The allegations against Iran, whether they are of the nuclear caliber or the latest assassination charges, are beginning to pile up. Neo-cons and hawks from all corners of the political spectrum are calling for a new war with Iran and it appears that Israel and America are complimenting the rhetoric with war games that are preparing troops for an upcoming invasion.

A closer look at the evidence regarding the alleged assassination plot shows that it is a well concocted plan with the goal of starting a well needed war to fund the military industrial complex, crackdown on dissent in America, and distract from the economic problems that continue to haunt U.S. President Barack Obama. The Iranian assassination plot also programs people psychologically for a future assassination, likely that of Obama.

1. The Iranian Assassination Plot: The alleged plot by Iran to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador is a desperate attempt to foment hatred in America towards the nation of Iran. When examined by any standard, the plot quickly falls apart and warrants an arrest of the politicians pushing the story rather than the war preparations that are currently taking place. This plot is part of a bigger plot that will be validated at a later date when false-flag terror attacks occur in American and are ultimately blamed on Iran. 

2. Iran’s Alleged Nuclear Program: Although we have heard about Iran's alleged nuclear program for years, recent news and propaganda is attempting to convince the world that America and the world cannot wait to find out if it is a peaceful nuclear program. This propaganda is flanked by the recent assassination plot accusations and is very reminiscent of the WMD accusations leveled prior to te invasion of Iraq. 

3. War Games: Before, during, and after the alleged Iranian assassination plot was propagandized around the world, the Unites States and Israel have been executing war games on a massive level. As evidenced, troops are executing full invasion tactics and Israel is conducting war games with the specific goal of attacking a neighbor’s nuclear program and reactors. 

4. Iranian War Propaganda: While the news about the Iranian assassination plot and nuclear program makes the rounds on television, blatant war propaganda is being circulated in an attempt to delegitimize and disparage the Iranian government prior to a new war. Accusations about Iranian woman getting lashed, U.S. troops getting murdered, and inequality in education are suddenly everywhere. This propaganda is a sign that an attack on Iran is imminent. 

5. The Iranian War: Before any evidence or legitimate public debate can be had regarding the alleged Iranian assassination plot, calls for war are being repeatedly rehashed in the U.S. and world media, not to mention the terror attacks currently being executed in Iran by both the U.S. and Israel. As if singing in concert, these blatant warmongers are desperate to attack Iran for Israel while using American blood and treasure in the process. 

6. Iranian Censorship: As the war rhetoric and propaganda against Iran intensifies worldwide, censorship of Iranian media is beginning to occur in the U.S. and Britain. This censorship is a blatant attempt to shield the public from the future war crimes that will undoubtedly occur in Iran once the green light for the attack is given. Dead bodies of innocent civilians and American troops are bad for moral and must be removed prior to an Iranian invasion. 


OBAMACSI.COM: The alleged plot by Iran to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador is a desperate attempt to foment hatred in America towards the nation of Iran. When examined by any standard, the plot quickly falls apart and warrants an arrest of the politicians pushing the story rather than the war preparations that are currently taking place. This plot is part of a bigger plot that will be validated at a later date when false-flag terror attacks occur in American and are ultimately blamed on Iran. 

Title: Alleged Plot To Kill Saudi Ambassador Fuels U.S. Push To 'Isolate' Iran As Pols Call Plot An 'Act of War'
Date: October 11, 2011 
Source: Fox News

 The alleged Iranian government-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States is quickly exacerbating already flaring tensions between Washington and Tehran. 

Members of Congress were quick to condemn Iran over the plot. 

Rep. Michael McCaul R-Texas, said if it was indeed sponsored by the Iranian government, "this would constitute an act of war not only against the Saudis and Israelis but against the United States as well."


Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., issued a similar statement saying, "Iran's assassination of a foreign diplomat in our country would have violated both U.S. and international law, and represented an act of war."

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, speaking on Fox News, called the plot an "act of war" against the United States. 

"We have to do something," he said, saying the specifics of the response should be left up to the Defense Department and the president. 

But a senior Defense official told Fox News the announcement Tuesday "is not a trip wire for military action in Iran." 

"No one should read into this as a pretense for any type of military response," another senior Defense official added. 

Speaking to Fox News on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the subject, the officials said the Pentagon sees the alleged plot as a criminal act that is rightly being handled by the Department of Justice. 

Late Tuesday night, the State Department issued a travel alert for Americans, warning those at home and aboard to watch out for possible attacks linked to the alleged plot.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in announcing the plot and criminal charges filed against two individuals, would not say exactly how high up the plot went in the Iranian government. He said it was "directed and approved by elements of the Iranian government," specifically noting the alleged involvement of members of Iran's special operations Quds Force

But U.S. officials made clear they will use the plot to marshal international pressure against the regime. 

"The United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," Holder said. 

State Department official on Tuesday called the case a "flagrant violation of international law." 

And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. would work with its allies to "send a very strong message that this kind of action, which violates international norms, must be ended." 

In a separate interview with the Associated Press, Clinton said the plot "crosses a line," and that she and President Obama were calling international leaders to tell them what happened. She said they want to "pre-empt" any efforts by Iran to deny responsibility, as well as "enlist more countries in working together against what is becoming a clearer and clearer threat" from Iran, according to the Associated Press. She said the reaction could "further isolate Iran." 

The Treasury Department fired the first diplomatic shot Tuesday afternoon, imposing sanctions on five people allegedly linked to the plot, including four members of the Quds Force -- which is part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Two of them, Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri, were charged Tuesday in New York federal court, though Skahuri remains at large. The Treasury Department said the other Quds officials named were also involved in the plot. The sanctions will freeze any U.S. assets held by the individuals and prohibit anyone in the U.S. from doing business with them. 

U.S. officials say the suspects in the case were working on a "murder for hire" scheme to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States using explosives. They allegedly reached out to a U.S. source in Mexico posing as a drug cartel representative. Arbabsiar allegedly tried to hire the source and his accomplices to carry out the attack. 

Arbabsiar, who was arrested by federal agents on Sept. 29, later confessed to his involvement and said senior Quds officials were directing the plot, according to the Justice Department

A brief analysis from Stratfor Global Intelligence cautioned against any claims of high-up Iranian involvement. The analysis said the plot as described "seems far-fetched" considering "its ramifications would involve substantial political risk." 

"Iran has been known to carry out preoperational surveillance in the United States, but it has not yet used this intelligence to carry out a high-profile attack," the analysis said, suggesting the Tehran links were "exaggerated." 

An Iranian representative at the United Nations has denied the U.S. allegations. 

But Clinton said in the AP interview Tuesday that the claims are "well-founded." 

Clinton plans to meet Wednesday with the Swiss ambassador to Iran, a meeting that will surely provide an opportunity to address the allegations unveiled Tuesday. The Swiss serve as the United States' diplomatic representatives in Iran in the absence of any formal U.S.-Iran relations (Fox News, 2011)

Title: Unanswered Questions Over The Alleged Iranian Assassination Plot
Date: October 13, 2011
Source: The Guardian 

Abstract: The alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US does not fit with what is known about the supposed perpetrators.

It has the ring of a far-fetched Hollywood thriller and even the senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation admitted to journalists that the alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US did not fit with what was known about the methods and practices of the supposed perpetrators, the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards. But $100,000 was clearly transferred by someone as a downpayment on the assassination. Washington is taking the case seriously enough to make unprecedented allegations against Tehran and threaten further isolation. The affair leaves several questions unanswered:

1. It appears very unlikely that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would approve such a brazen plot with such unpredictable consequences, in effect going to war with Iran's three greatest enemies – Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel – at the same time. The watchwords of Khamenei's 23-year tenure have been caution and regime stability. He has attempted, not always successfully, to calibrate the nuclear programme to avoid uniting the UN security council against Iran, while pushing on steadily. Iran, under his guidance, has worked very hard to mitigate the international impact of sanctions and is sensitive to its standing in the Islamic world. Things are generally going well for Tehran in the triangular relationship with the US and Saudi, as Washington and Riyadh had fallen out badly over the Arab spring and Palestinian recognition. Why would Khamenei and his regime risk all this on such a bizarre plot?

2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, right, is also a problematic suspect. The president has little influence on the Quds force and is currently on what passes in Tehran for a charm offensive, releasing two US hikers after two years in custody and proposing a new uranium deal last month. Ahmadinejad is in a tense standoff with Khamenei and in the past has backed a limited accommodation with the west. Would he risk his own precarious position to back a plot and would he have the power to orchestrate such a venture without the supreme leader's knowledge and approval?

3. The Quds force has previously gone to great lengths to ensure its fingerprints are not found on attacks abroad. It almost always operates through trusted proxies such as Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia militias which the Revolutionary Guards have trained in most cases. Despite years of investigations, there is suspicion but no proof of Iranian involvement in the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut and the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In this latest alleged plot, the Quds force was purported to be working with a Mexican drugs cartel, the Zetas, with an Iranian-American used-car salesman as middleman (the plot was said to be codenamed Chevrolet). The link was made because the car salesman, Mansour Arbabsiar, was allegedly a cousin of a "big general" in the Quds force and a friend of the aunt of a Texas "associate" of the Zetas. Arbabsiar revealed the Iranian nature of the plot to this man, who turned out to be a US government informant. Why would the Quds force now throw its professionalism and caution to the wind?

4. The key evidence that the alleged plot was serious was the $100,000 wire transfer. It came from a foreign bank account, but that cannot be an Iranian account because such transfers are impossible under US law. The money must have come from a third country, but which? And how can the US authorities be so sure the foreign accounts were under the control of the Quds force?

5. Arbabsiar boasted that his cousin, who is said to have instigated the plot, "worked for [the] government [of Iran] but he's working outside. He's working like … like [a named non-Iranian intelligence agency]". Arbabsiar's absent co-defendant, Golam Shakuri, was allegedly a Quds colonel working for the cousin. Who is this cousin and how sure are the US authorities that he is a senior member of the Quds force?

6. Arbabsiar was told by his cousin and another high- ranking member of the Quds force that the head of the force, presumably Qassem Suleimani, approved of the plot and would eventually meet Arbabsiar. But is there any proof that he was involved?

7. Could the alleged conspiracy be the work of an extremist cell within the Quds force? In that case, the unit is far more fragmented than previously thought and we should shortly see top people in the organisation disappearing from view. There is a precedent for such a cell: in 1999 the deputy minister of intelligence, Saeed Emami, was arrested and accused of carrying out a series of murders of intellectuals, known as the chain murders, without official authority. He was also reported to have tried smuggling missiles to Brussels to attack Nato. Emami was reported to have killed himself in prison.

8. Could the alleged plot be provocation by an outside agency seeking to start a conflict between Iran and its enemies? In that case, Arbabsiar is consciously misleading his interrogators or is being used by his cousin and his associates, who are working for this third party. If that was the case, how did Arbabsiar correctly identify a senior Quds officer whose identity is not widely known? (The Guardian, 2011)

Title: Feinstein Questions Whether Iran Backing More Plots in Wake of Alleged Assassination Scheme
 October 13, 2011
 Fox News 

AbstractA top senator warned that the United States should be on "alert" about other Iran-driven terror plots in the wake of the alleged scheme to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she's been aware of the investigation for about a month and that "intelligence indicates" there could be "problems" elsewhere. 

Feinstein declined to get into detail and stressed that she wasn't saying other diplomats are necessarily in danger. But she raised the question of whether an Israeli ambassador or American ambassador could also be targeted, if Iran's special operations Quds Force was involved in this plot as alleged. 

"It's hard for me to believe that there is just one plot involving the U.S. ... I think we need to explore whether there are other plots going on in other countries," she said Wednesday. "I'm not saying there's a broader plot. I'm just saying that we need to look at that." 

Other senators will be briefed on the assassination plot Thursday. 

The State Department acknowledged that the plotters were looking at other targets but assured that the administration believes the entire operation was short-circuited after the Justice Department went public with the investigation. 

"I would simply say that we do believe that there were other targets, and there were follow-on notions by these plotters. But we do believe that the entire plot now has been disrupted," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. 

Aside from aiming to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, the plotters apparently were looking at possible attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies. 

According to the Justice Department, the lone suspect in custody initially inquired about the possibility of attacks on a Saudi Arabian embassy. A separate alert obtained by Fox News outlined a possible plot regarding attacks on the Saudi embassies in Washington, D.C., and in Buenos Aires, Argentina

Nuland, without getting into detail, acknowledged that a top State official had called Argentina's government in the wake of the investigation. 

Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers continue to speculate over whether the top echelons of the Iranian government knew of the plot. 

Feinstein said she doesn't know whether, for example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was aware. But she said the Quds Force would probably not have proceeded without high-level approval from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other elements (Fox News, 2011)

Title: FBI Insider: Obama Administration Likely Manufactured Dubious Terror Plot
Date: October 13, 2011
Source: Infowars 

Abstract: Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer says that an FBI insider told him the dubious terror plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador which has been blamed on Iran was likely manufactured by the Obama administration, because no information about the plot even exists within FBI channels.

The plot, an assassination attempt against Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, was pinned on an Iranian-American used-car salesman from Texas and subsequently linked by the Obama administration to a wider conspiracy controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.


According to the administration, used car salesman Mansour J. Arbabsiar tried to hire assassins from a Mexican drug gang to carry out the murder, but the head of the drug gang turned out to be a DEA agent posing as a Mexican Los Zetas gangster. The story has all the hallmarks of classic FBI entrapment tactics that have characterized almost every major terror bust in recent times.

Having personally interrogated Iranians, Shaffer doubted the fact that members of the elite Quds Force would risk carrying out an assassination in the United States when it would be far easier to conduct such a plot in the middle east.

“It does not smell correctly,” Shaffer told Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano, adding that it was doubtful a successful used car salesman who has been part of the community for 15 years would suddenly become embroiled in an international assassination plot.

Asked by Napolitano if Arbabsiar was the victim of another FBI sting, Shaffer responded, “I think that’s part of it.”

“The FBI’s had a record lately and I did talk to one of my inside guys and he is saying he thinks the same thing, you know why, because he can’t find any real information and he’s got a clearance – so that tells him that there’s something going on that’s extraordinary by the fact that he’s an inside investigator, knows what’s going on and yet, I’m gonna quote here, ‘There’s nothing on this within the DOJ beyond what they’ve talked about publicly’ – which means to him that there’s something very wrong with it,” said Shaffer.

Even the New York Times is now reporting that the dubious nature of the plot has caused “a wave of puzzlement and skepticism from some foreign leaders and outside experts.”

The military-industrial complex has long been searching for a pretext that could be used to justify military strikes against Iran.

In a 2009 report entitled “Which Path to Persia?”, the elitist Brookings Institution wrote, “It would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.”

The dubious plot has been instantly seized upon by the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to push for Iran to be further isolated by the international community. Kerry’s comments were perhaps the most bellicose, telling reporters yesterday, “I don’t think anything should be taken off the table at this point in time.”

It has also served as a useful distraction for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is currently under investigation for his role in the infamous Fast and Furious program, which saw the federal government deliver thousands of military-grade weapons to leaders of Mexican drug gangs.

“That the current “alleged” plot pinned on Iran revolves around yet another undercover federal agency conducting a long-term sting operation defies belief,” writes Tony Cartalucci. “That we are expected to believe one of Iran’s most elite military forces left such a sensitive, potentially war-starting operation to a used-car salesman and a drug gang reported in the papers daily for its involvement with US government agencies (and who turns out to actually be undercover DEA agents) is so ridiculous it can only be “made up” as Secretary Clinton puts it. More accurately, it is the result of an impotent US intelligence community incapable of contriving anything more convincing in the face of an ever awakening American public, to bolster its morally destitute agenda. The cartoonish nature of the plot and the arms’ length even its proponents treat it with to maintain plausible deniability is indicative of a dangerously out of control ruling elite and an utterly incompetent, criminally insane government” (Infowars, 2011)

Title: Republicans Adopt Obama’s “Bad Movie” Iran Terror Plot
Date: October 13, 2011
Source: Infowars 

: Despite the fact experts on Iran and its Quds force have responded with skepticism to an alleged plot and many have dismissed it as fantasy, a number of establishment politicians are demanding the Obama administration take action. 

Arizona Senator John McCain lost little time exploiting the unproven plot. He told CBS today that Iran is a “threat” in the Persian Gulf and Obama is to blame for not meddling in Iran’s internal affairs and exploiting the 2009 street protests many believe were orchestrated in color revolution fashion by the CIA to overthrow the government in Tehran.


“This kind of reckless behavior they’ve displayed here could translate into a real serious problem,” said McCain, citing Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

Although the U.S. and Israel have tried for years to convince the world Iran is secretly working on nuclear weapons, the international community has admitted there is no evidence Iran is doing so.

Another Arizona politician, Rep. Trent Franks, used the dubious plot to attack Obama. “If this effort had been successful, it would have constituted an act of war against the United States of America, and it should demonstrate Iran’s true intentions toward America in the clearest possible terms, even to this administration,” Franks said on Wednesday. He called for a military response to the alleged assassination plot.

“If they are committed enough to try to foment an attack here, and literally try to blow up the Israeli embassy here, or kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S., let me suggest to you that the intent is so clear that our entire focus now should be upon dealing with the capacity,” he said. “Perhaps this president would do better if he were able to focus on the threats of our nation without being so busy apologizing for American at every opportunity.”

Speaking from the House Floor Wednesday night, House Republicans said the Obama administration needs to take immediate action. “This event that has occurred should tell us a lot of things,” declared Texas Republican Ted Poe. “One, that the country of Iran is so bold that they believe they can commit a crime of terror on the soil of the United States and get away with it.”

“It is a real concern when you’re talking about 1,200 miles of border between the United States and Mexico, that someone would have a plan to invade our country and take control of those border counties,” Rep. John Carter, another Texan Republican, added. “I would call that invasion.”

Not to be left behind in the rush to exaggerate the dubious plot, Texas governor Rick Perry mentioned the imaginary plot from the campaign trail in Indiana and linked it to border security. He said the supposed plot is “business as usual” for Iran.

Establishment Tea Party diva Michele Bachmann also weighed in. “If I was president I wouldn’t have taken my eye of the number one issue in the Middle East, which is Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. The problem with the Obama administration is they put serious daylight between Israel and the United States from day one of the Obama presidency, so the president unfortunately sent signals of weakness,” Bachmann told CNN.

Republicans received support from hysterical Democrats. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said Congress needs to investigate the supposed plot. “There may be a chain of these things,” she speculated. “I think we need to explore whether there are other plots going on into other countries.” Feinstein chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

As should be expected, the corporate media by and large is falling in line with the desperate effort to demonize Iran.

Washington Post editorial today admits there is skepticism about the alleged threat and states “it is certainly prudent to reserve final judgment until all the facts of the case are known.” It then dismisses the skepticism and states “the alleged plot is not a large leap from Tehran’s past acts” and concludes whatever “the cause, the scheme’s discovery should serve as a warning of the escalating threat posed by Iran — and the need to act more forcefully against it” (Infowars, 2011)

Title: What The Alleged Iran Assassination Plot Means For 2012
Date: October 17, 2011

Abstract: Confronted with a President who has killed Osama bin Laden and an almost comically long list of his deputies and associates–being al Qaeda’s military commander is like being the Spinal Tap drummer–the Republican presidential candidates have struggled to attack Obama’s national security policies. They went after his Libya intervention, then piped down after the fall of Gaddafi and the absence of an Islamist government in his place. Obama was supposedly enabling a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt until it turned out that he was in effect backing a status quo military dictatorship. Few on the right are complaining about his detention and interrogation policies, not even after Obama officials Mirandized a suspected Iranian-backed terrorist on U.S. soil this week.

Republicans have generally settled on the broad critique that Obama has been weak in his support for popular uprisings in Iran and Syria, and that he has traveled the world apologizing for America’s actions abroad, which bears little resemblance to reality. And then there is, of course, the charge that Obama has abandoned Israel, throwing the Jewish state “under the bus” by pressuring Bibi Netanyahu to freeze settlements and strike a peace deal with the Palestinians. Note that Republicans are ardently courting disenchanted Jewish Democratic donors.

But this week’s news about an audacious, bizarre–and, some suspect, overblown–Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington suddenly thrusts Obama’s policy towards Tehran back into the political conversation in an explosive way.

Republicans had grown quiet about Iran and its ongoing nuclear program in recent months. That’s partly thanks to regional distractions like the Arab Spring, and a recent lull in the Green Movement’s public demonstrations . It’s also a tribute to Obama’s success at winning strong new sanctions against Tehran at the United Nations last year, temporarily placating conservatives who had been bashing him for extending a hand to Iran soon after he took office.

But the weird Iranian plan to kill Adel al Jubeir is reminding the right of their loathing for Tehran, that Iran’s nuclear program has been steadily marching on, and their sense that Obama has gone soft on Iran’s leaders. On Fox News last night, John McCain complained that the new sanctions are not doing enough harm, and insisted that Obama take tougher steps against the country’s leadership and shipping industry. The GOP candidates still seem to be sorting out their exact reactions to the alleged terror plot–Rick Perry seized on it to talk about border security, of all things–but with a new poll showing that almost half the country views Iran as an “enemy” of the U.S., they surely see the political opportunity here.

The big question is whether the coming months will reignite the debate about a potential military strike to disable Iran’s advancing nuclear program. With some expert warning that the window to inflict serious damage on that program is closing, the GOP’s Iran hawks may reassert themselves. Several of those hawks are advisers to Mitt Romney, for instance, and last week Romney advocated rattling our saber by moving U.S. aircraft carrier groups to the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region. Rick SantorumHerman Cain and even the foreign policy minimalist Jon Huntsman have all said military strikes on Iran might be necessary to stop its nuclear program, while Michele Bachmann calls Iran’s nuclear program “the most important thing.”

For his part, President Obama has remained measured, saying that Iran must be held “accountable” for the terror plot, but not taking any visible steps just yet. However, some experts think the plot may have dealt the final blow to Obama’s long-standing hopes for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff. If so, that places into the 2012 debate a fundamental, and extremely unpleasant, question. Namely, which is worse: a military strike on Iran–or a nuclear-armed Iran? (TIME, 2011)


OBAMACSI.COM: Although we have heard about Iran's alleged nuclear program for years, recent news and propaganda is attempting to convince the world that America and the world cannot wait to find out if it is a peaceful nuclear program. This propaganda is flanked by the recent assassination plot accusations and is very reminiscent of the WMD accusations leveled prior to te invasion of Iraq. 

Title: IAEA to Release “Evidence” Iran Secretly Working On Nuke Program 
Date: October 14, 2011
Source: Press TV

AbstractThe United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency is preparing to release a document that will link Iran’s nuclear program to weapons development, according the French newspaper Le Figaro (English translation here). The report will be released next month. 

The newspaper characterizes the release as a “race against time” to head off Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The move would ensure an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Isabelle Lasserre writes.

IAEA boss Yukiya Amano said last month the agency would release more information on Iran’s program. At that time, Amano said Iran had demonstrated "greater transparency" than usual when it allowed a senior IAEA official to tour previously restricted nuclear sites in August.

In February, 2010, the agency said Iran was working to develop a nuclear-armed missile. “In unusually blunt language, an International Atomic Energy Agency report for the first time suggested Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability, throwing independent weight behind similar Western suspicions,” Reuters reported.

According to Wikileaks documents, Amano has described himself as being in line with the United States and Israel on key strategic issues. Israel assumes that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon that represents an “existential threat” to the Jewish nation. It has threatened to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities on a number of occasions.

IAEA “inspectors have expressed frustration with Iran’s level of cooperation, but have been unable to find any evidence suggesting that enriched uranium has been diverted to an illicit weapons program,” Seymour Hersh wrote in June.

“There’s a large body of evidence, however, including some of America’s most highly classified intelligence assessments, suggesting that the U.S. could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq eight years ago — allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimates of the state’s military capacities and intentions,” he continues. “The two most recent National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.s) on Iranian nuclear progress have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb since 2003.”

The highly dubious Iran terror plot now gaining momentum, despite a growing number of skeptics, appears to be pushing the United States into backing either an Israeli strike on Iran or providing a pretext for an outright attack by the United States.

The IAEA report either coincides with the move in the direction of war or was designed to appear at precisely the right time as the U.S. repeats the same “mistake” it made when it attacked Iraq in March of 2003 (Press TV, 2011).  

Title: Iran Warns US To Avoid Clash Over Nuclear Programme
Date: November 3, 2011
Source: Guardian 

Abstract: Iran has warned the US not to set the two countries on a collision course over Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, as diplomatic tensions reflected growing concern that the Middle East might be on the verge of new conflict.

The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, spoke amid reports that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has been trying to rally support within his country for an attack.

The Guardian revealed that the UK was advancing contingency plans for joining American forces in a possible air and sea campaign against military bases in Iran.

The revelations led to Nato insisting on Thursday that it would play no part in any military action, and provoked the rebuke from Salehi, who insisted that any attack by either Israel or the US would provoke immediate retaliation. He also accused Washington of recklessness.

"The US has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues," he told reporters during a visit to Libya. "Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran."

In a separate interview with a Turkish newspaper, Salehi claimed Tehran was ready for war with Israel. "We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation … such threats are not new to us," he said. "We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country."

The pressure on Iran has been building since allegations surfaced of a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The White House insists Tehran was behind the plot, but the Iranian regime has denied that.

The episode added to US concerns about Iran's nuclear enrichment programme and the increasing belligerence of its regime. Intelligence suggests that some of the Iranian centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium are being hidden inside a fortified military base in Qom, about 100 miles south-west of Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Authority will next week deliver its latest bulletin on Iran's nuclear programme and is expected to provide fresh evidence of covert plans to engineer warheads.

The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, said to be one of those pushing for an early attack on Iran, was in London on Thursday for talks with David Cameron's national security adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and the new defence secretary, Philip Hammond.

Hague said the meeting had given them a chance to discuss "shared concerns such as … the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme". Downing Street said "all options are on the table" for dealing with Iran unless it truly abandons any plans to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Though Britain says its policy on the issue has not changed, the Guardian disclosed that British military planners were now having to turn contingency plans into practical steps, such as considering when to deploy Royal Navy submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles to the region, in case Barack Obama bows to pressure to launch missile strikes against Iranian bases.

Although Iran has insisted it is only developing nuclear energy, Whitehall officials believe the regime will have hidden all it needs to build weapons inside fortified compounds within 12 months – adding a sense of urgency to diplomatic efforts.

The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, called for political and diplomatic efforts to resolve the growing crisis. He insisted that Nato would not be drawn into any military action.

"Let me stress that Nato has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Iran, and Nato is not engaged as an alliance in the Iran question," he said.

Villy Søvndal, the new Danish foreign minister,said he could not see any circumstances in which his country would join a military effort against Iran, as it had done in Libya and Afghanistan. "The difference between Libya and Iran is that I could never imagine a UN resolution behind a military attack on Iran. There would be no regional backup. That would be one of the most impossible military missions.

"Of course, you can bomb some buildings and equipment and maybe you could delay for a period of one or two years. But I can no see any situation in which Denmark would participate. It would produce so much instability … you could also end in a situation where you strengthen the present Iranian regime."

In Israel, the row over whether to launch strikes against Iran continued, with Netanyahu reportedly ordering an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack nuclear facilities.

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. Netanyahu is said to believe that the two chiefs, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to disrupt plans being drawn up by him and Barak to hit Iranian nuclear sites.

Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options – primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage – have been exhausted.

In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea" he had ever heard. The Kuwaiti newspaper has a track record of running stories based on apparently high-level leaks from Israeli officials.

Even well-informed Israeli observers admit to being confused about what is going on behind the scenes.

"It seems that only Netanyahu and Barak know, and maybe even they haven't decided," said Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, both respected writers for the newspaper Haaretz.

"While many people say Netanyahu and Barak are conducting sophisticated psychological warfare and don't intend to launch a military operation, top officials … are still afraid."

The debate in Israel intensified further on Wednesday when Israel test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran (Guardian, 2011)

Title: Iran Will Be Able To Build Nuclear Bomb Within Months, IAEA Says
Date: November 7, 2011
Source: Haaretz 

Abstract: Iran has already acquired the knowledge, technology, and resources to create a nuclear bomb within months, according to Western experts who were briefed on the intelligence information due to be released in this week's report by the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency.

According to the experts, Iranian scientists acquired the knowledge with the help of weapons scientists from Russia, Pakistan and North Korea.

Haaretz reported last week that other experts also estimated that Iran could assemble a nuclear bomb within months and carry out an underground nuclear experiment if it wishes to do so. The decision to assemble the weapon is effectively in the hands of Iranian leaders, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the helm.

According to a report in the Washington Post, the intelligence also supports concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related nuclear research after 2003, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran halted the research in response to international pressure.

Western powers believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. Tehran denies wanting atom bombs, saying it is enriching uranium only to power reactors for electricity generation.

The United States, the European Union and their allies have imposed economic sanctions on Tehran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program. The United States and Israel have repeatedly hinted at the possible use of force against Iranian nuclear sites, eliciting threats of fierce retaliation from the Islamic Republic.

New disclosures in the IAEA report provide details on an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected, The Washington Post said.

The Post quoted David Albright, a former IAEA official who reviewed the agency's findings, as saying that based on the intelligence the UN agency has concluded that Iran "has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device" using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core.

Albright described some of the highlights at a private conference of intelligence professionals last week, the newspaper said, adding that it had obtained slides from the presentation and a summary of Albright's notes (Haaretz, 2011)

Title: Iran Conducting Experiments 'Specific' To Developing Nuclear Arms, U.N. Says
Date: November 8, 2011
Source: Fox News

Abstract: The U.N. nuclear atomic energy agency says that Iran is suspected of conducting secret experiments whose sole purpose can only be the development of nuclear arms.

The conclusion is contained in a restricted International Atomic Energy Agency report obtained by The Associated Press Tuesday, shortly after it was circulated to the IAEA's 35-nation board and to the U.N. Security Council.

The report says that while some of the suspected secret nuclear work by Iran can have peaceful purposes, "others are specific to nuclear weapons."

In its latest report on Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency outlines the sum of its knowledge on the Islamic Republic's alleged secret nuclear weapons work, including:

1. Clandestine procurement of equipment and design information needed to make such arms;

2. High explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge;

3. Computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead;

4. Preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, and

5. Developing and mounting a nuclear payload onto its Shahab 3 intermediate range missile -- a weapon that can reach Israel, Iran's arch foe.

The report is the strongest sign yet that Iran seeks to build a nuclear arsenal, despite claims to the contrary.

A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate given to then-President George W. Bush indicated that Iran had abandoned its weapons-related research in 2003. However, an ongoing investigation by the Fox News Specials Unit concludes that more that 600 entities were working inside Iran to support its program, and at least 40 sites where the work is taking place are suspected to still exist across the country.

The Qom uranium enrichment construction site, hidden deep in the mountains of Iran, causes concern among many investigators. Intelligence shows that security walls have recently doubled around the site.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, not weapons production.

While some of the suspected secret nuclear work outlined in the annex could also be used for peaceful purposes, "others are specific to nuclear weapons," said the confidential report obtained by The Associated Press.

Some of the information contained in the annex was new -- including evidence of a large metal chamber at a military site for nuclear-related explosives testing. The bulk, however, was a compilation and expansion of alleged work already partially revealed by the agency.

But a senior diplomat familiar with the report said its significance lay in its comprehensiveness, thereby reflecting that Iran apparently had engaged in all aspects of testing that were needed to develop such a weapon. Also significant was the agency's decision to share most of what it knows or suspect about Iran's secret work the 35-nation IAEA board and the U.N. Security Council after being stonewalled by Tehran in its attempts to probe such allegations.

Copies of the report went to board members and the council, which has imposed four sets of U.N. sanction on Tehran for refusing to stop activities that could be used to make a nuclear weapon and refusing to cooperate with IAEA attempts to fully understand its nuclear program.

The agency said the annex was based on more than 1,000 pages of intelligence and other information forwarded by more than 10 nations and material gathered by the IAEA itself.

Ahead of the report's release, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned of a possible Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program.

He told Israel Radio that he did not expect any new U.N. sanctions on Tehran to persuade it to stop its nuclear defiance, adding: We continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table."

The "all options on the table" phrase is often used by Israeli politicians to mean a military assault, and Israeli government members have engaged in increased saber rattling recently suggesting that an attack was likely a more effective way to stop Iran's nuclear program than continued diplomacy.

Russian President Dimitry Medvedev warned against threatening Iran with the use of force. Speaking in Berlin Tuesday, Medvedev said threats could lead to a war, "and for the Middle East this would be a catastrophe."

China's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said Tuesday that while Beijing is firmly opposed to any use of force, "the Iranian side should also show flexibility and sincerity."

China is Iran's biggest trading partner but has supported previous U.N. sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program (Fox News, 2011)


OBAMACSI.COM: Before, during, and after the alleged Iranian assassination plot was propagandized around the world, the Unites States and Israel have been executing war games on a massive level. As evidenced, troops are executing full invasion tactics and Israel is conducting war games with the specific goal of attacking a neighbor’s nuclear program and reactors. 

Title: Headed To The Beach? Heads Up For An Invasion Force
June 19, 2011

It's mid-June, a perfect time to visit the beach to watch porpoises play in the surf or seagulls strut the sand -- or you could watch a formation of Marine Corps warplanes darting over the shore at hundreds of miles per hour.

But don't worry -- the United States hasn't declared war on your family's beach house. It's just part of a major Marine Corps exercise called Exercise Mailed Fist (translation: armored fist).

The exercise is designed to test the capability of every type of Marine Corps aircraft, including MV-22 Ospreys and F/A 18 Hornets, as well as some Navy ships and Air Force planes.

The drill will stretch from Quantico Marine Base in northern Virginia to the Navy's Pinecastle Bombing Range in Florida.

With thousands of Marines and other service members involved, it's the biggest such drill ever on the U.S. East Coast.

"Exercise Mailed Fist is the first exercise of its specific kind and the largest 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing exercise conducted in recent history," said Staff Sgt. Roman J. Yurek, Marine Corps spokesman. "In the past, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing units had to deploy to the West Coast to conduct this type of training."

Mailed Fist was not originally supposed to be one big exercise. But the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's commander, Maj. Gen. Jon Davis, decided to combine several smaller drills into one big exercise. Not only do the Marines train closer to home, the Pentagon saves money.

Most of the exercises will take place in the skies above or near Marine bases along the North and South Carolina coast.

From Monday until Friday, vacationers "who are located near the bases ... will see an increase in air and ground traffic at various times throughout the week, but there should be minimal impact on activity near beaches other than occasional fly-overs at relatively high altitudes," the spokesman said (CNN, 2011)

Title: [Israeli! Defense Establishment To Simulate Strike On [Iranian] Nuclear Facility
Date: September 4, 2011
Source: YNet News 

AbstractSecurity forces to hold 'worse case scenario' drill testing enemy strike on nuclear compound, lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima disaster.

The defense establishment will hold a special emergency drill this week, simulating an enemy strike on Israel's nuclear facility.

"Operation Fernando" will aim to test the defense establishment's readiness for the worst case scenario – a missile strike on the facility itself or its immediate surroundings, Yedioth Ahronoth reported. 

The drill, whose details have been classified as top secret, is scheduled for Tuesday. Given its classification, only a handful of senior defense establishment officials are privy to its outline. 

The Israel Atomic Energy Commission will oversee the drill, along with the Home Front Command and Ministry for Home Front Defense.

Apart from an enemy strike scenario, "Operation Fernando" also aims to test the implementation of various lessons learned from Japan's Fukushima disaster.

"Operation Fernando" is the first of its kind to be held in Israel in the past seven years. 

Meanwhile, the defense establishment has finished its review of the results of "Turning Point 5" – the nationwide Home Front Command emergency drill, which tested war readiness in 85 cities and towns across Israel. 

The report found that while emergency services and municipalities' communication and coordination with the Home Front Command had improved, the coordination between the emergency services themselves was still lacking (YNet News, 2011)

Dozens Of U.S. Paratroopers Injured After Parachute Jump During Mock Battle Goes Horrifically Wrong
October 7, 2011
Daily Mail 

AbstractDozens of U.S. Army paratroopers have been hurt during a massive airborne drop in Germany.

Sixteen of the 47 injured men are still in hospital, two of them in intensive care after the jump involving 1,000 soldiers went terribly wrong. They suffered head, spine and pelvic injuries.

The exercise pitted soldiers from the Vicenza, Italy-based 173rd Airborne Brigade in a mock-battle scenario with Slovakian soldiers and American troops from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team over the Hohenfels training area in Bavaria, southern Germany.

The American army said the drop was part of a scheme to switch the military focus back to fighting conventional forces as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.

It is unclear what precisley happened to cause the numerous injuries.

Officers at the clinic where the soldiers were treated said some of the injuries appeared related to parachutes drifting into nearby trees.

Most of the injuries occurred during the first wave of the morning drop, which involved about 650 soldiers.

Officers at the clinic where the soldiers were treated said some of the injuries appeared related to parachutes drifting into nearby trees.

Polish troops also took part in the exercise but none of them were hurt.

The victims suffered a variety of broken bones and spinal injuries and every one of them required hospital treatment.

They were ferried to a local hospital in a fleet of ambulances. 

A German civilian who witnessed the drop told Radio Bavaria: 'I’ve never seen so many parachutes in the sky. It was incredible sight, but I had no inkling that anything was wrong. I didn’t see any chutes tangled or men appearing to drop too fast.'

But the military said that they would not be staging an inquiry into what happened because the injury rate was “acceptable”.

Civilian spokeswoman for the Joint multinational Training Command, which is under U.S. Army command, Denver Makle, said as the numbers injured 'was within expected margins' an investigation was not necessary.

Speaking to The Local, a German website, she added: 'Airborne operations are always dangerous. There is very little margin for error.'

She explained an injury rate of up to 3 per cent is normal in this type of exercise.

The units involved will continue their training, which is one part of an exercise involving thousands of soldiers from 10 countries (Daily Mail, 2011)

Title: US Begins Huge Military Maneuvers Aimed At Iran
Date: October 17, 2011
Prison Planet 

Abstract: The United States will this week commence huge military maneuvers aimed at Iran, with a massive air fleet patrolling middle eastern skies ready to land at any time, in response to Iran’s involvement in an alleged assassination plot that experts have labeled dubious, amidst fears that US and Israeli targets could be hit by attacks.

As we reported last week
, during US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit, Israeli hawks attempted to persuade Panetta to give the green light for a military strike on Iran. Within ten days, details of an alleged assassination plot against a Saudi ambassador emerged and the foiled attack was blamed on Iran. Innumerable experts immediately voiced their doubts about the authenticity of the plot, with 21-year CIA veteran Robert Baer labeling the story “a truly awful Hollywood script”.

The US military will respond this week with a series of significant military maneuvers designed to threaten Iran, including, “an American air fleet in Middle East skies ready to land at any moment for any contingency,” reports DebkaFile.

“The United States launches a large-scale exercise over the Middle East deploying 41 giant transports of the 22nds Airlift Squadron Monday Oct. 17,” states the report, adding that the aircraft will be packed with fully equipped, battle ready troops.

A further seven warships from the Stennis Battle Group will also “provide ground troops with combat support and strike land and sea targets.”

The Israeli, Egyptian and Saudi armies have also been placed on maximum preparedness, echoing reports that U.S. troops being sent to the region have also been put on full alert.

The maneuvers are also linked to the scheduled release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas on Tuesday, an event that US intelligence officials fear could set off a chain of attacks in the region against US and Israeli targets. Should embassies be targeted, US troops will be in place to react swiftly.

Geopolitical experts have been consistent in their warnings that Israel was preparing to strike Iran this fall.

Back in July, CIA veteran Baer told KPFK Los Angeles that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning an attack on Iran in September to coincide with the Palestine bid for UN membership.

Whether the maneuvers are merely designed to be an act of belligerence against Iran or represent preparations for an actual military strike in support of Israel remains to be seen, but as Gulf News reporter Patrick Seale pointed out Friday, the window of opportunity for an attack on Iran is closing.

“Some western military experts have been quoted as saying that the window of opportunity for an Israeli air attack on Iran will close within two months, since the onset of winter would make such an assault more difficult,” writes Seale, adding that the Israelis’ eagerness to launch the attack has “caused considerable alarm in Washington and in a number of European capitals.”

Both Republican and Democratic US lawmakers have issued strong statements against Iran in recent days, with several all but calling for war. Last week, New York Republican Peter King called on the Obama administration to put troops on standby, labeling the alleged Iranian assassination plot “an act of war”. On Sunday, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that the US and Iran were on a “collision course” (Prison Planet, 2011). 

Title: US Forces 'Massing On Afghanistan-Pakistan Border'
Date: October 18, 2011
Source: Telegraph 

AbstractUS forces are massing on the Pakistan border in eastern Afghanistan amid reports of an imminent drone missile offensive against fighters from the feared Haqqani Network, a Taliban faction which operates from safe havens in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, Pakistan Army sources have confirmed. 

The scale of the American build-up, including helicopter gunships, heavy artillery and hundreds of American and Afghan troops, caused panic in north Waziristan where tribal militias who feared they could be targeted gathered in the capital Miranshah to coordinate their response.

Local officials in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) warned that Pakistan's armed forces would repel any incursion across the border by American forces, but military sources in Islamabad and Afghan officials suggested the build-up was part of a coordinated operation.

Relations between Washington and Islamabad have deteriorated dramatically in recent months as American officials increased pressure on Pakistan to launch an offensive against the Haqqani Network, which mounts attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan from bases in North Waziristan.

Islamabad has fiercely resisted American pressure, claiming its forces are overstretched and stating its priority is to fight Taliban factions which have declared war on Pakistan, rather than those, like the Haqqanis, who focus on cross-border attacks on Nato forces.

Last month Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently accused Pakistan's ISI intelligence service of plotting the attack on the US embassy in Kabul with Haqqani network fighters and claimed the militant group was a "veritable arm" of the ISI.

Islamabad and Washington have traded accusations since then, but the massing of American troops on the Afghan border appears to suggest some understanding may have been reached.

According to Pakistan Army sources, the U.S had informed Islamabad about the planned build-up and described it as part of a "cordon and search operation" in which Haqqani Network fighters will be pushed over the Afghan border from North Waziristan and then "encircled, arrested or killed" by American forces lying in wait.

A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul declined to comment on the build-up. A spokesman for the Pakistan Army said it had not been informed about the number of American troops on the border but it was reported that American and Afghan troops had established curfews in eastern Khost province, conducted house to house searches, established checkpoints and occupied hilltops close to Ghulam Khan on the Pakistan side of the border.

The Haqqani Network and militant allies have increased in strength on both sides of the border over the last two years and have been blamed for a summer increase in cross-border raids on Nato positions in eastern Afghanistan (Telegraph, 2011).  

Title: Russia Delivers Radar Jammers To Iran
Date: October 25, 2011
Source: Emirates 24/7

Abstract: Russia has sent a set of mobile radar jammers to Iran and is negotiating future deliveries that Moscow believes do not contravene the current UN sanction regime on the Islamic state, an official said Tuesday.

The Avtobaza truck-mounted jammers are a part of a broader line of arms that Russia hopes to sell Iran despite concerns over Tehran's nuclear programme, the deputy head of the military and technical cooperation agency said.

"This is a defensive system," the agency's deputy director Konstantin Biryulin was quoted as saying by the state RIA Novosti news agency.

"We are not talking about jets, submarines or even S-300 (missile) systems. We are talking about providing security for the Iranian state."

"We are in constant talks with Iran over that country's purchases of military technology that does not fall under UN sanctions," he was quoted as saying.

The arms delivery was disclosed the same day as one Western diplomat said that Russia and China were both urging the UN atomic agency to soften or even hold back a report detailing Iran's suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Russia had strongly defended its close trading partner until agreeing in September 2010 to cancel a planned sale of S-300 missile systems and supporting stronger sanctions against Tehran.

But limited arms shipments have continued and Iran last month finally put a Russian-made nuclear power plant on stream after several years of delays in Bushehr.

Biryulin did not disclose when the radar systems were delivered or how many units were sold (Emirates 24/7, 2011)

Title: UK Military Steps Up Plans For Iran Attack Amid Fresh Nuclear Fears
 November 2, 2011

Abstract: Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.

In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.

Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.

The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base.

Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level.

"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't.

"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.

The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too.

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table."

The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.

One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning."

Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.

It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.

Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.

British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.

"There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.

It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.

At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.

According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman (Guardian, 2011)

Title: Israel Simulates Mass-Casualty Missile Attack
Date: November 3, 2011
Source: Telegraph

Abstract: Sirens wailed across the city and its suburbs during an exercise to test the response of the emergency services in the event of both conventional and non-conventional strikes against the city and its suburbs.

Hundreds of civilian volunteers were evacuated to hospitals by rescue teams dressed in chemical warfare suits. Military personnel were also involved in the drill.

The exercise came a day after Israel test-fired a long-range ballistic missile, capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead, which could be used in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Last week, the Israel Air Force staged an exercise at a Nato airbase in Sardinia that gave the appearance of simulating an attack on Iran.

Yesterday's drill came as Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, reportedly ordered his domestic intelligence service, Shin Bet, to investigate suspected leaks about ministerial discussions connected to Iran.

In recent days Israeli newspapers have claimed that Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his defence minister, have lobbied cabinet colleagues to back Israeli military action against nuclear installations in Iran.

Some ministers have suggested that the Yuval Diskin, the former Shin Bet chief, and Meir Dagan, the ex-head of Mossad, were behind the leaks. Both men, who retired earlier this year, are vigorously opposed to unilateral Israeli strikes against Iran, with Mr Dagan describing such a course as "the stupidest idea I have ever heard".

Israeli officials insisted that the drill was planned before speculation of a possible attack on Iran emerged at the end of last week (Telegraph, 2011).


OBAMACSI.COM: While the news about the Iranian assassination plot and nuclear program makes the rounds on television, blatant war propaganda is being circulated in an attempt to delegitimize and disparage the Iranian government prior to a new war. Accusations about Iranian woman getting lashed, U.S. troops getting murdered, and inequality in education are suddenly everywhere. This propaganda is a sign that an attack on Iran is imminent. 

Title: Iran Commander Behind Killing of U.S. Troops Reportedly Linked to Washington Bomb Plot
: October 15, 2011
 Fox News

Abstract: A key player in the Iran-backed plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. was a senior military commander linked to the slaughter of U.S. troops in Iraq, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

Abdul Reza Shahlai is the cousin of accused plotter Mansour Arbabsiar, 56, an Iranian-American currently in custody and charged with a string of offenses including conspiracy to commit murder and an act of international terrorism.

Along with a co-conspirator who remains at large in Iran, Arbabsiar -- a used car salesman based in Corpus Christi, Texas -- allegedly planned to bomb a Washington, D.C. restaurant where he believed Saudi Ambassador Adel al Jubeir was a regular customer.

The plotters also allegedly discussed bombing the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington and the Israeli embassy in Argentina.

After the details of the foiled plan were announced Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury Department moved to block the assets of five individuals believed to be directly linked to the conspiracy.

One of them was Shahlai.

The 54-year-old is a commander in Iran's Quds Force, the body believed to have been behind the Saudi ambassador plot and described to the Post by a US official as "Iran's arm for supporting terrorists and planning attacks."

In 2007 Shahlai ran a group of elite killers within the Iraqi militia of the cleric Moqtada al Sadr, who dressed as US and Iraqi soldiers and launched an attack on official buildings in Karbala -- a raid which left five Americans dead.

He also supplied al Sadr's group with weaponry, according to a Treasury report cited by the Post.

He was allegedly dealing with Arbabsiar when the Texas-based salesman returned to Iran earlier this year, hoping to use him as a link to Mexican drug traffickers who would be involved in the assassination plot.

"The Quds Force ... has, in the past, reached out to groups that might seem unlikely partners," a U.S. official told the newspaper. "The U.S. government has known for quite some time that the Quds Force was involved in this type of external plotting and has known that Shahlai has been behind much of it. That he is still at it is no surprise" (Fox News, 2011)

Title: Iranian Students Barred For Beliefs, Say Campaigners
Date: October 14, 2011
Souce: CNN

Abstract: Iranian student Puyan Mahmudian scored the sixth highest marks in his year group in his entrance exam, but was rejected for a Masters degree in chemical engineering at Amirkabir University in Tehran.

The problem was not his academic record, but his political background, according to human rights groups, which note that Mahmudian had previously been jailed for being editor of a student magazine that was critical of the government.

Mahmudian, now 25, believes he is one of hundreds of so-called "starred students," whom campaigners claim are denied access to university or expelled because of their religious or political beliefs.

A report called "Punishing Stars" by the non-governmental organization International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran names 217 students who it says have been deprived of education because of their religion or political activism in the last five years. It says the real number is much higher as many did not want to be named.

Many of those listed are members of the Baha'i Faith, the largest religious minority in Iran, with around 300,000 members, according to the official website of the faith in the United States. It says Baha'is have been persecuted in Iran since the faith started there in the mid-19th century. The conservative clergy considers followers of the Baha'i faith to be part of a wayward sect and apostates.

Other "starred students" are human rights activists, supporters of women's rights, members of the political opposition and student journalists, campaigners claim.

Now, a grassroots campaign, which began in Germany and has spread to other countries around the world, is drawing attention to alleged denial of education in Iran.

The campaign, called "Can You Solve This?" publicizes a QR code which, when scanned by smart phones, directs people to a website with an animated video.

The QR code has been printed on flyers, banners, pavements and t-shirts in coffee shops, streets and university campuses. In Germany, the QR code was used without any other information to build up mystery around the campaign.

Ruha Reyani, a second generation Iranian living in Germany and one of the architects of the campaign, said: "We are at the start of the university year and there's a big push from the Iranian government to use denial of education as a tool of persecution.

"We want people to come to take action by sending letters to their political leaders." Events to support the campaign have already been held in Germany, the United Kingdom, Brazil, India and the Netherlands, and are planned for Canada, the United States, France, Italy and other countries.

Esra'a Al Shafei, founder of Mideast Youth, one of the organizations supporting the campaign, said: "It's a creative and dynamic campaign that appeals to young people everywhere. The video has had more than 70,000 views and more than 5,000 letters have been sent through the website."

Mahmudian, now living in Germany, was arrested and jailed in 2007 while editor of a student magazine at Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran.

In a case highlighted at the time by Human Rights WatchAmnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists, Mahmudian and seven other students were arrested, accused of defaming Islam in their publications.

Mahmudian said the members of the information ministry had circulated forged editions of their publications containing offensive articles.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said in a press release at the time: "The Iranian authorities are using the flimsiest of pretexts to arrests student journalists and activists.

"Even the Judiciary has admitted that these students had nothing to do with the forged publications."

Mahmudian said: "I spent more than 50 days in solitary confinement. They used physical and mental torture. I went on hunger strike for 11 days to be allowed to make one phone call to my mother to tell her I was okay.

"After 80 days of extreme pressure they got a videotaped confession from us inside prison. We apologized to the president and were released and allowed to go back to university."

It was after his undergraduate studies finished and he applied to do his Masters that the incident caused him more trouble.

He said he was called in to the information ministry for three interrogation sessions.

"They asked me to sign a guarantee that I wouldn't continue any political, social and cultural activities and that I would cooperate with the information ministry," he said. "I accepted to end my political activities but refused to collaborate with them," he said.

Mahmudian was told he had not passed the "general" qualification for the Masters course. He tried to make a legal appeal against the decision but was told there were no avenues.

He later moved to Berlin, Germany, to do his masters degree and has no immediate plans to return to Iran.

Repeated efforts to reach Iranian officials for comment were unsuccessful. Messages left with the Iranian consulate in London were not returned.

The report "Punishing Stars" released in December last year claims that the Ministry of Intelligence has used a system of three stars as a method of discrimination against students since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president in 2005.

It said that in 2007, in response to pressure from starred students and the media, the government announced that it would no longer use the star system. However, the report claims, the discrimination has continued as a de facto policy (CNN, 2011)

Title: After Foiled Terror Plot, U.S. Looks For Stronger Means To Penalize Iranian Regime
 October 16, 2011
Source: Fox News 

AbstractAfter foiling Iran's potentially murderous acts against Saudi and Israeli interests in the United States, the Obama administration is looking for ways to further penalize the regime, especially before it gets hold of possible weapons of mass destruction.

According to The New York Times, President Obama wants the United Nations to release classified intelligence that proves once and for all that they are experimenting with nukes. The administration is also looking at banning Iran's central bank, basically crippling its financial system.

With international sanctions barely pinching Iran's financial surface, a top Democratic lawmaker says the world community has to get more aggressive in stopping the regime's current trajectory.

"Iran is escalating, I believe, its nuclear development. Iran is increasingly hostile. They have not ceased supporting Hezbollah or Hamas or participating in the -- well, bringing of missiles and rockets into Lebanon through Damascus (Syria). It's a very dangerous situation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee. 

"If you project out a number of years, we are on a collision course. If we want to avoid it, we have to take action to avoid it," she said.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Fox News that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would make the ability to end that regime's terror efforts that much more difficult. 

"Everything that's wrong with Iran today, the world's largest financier of international terrorism, for example, gets infinitely worse once they get nuclear weapons and they are very close to that point," Bolton said. 

But Feinstein said going to war with Iran is not an option the United States should consider. Instead, "looking to stop bad behavior short of war" can be undertaken by several untapped methods, especially since sanctions are not having the intended effect.

"I don't think the sanctions have been as complete as they must -- as they should be. I wished they had sanctioned the central bank of Iran and that would affect oil and maybe that's why they didn't do it. But that makes a big difference," she told "Fox News Sunday."

Expecting some retribution for the alleged plot, which resulted in charges against two men, including an American and a member of the elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Iran's supreme leader said Sunday that Iran is prepared to react.

"If U.S. officials have some delusions, (they must) know that any unsuitable act, whether political or security, will meet a resolute response from the Iranian nation," state TV quoted Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei saying.

Sanctioning the central bank would mean the U.S. black listing any foreign country or company that does business with the central bank. The effort is opposed by some foreign nations, including U.S. allies who pay the bank for Iran's oil. 

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the architects of our counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the U.S. should go further and take military action. 

"I would start retiring the Quds force who has been using these proxies to conduct actions against us. I would conduct covert actions against them and espionage. That means kill them and take their bases away from them," Keane said.

Feinstein said success in targeting the Quds force would be difficult because it's unlikely such an operation could be contained. 

"It probably would escalate into a war, and the question is: Do we want to go to war with Iran at this time? My judgment is no. We have our hands full with Iraq, with Afghanistan, with the deteriorating relationship with Pakistan," she said.

According to the Times report, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has been shy about going public with Iran's nuclear pursuits because he doesn't want his inspectors banned from that country.

The Obama administration also is reportedly hesitant to go the U.N. route because of concerns that the U.S. has lost its credibility after the 2002 claim in the United States that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No weapons were found in Iraq after the war began. 

Nonetheless, the White House is talking isolationism.

"This president has been very focused on holding up Iranian behavior so that it is clearly seen by other nations around the world. And that enables us to work cooperatively with our international partners to isolate and put pressure on Iran in a way that has never really been achieved before," White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week. 

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich told CNN on Sunday that if he were in the Oval Office, he would pursue "replacement of the Iranian dictatorship with a maximum amount of effort to rouse" students, young people, ethnic minorities and other opposition groups. He said he would also "apply every possible economic sanction, including ultimately if necessary cutting off gasoline so that the regime collapses."

"They've been waging war against us since 1979. They think so. They plan for it. They kill us. They have plots around the world. They support terrorist organizations. And we -- at a strategic level the United States is absolutely clueless about what we should be doing," Gingrich said, faulting the current administration with disseminating "confused statements" about outreach to the Iranian regime while at the same time supporting regime change in Egypt and Libya. 

"We have done nothing of consequence to systematically undermine this regime," he said. "This is one more in a 32-year process of waging war against us and is further proof of why we need to replace the dictatorship" (Fox News, 2011)

Title: Israeli PM Orders Investigation Into Iran Leak
Date: November 3, 2011
Source: Guardian

Abstract: Israel's prime minister has ordered an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it has been reported.

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies.

Netanyahu is said to believe that the two, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to torpedo plans being drawn up by him and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to hit Iranian nuclear sites. Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, is also said to have been persuaded to attack Netanyahu for "adventurism" and "gambling with Israel's national interest".

The paper suggested that the purpose of the leaks was to prevent an attack, which had moved from the stage of discussion to implementation. "Those who oppose the plan within the security establishment decided to leak it to the media and thwart the plan," it said.

Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options – primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage — have been exhausted. In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".

The Kuwait paper has a track record of running stories based on apparently high-level leaks from Israeli officials.

Even well-informed Israeli observers admit to being confused about what is going on behind the scenes.

"It seems that only Netanyahu and Barak know, and maybe even they haven't decided," commented Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, both respected Haaretz writers. "While many people say Netanyahu and Barak are conducting sophisticated psychological warfare and don't intend to launch a military operation, top officials … are still afraid."

The idea that something significant is going on in this highly sensitive area was rekindled last week in comments by columnist Nahum Barnea, who wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth that the officials running Israel's military and intelligence services were opposed to a war with Iran.

"Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are the Siamese twins of the Iranian issue," he wrote. "A rare phenomenon is taking place here in terms of Israeli politics: a prime minister and defence minister who act as one body, with one goal, with mutual backing and repeated heaping of praise on each other… They're characterised as urging action.

"Netanyahu portrayed the equation at the beginning of his term as: [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler; if he is not stopped in time, there will be a Holocaust. There are some who describe Netanyahu's fervour on this subject as an obsession: all his life he's dreamed of being Churchill. Iran gives him the chance."

The debate in Israel was further fanned on Wednesday when Israel successfully test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran (Guardian, 2011)

Title: Obama Tells Allies U.S. Will Attack Iran By Fall 2012
Date: November 4, 2011
Source: Infowars 

Abstract: Barack Obama has told America’s allies that the United States will attack Iran before fall 2012 unless Tehran halts its nuclear program, a time frame that suggests Obama is willing to use war as a re-election campaign tool to rally the population around his leadership.

A subscriber-only report by DebkaFile, the Israeli intelligence outfit which has been proven accurate in the past, reveals that shortly after the end of NATO operations in Libya at the start of this week, “President Barack Obama went on line to America’s senior allies, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Israel and Saudi Arabia, with notice of his plan to attack Iran no later than September-October 2012 – unless Tehran halted its nuclear weaponization programs.”

According to the report, the window of opportunity for an attack before Iran moves the bulk of its nuclear processing underground is quickly evaporating.

Obama’s directive contributed to the flurry of reports this week about NATO powers putting their Iran war contingency plans on standby.

“Obama’s announcement was not perceived as a general directive to US allies, but a guideline to blow the dust off the contingency plans for a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities which stayed locked in bottom drawers for three years,” states the report, adding that “Obama’s announcement spurred Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Israel into girding their navies, air forces, ballistic units and anti-missile defense systems for the challenges ahead.”

The imminent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is part of a program to re-arrange the United States’ presence in the Gulf. This dovetails with numerous reports over the past few weeks that large numbers of U.S. troops are being stationed in Kuwait.

“Military sources in the Gulf report that NATO and Persian Gulf leaders are treating the prospect of a US strike against Iran with the utmost seriousness,” states the article, adding that America plans to rebuild its Gulf presence as part “of a new US focus on cutting Iran down to size.”

The timing of a potential fall 2012 attack would of course coincide with Obama’s attempt to secure a second term in the White House. If by that time the United States has embarked on yet another military assault in the Middle East, it would undoubtedly play to Obama’s advantage, just as George W. Bush cited U.S. involvement in Iraq as a reason for voters not to “change horse” in the middle of a race back in 2004.

As we have previously reported, influential neo-cons within the U.S. have made it clear to Obama that they will give him political cover and an opportunity to resurrect his flagging political career if he launched an attack on Iran.

In February last year, vehement Israeli-firster and signatory to the infamous PNAC document Daniel Pipes wrote a piece for the National Review Online entitled, How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran, encouraging Obama to “salvage his tottering administration” by giving orders “for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.”

Rumors that Israel was preparing for an attack on Iran have been rumbling all summer, but they really came to the fore in early October when US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit was used as an opportunity by Israeli hawks to convince Panetta to green light the attack. Just ten days later, details emerged of a highly dubious assassination plot in the United States that was blamed on Iran.

This week has seen a barrage of news and leaked information which confirms that Israel, the U.S. and the United Kingdom are all on a war footing in preparation for targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Much of that information came as a result of deliberate leaks by former Israeli intelligence chiefs Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, who are attempting to derail the attack on Iran and remove Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office.

DebkaFile has proven itself to be accurate in predicting the precise time frame of conflicts in the past, correctly reporting back in July that the war in Libya would come to a head in early September, which is when rebels seized Tripoli and Gaddafi went on the run.

Should Obama and the United States’ NATO allies lead the attack on Iran, Israel itself is likely to take a back seat, according to reports which suggest the Zionist state will concentrate on defending the home front against likely reprisal attacks carried out by Hizballah (Infowars, 2011)

Title: Israel's Peres Warns Attack On Iran Getting 'Closer'
Date: November 6, 2011
Source: AFP

Abstract: Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Sunday that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely, days before a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear programme is due.

"The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.

"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.

"I don't think that any decision has already been made, but there is an impression that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons."

His comments came after he warned in an interview aired by Israel's privately-owned Channel Two television on Saturday that an attack on Iran was becoming "more and more likely."

"The intelligence services of the different countries that are keeping an eye on (Iran) are worried and putting pressure on their leaders to warn that Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon," he said.

In France meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe warned that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.

"We have imposed sanctions that continue to expand, we can toughen them to put pressure on Iran," Juppe told Europe 1 radio.

"We will continue on this path because a military intervention could create a situation that completely destabilises the region," he said.

"Everything must be done to avoid the irreversible."

In recent days, speculation in Israel has grown about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, with Haaretz newspaper reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak were seeking cabinet support for an attack.

And the military last week carried out what Israeli media called a "ballistic missile" test, as well as a large-scale civil defence drill simulating the response to conventional and non-conventional missile attacks.

Officials said both events were long-planned, but they drove talk here about whether Israel is ramping up plans for an attack.

On Sunday, Haaretz reported that US officials had failed to secure a commitment from Israel that it would coordinate any attack plans with Washington.

Still, media reports suggested no final decision has been taken and that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog on November 8 or 9 would have a "decisive effect" on decision-making.

Previous IAEA assessments have centred on Iran's efforts to produce fissile material -- uranium and plutonium -- that can be used for power generation and other peaceful uses, but also for the core of a nuclear warhead.

However the new update, which diplomats say will be circulated among envoys on Tuesday or Wednesday, will focus on Iran's alleged efforts to put the fissile material in a warhead and develop missiles to carry them to a target.

On Monday, Barak denied reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to attack Iran over the opposition of military and intelligence chiefs.

But he said "situations could arise in the Middle East under which Israel must defend its vital interests independently, without having to rely on regional or other forces."

Haaretz said a majority of the 15 members of Israel's security cabinet were still against an attack on Iran, and a poll published by the newspaper found Israeli public opinion divided, with 41 percent in favour, 39 percent opposed and 20 percent undecided.

Israel has consistently warned all options remain on the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, which the Jewish state and Western governments fear masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

Iran denies any such ambition and insists its nuclear programme is for power generation and medical purposes only.

In comments published on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi accused the IAEA of "political" behaviour and said its report would be "baseless."

"I believe that these documents lack authenticity. But if they insist, they should go ahead and publish. Better to face danger once than be always in danger," several Iranian dailies quoted Salehi as saying.

"We have said repeatedly that their documents are baseless. For example one can counterfeit money, but it remains counterfeit. These documents are like that," Salehi said (AFP, 2011)

 Rice: U.S. Should Do Everything Possible To Bring Down Iran's Government
Date: November 6, 2011
Source: Fox News

Abstract: The U.S. should consider tougher penalties against Iran's government and "be doing everything we can to bring it down," Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

As Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday" that sanctions should be removed altogether to get Iran to act differently, the former secretary of state under George W. Bush told ABC's "This Week" that the U.S. should never take the option of military force off the table when it comes to dealing with Iran.

Calling the Iranian regime "the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism," Rice said one way to confront Iran would be to remain in Iraq. U.S. forces are scheduled to vacate by year's end after the Obama administration could not negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government..

"This is one of the downsides of having our forces out of Iraq, because we can confront the Iranians in Iraq," Rice said. "Frankly, I think it would help the regional balance to have a residual American presence there. We need to find a way to help the Iraqis sustain themselves through this period and to -- to deal with their somewhat meddlesome neighbor in Iran."

But Paul said using violence against the Iranians would "undermine our security" and do nothing to add to Israel's security, but rather increase threats from other places. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled this week to release a report on Iran's nuclear efforts. Reportedly, the U.N. watchdog will show that Iran is getting closer to a "nuclear break out," where it has all the elements and skills to assemble a nuclear weapon.

Diplomats have also told The Associated Press that the IAEA will disclose intelligence suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful aims such as energy production.

Rice said the Iranian government is trying to get a nuclear weapon and represses its people.

"The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left," she said.

But Paul said the U.S. response to Iran's nuclear pursuits is an "overreaction," especially considering that Iran has been saying for 10 years that it is seeking nuclear power for peaceful purposes and neither the U.S. nor the international community has never proven otherwise.  

Paul added that a House bill that passed out of the international relations committee last week increasing sanctions on Iran is an aggressive weapon.

The bill says "if any other country, even if an ally, does any trading with Iran, we're going to punish them. So, that is -- when you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war because we did that in Iraq for 10 years, and little kids died, could [not] get medicines and food. It led to war," Paul said.

Paul said a better art of persuasion would be to offer friendship, the way the U.S. approached the Soviets and Chinese.

"I was in the military during the '60s and it was dangerous. But we didn't think we have to attack the Soviets. They had capabilities. The Iranians can't make enough gasoline for themselves.

For them to be a threat to us or to anybody in the region I think is just blown out of proportion," he said.

Paul, who won Illinois' straw poll of Republican presidential candidates over the weekend and ranks third in many polls of the field, said he is not an isolationist as some charge, but instead wants a very open relationship around the world that does not involve having U.S. troops deployed in foreign places.

"By having too many troops, it helps to bankrupt our country, the wars that we have been fighting, that were undeclared -- and from my viewpoint is unconstitutional and illegal," he said, arguing that the last 10 years of war has cost $4 trillion in fighting as well as debt accrued to be paid to other nations.

Paul added he also opposes drone strikes because of the collateral damage it causes and enmity it builds (Fox News, 2011)

Title: President Obama Doesn’t Rule Out Military Option In Iran
Date: November 14, 2011
Source: Fox News

Abstract: President Obama didn't rule out a military option with Iran to deal with its nuclear program at a press conference Sunday. He said that sanctions have had "enormous bite and scope" so far and vowed to pursue diplomatic avenues but re-emphasized that all options are available.

"We are not taking any options off the table. Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a threat not only to the region but also to the United States," Obama said.

The comments came after wrapping up a weekend at the Asia-Pacific economic summit where he met with world leaders to address economic and security issues.

Russia and China doubted a recent IAEA report and said they weren't on board for more sanctions. Obama met with Russian President Dimtri Medvedev and Chinese President Hu on Saturday. In the meetings Obama said the countries don't disagree on the outcome, even if the IAEA report doesn't hold credence for them. He noted they'd be looking at other options on how to move forward with them.

In response to a GOP debate Saturday night where candidate Mitt Romney said that if Obama was re-elected, Iran would obtain a nuclear weapon, the president said he was not going to get in the practice of responding to individual comments in the Republican debates until there is a nominee. He said that despite responding to one about waterboarding, which he said "is torture - period," adding that it's not something the U.S. engages in. However, he did not talk about a specific GOP candidate in his response.

For the first time, Obama responded to a question about reports of a hot microphone moment with French President Nicolas Sarkozy where they reportedly talked about difficulties of dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama said that he would not speak about private conversations, but noted that he was "frank" about the fact that he didn't like France's recent vote for the Palestinian delegation to become a part of UNESCO. The U.S. president added that he thinks the only way to move forward is to have Israelis and Palestinians sit down and negotiate.During the summit, Obama has emphasized the importance of the region, saying they have enormous potential for growth and can help lead to boosting the U.S. economy. Over the weekend, the leaders reached a broad outline for a trans-pacific trade.

Obama noted there are concerns about dealing with China, including the fact that they repeatedly violate intellectual property rights, as reported by several companies who have tried to do business with them. The president said he's been open with them, and that it is a valid concern. He also expressed that China should move faster to allow its currency to appreciate. "It's time for them to go ahead and move toward a market-based system for their currency," he said.

He said he got how China benefits from the current situation because they can produce goods cheaper and benefit from the currency the way it is. "I understand it, but the United States and other countries feel that enough is enough," he said.

On the domestic front, Obama slammed Republicans in Congress for not considering a balanced approach that includes revenues or tax increases for the wealthiest. He said they need to stop sticking to "rigid" ideas and "bite the bullet" to get something done. Obama introduced his jobs bill in September, and has given more than two dozen speeches, but Congress has yet to pass it, only approving one measure to help Veterans. Faced with that scenario going into an election and the economy at the forefront for voters, Obama said lawmakers are the ones who have to face the fact that they haven't passed the bill. He also mentioned that maybe there needs to be a new Congress then and if they don't pass the bill.

He wouldn't say if he'd veto an effort to go around the triggers, or steep cuts in defense and other areas if a deal is not reached (Fox News, 2011)

Title: Report: Bahraini Authorities Detail Terror Suspects' Ties To Iran
 November 14, 2011

Abstract: Bahraini authorities on Sunday explicitly tied the recent arrests of alleged "terrorist cell" members with Iran, claiming the suspects got funding from that Middle Eastern nation and had ties to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Basij, according to a state media report.

A day earlier, a Bahrain Ministry of Interior spokesman said authorities had arrested five people for allegedly planning attacks against -- among other targets -- the interior ministry building, the King Fahad Causeway and Saudi Arabia's embassy in Manama.

On Sunday, a spokesman for the public prosecution office -- which has taken over the investigation from the interior ministry -- offered new details about the alleged plotters. Much of the new information was derived from what the official Bahrain News Agency describes as "confessions made by some of the accused gangsters."

The BNA report stated the alleged terrorists had connected with "militant elements in (Iran's) Revolutionary Guard" and Basij, the volunteer paramilitary group allied with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The Bahrain prosecutor's spokesman claimed the suspected terrorists planning, and operations, were dependent on "foreign financing." The BNA report specifically referenced money that one suspect supposedly got during a visit to Iran.

Another report, released early Monday by Iran's state-run Press TV, described the arrests and Bahraini claims as "anti-Iran political theater."

"Manama has made similar allegations on a number of occasions, and every time Iran has denied all the charges," the Press TV report said.

A Bahrain interior ministry spokesman had earlier said, in a statement, that Qatari security authorities initially arrested four Bahrainis who had entered Qatar from neighboring Saudi Arabia.

The suspects were carrying documents and a laptop "containing sensitive security information and details about some places and vital establishments in Bahrain, as well as airline bookings to Syria," the spokesman's statement said. The suspects were also carrying a "significant" amount of U.S. and Iranian currency, the spokesman said.

The Qatari Security Authority learned that the four suspects left Bahrain "after being incited by others to head to Iran," and then they passed through Qatar and Syria "to establish a group that carries out armed terrorist operations in Bahrain," the spokesman's statement said.

The four defendants provided information about a fifth suspect in Bahrain, who was also arrested, Bahraini authorities said (CNN, 2011).


OBAMACSI.COM: Before any evidence or legitimate public debate can be had regarding the alleged Iranian assassination plot, calls for war are being repeatedly rehashed in the U.S. and world media, not to mention the terror attacks currently being executed in Iran by both the U.S. and Israel. As if singing in concert, these blatant warmongers are desperate to attack Iran for Israel while using American blood and treasure in the process. 

Title: Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?":The War Has Already Begun, Total War Is A Possibility 
Date: February 13, 2011
Source: Brookings Institute 

While the corporate owned media has the plebeians arguing over whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons or if it intends to commit genocide against the Jews (the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel actually resides in Iran), the debate is already over, and the war has already quietly begun. Before it began, however, someone meticulously meted out the details of how it would unfold. That "someone" is the mega-corporate backed Brookings Institute.

"Which Path to Persia?" was written in 2009 by the Brookings Institute as a blueprint for confronting Iran. Within the opening pages of the report, acknowledgments are given to the Smith Richardson Foundation, upon which Zbigniew Brzezinski sits as an acting governor.

The Smith Richardson Foundation funds a bizarre myriad of globalist pet projects including studies on geoengineering, nation building, meddling in the Caucasus region, and even studies, as of 2009, to develop methods to support "indigenous democratic political movements and transitions" in Poland, Egypt, Cuba, Nepal, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Burma. Also acknowledged by the report is the Crown Family Foundation out of Chicago.

The Brookings Institute itself is a creation of the notorious globalist funding arms including the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, all who recently had been involved in the fake "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. Today, Brookings boasts a full complement of support and funding from America's biggest corporations. Upon the Brookings Institute's board of trustees one will find a collection of corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, the insurance industry, Pepsi (CFR), Alcoa (CFR), and various CFR affiliated consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.

Full details can be found within the pages of their 2010 annual report here.

To say Brookings is of big-business, by big-business and for big-business is a serious understatement. This is crucial to keep in mind as we examine their designs toward Iran and consider the terrible cost every single option they are considering has towards everyone but, unsurprisingly, their own bottom-lines.

Motivations Should be Obvious
We must look into the minds of those that shape US foreign policy and sweep aside the distracting rhetoric they feed us. US foreign policy is shaped by organizations like the Brookings Institute which consist of members of the largest corporations and banks on earth. These corporations are not only disinterested in security, but thrive on the war and conflict insecurity breeds. (See "War is a Racket" and Eisenhower's Warning.)

Iran not only possesses massive oil reserves and an economic, political, and militarily strategic location in relation to Russia and China, it also boasts a population of 76 million. This is a large population that if left sovereign and independent can viably compete against the West's degenerate casino economy, or if invaded and corrupted, can become 76 million more consumerist human cattle.

The sheer scale of the military options considered by Brookings' strategy would be a boom alone for the defense contractors that sponsor it, whether the operation was a success or not. The incentive to domineer over Iran is quite obvious and only made more attractive from a corporate American point of view when considering all the risks of such domineering are completely "socialized," from the dead troops, to the broke tax payers. No matter how insane the following report may sound, keep in mind, "they have nothing to lose."

The globalists run think-tanks all over the world like Brookings where their policy wonks generate an immense amount of strategic doctrine. This doctrine then converges to form a general consensus. Knowing the details of this doctrine beforehand can give us clues as to what to look for on the geopolitical chessboard as their gambits play out.

Green revolutions, resigning admirals, bizarre troop build-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist attacks within Iran, and high profile assassinations all make sense if you are aware of the playbook they are working from. The hyped and very fake "war on terror" being ratcheted up on the home-front is also a telling and alarming sign, perhaps the most alarming of all.

Page 1: Bottom Line
With frank honesty, the report opens by declaring Iran a confounding nation that undermines America's interests and influence in the Middle East. Not once is it mentioned that the Islamic Republic poses any direct threat to the security of the United States itself. In fact, Iran is described as a nation intentionally avoiding provocations that would justify military operations to be conducted against it.

Iran's motivations are listed as being ideological, nationalistic, and security driven - very understandable considering the nations to its east and west are currently occupied by invading armies. This is the crux of the issue, where it's America's interests in the region, not security, that motivate it to meddle in Iran's sovereignty, and is a theme that repeats itself throughout the 156 page report.

Page 11: The Nuclear Non-Threat
The report concedes that Iran's leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The possession of nuclear weapons would be used as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of RAND note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of "terrorists." The fact that Iran's extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on page 24, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran's national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests.

Page 23: Persuasion
The first option on the table is a means to coerce the Iranian government, without regime change, through crippling sanctions verses incentives. The incentives, in turn, seem more a relief from American imposed torment than anything of actual substance.

One incentive in particular is very telling. Brookings suggests "security guarantees" from an American invasion to address the very real concerns that would motivate Iran to construct nuclear weapons in the first place. Brookings notes that concrete action would would be needed by the US in order to fulfill this incentive, including drawing down US forces in the Middle East, a concession Brookings itself admits is highly unlikely over the next several decades.

Brookings interjects at this point, a brazen admission that under no circumstance should the US grant Iran a position of dominance nor should there be any ambiguity about what the US sees as Iran's role in the region. It is most likely postures like this that have driven Iran to such extremes to protect itself, its interests, and its very sovereignty.

This option of "persuasion" appears to have already played out and failed, both in drawing concessions from Iran through meaningless offers and at marshaling the international support needed to make additional sanctions effective.

Page 65: Total War 
Indeed a conventional war with Iran is currently impossible. The globalists at the Brookings Institute acknowledge that. What is worrying is that they believe it would not be impossible if only America was presented with the "proper" provocations. Brookings' experts go on to say that Washington could take "certain actions" to ensure such provocations took place.

Furthermore, Brookings states that Iran has already gone through extreme measures specifically not to react to American provocations, raising the specter that provocations may take the shape of a staged event instead, should full-scale invasion be sought.

This is where the tireless efforts of 9/11 Truth have paid off and now stand between the American people and a costly, unprecedented war. They have at the very least made the term "false flag" mainstream, raising the stakes exponentially for anyone attempting to stage provocations.

Page 103Supporting a Color Revolution
Hailed as the "most obvious and palatable method" of bringing about the Iranian government's demise, Brookings suggests fostering a popular revolution. It brazenly admits the role of the "civil society organizations" in accomplishing this and suggests massive increases in funding for subversive activities in Iran.

Of course the United States has already passed the Iran Freedom Support Act, directly funding Iranian opposition groups inside of Iran with the explicit objective of overthrowing the current government. The passage of the act was followed by the 2009 "green revolution," which Iranian security forces were able to put down.

Currently, the "green revolution" in Iran is gearing up again. The US State Department and corporate sponsored has been following and supporting the US-backed Iranian uprisings since the beginning. Iranian-American Cameran Ashraf, described as a senior fellow at, participated in the 2009 event. featured on their front page recently, information on the upcoming "green" revolution set to feed off the US backed overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt.

Indeed this option is currently being pursued. Brookings specifically mentions threatening Iran with instability as a means to leverage concessions from the government. It goes on to explicitly call for the promotion of unrest within Iran's borders, and when coupled with the crippling sanctions Iran is already under, constitutes an overt act of war as pointed out numerous times by Congressman Ron Paul.

Brookings also suggests the use of military force in conjunction with their staged color revolutions, recognizing Iran's well developed internal security apparatus. This was not done in 2009, but should be considered and looked out for each time the "green" revolutionaries come out into the streets.

Page 113Supporting Real Terrorism
Despite the shameless bravado displayed throughout the entire report, no section is as shocking as the one titled "Inspiring an Insurgency." Brookings is outright advocating the funding, training, and triggering of a a full-blown armed insurgency. The report specifically mentions Ahvazi Arab separatists, which would later be the subject of Seymour Hersh's "Preparing the Battlefield" where he exposes the option as already being set in motion within Iran.

Kurds in the north, and Baluch rebels near Pakistan in the east are also mentioned as potential receipients of US aid in conducting their campaigns of armed terror against the Iranian people. The CIA is selected to handle supplies and training, while Brookings suggests that options for more direct military support also be considered.

In their subsection, "Finding a Proxy," Brookings describes how the use of ethnic tensions could fuel unrest. It laments the fact that many ethnic minorities still hold nationalism as a priority along with their fellow Persians. And despite being on America's official terrorist list for having previously killed US military men, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) are given ample consideration within Brookings' report.

In their subsection, "Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven," Brookings describes various methods of harboring their stable of US funded terrorists within the nations currently occupied by US troops and how to ferry them in and out of Iran between operations.

Page 145: Bringing it all Together 
Brookings suggests that no single option is meant to stand alone. It suggests that options be pursued concurrently. Apparently Brookings' advice has been taken to heart as we have seen in the news, from Seymour Hersh's reports of covert US-backed terrorists, to the overtly staged "green" revolutions, to the sabotage and assassinations plaguing Iran's nuclear program.

While it is quite obvious that many of Brookings' policies are being carried out verbatim, what is most alarming is what's suggested next should these combined ploys fail. 

From the report itself, page 150:

"A policy determined to overthrow the government of Iran might very well include plans for a full-scale invasion as a contingency for extreme circumstances. Certainly, if various forms of covert and overt support simply failed to produce the desired effect, a president determined to produce regime change in Iran might consider an invasion as the only other way to achieve that end. 

Moreover, the United States would have to expect Iran to fight back against American regime change operations, as it has in the past. Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime change activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold. 

For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime. 

Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion."

Considering Operation Northwoods, the falsified Gulf of Tonkin event, the myriad of lies that brought us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan, not the least of which was 9/11 itself, it is truly a frightening specter to think about what might come next.

We already see the absurd security apparatus being put into place across America and the various declarations by European leaders that "multiculturalism" has failed, setting the stage for a "clash of civilizations." There is also an uptick in rhetoric by American leaders warning of an impending terrorist attack. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US might attempt to provide their own "provocation" for war in the Iranians' stead.

Final Thoughts

It is quite obvious Brookings' suggestions and their execution are detrimental to all involved, from our brave but gravely misled troops, to the tax payers fleeced by underwriting the war, to the decimated Iranian people. Boycotting the very corporations sponsoring this policy undermines their self-serving objectives regardless of the means by which they try to accomplish them. Their very ability to fund studies like this, let alone carry them out is a direct result of our daily patronizing of their mega-corporations. Raising awareness that corporate interests, not security concerns, are the prime motivations for conflict with Iran is also essential in convincing citizens of both countries to step back from the brink.

In this world today, events seem astronomically bigger than any one of us. We feel there is no certainty we can succeed against such odds. What is essential to understand though, is that while acting does not guarantee success, not acting most certainly guarantees defeat. Follow the brave example of 9/11 Truth and other activists in the growing alternative media - fight against the manufactured consensus by adding yourself to a consensus on truth.

To read the entire Brookings Institute report, "Which Path to Persia?" click here (Brookings Institue, 2011)

Title: Sources: US Gives Israel Green Light For Iran Strike
 October 13, 2011
Prison Planet 

AbstractThe Obama administration’s fabricated terror plot blamed on Iran represents the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran set to take place within the next two weeks, according to confidential military sources who spoke with Alex Jones.

Israel is concerned that major powers like Germany are moving closer to smoothing relations with Iran and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program unimpeded. A two month window has been allocated during which Israel has the opportunity to launch a military assault, waiting until winter when the attack will be more difficult to pull off is not an option.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit was used by Israeli hawks to convince the United States that it should green light the attack. Less than 10 days later, a fanciful terror plot involving a used car salesman was invented to implicate Iran and create the pretext for a military assault.

“In recent weeks, intense discussions have taken place in Israeli military and intelligence circles about whether or not to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Apparently, the key question in the debate was how to ensure that the United States took part in the attack or, at the very least, intervened on Israel’s side if the initial strike triggered a wider war,” writes Patrick Seale of Gulf News.

That intervention has now been mandated by the announcement of the fabricated terror plot, which was actually concocted last month but only made public now.

While U.S. intelligence officials prepare to release claims about a “chain” of plots that will be blamed on Iran, Time Magazine reports that the Obama administration is preparing to use the accusations to take action beyond mere isolation tactics.

“If the Administration fails to win support for a significant escalation of sanctions or other forms of punishment for the Tehran regime after presenting evidence of the latest allegations of Iranian malfeasance, the ball will land back in Obama’s court,” writes Tony Karon. “Having made the case that Iran has crossed a red line, he will be under growing pressure to act — or risk entering a highly polarized election season haunted by a “soft on Iran” charge” (Prison Planet, 2011)

Title: 'US Schemes Plots To Justify Wars'
Date: October 13, 2011
Press TV

An alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States has made headlines. Why would the Iranian government want to do this? US officials have so far presented relatively little evidence - yet sanctions are looming. 

In this edition of Press TV's News Analysis, the possible reasons for the US to make such an allegation are looked at. Is this a move by the US to divert attention from its problems, such as nationwide protests, among others? 

American philosopher and Professor Emeritus of the University of Minnesota, James H. Fetzer, joined PressTV from Madison. The following is an approximate transcription of James H. Fetzer's comments. 

Press TV: I'd like to refer to Justin Raimondo who is the editorial director of the website He says: How is it that these two Iranians just happen to meet up with a Mexican drug cartel assassin who just happens to be a long time DEA informant? 

I mean is there any response to this question that's posed by this editorial director, James Fetzer? 

James Fetzer: Everything that has been said so far is completely accurate. We appear to be witnessing the resurrection of Operation Northwards in which American operatives would commit crimes like assassinations and bombings and blame them on Fidel Castro in order to justify an attack on Cuba. 

Hillary Clinton has said that this idea of contacting a Mexican crime syndicate killer to bring this about is so unbelievable; no one could make it up. But the fact is it's a transparently fabricated event. 

Not only does Iran have no motive whatsoever but if Iran were to perpetrate such an act it would do so in a stealthy manner. It wouldn't rely on someone like a drug killer whose confidence could not be assured; besides, he's in Mexico, this is supposed to take place in Washington and the reasons appear to be very obvious. 

Number one: to distract from the public uprisings. But number two: the Attorney General Eric Holder has been on the hot seat, because of his blunders in relations to vast and furious where the United States wound up giving large quantities of military weapons to these very drug lords. 

And then in the third place of course it exacerbates tension in the Middle East which means that this is being promoted by the allies of Israel in the United States, the Neo-cons. The situation is completely ridiculous and no one who knows anything about intelligence matters would take it seriously. 

Press TV: James Fetzer, is the United States really so desperate to turn attention away from its domestic policies regarding these protest movements that they had to go to this extreme? 

Tell us whether it is the case if we put it in that context, or is it that, I think Christopher Walker alluded that perhaps there's a connection with Saudi Arabia placing pressure on the US since relations obviously are not at its best with Iran? 

James Fetzer: I think this case illustrates the maxim that in Washington the bigger the liar, the further you go. Eric Holder has been on the hot seat for this fast and furious business. 

This isn't another attempt to make him look good; to salvage his reputation just as the use of troops in Pakistan in the feigned attack on the compound to kill a man who died on December 15, 2001, was staged to elevate Obama's poll standings, reduce attention to his birth certificate issue and justify having those troops there, where we're using predator drones to kill a 140 innocent civilians for every target. 

It's embarrassing to say but listening to Collin Powel reminded that not only did we find no weapons of mass destruction but even George Bush himself would eventually admit Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. 

Independent investigations by the Pentagon and the Senate established that Iraq had not been in collusion with Al-Qaida and even our own FBI would eventually admit that they had no hard evidence that tied Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. 

I'm sorry to say that this kind of fakery and pseudo investigation is disgracing the United States and if Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Barack Obama are standing behind it then they're going to be candidates to replace the Three Stooges (Press TV, 2011)

Title: Argentina Was Advised Of Possible Iran Attacks: Source 
Date: October 14, 2011
Source: Reuters 

Abstract: Saudi officials advised Argentina four months ago of an alleged Iran-backed plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington and possibly attack the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, an Argentine diplomatic source said on Thursday.

Argentina is home to Latin America's largest Jewish population and a 1992 bombing at the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires killed 29 people. Another 85 people died two years later in an attack on the AMIA Jewish community center, which Argentina has accused Iran of helping to plan.

"The Saudis advised us four months ago, at the request of the United States," the Argentine source told Reuters on condition of anonymity, without providing further details.

U.S. authorities announced on Tuesday that they had thwarted an alleged plot backed by Iran to assassinate Saudi Arabia's envoy to the United States. Iran called it a fabrication designed to create tensions with its neighbors.

Washington slapped economic sanctions on five Iranians, including four senior members of the Quds Force, the covert arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, for planning possible attacks in the United States and "another country."

The U.S. ambassador to Argentina, Vilma Martinez, declined to comment on the case when queried by Reuters on Thursday at a business seminar in the coastal city of Mar del Plata.

The Argentine government has made no official statement either, despite U.S. media reports this week that the South American country was the other nation targeted.

President Barack Obama was briefed in June about the alleged plot, soon after U.S. law enforcement agents were tipped off by a paid informant, according to court documents.

Argentina has secured international arrest warrants against former and current Iranian officials it suspects were involved in the attack that leveled the AMIA building in 1994, which Israel has long pinned on Hezbollah guerrillas backed by Iran.

Last month, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez publicly urged Iran to make good on its offer to help investigate the bombing, even though Tehran insists it played no role in the terrorist attack.

For full coverage of the alleged plot (Reuters, 2011)

Title: Corporate-Fascists Clamor For Iran War
Date: October 16, 2011
Source: Infowars 

AbstractWhile US politicians grapple over the credibility of using the US DEA’s bomb plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador as a pretext to escalate tensions with Iran, America’s unelected, corporate-funded policy makers have already announced their long, foregone conclusion. The DEA’s entrapment case is decidedly to be used as a pretext for war with Iran.

The Foreign Policy Institute (FPI), just one such unelected, corporate-funded think tank, has released two statements calling on President Obama to use force against Iran. FPI director William Kristol states:

“It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force.

And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade.

So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back.”

Likewise, FPI’s executive director Jamie Fly claims, in tandem with Kristol’s unqualified, corporate-funded opinion, “It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response.”

Image: Just a sampling of Wall Street-London corporate-funded think tanks. Those that believe America’s policy is created within the offices of our elected legislatures will be sadly disappointed to know that it is in fact produced by these unelected, nebulous private institutions. Despite the different logos and rhetoric wielded by each of these institutions, they consist of the same members and same corporate-financier sponsors and merely specialize in executing different aspects of the corporate-financier agenda. For more information, please see “Naming Names.” (click on image to enlarge)

Ironically, Jamie Fly, who believes it is time to take “military action” against Iran for supporting terrorism, is a signatory of a letter imploring House Republicans to support the US war in Libya where NATO forces are literally handing an entire nation over to rebels led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, listed by both the US and British government as a foreign terrorist organization, and is confirmed to have fought and killed US and British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It should also be noted, that fellow policy makers at the Brookings Institute proposed that the US arm, train, and even go as far as de-list as a terrorist organization, MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), in covert efforts to wage war against Tehran. MEK is acknowledged by Brookings to not only be a bona fide terrorist organization, but also has American civilian and military blood on its hands.

Image: Know your enemy. It is not turban-wearing cave dwellers that threaten America. It is unelected, corporate policy pimps like those found lurking within the halls of the Foreign Policy Initiative. They seek to mislead Americans into supporting an agenda that literally bleeds them to death while they and their corporate-financier sponsors continue to consolidate both wealth and power on a global scale. (click on image to enlarge)

It is safe to say that Jamie Fly, William Kristol, and the rest of the policy wonks populating FPI and similar corporate-funded think tanks harbor less than genuine “concerns” regarding “terrorism,” – concerns which are voiced purely for public consumption.

As reported previously, the official, though rarely spoken about policy toward Iran is one of purposefully provoking the regime into a war it desperately wants to avoid. The Brookings Institution, like FPI, is a corporate-funded think tank full of unelected policy makers who literally steer America’s destiny. In its report “Which Path to Persia?” it is clearly stated that not only does Iran want to avoid war, but any potential aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons are driven only by a desire to defend its sovereignty, not use unilaterally against its neighbors nor to proliferate such weapons into the hands of non-state actors.

Despite this admission, the Brookings Institution claims that American extraterritorial ambitions across the Middle East cannot be impeded by strong, independent nation-states and spells out a criminal conspiracy to remove such impediments. Such tactic include funding terrorist organizations to wage a covert war against Tehran, funding opposition groups to rise up against the Iranian government, sanctions, and even provoking a war through covert means.

Masking this criminal conspiracy is a narrative repeated ad naseum by the corporate media, literally sponsored and steered by the same corporations and banks that fund the above mentioned think tanks. The American people are presented with a belligerent, irrational enemy, so entirely fictitious it challenges the archetypes produced by Hollywood. Should Americans know the truth about America’s real policy regarding Iran, war not only would not take place – those who have pushed so hard to shed American treasure and blood in Iran would be ferreted out as criminals and permanetnly removed from society.

US foreign and domestic policy is not produced by our legislatures as we are meant to believe. John Kerry and John McCain don’t sit behind their desks twelve hours a day penning the 1,000 page policy papers they present to Congress to be rubber stamped. President Obama is not sitting in the Oval Office churning out reams of policy papers either. It is the unelected, corporate-funded policy think tanks and their army of policy makers, lawyers, scribes, and media personalities the produce, promote, and ram through an agenda that serves not the American people, but the corporate-financier interests that fund their work.

While many Americans scratch their heads at what appears to be a profound mystery – a Democratic president carrying the torch of a Neo-Conservative Republican’s global war, not only maintaining all previous wars, but expanding the battlefront – in reality this linear, continuous policy that is being executed piecemeal by both sides of the American political aisle is the direct result of these corporate-funded think tanks successfully commandeering both political parties.

John Kerry and John McCain’s love for sending Americans to their deaths in foreign nations and spending American tax money to destabilize countries around the world is not an anomalous convergence of some political ideal, but rather the result of absolute, naked corporate fascism overrunning America’s political institutions and co-opting politicians of inferior human character. As in Nazi Germany, this unchecked power, not foreign enemies, presents the gravest risk to national security imaginable. Those that serve this system and fail to speak out against it, and worse yet, willingly collaborate with it, are America’s true enemies and a self-evident threat the American people can no longer afford to tolerate.

Vote out of office any and all public servants that promote extraterritorial meddling, including wars, funding foreign opposition movements, arming foreign militants, and funding foreign propaganda networks. Vote out of office all representatives that peddle 1,000 page pieces of legislation produced by corporate lawyers and their vast array of “think tanks.” And above all,identify and expose the actual corporate-financier interests driving this destructive agenda, then boycott and replace them. The vast influence and unwarranted power these corporate fascist monopoly men have garnered is a direct result of our apathy, ignorance, and decades of paying into their system with our money, time, energy, and attention.

America is being brought to the precipice of a war neither the American nor the Iranian people want by a cartel of corporate-financier interests that admit the nation of Iran poses to threat to the United States. This is purely a war to enhance US hegemony in the Middle East, not protect the American people and our way of life at home. It is a war that the American people will pay for in both trillions of dollars in public funds, as well as the blood of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. It is up to the American people to end this cycle of parasitic exploitation before it ends America (Infowars, 2011)

Title: Khamenei Accuses U.S. Of "Terror" Attacks In Iran
Date: November 2, 2011
Source: Reuters 

Abstract: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday he had 100 "undeniable documents" proving the United States has been behind "terrorist acts" in the Islamic state and elsewhere in the Middle East.

His comments come after Washington accused Iran of being involved in a plot to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, a claim Iran has dismissed as baseless.

"We have undeniable documents which show America was behind the curtain of terror in Iran and the region," Khamenei said during a commemoration of the 1979 storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by revolutionary students.

"By presenting those 100 documents, we will disgrace America in the world," he added. He did not say when he would produce the documents and to whom.

Last month, the United States said it had uncovered a plot by two men with links to Iran's Revolutionary Guards to assassinate the Saudi envoy by planting a bomb in a Washington restaurant. The Iranian government denies any involvement.

"America tried to exert pressure on Iran and rescue itself from the Wall Street movement and its problems by the absurd terrorist scenario," Khamenei said during a televised address to an audience of students.

"They want to accuse the most virtuous warriors and fighters in Iran of terrorism.

"The course of events have changed in the world and by the grace of God the fight of virtue, with the pioneering of Iran, has started against the pharaoh of hegemony and will continue to its final collapse."

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Khamenei's accusation appeared to be a reaction to the "strong" U.S. case on the alleged assassination plot.

"I would simply point out that our allegations were made in U.S. court, in documents that are now open for the public to see and are clear and can be evaluated by anyone," Nuland told a news briefing.

"This is just more rhetoric designed to deflect popular attention in Iran away from the failings of the Iranian government to meet the needs of its own people," Nuland said.

Asked to address the details of Khamenei's accusation, Nuland said "I don't think I need to credit it with a response."

U.S. President Barack Obama hopes the foiled alleged plot will lead to tighter sanctions against Iran -- already under several rounds of U.N. measures over its nuclear program. He has repeated that all options are on the table to deal with the Islamic republic -- a tacit threat of possible military action (Reuters, 2011)

Title: Israel Reportedly Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran
Date: November 2, 2011
Source: Fox News

Abstract: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly trying to rally support for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralize Iran's nuclear ambitions, Sky News reports.

A "narrow majority" of ministers currently oppose the move, which could lead to retaliation.

In response to reports of an effort to gain cabin approval on Netanyahu's proposal, Lieberman said: "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order."

Lieberman added that Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion.

In response to Netanyahu's proposal, Iran's military chief warned that an Israeli attack on the Islamic nation's nuclear development sites "will inflict heavy damages," according to the Iranian ISNA news agency.

"The U.S. officials know that the Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the U.S. seriously, as well as the Zionist regime," said Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of Iran's armed forces.

Israel successfully test-fired on Wednesday a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran. An Israeli defense official told The Associated Press that the military tested a "rocket propulsion system" in an exercise planned long ago. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of security restrictions, and declined to give further information.

Further information about the test was censored by the military. Foreign reports, however, said the military test-fired a long-range Jericho missile -- capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran.

Israel considers Iran its most dangerous threat. It cites Tehran's nuclear program, its ballistic missile development, repeated references by the Iranian leader to Israel's destruction and Iran's support for anti-Israel militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran, meanwhile, has said its nuclear program is meant only to produce energy for the oil-rich country. It has blamed Israel for disruptions in its nuclear program, including the mysterious assassinations of a string of Iranian nuclear scientists and a computer virus that wiped out some of Iran's nuclear centrifuges.

Israel has repeatedly said that it hopes economic sanctions will persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Israeli diplomats have been lobbying the international community for tougher sanctions (Fox News, 2011)

Title: Son Of Former Revolutionary Guard Chief Found Dead In Dubai Hotel
Date: November 13, 2011
Source: CNN

Abstract: The son of a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander was found dead in a Dubai hotel room -- with his father's website calling the death "suspicious," though police insisted it was not.

Numerous Iranian media on Sunday reported the death of Ahmad Rezaie inside Hotel Gloria, a four-star hotel in the coastal United Arab Emirates city.

Khalil Ebrahim Al Mansouri, head of the Dubai police's criminal investigations department, said there is no criminal suspicion surrounding the man's death. Al Mansouri, quoting the dead man's brother, added that Ahmad suffered from epilepsy.

Yet Tabnak, a website owned by the dead man's father, Mohsen Rezaie, claimed that Ahmad "was killed under suspicious circumstances."

The same site noted that the death was "concurrent with the martyrdom of Mohsen Rezaie's comrades in arms" on Saturday, referring to an explosion at a military base near Tehran.

At least 17 people were killed in that incident, after a munitions depot accidentally caught fire, lawmaker Hossein Garousi told state media. Lt. Gen. Ramezan Sharif reiterated Sunday that the blaze was accidental and dismissed the possibility of sabotage.

The Tabnak report did not elaborate on what connection, if any, existed between Ahmad Rezaie's death and the deadly explosion.

Shahram Gilabadi -- a spokesman for Iran's Expediency Council, of which Mohsen Rezaie is secretary -- told Tabnak, "The death is currently being investigated."

The semi-official Mehrs News Agency reported that Ahmad Rezaie died from an electric shock.

Mohsen Rezaie served for years as head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard. In 2009, he ran -- unsuccessfully -- as a conservative candidate along with others against incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He continues to play a leading role with the Expediency Council, which mediates between the parliament and the non-elected Guardian Council led by Ayatollah Khamenei (CNN, 2011)

Title: Was Israel Behind A Deadly Explosion At An Iranian Missile Base?
Date: November 13, 2011
Source: TIME

Abstract: Israeli newspapers on Sunday were thick with innuendo, the front pages of the three largest dailies dominated by variations on the headline "Mysterious Explosion in Iranian Missile Base." Turn the page, and the mystery is answered with a wink. "Who Is Responsible for Attacks on the Iranian Army?" asks Maariv, and the paper lists without further comment a half-dozen other violent setbacks to Iran's nuclear and military nexus. For Israeli readers, the coy implication is that their own government was behind Saturday's massive blast just outside Tehran. It is an assumption a Western intelligence source insists is correct: the Mossad — the Israeli agency charged with covert operations — did it. "Don't believe the Iranians that it was an accident," the official tells TIME, adding that other sabotage is being planned to impede the Iranian ability to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon. "There are more bullets in the magazine," the official says.

The powerful blast or series of blasts — reports described an initial explosion followed by a much larger one — devastated a missile base in the gritty urban sprawl to the west of the Iranian capital. The base housed Shahab missiles, which, at their longest range, can reach Israel. Last week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had experimented with removing the conventional warhead on the Shahab-3 and replacing it with one that would hold a nuclear device. Iran says the explosion was an accident that came while troops were transferring ammunition out of the depot "toward the appropriate site." (See why ties between the U.S. and Iran are under threat.)

The explosion killed at least 17 people, including Major General Hassan Moqqadam, described by Iranian state media as a pioneer in Iranian missile development and the Revolutionary Guard commander in charge of "ensuring self-sufficiency" in armaments, a challenging task in light of international sanctions.

Coming the weekend after the release of the unusually critical IAEA report, which laid out page upon page of evidence that Iran is moving toward a nuclear weapon, the blast naturally sharpened concern over Israel's threat to launch airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Half the stories on the Tehran Times website on Sunday referenced the possibility of a military strike, most warning of dire repercussions.

But the incident also argued, maybe even augured, against an outright strike. If Israel — perhaps in concert with Washington and other allies — can continue to inflict damage to the Iranian nuclear effort through covert actions, the need diminishes for overt, incendiary moves like air strikes. The Stuxnet computer worm bollixed Iran's centrifuges for months, wreaking havoc on the crucial process of uranium enrichment.

And in Sunday's editions, the Hebrew press coyly listed what Yedioth Ahronoth called "Iran's Mysterious Mishaps." The tallies ran from the November 2007 explosion at a missile base south of Tehran to the October 2010 blast at a Shahab facility in southwestern Iran, to the assassinations of three Iranian scientists working in the nuclear program — two last year and one in July. (See photos of the semiofficial view of Iran.)

At the very least, the list burnishes the mystique of the Mossad, Israel's overseas spy agency. Whatever the case-by-case reality, the popular notion that, through the Mossad, Israel knows everything and can reach anywhere is one of the most valuable assets available to a state whose entire doctrine of defense can be summed up in the word deterrence. But it doesn't mean Israel is the only country with a foreign intelligence operation inside Iran. The most recent IAEA report included intelligence from 10 governments on details of the Iranian nuclear effort. And in previous interviews, Western security sources have indicated that U.S. and other Western intelligence agencies have partnered with Israel on covert operations inside Iran. Sometimes the partner brings specific expertise or access. In other cases, Iranian agents on the ground who might harbor misgivings about Israel are allowed to believe they are working only with another government altogether.

Saturday's blast was so powerful it was felt 25 miles away in Tehran, and so loud that one nearby resident with combat experience thought he had just heard the detonation of an aerial bomb. "Frankly it did not sound like an arms depot from where I was because when one of those goes off, it is multiple explosions over minutes, even hours depending on the size of the facility," the resident says. "All I heard was one big boom. I was sure from the quality of the noise that anyone in its immediate vicinity was dead. Something definitely happened, but I would not trust the [Revolutionary] Guards to be absolutely forthcoming as to what it was" (TIME, 2011).


OBAMACSI.COM: As the war rhetoric and propaganda against Iran intensifies worldwide, censorship of Iranian media is beginning to occur in the U.S. and Britain. This censorship is a blatant attempt to shield the public from the future war crimes that will undoubtedly occur in Iran once the green light for the attack is given. Dead bodies of innocent civilians and American troops are bad for moral and must be removed prior to an Iranian invasion. 

Title: Britain Steps Up Pressure On PressTV
Date: May 20, 2011
Press TV

The British government has unleashed a new wave of pressure on Press TV in the latest example of infringement on freedom of speech. 

The British government is apparently seeking to use Ofcom regulations as a pretext to impose penalties on Press TV news network and the independent London-based Press TV limited company. 

It is speculated that in a politically motivated move, the British Office of Communications, better known as Ofcom, is pursuing a case against Press TV for broadcasting an interview with a Newsweek journalist. The telecommunications regulator is drawing on Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari's complaint that includes claims of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making and broadcasting of a Press TV program. 

While PressTV is preparing to publicize the case and its arguments against Ofcom, many analysts say Ofcom's move adds another piece to the puzzle of the British government in its bid to further limit Press TV's activities. 

It appears that Press TV's policy of breaking the western monopoly on media and its critical examination of certain red lines for the western media has been the main reason behind Britain's efforts to pressure the Iranian news channel, with cases like that of Bahari serving as a means to Britain's ends. 

Press TV has given full coverage to student protests in Britain, shed light on the dark, undemocratic aspects of the British political structure, specially the hereditary rule of the royals, and laid bare London's double approach to Middle East developments and their links with Britain's historical presence in the region. 

Such topics, along with Press TV's regular coverage of crimes by the Israeli regime in Palestine and Lebanon are definitely among the strict red lines that British media policy makers will not easily tolerate, a fact supported by a host of indications. 

The US State Department cables published by WikiLeaks demonstrate that the British Foreign Office told the US embassy in London back in February 2010 that it was "exploring ways to limit the operations of… Press TV". 

The WikiLeaks documents revealed that the British authorities reconsidered their decision in the face of legal difficulties at the time but were still looking at other means to address the issue, including the possible use of new anti-Iran sanctions to justify such measures. 

This comes as British authorities have failed in their efforts to point to any legitimate problems with the quality or content of programs produced by Press TV. The Wikileaks report clearly shows that the British government has got no other way but to seriously disrupt press TV's activities in Britain. 

Last month, the National Westminster Bank, Commercial Banking office froze Press TV Ltd's business account without any prior notice, claiming the accounts would be permanently closed in February 2011. 

Meanwhile, in an article published on January 16, 2011, British journalist and broadcaster Lauren Booth charted UK's efforts to assist the US with blocking the company that sells documentaries and series to the Iranian channel of the same name. 

Booth, who is former British Premier Tony Blair's sister-in-law, said the Israeli-backed pressure began when the company started its activities four years ago, as part of an effort to "use Ofcom as some kind of offshoot Hasbara body." 

Booth said letters of complaint written by people linked to the Israeli Embassy in London and its supporters were sent to the broadcasting regulator whenever Press TV aired news items that shed light on the thuggery, blackmail and racism inherent in the Israeli government policy. 

She added as the complaint letter campaign has not been much successful, hacking of emails, Facebook accounts and mobile phones were used to cause tensions between colleagues. 

The staff at Press TV Ltd have been intimidated and threatened by members of the MKO terrorist grouping in London. Yet, the British government has turned a blind eye to such incidents and may have even facilitated them as the MKO are continuing their threats. 

Press TV website plans to publish detailed information on the recent case staged by Ofcom in the near future (Press TV, 2011).

OfCom Decision On Press TV Scandalous
Date: October 13, 2011
Press TV 

Britain's Office of Communications, known as OfCom, has decided to take Press TV off air in the UK, citing administrative problems in Press TV's application as the reason. 

The British media regulator's decision is considered to be an abuse of the UK media law and the result of mounting pressure on the organization by certain members of the royal family and government. 

As an alternative international media outlet, Press TV took pains to break the mainstream media's total silence on the violations of international law and human rights committed by the UK government at home and abroad. 

Press TV interviews Chris Bambery, a political analyst in London, to discuss the motives behind this move. 

What follows is the text of the interview: 

Press TV: Why do you think Press TV is being taken off air in the UK? 

Bambery: Press TV is an alternative voice and I think it is becoming increasing popular with people in Britain who want to get a different angle on the news as put [forth] by BBC and others. I think it wants a wide coverage and its coverage of students protests last autumn, with the riots and unrest we saw in August. I think it is obviously clear that all those people who oppose the majority of the population who oppose the war in Afghanistan and indeed oppose the war in Iraq. 

So I think it has won an audience, it is growing in popularity; it provides news analysis which is not there on BBC and I think that is why. I think what has to be said is that it is taking four years for Ofcom to find their administrative problem that does seem to me to be an excuse. [I have to add that] personally I have appeared on Press TV many times, I have never been asked to alter my opinion or to say something which is contrary to my views. I have always been allowed to say what I have to say without any interference, whether or not it is in accordance with the views of the government of Iran, it doesn't matter and I have had no interference. 

To me Press TV has a much wider range of debate than it is available on BBC, with views of people who support their Republican Party in the United States, who support free market policies in this country. I have debated with those people and I think Press TV has done an startling job here and that is precisely why, I believe, it is being taken off because as the reporter just said, we know there has been pressure from a number of lobbies in this country, from the Foreign Office and inside the BBC to take Press TV off the air. 

I think it is a scandal, I think it is an insult to free speech in this country and I think it is something that should be opposed by all the people who... champion free speech and by whole trade union and actually union journalists take up this case and demand that Press TV is brought back on air. 

Press TV: Where does this leave Britain's claims of protecting free speech? 

Bambery: I think they are using a pretext, which is an administrative pretext, they are claiming that their... and that is going to seem to me that .... why it has taken four years to... and it is trying to say that it has breached broadcasting regulations and standards, they were never able to pin that on Press TV, so now they are looking for subterfuge to get Press TV off the air by quoting supposed administrative problems. I think that should be challenged, I hope Press TV will challenge that decision by legal means .... I think it has also be taken up by members of parliament and other people in this country as an attack at free speech, an attempt to take alternative voices off the air waves. For instance, Press TV was one of the few outlets which allowed black people in this country to speak openly about the riots and unrest and so on in August. That was a different view from a group of people who had often had no voice in this society, Press TV gave them that voice and Press TV should be praised for that. 

Press TV: How dangerous is this trend in general, if there is a station or newspaper, magazine that tries to show an alternative perspective that they can be censored or actually in Press TV's case even being taken off the air? 

Bambery: I think it is worrying that it is happening. As I said, I think it should be done by subterfuge, by quoting administrative problem; if it was an administrative problem why it was not sorted out four years ago? Why not just sort it out than take the station off the air? I think it is an example and there is a history in Britain of people being taken off the air. If you remember Sinn Fein, now in government in Northern Ireland, but Sinn Fein for over ten years was not allowed access directly to the news media, their words were actually read out by an actor. Therefore, we have seen censorship in different points in time in this country; free speech is something that people fought for in this country, they went to prison for it and I think we should make sure that people across Britain and across the globe [see this] as an attack on the rights for free speech (Press TV, 2011)

Title: Press TV Taken Off Air In UK – War For Freedom Of Speech Now On
Date: October 14, 2011
Source: Infowars 

Abstract: In case you are not yet aware, OfCom, Britain’s Office of Communications, decided to take Press TV off air in the UK this week. The significance of this move by the state regulator should not be underestimated. The battle for free speech is definitely on.

With this move, the state apparatus has all but declared war on a foreign network’s ability to broadcast a political perspective that differs from the consensus reality line. Note that the state, particularly in the UK, will spend millions per year in order to enforce a rolling agenda of talking points. In the US will also spend billions to ensure the same thing.

Today London’s Telegraph newspaper reported:

“The foreign arm of the Iranian state broadcaster is to pulled off the British airwaves after media regulator revoked its broadcasting license.

Press TV, the channel which acts as the overseas mouthpiece of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, has been told by Ofcom that it breached broadcasting rules with its interview of a journalist who was imprisioned in an Iranian jail and forced to read from a prepared script.

The ruling comes after a year-long investigation by Ofcom into the claims made by Maziar Bahari, a journalist for Newsweek, the US magazine, who was filmed by Press TV while imprisioned in Tehran for nearly four months. He was arrested while covering the 2009 Iranian Presidential elections.”

With this move, a new front in the infowars has truly opened up. It’s not just about winning over minds and getting the info out. It is now about being able to get that info out there. It’s about preserving the free speech platform where we can receive and deliver all that valuable information. And we are up against the state.

Over the last eight years, I’ve involved myself in the battle- the one which Alex Jones and others have referred to as the Information War. The first step was getting informed, and the second step was getting involved by creating content which, up to this point, has relied heavily on the internet’s free speech platform. From this open platform, even an individual could broadcast locally, regionally and globally, disseminating information that would otherwise not get to these audiences.

Active internet news hounds like this writer, in search of alternative views that differ from the corporate mainstream media conglomerates could not believe their eyes when Press TV, a 24-hour English language global news network launched online in January 2007, followed by the TV launch later. It seemed to be the only place in the UK where one could go to catch a completely different, fresh take on domestic and world events. For sure, it had an edge.

Ofcom’s legal reasons for pulled down the network was an administrative one, citing a breach in the broadcasting code and some administrative problems with Press TV’s application as the reason.

Press TV’s response today was at the UK ban was predictably defiant:

“The British media regulator’s decision is considered to be an abuse of the UK media law and the result of mounting pressure on the organization by certain members of the royal family and government. 

As an alternative international media outlet, Press TV took pains to break the mainstream media’s total silence on the violations of international law and human rights committed by the UK government at home and abroad. 

The fact that Press TV is Iranian owned and operated, has drawn heavy fire from certain establishment and government critics who accuse it of being ‘bias’ towards an Iranian agenda. If only that were a prerequisite for taking a media network off the air. If it were, you could expect that Britain’s state broadcaster, the BBC, would have its license revoked overnight in foreign countries around the world.

certainly, the main reason for the west’s aggressive attitude toward Press TV is that, according to the US State Department, Iran is meant to be an enemy of the United States, Europe and Israel. If you’ve been paying attention, the war drum against Iran has not stopped beating since Dick Cheney and John Bolton began pounding it early in 2004.

If a war with Iran is on the cards, eliminating Press TV in the UK and the US will be a top priority for governments in those countries, as Press TV will be broadcasting a different view than the BBC or CNN. This would be very problematic for the establishment. 

The US and Britain, who built their empires on the powerful illusion of media, simply cannot accept that a country like Iran could win-over English speaking audiences, doing a better job reporting the news than the likes of CNN or the BBC. Worse yet, they cannot accept anything other than an anti-Iranian perspective portrayed through the TV lens.

Chris Bambery, a political analyst in London explains the possible motivation behind Britain’s move:

“To me Press TV has a much wider range of debate than it is available on BBC, with views of people who support their Republican Party in the United States, who support free market policies in this country. I have debated with those people and I think Press TV has done an startling job here and that is precisely why, I believe, it is being taken off because as the reporter just said, we know there has been pressure from a number of lobbies in this country, from the Foreign Office and inside the BBC to take Press TV off the air.” 

Following the strength of Press TV, in August 2007 arrived Russia Today (RT), another 24 hr global news network that offered an incredibly diverse band of news and opinion, not seen before on TV. Before long, RT became the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, after the BBC, and also set a TV News Channel record after exceeding a view count on YouTube of half a billion.

Like Press TV, the staff at RT remained committed to delivering an even more challenging slate of programming, with it’s strap-line, “RT: question more.” It has kept its overwhelmingly anti-war, anti-globalist and pro-humanity agenda, and is generally resistant to the usual propaganda lines which are streamlined through the Murdoch media press, routinely churned out of the Whitehall, Tel Aviv, White House and US State Department.

I found myself becoming RT’s number one fan, so I did not hesitate when I was invited by them to contribute on air. I didn’t know anyone in the organisation, had no contacts and no introductions. They simply liked my writing and were willing to give me a shot on live TV. To date, no editor at RT has ever censored or attempted to censor anything I have said, or even ask me to alter my opinion on any subject.

This type of network practice is very, very rare in today’s corporate media matrix and for this reason, interested audiences around the world need to be vigilant and support free speech when it comes under attack from the host state.

The Britain’s unofficial censorship unit Ofcom has obviously recognised the ability of countries like Iran to produce slick, polished and balanced programming- and deliver it with a high degree of professionalism. And in TV, the rating don’t lie. The establishment know full well that both Press TV and RT have attracted millions of viewers- viewers who will never go back to the BBC News, SKY News or ITV News.

The battle begins. Today it is a ‘foreign’ TV network like Press TV that is being targeted, and taken down by the state.

Tomorrow, it could be RT… and after that, who knows? Will it be hundreds of ‘foreign’ internet news websites like

This latest victory for the censors is a move backwards for Britain, and it strikes deep into the heart of our free society- a society that generations have fought long and hard to arrive at.

Support Press TV, support RT. If you really live in a free society, you should be able to watch and support any network that you choose to.

Have no doubt, the infowar is well and truly on (Infowars, 2011)