Spies Air Doubts on Iran's A-Bomb-- No New Sanctions

link: http://www.nysun.com/article/67420?page_no=2

WASHINGTON — In a surprising break from past statements by President Bush, a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concludes that the Islamic Republic's enrichment of uranium has long been unrelated to a nuclear weapons program.

The new report finds that Iran's nuclear weapons program halted in the fall of 2003 and that its suspension suggests the mullahs are more open to international pressure than previously believed. The prior estimate from the intelligence community concluded that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon. As recently as September, the president warned against Iran acquiring an atomic bomb, predicting it would set off World War III.

The finding from Washington is already having ripple effects for America's diplomatic efforts to gin up a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran's declared uranium enrichment work at Natanz.

(snip)

A former aide to Mr. Bolton, David Wurmser, an Iran specialist who left Vice President Cheney's office in September, said the assessment would make it nearly impossible to get a third U.N. Security Council resolution against Iran.

more...


Sanctions won't go further since this came out. We now all know what we thought we knew, we were being sold a bunch of shit. Kucinich was right, we're watching war crimes in action and dickie has got to go. All that shit chimpy spewed, WWIII for chistsakes, based on lies, and he knew it. Impeachment? What I wonder is, does this put a lid on a possible attack? And, is it further evidence that dickie may be weakened?

I really want to know just how angry Darth and the Chimp are tonight.

From what I can see, there have been a lot of forces at work inside the U.S. government, as well as leaders of major powers, like China, Russia and India, and some additional countries like Venezuela, and possibly a lot of additional countries (an array of power against the lawless Bush Junta), working to prevent a Bush/Cheney attack on Iran. What I suspect is that both economic and military punishment, and threats of punishment, of the U.S., by powers like China have emboldened the U.S. intelligence community to tell the truth. This NIE completely undercuts the Cheney/NeoCon warmongering against Iran. It is a remarkable development--and I don't think it can be completely attributed to the courage of our intelligence professionals (and their being pissed off about past NeoCon abuses against them). I think the hidden part of the report is a concerted international blockade of any attack on Iran.

About a year ago, I caught an item in the news that quickly disappeared into the corporate news monopoly river of forgetfulness. Sorry, I didn't save it, and don't remember the source. It said that China, Russia and India (I'm pretty sure the third one was India) were holding a meeting on strategies to curtail the bully U.S. (Bush/Cheney). We have since seen a number of surprising things happen: China (recently) denying harbor to U.S. military ships; OPEC discussing going off the dollar (and trading in euros); South American countries discussing a Nicaraguan proposal to create a new OAS without the U.S. as a member (and also discussions of a South American "common market" and common currency--to get off the dollar); Russia throwing a shit fit over a Bushite plan to place U.S. missiles right on Russia's border in eastern Europe. Both China and Russia get oil from Iran, so that is one motive. India is no doubt worried about Bushite policy that has encouraged Pakistan nuke development and other proliferation. And South America, of course, has been suffering under U.S. domination for decades, with the new Bolivarian and leftist governments starting to address this imbalance with many new assertions of independence, self-determination, sovereignty and policies of social justice (virtually the entire continent is going this way--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and to some extent Chile; also Nicaragua).

And it may be that our Corporate Rulers--having looted us blind under the Bush Junta--are beginning to see the downside of Bush policy on all fronts--and are now less supportive of this Junta, and also oppose Cheney's desired attack on Iran because of who it would offend and possibly arouse. We are despised throughout the world. Not good for business. Example: The Bolivarian movement has pushed the World Bank/IMF loan sharks out of South America--at great cost to U.S. and other first world investors and financiers. There is also a huge revolt against "free trade" and other corporate predation. Bush/Cheney's obsession with Iran has stymied their efforts to attend to corporate interests elsewhere in the world. Other evidence of this big turn of the wheel: Leftist governments elected in Italy and Spain, and, more recently, the last two major "coalition" partners in Iraq--the UK and Australia--have changed governments, on the crest of widespread revulsion about the Iraq War--and are withdrawing their troops.

There is a whole complex of things happening outside of the narrow world that our corporate news monopolies present to us, that indicate intense hostility to the Bush Junta, and that are hurting U.S. domestic business interests, and well as those of U.S.-based global corporate predators. (Bolivia kicking Bechtel Corp. out of their country, over water issues. Ecuador kicking the U.S. military base out of their country. Venezuela kicking Exxon-Mobile out of their country. All of them pushing the World Bank out of the region.) In short, the Bush Junta hasn't "delivered" for their puppet masters very well at all. Yeah, they've looted us, thoroughly. But who are they going to loot NEXT, with all this bad feeling?

So there's that--that war on Iran would be bad for business. And, if I'm right, one of the main reasons it would be bad for business is that China, Russia, India and others have made it VERY CLEAR that they won't put up with it, and WILL isolate and punish the U.S. if any such attack occurs, and they want the threats to cease.

Thus, the people writing this NIE felt safe telling the truth. I also think that there are elements in the U.S. military and intelligence communities who strongly oppose attacking Iran, and have been working toward this rebuke to Cheney. But it's a measure of just how much of a tyranny we are living under, that they might not have been able to do this--tell the truth, and stop this atrocity from occurring--without the whole world poised against any such action by Bush/Cheney. Reasonable policy cannot occur, internally, within the U.S., with these two in power. It needs outside forces to bolster it up.

I seriously doubt that they import any oil from Iran, other than transfers of convenience.

Further, Putin's Russia is the one country in the world that would benefit from a US attack on Iran. As I have stated numerous times before, Putin is playing both sides in this game in order to facilitate Russia's ascension as the worlds sole energy exporting superpower.

The reality, as you summarize, has soaking into most of the military/intelligence community. Whether it will penetrate the Republican virtual reality . .

Putin and Russia strongly oppose a U.S. attack on Iran. Why do you think Putin is playing a double game on this? An attack on Iran would be catastrophic for the region, even with conventional weapons, and a nuke attack might do us all in (as Carl Sagan predicted--even a limited use of nukes could raise a dust cloud that would kill off all plant life on earth within a few months, and soon after that, all animal life including our own). Isn't Russia the one supplying Iran with nuclear energy technology? And I'm certain that that report I read included Russia as a main participant in meeting regarding strategy for curtailing the mad bombers' power (Bush, Cheney). I would think Russia would be interested in an Iranian oil bourse traded in euros (as opposed to the U.S dollar) to further curtail the U.S. and certainly wouldn't want the Bush cartel to get its hands on the Iranian oil spigot. I don't particularly have any love for the Russian or Chinese governments, but I think it's very much in their interest to stop U.S. aggression. It makes sense. And events seem to bear it out. But I would be interested in more information and your thoughts on this matter.

The only way to accomplish this is to shift the petroleum/natural gas export market center of gravity from the petrodollar client states in the Gulf (KSA, UAE, Kuwait) to Russia.

The way that could happen overnight is to have open war break out between the US and Iran which would most likely result in an end to Gulf exports for an extended period of time (1 year plus).

So, for Putinist Russia, no war with Iran, they sell their oil and get rich. War with Iran, they become the worlds energy superpower overnight in a world of $250/bbl oil. But more importantly, Putin could use the event as a wedge for the ruble as the worlds reserve currency.

Consider the meeting back in October with Sarkozy. The linked article below does not mention it, but accounts I read at the time noted a shocked look on Sarkozy's face during the press conference as Putin appeared to be accommodating Iran, whereas during the private meeting Putin gave Sarkozy the impression he generally supported the US/EU line.

+++++

Putin, Sarkozy Divided Over Iranian Nuclear Issue
http://www.nysun.com/article/64405?page_no=1

President Putin of Russia said Iran must be encouraged to make its nuclear program fully transparent, but he also said there is no proof that Tehran is seeking to build atomic weapons.

With no "objective data" showing Iran is working on nuclear arms, "we proceed from an assumption that Iran has no such plans," Mr. Putin said after his talks with President Sarkozy of France. The talks followed a dinner Tuesday night at the Russian's country residence.

. . .

In Washington, a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said America considered Russia to be on the same page with the West in terms of Iran's nuclear program, even if there are "some tactical differences."

+++++

Note McCormack's statement above. How does that square with Putin, a week later, going to Iran, making overtures of support, and delivering the invoices for the nuclear technology Russia is sending them.

Is Putin a threat to the people of the US? Only if we overreact. Putinist Russia appears to be expansionist primarily economically, just like the US. Also, lets face it, the way the US has behaved recently, Russia probably has some well founded fears about US resource hegemony.

The thing is, with all the fear about Iran, China, Muslims, etc. it is Russia that is in the best position to supplant the US, primarily due to the incompetent leadership of the Republicans. And Putin is doing it like a chess master, letting the 'enemy' blunder into the trap, where they will be 'destroyed' (weakened economically) with no direct action by Russia required.

+++++

“In the early stages of pro-market reforms in Russia the state temporarily lost strategic control over the mineral resources industry. This led to the stagnation and disintegration of the geological sector built over many decades…. However, today the market euphoria of the early years of economic reform is gradually giving room to a more balanced approach that... recognises the need for a regulatory role of the state.”

- Vladimir Putin, “Toward a Russian Transnational Energy Company.”, PhD dissertation, St. Petersburg Mining Institute


”The Rouble must become a more widespread means of international transactions. To this end, we need to open a stock exchange in Russia to trade in oil, gas, and other goods to be paid for in Roubles. Our goods are traded on global markets. Why are not they traded in Russia?”

— President Vladimir Putin, Speaking before the full Russian parliament, Cabinet and international reporters, May 2006


”Russia has found the Achilles’ heel of the US colossus. In concert with its oil-producing partners and the rising powerhouse economies of the East, Russia is altering the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil-market order, insidiously working to undermine its US-centric nature and slanting it toward serving first and foremost the energy-security needs and the geopolitical aspirations of the rising East”

- W. Joseph Stroupe, author, Russian Rubicon: Impending Checkmate of the West, as quoted in the Asia Times, November 22, 2006


From the Russian perspective, the Saudi role and OPEC model have benefited the United States, which can pressure Saudi Arabia into opening the spigot to deal with supply emergencies; the US also pressures other oil producers, such as Libya, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Indonesia, by military methods, diplomacy, and economic sanctions. In the Russian alternative, the US will be far less influential, and have fewer levers, commercial or military, to effect pressure on the energy suppliers. Russian arms and defense-industry partnerships are on offer to relatively weak, intervention-prone energy producers in Africa and Latin America to offset US pressure.

In the OPEC model, the benchmark is Brent crude, priced in US dollars. In the Russian model, the discount and disadvantage between the Brent and Urals benchmarks will be reduced, and pricing will evolve toward a currency basket, including the ruble. In the OPEC model, suppliers hold much of their cash and government securities in US controlled institutions. In the Russian model, cash is held in the form of a currency basket; conversion from cash is sought into non-US assets, particularly in the European market.

In the OPEC model, investment in new energy reserves should be open to, and may be controlled by, US corporations. In the Russian model, strategic reserves should be controlled by national companies, state-controlled champions, or joint ventures in which Russian interests are in the majority. The Russian model also extends to energy-convertible coal, uranium, and other mineral resources. Through negotiations for Russian accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US, Australia, Canada and other resource-exporting states have sought to gain unlimited access to search and development of Russian minable resources.

The Russian model rejects this, and instead assigns priority and equity control of domestic resources to national resource companies. The model proposes tradeoffs and partnerships in resource exploitation in third countries, especially the developing states. The US-backed OPEC model assigns international priority to the Arab states. The Russian model assigns priority to the Central Asian alliance, including China, India, and Iran; secondarily to Latin America and ultimately Africa.”

- John Helmer, “Russian energy model challenges OPEC,” Asia Times, July 18, 2006


http://www.worldwiderenaissance.net/Contributions/HirshWorldFacesDevastatingEnergyWars.htm

http://www.petrodollarwarfare.com/PDFs/Hysteria_Over_Iran_and_a_New_Cold_War_with_Russia.pdf (.pdf)