The region is under the shadow of nuclear holocaust and no one wants to talk about it.

Bush to issue press release. Yes I'm gonna bomb the shit out of those fucking Iranians. Just try to stop me you lily livered Democrats.

Reporters will say its the first honest words out of Bush's mouth.

Hallelujah.

This administration ignores the CIA when it's convenient. The CIA's only purpose with respect to BushCo is to take blame.

"Tecnology that could lead to nuclear weapons" means any nuclear program at all, including a civilian nuclear power program.

Slight problem: the Non-proliferation treaty, of which Iran is a signatory, permits and even promotes the development of civilian nuclear power. So this statement puts Bush far beyond anything the IAEA or the UN or anyone else (except Israel) is demanding.

And if Iran were to follow India's lead and simply pull out of the NPT (which they can do at any time, after giving proper notice) the UN and IAEA lose any right to dictate to Iran on nuclear policy.

And what's the average American's understanding of all this? Most probably assume that there must be some sort of "international law" prohibiting Iran from having a nuclear reactor, or purifying unranium, since we've seen plenty of news reports of UN inspectors in Iran, with no explanation of the legal basis (the NPT) for their presence. How useful for the Bush administration, which will rely on this confusion as it makes its "case" for war with Iran.

"Tecnology that could lead to nuclear weapons" means any nuclear program at all, including a civilian nuclear power program.

Slight problem: the Non-proliferation treaty, of which Iran is a signatory, permits and even promotes the development of civilian nuclear power. So this statement puts Bush far beyond anything the IAEA or the UN or anyone else (except Israel) is demanding.

And if Iran were to follow India's lead and simply pull out of the NPT (which they can do at any time, after giving proper notice) the UN and IAEA lose any right to dictate to Iran on nuclear policy.

And what's the average American's understanding of all this? Most probably assume that there must be some sort of "international law" prohibiting Iran from having a nuclear reactor, or purifying unranium, since we've seen plenty of news reports of UN inspectors in Iran, with no explanation of the legal basis (the NPT) for their presence. How useful for the Bush administration, which will rely on this confusion as it makes its "case" for war with Iran.

SteveB -

My understanding was that India was never a signatory to the NPT, while Iran is, and that that in and of itself would lead to different consequences if Iran decided to pull out of the NPT. Is that not the case?

OK, but why are they alo buying ballistic missiles, the Shehab-3 and others from N. Korea, not the sort of toys you equip with conventional warheads for a more than 1,000 km trip to take out a bunker?
And, as The Guardian reported (Sept. 23, 2003), why are they painting cute little slogans like "Israel must be wiped off the map" on these same missiles? Regime change, or gradually turning Israel into a multi-religious beyond only Zionism entity is one thing, but expressing this "dream" on a big missile sends a somewhat different message.
Tea leaves is right. But do we have any close and competent (and honest) readers?
We shouldn't read the tea leaves from just an Israeli point of view. But we also shouldn't accept the "purely for peaceful purposes" Iranian mantra either. Which leaves us nowhere, as usual, and likely to act out of ignorarance and stupid bravado once again.
Just what are the Iranians doing? Can't trust the Israelis, can't trust the Iranians, can't rely on our own intelligence?
What was it Abbott used to say to Costello?

India, Pakistan, and Israel are the three nuclear powers that never signed the NNPT. North Korea is the only country to sign it (in the 80s) and then back out (after the US made up some hubbub about uranium enrichment that, it turns out, wasn't true afterall).

Racrecir, if you liked that you'll love this:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/24/bad-intelligence-but-in-which-direction/

My mistake, India was not a signatory. But my main point was that Iran is, and that's the only reason we see IAEA inspectors in Iran today, or why the IAEA or UN has any legal right to say anything about what Iran does.

Do most, or even many, Americans understand that IAEA inspectors are in Iran because Iran voluntarily signed an inernational treaty giving them permission to be there, a treaty that Iran can withdraw from at any time? I doubt it.

"why are they alo buying ballistic missiles"

The question you should be asking first is, "why not?" There's certainly nothing at all obligating them not to build ballistic missiles, and with an airforce virtually grounded due to a lack of spare parts for 30+ year old F-14s while most of its neighbors - few of whom are friendly - in the region have F-16s, which is to say their interest here is driven out of weakness.

The idiom "wiped off the map" wouldn't mean anything in Farsi, so maybe the Guardian had wandered into an Iranian da-da convention.

Look: the IAEA has had access, and detected and tracked highly enriched materials going back to the Shah's nuclear program (the Dutch and the US gave him highly enriched fuel for the research reactors the US, likewise, gave him) as well as Pakistan from soil samples outside compounds.

It's really silly to think that Iran could do all the separation, gasification, and repeatedly driving the uranium through a cascade without the IAEA detecting it well before it enriched enough highly enough to be used as a weapon.

They've produced LEU of about 3.5% and we have all the time between enrichment levels of 5 to 90% to worry our pretty minds about a weapons program.

Iran’s nuclear program has nothing to do with why Bush wants to invade Iran. Any so-called intelligence from a useless and incompetent CIA will be treated the same way it was during the build-up to war with Iraq, if any intelligence coming from the CIA helps Bush he will use it if it does not help Bush he will discard it.

Thank you, buermann.
So for the next five years I can worry my beautiful mind (thanks, Barbara Bush) about gay Congressmen in public toilets (PRIVATIZE THEM, ALREADY!), dog-fighting, the cross Lindsay Lohan has to bear, and poisoned products from China.
And our government "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich" will march on, business being the business of America. I really need that letter from Nigeria and the $6M transfer into my account so I can move to the West coast of Ireland, somewhere near Galway.

@donescobar: Would you provide a link to the UK Guardian story of September 2003?

Sure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1047815,00.html

Story was titled "Iran parades new missiles daubed with threats to wipe Israel off map," by Don DeLuca, Tehran, September 23, 2003

Looks like he's referring to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1047804,00.html

What's funny is that that's before Ahmadinejad was mistranslated about the maps. Apparently the wires have been crossed for a long time... which, now that I think about it, would make sense.

The literal translation was something to the effect of "erasing the occupation of Jerusalem from the pages of time", from an old Khomeini quote, which apparently was repeated by Khatami at points as well (maybe it's ritualized rhetoric for Quds Day?). Wierd how they don't even mention a map, let alone Israel, and yet that's how it's always rendered.

Thanks for the link, donescobar.

My guess is that there are people in Iran's government who do want nuclear weapons. In a way they'd be crazy not to want them, given that it's the one sure deterrent to US insanity. Whether they're actually developing them is another story.

As for the slogans, I'd want more details about how we know that's what was on those missiles. I'm surprised I haven't encountered this story before, but maybe I've not been following it closely enough. If it was beyond dispute, I'd have thought I'd have heard about it several times a week.

Now supposing it was on the missiles, it's just more evidence for your general viewpoint as I understand it--most governments contain people who can most charitably be described as raving lunatics. Hard to argue with that.

"Raving lunatics," but there's a method to their lunacy, and that's why they do so much damage.

Mistranslations have a way of sticking. For many years Freud's "Der Witz und das Unbewusste" was published as "Wit and the Subconscious." Now anyone who has read the book knows that many of the jokes in it are "witless," bad vaudeville fare. Finally, somebody got the title right: "Jokes and the Subconscious."
How come nobody made the correction? Beats me.
Probably a mix of laziness and ignorance.

There's also a method to their laziness and ignorance.

The House refused to allow Dennis Kucinich even to enter into the Congressional Record information about the mistranlation wrt Israel during consideration of an Iran sanctions bill this summer. That's willed ignorance, right there.

and we haven't heard from the real al-qaeda lately, either. all kinds of new stimuli for the american body politic.

My comment with a link to an image of the writing on the Shahab-3 in the 2003 military parade is being held for approval. In the meantime, here's a link to the 2004 parade, where the Shahab was undecorated:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/News/September_2004/pictures/Shahab-3_missile_iranian_02.jpg

The diplomatic, military, and internal political situation affects these kinds of displays and message-sending, I assume. Anything significant happen in the neighborhood in 2003? ;>

I await this September 22 with interest. Might be a great 'caption contest': what slogan would you put on the Shahab float this fall if you were ayatollah?

All this talk about love notes attached to ballistic missiles reminds me of:

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001015.html

Xymphora thinks that if we attack Iran, the Chinese will decide they've had enough and send many billions in US treasury notes floating on the market, tweaking the US inflation rate and possibly sending us spiralling into a pretty nasty recession.

Of course practical restraints have never stopped BushCo before.

what do you think, Mr S?

Jonathan, I'm not Mr. S (the name of a bondage and leather shop in San Francisco, by the way) but I think Xymphora is forgetting about Mutual Assured Destruction. The U.S. economy is likely more resilient to a currency crisis than the Chinese one is to a big decline in exports.

...suggests they're not budging

It suggests to me that the ruling elite in the US is divided, there is no consensus. The CIA is just a tool and a hierarchical organization; when the time comes they'll write whatever they're told.

I fully endorse the bombing of Iran...

...if Norman Podhoretz, Thomas Friedman, and Bill Kristol are strapped to the bombs.

Dan

How about Dick Cheney on the fourth bomb, or the Jews will get blamed for this war too.

Not "the jews", but the Zionists certainly deserve a large part of the blame.

OK, then strap Sharon on to bomb #5. He probably won't feel a thing.

I can see how the neo-cons deserve a "large part of the blame" for Iraq, but how much and what kind of evidence do you have that "the Zionists" (all? many? which ones?) wanted the US to go into Iraq? What benefits have come to the Zionist cause since the war started? I don't see any; I do see negatives for them. Were they stupid?

OK, then strap Sharon on to bomb #5. He probably won't feel a thing.

I can see how the neo-cons deserve a "large part of the blame" for Iraq, but how much and what kind of evidence do you have that "the Zionists" (all? many? which ones?) wanted the US to go into Iraq? What benefits have come to the Zionist cause since the war started? I don't see any; I do see negatives for them. Were they stupid?

OK, then strap Sharon on to bomb #5. He probably won't feel a thing.

I can see how the neo-cons deserve a "large part of the blame" for Iraq, but how much and what kind of evidence do you have that "the Zionists" (all? many? which ones?) wanted the US to go into Iraq? What benefits have come to the Zionist cause since the war started? I don't see any; I do see negatives for them. Were they stupid?

depends on how you define "stupid."

I can't believe you need me to prove this for you. Just listen to what they say.

donescobar,
if you make the same snarky comment about Sharon just two more times he'll revive and suddenly appear in your swanky apartment and kill you. Or so I've heard.

Well, if Wilkerson is right, whom are we talking about? The American-Jewish neocons, the Wolfowitz-Feith-Perl axis of hawkishness? The Abe Foxman brigade?
I recall reading that after 9-11 the Dumb Decider felt he had to act and get a scalp. Obama was cave-bound, but Saddam was a target and he could show Pop how to really get the job done. I suspect that this was most important to the black-sheep son.

Jonathan Versen

I'm ready for the old tank commander, should he assault my "swanky" premises. Not a kosher thing to eat, but I've got a couple of old Viper anti-tank weapons in the closet. They can't kill a roach, but Ariel doesn't know that.

Oh my.

Osama.

Must stop reading NYT and WaPost.

OK, but there is also this:

"U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past. Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy was Set,"
by Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post, Jan.12, 2003, p.1

Read first three or four paragraphs and see what you think.

"But nobody suggested that we have the U.S. military go to Baghdad. That was transformed by Sept. 11."

The transforming event! the new Pearl Harbor.

In the midst of all the inside-the-beltway chatter of this fascinating glimpse into "murky" decision-making, that was the most interesting bit. Goes right back to PNAC, and points to 9/11 complicity as well.

"9/11 complicity"

What beast is that?

I don't think the Bush administration gives a shit what you or I or 99.9% of Americans debate, whether it's "emotional bullshit" or "thoughtful criticism."
Sure, the decorations on the missiles don't matter to those whom they kill, but occasionally this sort of "bullshit" gives a little glimpse into the mindset of a group --as the positioning of party leaders during the May Day Parade in Moscow years ago. Had little to do with the conduct and brutalities of the Cold War, but still...
How do you know that at least some of those atomic missiles Israel has (hidden, decorated or plain)are aimed at Iran? They're hidden, and you're assuming they're aimed at a country that doesn't have similar missiles to fire at Israel?
A hell of a lot about this topic is, as the post title suggests, reading tea leaves. But how do you read hidden tea leaves?
Q: You're pretty sure we ("country 'tis of thee") are about to launch an attack on Iran? Given the rhetoric from the Bush gang and the aircraft carriers nearby, I understand. But how will this pay off for the GOP in the election and for the Halliburtons of America? Are they that dumb and venal and clueless? Well, maybe they are.
Know of any grants to study Guinness consumption on the West Coast of Ireland? Willing to do the legwork, pub to pub, and write a searingly honest report. References, publications etc. available.

a rough beast

Have you really never heard of 9/11 complicity? Or do you just like to play dumb?

I know this is a respectable blog and all, but surely many here must have suspicions that 9/11 was a false flag attack. It's part and parcel of the Neocon/Zionist playbook.

Bruce

Aw, not the false flag Mossad operation with those Israelis on the white van playbook, is it now?
But, some are way ahead of you. Wait 'till you get a load of the FIFTH PLANE playbook.
It's all in a new book ("Das Fuenfte Flugzeug," or "The Fifth Plane" by J.C. Cooper--whoever he is--and you'll have to learn German to read it. The pro-Zionist publishers in NYC aren't (yet) touching it.
Onward and upward!

yes, false-flag. yes, Mossad.

I got all the evidence. you have nothing but ridicule.

And no, I wont' do any research for you.

How do you know that at least some of those atomic missiles Israel has (hidden, decorated or plain)are aimed at Iran? They're hidden, and you're assuming they're aimed at a country that doesn't have similar missiles to fire at Israel?

Wow, got me there. I don't have access to the Israeli nuclear football, so no point in speculating, I suppose.

Glad we can agree Israel has nuclear missiles, guess we'll never know who they're aimed at, until we have that "smoking gun which comes in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Bruce

I read the very long report on this in Counterpunch. Lots of suggestive tidbits, but nothing that holds up or connects the dots. I love good investigative journalism or narrative history on topics like this one, but the Mossad false flag grab bag is not in that league.
Maybe the boys and girs of Mossad wish they could pull off something like that. Until they can, we'll have to watch (the original) "Manchurian Candidate."

of course it's not Mossad acting alone, but I can see where you would jump to that conclusion.

Do I have the grand narrative, have it nailed? No, but like I say, there's way too much evidence in this criminal case pointing to certain Neocons and Zionists.

SteveB

Sorry, not aiming to play "gotcha." I don't think the Israelis really want to toss that football. I suppose they could have in the Yom Kippur War, but even their most hawkish types might recoil from another "holocaust." Aggressive and brutal tactics on the ground they are capable of, but I suspect (don't "know") the mushroom cloud is too close to the clouds of smoke over the Auschwitz ovens for them to go there. Maybe 60 years of bloodshed have erased that image or association. I hope not.

can't we all just get along?

Want to stop a USELESS attack on Iran? IMPEACH. Call Nancy pelosi @ 1-202-225-0100 and discuss IMPEACHMENT.

@donescobar: Israel has a couple of hundred nuclear weapons. The nation acquired nuclear weapons capability for the same reason that most countries do: as a deterrent to other countries who might consider a massive attack. (If Iran has a nuclear weapons program, their reason is the same. You can't very well claim that they face no credible threat of attack, given the words and actions of the U.S. and Israeli government and military in the last four years.)

The government of Israel, and its hardline supporters in this country, are not seriously concerned that Iran will launch a nuclear attack on the country, exactly because Israel has all the deterrent it needs for that. They are concerned about holding on to their status as the only nuclear power in the middle east.

All of the above is true, skipping only the fact that no other country was threatened several times by its neighbors with "extinction," in 1948, again in 1967, and once more in 1973. Now, how much of that was "rhetoric" and how much was genuine military possibility is another matter. Arab leaders yelled in 1967 that the road to Tel Aviv would be lined "with Jewish skulls" (for that and many similar speeches see Oren's "Six Days of War"). Hey, that was around the time of the Eichmann trial, wasn't it? The reaction was the Israeli plan to be and remain the only nuclear power in the ME. Still reasonable or rational today, or justifiable even to those who want a permanent Jewish state? No, but go talk reason in the ME! It's like talking talking pastrami or chopped liver sandwiches in Alabama.

There are chopped liver sandwiches, and Jews, in Alabama.

Donescobar--Actually, Counterpunch is very critical of the 9/11 truthers. They've carrried long detailed rebuttals of their physical arguments about what happened that day and are as mainstream as anyone on that aspect of the subject. Good for them.

On the other hand, I vaguely recall them carrying stories implying that Israel or the US knew more than either now wants to admit, but I have to admit I never followed any of this 9/11 conspiracy stuff very closely.

There was a more recent article at Counterpunch about the physics of 9/11, building collapses and so on a few months ago, I think.

I can't evaluate the theories about the buildings well enough.
I was referring to the Chrsitopher Ketcham piece, "High-Fivers and Art Student Spies. What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attack?"

I read it, but still don't know. Neither does Ketcham, because the trail is cold. The "art students" are back in Israel, no doubt studying French impressionism. Might help.
Implication is US intelligence (oxymoron alert) ignored Israeli warnings. Now, that I could believe.

Um, don? Israel started the war in '67.

And that shit written on the missiles is that same misunderstood Khomeini quote about ending the occupation over Jerusalem. It's very stirring rhetoric but it's far less a provocation than the Whitehouse's perfectly open policy of regime change in Iran and less open but readily apparently plans of violence, nevermind the repeated threats of a nuclear first strike, ad naseum.

Iran wants to "erase the occupation regime" with a binational election under a one state solution, crazy talk perhaps but not particularly threatening.

Yes, it did. I was talking about how the Arab leaders did their usual trash talk pre-67 action.
Um, the Arabs started the '48 and '73 wars.
Doesn't get us anywhere.
The problem always was and remains that the UN "gave" the Jews a state on land that wasn't theirs. Colonial powers have done it, we started the "greatest nation on earth" on land that wasn't owned by Anglo-Saxons etc etc etc
Maybe the Israelis should follow our glorious example and put the Palestinians on reservations. Pardon? West Bank and Gaza? Ooooh, never mind.
Really not funny, but there is no solution. Two peoples want the same piece of land. Neither wants to live "under" the other, and together isn't working--how you gonna live with "sons of pigs and monkeys" or "Arab murderers?"
So, let's move on to what really matters.
As Jewish mothers have told their children for decades, go to the bathroom BEFORE you go to the airport.
Peace.

WHEN WE INVADE Iran, WE can make those Persians take soap and waterboards and clean those missiles shinny new and institute anti-missile- graffitti laws. We can make them do whatever we want and do to them as WE please, just like in Iraq. WE'll be ABLE to sit around Teheran, drink coffee, and discuss which is sorrier, the Iranians or the Jews, or just take pot shots at the population.

The '73 war was a result of the '67 war and was fought largely to reclaim land Israel captured in that war (viz., Sinai and the Golan Heights). And the '48 war was fought over a partition plan which was imposed by the UN over the opposition of Arabs in Palestine and out (that is, the majority of the residents of the region). Maybe not a great reason for war, but certainly not the result of mere Arab lunacy.