Iran busts CIA backed spy network

by tomeile Sat May 24, 2008 12:13

When Time magazine this month can discuss the possibility of an attack on Iran and record how persistent “ the concern is on Capitol Hill that President Bush could be secretly planning a military strike against Iran.” before leaving office ,why does the Irish anti war movement ignore the issue ? Even if Time magazine is just scaremongering surely that is a matter of importance in itself .

The Time article quotes Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer for the Central Command of the Israeli Defense.who is worried that by November it's going to be too late, to stop Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons . On military action against nuclear sites in Iran, he said, "Just do it. For Christ's sake, do it and solve our problem."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1808811,0...imw=Y

by tomeile Fri May 23, 2008 16:49

"I may be wrong here Tomeile, and I'm happy to be corrected, but does that mean you will suspend all political criticisms of the Iranian regime in the event of war?" DC

I don’t know where you got that impression from Darren . I will never under any circumstances suspend political criticism on any matter whatsoever . I think it is the duty of all leftists to be politically critical at all times .

My support or non-support for the Iranian regime depends entirely on whether it is opposing imperialism or not. So long as it is standing up to imperialism I’ll support that . The same goes for the Cuban or the Venezuelan regimes. On the question of regimes , I don’t completely support any regime ,or for that matter the existence of regimes at all - prisons, police, border controls, armies . Regimes are the result of the militarization of society and they all to some extent oppress human rights –even the most progressive ones. But imperialism is responsible in the last analysis for the militarization of oppressed nations and for the inability of those nations to function as democratic societies .

“Meanwhile anti-imperialists in Ireland and the West would strive to carry out the widest mass mobilisations and militant direct action to break the will of our rulers to carry on their war.”…DC

By the use of the future conditional I can only assume that this means that ,after America launches a war against Iran revolutionaries would (or should) start mobilizing the widest masses. But America is already in a war - one which has to date killed over a million people and there are no mass mobilisations occurring now and no militant direct action . If that mobilization is not happening now there is no reason to expect it to happen after an attack on Iran.
It would be much better in my opinion to work out why there is no mass mobilization happening now and trying to change the situation . Most people on indymedia think that all talk of mass mobilization is plain bonkers and that Feb 15 2003 was a fluke ,one off ,never to be repeated event , if this thread is anything to go by :
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86265

by Wat Tyler Thu May 22, 2008 17:12

This is what the local police chief originally said:

"The incident could have happened as a result of negligence. A while ago at this site there was an exhibition commemorating the [1980-1988] Iran-Iraq war," Commander Ali Moayeri, police chief of Fars province, told Fars news agency. "The munitions left at the site could have the been the reason for this explosion," he added. The agency said he ruled out any act of sabotage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7344780.stm

So what made them change their minds? They just couldn't pass up on the opportunity of torturing dissidents and using the whole incident as an excuse to increase repression. Maybe itwas the old munitions on dislay or maybe it was a black op by Iranian intelligence.. Ahmadinejad and Bush are soul brothers.

by Wat Tyler Thu May 22, 2008 17:04

Shiraz mosque explosion
Not a terror attack, Iranian authorities say

BBC: At least 12 people have been killed and more than 200 wounded in an explosion at a mosque in southern Iran (April 12, 2008). Authorities in the city of Shiraz were investigating the blast, which some early reports had blamed on a bomb. But a local police chief told Fars news agency that he had ruled out sabotage, and that "negligence" involving old war munitions might be the cause.
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/shiraz-mosq...osion

That was the original strory. Then Iranian Terrorists (the military inteligence) decided to frame some people so they claimed it was a bonb attack. Beware of the forked tongues of the Iranian propagandists. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both terrorists and liars.

by Darren C Thu May 22, 2008 16:45

"The IAWM does not have a military capacity to defend Iran with so I can't see how any resolution that would raise the 'military defense of Iran ' would be anything more than sloganeering"

I wasn't suggesting the IAWM build an international contingent to join the revolutionary guards in Tehran. That's preposterous! In the event of an attack on Iran by the United States (or Israel acting as an American proxy), revolutionaries would side 'militarily' with Iran against imperialist aggression. The policy of 'military defense' clearly does not imply any political support to the reactionary Iranian regime. Meanwhile anti-imperialists in Ireland and the West would strive to carry out the widest mass mobilisations and militant direct action to break the will of our rulers to carry on their war

"In the event of an attack on Iran by imperialism we would call for the defence of Iran and for the military defeat of imperialism " is the closest I could get to summing up my views on the matter"

I agree. I think our only difference is over formulations.

"But that raises the question of which military force would defeat imperialism. I wrote yesterday that support for Iranian national rights does not mean support for the Iranian regime ,but that does not mean that you should never exclude support for the regimes of oppressed nations under all circumstances as resolution 8 does when it says “Solidarity with the Iranian People, not the Iranian regime” .To the extent that it stands up to imperialism the Iranian regime and its armed forces should be supported . In the event of an attack on Iran I would certainly support the Iranian regime , Hizbollah ,the devil or his granny or anybody else opposing the imperialists."

I may be wrong here Tomeile, and I'm happy to be corrected, but does that mean you will suspend all political criticisms of the Iranian regime in the event of war? In the event of an attack, the working class must not only defend the country against a possible Iraq-style occupation - fighting episodically alongside the troops - but it should also come to the forefront of this progressive struggle, thus putting itself in the best place to overthrow the theocratic regime as soon as possible. Iranian workers, even those opposed to the regime, will not be "neutral" when bombs rain down on Tehran. And neither should we. But I don't think imperialist aggression against Iran obliges us to tone down or suppress our opposition to this regime.

"Darren either thinks that America and Israel are bluffing and that there won’t be an attack on Iran , or that if there is an attack which takes out Iranian nuclear facilities ,it won’t affect Ireland . Maybe he thinks both."

Ah now Tomeile, that's a little disingenuous. I wrote above that I think the US has taken a step closer to attacking Iran following Bush's visit to Israel. I don't think the US and Israel are "bluffing" about attacking the flagship nuclear facility in Natanz and I take the threat very seriously. I think they could attack the facility but avoid bombing the reactor. Creating a nuclear catastrophe would be too politically damaging for the US and its allies on Iran's borders - Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan etc - who would oppose a strike on the reactor because (a) the human distaster could affect them and (b) their justification of the US imperialist drive is beginning to rebound on them (see Pakistan and Egypt)

by Wat Tyler Thu May 22, 2008 16:03

The Tehran Times is owned and run by the Iranian Propaganda Department. Its about as credible as a US State Department press release.

by Wat Tyler Thu May 22, 2008 15:45

Trying to explain the recent bomb explosion at a Shiraz mosque, which killed well over 50 people and wounded another 200, the Iranian authorities, generally blamed for the self-inflicted event, first called it an accident caused by the detonation of various explosive devices on display at the mosque.

The "display" ploy was an effort to rationalize why so much explosive material was stored at a mosque of the religion of peace.

So why not concoct the lot into one "successful" counter-intelligence operation that makes fools of the CIA and makes the Mullahs look smart and vigilant. Very easy to get people to confess to being CIA agents when they are being tortured. Just like prisoners make "confessions" in Guantanamo.

The blast at a religious center in Shiraz last month was carried out by this group, and it also had plans to carry out similar attacks on the Tehran International Book Fair, the Russian Consulate in Gilan Province, oil pipelines in southern Iran, and other targets, the communiqué stated.
Tehran Times

Interesting grab bag of locations with indicative hints at the thought process behind their choice, that have little or no political or tactical value as targets for the CIA nor for CIA sponsored anti-Mullah groups.

BUT do serve to explain and justify the latest Mullah announced decision to multipy and strengthen the Bassiji (Militia) patrols in city streets around the country. Yes its an Iranian Intelligence Countergang and the prisoners will have their fingernails ripped out until they confess.

by tomeile Thu May 22, 2008 15:06

“I don't think the IAWM should be giving too much credence to the threat of a "nuclear incident" affecting Ireland. “

Darren either thinks that America and Israel are bluffing and that there won’t be an attack on Iran , or that if there is an attack which takes out Iranian nuclear facilities ,it won’t affect Ireland . Maybe he thinks both .

Is there a threat of an American or Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities ? I’d ask Darren to read the influential Israeli paper Haaretz which carries an article on its front page today under the heading, Is an Attack on Iran a Big Risk? The article assesses the risk to Israel of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities based on an interview with Patrick Clawson co-author of a paper , "The Last Resort," which is to be published shortly by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Clawson concludes that Iran’s bark is worse than its bite and that its response to an attack would be muted . http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985895.html .

The article is written in a way that seems to take for granted that such an attack is going to take place . The Israeli government and press have been priming the public for such an attack ever since Hizbollah defeated the IDF in Lebanon two years ago. Israeli infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer speaking at the start of a week long “home front “emergency drill on 11 April warned Iran ,

“An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation"

On the same day , neo-conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, urged America to adopt what he termed the "Holocaust Declaration ":
"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran , as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."
Writing five days later in the Jerusalem Post , the Israeli commentator , Calev Ben-David , offered the opinion that it might be necessary ,“to test a weapon (or long-range ballistic missile) in public ……… to highlight the ability to inflict massive destruction in response to a first strike”.

Israel’s Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz a former defence minister and IDF chief of General Staff said at the end of last month that ‘any means of ensuring Iran does not go nuclear would be valid’ . Referring to Iran as ‘ the central threat to humanity in the 21st century’ and clearly equating it with the fascist regime of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Holocaust , Mofaz insisted that “this time" the Jewish people would not let it happen .

After Dick Cheney’s visit to Israel and Saudi Arabia at the end of last month , a leading Saudi newspaper ,Okaz , reported that the Saudi Shura Council immediately started planning to deal with “sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom” . According to the Riydah based Arab News these plans are in response to indications that Iranian nuclear facilities may be bombed in the near future by either Israel or America.

Scientists in America have used Pentagon-devised software to measure the impact of a "limited" nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground nuclear site in Esfahan , predicting three million deaths by radiation within two weeks.The mere threat of a nuclear incident will not affect Ireland of course ,but if that threat was put into force and an actual attack destroyed a nuclear reactor it would be a different matter. You can’t of course predict the future , but the IAWM should at least address the possibility of things spinning out of control.

by tomeile Thu May 22, 2008 12:54

In the second paragraph of my last comment I wrote “never exclude” . The “never “ shouldn’t be there .The passage should read .
“but that does not mean that you should exclude support for the regimes of oppressed nations under all circumstances as resolution 8 does when it says “Solidarity with the Iranian People, not the Iranian regime”

by tomeile Thu May 22, 2008 12:47

The IAWM does not have a military capacity to defend Iran with so I can't see how any resolution that would raise the 'military defense of Iran ' would be anything more than sloganeering . "In the event of an attack on Iran by imperialism we would call for the defence of Iran and for the military defeat of imperialism " is the closest I could get to summing up my views on the matter.
But that raises the question of which military force would defeat imperialism. I wrote yesterday that support for Iranian national rights does not mean support for the Iranian regime ,but that does not mean that you should never exclude support for the regimes of oppressed nations under all circumstances as resolution 8 does when it says “Solidarity with the Iranian People, not the Iranian regime” .To the extent that it stands up to imperialism the Iranian regime and its armed forces should be supported . In the event of an attack on Iran I would certainly support the Iranian regime , Hizbollah ,the devil or his granny or anybody else opposing the imperialists.

by Darren C Wed May 21, 2008 19:07

I don't think the IAWM should be giving too much credence to the threat of a "nuclear incident" affecting Ireland. This kind of scaremongering is redolent of the fifties and sixties when authorities told school children to "duck and cover" in case of nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. The only difference this time around is that the bogey man ain't the Soviet Union; but Iran, North Korea or any other semi-colonial country with "WMDs"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_LZDXp0I

by Darren C Wed May 21, 2008 18:51

"The IAWM doesn’t even mention the word Iran on the front page of its website . I really don’t know why that is ,but it could be because the leadership is frightened that , if they defend Iran from an imperialist attack , they will be accused of supporting the Iranian regime"

There are two motions on notice concerning Iran and neither raise military defense of Iran against a possible strike or Iraq-style occupation. The motions can be found at - http://www.irishantiwar.org/node/159#comments

Can you suggest amendments to the motion? Its time to build an anti-imperialist pole in the anti-war movement

by tomeile Wed May 21, 2008 18:09

It’s hard to work out the specifics of imperialist war plans . But they say in military circles that no plans survive first contact with the enemy. There is a terrible danger that any war with Iran would spin out of control and quickly spread across the Middle East . Israel would almost certainly be attacked in retaliation for any strikes on Iran as well as US forces within Iraq . Olmert the Israeli P.M is under investigation for fraud at the moment and may well have to resign , in which case there is a good chance that Likud’s Benjamen Netanyahu will shortly be Israel’s new leader . According to Netanyahu :

“It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs"

The IAWM is not raising the possibility – even if it is a remote possibility - of a terrible nuclear catastrophe taking place during the course of the US aggression against Iran . The IAWM doesn’t even mention the word Iran on the front page of its website . I really don’t know why that is ,but it could be because the leadership is frightened that , if they defend Iran from an imperialist attack , they will be accused of supporting the Iranian regime . That is a false charge which can be easily answered : Support for Iranian national rights does not mean support for the Iranian regime any more than support for Iraq against the US invasion meant support for Saddam !

Hopefully the IAWM will come out with a clear Hands Off Iran resolution at the AGM on Saturday ,but if they are serious about building the IAWM , they will have to address the danger posed to the people of Ireland and not just to the people of Iran , from the present situation.
The IAWM has been busily involved with the anti- Lisbon campaign for the last month or so and have rightly pointed to the incomprehensibility of the draft proposals . But as the IAWM leadership was collectively straining over the nuances of the document , they missed out commenting on the very simple instructions contained in a booklet that came through all householders' doors over the past few weeks - the government's booklet that contained advice on what to do in the event of a "nuclear incident" . In the event of a "nuclear incident ",the government advises people that they should " stay indoors" . It is about time that the anti-war movement thought about issuing some alternative advice .

by Darren C Wed May 21, 2008 15:47 offensieftegenracisme at yahoo dot co dot uk

The Israeli army sent out a statement that Bush had confirmed,apparently during his visit and not in any public speech, that he would attack Iran before leaving office. Then his aides offered a firm denial, declaring the claim worthless. An article about the claims appeared on the front page of the New York Times web edition but then curiously disappeared. Bush's statements about Iran in Israel were particularly pugnacious.

We all know the US wants to install a puppet regime there but there's a real fight over this still going on in the highest circles. One the one hand, Iran represents a real threat to their efforts securing imperialist domination of the Middle East, but on the other, troops are already burdened by the popular resistance in the Iraq and Afghanistan and some sections of the Bush regime are justly worried by the counter-attack by Shia Islamic activsts throughout the Gulf and in Lebanon.

I think if they do hit Iran, they will hit only what they suspect are enrichment facilities and leave that reactor alone because (a) its full of Russian engineers and (b) the reactor is already a nuclear fuel pile and hitting it would cause a LOT of human damage (not good for the US politically). Its clear there are divisions within the Empire but that a strike is being seriously considered. The IAWM should be doing their best to highlight that NOW

by tomeile Wed May 21, 2008 15:10

In light of the Jerusalem Post report , this WSWS article by Bill van Auken asks whether the Bush administration is gearing up to launch a war ahead of November’s election .
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/iran-m21.shtml

Looking at the IAWM website ,it's hard to believe that the group does not mention Iran , or the threats of war being made against it , anywhere on its front page.
http://irishantiwar.org/

The Jerusalem Post’s Iranian Threat page is currently displaying ads for apocalyptic ‘prophecy’ books at $27 a throw . Here’s an extract from the author of one of them:

” My latest research shows where Iran's devastation is in Bible prophecy. Ahmadinejad's plan to wipe Israel off the map with nuclear weapons will backfire and cause his own people to flee Iran. It's the next prophecy to be fulfilled and will affect everyone ………”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/P...69337

There are a bunch of strange people in Israel and America who are convinced that we are now living in what they term “the end days” . What is so worrying is that a lot of America’s policymakers and military top-brass are infected by the same born-again madness. Lieutenant General William G. Boykin who was the United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence until last August is one of them . According to Wikipedia , Boykin spoke this April at a conference in Israel .His closing statement made a large round of applause:

“We as believers have been promised that we will spend an eternity with God. Last Saturday I was doing a men's conference in Fredricksburg, Virginia and I was praying during the worship service and something dawned on me and it was the Holy Spirit speaking to me. And the Holy Spirit said, "this is what I want you to share with My men today", and I'm going to share it with you and this is what it is: One day, we're going to stand before the gates of Heaven. Some of us want to be able to walk up there in a white robe and we want to sing Abba Father and Amazing Grace and we want to say to the Lord, "I worshiped You." But I want you to think about this: Heres the way I want to enter the gates of Heaven. I want to come skidding in there on all fours. I want to be slipping and sliding and I want to hit the gates of heaven with a bang. And when I stand up and I stand before Christ, I want there to be blood on my knees and my elbows. I want to be covered with mud. And I want to be standing there with a ragged breast plate of righteousness. And a spear in my hand. And I want to say, "Look at me, Jesus. I've been in the battle. I've been fighting for you." Ladies and gentlemen, put your armor on and get into battle. God bless you.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin

by tomeile Tue May 20, 2008 17:40

The zionist Jerusalem Post is certainly a good source for working out what the US and Israel would like to do . There was a report there this morning about a high ranking member of the Bush administartion telling Israeli officials that Bush planned to attack Iran before leaving office. This afternoon they are backing away from that . Who to believe?

"The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=121066868313...wFull

by Bazooka Joe Tue May 20, 2008 17:07

As well as a bombardment of propaganda from many of its surrogate groups the US has declared it will not rule out anything in it's attempts to attack Iran.

Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying as much in the Jerusalem Post:

"Iran must be stopped. They are a threat to the neighborhood and a source of funding for Hamas and Hizbullah," Pelosi told Channel 1."

When she says, "a threat to the neighbourhood" she means Israel. The war on Iran may be more about protecting Americas little bastard state in the region than it is about putting a regime in place that would favour the West with a good oil price.