'...some analysts believe the US is deliberately ramping up the rhetoric against the Iranian authorities to prepare public opinion for possible military strikes against Revolutionary Guard facilities within Iran...' Iran envoy 'elite force member'

A change in target? It seems that Bush & Co have accepted that it wouldn't be practical to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. But they still want to bomb Iran somehow.

'The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.' Shifting Targets

The second link above includes the claim by an American official that "the British were onboard" for an attack on Iranian targets.I wouldn't bet on it now! Mr Brown was not Prime Minister then.He is now.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
It seems that Bush & Co have accepted that it wouldn't be practical to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. But they still want to bomb Iran somehow.

How is this at all justifiable? Iran has done nothing to us! It's not like they're invading countries by the dozen, imprisoning and torturing their citizens, rolling tanks over their homes, bombing their churches, desecrating their holy places, replacing their governments with their own bureaucracies, and strip-mining their resources like Bush and Co. have done!

So, they're interested in developing a nuclear program. Big deal. So what? Nuclear energy has far more potential than just as a "WMD". And, if the U.S. and Nations all over the world can do it, then why can't they, also? Who are we to threaten Iran for trying to do the same as us?

Isn't that just a bit hypocritical, given the fact that the U.S. has more Nuclear bombs stock-piled than all the Nations in the world combined?

'...as disputes with the west come to a head, it is important to recognise the power shifts under way inside Iran's political system. Ahmadinejad may be making increasingly challenging statements, but he does not have the authority to act on them. Indeed, only a military confrontation with the US can bring him back to the centre of decision-making. American policymakers should bear that in mind.' The decline of Ahmadinejad

Just wait?

'...opposition hopes that a parliamentary defeat for Mr Ahmadinejad's allies next March may translate into a presidential defeat in early 2009.

Under this scenario, Mr Bush and Mr Ahmadinejad may leave office at roughly the same time - a democratic regime change that could save Iran and the world a lot of grief, if only the US would wait.' State of disorder

'No one in their right mind would believe that attacking Iran now makes any sense at all.

But that doesn't mean that Bush and Cheney won't do it.

There were a lot of reasons why a pre-emptive strike into Iraq based on flimsy and bogus intelligence and far too few troops made no sense, yet they did it anyway, with trademark arrogance and ignorance.' Inexorable march toward war with Iran?

516. Iran war next stage (10/23/07)

In early October, there was a summit of Caspian Sea states. The leaders of other Caspian Sea states ruled out any military strikes on Iran from their region. Russian President Vladimir Putin also made clear to Washington on 10/16 that Russia would not accept military action against Iran.

Putin visited Iran in Mid October and met with Iran's supreme leader Khamenei on 10/16. Putin offered a special proposal to Khamenei. The special offer, must relate to a nuclear deal.
Recently, Russia didn't play friendly to Iran. U.N. Security Council has imposed limited sanction on Iran. Russia voted yes. In the project of Iran's first nuclear power plant, Russia delayed the construction and delayed the supply of fuel, attributed all these to payment problem. Iran denied the accusation, said payment were on time, that Russia was just bowing to West pressure.

In the crisis of July to September, (the plot of Iran war justifying by a false flag nuclear attack in US, marked with 8/30 accident of "mistaken loading nuclear missiles on a B-52") Iran felt the approaching war threat from the US and made a compromise by accepting U.N. nuclear inspection in July. It was the time Iran needs the help most. None of the Caspian sea states and Russia gave a word. Why do they suddenly change the direction of 180 degree now?

I think it is a plot continue to the 8/30 plot. After the false flag nuclear attack went soured, Feds set up another trap for Iran. The fishing pole is Russia, the bait is "to finish the construction of the nuclear power plant on schedule", possibly with the permission of "production of highly enriched uranium" which can be used in nuclear weapon. Once the fish bite that special offer, the war will break off. What Bush needs is a justification.

To push Iran to bite the bait, a group of swindlers play a soap opera. Bush threatens World War 3 if Iran goes nuclear, to make Iran think that it belongs to a group. (The word "World War" is particularly selected because it means there are two camps, not two states) Caspian Sea states and Russia made Iran feel it is supported by a group. To create a safe feeling for Iran to accept that special offer.

Whether the fish will bite the bait, we don't know. But one thing is sure: when wolf wants to eat a goat, it will always find a justification. Either it's for "WMD", for "democracy", or for "your security". When Bush asks for more money from Congress, it's not for maintenance of troops in Iraq. It's for Iran and Syria war. And American people must prepare for a "dirty bomb" attack from their own government.

'Such a direct personal attack against President Ahmadinejad is indeed rare in official media in Iran.

It shows that the Iranian president is not only losing support among ordinary people because of economic hardship, he is also angering part of the establishment for using the nuclear issue to bolster his personal power.' Tehran paper attacks Ahmadinejad

If Bush & Co had any sense, they'd stop their sabre-rattling and try to strengthen moderate views in Iran. As it is, Bush & Co are the best friends Ahmadinejad has, politically.

Despite what the NIE report has to say, I certainly admire the President Bush for maintaining his position. Because he is certainly right. Iran has been & will continue to be a proven danger to the U.S.

Actually the best thing would be to quit holding back Israel and let them handle it as the see fit.

Like they 'handled' Lebanon?

'If you look carefully at the transcript, which was not reported accurately by the media, or not reported at all practically, the commander -- or rather, Vice Admiral Cosgriff actually makes it clear that the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats.' Sensationalist Media Did Pentagon's Bidding in Fake Naval 'Provocation' with Iran

Just to clarify things a bit -

The article nnn links to mentions Vice Admiral Cosgriff. Below is from the US Navy's bio on Cosgrif:

Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command
Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet
Commander, Combined Maritime Forces

Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, N.Y., and began active duty with the Navy directly thereafter. He was among the first to receive a Master of Science in Strategic Intelligence from the Defense Intelligence College. He also earned the Naval War College Foundation Award for Outstanding Performance. He is an alumnus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI Program.

Ashore, Vice Adm. Cosgriff was an analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency/National Military Intelligence Center. He was Executive Assistant to Navy's Director of Strategy and Policy and later served as Assistant Director for House Liaison in the Office of Legislative Affairs. He was the Deputy Director of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel and also served as Executive Assistant and Naval Aide to the Under Secretary of the Navy.

Vice Adm. Cosgriff was Director, White House Situation Room and Director of Systems and Technical Planning for the National Security Council. He served as Director, Office of Program Appraisal in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy and was Director for Warfare Analysis Integration for the Chief of Naval Operations. Most recently he was the Deputy Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

'Tension spiked markedly last week when Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speedboats were involved in an "incident" with three US Navy vessels, which claimed they were international waters.

Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats. This was followed by the Pentagon's release of a videotape of the encounter, where in response to Iran's request for ship identification, we hear a dispatch from one of the US ships stating the ship's number and adding that "we are in international waters and we intend no harm".

Thus there is the issue of the exact whereabouts of the US ships at the time of the standoff with the Iranian boats manned by the IRGC patrolling the area. According to Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgiff, the US ships were "five kilometers outside Iranian territorial waters." Yet, this is disputed by another dispatch from the US ships that states, "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law."

Given that the approximately three-kilometer-wide inbound traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran's territorial water, the US Navy's invocation of "transit passage" harking back to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) is hardly surprising. [1]

Although the US has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, it has been a strong advocate of its provisions regarding navigational rights, thus explaining the US officers' availing themselves of "international law."..' www.atimes.com

Anyway, the 'threat' came from a monkey!

The Navy Times has reported that the call about blowing up was from a hoaxer who has long been well-known for interrupting radio traffic in the region. He is known as the Filipino Monkey.

Bush's Iran/Argentina Terror Frame-Up

What not to do about Iran is to scratch around trying to manufacture crises, the stories behind which fall apart on closer examination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran

Here's a recent update on Iran. It would appear they are operating under the radar, or trying to any way.