Same People, Same Methods, Same Motives
New Countdown
Tomorrow's Target - Iran, Syria And China

"Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America... The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq.... Bush issued rebukes to Russia and China and called Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity. 'China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world,' Bush wrote. He said these 'old ways' include enlarging China's military in a non-transparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad."
Bush Reaffirms Pre-Emptive Use of Force
Associated Press, 16 March 2006

"The United States is concerned about China's military build-up and Beijing should make its intentions clear, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday. Rice was speaking at a news conference here after meeting Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and ahead of a new trilateral security dialogue with Japan on Saturday, at which China's growing power is top of the agenda. 'We have said we have concerns about the Chinese military build-up. We've told the Chinese that they need to be transparent,' she said."
Explain military build up: US tells China
Agence France Presse, 16 March 2005

"The UN Security Council is to discuss Iran's nuclear programme but Mr Straw says military action is inconceivable. He refused to comment directly when asked by the BBC's Frank Gardner about contingency plans being drawn up by US military chiefs about possible strikes on Iranian targets."
Iran deserves better, says Straw
BBC Online, 16 March 2006

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran's nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States... Bolton ratcheted up the rhetoric as the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council failed again to reach agreement on how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions after a fifth round of negotiations.... China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said his country and Russia still had problems with a proposal that the IAEA be asked to report to the Security Council within 14 days on any progress Iran has made toward meeting the U.N. nuclear watchdog's demands.... The negotiations shift to the full Security Council on Thursday when all 15 of its members are to meet for a second time to discuss the draft drawn up by France and Britain."
Bolton compares Iran threat to Sept 11 attacks
Reuters, 15 March 2006

"Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said that the US intends to show that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Europe are incapable of resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, according to MNA".
'US: IAEA & EU incapable of resolving Iran file'
Iranmania, 15 March 2006

"Israel is not prepared to sit this one out indefinitely. If diplomacy as usual goes nowhere, Jerusalem will strike the country whose president says he wants to wipe Israel off the map - and the rest of the world will face the mother of all Mideastern crises. Oil at $200 no longer strains credulity."
The Fifth Horesman
United Press International, 15 March 2006

"The Pentagon is looking into the possibility of Israel launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In the past months there were several working-level discussions trying to map out the possible scenarios for such an attack, according to administration sources who were briefed on these meetings.... Israeli and US sources have said in the past weeks that the US did not convey any message to Israel in which it asked to refrain from an attack and has not raised the issue in bilateral discussions with the Israelis.... The American assumption, according to the administration sources, is that an Israeli decision on attacking Iran is not imminent and that in any case it would not be taken before the Israeli elections, scheduled for March 28."
US Monitoring Israel's Iran Options
Jerusalem Post, 13 March 2006

"Iran yesterday rejected a Russian compromise aimed at ending its nuclear stand-off with the UN and threatened to strangle world oil supplies passing through the Strait of Hormuz.... Western intelligence experts say that it would probably take Iran between three and five years to build a nuclear weapon if it started now — something Iran denies is its aim. But to inject urgency into the Security Council debate, they now stress that Iran could master the technology to make nuclear weapons in as little as four months."
Oil threat fuels nuclear dispute
London Times, 13 March 2006

"Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector of the United Nations, explained Azerbaijan’s importance for the US in terms of the Iran issue in an article on aljazeera.net. According to Ritter, Washington is preparing Azerbaijan for a possible military operation against the regime in Tehran."
Washington - Baku Relations
Turkish Press, 13 March 2006

"The United States is pushing the United Nations Security Council to give Iran a two-week deadline to halt nuclear work that could be related to the making of weapons... British Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to pursue Iran's case through the Security Council, saying a failure by Tehran to meet its global obligations would lead to 'a serious situation'."
Angry US says Iran must end nuclear program in two weeks
Sydney Morning Herald, 12 March 2006

"A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials also indicated that London would back Washington's efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran's compliance with international demands. The five permanent members of the security council began consultations on an expected statement on Iran on Wednesday after Russian-led attempts to broker a compromise at the IAEA in Vienna failed. A deadline could be set as early as next week and would cover a period 'of weeks, not months', officials said."
Iran is only months from bomb technology, says Britain
Guardian, 10 March 2006

"Britain and the US will press the council to come up with demands that Iran must meet 'within weeks, not months', said the [British] official."
UN 'has less than a year' to stop Iran going nuclear
London Times, 10 March 2006

"High-ranking British government officials have warned that Iran 'may turn to violence' following its referral to the United Nations Security Council over its controversial nuclear programme.... The British official said he believed that Iran would be given about 30 days to comply with any Security Council call to adhere to its international obligations.... While Britain continues to insist that military action is 'not on the agenda,' the official acknowledged that there was not unlimited time to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis."
Iran 'may turn to violence' say British government officials
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 9 March 2006

"If the United Nations Security Council is incapable of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defence minister said today. Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. 'My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves,' Mr Mofaz said after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung."
Israel 'will act on Iran if UN can't
Reuters, 9 March 2006

"I doubt that there will be an agreement to put a stiff resolution down, and I think that's right.... the big problem will be if the Israelis say, enough`s enough.... when you talk about military options, you have to say what sort of military option would be possible and what effect would it have? And when you look at them in practical terms, they are all counterproductive.... there may be worse scenarios, that is, having an all out war which rages across all of these countries (in the region) than finding an accommodation. "
Lord Timothy Garden, a former British assistant chief of defense staff
United Press International, 7 March 2006

"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and faces 'meaningful consequences' if it persists in defying the international community, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday. Cheney, speaking to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, also reaffirmed that the United States was keeping all options on the table - including military force - in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms."
Iran Faces Consequences in Nuclear Dispute: Cheney
Reuters, 7 March 2006

"Israeli special forces are working in Iran to locate the precise sites at which Iran continues to enrich uranium, a British newspaper reported Sunday. According to the Sunday Times article, the Israeli team is based in northern Iraq and has the support of the United States.... On Saturday, the US reportedly decided to present a 30-day ultimatum to the UN Security Council, calling on Iran to cease its nuclear development. The Washington Post reported, however, that the US would not request further economic sanctions on Iran."
Report: IDF forces operating in Iran
Jerusalem Post, 5 March 2006

"Washington has thought over a number of versions about attack on Iran. US Military Air Forces pilotless intelligence aircrafts violated Iranian airspace; 'Mujahaddin el-Khalg' organization committed some explosions in Tehran on June, 2005 with support of the Central Intelligence Agency and so on,' Skott Ritter, American analyst, former UN weapon inspector in Iraq made such a sensational statement. Ritter said that US review the other versions for attach against Iran.  'US military forces are organizing bases for hostilities in Azerbaijan, northern neighbor of the Iran, for the purpose of attack against Iran. USSR used the Southern Azerbaijanis in Iran during the Cold War. The Central Intelligence Agency plans to use this factor now'. Ritter claims that Central Intelligence Agency forces give instructions to Southern Azerbaijanis to make the situation tenser. He said that American military aviation to be stationed in Azerbaijan will attack the required facilities, targets in the direction of Tehran.  'US military strategists are working out the details of the hostilities. The plan includes stationing US Military Air Forces in Azerbaijan and use airdromes in these territories'."
UN ex-inspector, American analyst Scott Ritter: US will attack Iran via Azerbaijan
APA (Azeri Press Agency), 4 March 2006

"US President George Bush accused Iran of financing terror groups, AFP reported. According to Bush, Iran is 'the main sponsor of terrorism'. He warned that the USA would not allow Tehran to produce nuclear weapons. 'The Iranian authorities, which finance terrorist activities, can’t have the most dangerous weapons', the US President stated."
George Bush Accuses Iran of Financing Terror Groups
Focus News Agency, 24 February 2006

"Iran has replaced Iraq as the country Americans consider to be their greatest enemy, according to a Gallup Poll. Canada and Great Britain were ranked as America's best friends. The percentage of Americans with a positive view of France and Germany has moved up sharply since 2003, the poll said, when the two allies challenged President Bush's Iraq policy. Thirty-one percent of Americans gave the nod to Iran as the worst enemy in polling of 1,002 adults between Feb. 6-9. This represented an increase from 14 percent last year, and appeared to reflect growing American concern over the potential for the Islamic republic to acquire nuclear weapons."
Poll: Americans see Iran as enemy no. 1
Associated Press, 24 February 2006

"While in Washington, the two Iranian emissaries also made clear that U.S. and/or Israeli attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities would set the whole region ablaze against the United States. 'They have clandestine assets throughout the oil producing countries of the Gulf,' said one of them in a barely audible voice, 'and they also remember how you were forced to leave Vietnam in 1975.' Iran`s Shiite friends in Iraq, led by fee-faw-fum scarecrow al-Sadr, will be asked to harass U.S. troops 'as you prepare to end the occupation with honor.' Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, Israel`s internal security agency, said recently his country might come to regret its decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. 'I`m not sure we won`t come to miss Saddam,' he told a group of students broadcast on Israeli TV."
Iraq, Iran unintended results
United Press International, 17 February 2006

"Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a 'last resort' to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb. Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt. They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme. 'This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment,' said a senior Pentagon adviser. 'This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months.'...The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme."
US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
Sunday Telegraph, 12 February 2006

"Tony Blair yesterday refused to rule out a British military invasion of Iran. He told MPs the rogue Middle Eastern state was helping to spread the 'virus' of Muslim fanaticism across the world. It was a problem which needed 'sorting', the Prime Minister said. And asked if the British military option was on the table, he admitted: 'You can never say never in any of these situations.' The warning is a significant increase in the language the PM has used against the Tehran-based regime which is also accused of developing nuclear weapons. American military experts have already said war-planes are on standby to attack."
BLAIR: 'BRITISH TROOPS IN IRAN? WE CAN NEVER SAY NEVER'
Daily Mirror, 8 February 2006

"Iranian president Mohammad Ahmadinejad is evaluating an all out military response, including closing the Strait of Hormuz, if Iran is attacked by US-led Western powers for its WMD programme. Iran told this plainly in a meeting with Russia last week, adding that the world would have to pay a 'heavy price' for any attack, as it would close the Hormuz and search and apprehend tankers and ships and terminate means of sea communications, even if they were commercial. Iran also threatened retaliation against any country providing the US with bases or other means to launch its military campaign. Though Iran’s WMD programme has provoked no action in the UN Security Council but some debates in the IAEA, Ahmadinejad is preparing for military retaliation."
Iran Threatens to Close Hormuz
NewsInsight, 4 February 2006

"Although Downing Street publicly insists that Bush and Blair remain 'closely in touch' on the Iranian threat, some British officials are privately concerned that Dick Cheney, the hardline American vice-president, is driving the administration’s policy on Iran.... One well known US weapons specialist last week described the Iranian nuclear issue as 'the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion'.... [there are] reports in Israel that Washington is secretly encouraging Tel Aviv to strike.... an Israeli attack would demolish the Middle Eastern peace process and provide Arab terrorist groups with a potentially lethal recruiting tool.... what British officials believe is a persuasive argument against a military attack: far from encouraging Iranian reformers to rise up against their theocratic government, any form of US intervention might unite the country behind Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader."
Blair’s loyalty tested as Bush menaces Iran
Sunday Times, 23 January 2005

"Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.... According to Ulfkotte's report, 'western security sources' claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities.... [the German news agency] DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a 'possible option,' but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations..... What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year. ..... Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the 'green light' to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.... the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. "
Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?
Der Spiegel, 30 December 2005

"During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara. Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey. Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria."
CIA’s Goss Reportedly Warned Ankara Of Iranian Threat
Turkish Press, 13 December 2005

"Israel's armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.... It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 — the equivalent of the SAS — and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling .... Russia last week signed an estimated $1 billion contract — its largest since 2000 — to sell Iran advanced Tor-M1 systems capable of destroying guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft.... The date set for possible Israeli strikes on Iran also coincides with Israel’s general election on March 28, prompting speculation that Sharon may be sabre-rattling for votes. Benjamin Netanyahu, the frontrunner to lead Likud into the elections, said that if Sharon did not act against Iran, 'then when I form the new Israeli government, we’ll do what we did in the past against Saddam’s reactor...'"
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
London Times, 11 December 2005

"On September 24 of this year, the United States finally achieved a goal it had persistently pursued over several years. Iran was declared by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to be in 'non compliance' with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  The resolution passed by the IAEA is remarkably weak. It does not set a date for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, and it does not even mention the possibility of sanctions. It even notes that Iran has made 'good progress' in correcting its 'breaches,' all of which date back to before October 2003. The LA Times characterized it as a 'gentle slap.' It is instead an enormous thud.  We pointed out before that the probable reason for the U.S. to insist on the passage of such a weak resolution (on the face of opposition by Russia and China to stronger resolutions) was to reach a stalemate in the Security Council that would provide an excuse for U.S. military action, which would necessarily include the use of nuclear weapons against Iran [1], [2], [3]. There is, however, an even stronger reason for the U.S. to have pushed for this resolution so adamantly, a reason which is valid even if Iran is not referred to the Security Council at the forthcoming November 24 meeting or thereafter, and that supports the predicted scenario. The IAEA resolution of September 24 2005 allows the United States to carry out a nuclear attack against Iran 'legally.' ... the U.S. cannot nuke Iran, a party to the NPT? Think again. The paragraph immediately before in the U.S. declaration reads: 'It is important that all parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. In that regard, consistent with generally recognised principles of international law, parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be in compliance with these undertakings in order to be eligible for any benefits of adherence to the Treaty. ' Iran was 'in compliance' until September 24th, 2005. Thereafter, the 'benefit' of not being subject to nuking no longer applies."
A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran
Antiwar.com, 12 November 2005

"Ukrainian weapons dealers smuggled 18 nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China during former President Leonid Kuchma’s administration, prosecutors said Friday. The missiles have the range to reach U.S. allies. A senior U.S. official tells NBC News that U.S. intelligence believes Ukraine did indeed sell the long-ange cruise missiles to Iran and China in the last four years, as the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office reported.... The Kh55 cruise missiles were smuggled out of Ukraine four years ago, the Prosecutor General’s office said Friday in a statement. Prosecutors said the missiles, which have a range of 1,860 miles, were sold illegally and were not exported by Ukrainian enterprises. However, the U.S. official indicated that the intelligence community believes that Ukrainian officials, operating at the highest levels, facilitated the sale of a dozen AS-15 cruise missiles - six each to China and Iran.  The AS-15 is a high speed cruise missile with a range of 3,000 kilometers or nearly 1,900 miles.  They are air-launched, meaning they can be fired from aircraft.... Iran does not operate long-range bombers but it is believed Tehran could adapt its Soviet-built Su-24 strike aircraft to launch the missile. The missile’s range would put Israel and a number of U.S. allies within reach. Although the AS-15 missiles believed provided to Iran and China were not equipped with nuclear warheads, the missiles are nuclear capable, meaning that if Iran and China could fit them with nuclear warheads. If the missiles are in working shape or can be repaired, they would be the longest ranged missiles in the Iranian arsenal. The Iranians are continuing to test their own Shahab-3 missile which has a range of 1,000 miles. China is a declared nuclear weapons state. Omelchenko’s letter to Yushchenko and another to the prosecutor-general, Svyatoslav Piskun, refer to a Ukrainian Security Service report that details the allegations."
Iran, China reportedly got Ukraine missiles
NBC News, 18 March 2005

"For a United States increasingly pointing at China as the next biggest challenge to Pax Americana, the Iran-China energy cooperation cannot but be interpreted as an ominous sign of emerging new trends in an area considered vital to US national interests.....  the quantum leap of China into the Middle East and Caspian energy markets has become a fait accompli, no matter how disturbed its biggest trade partner, the US, may be over its geopolitical ramifications"
China Rocks the Geopolitical Boat with Iran Oil Deal
Asia Times, 2 December 2004

"Israel admitted yesterday that it is buying 500 'bunker-buster' bombs, which could be used to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, as Teheran paraded ballistic missiles as a warning against attack. The BLU-109 bombs, which can penetrate more than 7ft of reinforced concrete, are among 'smart' munitions being sold to Israel under America's military aid programme.... Iran has placed some of its facilities, such as the large Natanz enrichment plant, in protected underground sites. Teheran has vowed to retaliate against any attack, and at one point said it might launch pre-emptive strikes if it felt threatened. Seeking to underline the point, Iran showed off its ballistic missiles at an annual military parade in Teheran near the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini."
Israel challenges Iran's nuclear ambitions
Daily Telegraph, 22 September 2004

"On 6 May last, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution which, in effect, authorised a 'pre-emptive' attack on Iran. The vote was 376-3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, wrote one commentator, 'once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power'."
The warlords of America
John Pilger, 20 August 2004

"The picture emerging from the latest reports about the manipulation of intelligence in the drive to war with Iraq, as well as efforts by administration hawks to deliberately aggravate tensions with Syria, Iran, and North Korea in defiance of official State Department and U.S. policy, suggest a similar but much more ambitious scheme at work. As with Reagan, in this case, too, it is difficult to determine whether Bush  or even his NSC director, Condoleezza Rice - fully understands, let alone approves, of what the hawks are doing.  There was some hint of a parallel policy apparatus dating back just after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001. It was known early on, for example, that the Pentagon leadership, without notice to the State Department, the NSC, or the CIA, convened its advisory Defense Policy Board (DPB), headed by Richard Perle, to discuss attacking Iraq within days of the attacks. The three agencies were also kept in the dark about a mission undertaken immediately afterward by former CIA director and DPB member James Woolsey to London to gather intelligence about possible links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, as if the CIA or the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) could not be trusted."
  Iran-Contra, Amplified
Inter Press Service News Agency, 9 August 2003

"In 1996, Richard Perle and Doug Feith joined a small group of researchers who were asked to help Benjamin Netanyahu in his first steps as prime minister. They could not have known that four years later that the working paper they prepared, including plans for Israel to help restore the Hashemite throne in Iraq, would shed light on the current policies of the only superpower in the world. The document, prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, with offices in Washington and Jerusalem, appears at the institute's Web site, http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm, and has been mentioned in the American press. The current Israeli and Iraqi connection, and the key role Feith and Perle play in the Bush administration, make the document a treasure trove. Perle heads the Defense Department's Policy Board and is considered one of the most important strategic thinkers in the American establishment. Feith is the deputy defense minister - No. 3 in the Pentagon's hierarchy. The document presents an ambitious plan for a 'U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality - not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes.' The new partnership drawn up by Perle, Feith and five other researchers, has interests in all sorts of directions in the region. 'Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq,' the group writes. 'Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging - through influence in the U.S. business community - investment in Jordan to shift structurally Jordan's economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.' The experts advised Netanyahu to pull Turkey into the brew, with diplomatic, military, and operational support for Turkish actions against Syria. They say that 'Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.' One way to do it: '... Securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.' Since Syria prefers 'a weak, but barely surviving Saddam,' if only to foil Jordanian efforts to topple him, Perle, Feith and company are recommending diverting Syria attention from the Hashemitization of Iraq. How? 'By using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.'"
Perles of wisdom for the Feithful
Haaretz, 10 February 2002

Setting The Middle East Alight
'Holocaust Now' Or 'Holocaust Later'?

'Holocaust Now'?

"Iran yesterday rejected a Russian compromise aimed at ending its nuclear stand-off with the UN and threatened to strangle world oil supplies passing through the Strait of Hormuz.... Western intelligence experts say that it would probably take Iran between three and five years to build a nuclear weapon if it started now — something Iran denies is its aim. But to inject urgency into the Security Council debate, they now stress that Iran could master the technology to make nuclear weapons in as little as four months."
Oil threat fuels nuclear dispute
London Times, 13 March 2006

"All I can say is this: the Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. The Israeli Defense Ministry has long had a nuclear arsenal. Israeli intelligence tried to keep the existence of this arsenal secret from the outside world, but fortunately did not succeed. Nevertheless, they are still trying to silence me - even now, after seventeen-and-a-half years in prison."
Interview with Mordechai Vanunu: Israel preparing to use nuclear weapons against Iran
Voyenny Parad, No. 4, 2005 (original Russian) - Globalresearch.ca

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."
Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter-terrorism officer
American Conservative, 1 August 2005

"Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours. The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states 'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its territory again. According to Israeli and Bush administration officials interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the sea-launch capability gives Israel the ability to target Iran more easily should the Iranians develop their own nuclear weapons."
Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
Observer, 12 October 2003

"....  there is considerable speculation about limited strikes against nuclear facilities [in Iran].... Military action carries enormous risks, because of the many unforeseeable consequences....  "
Michael Ledeen - United States Policy toward Iran
Testimony to Committee on Foreign Relations, US House of Representatives, 8 March 2006
(Who Is Michael Ledeen? - Click Here)

"Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.... According to Ulfkotte's report, 'western security sources' claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. "
Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?
Der Spiegel, 30 December 2005

"A leaked Pentagon agenda indicates the defence officials and military scientists are discussing the viability of what are being called mini-nukes. These would form a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons which can be designed to bore deep underground before exploding, destroying hardened bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction.... The programme was criticised on Thursday by former Vice-President Al Gore in his first foreign policy speech in nearly a year. 'This administration wants to embark on a brand new programme to build a new generation of small nuclear bombs to bust bunkers under the ground. 'In my opinion, this would be true madness.' The Bush administration has rejected criticism that its nuclear weapons development studies are ill-timed, just as the US is seeking to stifle proliferation in Iran and North Korea.... Whatever the reassurances, much of the groundwork is already laid for the development of mini-nukes. Congress has already approved potential funding for bunker-busting bombs whose abilities would fit well with President Bush's preference for a pre-emptive strike capability."
US experts debate 'mini-nukes'
BBC Online, 8 August 2003

"If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard said. The advisor, Dr. Abasi, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area. Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries. Zakhariya, located in the Jerusalem hills is - according to foreign reports - home to Israel's Jericho missile base. Both Israeli and international media have published commercial satellite images of the Zakhariya and Dimona sites."
Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response to U.S. attack
Haaretz (Israel), 26 February 2006

"Iran will respond to a U.S. attack with a military strike against Israel's main nuclear facility- Dimona nuclear reactor, Iranian advisor to the Revolutionary Guard Dr. Hassan Abbasi stated cited by Iran News. The advisor said the Iranian retaliation against Israeli targets would also focus on Haifa, which houses several chemical factories and oil refineries."
Iran Threatens Israel with Missiles
Focus News Agency (Bulgaria), 25 February 2006

"In Iran last month, Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr told a government at odds with the West over its nuclear ambitions that he would fight alongside it if the United States attacked....."
Iraq's Sadr Builds Role With Tour Of Mideast
Washington Post, 22 February 2006

"Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, is ringed by mountains, is roughly four times the size of Iraq and has almost three times its population. Its military numbers almost 900,000 soldiers and reservists and has long-range missiles that can reach Israel. Iran dominates the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which at least 35 percent of the world's oil is shipped, and could threaten that commerce with its anti-ship cruise missiles, U.S. military officials say."
Bush's Iran Options Limited by Iraq, Perils of War
Bloomberg, 23 January 2006

"Iran already possesses non-nuclear deterrents to American attack, which Iraq did not, and they are probably strong enough to keep both the United States and Israel away from Iranian nuclear sites. Iran can close down a major part of Middle Eastern oil shipments by closing the Strait of Hormuz. "
Iran's nukes are a non-issue
International Herald Tribune, 27 January 2006

Or 'Holocaust Later'?

"The U.S. and China, the world's top two oil consuming nations, must work together to avoid a competition for foreign supplies that might lead to military conflict, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman said.... China's demand for oil is forecast to grow 2.9 percent a year between now and 2025, and U.S. demand will grow 1.5 percent a year. Efforts by each nation to use imports to meet growing demand may escalate competition for oil to something 'as hot and dangerous' as the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Soviet Union, Lieberman, 63, said in a speech today in Washington.... 'There is a problem because China, like the United States, is tying its energy deals to military assistance,' said Michael Klare, author of  'Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.' 'In the short term, it's more a case of stirring up local conflicts, where the U.S. and China are competing for the loyalty of oil producing countries, but that does have a tendency over time to escalate into something bigger,' said Klare, a professor at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts."
U.S., China Must Cooperate or Risk Oil Conflict, Lieberman Says
Bloomberg, 30 November 2006

"The United States is concerned about China's military build-up and Beijing should make its intentions clear, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday. Rice was speaking at a news conference here after meeting Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and ahead of a new trilateral security dialogue with Japan on Saturday, at which China's growing power is top of the agenda. 'We have said we have concerns about the Chinese military build-up. We've told the Chinese that they need to be transparent,' she said."
Explain military build up: US tells China
Agence France Presse, 16 March 2005

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States must join together with allies Japan and Australia to ensure that China’s military buildup does not exceed certain limits.... The three countries must 'make sure that we’re looking at a Chinese military buildup that is not outsized for China’s regional ambitions and interests,' Rice said."
China's military buildup a concern, says Rice
Associated Press, 10 March 2006

"Relations between Tokyo and Beijing worsened yesterday when the recently appointed Japanese Foreign Minister condemned the secrecy surrounding China’s rising military spending. The remarks by Taro Aso, who expressed concern at a news conference that China was 'a neighbour with one billion people, has nuclear weapons, and has been expanding its military spending by double digits for 17 consecutive years', were denounced as 'highly irresponsible' by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Mr Aso, who has strong nationalist views, referred to the 'perception that China is becoming a major threat', and said that Beijing’s lack of transparency 'fans the anxiety'. But political analysts said that his comments marked an important departure from Japan’s official line, which has always stopped short of publicly describing China as a military threat."
Military secrecy alarms Japan
London Times, 23 January 2005

"Amid persistent warnings about China's growing military clout, the US military said Tuesday it would hold one of its biggest naval exercises in the Asia Pacific this summer.  The large-scale operations will involve several carrier strike groups, each of which includes at least three warships, an attack submarine and a support ship.     Four carriers would be involved in three military maritime exercises - one of them touted as the world's largest - between June and August in the region, Commander of the US Pacific Fleet Admiral Gary Roughead said in Washington.... Some analysts also see recent Sino-Russian rapprochement as a sign of a desire to wrest military and economic power in the Asia-Pacific region from the United States, which is linked by half century military alliances with Japan and South Korea.  It has been at least 10 years since four aircraft carriers have operated in the Pacific Ocean at one time, the Hawaii-based Roughead said, adding that the increased activity was in line with findings of the QDR released on February 6."
Amid China Threat, US to Hold Mammoth Naval Operations in Pacific
Agence France Presse, 16 February 2006

"Saudi Arabia, long the largest supplier of oil to the United States, has cut U.S. sales dramatically and may soon no longer be among the top five largest U.S. suppliers. The Saudi kingdom's new largest customer is China.... Saudi oil sales to the United States peaked in 2002 at 1.7 million barrels per day but had fallen to 1.1 million barrels per day in May....Saudi Arabia's turn away from the U.S. market began at the end of 2002 as the United States was preparing to go to war in Iraq. 'I think, while there was what has generally been described as a sufficient degree of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the United States, (the invasion of Iraq) clearly was not in tune with Saudi Arabia or really anyone else in the Arab world for that matter,' Placke said..... Gregory Gause, an associate professor of political science at the University of Vermont, said the details of Saudi oil sales are much less important than Saudi production capacity, which the country often uses to smooth jolts to world oil prices like the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Iraq War or strikes in Venezuela. 'The Saudis have basically played the role of the central bank,' Gause said. 'We're at a point where there's precious little surplus capacity.' A large source of the reduction in the world's excess capacity has been China's burgeoning appetite for oil. Placke said China recently surpassed Japan in its oil consumption and is currently the world's second-largest oil market behind the United States. Lippman said, however, that building consumption might be only part of the reason Saudi Arabia is turning its attention to China. 'It seems to me that there is a certain logic for the Saudis in looking around and saying, well wait a minute, we need a good relationship with a country that is a permanent member of the (U.N.) Security Council, is a strong a growing market for our oil, is a nuclear power and, by the way, is untainted by having invaded any Arab countries,' Lippman said."
Saudi Arabia cuts oil sales to U.S., ups China
Washington Times, 16 September 2005

Israel As A Cheney Pawn
In America's Undeclared War With China

"Israel has been thrown into a political crisis at just this time of Iran’s strident moves, with the removal of the old warrior, Ariel Sharon, from the scene. Israeli elections will come March 28 for a new government....  reports are that the Vice President, we might say, the ‘spiritual leader’ of the US hawks, Dick Cheney, has been covertly aiding the Benjamin Netanyahu candidacy as new head of the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is also directly tied to the indicted US Republican money launderer, Jack Abramoff during the time Netanyahu was Sharon’s Finance Minister. Washington journalists report that Vice President Dick Cheney, and his advisers David Addington and John Hannah, are working behind the scenes to ensure that former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu succeeds acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in March. Cheney is working to defeat the more moderate Kadima Party - formed by Ariel Sharon and his more moderate ex-Likud allies - in the March 28 elections."
Calculating the Risk of War in Iran
Centre For Research On Globalisation, 29 January 2006

"Even as President Bush's popularity dropped to record lows, his administration was embraced warmly this week by the thousands of delegates at the most influential annual gathering of American Jewish activists....this week, at the annual policy conference of the main pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, several of the most hard-line administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, drew a resounding response. The hard-line mood of the audience also extended to Israeli politics. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who, like the two other candidates for prime minister in Israel's coming election, spoke on a video link from Jerusalem, was cheered enthusiastically when he called for building 'an iron wall' around Hamas.... The enthusiastic support for Netanyahu and Bush administration hawks underscores what appears to be a widening gap between pro-Israel activists in Washington on the one hand and the Israeli and American publics on the other.... Some political observers have suggested that Bush's declining political fortunes would make it harder for him to follow through on the hawkish rhetoric cheered by pro-Israel activists, but participants at the Aipac conference who were interviewed by the Forward voiced no such concerns.... Cheney — a bugaboo of the left for his role in the Iraq War — spoke for more than 35 minutes at the conference Tuesday.... 'The United States will not be a party to the establishment of a Palestinian state that sponsors terror and violence,' the vice president said, adding, 'We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.'... When he took the podium, the crowd stood and cheered for almost a minute. It displayed similar warmth toward Bolton, a leading administration hawk on Iraq and Iran, who spoke Sunday morning."
Pro-Israel Activists Cheer Cheney
Forward (Jewish Newspaper, New York),10 March 2006

Is Israel Pushing For US To Lead A Strike Against Iran?
Or Is It The Other Way Round?

"No, it's the other way around. It's that the United States will wink and nod and say, 'Well, maybe it's better that you go and do it than we go and do it'. In some ways you could interpret the statement of Vice President Cheney as already suggesting that. When he was asked what to do about it, he said, 'Well, the Israelis won't stand by and let this happen'. It was almost as if he was signalling to them that it would be OK.'... The Iranians have 500,000 battle-hardened Pasdaran, plus the people they have control or influence over in Iraq. I would just put this proposition on the table - the United States cannot strike Iran while we still have our troops in Iraq."
Martin Indyk, Former US Ambassador To Israel
Iran military options open, says former advisor
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 9 March 2006

".... And there [in Iran] the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president [Cheney] today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it [attack Iran] and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.  And I happen to think that this would be very destabilizing in the region. We would be viewed as complicit. It would intensify the problems that we are already facing in manifold fashion...."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former US National Security Adviser
PBS News Hour, 20 January 2005

"Although Downing Street publicly insists that Bush and Blair remain 'closely in touch' on the Iranian threat, some British officials are privately concerned that Dick Cheney, the hardline American vice-president, is driving the administration’s policy on Iran.... One well known US weapons specialist last week described the Iranian nuclear issue as 'the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion'.... [there are] reports in Israel that Washington is secretly encouraging Tel Aviv to strike.... an Israeli attack would demolish the Middle Eastern peace process and provide Arab terrorist groups with a potentially lethal recruiting tool.... what British officials believe is a persuasive argument against a military attack: far from encouraging Iranian reformers to rise up against their theocratic government, any form of US intervention might unite the country behind Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader."
Blair’s loyalty tested as Bush menaces Iran
Sunday Times, 23 January 2005

"Israel admitted yesterday that it is buying 500 'bunker-buster' bombs, which could be used to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, as Teheran paraded ballistic missiles as a warning against attack. The BLU-109 bombs, which can penetrate more than 7ft of reinforced concrete, are among 'smart' munitions being sold to Israel under America's military aid programme.... Iran has placed some of its facilities, such as the large Natanz enrichment plant, in protected underground sites. Teheran has vowed to retaliate against any attack, and at one point said it might launch pre-emptive strikes if it felt threatened. Seeking to underline the point, Iran showed off its ballistic missiles at an annual military parade in Teheran near the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini."
Israel challenges Iran's nuclear ambitions
Daily Telegraph, 22 September 2004

"Move over, Big Oil. There's a new oilman on the world stage - China. China's takeover bid for Unocal Corp. makes clear to sticker-shocked Americans that the 1.3 billion Chinese people are demanding an ever-larger supply of the world's energy to fuel their booming economy and are willing to get it wherever necessary. From Central Asia to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and even Canada, Chinese firms are pumping oil and natural gas in many areas that the United States was counting on to meet its own record-high demand.... While the Bush administration tries to build international pressure against Iran over its nuclear aspirations, China has signed a $70 billion long- term oil and gas supply deal with the Tehran... Chinese firms signed numerous contracts to co-produce oil and natural gas. Iran is China's largest single source of foreign oil, providing 13 percent of China's total annual imports..."
China on global hunt to quench its thirst for oil
San Francisco Chronicle, 26 June 2005

".... the implications of China's exploding thirst for crude oil are epic in scope... Based on our analysis of the intense economic, crude oil, and military confrontations developing among the China Rim region’s largest economies, we believe that the most aggressive crude oil price targets calling for $100 per barrel within the next three years will prove to be conservative.... it is our opinion that the 'likely direction of surprise' in crude oil prices will continue to be to the upside.... There is not just one new economic behmoth emerging in the China Rim region, there are two... The simultaneous economic rise of China and India will have a huge impact on worldwide crude oil markets.... The rapid and simultaneous rise of at least two behmoth economies, China and India, comes at time when the world's oil production appears poised to peak. A sustained upward move in crude oil prices is likely to create drilling economics that will favor the exploitation of reserves that were previously uneconomical to tap. However, the marginal increase in reserves that might result is unlikely, in our view, to substantially offset the crude oil impact of an eventual worldwide 'peak' in crude oil production...While China's economic rise is fostering a worldwide grab for crude oil reserves, it is also creating a 'war chest' with which China is financing the rapid modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The PLA, in turn, is the ultimate guarantor of China's energy security. One of the key purposes of this analysis is to provide our research users with a 'context' or 'unified theory' for interrelating economic, crude oil, and military developments on the China rim.... The Laguna Research Partners Energy Security Index measures total military expenditures per barrel of crude oil consumed. We calculate ESI for nations and regions.... These figures lend credence to our view that the US is currently critical to the energy security of both India and Russia - in defence of sea lanes and oil fields, respectively - vis-a-vis China... Our ...   calculations show that China and the United States make estimated non-core military expenditures of US $47.01 AND US $42.38 per barrel of crude oil imported, respectively...[Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan] have been beneficiaries of the US energy security umbrella. China's economic, crude oil, and military emergence, though, is prompting all of these leading China Rim crude oil importers to implement increasingly aggressive defence postures... From a short-term standpoint, worldwide crude oil demand is continuing to expand, but the world's crude oil production infrastructure is running at 'near full' capacity. From a long-term perspective, major new China Rim region buyers of crude oil - China and India - are emerging during a period when worldwide crude oil is approaching a peak. Meaningful new crude oil demand from Brazil will likely add to demand-side pressures during this critical 'peak oil' transition..."
Crisis on the China Rim: An Economic, Crude Oil, and Military Analysis
Laguna Research Partners, 14 April 2005
Who Are Laguna Research Partners? - Click Here
Download Full 85 Page Report - Click Here

"The U.S. and China, the world's top two oil consuming nations, must work together to avoid a competition for foreign supplies that might lead to military conflict, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman said.... China's demand for oil is forecast to grow 2.9 percent a year between now and 2025, and U.S. demand will grow 1.5 percent a year. Efforts by each nation to use imports to meet growing demand may escalate competition for oil to something 'as hot and dangerous' as the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Soviet Union, Lieberman, 63, said in a speech today in Washington.... 'There is a problem because China, like the United States, is tying its energy deals to military assistance,'' said Michael Klare, author of  'Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.' 'In the short term, it's more a case of stirring up local conflicts, where the U.S. and China are competing for the loyalty of oil producing countries, but that does have a tendency over time to escalate into something bigger,' said Klare, a professor at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts."
U.S., China Must Cooperate or Risk Oil Conflict, Lieberman Says
Bloomberg, 30 November 2006

Netanyahu And Pentagon Hawks
The Push For War Against Iraq, Iran, And Syria

"In 1996, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, two neo-conservatives later to play an important role in formulation of Bush administration's Pentagon policy in the Middle East, authored a paper for then newly elected Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That advisory paper, 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm', called on Netanyahu to make a 'clean break from the peace process. Perle and Feith also called on Netanyahu to strengthen Israel's defenses against Syria and Iraq, and to go after Iran as the prop of Syria."
Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck
Asia Times, 10 March 2006

"Even some of the people and countries are the same. And the methods - particularly the pursuit by a network of well-placed individuals of a covert, parallel foreign policy that is at odds with official policy - are definitely the same. Boiled down to its essentials, the Iran-Contra affair was about a small group of officials based in the National Security Agency (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that ran an 'off-the-books' operation to secretly sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. They used the proceeds to sustain the Nicaraguan contras - U.S. sponsored rebels fighting Managua's left-wing government - in defiance of both a congressional ban and of official U.S. policy as enunciated by the State Department and President Ronald Reagan. It was never clear whether Reagan understood, let alone approved, the operation. The picture emerging from the latest reports about the manipulation of intelligence in the drive to war with Iraq, as well as efforts by administration hawks to deliberately aggravate tensions with Syria, Iran, and North Korea in defiance of official State Department and U.S. policy, suggest a similar but much more ambitious scheme at work. As with Reagan, in this case, too, it is difficult to determine whether Bush  or even his NSC director, Condoleezza Rice - fully understands, let alone approves, of what the hawks are doing.  There was some hint of a parallel policy apparatus dating back just after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001. It was known early on, for example, that the Pentagon leadership, without notice to the State Department, the NSC, or the CIA, convened its advisory Defense Policy Board (DPB), headed by Richard Perle, to discuss attacking Iraq within days of the attacks. The three agencies were also kept in the dark about a mission undertaken immediately afterward by former CIA director and DPB member James Woolsey to London to gather intelligence about possible links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, as if the CIA or the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) could not be trusted."
  Iran-Contra, Amplified
Inter Press Service News Agency, 9 August 2003

"If you want to figure out whether the administration of President George W. Bush intends a crusade to 'remake the Middle East' in the wake of Washington's presumed military victory in Iraq, watch what happens with R. James Woolsey. A former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Woolsey is being pushed hard by his fellow neoconservatives in the Pentagon to play a key role in the post-Saddam Hussein U.S. occupation.... At a NATO conference in Prague last November, Woolsey declared 'Iraq can be seen as the first battle of the fourth world war,' in rhetoric that he has practiced and honed virtually since the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. 'After two hot world wars and one cold one that all began and were centered in Europe,' he said, 'the fourth world war is going to be for the Middle East.' .... in January 1998 [he] signed a public letter to Clinton by the newly formed Project for the New American Century (PNAC) calling for the adoption of a 'regime change' as the main U.S. policy goal toward Iraq. In that same year, he lobbied hard for passage of the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), which not only formalized regime change as the policy but allocated up to 100 million dollars for the Iraqi opposition, mainly the Iraq National Congress (INC), headed by Ahmed Chalabi. That lobby went into high gear immediately after Sep. 11. Within just a few days, [Richard] Perle convened the DPB [Defense Policy Board] to discuss how Washington could use the incidents as justification for attacking Iraq, and Woolsey was tasked to go to Europe to collect evidence that Hussein was linked to al Qaeda."
Woolsey's Role Crucial to Impact of Occupation
'Foreign Policy in Focus', 8 April 2003

"In 1996, Richard Perle and Doug Feith joined a small group of researchers who were asked to help Benjamin Netanyahu in his first steps as prime minister. They could not have known that four years later that the working paper they prepared, including plans for Israel to help restore the Hashemite throne in Iraq, would shed light on the current policies of the only superpower in the world. The document, prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, with offices in Washington and Jerusalem, appears at the institute's Web site, http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm, and has been mentioned in the American press. The current Israeli and Iraqi connection, and the key role Feith and Perle play in the Bush administration, make the document a treasure trove. Perle heads the Defense Department's Policy Board and is considered one of the most important strategic thinkers in the American establishment. Feith is the deputy defense minister - No. 3 in the Pentagon's hierarchy. The document presents an ambitious plan for a 'U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality - not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes.' The new partnership drawn up by Perle, Feith and five other researchers, has interests in all sorts of directions in the region. 'Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq,' the group writes. 'Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging - through influence in the U.S. business community - investment in Jordan to shift structurally Jordan's economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.' The experts advised Netanyahu to pull Turkey into the brew, with diplomatic, military, and operational support for Turkish actions against Syria. They say that 'Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.' One way to do it: '... Securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.' Since Syria prefers 'a weak, but barely surviving Saddam,' if only to foil Jordanian efforts to topple him, Perle, Feith and company are recommending diverting Syria attention from the Hashemitization of Iraq. How? 'By using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.'"
Perles of wisdom for the Feithful
Haaretz, 10 February 2002

"Richard Perle submitted his resignation as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld within hours of publication of the following editorial in American Politics Journal -- and dozens of other articles and opinion pieces published in the last couple of weeks. However -- and unbelievably -- Perle is to remain as a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Rumsfeld's watch, albeit not as its Chairman.... Who is Richard Perle, anyway? Perle is the current Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a group of eighteen civilians who advise the Pentagon and more or less represent the White House. High ranking officers within the Pentagon are rumored to call Perle 'The Bomber' because of his predilection to go to war at the drop of a hat. Perle is also a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute - a hard-line right wing 'think tank'. Perle is a member of the Board of Advisors of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD) -- a right wing pro-Israel group that conducts 'research' and 'educates' various audiences on international terrorism. Perle shares his place on the FDD board with such luminaries as Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Gary Bauer, all of whom are well known for their adamant ultraconservative viewpoints (and, in the case of Bauer, a walking argument for psychiatric evaluation). Perle is also a board member of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (JINSA). Perle is a former chairman and chief executive officer of Hollinger Digital, Inc., the media management and investment arm of Hollinger International, a company that publishes newspapers (including both London's Telegraph newspapers and the Jerusalem Post) -- and much, much more. Perle is a former director of Jerusalem Post ..... Perle, as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board (which is an advisory group that reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz), is reported to have once presented a written document to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spelling out a new Israel foreign policy. It called for the repudiation of the Oslo Accords and the underlying concept of 'land for peace'; for the permanent annexation for the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for the elimination of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad as first steps towards overthrowing or destabilizing the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. So, if you think that Baghdad is the last stop, it's time to think again."
Richard Perle: Dead Man Walking
American Politics Journal, 27 March 2003

"Through a journalist friend, he [Stephen Gaghan, director of the film 'Syriana'] arranged a meeting with [Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Richard] Perle a few months before the invasion of Iraq. Over what Gaghan calls 'the best cappuccino of my life,' they bantered in Perle's palatial kitchen until Gaghan, at that point quite knowledgeable about the Middle East, questioned the viability of Perle's friend Ahmad Chalabi as a future Iraqi leader. '[Perle] steepled his hands just like Mr. Burns on The Simpsons and stared at me. Then the doorbell rang - beat ... beat ... beat   -  'Excellent. I'll introduce you to Bibi on the way out. '   ' (Neither Perle nor former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned calls for comment.)"
'So, You Ever Kill Anybody?'
TIME, 21 November 2005

"This fall Gaghan and the Palestinian director Hany Abu-Assad will release films that represent ambitious attempts to unearth the root causes of terrorism and suicide bombers. Both happen to come from the Warner Bros. conglomerate — Gaghan's $50-million 'Syriana,' from big Warner's, and Abu-Assad's $2-million 'Paradise Now,' from Warner's new specialty division, Warner Independent.... Gaghan's film, which he also directed, is a far-reaching examination of what he calls the drug of the 20th century: oil.... Not long after Sept. 11, Gaghan found his guide into the world of Middle Eastern politics: Robert Baer, a former CIA agent whose book 'See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism' inspired Clooney's character in the film, that of an increasingly disillusioned CIA officer. Gaghan and Baer ultimately spent six weeks traveling together, from the luxury mansions that Middle Eastern oil barons and arms magnates maintain in the South of France to Syria and Lebanon, where they met numerous sources — among them tribal leaders, the leaders of Hezbollah, the Lebanese minister of culture and the Syrian oil minister. Gaghan took copious notes in college-ruled notebooks.... During his research, the investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh introduced Gaghan to Richard Perle, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who is considered one of the neocon architects of the war in Iraq. It was weeks before the American invasion, and the screenwriter had just returned from Damascus, where he heard prognostications of what a quagmire the war would be. 'I'm in Perle's kitchen. He's passing out favors in the Bush administration. He's dispensing wisdom and making me a cappuccino from this $3,000 cappuccino machine. He's really smart, really clever, and I'm having a great time. I feel really lucky. I asked him, 'Mr. Perle, I have just one question. Who's going to run Iraq?' He said, 'Oh, no, no, no, we're not going into that. Who says we're going into Iraq?' I said, 'Really, if we went in, who's going to run the country?' He said, 'It's a shame we haven't done a better job of supporting Ahmad Chalabi. He's a wonderful man.' I said, 'Listen, Chalabi hasn't been in Iraq since 1959. He wears a Hermès tie. He lives in Paris. If he goes back there, they're going to reject him like a bad organ transplant.' Gaghan says that suddenly Perle got very serious. 'He looked at me like 'Who let you in here?' He stared daggers at me for about a minute.' Suddenly the doorbell rang. 'He said, 'Excellent. I'll introduce you to Bibi on the way out.' It was Benjamin Netanyahu, dropping by with nine Uzi-wielding Mossad agents."
Killers rendered in shades of gray
Los Angeles Times, 30 October 2005

"Actor and director George Clooney says he is proud to be denounced as unpatriotic for questioning US policy because he wanted to be on 'the right side of history'.... Clooney has received critical acclaim for Syriana - about oil politics and Islamic extremism .... Clooney said Syriana did not single out US President George W Bush's administration for attack, though it 'certainly goes at this administration' as well as at 60 years of failed Middle East policy. 'If it's an attack, it's because you're asking questions,' Clooney said. Clooney has said the chilling effect of the September 11, 2001 attacks on US politics had inspired [his film] Syriana and its unflinching look at the ways extremism and political instability are fostered by the interests of big oil."
Clooney: I'm a proud traitor
Agence France Presse, 25 February 2006

"Two key moments in the film underscore this observation. In a confrontation with the corporate attorney assigned to find the dirt on an oil company merger before the Justice Department does, an oil company minion tells him that corruption is what makes America tick. In the second scene, the energy analyst played by Matt Damon, tells the Arab prince that the reason the Americans are cozying up to his younger brother is because they know the oil is running out and that the Middle East sits on the last large reserves. They want to keep the oil flowing West and not East to China, even though the Chinese are willing to pay more... Syriana will disturb but it won't disappoint those who see it. The sad part is only those who care about the issues it portrays are likely to bother or attempt to understand its troubling message."
Oil, Corruption and Syriana
EVWORLDblogs, 22 December 2005

'It's The Oil Stupid'

"Robert Baer, a former CIA spy who presents a television documentary on the history of suicide bombing, says he knew the practice would come to the UK. And it’s not the West’s values, but its foreign policies, that are to blame..... As someone who prefers his terrorism confined to Sunday nights and episodes of 24, I had been clinging to the hope that London’s recent Thursdays were an aberration. My optimism is severely dimmed by meeting Robert Baer, a former CIA spy who has returned to his old beat in the Middle East to make a grimly fascinating two-part history of suicide bombing for Channel 4. What he delivers is not good news. It provides, however, an unusually clear view of the landscape...He does not disown the words he uses at the end of this Thursday’s documentary, that suicide bombing, 'like a pathological virus', has become unstoppable. He does add, perhaps for my sake, the proviso 'until you take the causes away', but by this stage even I can see they are not going to be..... 'The other one thing is, ‘they hate us’, which is just total bullshit.' [he says] Is it? 'Yes,' he says, 'it is.' In a school run by Hezbollah, he asked a class dominated by the daughters of [suicide bomber] 'martyrs' if they watched US television. 'Everybody raised their hand. And what did they watch? Oprah. I said, ‘How can you watch this crap?’ And they said, ‘No, she’s great. We love Oprah.’..... 'So, it wasn’t our values. It wasn’t Western values. It’s Western presence. They want us to get out.'.....  There is, however, a three-letter reason why the US will not impose a peace plan on Israel and leave the region.  Baer, the author of Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, well knows what it is. 'I don’t think any American politician, however at fault we are in Iraq or anywhere else, can say, ‘All right, let the crazies have the oil fields’, because oil at $200 a barrel would put us into a depression.' So because the American economy is at stake, we can’t get out even to save our skins? 'That, I believe, is your classic paradox.''"
Suicide bombing is a virus that’s here to stay
London Times, 2 August 2005

"Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind. An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.... All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill. US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment. The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective."
Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
Jane's Foreign Report, 16 April 2003

"I fear we're going to be at war for decades, not years ..... one major component of that war is oil."
James Woolsey, Former Director of The CIA
Report On The Annual Policy Forum Of The American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Washington, 6-7 December 2004
RenewableEnergyAccess.com, 14 December 2004

"Iraq can be seen as the first battle of the fourth world war. After two hot world wars and one cold one that all began and were centered in Europe, the fourth world war is going to be for the Middle East."
Former Director of the CIA, James Woolsey
NATO conference, Prague, November 2002

"... the mideast will increasingly become the source of the world's oil, and this is a strategic problem for us and for many other countries."
James Woolsey, Former Director of the CIA
Interview with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Washington Post: June 7, 2000

"The United States cannot afford to wait for the next energy crisis to marshal its intellectual and industrial resources.... Our growing dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil is a fool's game—there is no way for the rest of the world to win. Our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases, agonizingly through developing-nation poverty, relentlessly through climate change—or through all of the above."
James Woolsey, US Director of Central Intelligence 1993 - 1995
Council On Foreign Relations, 1999

Woolsey Predicted 'Peak' Oil Crisis In 1999 CFR Paper - Click Here

"We're there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."
Dick Cheney, US Secretary of Defense 1990
New York Times, 24 February 2006

"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Jimmy Carter, President of the United States 1980
New York Times, 24 February 2006

"Iran's president on Thursday accused Western powers of trying to control the world's oil resources and creating a climate of fear that he said was forcing countries to stockpile weapons. 'Many of the resources of nations are going to waste in a climate of fear, being pushed toward ... the production of arms and stockpiling of weapons,' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech to Malaysian and Iranian business leaders. 'The root cause of this is ... the excessive demands of certain ruling powers over certain parts of the world,' said Ahmadinejad, who arrived here late Wednesday on a three-day visit. '"
Ahmadinejad: West tries to control oil resources
Associated Press, 2 March 2006

War For Oil
Israel Joins In US Ambitions For Middle East Crude

"Israel's finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, predicted yesterday that the British-era oil pipeline from Iraq's northern oilfields through Jordan to the Israeli port city of Haifa would be reopened. 'It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa,' Mr Netanyahu told a group of British investors in London. 'It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean.'"
Iraq-Israel oil pipeline 'to reopen'
Daily Telegraph, 21 June 2003

Why Iran's Control Of The Strait Of Hormuz Is A Problem
And Why Syria Is Also In The Firing Line

"Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, is ringed by mountains, is roughly four times the size of Iraq and has almost three times its population. Its military numbers almost 900,000 soldiers and reservists and has long-range missiles that can reach Israel. Iran dominates the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which at least 35 percent of the world's oil is shipped, and could threaten that commerce with its anti-ship cruise missiles, U.S. military officials say."
Bush's Iran Options Limited by Iraq, Perils of War
Bloomberg, 23 January 2006

And Why Syria Is Also In The Firing Line

"Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America... The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq.... Bush issued rebukes to Russia and China and called Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity. 'China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world,' Bush wrote. He said these 'old ways' include enlarging China's military in a non-transparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad."
Bush Reaffirms Pre-Emptive Use of Force
Associated Press, 16 March 2006

<<<---- To USA And Europe

Blue = Pre-War Iraqi Oil Transit Route To Meditteranian Via Arabian Peninsula And Suez Canal (Suez Cannot Take Largest Tankers) Red = Post-War Potential Alternative Routes To Meditteranian coast via Jordan and Syria

"Under optimal conditions, and including routes through both Syria and Saudi Arabia that are now closed or being utilized for other purposes, Iraq's oil export infrastructure could handle throughput of more than 6 million bbl/d (2.8 via the Gulf, 1.65 via Saudi Arabia, 1.6 via Turkey, and perhaps 300,000 bbl/d or so via Jordan and Syria)..... Between 2001 and March 2003, Iraq and Syria utilized the 50-year-old, 32-inch Banias oil pipeline in violation of U.N. sanctions. The Banias line, from Iraq's northern Kirkuk oil fields to Syria's Mediterranean port of Banias (and Tripoli, Lebanon), reportedly was being used to transport as much as 200,000 bbl/d of Iraqi oil, mainly from southern Iraq, to Syrian refineries at Homs and Banias. The oil was sold at a significant price discount and freed up additional Syrian oil for export. Iraq and Syria also had talked of building a new, parallel pipeline as a replacement for the Banias line. In March 2003, flows on the pipeline were halted, although the U.S. Defense Department denied that its forces had targeted the line. In early March 2004, it was reported (by Dow Jones) that the Iraq-Syria pipeline was ready for use at 250,000 bbl/d."
Country Brief - Iraq
US Energy Information Administration, December 2005

Control Of The Whole Of The Middle East Is Important - Not Just Of Oil Producing Countries
Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria Are Required For Oil Transit To USA And Europe
In Order To Avoid Lengthy and Vulnerable Other Routes Via Hormuz, Suez, and Horn Of Africa
This Transit Requirement Is Both For Oil In The Persian Gulf And Oil In The Caspian Sea Region
From The Western Perspective Oil "Needs" To Flow West To USA And Europe, Not East To China And India

"Iraq can be seen as the first battle of the fourth world war. After two hot world wars and one cold one that all began and were centered in Europe, the fourth world war is going to be for the Middle East."
Former Director of the CIA, James Woolsey
NATO conference, Prague, November 2002

"Israel's geographic location between the Arabian peninsula and the Mediterranean Sea offers the potential for an alternative oil export route for Persian Gulf oil to the West. At present, these oil exports must travel either by ship (through the Suez Canal or around the cape of Africa), by pipeline from Iraq to Turkey (design capacity 1.5-1.6 MMBD), or via the Sumed (Suez-Mediterranean) Pipeline (capacity 2.5 MMBD).... As a result of its geographic location, Lebanon was once a refining center for crude oil that was exported from Iraq and Saudi Arabia by pipelines to two Lebanese coastal refineries, Zahrani in the south, and Tripoli in the north. However, due to years of internal and regional political unrest and war damage, these refineries have not been operational. The Tripoli refinery has been closed since 1982.... The Trans Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) was originally constructed in the 1940s with a capacity of 500,000 bbl/d, and intended as the main means of exporting Saudi oil to the West (via Jordan to the port of Haifa, then part of Palestine, now a major Israeli port city). The establishment of the state of Israel resulted in diversion of the Tapline's terminus from Haifa to Sidon, Lebanon (through Syria and Lebanon).  Partly as a result of turmoil in Lebanon, and partly for economic reasons, oil exports via the Tapline were halted in 1975. In 1983, the Tapline's Lebanese section was closed altogether. Since then, the Tapline has been used exclusively to supply oil to Jordan, although Saudi Arabia terminated this arrangement to display displeasure with perceived Jordanian support for Iraq in the 1990/1 Gulf War. Despite these problems, the Tapline remains a potential export route for Persian Gulf oil exports to Europe and the United States. At least one analysis indicates that the transportation cost of exporting oil via the Tapline through Haifa to Europe would cost as much as 40 percent less than shipping by tanker through the Suez Canal. In early 2005, rehabilitation of the Tapline at an estimated cost of $100 to $300 million was one of the strategic options being considered by the Jordanian government to meet oil needs. The pipeline between the Syrian port of Banias and the 'Strategic Pipeline' in Iraq, which connects its northern and southern oil infrastructure, has been inoperative since the war began in March 2003. Another international pipeline option under consideration for the future involves a pipeline which would run from Haditha in Iraq to an export terminal at Aqaba in Jordan. The proposed $2 billion project would have a capacity of 1.2 million bbl/d, and would facilitate an increase in exports from Iraq once additional production capacity is developed."
Country Brief - Eastern Mediterranean Region
US Energy Information Administration, August 2005

Currrent Pipelines In Iraq And Environs
Click Here For Historic Maps Of Pipeline Networks From Iraqi Oil Fields To Meditteranian

"The flow of oil from Mosul was redirected from Haifa to Syria after the British Mandate for Palestine expired in 1948. There were several attempts to renew the flow of oil to Haifa in subsequent years. One such effort occurred during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, after Syria acceded to a request from Iran to block the flow of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean. (Iran was then preventing oil tankers from moving Iraqi oil via the Persian Gulf.) The prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Shamir, proposed to Iraq to renew the flow of oil through the pipeline to Haifa. Hanan Bar-On, then the deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, confirmed yesterday that Israel was involved in talks during the mid-1980s on a plan for an Iraq-Jordanian pipeline to the Red Sea port of Aqaba. Among the participants in these talks was Donald Rumsfeld, then an adviser to U.S. president Reagan and currently secretary of defense. The American corporation Bechtel was slated to build the pipeline. According to the deal, which eventually fell through, Israel was to receive about $100 million a year via former Israeli businessman Bruce Rappaport in return for a commitment not to oppose the construction or operation of the new pipeline. In 1987, energy minister Moshe Shahal reportedly looked into the idea of helping Iraq export its oil via the Golan Heights to Haifa. But this plan also failed to materialize."
The Pipeline to Haifa
Counterpunch, 1 April 2003

Syria Lies Between Major Iraqi/ Iranian/Caspian Oil Fields, And Potential Pipeline Termini Sites In Israel, Lebanon, And Syria, On The Mediterranean Coast
Syria Offers A Shorter Oil Export Route To The Mediterranean Than Going Through Jordan

"The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a 'bonus' the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram. The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years. The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter... Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)."
US Checking Possibility of Pumping Oil from Northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
Haaretz, 25 August 2003

Which Way Now - Via Jordan Or Syria?

"Paritzky has requested an assessment of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline's current state, which ceased to operate in 1948. Presumably, the pipeline will require major repair and/or upgrading, if not an overhaul, as it has not been in use for more than half a century. However, its full operation, including the required repair work, needs the consent of Iraq, the would-be oil supplier, and Syria, a country neighboring both Iraq and Israel, through which the pipeline passes. Iraqi consent will be out of the question as long as the current regime of Saddam Hussein is in power. As acknowledged by the Israeli minister, a prerequisite for the project is, therefore, a new regime in Baghdad with friendly ties with Israel. However, such a regime, if ever it comes to power, will still require Syria's consent to operationalize the pipeline. Given the overall political environment in the Middle East and Israel's continued occupation of Syria's Golan Heights, the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as the status quo prevails. As stated by the Iranian government, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) when Iraq enjoyed cordial and close relations with Israel's mentor, the United States, Israel tried, but failed, to resume the oil flow through the pipeline. Syria, a friend of Iran and an enemy of Iraq, blocked the flow of Iraqi oil. Hence, unless the pipeline were redirected through Jordan, another country bordering Israel and Iraq with normalized relations with Israel, the pipeline project will require a different regime in Syria. In other words, regime change in both Iraq and Syria is the prerequisite for the project. As Paritzky did not mention a redirecting option, it is safe to suggest that the Israelis are also optimistic about a regime change in Syria in the near future.... According to the Israeli minister, the United States will back his project since the pipeline would bring Iraqi oil directly from Iraq to the Mediterranean. In such a case, the Americans could bypass the Persian Gulf for their imported Iraqi oil, while having secured access to the world's second-largest oil reserves. Especially since the early 1990s, they have repeatedly expressed their concern about over-reliance on the Persian Gulf for their oil imports, which contains more than 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Given the concentration of the major oil exporters in that region, its instability could interrupt or completely stop the flow of oil by oil tankers, with a consequent major impact on the US economy, as it is so dependent on oil.... finding reliable alternative export routes and means to sea routes and oil tankers for Persian Gulf oil exports is the long-term solution for the Americans requiring an increasing amount of imported oil. In this regard, land-based pipelines to carry oil to easily accessible warm-water open seas such as the Mediterranean would be a suitable option. A fully operational Mosul-Haifa pipeline could address that US problem, while satisfying Israel's oil requirements at same time. The Israeli oil pipeline plan, though, runs contrary to the stated US war objectives in Iraq. The two key members of the 'coalition of the willing' - the United States and the United Kingdom - have rejected oil as a motivation for the war, a point not taken seriously by many all over the world. Nevertheless, the Israeli plan, the US-stated goal of securing Iraqi oilfields, including those of Mosul, and the declared US objective of a regime change in Iraq offer some evidence to the contrary. Against this background, the US government's growing anti-Syrian rhetoric, including accusing Syria of supplying military equipment to Iraq, may well be the initial stage toward the expansion of the war to Syria. If this happens, it could lead to a regime change there to serve various purposes, including the cooperation of Syria in future oil exports via the Mosul-Haifa pipeline."
In the pipeline: More regime change
Asia Times, 4 April 2003

The Battle To Secure Iraq's Oil - Will It Eventually Go West, Or Will It Go East?
America And Israel Want It To Go West
Others Want It To Go East To Asia

"Nearly two years ago now, I wrote a long article entitled 'The Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline: myth or reality?' published in the Middle East Economic Survey 1 December 2003 and at the same time in Arabic in the Journal of Palestinian Studies. A summary also appeared in Gulf News on 19 February 2004 under the title 'Will Israel get Iraqi oil?' As recurring reports on the subject are appearing, I will repeat, summarise and update the views expressed in the above-mentioned articles for the benefit of readers. Iraqi oil production from the northern fields in Kirkuk started in 1927. In 1934, a 12-inch pipeline was completed from the Kirkuk fields to Al-Haditha on the Euphrates River, where it branched to one line going to Tripoli through Syria and the other to Haifa through Jordan and Palestine. Iraq's oil production increased from 2,000 barrels per day in 1927 to 100,000 in 1945, and a parallel 16-inch pipeline was added and almost became operational in 1948 when the Arab- Israeli war broke out. After the armistice, the Iraqi government refused to permit the use of that line, the section through Jordan and Palestine consequently remained inactive, in some places left to deteriorate while the Iraqi army to make sure the line was not operational removed some sections. By 1952, following several unsuccessful attempts to pressure the Iraqi government to permit the use of the pipeline, oil companies gave up and went on to build two new lines through Syria to substitute the Haifa lines and cater for the increase in Iraqi production from Kirkuk. It is clear that as far as the oil industry was concerned the lines to Haifa were disregarded as early as 1950 as being a viable option for exporting Iraqi crude, and were left to deteriorate in place. Many sections were later cannibalised and used elsewhere for secondary services such as water. It seems that despite this history, as well as realities on the ground, the State of Israel wants to cash in quickly on the Iraqi tragedy. As early as 31 March 2003, Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky said, as reported in Haaretz, that he had instructed staff to check on the pipeline running from Mosul to Haifa, as if the line were readily there, ignoring history and facts on the ground. Of course the line ran from Kirkuk not Mosul, an ignorance nonetheless repeated frequently in Israeli statements. Even Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Finance Minister, jumped on the bandwagon. He said, as reported in Haaretz 20 June 2003 that, 'It won't be long until you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa,' and 'it is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean.' 'It's not a pipedream,' he added.... Similarly, The Observer of 20 April 2003 quoted James Akins, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, commenting on the Haifa pipeline: 'After all, this is a new world order now. This is what things look like, particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the US and its ally.'..... Iraq does not need an export terminal in Israel..... The growth in world oil demand will be more pronounced in Asia than any other region in the world. Asia's dependence on Gulf oil will increase sharply in the years to come. Therefore, Iraq and other Gulf countries are likely to expand their Gulf terminals rather than the Mediterranean terminals..... It is indeed possible that the promotion of the oil pipeline scheme between Iraq and Israel is intended to show total disregard, by the occupiers and Israel, to the political sensitivities in the Arab world in general and Iraq in particular..... A comprehensive and just peace in the region and the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people does not seem to be on Israel's agenda and therefore statements about grandiose schemes of energy systems, including the Haifa pipeline, will remain, as I wrote before, a pipedream."
Not with our oil
Saadalla Al-Fathi, former head of the Energy Studies Department at the OPEC Secretariat
Al-Ahram Weekly, 29 September 2005

"In May 2001, the Energy Policy Development Group headed by Dick Cheney demanded that the 'energy security' be a prime objective of the foreign and trade policy of the Administration. It thus provided a justification in the name of 'vital interests' for the forthcoming aggression against Iraq. Since then, the United States are at war….and they shall stay at war for, according to James Woolsey, director of the CIA under Bill Clinton 'several decades …for oil' (2). To-day, despite its downward oil production, Syria has become a target because it stands in the way of the crossing of Kurdish pipelines which purportedly will turn Haifa into a Mediterranean Rotterdam and because the Syrian leadership is not prepared to recognize Israel.... Ever since 1948 when Israel was created, Israeli politicians have been dreaming of the reopening of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline and they tried their best to succeed even to the point of dealing with the 'devil' that is…Saddam Hussein himself (3). When Syria closed the pipeline Kirkuk-Baynas, in 1982, in order to back Iran in its war against Iraq, Yitzak Shamir seized the opportunity to suggest to Baghdad that it should export its oil through Haifa. The Iraqi president refused. Hanan Bar-on, under-director at the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs, came up again two years later by endorsing a Bechtel project to build a pipeline Kirkuk-Aqaba which Donald Rumsfled went to 'sell' to Saddam Hussein in December 1983 and March 1984. The latter turned it down once more. In 1987, Moshe Shahal, Israeli minister of Energy, had a survey made on the possibility of exporting oil to Haifa but, this time, through the Golan. The outbreak of the Gulf war of 1991 put an end to it. It is only with the vote of the Iraq Liberation Act under Bill Clinton in October 1998 that the question of the transport of Iraqi oil was again on the agenda. The opposition groups to Saddam Hussein were from thereon officially financed and the Israelis set their heart on Ahmed Chalabi who had been dropped by the CIA and the State Department and who was eager to start a new career. They invited him to Tel Aviv where he promised to enter into diplomatic relations with Israel when in power and to reopen the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline. His nephew, Salem – later in charge of the debaasification - struck a friendship with Benjamin Netanyahou with whom he agreed to pay compensation to the Jews who had left Iraq in the 50’s. It is said that 30 billions dollars was the figure earmarked to be paid in oil. Along with the bombing of Baghdad in 2003, the US Command launched the 'Shekhinah' Operation, (God Presence in Hebrew) (4) to get hold of the portion of the Haifa pipeline. British and Australian SAS and US Special Forces took up positions near the pumping stations H1 and H3, between Al Haditha and the Jordanian border. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, their quarters were turned into military bases and both H1 (renamed Haifa 1) (nicknamed 'the Korean Village') and H3 (Haifa 3) have a small airport. However, in Iraq, nothing goes according to the wishes of the neo-conservators. The star of Ahmed Chalabi is on the wane and his nephew accused of murder is compelled to flee Baghdad. Diplomatic relations are no longer the order of the day. The growing strength of the resistance jeopardizes the restoration of the pipeline to Haifa and leads the Israelis to revise their schemes. They bet on the 'Syrian option', that is a change of regime in Damascus. Two projects popped up: the Mossul-Haifa pipeline and the section of the pipeline linking the terminal to Kirkuk-Banyas which would be connected behind the Syrian border or at the level of Homs. In June 2005, the Americans carried out the 'Matador' Operation near the Syrian border in the neighbourhood of Al Qaim as well as in the North, along the route Mossul- Tell Afar-Sindjar allegedly to eliminate 'Zarqaoui' and his followers. They cleared all around the H1, H2 and H3 bases to be used in the event of an invasion of Syria. The battle of Tell Afar actually directed against the Turkmen hostile to the looting of their natural resources by the Kurds turned out to be a massacre of civilians like in Fallujah...... The destabilization process against Syria becomes very clear against the US-Israel plans for the transport of Iraqi oil. So it goes for the position of France. As in Afghanistan where the war was conducted for the sole purpose of letting a passage for a pipeline, the United States want to have an allied regime in Damascus which will ensure that the Haifa terminal is well provided in 'Kurdish' oil. Under these circumstances, the question raised is whether the murder of Rafiq Hariri has something to do with oil.  A section of the Kirkuk-Banyas pipeline ends up at Tripoli where the Americans are pressing for the construction of a strategic military base. The former Lebanese Prime Minister was said to be opposed to the project."
US Plan for the 'Great Middle East': The Kurdish Pipeline
Information Clearing House, 14 February 2006

Obviating The Need To Ship Oil Via The Strait Of Hormuz, And Suez
Why Haifa And Israel Have Always Been Important To Western Oil Interests

"At the beginning of the 20 Century King Edward VII ruled over a vast empire with interests in every part of the world. India became increasingly important because it was the second pillar of British power in the world. Moving the Indian army about was extremely important in extending British interests and British influence across the globe and the Suez canal was of course the quick way to do that.   It's very important for the British geopolicital position to ensure the Suez canal remains safe and secure. With this aim in mind Britain had become the only European power to establish a major foothold in the Middle East, in the principalities around the Persian Gulf, in Aden, and in Egypt.... Pouring over a map of the Lavant, Sykes and Picot personally drew in the areas they wished to see under their control. Their secret deal amounted to the virtual carve up of the Middle East.... [France was to have Greater Syria and] ... the area...  known as Iraq with its strategic ports, railways, and oil...  was to be under British rule. ... Palestine.... was envisaged as an international zone, except for Haifa. What the British wanted was the oil of Iraq and they concentrated on getting Iraq and getting a way from Iraq to the Meditteranian in order to transport this oil. So they got Haifa on the Palestinian coast and they got most of Iraq.  ... Unaware of these secret dealings behind their backs Hussein and Feisal proclaimed independence and in June 1916 attacked the Turkish troops... The Turkish garrason at Mecca was soon overun and the sea port at Jiddha seized... In a pincer movement Britain had launched a campaign from the south west to ensure control of the Suez canal and the Lavant, and from the South East it was fighting to secure the oil wells of Iraq... In the east the Ottoman area of  Messoptamia, which included the oil fields of Mossul, was given to Britain as the mandate for Iraq. ... this  was basically the importance of the Sykes-Picot agreement, to divide what was called the fertile crescent between Iraq and Syria, and let Britain get access to the oil of the area and be able to exploit it in the future...."
Promises & Betrayals
The History Channel & Gulf Research Center
Content Productions 2002
Broadcast Monday 14th March  2005 on History Channel - 53 Minutes

The Muslim World Is Well Aware Of The Strategic Importance Of Israel
To Western Economic Interests In The Middle East

“The regime occupying Qods [Israel] is the key to [Western] countries’ domination in Muslim lands..."
President Ahmadinejad of Iran
IranFocus, 15 March 2006

"Robert Baer, a former CIA spy who presents a television documentary on the history of suicide bombing, says he knew the practice would come to the UK. And it’s not the West’s values, but its foreign policies, that are to blame.....  '....It wasn’t Western values. It’s Western presence. They want us to get out.'.....  There is, however, a three-letter reason why the US will not impose a peace plan on Israel and leave the region.  Baer, the author of Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, well knows what it is. 'I don’t think any American politician, however at fault we are in Iraq or anywhere else, can say, ‘All right, let the crazies have the oil fields’, because oil at $200 a barrel would put us into a depression.' So because the American economy is at stake, we can’t get out even to save our skins? 'That, I believe, is your classic paradox.''"
Suicide bombing is a virus that’s here to stay
London Times, 2 August 2005

Gulf Oil
Why Britain Is In Iraq

"In late 1915 and early 1916, a British official and a Frenchman hammered out an understanding for the postwar order in Mesopotamia. Known by their names as the Sykes-Picot agreement, it rather casually assigned Mosul in northeatern Mesopotamia, one of the most promising potential oil regions, to a future French sphere of influence. This 'surrender' of Mosul immediately outraged many officials in the British government, and strenuous effort was thereafter directed towards undermining it. The issue became more urgent in 1917 when British forces captured Baghdad. For four centuries, Mesopotamia had been part of the Ottoman Empire. That Empire which had once stretched from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf, was now over, a casualty of war. A host of independent and semi-independent nations, many of them rather arbitrarily drawn on the map, would eventually take its place in the Middle East. But, at the moment, in Mesopotamia, Britain had the controlling hand. It was the wartime petroleum shortage of 1917 and 1918 that really drove home the necessity of oil to British interests and pushed Mesopotamia back to center stage.  Prospects for oil development within the empire were bleak, which made supplies from the Middle East of paramount importance. Sir Maurice Hankey, the extremely powerful secretary of the War Cabinet, wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour that, 'oil in the next war will occupy the place of coal in the present war, or at least a parallel place to coal. The only big potential supply that we can get under British Control is the Persian [Iranian] and Mesopotamian [Iraqi] supply.' Therefore, Hankey said, 'control over these oil supplies becomes a first-class British war aim.' But the newly born 'public diplomacy' had to be considered..... Foreign Secretary Balflour worried that explicitly pronouncing Mesopotamia a war aim would seem too old-fashionably imperialistic. Instead, in August 1918, he told the Prime Ministers of the Dominions that Britain must be the 'guiding spirit' in Mesopotamia, as it would provide the one natural resource the British empire lacked. 'I do not care under what system we keep the oil,' he said, 'but I am quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil should be available.' To help make sure this would happen, British forces, already elsewhere in Mesopotamia, captured Mosul after the armistice was signed with Turkey."
Daniel Yergin - The Prize, 1991
First published in Great Britain by Simon and Schuster Ltd, 1991

"Fuel is our economic lifeblood. The price of oil can be the difference between recession and recovery. The western world is import dependent. ....So: who develops oil and gas, what the new potential sources of supply are, is a vital strategic question...The Middle East, we focus on naturally."
Prime Minister's speech at the George Bush Senior Presidential Library
10 Downing St, Press Release, 7 April 2002

"Trends in energy markets have been comparatively benign over the past 10-15 years: the UK has been self-sufficient in energy; commercial decisions have resulted in changes in the fuel mix that have reduced UK emissions of greenhouse gases; and trends in world markets and domestic liberalisation have reduced most fuel prices. The future context for energy policy will be different. The UK will be increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas... Increasingly policy towards energy security ...... will be pursued in a global arena, as part of an international effort.... energy security should be addressed by a variety of means, including enhanced international activity and continued monitoring.... The UK is currently one of just two G7 countries which is self-sufficient in energy..... The future for energy policy seems likely to be much less benign.... issues of energy security are likely to become more important. The UK will become increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas.... most other G7 countries already rely substantially on imported energy. ... [One way to maintain security is] to use international action to address global threats to energy security. On just about any scenario the UK will become more dependent on imports both for both its gas and its oil."
The Energy Review
A Performance and Innovation Unit Report - UK Cabinet Office - February 2002

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1938866,00.html Letters to the Editor The Times December 19, 2005 Prospects for Iraq Sir, As the British Oil Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad soon after the cessation of hostilities in 2003, I am surprised how quickly some of the key strategic issues for the Iraq war have been subsumed within the rush to implement an early exit strategy for the coalition. The critical postwar aim was to create social stability across Iraq as quickly as possible, based on accelerated economic renewal. To quote Sir Jeremy Greenstock: “It’s jobs and security, stupid.” This would primarily depend on the early rehabilitation of the Iraqi oil sector. The unequivocal directive from both Washington and London to the CPA was “Iraq oil for the Iraqis”, therefore the Iraq war was not an American “oil grab”, a popular myth that has been promoted in much of the media. The security of Iraq oil was and remains a crucial element in the stability of global oil supplies. The Opec countries of the Gulf supply some 30 per cent or more of global oil demand. The security of this supply falls within a geopolitically fragile region. To abandon Iraq as a potentially failed state should be unthinkable. Although the Gulf states are flourishing from their $60 a barrel windfall, their internal political stability is no less fragile than when the Iraq war began. We can all recall the chaos we faced from a national three-day strike by road oil tanker drivers. What would be the global consequences if Arabian oil supplies were cut? It is in the national interests of the coalition members to remain in Iraq until such time as social stability has been secured. An early exit strategy from Iraq is not a viable option. DR T. D. ADAMS Cley, Norfolk

From Baghdad To Haifa - Britain Wanted Control Of It All

"At the beginning of the 20 Century King Edward VII ruled over a vast empire with interests in every part of the world. India became increasingly important because it was the second pillar of British power in the world. Moving the Indian army about was extremely important in extending British interests and British influence across the globe and the Suez canal was of course the quick way to do that.   It's very important for the British geopolicital position to ensure the Suez canal remains safe and secure. With this aim in mind Britain had become the only European power to establish a major foothold in the Middle East, in the principalities around the Persian Gulf, in Aden, and in Egypt.... Pouring over a map of the Lavant, Sykes and Picot personally drew in the areas they wished to see under their control. Their secret deal amounted to the virtual carve up of the Middle East.... [France was to have Greater Syria and] ... the area...  known as Iraq with its strategic ports, railways, and oil...  was to be under British rule. ... Palestine.... was envisaged as an international zone, except for Haiffa. What the British wanted was the oil of Iraq and they concentrated on getting Iraq and getting a way from Iraq to the Meditteranian in order to transport this oil. So they got Haiffa on the Palestinian coast and they got most of Iraq.  ... Unaware of these secret dealings behind their backs Hussein and Feisal proclaimed independence and in June 1916 attacked the Turkish troops... The Turkish garrason at Mecca was soon overun and the sea port at Jiddha seized... In a pincer movement Britain had launched a campaign from the south west to ensure control of the Suez canal and the Lavant, and from the South East it was fighting to secure the oil wells of Iraq... In the east the Ottoman area of  Messoptamia, which included the oil fields of Mossul, was given to Britain as the mandate for Iraq. ... this  was basically the importance of the Sykes-Picot agreement, to divide what was called the fertile crescent between Iraq and Syria, and let Britain get access to the oil of the area and be able to exploit it in the future...."
Promises & Betrayals
The History Channel & Gulf Research Center
Content Productions 2002
Broadcast Monday 14th March 2005 on History Channel - 53 Minutes

"This lucid film [Promises & Betrayals] recounts the complicated history that led to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In the words of the former British Ambassador to Egypt, it is a story of intrigue among rival empires and of misguided strategies. It is often claimed that the crisis originated with Jewish emigration to Palestine and the foundation of the State of Israel. Yet the roots of the conflict are to be found earlier. In 1915, when the Allies were besieged on the Western front, the British wanted to create a second front against Germany, Italy and the Ottoman Empire. Turkish nationalism had spread to the rest of the Ottoman Empire and the British exploited this feeling. They promised Arab groups their own independent states, including Palestine. Secretly, the Allies planned to carve up the Ottoman Empire: France would get 'Greater Syria;' Britain would get Iraq for its oil and ports, and Haifa, to distribute the oil; Palestine would be an international zone; Russia would get Constantinople.  The next British government under Lloyd George believed that 'worldwide Jewry' was a powerful force, and that the Jews in the new Bolshevik government could prevent the Russian army from deserting the Allied side. This mistaken strategy, along with other factors including the persuasiveness of Chaim Weitzman, led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which endorsed a national home for the Jews in Palestine. At the same time, the Arab leader Shariff Hussein was promised that Palestine would be part of a new Arab state. This contradiction has contributed to the ongoing struggle for control in the Holy Land."
(With Prof. Lieven, London School of Economics; Prof. Choueiri, University of Exeter, and other academics)
Britain and the Struggle for the Holy Land
Film Makers Library, Middle East Studies

The Origins Of Britain's Oil Interventions In The Middle East
Click Here

Cheney Mistake No 1 - Losing Iraq To Iran

"Iran intends to pull the Shia state of Iraq into its orbit. You can be sure that Iranian revolutionary guards are honeycombed throughout Iraq's intelligence....."
Pat Lang, former chief at US Defence Intelligence Agency
for the Middle East, south Asia and counter-terrorism
Blinded by the Light at the End of the Tunnel
Guardian, 23 June 2005

"...'if Iraq becomes a democratic country that can stand on its own feet, the Americans will face the greatest loss. In such an eventuality, Iran and other regional states will be able to play an important role in world issues since they provide a huge share of the world's energy needs.' [said former Iranian President Rafsanjani]... With the ascendancy of Muqtada and Mutlak in the fragmented political spectrum, the calls for American troops to leave Iraq can be expected to become more strident. In the new climate, the incoming parliament itself may well make such a formal demand on the Americans. The hurried visit by US Vice President Dick Cheney to Baghdad on Sunday, his first ever since the US invasion in 2003, underscores the disarray surfacing in Washington."
Iran Wins Big in Iraq's Elections
Asia Times, 20 December 2005

"They [the Iranians] also have a card now that they have built after we toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, particularly in southern Iraq, where they have control over the Moqtada Sadr militia and the Bada brigades, which were trained in Iran before Saddam Hussein was toppled, something that the secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, has referred to today for the first time. But we've actually been watching it as the Iranians have built up this sphere of influence in Iraq which they can use, by the way, with Hezbollah people from Lebanon to cause, I think, considerable damage to American forces there if they so choose and can spur this sectarian warfare to a level that would make what we've seen in the last few weeks look like a picnic.... the Iranians believe, I think, at the moment that escalation suits their purposes, that the pain and harm that they are talking about is something that we won't be able to withstand given the situation the United States and its partners - Australia and Britain, in particular - face in Iraq now and across the Middle East, whether it's Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian areas and so on. So they figure they can afford to escalate this crisis now and we can't afford to respond.... I'm not sure that there is any option that is a good one in this situation and I'm not sure that the diplomacy will work. What I am sure of is that we have time to give it a chance and that we need to exhaust the diplomatic route before we go down the road of a military option because of the complications involved in that course."
Martin Indyk, Former US Ambassador To Israel
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 9 March 2006

"It has taken more than three years, tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and $200bn (£115bn) of treasure - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But, finally, the neo-conservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words. We were wrong."
At last, the warmongers are prepared to face the facts and admit they were wrong
Independent, 9 March 2006

"These are the right-wing intellectuals who demanded George Bush invade Iraq. Now they admit they got it wrong...."
NeoCon allies desert Bush over Iraq
Independent, 9 March 2006

"What happens if Iraq does plunge into civil war? It is clearly on the brink of that, as Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, said this week.... The dream would be that Iraq’s Arab neighbours, all with overwhelmingly Sunni populations, would rally together to try to bolster stability. They have every interest in that. They don’t want their own Shia minorities to rise up (the Saudi Shia communities, harshly repressed for years, live on top of the country’s biggest oil wells). Nor do they want Sunni fundamentalist militancy, of the al-Qaeda variety. They would prefer that Iraq’s government were led by Sunnis, of course. But if they can’t have that, they want stability. Given their extraordinary detachment and passivity so far, however, it may be too much to hope that they would act together through the Arab League, and even send their own force.... Iran. The new superpower? Iran has gained most from the war and the rise of the Shia. It has a huge new ally — provided Iraq still functions as a country. It has suited Iran to see the US bogged down — but it does not want civil war, which it could not control. It may well want to encourage Shias to keep the lid on the south. At the same time, it has been strengthening its links with Syria and Hezbollah, extending its reach over the region."
What's coming next for a country on the brink of a civil war?
London Times, 2 March 2006

"In Iran last month, Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr told a government at odds with the West over its nuclear ambitions that he would fight alongside it if the United States attacked.....Coupled with his recent turn as Iraqi kingmaker -- he mobilized a bloc of more than 30 lawmakers to secure the nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari, a Shiite, to fill the same post in Iraq's next government -- Sadr's tour of Middle Eastern capitals has cemented his status as an emerging political force inside his country and beyond.... 'The Iraqi government should say that Mr. Sadr represents himself,' said Mithal Alusi, a secular politician recently elected to the new parliament. 'Some of the things Sadr says are not right, like when he goes to Syria and says they are free of terrorists. Or when he tells Iran that he will fight for them. But nobody says anything because they are afraid of his militia, which has power in the Iraqi streets. This is very dangerous.'... Sadr's reputation for nationalism and his defiance of a U.S. presence in Iraq that he terms an unlawful occupation have made him one of the country's most popular and influential figures. In the spring and summer of 2004, his Mahdi Army militia, made up mainly of the poor, urban Shiites who form his political base, fought pitched battles with U.S. and Iraqi forces in Baghdad and across southern Iraq."
Iraq's Sadr Builds Role With Tour Of Mideast
Washington Post, 22 February 2006

"Shiite leaders close to Iran won the Iraqi election in December, and although American and many Iraqi leaders defend their Iraqi nationalist bona fides, a civil war would almost certainly drive them to seek help from Iran. That stirs Sunni Arab fears of Iranian dominance in the region.... While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has proclaimed that the world has isolated Iran more than ever because of its nuclear ambitions, Iran has in fact tightened relationships with it local allies as events in Iraq have played out. In recent months, Iran has been deepening its alliance with Syria and the Shiite movement Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now it appears ready to strike up a friendship, backed by financing, with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority."
What Civil War Could Look Like
New York Times, 26 February 2006

"Iran has used the turmoil in Iraq to extend its influence over the Shia-led Government, as well as in Syria and Lebanon."
UN 'has less than a year' to stop Iran going nuclear
London Times, 10 March 2006

"Former enemies Iran and Iraq say they will launch broad military co-operation including training Iraqi armed forces.   'It's a new chapter in our relations with Iraq,' said Iranian Defence Minister Admiral Ali Shamkhani.  He was speaking at a joint news conference in Tehran with his Iraqi counterpart Saadoun al-Dulaimi.  Relations between the neighbours - who fought a bitter war from 1980 to 1988 - have improved greatly since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. This is the first visit to Iran by an Iraqi military delegation since the war, in which a million people died, started. The promise of co-operation comes despite repeated accusations by the US - which has about 140,000 troops in Iraq - that Iran has been undermining security there. 'No one can prevent us from reaching an agreement,' Mr Shamkhani said when asked about possible US opposition... An Iraqi government delegation headed by Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari is expected to visit Tehran next week."
Iranians to train Iraq's military
BBC Online, 7 July 2005

"Through a combination of arms, money and political influence, Iran has established itself as one of the most powerful forces in postwar Iraq, where its Shia allies dominate local governments, the security services and parts of the economy. More than two years after the US-led invasion of its neighbour, Iran is fast emerging as the only clear beneficiary of the war that overthrew its enemy, Saddam Hussein, and allowed its allies to rise to power. After a series of attacks against British troops this summer, culminating in this week’s stand-off in Basra, there are fears that Iran is beginning to exert its new-found authority. Iraqi and British officials interviewed this week said Iran’s growing influence is being felt from Basra in the south to Baghdad in the north, where Iranians are blamed for stoking sectarian tension, undermining the coalition and trying to create a breakaway Islamic state in southern Iraq... In the British area of operations in southern Iraq there are at least a dozen active Islamic groups linked to Tehran. They are blamed for orchestrating a campaign of terror that includes attacks on the British, imposing Islamic laws by force and intimidating and killing opponents such as journalists and former members of the regime. The most recent group targeted were former Iraqi pilots who flew missions against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. A resident of Basra said: 'Once these people were heroes for us. Who else would want them dead?' Iraqis claim that it is now impossible to get a government job without the sponsorship of one of these groups, dominated by Iraqis who spent years in exile in Iran. Locals also complain that Iranian goods are flooding local markets and that in many places Farsi has become a second language. Those complaints are also directed against members of the Shia-dominated Government of Iraq, including Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister, and Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is Iraq’s largest Shia party. Both lived for several years in Tehran during the Saddam era and maintain close contacts there."
Two years on, Iran is the only clear winner of war on Saddam
London Times, 23 September 2005

"US President George W. Bush's administration had created a volatile situation in Iraq that had benefited Iran and could degenerate into a civil war, an ex-top aide to former secretary of state Colin Powell said overnight. Lawrence Wilkerson, Mr Powell's former chief of staff, said Iran's Shiite theocracy had exploited the chaos and political vacuum in neighbouring Iraq and had become the 'principal winner' after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. 'The Persians are the ones who are winning from this whole thing,' Mr Wilkerson said in a speech at the Centre for National Policy, a Washington think tank.  'For most purposes, Iranians own the south (part of Iraq),' he said, referring to the region where Shiites form an overwhelming majority. There was a genuine threat of civil war in Iraq, and possibly not along sectarian lines, he said. Time and lives were lost in Iraq due to what Mr Wilkerson called ineptitude and recklessness by the White House. Mr Wilkerson, a Vietnam veteran and retired US army colonel, has become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration since resigning last year. 'We're looking at a strategic situation that may be more dangerous than the situation we faced before we went in (to Iraq),' he said. He said the Bush administration was courting disaster by refusing to engage Iran and North Korean in direct diplomacy. 'If no one is going to talk to the people in Tehran who really matter, just as no one is going to talk to the people in Pyongyang who really matter, then we've got two very dangerous situations on our hands,' he said."
Iran 'reaps benefit of Iraq war'
Agence France Presse, 14 January 2006