<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Bolton-Telegraph Scare</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/</link>
	<description>Personality Blogs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri,  3 Sep 2010 22:28:30 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: TutuG</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17672</link>
		<dc:creator>TutuG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17672</guid>
		<description>Re Jack Lambert and pretexter;
When the US became Israel’s lapdog is perhaps not the relevant question to ask at present. Now that the US has found itself in this role, the more important question the Americans should ask themselves is for how long they can afford to, financially, politically –  if not morally, let its Israeli tail wag itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re Jack Lambert and pretexter;<br />
When the US became Israel’s lapdog is perhaps not the relevant question to ask at present. Now that the US has found itself in this role, the more important question the Americans should ask themselves is for how long they can afford to, financially, politically –  if not morally, let its Israeli tail wag itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pretexter</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17641</link>
		<dc:creator>pretexter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17641</guid>
		<description>Jack Lambert Says: 

When did we become Israel&#039;s lapdog?

Ummmmm...let&#039;s see....uh...maybe 1948?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jack Lambert Says: </p>
<p>When did we become Israel&#8217;s lapdog?</p>
<p>Ummmmm&#8230;let&#8217;s see&#8230;.uh&#8230;maybe 1948?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 1984</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17618</link>
		<dc:creator>1984</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17618</guid>
		<description>The agenda to do something about Iran lies in the PNAC program:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&amp;geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia

WMDs/terrorism is how you sell the war

Bolton wanted Iran to kick out Arms Inspectors, he tells AIPAC (audio track as well as text)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_harr_070302_bolton_wanted_iran_t.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The agenda to do something about Iran lies in the PNAC program:<br />
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&amp;geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia" rel="nofollow">http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&amp;geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia</a></p>
<p>WMDs/terrorism is how you sell the war</p>
<p>Bolton wanted Iran to kick out Arms Inspectors, he tells AIPAC (audio track as well as text)<br />
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_harr_070302_bolton_wanted_iran_t.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_harr_070302_bolton_wanted_iran_t.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hjmaiere</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17610</link>
		<dc:creator>hjmaiere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17610</guid>
		<description>My thanks to Jim Lobe for his thorough and fearless coverage of these issues.

I would like to bring up one interesting point.

Jim writes: &quot;I still believe an attack is more of a possibility than a probability and that what we are seeing in the ongoing flurry of threats, predictions, and leaks is more psychological warfare directed at persuading Iran, Russia, China, and Washington’s European allies that war is really going to happen unless Tehran halts its uranium enrichment program than it is the real thing.&quot;

This presumes that Iran&#039;s nuclear &#039;program&#039; isn&#039;t merely a pretext. I&#039;ve been convinced for years that the real threat Iraq and Iran posed is to the hegemony of the U.S. dollar. Iran&#039;s oil bourse opened in February. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

This is why oil has reached $130 a barrel. Now read the text of what&#039;s being called the &quot;Iran War Resolution,&quot; but skip all the &#039;whereas&#039;es and note what it really calls for:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362

This is expected to pass with strong support next week.

I suggest that not only is Iran&#039;s nuclear &#039;program&#039; a mere pretext, but Israeli nationalism is also merely a pretext. The real threat Iran poses is to the reigning plutocracy&#039;s ability to extract wealth from the economy of the entire world by way of monetary expansion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My thanks to Jim Lobe for his thorough and fearless coverage of these issues.</p>
<p>I would like to bring up one interesting point.</p>
<p>Jim writes: &#8220;I still believe an attack is more of a possibility than a probability and that what we are seeing in the ongoing flurry of threats, predictions, and leaks is more psychological warfare directed at persuading Iran, Russia, China, and Washington’s European allies that war is really going to happen unless Tehran halts its uranium enrichment program than it is the real thing.&#8221;</p>
<p>This presumes that Iran&#8217;s nuclear &#8216;program&#8217; isn&#8217;t merely a pretext. I&#8217;ve been convinced for years that the real threat Iraq and Iran posed is to the hegemony of the U.S. dollar. Iran&#8217;s oil bourse opened in February. See:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse</a></p>
<p>This is why oil has reached $130 a barrel. Now read the text of what&#8217;s being called the &#8220;Iran War Resolution,&#8221; but skip all the &#8216;whereas&#8217;es and note what it really calls for:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362</a></p>
<p>This is expected to pass with strong support next week.</p>
<p>I suggest that not only is Iran&#8217;s nuclear &#8216;program&#8217; a mere pretext, but Israeli nationalism is also merely a pretext. The real threat Iran poses is to the reigning plutocracy&#8217;s ability to extract wealth from the economy of the entire world by way of monetary expansion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Houle</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17584</link>
		<dc:creator>James Houle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17584</guid>
		<description>The recent discussion fails to take into account the threat of Hezbullah launching 600 missiles, by Israeli estimate, from Lebanon as far south as Tel Aviv should Israel bomb Iran.  See below.

Letter from Beirut: Hezbullah Holds the Balance of Power
by James F. Houle

Synopsis: 	Hezbullah’s well-fortified and battle ready army presents a threat to Israel should they or the United States decide to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Hezbullah missiles in southern Lebanon are capable of inflicting instant retaliation upon Israeli towns, should their Iranian ally demand their help. Recent attempts by political opponents in the Lebanese cabinet to reduce the power of Hezbullah have been unsuccessful. The détente signed in Doha in late May merely solidifies Hezbullah’s’ position and gives them veto power in the new government. While the fear of another massive bombing such as the Israeli Air Force inflicted upon Lebanon in 2006 could keep Hezbullah from responding to an Iranian request for help, Israel must take the threat on their northern border seriously. 

Israeli Concerns: Israel has based its long-term defense strategy upon the neutralization of its Arab neighbor-states. This has been accomplished in the case of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia with US support and funding. The potential threat from Syria is not real: they have not launched a single missile into Israeli-occupied land since 1973. The Palestinians are now walled off into small enclaves and unable to import any of the heavy weapons or guided missiles they would need to be taken seriously. Hamas in Gaza is repeatedly choked by Israel’s shutting off power, water and border crossings. Only the well dug-in Hezbullah militia in south Lebanon presents a serious and immediate threat to Israel’s regional hegemony.

The Iranian Challenge: Iran aspires to regain the respect and power it lost with the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlevi in 1979. It had begun to emerge in the 1970s as the most advanced country in the Middle East with extensive oil, gas and mineral resources and with a growing middle class. Since the ascension of the Ayatollahs, the US has done its best to suppress any Iranian challenge to US hegemony in the Gulf Region. They will not much longer bend to U.S. financial sanctions nor will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.

Iran could become a major threat should their nuclear ambitions even appear to challenge Israeli nuclear dominance of the Middle East. As former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer recently pointed out in this regard: “Politics is not just about facts but also about perceptions”. Israel feels that it cannot tolerate even the remote possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb ten years hence. Thus, they propose the “Begin Option” last used to wipe out the Osirak test reactor in Iraq in 1982. Israel feels fully justified in a surgical strike upon Iranian test facilities at Nantaz. In their view, all of their Arab and Persian neighbors are irrational and totally unpredictable. Regional treaties or the establishment of some sort of nuclear parity would be worthless with such people. 

Unfortunately for Israel, a single pinpoint raid would not eliminate the fear of future Iranian nuclear weapons. Iranian test facilities, pilot enrichment plants and processing centers are spread over hundreds of miles: the support of US air power and long-range missiles would be essential. With the Bush regime due to retire in seven months, it is now or never for the Israelis. Strangely enough, the Hezbullah could upset all of these strategic plans. 

The Hezbullah Threat: It is real, as shown by the failure of ground attacks by the Israeli Defense Force during the 2006 conflagration. Their most advanced tanks were stopped in their tracks a few miles from the border and Hezbullah rockets attacks killed 40 IDF soldiers and civilians in northern settlement towns. New and much improved missile systems and other advanced weaponry supplied by Iran in the past two years could inflict unacceptable losses upon the  IDF. As Hezbullah’s arms supplier and financier, Iran must expect and demand that their ally retaliate immediately for any Israeli action against Iran. They have not financed and supplied Hezbullah all these years merely because of their common Shi’ite traditions. 

Israel has concluded that Hezbullah’s control of the southern Lebanese border must be eliminated. A state-of-the art command and control system has been installed linking Hezbullah front line troops with headquarters in the Ouzai District, just south of Beirut, using fiber-optic telecom lines that cannot be intercepted. Cameras on the Beirut airport runways now warn Hezbullah of any Israeli attempt to land advance battalions at the airport. Strangely enough, several political parties within the Lebanese cabinet suddenly complained in early May that Hezbullah’s fiber-optic lines were an intrusion upon Lebanese sovereignty and a forewarning of their plan to take over the national telephone system. After several days of uproar in the Cabinet, Hezbullah pointed out that this telecom system was what saved Lebanon in 2006 from an Israeli invasion. They further emphasized their determination to maintain these defenses by putting their very well disciplined militia on the street and taking effective control of West Beirut. Various pro-government militias offered little serious opposition and the Lebanese Army maintained its customary neutrality. Once it had made its point, Hezbullah militia turned security over to the Army, who stationed rusty 40 year-old tanks at major intersections for the next week while the politicians went off to Doha for a little negotiating over cabinet seats.

Conclusion: Now after four days of talks hosted by Sheik Kalifa El Thani of Qatar, all Lebanese parties have acquiesced in Hezbullah’s continued control of Lebanon’s southern defenses. They also settled a long-standing dispute by giving Hezbullah a more equitable number of seats in the next government. The big loser in this affair has been the Ohlmert government in Tel Aviv that wants no further threats from either their northern border nor from the Persians 1000 miles to the east. The Bush administration continues to see Hezbollah as the problem rather than as the holder of the balance of power between Israel and Iran in the region. Does all this maneuvering mean that the threat of US or Israeli air attacks upon Iran have been lessened? It does not appear that all the cards have been played in this political game. 

James F. Houle most recently visited Beirut during May 2008. He has lived and directed development projects in ten Arab countries during his career as a consultant to the World Bank, the US Government and various local governments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent discussion fails to take into account the threat of Hezbullah launching 600 missiles, by Israeli estimate, from Lebanon as far south as Tel Aviv should Israel bomb Iran.  See below.</p>
<p>Letter from Beirut: Hezbullah Holds the Balance of Power<br />
by James F. Houle</p>
<p>Synopsis: 	Hezbullah’s well-fortified and battle ready army presents a threat to Israel should they or the United States decide to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Hezbullah missiles in southern Lebanon are capable of inflicting instant retaliation upon Israeli towns, should their Iranian ally demand their help. Recent attempts by political opponents in the Lebanese cabinet to reduce the power of Hezbullah have been unsuccessful. The détente signed in Doha in late May merely solidifies Hezbullah’s’ position and gives them veto power in the new government. While the fear of another massive bombing such as the Israeli Air Force inflicted upon Lebanon in 2006 could keep Hezbullah from responding to an Iranian request for help, Israel must take the threat on their northern border seriously. </p>
<p>Israeli Concerns: Israel has based its long-term defense strategy upon the neutralization of its Arab neighbor-states. This has been accomplished in the case of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia with US support and funding. The potential threat from Syria is not real: they have not launched a single missile into Israeli-occupied land since 1973. The Palestinians are now walled off into small enclaves and unable to import any of the heavy weapons or guided missiles they would need to be taken seriously. Hamas in Gaza is repeatedly choked by Israel’s shutting off power, water and border crossings. Only the well dug-in Hezbullah militia in south Lebanon presents a serious and immediate threat to Israel’s regional hegemony.</p>
<p>The Iranian Challenge: Iran aspires to regain the respect and power it lost with the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlevi in 1979. It had begun to emerge in the 1970s as the most advanced country in the Middle East with extensive oil, gas and mineral resources and with a growing middle class. Since the ascension of the Ayatollahs, the US has done its best to suppress any Iranian challenge to US hegemony in the Gulf Region. They will not much longer bend to U.S. financial sanctions nor will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.</p>
<p>Iran could become a major threat should their nuclear ambitions even appear to challenge Israeli nuclear dominance of the Middle East. As former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer recently pointed out in this regard: “Politics is not just about facts but also about perceptions”. Israel feels that it cannot tolerate even the remote possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb ten years hence. Thus, they propose the “Begin Option” last used to wipe out the Osirak test reactor in Iraq in 1982. Israel feels fully justified in a surgical strike upon Iranian test facilities at Nantaz. In their view, all of their Arab and Persian neighbors are irrational and totally unpredictable. Regional treaties or the establishment of some sort of nuclear parity would be worthless with such people. </p>
<p>Unfortunately for Israel, a single pinpoint raid would not eliminate the fear of future Iranian nuclear weapons. Iranian test facilities, pilot enrichment plants and processing centers are spread over hundreds of miles: the support of US air power and long-range missiles would be essential. With the Bush regime due to retire in seven months, it is now or never for the Israelis. Strangely enough, the Hezbullah could upset all of these strategic plans. </p>
<p>The Hezbullah Threat: It is real, as shown by the failure of ground attacks by the Israeli Defense Force during the 2006 conflagration. Their most advanced tanks were stopped in their tracks a few miles from the border and Hezbullah rockets attacks killed 40 IDF soldiers and civilians in northern settlement towns. New and much improved missile systems and other advanced weaponry supplied by Iran in the past two years could inflict unacceptable losses upon the  IDF. As Hezbullah’s arms supplier and financier, Iran must expect and demand that their ally retaliate immediately for any Israeli action against Iran. They have not financed and supplied Hezbullah all these years merely because of their common Shi’ite traditions. </p>
<p>Israel has concluded that Hezbullah’s control of the southern Lebanese border must be eliminated. A state-of-the art command and control system has been installed linking Hezbullah front line troops with headquarters in the Ouzai District, just south of Beirut, using fiber-optic telecom lines that cannot be intercepted. Cameras on the Beirut airport runways now warn Hezbullah of any Israeli attempt to land advance battalions at the airport. Strangely enough, several political parties within the Lebanese cabinet suddenly complained in early May that Hezbullah’s fiber-optic lines were an intrusion upon Lebanese sovereignty and a forewarning of their plan to take over the national telephone system. After several days of uproar in the Cabinet, Hezbullah pointed out that this telecom system was what saved Lebanon in 2006 from an Israeli invasion. They further emphasized their determination to maintain these defenses by putting their very well disciplined militia on the street and taking effective control of West Beirut. Various pro-government militias offered little serious opposition and the Lebanese Army maintained its customary neutrality. Once it had made its point, Hezbullah militia turned security over to the Army, who stationed rusty 40 year-old tanks at major intersections for the next week while the politicians went off to Doha for a little negotiating over cabinet seats.</p>
<p>Conclusion: Now after four days of talks hosted by Sheik Kalifa El Thani of Qatar, all Lebanese parties have acquiesced in Hezbullah’s continued control of Lebanon’s southern defenses. They also settled a long-standing dispute by giving Hezbullah a more equitable number of seats in the next government. The big loser in this affair has been the Ohlmert government in Tel Aviv that wants no further threats from either their northern border nor from the Persians 1000 miles to the east. The Bush administration continues to see Hezbollah as the problem rather than as the holder of the balance of power between Israel and Iran in the region. Does all this maneuvering mean that the threat of US or Israeli air attacks upon Iran have been lessened? It does not appear that all the cards have been played in this political game. </p>
<p>James F. Houle most recently visited Beirut during May 2008. He has lived and directed development projects in ten Arab countries during his career as a consultant to the World Bank, the US Government and various local governments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Lambert</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17578</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Lambert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17578</guid>
		<description>When did we become Israel&#039;s lapdog?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When did we become Israel&#8217;s lapdog?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jasonik</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17575</link>
		<dc:creator>Jasonik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17575</guid>
		<description>Bolton&#039;s comments taken alone are essentially -- Israel will eliminate Iran&#039;s nuclear program ONLY if McCain is elected. A nuclear Iran will be the result if Obama is president.

Cue the justification for Bush in Kristol&#039;s scenario.

This may be psyops against Iran, but it is also part of a web of cynical psyops against the US electorate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bolton&#8217;s comments taken alone are essentially &#8212; Israel will eliminate Iran&#8217;s nuclear program ONLY if McCain is elected. A nuclear Iran will be the result if Obama is president.</p>
<p>Cue the justification for Bush in Kristol&#8217;s scenario.</p>
<p>This may be psyops against Iran, but it is also part of a web of cynical psyops against the US electorate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander Toth</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17564</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander Toth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17564</guid>
		<description>Since there is no hope of making a legal case of the pretext even (as we can witness) by corrupting the NPT and the IAEA-BoG and even the UN to the point of negating it&#039;s entire raison d&#039;être. And since the American and Iranian public are by and large opposed to expand the epic catastrophy of the neoconomicon to Iran. And since the press has lost it&#039;s effectiveness to stir up a war frenzy at their discretion to a significant extent. Inside the infernal majesty of the neocon empire they have probably decided that the best chance for another desired war to commence is a to create an atmosphere of threats and urgency and keep trying to provoke some kind of incident they could exploit. 
It is credible that the Israeli manouvre is part of a the ongoing psychological war, maybe in the hope of provoking some token reaction they could allow the press to blow up beyond recognizing. There is no reason however to suspect in my mind that the US (Aipacistan) will settle for anything less than war.
I don&#039;t know if the American public could do anything about it, but where they could they should perhaps do it, beginning with writing to your representative, so he or she might have other input than powerpoints from Aipac: http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since there is no hope of making a legal case of the pretext even (as we can witness) by corrupting the NPT and the IAEA-BoG and even the UN to the point of negating it&#8217;s entire raison d&#8217;être. And since the American and Iranian public are by and large opposed to expand the epic catastrophy of the neoconomicon to Iran. And since the press has lost it&#8217;s effectiveness to stir up a war frenzy at their discretion to a significant extent. Inside the infernal majesty of the neocon empire they have probably decided that the best chance for another desired war to commence is a to create an atmosphere of threats and urgency and keep trying to provoke some kind of incident they could exploit.<br />
It is credible that the Israeli manouvre is part of a the ongoing psychological war, maybe in the hope of provoking some token reaction they could allow the press to blow up beyond recognizing. There is no reason however to suspect in my mind that the US (Aipacistan) will settle for anything less than war.<br />
I don&#8217;t know if the American public could do anything about it, but where they could they should perhaps do it, beginning with writing to your representative, so he or she might have other input than powerpoints from Aipac: <a href="http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951" rel="nofollow">http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Biddulph</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17562</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Biddulph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17562</guid>
		<description>Dear Jim Lobe,
Interesting, is it not, that from time to time Yosemite Sam pops his head over the parapet, and cries &quot;Let&#039;s go out and kill people!&quot;. Your readers might be interested in the following extract from a book which Dr Jim Swire and I are preparing on the history of the Lockerbie bombing. In this section we focus on Iran and its relations with the US prior to and during the US Libyan crisis, including the year 1988, the year of the Lockerbie bombing. Let all who deny that the Iraq and Iran stories have nothing to do with oil eat their words and drink a pint of Saudi crude before breakfast. 
BEGINS
&quot;On June 17th 1985, United States National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane prepared a top secret analysis of U.S. policy towards Iran.   His memorandum was directed to Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary for Defense Casper Weinberger, and was to serve as a statement of policy options towards Iran over the coming decade.  
McFarlane noted that the Director of the CIA had just distributed a top secret document Iran: Prospects for Near-Term Instability.  That document made clear that, by the middle of 1985, &quot;instability in Iran is accelerating, with potentially momentous consequences for U.S. strategic interests.  It seems sensible to ask whether our current policy towards Iran is adequate to achieve our interests.&quot;
McFarlane tried to estimate the effect of the likely death of the Ayatollah Khomeini some time within the next few years, and the opportunity it would offer to the Soviet Union to increase its influence within Iran.  &quot;While we pursue a number of broad, long-term goals, our primary short-term challenge must be to block Moscow&#039;s efforts to increase Soviet influence now and after the death of Khomeini.&quot;  America must, he added, improve her ability to protect American interests during the struggle for succession.
America would try to achieve this through several options:  firstly, to &quot;prevent the disintegration of Iran and use it as an independent strategic buffer which separates the Soviet Union from the Persian Gulf.&quot;;  second, &quot;to limit the scope and opportunity for Soviet actions in Iran, while positioning ourselves to cope with the changing Iranian internal situation.&quot;; third, by &quot;maintaining access to Persian Gulf oil and ensuring unimpeded transit of the Strait of Hormuz.&quot; 
We may interpret from these that America&#039;s key interests were, and still are, simply defined.  The first of those interests was the preservation of Caspian sea oil supplies, to be transported across Iran, through Iraq, and on to Al Aqaba, a Jordanian oil terminal on the shores of the Red Sea.  That oil transportation had already been facilitated following a 1984 meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld had been carefully briefed by Secretary of State Shultz to advise Iraq on the best approach in order to obtain financial backing for the Al-Aqaba pipeline from the U.S export-import bank EXIM.  The funding, and the construction, would take place between 1985 and 1990.  During all those years, Saddam Hussein would slaughter thousands of his own people and up to a million Iranians.  He would use, among other things, chemical weapons created from pre-cursors and insecticides supplied by American companies, all with the full knowledge and encouragement of President Ronald Reagan and his various secretaries of state.
Vincent Cannistraro and his colleagues would soon appear as part of the structure serving the McFarlane philosophy of achievement of that strategic balance. The Washington Post, as part of an in-depth investigation into America&#039;s involvement with Saddam Hussein at the height of his terrorising of his neighbours, concluded, &quot;The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait - which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq&#039;s acquisition of chemical and biological precursors - is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy.  It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the &#039;enemy of my enemy is my friend&#039;.&quot;  Through all these years, as would soon be shown in the White House Emails to be published in November 1995, North, Poindexter, Cannistraro and others played key roles, both at the White House, on the National Security Council, and at Langley Virginia. 
McFarlane continued to explain that the second U.S. interest was continued assured access through the Straits of Hormuz, for oil tankers travelling to and from Southern Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia&#039;s main oil outlet of Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.  He then moved to broader objectives.  The first of these was to assist Iran towards her &quot;resumption of a moderate and constructive role as a member respectively of the non-communist political community of its region, and of the world petroleum economy.&quot;  The second, in order of priority, was to ensure &quot;continued Iranian resistance to the expansion of Soviet power in general, and to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in particular.&quot;
Strangely, in contrast to America&#039;s recurring hostility to any form of international jurisdiction, McFarlane listed among America&#039;s priorities, &quot;the resolution of American and legal and financial claims through the Hague Tribunal.&quot;  Also listed was that other recurring theme of American foreign policy, oil supply, via  &quot;Iranian moderation on OPEC pricing policy.&quot;
(U.S. Policy Toward Iran, Top secret memorandum prepared by Robert McFarlane for Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of State for Defense, Casper Weinberger, June 17th 1985, partially declassified 22nd June 1987. )
ENDS
Best wishes,
Peter Biddulph,
Worcestershire, England
http://www.lockerbietruth.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Jim Lobe,<br />
Interesting, is it not, that from time to time Yosemite Sam pops his head over the parapet, and cries &#8220;Let&#8217;s go out and kill people!&#8221;. Your readers might be interested in the following extract from a book which Dr Jim Swire and I are preparing on the history of the Lockerbie bombing. In this section we focus on Iran and its relations with the US prior to and during the US Libyan crisis, including the year 1988, the year of the Lockerbie bombing. Let all who deny that the Iraq and Iran stories have nothing to do with oil eat their words and drink a pint of Saudi crude before breakfast.<br />
BEGINS<br />
&#8220;On June 17th 1985, United States National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane prepared a top secret analysis of U.S. policy towards Iran.   His memorandum was directed to Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary for Defense Casper Weinberger, and was to serve as a statement of policy options towards Iran over the coming decade.<br />
McFarlane noted that the Director of the CIA had just distributed a top secret document Iran: Prospects for Near-Term Instability.  That document made clear that, by the middle of 1985, &#8220;instability in Iran is accelerating, with potentially momentous consequences for U.S. strategic interests.  It seems sensible to ask whether our current policy towards Iran is adequate to achieve our interests.&#8221;<br />
McFarlane tried to estimate the effect of the likely death of the Ayatollah Khomeini some time within the next few years, and the opportunity it would offer to the Soviet Union to increase its influence within Iran.  &#8220;While we pursue a number of broad, long-term goals, our primary short-term challenge must be to block Moscow&#8217;s efforts to increase Soviet influence now and after the death of Khomeini.&#8221;  America must, he added, improve her ability to protect American interests during the struggle for succession.<br />
America would try to achieve this through several options:  firstly, to &#8220;prevent the disintegration of Iran and use it as an independent strategic buffer which separates the Soviet Union from the Persian Gulf.&#8221;;  second, &#8220;to limit the scope and opportunity for Soviet actions in Iran, while positioning ourselves to cope with the changing Iranian internal situation.&#8221;; third, by &#8220;maintaining access to Persian Gulf oil and ensuring unimpeded transit of the Strait of Hormuz.&#8221;<br />
We may interpret from these that America&#8217;s key interests were, and still are, simply defined.  The first of those interests was the preservation of Caspian sea oil supplies, to be transported across Iran, through Iraq, and on to Al Aqaba, a Jordanian oil terminal on the shores of the Red Sea.  That oil transportation had already been facilitated following a 1984 meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld had been carefully briefed by Secretary of State Shultz to advise Iraq on the best approach in order to obtain financial backing for the Al-Aqaba pipeline from the U.S export-import bank EXIM.  The funding, and the construction, would take place between 1985 and 1990.  During all those years, Saddam Hussein would slaughter thousands of his own people and up to a million Iranians.  He would use, among other things, chemical weapons created from pre-cursors and insecticides supplied by American companies, all with the full knowledge and encouragement of President Ronald Reagan and his various secretaries of state.<br />
Vincent Cannistraro and his colleagues would soon appear as part of the structure serving the McFarlane philosophy of achievement of that strategic balance. The Washington Post, as part of an in-depth investigation into America&#8217;s involvement with Saddam Hussein at the height of his terrorising of his neighbours, concluded, &#8220;The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait &#8211; which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq&#8217;s acquisition of chemical and biological precursors &#8211; is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy.  It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the &#8216;enemy of my enemy is my friend&#8217;.&#8221;  Through all these years, as would soon be shown in the White House Emails to be published in November 1995, North, Poindexter, Cannistraro and others played key roles, both at the White House, on the National Security Council, and at Langley Virginia.<br />
McFarlane continued to explain that the second U.S. interest was continued assured access through the Straits of Hormuz, for oil tankers travelling to and from Southern Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia&#8217;s main oil outlet of Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.  He then moved to broader objectives.  The first of these was to assist Iran towards her &#8220;resumption of a moderate and constructive role as a member respectively of the non-communist political community of its region, and of the world petroleum economy.&#8221;  The second, in order of priority, was to ensure &#8220;continued Iranian resistance to the expansion of Soviet power in general, and to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in particular.&#8221;<br />
Strangely, in contrast to America&#8217;s recurring hostility to any form of international jurisdiction, McFarlane listed among America&#8217;s priorities, &#8220;the resolution of American and legal and financial claims through the Hague Tribunal.&#8221;  Also listed was that other recurring theme of American foreign policy, oil supply, via  &#8220;Iranian moderation on OPEC pricing policy.&#8221;<br />
(U.S. Policy Toward Iran, Top secret memorandum prepared by Robert McFarlane for Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of State for Defense, Casper Weinberger, June 17th 1985, partially declassified 22nd June 1987. )<br />
ENDS<br />
Best wishes,<br />
Peter Biddulph,<br />
Worcestershire, England<br />
<a href="http://www.lockerbietruth.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lockerbietruth.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nissar Ahmed A. Naik</title>
		<link>http://www.lobelog.com/the-bolton-telegraph-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-17558</link>
		<dc:creator>Nissar Ahmed A. Naik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=161#comment-17558</guid>
		<description>Michael
I absolutely agree with this comment. It is ridiculous to believe that even if Iran possess a couple of nukes, it will launch a suicidal attack on Israel with her One Hundred and Fifty nukes. 
The Iranian Nuke, if there is going to be one, will serve only as a deterrent. Prercisely this is what the U.S. and Israel do not like, as they want their freedom to make a &#039;Saddam Hussain&#039; of Iran whenever they want.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael<br />
I absolutely agree with this comment. It is ridiculous to believe that even if Iran possess a couple of nukes, it will launch a suicidal attack on Israel with her One Hundred and Fifty nukes.<br />
The Iranian Nuke, if there is going to be one, will serve only as a deterrent. Prercisely this is what the U.S. and Israel do not like, as they want their freedom to make a &#8216;Saddam Hussain&#8217; of Iran whenever they want.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
