War Without End Forum Index War Without End
The global war against terror from a British (aka American) perspective
 FAQ   Popular Topics   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
 UK and World News   

Neo-Cons, Israeli Lobby Declare War on Putin

Post new topic   Reply to topic    War Without End Forum Index -> Wake Up America! Your Government is Hijacked by Zionism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:58 am    Post subject: Neo-Cons, Israeli Lobby Declare War on Putin Reply to topic

Neo-Cons, Israeli Lobby
Declare War On Putin
By Michael Collins Piper
Author of Final Judgment and The High Priests of War
Correspondent for American Free Press

America's neo-conservative elite and their collaborators in the pro-Israel lobby in Washington have fired a first shot in the opening guns of a new Cold War being launched against Russian Premier Vladimir Putin.
Although it hasn't been reported widely in the America mass media, Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), two of the Israeli lobby's leading congressional stalwarts, introduced a resolution in the Senate on February 19, condemning Putin and urging President Bush to push for suspending Russia's membership in the G-8 group of industrial nations.
Latching on to the president's emphatic declaration in his January 20 inaugural address of a new global campaign by the United States for the promotion of "democracy." Lieberman announced that "President Putin's assault on democracy in Russia violates the spirit of the industrialized democracies and the letter of Russia's obligations to the Group of Eight. We must openly confront anti-democratic backsliding in Russia for the sake of all those who look to the United States as a beacon for freedom."
The resolution was designed to put President Bush on the spot, coming just as President Bush was preparing for his scheduled meeting with Putin in Slovakia on February 24.
The motivation for the effort by the neo-conservatives and their congressional spokesmen to undermine Putin is quite clear, inasmuch as Putin recently challenged Bush and Israel by daring to say publicly that he (Putin) does not believe that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
Although the burgeoning hostility against Putin by the neo-conservatives has been widely hashed over in small-circulation pro-Israel publications and American Jewish community newspapers on a regular basis, it has only been of recent date that mainstream publications such as The Washington Post and and The New York Times, to name the most prominent, have begun to echo those concerns about Putin, almost as if the big name dailies were taking the lead from the other journals. Increasingly, however, the word that "Putin is a possible enemy" is now being breached to the average American, through the outlets of the mass media.
Reflecting on the fact that the media was increasingly promoting hostility to Putin, American Free Press noted on October 25, 2004 that the media's primary concern about Putin stems from the fact that he has been moving against the handful of billionaire plutocrats in Russia (many of whom also hold Israeli citizenship) who grabbed control of the Russian economy with the open-connivance of then-Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, following the collapse of the old Soviet Union.
One American hard-line pro-Israel publication, The New Republic, raised the question on September 24, 2004: "Is Russia going fascist?" asserting that whether Putin personally remains in power or not, there is a growing movement "nationalist" in nature"that holds great sway among the Russian population. TNR expressed concern that "a fascist revolution" could be in the offing, meaning a movement hostile to the Israeli oligarchs (with international criminal connections) who rule the Russian economic. Likewise, much earlier, in his 1995 book, Russia: A Return to Imperialism, Boston-University-based Israeli academic Uri Ra'anan sounded the concern that post-Soviet Russia may pose a threat to the West.
These works echo such writers as Jonathon Brent and Vladimir Naumov who, in their 2003 book, Stalin's Last Crime, published evidence that longtime Soviet leader Josef Stalin was almost certainly murdered in 1953 after he began moves toward exorcising Zionist influence in Soviet circles of power. They concluded by saying that "Stalin is a perpetual possibility," leaving open the theoretical proposition that Putin, or other would-be Russian leaders, may ultimately emerge as heir to Stalin's anti-Zionist legacy.
Essentially, with the American neo-conservatives (whose ideological godfathers are widely known as admitted ex-Trotskyite communists) now moving against Putin, it is as if we are seeing a rejuvenation of the war against Russian nationalism by the Trotskyites, retooled for 21st century geopolitical considerations. Now - unlike in the first half of the 20th century prior to the founding of the state of Israel - the central role of that Middle East state in the neo-conservative worldview cannot be understated, for the concern about Israel is a front-line consideration in the neo-conservative campaign against Putin.
Although Russia joined the G-8 nations (which includes Britain, Canada, Japan, France, Italy and Germany) in 2002, the companion resolutions in the Senate and the House ask the president to enlist the other G-8 countries to join with the United States in suspending Russia's G-8 membership until such time as President Bush decides that Russia is supposedly committed to so-called "democratic principles."
This is the second time that McCain and Lieberman introduced such a measure, although their last effort, in 2003, failed in committee. At that time, two other members of Congress, California Reps. Tom Lantos - a Democrat - and Christopher Cox - a Republican - introduced a companion resolution in the House of Representatives which reached the House floor, but it was never voted upon.


George Soros (who is a Zionist Jew as well) says that Russia does not qualify for G-8 membership:


Russia Does Not Qualify for G-8 Membership — Soros
Created: 14.02.2005 12:15 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:15 MSK


Russia is no longer a functioning democracy, it has no independent media or political opposition, while its courts are fully controlled by the regime, U.S. billionaire George Soros told the Austrian newspaper Die Presse. Russia has taken a step backwards, Soros maintains.

The U.S. and the European Union should respond to the changes taking place in Russia, Soros said in an exclusive interview for Die Presse.

“They should take all that into consideration. To qualify for G-8 membership a country must be a democracy. Therefore, Russia should be stripped of its G-8 membership,” he said...

Soros has been actively supporting democratic movements in Eastern Europe and his foundation has succeeded in precipitating changes in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. Several post-Soviet states have declared him a persona non grata...

However, Soros said, “revolutions are made not by our foundation but by the residents of those countries themselves. What happened in Ukraine recently has sent jitters through regimes in other states, and Putin’s [regime] in particular.”

Last edited by Alpha on Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:07 am    Post subject: Are the Israelis Ready to Start WW 3? Reply to topic

Are the Israelis Ready to Start WW 3?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:16 am    Post subject: Thinking about Neoconservatism Reply to topic

I knew that it would only be a matter of time before the Israel firsters (like Senator John McCain whose Father and himself as well helped cover up Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty/ http://www.ussliberty.com ) in the USA would go after Putin and Russia... Keep in mind that Lantos and Lieberman are Zionist (Jewish) Israel firsters as I have heard that both even hold Israeli citizenship as well. The above is right in accordance with the JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)/CSP (Center for Security Policy)/PNAC (Project for the New American Century) Zionist neoconservative agenda which is out to neutralize the enemies of Israel and would like to take on Russia and China as well (see the link for PNAC at the top of www.informationclearinghouse.info ).

More about JINSA (and the Zionist 'A Clean Break' agenda can be found via the following URL:

'A Clean Break' (from James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):


Check out the comments by the retired US intelligence contact which are posted via the following URL:


Treason at high level: Pentagon Neocons, AIPAC and Israel:


JINSA Zionist (Jewish) Neoconservative Michael Ledeen admits meddling with Ukraine election:


Neoconservatism is a Jewish movement, but not all Jews support it (Jewish Neoconservatives use 'democracy and freedom/liberty' propaganda to mask their war for Israel agenda as the following 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article conveys):

The following article has embedded links which one can access by going to this URL directly:


September 18, 2003

Thinking About Neoconservatism
By Kevin MacDonald

Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?

The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that

“the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

If the US is an “ideological” nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry.

For example, it is certainly true that the neocons’ foreign policy fits well with a plausible version of Jewish interests, but is arguably only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S. Also, neocons oppose the isolationism of important sections of traditional American conservatism. And neocon attitudes on issues like race and immigration differ profoundly from those of traditional mainstream conservatives — but resemble closely the common attitudes of the wider American Jewish community.

Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion and disproof.

We shouldn’t be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one.

Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism. They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world.

But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion. Now, however, as the U.S. acquires an empire in the Middle East, this ban must inevitably fall away.

My views on these issues are shaped by my research on several other influential Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements, including the Boasian school of anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, Marxism and several other movements of the radical left, as well as the movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional immigration.

My conclusion: Contemporary neoconservatism fits into the general pattern of Jewish intellectual and political activism I have identified in my work.

I am not, of course, saying that all Jews, or even most Jews, supported these movements. Nor did these movements work in concert: some were intensely hostile to one another. I am saying, however, that the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests.

In all of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish identity among the core figures. All center on charismatic Jewish leaders—people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud— who are revered as messianic, god-like figures.

Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary. Such men as Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations. After the 1950s, they became increasingly disenchanted with leftism. Their overriding concern was the welfare of Israel.

By the 1970s, the neocons were taking an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, which they saw as a bastion of anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel. Richard Perle was the prime organizer of Congressional support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which angered the Soviet Union by linking bilateral trade issues to freedom of emigration, primarily of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel and the United States.

Current key leaders include an astonishing number of individuals well placed to influence the Bush Administration: (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky), interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan).

As the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several key neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker:

“I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish ‘Question’.”

Strauss has become a cult figure—the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples.

While Strauss and his followers have come to be known as neoconservatives — and have even claimed to be simply “conservatives”— there is nothing conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel. But it is also the case with domestic policy, where acceptance of rule by an aristocratic elite would require a complete political transformation. Strauss believed that this aristocracy would be compatible with Jewish interests.

Strauss notoriously described the need for an external exoteric language directed at outsiders, and an internal esoteric language directed at ingroup members. In other words, the masses had to be deceived.

But actually this is a general feature of the movements I have studied. They invariably frame issues in language that appeals to non-Jews, rather than explicitly in terms of Jewish interests. The most common rhetoric used by Jewish intellectual and political movements has been the language of moral universalism and the language of science—languages that appeal to the educated elites of the modern Western world. But beneath the rhetoric it is easy to find statements expressing the Jewish agendas of the principal actors.

For example, anthropologists under the leadership of Boas viewed their crusade against the concept of “race” as, in turn, combating anti-Semitism. They also saw their theories as promoting the ideology of cultural pluralism, which served perceived Jewish interests because the U.S. would be seen as consisting of many co-equal cultures rather than as a European Christian society.

Similarly, psychoanalysts commonly used their theories to portray anti-Jewish attitudes as symptoms of psychiatric disorder.

Conversely, the earlier generation of American Jewish Trotskyites ignored the horrors of the Soviet Union until the emergence there of state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

Neoconservatives have certainly appealed to American patriotic platitudes in advocating war throughout the Middle East—gushing about spreading American democracy and freedom to the area, while leaving unmentioned their own strong ethnic ties and family links to Israel.

Michael Lind has called attention to the neoconservatives’ “odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for ‘democracy’”— odd because these calls for democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East are also coupled with support for the Likud Party and other like-minded groups in Israel that are driven by a vision of an ethnocentric, expansionist Israel that, to outside observers at least, bears an unmistakable (albeit unmentionable) resemblance to apartheid South Africa.

These inconsistencies of the neoconservatives are not odd or surprising. The Straussian idea is to achieve the aims of the elite ingroup by using language designed for mass appeal. War for “democracy and freedom” sells much better than a war explicitly aimed at achieving the foreign policy goals of Israel.

Neoconservatives have responded to charges that their foreign policy has a Jewish agenda by labeling any such analysis as “anti-Semitic.” Similar charges have been echoed by powerful activist Jewish organizations like the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

But at the very least, Jewish neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, who were deeply involved in pushing for the war in Iraq, should frankly discuss how their close family and personal ties to Israel have affected their attitudes on US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Wolfowitz, however, has refused to discuss this issue beyond terming such suggestions “disgraceful.”

A common argument is that neoconservatism is not Jewish because of the presence of various non-Jews amongst their ranks.

But in fact, the ability to recruit prominent non-Jews, while nevertheless maintaining a Jewish core and a commitment to Jewish interests, has been a hallmark—perhaps the key hallmark—of influential Jewish intellectual and political movements throughout the 20th century. Freud commented famously on the need for a non-Jew to represent psychoanalysis, a role played by Ernest Jones and C. G. Jung. Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were the public face of Boasian anthropology. And, although Jews represented over half the membership of both the Socialist Party and the Communist Party USA at various times, neither party ever had Jews as presidential candidates and no Jew held the top position in the Communist Party USA after 1929.

In all the Jewish intellectual and political movements I reviewed, non-Jews have been accepted and given highly-visible roles. Today, those roles are played most prominently by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld whose ties with neoconservatives go back many years. It makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespeople for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince.

In fact, neoconservatism is rather unusual in the degree to which policy formulation — as opposed to implementation — is so predominantly Jewish. Perhaps this reflects U.S. conditions in the late 20th century.

All the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied were typified by a deep sense of orthodoxy—a sense of “us versus them.” Dissenters are expelled, usually amid character assassination and other recriminations.

This has certainly been a feature of the neocon movement. The classic recent example of this “We vs. They” world is David Frum’s attack on “unpatriotic conservatives” as anti-Semites. Any conservative who opposes the Iraq war as contrary to U.S. interests and who notes the pro-Israeli motivation of many of the important players, is not to be argued with, but eradicated. “We turn our backs on them.” This is not the spirit out of which the Anglo-American parliamentary tradition was developed, and in fact was not endorsed by other non-Jewish pro-war conservatives.

Jewish intellectual and political movements have typically had ready access to prestigious mainstream media channels, and this is certainly true for the neocons. The anchoring by the Washington Post of the columns of Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan and by the New York Times of William Safire's illustrates this. But probably more important recently has been the invariable summoning of neoconservatives to represent the “conservative” line on the TV Networks. Is it unreasonable to suppose that this may be somewhat influenced by the famously heavy Jewish role in these operations?

Immigration policy provides a valuable acid test for the proposition that neoconservatism is actually a vehicle for perceived Jewish ethnic interests. I believe I have been able to demonstrate that pro-immigration elements in American public life have, for over a century, been largely led, funded, energized and organized by the Jewish community [PDF file]. American Jews have taken this line, with a few isolated exceptions, because they have believed, as Leonard S. Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, has bluntly stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.” Having run out of Russian Jews, the HIAS is now deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa.

When, in the middle 1990s an immigration reform movement arose amongst American conservatives, the reaction of the neoconservatives ranged from cold to hostile. No positive voice was permitted on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal, by then a neoconservative domain. (Perhaps significantly, a more recent exception has been a relatively favorable review of the anti-illegal immigration book Mexifornia— whose author, the military historian Victor Davis Hanson, has distinguished himself by the extreme hawkishness of his views on the Middle East.) The main vehicle of immigration reform sentiment, National Review, once a bastion of traditional conservative thought, was quite quickly captured by neoconservatives and its opposition to immigration reduced to nominal.

Prior to the post-9/11 U.S. invasion of the Middle East, this suppression of the immigration reform impulse among conservatives was probably the single most important contribution of the neoconservatives to the course of U.S. history.

It may yet prove to be the most disastrous.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach.




Last edited by Alpha on Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:12 am; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:43 am    Post subject: Russian (Jewish) Oligarchs in Israel Reply to topic

Alpha wrote:
Are the Israelis Ready to Start WW 3?


See pictures associated with the following article at this URL:



February 17, 2005

Do Americans Even Care?
Russia, Israel and Media Omissions

As is often the case with AP's coverage of news having to do with Israel, there's a serious omission in its reporting on the Russia-Israel connection even when it involves oil and the United States.

The day after the State of the Union Address, two Interpol fugitives attended the "National Prayer Breakfast" held in Washington DC. The day before that, these fugitives from the law were the guests of honor at an hour-long meeting of the International Relations Committee on Capitol Hill, invited by ranking Democrat Tom Lantos (Calif.)

You would think it would be hot news when wanted men being hunted by European police suddenly pop up in the US particularly on Capitol Hill and at events attended by the US president.

Yet, there was not a single AP story in the US on any of this. [1] Not a single national network television or radio news program even mentioned these facts. In fact, Google and LexisNexis searches four days after these events took place turned up only three newspaper articles on them anywhere in the entire country. [2]

Who are these fugitives from the law, wanted by Interpol, who are meeting at the highest levels of the US government? And why didn't we learn of them?

Therein lies the story. These two men, it turns out, are just the tips of a colossal iceberg. And this iceberg doesn't just have 90 percent of its mass hidden under water; this iceberg is almost entirely submerged.

They are Mikhail Brudno and Vladimir Dubov, Israeli-Russian partners in the giant Russian oil company Yukos. They, along with a number of their cronies, are wanted by Interpol for allegedly bilking Russian citizens out of billions of dollars. To elude Russian prosecution, these men have taken up residence in Israel. [3]

As the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz explains: "In recent years Russian authorities began investigating [Yukos], its managers and major stockholders, many of whom are of Jewish origin. The probes caused several of the managers to flee to Israel, and resulted in Khodorkovski's [Yukos CEO] arrest and a Kremlin attack on Yukos."

The fact is that Israel is an important factor in the ongoing, nation-shaking power struggle now going on in Russia. Yet AP virtually never reports this connection. For example, a few months ago in a typical AP story on this power struggle, "Report: Russia again charges Berezovsky," [4] Moscow AP Bureau Chief Judith Ingram makes no mention anywhere that Berezovsky is an Israeli citizen, or of his many connections to Israel.

Such omissions by AP and large swaths of the American media leave Americans seriously disadvantaged in deciphering what is going on in Russia, and its profound significance for the world.

In order to make sense of this Russian power struggle, and to understand its importance to the rest of us, it is necessary to understand the usually omitted Israeli subtext. When this is understood, the friendship of such pro-Israel Congressional leaders as Rep. Lantos to fugitive Russian oil tycoons begins to make sense.

To explore this background it is often useful to turn to the Israeli press. In July a major Israeli publication, the Jerusalem Post, carried an article headlined: "Boris Berezovsky: Putin's Russia dangerous for Israel." Before describing what this contained, let us first go into a little of the background.

The Oligarchs

Boris Berezovsky is one of seven "oligarchs," as they are known both inside and outside Russia: massively rich, powerful manipulators who through violence, theft and corruption acquired a mammoth percentage (reports range from 70 to 85 percent) of Russia's resources, from its oil to the auto industry to mass media outlets.

At the same time, the group steadily gained control over much of the country's political apparatus. Using extraordinary financial resources and insider dealing, the oligarchs handpicked prime ministers and governmental leaders and barely even bothered to do this behind the scenes.

In 1997 Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the group and Russia's sometimes richest man (several of the oligarchs trade the top spot back and forth) told an interviewer before he was arrested and imprisoned by Putin last year:

"If we rank all the fields of man's activity by profitability, politics will be the most lucrative business. When we see a critical situation in the government, we draw lots in order to pick out a person from our milieu for work in power." [5]

Almost all of these oligarchs, it turns out, have significant ties to Israel. In fact, Berezovsky himself has Israeli citizenship a fact that caused a scandal of Watergate proportions in Russia in 1996 when it was exposed by a Russian newspaper. [6]

Do Berezovsky's dual loyalties really matter? Yes. In the realm of global dominance, Israel's interests and Russia's are considerably divergent. It is in Israel's interests to bring to power a regime in Russia friendly to Israel, rather than the current one under Putin, which Israeli leaders feel is supportive of its enemies. Not long ago, for example, Putin met with Syrian leaders an action highly disturbing to Israel.

Having an Israeli citizen at the highest levels of the Russian government is ideal, from Israel's point of view. In Berezovsky they had such a man. The Jerusalem Post article mentioned above is revealing. It describes Berezovsky as "the Godfather of the Oligarchs' and Kingmaker of Russia's Politics'" and reports Berezovsky's statement that "Putin's Russia is dangerous for Israel." Berezovsky goes on to assert that Putin "supports terror" in the Middle East through Russia's previous relations with Iraq and current relations with Iran. [7]

While Israelis may have been delighted at Berezovsky's position in Russia, It is not surprising that Russian citizens were somewhat less so. Finding that a powerful leader and member of the Russian Security Council was an Israeli citizen was disconcerting, at best.

As a result of the media uproar over Berezovsky's Israeli citizenship and other events, the Oligarchs' connections to Israel are widely known in Russia and elsewhere. In Israel they are covered frequently, often with adulation, including a recent hit Israeli TV series called "The Oligarchs."

"Some of its episodes," according to Israeli writer Uri Avnery, "are simply unbelievable or would have been, if they had not come straight from the horses' mouths: the heroes of the story, who gleefully boast about their despicable exploits. The series was produced by Israeli immigrants from Russia."

Avnery writes that the oligarchs used "cheating, bribery and murder," as they "exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews." [8]

According to a Washington Post story by David Hoffman, the group bought and controlled Russian governmental officials at the highest levels. After financing Yeltsin's election in 1996, Hoffman writes: "The tycoons met and decided to insert one of their own into government. They debated who and chose [Vladimir] Potanin, who became deputy prime minister. One reason they chose Potanin was that he is not Jewish, and most of the rest of them are, and feared a backlash against the Jewish bankers." [9]

In Russia, the oligarchs are deeply loathed, considered villains who worked to bleed the country dry; during their reign many Russian citizens saw their life savings disappear overnight. A new term was coined for their dominance, "semibankirshchina" (the rule of the seven bankers), and they were widely known to have wielded small, murderous armies. There are rumors that Berezovsky, subject of the respectful AP article, was even responsible for the gunning down of an American journalist, Forbes Moscow editor Paul Klebnikov.

While no one has been charged with the murder of Klebnikov, who had written a book on Berezovsky, many suspect a Berezovsky connection. As a friend of Klebnikov wrote: "Experienced expatriates in Russia shared an essential rule: Don't cross these brutal billionaires, ever, or you're likely to go home in a box." [10]

The Chechnya Connection

There is evidence that Berezovsky's responsibility for death and tragedy may be vastly greater.

"Berezovsky boasts that he caused the war in Chechnya," Avnery reports, "in which tens of thousands have been killed and a whole country devastated. He was interested in the mineral resources and a prospective pipeline there. In order to achieve this he put an end to the peace agreement that gave the country some kind of independence. The oligarchs dismissed and destroyed Alexander Lebed, the popular general who engineered the agreement, and the war has been going on since then.

"In the end," Avnery writes, "there was a reaction: Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another, Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.)"

Yet, apart from the Washington Post, American media report on almost none of this. Instead, US coverage largely portrays Berezovsky and his crowd as American-style entrepreneurs who are being hounded by a Russian government whose actions are, to repeat the media's commonly used phrase, "politically motivated."

US news stories, even when they occasionally do hint at questionable practices, tend to use such phrases as "brash young capitalists" to describe the oligarchs. [11] For example, a long series co-produced by FRONTLINE and the New York Times referred to these men as "shrewd businessmen," and asked "what it's like to be young, Russian and newly affluent?" [12] Massive violence, dual loyalties, and control of resources are rarely, if ever, part of the picture.

When AP Moscow bureau chief Ingram was asked for this article about Berezovsky's Israeli citizenship, she claimed to know nothing about it, a curious contention for someone who has been an AP news editor in Moscow since 1999. When Ingram was queried further, she hung up the phone.

An examination of Ingram's reporting on the Berezovsky story cited above raises serious questions. Though she is located in Moscow, Ingram interviewed only two people for her news story: Berezovsky, who is in London, and Berezovsky associate Alex Goldfarb, in New York. One wonders why she interviewed none of the Russians residing around her.

Similarly, one wonders why not a single AP story has identified Berezovsky's considerable connection to Israel.

Further, nowhere does Ingram's article convey the ruthlessness of the oligarchs' actions, or the significance of their holdings, including control of its media. Unnoted in Ingram's report is the fact that her subject and fellow oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky have been two of Russia's most powerful media tycoons.

Before Putin's crackdown, according to the Washington Post, oligarchs had succeeded in seizing "the reins of Russia's print and broadcast media, vital to the evolution of the country's fledgling democracy and growth of its nascent civil society." Berezovsky crony Gusinsky, who is close friends with Rupert Murdoch and was about the launch a satellite network, fled to Israel when it appeared he would be arrested." [13]

Somehow, AP's bureau chief seems to have missed all this.

Does this matter to Americans?

AP is the major news source for the thousands of news outlets around the country who cannot afford to have their own foreign correspondents. When AP chooses not to cover something, its omission is felt throughout the nation. When national news networks and others leave out the same facts, the cover-up is almost total.

Russia, despite its current turmoil, contains enormous power. Its natural resources are gargantuan: it possesses the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. It is the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter, and the third largest energy consumer.[14] Russia's significance on the world stage now, as in the past, is immense.

Similarly, the United States is currently the most powerful nation on earth. It is therefore essential that its citizens be accurately informed on issues of significance. Israeli citizens, Russian citizens, and citizens of nations throughout the world know the information detailed above. It is critical that American citizens be no less well informed.

For years, the neocons' push for war against Iraq was unreported by the US media. For even longer, the neocons' close connections to Israel have gone largely unmentioned in mainstream American news reports. As a result, very few Americans know to what degree many of those responsible for the tragic US invasion and occupation of Iraq have been motivated by Israeli concerns.

The omission in coverage of Iraq has been profoundly disastrous, both for the Middle East and for Americans. In fact, it is quite likely that only history will show the true extent of this disaster. It is deeply troubling to see the same kind of omission occurring on Russia.

Alison Weir is Executive Director of If Americans Knew

[1] Interestingly, an AP report sent out only on its Worldstream wire (i.e. to Europe; Britain; Scandinavia; Middle East; Africa; India; Asia; England, but not to US papers) contained information on this at the end of the report.

[2] Washington Post: "Prayer Breakfast Includes Russian Fugitives" (overall, the Post has been an exception to the general blackout on this subject); the Seattle Times, which ran the Post story, and the New York Times, in a short story on page 12 on Sunday, three days after the event. Interestingly, the NY Times story was filed from Moscow (not Washington) and quotes a "spokesman" for the two men, Charles Krause, who has worked as a correspondent in Israel for the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. In the Times story Russian attempts to prosecute these men are described as "politically motivated."

[3] This is a wise move, since Israel is known for never extraditing Jewish citizens, no matter what their crime. Even requests for such cooperation by the US, which gives Israel over $10 million per day, go unheeded by the Israeli government. Private citizens wanted for committing murder in the US, for example, are not returned for trial.

[4] Associated Press, Sept. 22, 2004

[5] "Tycoons Take the Reins in Russia," By David Hoffman, Washington Post Foreign Service, Friday, August 28, 1998; Page A01

[6] "Media and Politics in Transition: Three Models," Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter, Issue 35, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Feb. 27, 1997

[7] "Boris Berezovsky: Putin's Russia dangerous for Israel.', Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2005

[8]" The Oligarchs", Uri Avnery, CounterPunch, Aug. 3, 2004

[9] "Tycoons Take the Reins in Russia," By David Hoffman, Washington Post Foreign Service, Friday, August 28, 1998; Page A01,

[10] "Same Old Ruthless Russia," by Michael R. Caputo, Washingtonpost.com

[11] Washington Post, Aug 28, 1998

[12] October 2003, Sabrina Tavernise,

[13] "Powerful Few Rule Russian Mass Media," David Hoffman, Washington Post, March 31, 1997; Page A01

[14] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russia.html


Last edited by Alpha on Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:53 am    Post subject: Putin Meets with Iranian Leaders Reply to topic

Putin Meets with Iranian Leaders


February 18, 2005,
The Kremlin, Moscow

Beginning of the Meeting with Secretary of the Iranian Supreme Council of National Security Hassan Rouhani

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: Dear Mr Rouhani, dear colleagues,
Let me wish you a warm welcome to Moscow. I remember our meeting in November 2003 here, in the Kremlin. We had a very detailed talk. And it is very pleasing for me to note that relations between Russia and Iran are developing consistently in almost all directions.
Iran is our long-standing partner. In 2003 our volume of trade turnover doubled, and grew by another third in 2004. We have many joint interests as Caspian nations. And although dialogue is not easy between all Caspian nations, I know for a fact that everyone has the desire to find a compromise in this region.
I remember the invitation of the Iranian leadership to visit your country. We are preparing for this visit. We will agree on the dates separately, but I think that we will talk about this issue again today.
We have many interesting projects in the sphere of the economy and in the security sphere, above all in the Caspian region, of course. In connection with this, we support several of Iran’s initiatives, and I hope that we will also talk about this in more detail today. We hope to be met with a similar position in our initiatives.
I would ask you to pass on my very best wishes to the Iranian leadership. It is very pleasing for us that relations between us are developing well at practically all levels, and that dialogue is continual. I hope, of course, to discuss with you issues concerning the so-called nuclear problem, and to discuss the situation in the region. In general, we have a very large agenda, and we are glad to see you.
HASSAN ROUHANI: Thank you very much, Mr President,
I am very happy about today’s meeting which allows us to exchange opinions. I thank you for your very hospitable reception, and I am glad to pass on warm wishes and greetings from our leadership.
The development and deepening of our relations in the area of bilateral ties, regional issues, and also issues of the international agenda are priority areas of Iran’s foreign policy. In the current international situation, and also given the complex regional situation, we have no doubt that developing relations matches the interests of the two parties, and will be a factor for strengthening stability in the region.
We attach great importance to your visit. Undoubtedly, it will provide additional stimulus for the development of our relations. Mr Khatami hopes to welcome you soon in Tehran.
At our last meeting held last year, we discussed a large list of issues of our cooperation in various areas. I am glad to inform you today that over the last year, significant progress has been reached in all these areas. In the Iranian Supreme Council of national security, we are keeping track of the progress of these joint projects, and I hope to present you with a report today on the development of the situation in these issues.
Since last year, major steps have been taken on our part in the nuclear sphere. Last year, when we were in Moscow, many people in the world had doubts about the nature of our activity in the nuclear sphere. But today no one doubts that our activity in the nuclear sphere is of an exclusively peaceful nature. This was stated by representatives of the International agency for nuclear energy, and also by the Board of Governors, and recorded in the last resolution of the Board. Along with the talks that we are holding with the European Group of Three, we also attach great importance to the role that Russia can play. We believe that Russia’s role may be very beneficial to advance these talks.
Very important problems lie before us in connection with the situation in the region. And I would like to discuss individual aspects of this situation once more
Where our two countries have worked together, this has only helped security and stability in the region. This is shown by our cooperation in Afghanistan, in Central Asia, in Transcaucasia, and in the Caspian region. Our cooperation in all these regions has helped to strengthen stability. Naturally, today we are encountering new problems in the region, but we have no doubt that consultations between Moscow and Tehran will help to overcome these problems.
MR PUTIN: I completely agree with your assessment. You know our position on the nuclear problem. We are firmly convinced that proliferation of nuclear weapons will not help security, and will not strengthen security either in the region or in the world in general. The recent actions by Iran have convinced us that Iran truly does not intend to manufacture nuclear weapons, and this means that we will continue cooperation in all spheres, including in the sphere of nuclear energy.
We hope, of course, dear Mr Rouhani, that Iran will strictly adhere to all the obligations it has taken on bilaterally – with Russia – and internationally. We will continue cooperation with Iran in all spheres, including the military and technical sphere. And I agree with you that our joint work in a number of regions in the world – you have listed them: the Caucasus, Afghanistan and Central Asia – will have a positive result. These joint actions can only be assessed in a positive light, and we count on this joint work in future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:10 pm    Post subject: Even Israelis Know that the Iraq War was for Israel Reply to topic

Check out the following article as even Israelis like Uri Avnery know that the war in Iraq was for Israel (via the Zionist - Israel first- JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neoconservative traitors to America):


April 10, 2003

The Night After
The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace

It is now fashionable to talk about "the day after". Let's talk about the night after.

After the end of hostilities in Iraq, the world will be faced with two decisive facts:

First, the immense superiority of American arms can beat any people in the world, valiant as it may be.

Second, the small group that initiated this war--an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and Jewish neo-conservatives--has won big, and from now on it will control Washington almost without limits.

The combination of these two facts constitutes a danger to the world, and especially to the Middle East, the Arab peoples and the future of Israel. Because this alliance is the enemy of peaceful solutions, the enemy of the Arab governments, the enemy of the Palestinian people and especially the enemy of the Israeli peace camp.

It does not dream only about an American empire, in the style of the Roman one, but also of an Israeli mini-empire, under the control of the extreme right and the settlers. It wants to change the regimes in all Arab countries. It will cause permanent chaos in the region, the consequences of which it is impossible to foresee.

Its mental world consists of a mixture of ideological fervor and crass material interests, an exaggerated American patriotism and right-wing Zionism.

That is a dangerous mixture. There is in it something of the spirit of Ariel Sharon, a man who has always had grandiose plans for changing the region, consisting of a mixture of creative imagination, unbridled chauvinism and a primitive faith in brute force.

Who are the winners?

They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers.

For many years, this was a marginal group that fostered a right-wing agenda in all fields. They fought against abortion, homosexuality, pornography and drugs. When Binyamin Netanyahu assumed power in Israel, they offered him advise on how to fight the Arabs.

Their big moment arrived with the collapse of the Twin Towers. The American public and politicians were in a state of shock, completely disoriented, unable to understand a world that had changed overnight. The neo-cons were the only group with a ready explanation and a solution. Only nine days after the outrage, William Kristol (the son of the group's founder, Irving Kristol) published an Open Letter to President Bush, asserting that it was not enough to annihilate the network of Osama bin Laden, but that it was also imperative to "remove Saddam Hussein from power" and to "retaliate" against Syria and Iran for supporting Hizbullah.

Following is a short list of the main characters. (If it bores you, skip to the next section).

The Open Letter was published in the Weekly Standard, founded by Kristol with the money of ultra-right press mogul Rupert Murdoch, who donated $ 10 million to the cause. It was signed by 41 leading neo-cons, including Norman Podhoretz, a Jewish former leftist who has become an extreme right-wing icon, editor of the prestigious Encounter magazine, and his wife, Midge Decter, also a writer, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Studies, Robert Kagan, also of the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, and, of course, Richard Perle.

Perle is a central character in this play. Until recently he was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the Defense Department, which also includes Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross. Perle is a director of the Jerusalem Post, now owned by extreme right-wing Zionists. In the past he was an aide to Senator Henry Jackson, who led the fight against the Soviet Union on behalf of the Jews who wanted to leave. He is a leading member of the influential right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Lately he was obliged to resign from his Defense Department position, when it became known that a private corporation had promised to pay him almost a million dollars for he benefit of his influence in the administration.

That Open Letter was, in effect, the beginning of the Iraq war. It was eagerly received by the Bush administration, with members of the group already firmly established in some of its leading positions. Paul Wolfowitz, the father of the war, is No. 2 in the Defense Department, where another friend of Perle's, Douglas Feith, heads the Pentagon Planning Board. John Bolton is State Department Undersecretary. Eliot Abrams, responsible for the Middle East in the National Security Council, was connected with the Iran-Contra-Israel scandal. The main hero of the scandal, Oliver North, sits in the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, together with Michael Ledeen, another hero of the scandal. Headvocates total war not only against Iraq, but also against Israel's other enemies, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

Most of these people , together with Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, are associated with the "Project for the New American Century", which published a White Paper in 2002, with the aim 'to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'"--meaning American control of the world.

Meyrav Wurmser (Meyrav is a chic new Israeli first name) is Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. She also writes for the Jerusalem Post and is co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute that is, according to the London Guardian, connected with Israeli Army Intelligence. MEMRI feeds the media and politicians with highly selective quotations from extreme Arab publications. Meyrav's husband, Davis Wurmser, is at Perle's American Enterprise Institute, heading Middle East Studies. Mention should also be made of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy of our old acquaintance, Dennis Ross, who for years was in charge of the "peace process" in the Middle East.

In all the important papers there are people close to the group, such as William Safire, a man hypnotized by Sharon, in the New York Times and Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. Another Perle friend, Robert Bartley, is the editor of the Wall Street Journal.

If the speeches of Bush and Cheney often sound as if they came from the lips of Sharon, one of the reasons may be that their speechwriters, Joseph Shattan, Mathew Scully and John McConnell, are neo-cons, as is Cheneys Chief-of-Staff, Lewis Libby.

The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. The founding fathers were Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, who once got a jet plane as a present from Menachem Begin, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network, which help to finance the Christian Embassy in Jerusalem of J.W. van der Hoeven, an outfit that supports the settlers and their right-wing allies.

Common to both groups is their adherence to the fanatical ideology of the extreme right in Israel. They see the Iraq war as a struggle between the Children of Light (America and Israel) and the Children of Darkness (the Arabs and Muslims).

By the way, none of these facts are secret. They have been published lately in dozens of articles, both in American and world media. The members of the group are proud of them.

The Zionist general.

The man who symbolizes this victory is General Jay Garner, who has just been appointed chief of the civilian administration in Iraq.

He is no anonymous general who has been picked accidentally. Garner is the ideological partner of Paul Wolfowitz and the neo-cons.

Two years ago he signed, together with 26 other officers, a petition organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, lauding the Israeli Army for "remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority," which is certainly news to the Israeli peace forces. He also stated that "a strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on."

In the first Gulf War he praised the performance of the Patriot missiles, which had failed miserably. After leaving the army in 1997, he became, not surprisingly, a defense contractor specializing in missiles. It was alleged that he landed non-competitive Pentagon contracts. This year he obtained a defense contract for $ 1.5 billion, as well as a contract for building Patriot systems in Israel.

Therefore, there can be no better candidate for the job of chief of the civilian administration in Iraq, especially at a time when contracts for billions of dollars for reconstruction have to be handed out, to be paid for by Iraqi oil.

A new Balfour declaration.

The ideology of this group, that calls for an American world-empire as well as for a Greater Israel, reminds one of bygone days.

The Balfour declaration of 1917, that promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine, had two parents. The mother was Christian Zionism (among whose adherents were illustrious statesmen like Lord Palmerston and Lord Shaftesbury, long before the foundation of the Zionist movement), the father was British imperialism. The Zionist idea allowed the British to crowd out their French competitors and take possession of Palestine, which was needed to safeguard the Suez Canal and the shorter sea route to India.

Now the same thing is happening again. Last year Richard Perle organized a briefing in which a speaker proposed war not only on Iraq, but on Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well, in order to secure the world's oil heartland. Iraq, he asserted, was only the pivot. One of the justifications for this design is the need to defend Israel.

To bet on our life?

Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.

But this tendency troubles me. We are like a gambler, who bets all his money and his future on one horse. A good horse, a horse with no current competitor, but still one horse.

The neo-cons will cause a long period of chaos in the Arab and Muslim world. The Iraqi war has already shown that their understanding of Arab realities is shaky. Their political assumptions did not stand the test, only brute force saved their undertaking.

Some day the Americans will go home, but we shall remain here. We have to live with the Arab peoples. Chaos in the Arab world endangers our future.

Wolfowitz and Co. may dream about a democratic, liberal, Zionist and America-loving Middle East, but the result of their adventures may well turn out to be a fanatical and fundamentalist region that will threaten our very existence.

The partnership of the neo-cons and the Christian fundamentalists may engender counter-forces in Washington. And if Bush is defeated in the next election, like his father after his victory in the first Gulf War, this whole gang will be thrown out.

The Bible tells us about the kings of Judea, who relied on the then world power, Egypt. They did not appreciate the rise of forces in the east, Assyria and Babylon. An Assyrian general told the king of Judea: "Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it." (II kings 18, 21).

Bush and his gang of neo-cons is not a bruised reed. Far from it, he is now a very strong reed. But should we bet our whole future on this?

Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist. His essays are included in The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent.

Today's Features
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:31 pm    Post subject: Iran readies for feared attack by U.S. Reply to topic

The Washington Times
Iran readies for feared attack by U.S.
By Borzou Daragahi
Published February 19, 2005
Iran has begun preparing for a possible U.S. attack, announcing efforts to bolster and mobilize recruits in citizens' militias and making plans to engage in the type of "asymmetrical" warfare used against American troops in neighboring Iraq.
"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," an Iranian official close to the hard-line camp, which runs the country's security and military apparatus, said on the condition of anonymity.
Tensions between Tehran and Washington have increased over Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.
Tehran insists its desire for atomic energy is entirely peaceful while Washington accuses the Muslim state of using nuclear energy as a fig leaf to make weapons.
President Bush said in an interview with Belgian television yesterday that he strongly prefers a diplomatic effort over military action to deal with Iran.
"You never want a president to say never," Mr. Bush said, "but military action is ... never the president's first choice. Diplomacy is always the president's first choice, at least my first choice."
The president issued his strongest warning to Iran during last month's State of the Union speech, telling Tehran that it "must give up" its nuclear program and support for terrorism, and pledging U.S. support for Iranians who openly oppose Iran's unelected regime.
In recent days, Iranian newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country's 7-million-strong "Basiji" militia forces, which were deployed in human wave attacks against Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras. Iranian generals have conducted massive war games near the Iraqi border.
One Western military expert based in Tehran said Iran was sharpening its abilities to wage a guerrilla war.
"Over the last year they've developed their tactics of asymmetrical war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect," he said on the condition of anonymity.
It remains unclear how much of the recent military activity amounts to an actual mobilization and how much is a propaganda ploy.
Iranian officials and analysts have said they want to highlight the potential costs of an attack on Iran to raise the stakes for U.S. officials considering such a move and to frighten a war-weary American public.
"Right now it's a psychological war," said Nasser Hadian, a University of Tehran political science professor who recently returned from a three-year stint as a scholar at New York's Columbia University.
"If America decides to attack, the only ones who could stop it are Iranians," he said. "Pressure from other countries and inside America is important, but it won't prevent an attack. The only thing that will prevent an attack is that if America knows it will pay a heavy price."
Bush administration officials have said there are no immediate plans to attack Iran and the possibility is considered remote because deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere limit U.S. capacity for a major new offensive.
Iran, in addition to developing plans for guerrilla warfare against an invading army, also is attempting to give the impression that it is bolstering its conventional forces.
In December, Iran announced its largest war games "ever," deploying 120,000 troops as well as tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles along its western border.
More recently, Iran's press reported that the Iranian air force had received orders to engage any plane that violates Iranian airspace. These reports followed the disclosure that unmanned American drone planes have been monitoring Iranian nuclear sites.
"It is obvious that with Iran surrounded by the United States forces and America pressing the nuclear issue, Iran wants to make a show of force," said a Western diplomat from Tehran, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts.
Its elite Revolutionary Guards number 120,000, many of them draftees. Its navy and air force total 70,000 men.
The armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers of the type Saddam Hussein used against Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Iran also has an undetermined number of Shahab missiles based on North Korean designs that have ranges of up to 1,500 miles.
But both outside military experts and Iranians concede that the country's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of U.S. and European sanctions, would be little match for the high-tech weaponry of the United States.
"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second-rate and much of it is worn," military expert Anthony Cordesman wrote in a December 2004 assessment of Iran's military. He said Iran lost between 50 percent and 60 percent of its military equipment in the Iran-Iraq war, "and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them."
Iran's highly classified Quds forces, which have a global network of operatives and answer directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could create a myriad of woes outside Iran's borders.
In neighboring Iraq, where the United States says Tehran already has been interfering, many brush off the current low-level infiltration as minor compared with the damage Tehran is capable of unleashing.
"If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States," Hamid al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said in a recent interview.
• David R. Sands contributed to this article.


Zionist Neocons (Israel firsters) promote U.S. - Iran War:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:34 pm    Post subject: Russia determined to continue nuclear cooperation with Iran Reply to topic


Russia determined to continue nuclear cooperation with Iran
02/19/2005 16:13
The US administration is not happy about the Russian-Iranian cooperation

President Putin stated that Russia would continue the nuclear cooperation with Iran, because the latter does not intend to produce nuclear weapons. The Russian president released the statement during a meeting with Hassan Rowhani, the head of Iran's national Security Council in the Kremlin.

"We are certain that the global proliferation of nuclear weapons does not assist in the strengthening of security either in the region or in the world on the whole. The latest steps on Iran's behalf persuade us that Iran has no intention of building an atomic weapon. Consequently, we will continue to cooperate with Iran in all fields, including in nuclear energy," the Russian president said.

The head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Energy, Alexander Rumyantsev, confirmed that Russia and Iran would sign an agreement for the return of spent nuclear fuel to Russia. The document is to be signed at the end of February, during Rumyantsev's visit to Iran. "We are going to sign an additional protocol to the inter-governmental agreement for the return of spent nuclear fuel," Alexander Rumyantsev said. The head of the Federal Agency also said that nuclear fuel is normally delivered to a nuclear power plant about six months before the launch of the reactor. "As far as the Iranian nuclear power plant in Bushehr is concerned, nuclear fuel deliveries to the station will be conducted within the scope of this condition," Rumyantsev added.

The United States suspect Iran of an intention to use the nuclear plant in Bushehr (the station was built in cooperation with Russia) for the production of nuclear weapons. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized, though, that Iran's nuclear program was of solely peaceful character. It was particularly said that Iran needed the program for solving energetic problems in the country. However, the US administration is not happy about the Russian-Iranian cooperation. The issue is expected to be raised during the forthcoming meeting between Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush in Bratislava on February 24th. Hassan Rowhani said during the meeting with President Putin that Iran was going to temporarily close the uranium enrichment program not to cause more concern in the West: "Everybody knows that our activity in the nuclear field is of absolutely peaceful character," Rowhani said.

On the photo: The view of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr

Read the original in Russian: (Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:31 am    Post subject: RITTER SAYS THAT US PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN Reply to topic


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 53266

PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:37 am    Post subject: Bush 'Warns' Putin on Democracy Reply to topic



Why Putin is under attack:


No War for Israel:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    War Without End Forum Index -> Wake Up America! Your Government is Hijacked by Zionism All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Social Links:  HAS Housing Association Software