[...] As some Iranian analysts and ministry officials have told Asia Times Online in Tehran off the record, there are reasons to believe the leadership is misreading an avalanche of US signs related to the military and psychological preparation for a possible war.
For instance, fundamentalist Christians in the US - who support Zionism for theological reasons - unleashed a ferocious media campaign depicting Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad as the Antichrist who wants to destroy Jerusalem and prevent Jesus' comeback.
There are even indications that the Iranian leadership has not taken the Bush administration's explicit desire for regime change seriously. It's as if the leadership is persuading itself Washington would never dare to escalate the situation - especially after such US bodies as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Academy of Sciences have stated that a tactical nuclear strike could kill more than a million Iranians.
At Monday's press conference, Ahmadinejad, asked about possible military strikes, smiled broadly and dismissed the notion. "Military attacks? On what pretext?" he asked, adding that Iran was strong and could defend itself.
Many throughout the Muslim world and beyond are asking this question: What are the real reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq and its wish to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran?
For all their grandiose posturing, in truth, Iraq, Syria and Iran have never posed a direct threat to the US mainland. Put simply, they're too far away from the neighbourhood. So why would the US be willing to expend so many human lives and so much treasury on changing the regimes of countries it doesn't like?
Theories abound. At the top of the list is America's quest for oil, a shrinking, non-renewable resource. But, in reality, the US gets very little of its oil from the Middle East and the Gulf. Most comes from South America and Africa.
Another theory revolves around the petrodollar monopoly, which both Iraq and Iran have sought to disband by trading their oil in Euros. There may be something in this one but it doesn't explain why Syria is in the firing line.
Joe Quinn
Sott.netWed, 26 Apr 2006 12:00 UTC
While browsing the news websites recently, I noticed an advertisement for an upcoming movie about Flight 93 that 'crashed' in the Pennsylvannia countryside on September 11th 2001. Here's the ad:
Without doubt, this is a deliberate government-sponsored/inspired attempt to further brainwash the masses about the truth of what happened on 9/11. Unfortunately for the Bush gang, the officially recorded events about the final moments of Flight 93 present us with some of the clearest evidence that the U.S. government is lying about what really happened to Flight 93, and by implication, about all other aspects of the 9/11 event.
Joe Quinn
SOTTWed, 26 Apr 2006 12:00 UTC
The problem, you understand, is that George's approval rating is at an
all-time low (32%), a large majority of Americans
believe that he should be impeached, and the world's population is slowly waking up to the distinct possibility that the 'war on terror' is, to one extent or another, a creation of the very people that claim to be fighting it. In such situations, short of calling down another 'terror attack', there is really only one option for the U.S. government:
Joe Quinn
SOTTTue, 25 Apr 2006 12:00 UTC
One day after Osama reminded us all that he is still a threat to the entire world (and quite possibly the known universe), as if by magic, three bombs explode in Egypt's Sinai resort of Dahab, killing 30 people and wounding dozens more.
From 9/11 to the sabre rattling over Iran, the Bush gang have been able to get away with murder and war crimes while the press has done nothing more than slap them on their wrists -- that is, after the media performed its patriotic role in egging the US public into a new crusade against Islam. How bad will it have to get before Americans decide they have had enough of war and lies? When will American liberals wake up and see the obvious link between 9/11 and the subsequent war on liberties, and draw the obvious conclusions?
Running Time: 00:39:00
Download: MP3
The debate over whether Iraq is on the verge of a bloody civil war was fueled by recent remarks by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his Saudi counterpart during a conference in Riyadh.
On BBC news website, Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King's College London explained the historical precedents and why the argument over a possible outbreak of a civil war in Iraq matters. He discussed what causes a civil war, referring to historical examples like, civil war in Russia, Lebanese civil war.
Sir Lawrence Freedman suggested that once a broadly-based government is agreed, it might get a grip on the situation, and stop the almost daily sectarian killings and attacks in Iraq.
In an editorial published on AIM.org, the media is seen as a key element in instigating a civil war in Iraq.
Following the February 22 attack on one of the most revered Shia mosques in the Iraqi city of Samarra, all media reports were focusing on allegations that Iraq has swept up in a wave of retaliatory religious violence, and national news outlets in the U.S. continued for weeks to feed Americans with daily headlines, all affirming the bloody sectarian violence Iraq has fallen into.
90% of the main stream media was dedicated to painting a bleak image of the situation in Iraq, focusing on the between 90 and 200 Sunni mosques across Iraq that were attacked, burned or bombed.
More than 16 Afghan civilians have been reported killed or wounded this week by U.S. soldiers as troops battled an outbreak of insurgent activity in warmer spring weather, according to Afghan officials.
AFPWed, 19 Apr 2006 12:00 UTC
CAIRO - French President Jacques Chirac, due here on a two-day visit, told Egyptian daily Al-Ahram that it was "unacceptable" for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and called for "necessary gestures" from Israel and the Palestinians for "real negotiations" to resume.
The Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be high on the agenda when Chirac meets Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday.
The Iranian leaders "must understand that, for the international community, the prospect of a militarily nuclearized Iran is unacceptable," Chirac said in an interview.
Comment: Israel continues to constantly threaten Palestine, and some estimates indicate that Israel possesses 200 nuclear warheads. Why does Iran have to disarm weapons that no one can even prove it has, and yet Israel can keep its nukes and threaten death and destruction as it pleases with the USA's backing in the UN?
The US is probably incapable of completely destroying the Iranian nuclear program, but as a last resort it could attempt to knock out "some of the components" in order to "delay and deter it," Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential candidate and a serving member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has told The Jerusalem Post.
Speaking at a time of almost daily declarations from Teheran concerning both progress in the nuclear program and hostility to Israel, Lieberman said he knew of no "set war plans" being drawn up by the Bush Administration and, "I don't think anyone's yearning for military action against Iran."
Comment: Israel continues to constantly threaten Palestine, and some estimates indicate that Israel possesses 200 nuclear warheads. Why does Iran have to disarm weapons that no one can even prove it has, and yet Israel can keep its nukes and threaten death and destruction as it pleases with the USA's backing in the UN?