British Groups Say Not to Attack Iran

The report [link] from a coalition of think tanks, unions and aid groups is the latest of several high-profile appeals to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, arguing that military action could be highly dangerous and counterproductive.

``There are circumstances in which military action might have to be taken, but they are more circumscribed than simply saying we have a hunch that this country has got a nuclear program, therefore let's zap it just in case,'' Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador to Iran in 2002-06, said at a news conference for the document's release.

President Bush and other Western leaders have said there are no plans to attack Iran, but Washington also warns that military action remains an option as the U.N. Security Council presses Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and allay suspicions it is developing atomic bombs.

Bush recently raised the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf to its highest level since 2003 by ordering a second aircraft carrier strike group to the region. He also has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq plotting attacks on American forces.

Iran denies it is trying to develop atomic weapons in violation of treaty promises, saying it is working on uranium enrichment only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity.

Enrichment, however, can also produce material for atomic bombs. Last week, a think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Iran could be two to three years from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, although other experts have estimated longer time frames.

Dalton and Alex Bigham, Iran analyst at the left-leaning think tank Foreign Policy Center, said the nuclear weapons programs of India, Pakistan and North Korea show diplomacy is not guaranteed to keep Iran from obtaining atomic arms. But they also said Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction shows diplomacy should always be tried.

Monday's paper, ``Time to Talk,'' said a military strike on Iran could further destabilize neighboring Iraq, undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace and strengthen hard-liners in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government.

An attack on oil-rich Iran also could drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world, it said.

``The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted,'' the report said. ``At present, this is not the case.''

Blair's government should ``seek direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S.'' and press for a compromise on the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for talks, said the paper compiled by 17 groups, including the Amicus and GMB trade unions, Oxfam aid group, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Foreign Policy Center.

The report did not reach a conclusion on whether Iran intends to build nuclear weapons, but acknowledged that ``many members of the international community are deeply concerned'' about Tehran's intentions.

Its release came a day after a letter was published in the Sunday Times newspaper from three former high-ranking U.S. military officers who urged Washington to open talks ``without preconditions'' with the Iranian government.

The letter warned that an attack in Iran ``would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions.''

It was signed by retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington; and retired Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, former director of the Center for Defense Information.

CIA Seeks to Influence Opinion on Wars - 3

The first group of people to be targeted in a military conflict is the public. They are the first victims, for in a military conflict war is only one stage of the battle. The biggest battle is for the hearts and minds of the public at large.

read more

CIA Seeks to Influence Opinion on Wars - 2

The CIA Red Cell recommendations for influencing the European public into continuing their support for the mission in Afghanistan was quite remarkable. But the reality is that the contents of the document prove the rule, not the exception. From my book The Next War - The Attack on Iran - A Preview I took some excerpts that show that the CIA document is not quite unique

read more

CIA Seeks to Influence Opinion on Wars - 1

What's special about the case of the document is not so much its content, but the fact that it is now available for all to see. In a military conflict, war is only one stage of the struggle. The biggest struggle is for the hearts and minds of the public at large.

read more

Obama continues Bush's Iran policy - 3

'America's Pro-Israel Lobby', as AIPAC calls itself, holds the biggest conference in its history today, yesterday and the day before in Washington. 'This year, the lobby has built its annual conference, and its entire lobbying agenda around the issue of Iran', writes Haaretz. AIPAC is very influential, and Washington fears the long arm of the lobby. One of the resources it employs is the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI).

read more

Obama continues Bush's Iran policy - 2

The battle against Iran has already begun. War is only one phase of this process - just as it was with Iraq. The preparation is the most important part of the battle. Whoever thought that the preparation for war ended when Barack Obama took office is advised to take note of the views of critical thinker Noam Chomsky in the previous installment of this DeepJournal series. He says that Obama's policy on Iran is a continuation of the policy of his predecessor, President Bush. Anyone who cares to look at the facts will see that he is right.

read more