapons programme, a claim even Bush administration hardliners had to distance themselves from.
John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the European Union’s engagement with Iran ‘doomed to fail’. He is the Bush administration official who led the charge to remove Muhammad al-Baradai from the IAEA.
And he is the one who, in drafting the US strategy to get the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran, asked the Pentagon to be prepared to launch ‘robust’ military attacks against Iran should the UN fail to agree on sanctions.
Bolton understands better than most the slim chances any US-brokered sanctions regime against Iran has in getting through the Security Council.
The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council who not only possesses a veto, but also is Iran’s main supporter (and supplier) when it comes to its nuclear power programme.
Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s major nuclear facilities
John Bolton has made a career out of alienating the Russians. Bolton was one of the key figures who helped negotiate a May 2002 arms reduction treaty signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both America and Russia by two thirds over a 10 year period.
But that treaty - to Russia’s immense displeasure - now appears to have been made mute thanks to a Bolton-inspired legal loophole that the Bush administration had built into the treaty language.
John Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN sanctions against Iran, which makes the military planning being conducted by the Pentagon all the more relevant.
John Bolton’s nomination as the next US Ambassador to the United Nations is as curious as it is worrying. This is the man who, before a panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association in 1994, said ‘There is no such thing as the United Nations.’
For the United States to submit to the will of the Security Council, Bolton wrote in a 1999 Weekly Standard article, would mean that ‘its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future.’
But John Bolton doesn’t let treaty obligations, such as those incurred by the United States when it signed and ratified the UN Charter, get in the way. ‘Treaties are law only for US domestic purposes’, he wrote in a 17 November 1997 Wall Street Journal Op Ed. ‘In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations.’
John Bolton believes that Iran should be isolated by United Nations sanctions and, if Iran will not back down from its nuclear programme, confronted with the threat of military action.
And as the Bush administration has noted in the past, particularly in the case of Iraq, such threat must be real and meaningful, and backed by the will and determination to use it.
And the Bush administration’s push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting. John Bolton and others in the Bush administration contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran’s nuclear intentions are obvious.
In response, the IAEA’s Muhammad al-Baradai has pointed out the lack of a ‘smoking gun’ which would prove Iran’s involvement in a nuclear weapons programme. ‘We are not God’, he said. ‘We cannot read intentions.’
But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran.
Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered.
That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.
But I would like to ask the world that for one moment let's imagine the Islamic regime in Iran gives up its nuclear program completely; no more attempts in building anything nuclear. Would the world then forget about the Islamic Republic? Would the West forget the plight of million of secularist and pro-democracy Iranians who are living under this religious apartheid? If that could be a possibility, I for one, for the sake of my countrymen, women and children who have been suffering for over two and half decades in the hands of these Islamic Nazis, pray that the IR never gives up its nuclear program. May be this is the only way we could keep the West and in particular president Bush's attention focused on Iran for a regime change. Otherwise, during the past 26 years and 8 years of war and devastation caused by Saddam Hussein on Iran, not only the US or the Europeans tried to stop it, but even the Israelis facilitated in every way possible for the war to go on!
If the West believes in what they claim to be: civilized, then united they must stand against tyranny and help the Iranian people to get rid of their unpopular Islamic dictatorship themselves.
Any article that uses the term "BushCo" is immediately suspect. Why isn't Ritter at Burger King trying to pick up 13 year old girls?
A.) When his lips are moving.
B.) When he puts pen to paper.
C.) Whenever he's awake.
D.) When he tells Burger King teen hotties that he's only 19.
E.) All of the above.
When does el Baradei lie?
Anytime his Iranian wife (blood relative of the Iranian mullah rulers) tells him to.
The World is El Baradei's sucker .... and will pay for it with the lives of millions.
Iran chose to be our enemy when they took our embassy hostage. It's no mystery why we chose Saddam over Iran after they did that. The Iranian people got what they wanted. Now they're paying the price.
While I'd like to see Iran become a free and democratic country, I'm not willing to have anyone in this country pay in blood so that it happens.
If the Iranians don't like what they've created then they can do something about it. If they're not willing to die trying why should we?
I think I'm in a bad mood...
I am hoping that Iran falls all by itself, and Ritter can go live with the mullahs and see what happens when he shoots his mouth off.
10-4, Roger, QSL, Bingo, etc. to that!
You are kidding right? Scott Ritter is a pedophile.
Why would I read anything written by him.
Ritter writes for Al Jazeera?
Better yet, he can go live with them and see what happens when he prays on underage Islamic girls.
My response is "So what?" Editorial spin aside, every allegation made in this tirade is something I have been hoping we are on top of. In a rational world, the "accusations" Scott Ritter and company make here would be accolades making Bush a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Oops, forgot, the committee is busy deciding between Hugo Chavez and a second award to Arafat. Actually, as these have gone lately, Arafat would be a good choice, his resumption of room temperature has advanced the possibility of peace more than anything he has done in his above ground life.
prays = preys
This is a BIG LIE and Scott Ritter is a liar first class. Why would you allow something this anti-American to be featured on this pro American discussion page?
You mean, like Mohammed?
Sanctions never work, they just put off the day of reckoning until you can't ignore it. It's like the monster in the closet. You can shut your eyes and tell yourself it isn't there, but you know it is. The only thing to do is kill it.
Great, unbiased source. /sarcasm off
Because they are too old for him.
Exactly right.
Obviously not a website friendly to the Right.
That being said, I empathize with your feelings regarding the human rights situation in Iran. Yes, the nuke situation has put the spotlight on Iran. The regime's abuses of the people have gone on unchecked (unless you want to see U.S. sanctions as some sort of "check" - I don't) for a quarter century. And for the Europeans and others, it's been business as usual.
Now the regime has made people nervous (Israel and U.S., predominantly) and seeing as how no one else is stepping up to the plate (as usual), the U.S. has decided to confront the mullahs. Nukes are certainly the number one concern. But as the adminstration has made public statements about the human rights offenses in Iran, I don't think that issue can be swept under the table now.
So whether "the west" can forget the plight of the Iranian
people is one thing (and yes, I think the EU can), the U.S. has made it an issue, so I don't think we can or will. (at least under this administration).
As for this article, (written by a man of dubious loyalties and a grudge), I don't think it really says anything new, though it tries to.
So, the admistration has some plans in case an air strike on nuke facilities is viewed as necessary. Well, we wouldn't be much of a country if we didn't have some sort of plan. Ritter admits this is perfectly logical, but only after his dramatic opening.
Are Condi Rice and the President being disingenuous? They're being politicians and trying to answer questions without giving away any secrets. So what does Mr. Ritter expect? That we disclose all our strategies to Khamenei? I'm sure AlJazeera thinks so.
Ritter is obsessed with the June 2005 date, yet fails to mention : It's the time for the Iranian Presidential election. [Do your homework, Scott] It's also the time when Iranian students and opposition movements inside Iran begin staging their annual protests and demonstrations.
No secrets there.
Ritter talks about sanctions being brought up to the UN in June 2005 - this means nothing as far as the June date for 2 reasons: 1) It will take long talks and meetings going way beyond June before a final decision is made, & 2) he says himself that the intension is to make them " deep, painful and long-lasting". (so what else is new?) Longlasting doesn't quite go along with an imminent threat of a June airstrike. Which is it Scott? He tries to get out of this contradiction by suggesting the Adminstration won't give sanctions a chance. Anything's possible, but by that time, it won't be June either.
Then he goes into an attack on Big Bad Bolton. ( a series of one sentence paragraphs for dramatic affect) He is supposedly solely responsible (according to Ritter) for "drafting the current US policy towards Iran". Sure.
Now he really starts his AlJazeera rant; It's Bolton who is making up a big lie about Iran having/trying to acquire a nuclear weapons program. And Bolton who has dared to question ElBaredai. El Baredai says he isn't convinced that Iran even has secret nuclear facilities, (Let's not all laugh at once), so that Bolton must be fabricating all this. And it's Bolton who has ordered the Pentagon to prepare for military attacks against Iran. And bolton hates the Russians and causes them "immense displeasure" with a "Bolton-inspired legal loophole" in the nuclear arms treaty. ( Boy this Bolton is one powerful, busy man!) And Bolton wrote an article 5 yrs ago for the Weekly Standard, that dared to say that the UN could tie the hands of the U.S., should it need to act forcefully to "advance its national interests". Sounds patriotic not sinful.
But then there's a surprise about Bolton. He's in favor of trying sanctions first, before any military involvement. Sounds reasonable. But that would put a crimp on Scott's June 2005 disaster date, wouldn't it? And it kind of takes away from from Big Bad Bolton's image.
So, to sum things up, the intentions of the "United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran." What happened to , "We're not God, and can't read intentions"? Oh well. And when is this bombing going to take place? You would think from everything stated earlier, it might be the magic June date. But NO, that's a "question that remains to be answered'. So please forget about all the June 2005 stuff Ritter ranted on about earlier. (and the stuff he omitted)
What the heck was the purpose of this article except to attack the Bush adminstration? We didn't learn anything new at all. (except maybe that Scott likes drama more than his country, the U.S.)
This is so stupid. I'll fisk just this part.
"Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election,..."
Aftermath? Why not simply 'after the election' or 'December last year'? Something simple is turned conspiratorial.
"I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq."
'Someone close' to the Bush administration? Someone, who knows someone, who works for the Forest Service is "close to the Bush Administration" for Pete's sake. Why not 'State Department', 'CIA' or 'Arms Control Agency'? And why would someone contact Scott Ritter about the situation in Iraq. WTF does he know? When's the last time he was in Iraq? We have 150,000 troops and who knows how many civilians in Iraq now, why call someone in upstate New York? All of Scott Ritter's contacts worked for Saddam then and probably for the terrorists now.
"There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going."
Gee, I could read the paper and say this. Not a word about the then upcoming election of January 30th, which was publicly hoped to turn the tide against the terrorists and the election apparently has.
Finally, I don't not know what would be wrong about taking out the Mullahs nuclear weapons facilities. We have notoriously bad Human Intelligence, so we have no idea how far along the Mullahs are and what their intentions are other than their publicly stated plan to bomb Tel Aviv as soon as they have a nuke. New York wouldn't be far behind. Can we along the Mullahs to get a nuke? No. Will the Mullahs voluntarily give up their nuke plans? No. What do we do then to stop them? That's the question, wait for the Europeans? I'd like to have seen more support for the Iran people to overthrow the Mullahs, but time's getting short.
"Better yet, he can go live with them and see what happens when he preys on little girls."
Unfortuneately he will fit right in. Read the crime news in the Kuwait Times (on line) for a month.
Scott Ritter is the Hanoi Jane of the Irag war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.