Russia calls for continued negotiations, France is pushing a new proposal to get Iran to halt uranium enrichment, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists his country doesn’t want nukes, and Condoleeza Rice mutters veiled threats:
[Russia’s foreign minister] Sergey Lavrov said Thursday the main outcome of a meeting of key nations trying to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions was the strong desire to have negotiations “in good faith, seriously, taking into account legitimate concerns of Iran, legitimate needs of Iran.”[…]
” …[T]he main thing is that the Iranian response did not close the door to the negotiations.”
“The chance is there, and the chance is not too slim,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press. “But for this chance to be realized in practical terms, we need efforts on both sides, and we need good will.” […]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Thursday that Tehran does not need atomic weapons and he is “at a loss” about what more he can do to prove that. He insisted Iran is not hiding anything and is working within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. […]
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Wednesday that the six nations are working on a new deadline for Tehran to provide a more definitive response, despite differences over sanctions.
France also is pushing a compromise proposal that would have Iran suspend uranium enrichment at the same time as a Security Council suspension of all threats of sanctions.
A senior French diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private, said the nations involved in nuclear talks with Iran were mulling an early October deadline for Iran to agree to a simultaneous suspension of uranium enrichment and any talk of sanctions.
“This cannot go on for very much longer,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday of the Iran standoff with the West.
You’ll notice I only bolded one statement in the above excerpt, the one reportedly made by the US Secretary of State. That was for a reason …
… and that reason was to highlight the only relevant remark uttered by anyone quoted in that washington Post article. The rest was all window dressing and filler.
Condoleeza Rice is supposedly the voice of moderation and the assumed leader of the faction in the Bush administration that believes solving the Iranian nuclear crisis can only be accomplished through diplomacy. And there is some arguable basis for that assumption. Nonetheless, I believe she is merely regurgitating the role Colin Powell played in the run-up to Operation Iraq Freedom: the diplomatic stalking horse who can provide cover for the White House’s true policy: the implementation of a pre-emptive attack on a Middle Eastern country which is not an imminent threat to the United States.
Her efforts at a diplomatic solution track remarkably with those of Mr. Powell toward Iraq. In both instances, no effort was made to engage Iran directly in talks with the United States regarding its alleged WMD program. Both Powell and Rice sought sanctions against the offending “I” nations from the UN Security Council. Powell succeeded in getting his resolution for inspections; Rice has not, to date, gained enough adherents among its fellow permanent members on the Security Council to ensure that a resolution imposing sanctions would pass. But that doesn’t really matter. Their efforts in both cases were pursued merely to give some cloak of legitimacy to a policy of military action previously approved by Mr. Bush.
In the case of Iraq, we know that to be true. The disclosures from the Downing Street Memo and many other subsequent revelations in the media over the last 2 years demonstrate beyond any doubt that Bush never seriously considered diplomacy. And I have no doubt that the same policy of war has been decided upon by Mr. Bush with respect to Iran. The evidence has been building for months if not years. The recent article in TIME highlights that war is the only option being seriously considered.
How can I be so certain? Well, some would consider the establishment of an office in the State Department dedicated to regime change in Iran, and overseen by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Cheney (the not-gay daughter of Vice President Cheney) is a clear indication. However if that is not enough, the resurrection of the infamous Office of Special Plans (the Doug Feith outfit that promoted inaccurate and misleading raw intelligence to build the case for Saddam’s WMD programs) at the Pentagon under a new name, the Iranian Directorate, but with a similar agendahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Directorate, would certainly be a dead giveaway.
Further, the reporting of Seymour Hersh (here and here), and the recent claims by former USAF Colonel and US War College instructor Sam Gardiner that the Pentagon’s Iran strike plan have already been sent to the White House also provides evidence that Bush administration assertions they are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution is disingenuous at best.
Then there is the recent boast by Bush political guru, Karl Rove, that an October Surprise in already in the works to help republican candidates in this year’s mid-term elections. Yet, perhaps the most chilling piece of recent evidence which suggests that all of Condi’s diplomatic maneuvers regarding Iran are a sham is this report yesterday by Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story:
The Pentagon’s top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.
The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called “branches and sequels” contingency planning.
“The JCS has accepted the inevitable,” the intelligence official said, “and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting.”
A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning — which he described as “what if, then what” planning — and “branches and sequels,” which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon.
Note that last part about the Pentagon’s “branches and sequels” planning well. It take place only after a war plan has already “been decided upon.” We are already committed to this war, my friends. The question now is only a matter of timing. And even worse, the “nuclear option” (i.e., the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the United States against nuclear facilities in Iran) is “still on the table:”
The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have “come around on to the administration’s thinking.”
“The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear production facilities,” the intelligence official said. “In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Somebody at the Pentagon is scared shitless folks. Otherwise you wouldn’t be seeing these leaks by senior military and intelligence officials. Because revealing military secrets in a “time of war” is a still hanging offense under federal law. In fact, as the Hersh stories and this 2005 diary of mine reveal, leaks about the Bush/Cheney march to war with Iran from concerned officials at the Pentagon and in the military have been ongoing for some time now. Unfortunately, all their leaks have done nothing to ultimately derail those plans. Here we are in the early Fall of 2006, inching ever closer to D-Day over the skies of Iran:
Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record.
…The Senate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on. […]
“In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town,” the source added. They “will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts.”
No sign of an encouraging word, is there?
Eurpopean Negotiations with Iran
Senate Armed Services Committee
