As the war in Iraq drags on into a fourth brutal year, the same politicians who led the U.S. to war in 2003 are preparing for a new war --this time against the people of Iran.
Once again using the pretext of "weapons of mass destruction," the U.S. is moving the forces into place in preparation for a possible attack.

The Shocking Truth – Nuclear War With Iran The Talk in Cathedral Square, Christchurch
...People with impeccable credentials have written that the so-called terrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon on Sept 9, 2001 was an inside job. Also, that the so-called al-Qaeda terrorists were really pawns in a much bigger conspiracy, organised by the Bush Administration to create a new enemy and justify their global crusade and wars against terrorism.

Paul Craig Roberts has excellent credentials for warning us about the evil intentions of the Bush Administration. A Google search showed 14,200,000 entries under "Paul Craig Roberts". He is a prolific and well-known U.S. journalist whose warnings cannot be dismissed as "IMPROBABLE", "UNLIKELY" "CRAZY" "THEY WOULD NEVER DO THAT" etc.
.... Education is vital on these issues as the mass media has so far suppressed the most important facts. Often I think the media is trying to keep New Zealanders in a cocoon of ignorance about what is really happening, and why, in the wider world.

...Bolton told the Financial Times (June 9) that the Bush Regime has no intention of reaching an agreement with Iran. Time is running out for diplomacy,...
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Every physicist knows that the enrichment requirement for weapons is many times greater than for nuclear energy and that Iran can barely achieve the latter. Despite the facts, Bolton told the Financial Times: "They've [Iran] got both feet on the accelerator, which is why we have a sense of urgency. Each day that goes by gives Iran more time to continue to perfect its efforts for mass production."

Given the new nuclear doctrines dominating Bush's policy, and the extreme tensions generated by it, it would be something of a miracle if nuclear weapons were not used and this led to general nuclear war.

Non-aligned states will back Iran's right to nuclear fuel production at a UN meeting this week, unmoved by US calls to join efforts to get Tehran to stop enriching uranium, diplomats said.
UN Security Council powers are waiting for Iran to respond to an offer they made last week for incentives if Tehran suspends enrichment and penalties if it does not.

U.S. Smokescreen Is To Prepare Justifications To Attack Iran

As analysed by Mathew Rothschild, the U.S. has mobilized European allies to create a diplomatic smokescreen and rationale for justification to attack Iran, just as the U.S. did to justify attacking Iraq in 2003.

We've seen this play before, haven't we?
You know, the one where the Bush Administration pretends to be interested in a diplomatic solution but is really trying to get its ducks in a row for going to war?
This is the very same ruse that the Administration wheeled out in the months leading up to the Iraq War, and some of the language is identical.
Bush said many times that Saddam Hussein faced a clear choice: to back down or face the consequences.
Condoleezza Rice, in appearing to offer an opening for negotiations with Iran, said the same thing at her May 31 press conference. “The Iranian government's choices are clear,” she said. And if it makes the wrong choice, “it will incur only great costs.” Thus does the Bush Administration put the onus on those it intends to attack.

Famous independent journalists tell us how our mass media make wars possible.
John Pilger said: "journalists have played a critical role in sustaining wars. Starting them and sustaining them" and that "there's almost an obsession, on controlling what journalists have to say...what we're getting is a massive censorship by omission"...The war in Vietnam .."was an invasion...huge numbers of civilians were killed. And in effect it was a war against civilians and that was never told and that's exactly true of Iraq."

Normalizing the Unthinkable

John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Charlie Glass, and Seymour Hersh on the failure of the world's press
The late journalist Edward R. Murrow might well have been rolling in his grave on April 21. That's because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a lecture that day in Washington, DC to journalists at the Department of State's official Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists.

...In the opinion of many, the U.S. is governed by a criminal conspiracy that has also become an administration  of war criminals, using lies to con their people and congress into supporting an illegal and unjustifiable war on Iraq. Having killed, tortured or imprisoned up to 250,000 Iraqis for no justifiable reason, the Bush Administration has established that it is capable of committing any crime.

An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'. And that, says Noam Chomsky, is exactly what the US is becoming. In an exclusive extract from his devastating new book, America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way

Will the American public see the looming abyss before it's too late

George Orwell, Novelist or Prophet?

GEORGE Orwell wrote his book, 1984, in the 1940's. The year, 1984, was a long way off then, but what he foresaw as a possibility seemed much closer. We approached it during the McCarthy years in the fifties, but sanity reasserted itself.
When Nixon came to power, it looked like Orwell's fears might come to pass, but Nixon and his cronies overreached themselves and we were saved again. Reagan and Bush I came fairly close also. They refined a lot of the techniques, but the time was not right. It is beginning to look like the Regime of Bush II might turn Orwell from a novelist into a prophet.

"Bush has been taken over... by a saviour complex..."the person playing the archetypal role of saviour will reflect this unconsciousness and become inflated, blown up out of all proportion by the power of the archetype. He will then, of necessity, be compelled to act out his hubris in a way that is destructive for all who are under his dominion."

George W. Bush is suffering from a peculiar but not that uncommon form of madness in which a pathological part of his psyche has co-opted all of the healthy parts into its service.
Speaking about such a pathological condition, Jung commented that “…an unknown ‘something' has taken possession of a smaller or greater portion of the psyche and asserts its hateful and harmful existence undeterred by all our insight, reason, and energy, thereby proclaiming the power of the unconscious over the conscious mind, the sovereign power of possession.”
Bush has been taken over by an unconscious complex of the collective unconscious. We speak of a mother complex, or a father complex, but Bush has what we could call a savior complex. Jung said, “The savior complex is an archetypal image of the collective unconscious, and it quite naturally becomes activated in an epoch so full of trouble and disorientation as ours.” The archetypal figure of savior is literally dreamed up into incarnation by the field to be both a compensation for and an expression of the disorientation and dissociation in the field.

The latest information I have had from the followers of der Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear "bunker busters" in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The "bunker buster" is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.

Unjust War With Iran - It Could Be Nuclear

NZ Lecture Tour Sept-Nov, Book a Talk Now, Also, Keep NZ Nuclear-Free
Why accusations about an alleged "terrorist incident" may be used to justify a war on Iran, even though Iran had nothing to do with it.  Lies about Iraq's involvement with the 9/11 attack, non-existent WMD, and being a threat to UK and US, were used to justify the US-led war on Iraq.       Your Chance to Fight for the Right to Life

Whatever U.S. Senators do, or don't do, can effect you. For example if the U.S. Senate wishes to stop a war on Iran, or withdraw troops from Iraq, or endorse or reject the president's choice for head of the CIA, it can effect whether the U.S. continues to torture it's imprisoned suspects. U.S. Senators have considerable power if they wish to use it to stop wars, deny or approve funding for the military.

There is a chance for the Central Intelligence Agency to clear its name - to signal a new era by stating clearly that the CIA does not and will not engage in torture.

1,800 physicists have warned that we face human extinction if Bush's continues with his new nuclear doctrines, and proceeds with his strategy to use nuclear weapons against Iran or in other conflict. Many other well-informed experts have warned humanity with the same message. There are many reasons that nuclear weapons use would trigger rapid escalation to global nuclear war, and destruction of all life.

"It is gravely irresponsible for the U.S. as the greatest superpower to consider courses of action that could eventually lead to the widespread destruction of life on the planet. We urge the administration to announce publicly that it is taking the nuclear option off the table in the case of all non-nuclear adversaries, present or future, and we urge the American people to make their voices heard on this matter."

Accepted by the National Consultative Committee on Disarmament Convention:  
"Threats To Peace And Disarmament - The Way Forward"

....The so-called peace talks with Iran may only be a cover for diabolically evil U.S. strategies to achieve their war. The main strategy seems to be the staging of a sudden allegedly " terrorist act" against the U.S. which the U.S. will blame on Iran, and then use to justify a massive assault on Iran.....

Atomic programme not for military - Iran

Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful and has no military purpose, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on today, adding he was ready to engage in dialogue with anybody.
"It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, or military purposes," he said during a visit to Indonesia. He was speaking in an interview broadcast live on local Metro television.

.... The Neocons want chaos and are promoting civil war in Iraq because they intend to occupy their new permanent military bases there for the foreseeable future.....

Just in case you've gotten the impression that the Bush administration isn't seriously considering a military strike against Iran using both conventional and nuclear weapons, see the Amercan Progress Action Fund's 4-10-06 Progress Report, "The Nuclear Option."
On the brighter side, there are limits to the U.S. military's loyalty to Mr. Bush, and high-ranking American military officers have stated that they are adamantly opposed to the use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons (i.e., so-called "mini-nukes"). Moreover, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has publicly stated that the idea of a nuclear strike against Iran is "completely nuts."

One of the many reasons Bush may decide to wage pre-emptive war against Iran is it's new oil trading centre as the following article shows. Iran's Oil Bourse could take a lot of business away from the U.S. and threaten it's economy.
Also, Bush is building a new Empire according to his neocon advisors plan. Iran and it's oil are to be part of it.

As America's naval armadas continue to surf the Persian Gulf, hovering just off the Iranian waters, the supreme commander of the US armed forces recently said that threats from Mr Ahmadinejad, particularly towards Israel, had to be "dealt with". He told Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper that if Mr Ahmadinejad was ready to destroy one country (Israel), "then he would also be ready to destroy others". President Bush added: "This is a threat that needs to be dealt with."

The President of Iran has reached out to President Bush offering a dialogue of peace instead of preparations for war. My hope is that President Bush will choose to talk, and pull back from starting an escalating war with Iran that could suddenly become nuclear and end the human race. Why on earth would he do that?

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Paul Craig Roberts is an insider with many contacts in government. He served as former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under the Reagan Administration and as associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He writes extensively on the Bush Administration. The writings of this man cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a  lunatic.

May stage terror attacks
Former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts expressed his dire warning that the US government has fallen into the hands of psychopaths and that the Neo-Cons in the Bush administration may be set to stage another terror attack in the US as part of a black operation to demolish growing dissent and coerce the public to rally behind the government once again.

Scott Ritter gives a detailed account of U.S. preparations and plans to strike at Iran before June/05. Obviously this has been postponed for unknown reasons. As Iran will retaliate against U.S. attack, the situation could very easily escalate and involve China and Russia. A sudden global nuclear exchange could result. It's so obvious, why is Europe so compliant and people so passive and silent in the face of global nuclear disaster which would kill and maim billions?

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going.

Google is a great resource to get the details on U.S. war plans, objectives and methods of making war on other nations. Also, it has many articles on U.S. excuses and justifications for each war. The fact that the Bush Administration engages in an almost continuous flow of lies and false justifications, does not stop the mass media from parroting each and every lie as if it is true. The mass media usually does not publish doubts and exposure of these lies or the real purposes of the Bush Administration. If anything it runs editorials justifying the lies as if the lies are really true. Then it does not print letters exposing these lies.
Search on Google - Results 1 - 10 of about 134,000,000 for Iran War . (0.08 seconds)

U.S. plans for nuclear bombing Iran are ready
A Follow-up Meeting Will Be Held at 51a Parklands Drive, Christchurch on Monday, May 1st, 2006, at 7.30 p.m.
Please send this notice to everyone you know and bring a friend or two with you, we need all the support we can muster.
Learn what may happen and how we can help prevent this catastrophe.
Help to save our planet       

NEW YORK -- Tens of thousands of protesters marched Saturday through lower Manhattan to demand an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, just hours after this month's GI death toll reached 70.
Cindy Sheehan, a vociferous critic of the war whose soldier son died in Iraq, joined in the march, as did actress Susan Sarandon and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
''End this war, bring the troops home,'' read one sign lifted by marchers on the sunny afternoon, three years after the war began.
Organizers said 300,000 people marched, although a police spokesman declined to give an estimate. There were no reports of arrests.
''We are here today because the war is illegal, immoral and unethical,'' said the Rev. Al Sharpton. ''We must bring the troops home.'' 'They're going to lie to us again'
Organizers said the march was also meant to oppose military action against Iran, which is facing criticism over its nuclear program. The event was organized by the group United for Peace and Justice.

Israel Influences US but not in US Interests

Robert Fisk explores the potentially disastrous influence of Israel on US policies toward the middle east.
Israel wanted a hard line toward Palestine and Hamas, and a soft line toward expanding Israeli settlements on stolen Palestine territory, on Israeli military action, on Israel's ignoring of UN resolutions and building a huge wall that effectively stole Palestine land.

When two of America's most distinguished academics dared to suggest that US foreign policy was being driven by a powerful 'Israel Lobby' whose influence was incompatible with their nation's own interests, they knew they would face allegations of anti-Semitism. But the episode has prompted America's Jewish liberals to confront their own complacency. Might the tide be turning?

.....The reasons for wars in which resources are a factor, are usually camouflaged by a screen of propaganda. In the U.S. case it is the blanket phoney justification "war on terrorism" . This covers U.S. global domination plans, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the coming war with Iran, currently justified under the "wars on global terrorism" blanket. The real reasons include the theft of other people's oil resources.. The objective is to control middle east oil, prices and access to oil by competitors of the U.S. Rising oil prices is only the beginning.

It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely."

U.S. plans for nuclear bombing Iran are ready
Learn what may happen and how we can help prevent this catastrophe on Monday, April 24th at 7.30 pm at the W.E.A.
Inform others, forward and display poster.
Help to save our planet                                    Print a Poster

Chris Floyd has written a very powerful, well-documented 2 page article on the hell that Bush and his cohorts intend to unleash on Iran and the number of people he decides must die - 1,000,000. How many more will be wounded, maimed, blinded, burned, radiated, slowly dieing of their untreated wounds.
The madmen have been ruling America since 2,000. Iraq showed what they could do - they started a war based on lies. Not only did they get away with it, the Bushcons cheated their way into power again in 2004. Now they are ready, and with a few words and decisions, can inflict mass genocide in Iran. Bush has the power to destroy the world many times over. It's very possible this will happen if the nuclear slaughter in Iran triggers an expanding holocaust.

Twelve hours. One circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one course of the moon from dusk to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily round of human life is now a doom-laden interval between the voicing of an autocrat's brutal whim and the infliction of mass annihilation halfway around the world.

Matthew Yglesia makes a very good case that a U.S.-led war against Iran would be far,far,far more insane than the phoney illegal war against Iraq. However like many commentators, he seems to accept as true a number of lies and assumptions perpetrated by the Bush Administration to justify their war plans. His article seems to assume that Iran is developing it's nuclear technology in order to make nuclear weapons. He neglects to mention that after years of rigorous UN inspections, the IAEA have reported that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. And the CIA reports that it would be ten years before Iran could produce a nuclear weapon.

Should we go to war with Iran? The short answer is, "No." The long answer is, "Hell no."

This article shows how much the popularity of Bush and his Administration has dropped and how it has alienated the American population. Numerous factors cause this - Bush's very poor domestic performance, his spying on Americans, his arrogance, poor judgement, his dictatorial attitude, and more than anything else, his illegal war on Iraq. Obviously most Americans would disapprove of his war plans for Iran, especially if he nuclear bombs Iran. He and his advisors know this very, very well. Yet they are still  preparing to launch another illegal war on a much bigger and better prepared target - Iran, when their military resources are overstretched. Another crazy neocon mystery? I don't think so.

You can count on one thing. All over Washington, Republicans are at least as capable as I am of watching and interpreting the polling version of the smash-up of the Bush administration. With each new poll, the numbers creep lower yet. Presidential approval in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll dropped another 3% in the last month and now sits at 38%, while disapproval of the President continues to strengthen -- 47% of Americans now "strongly disapprove" of the President's handling of the presidency, only 20% "strongly approve." (62%, by the way, disapprove of the President's handling of the war in Iraq.)

Top U.S. physicists say " U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran were "gravely irresponsible" and warning that such action would have "disastrous consequence for the security of the United States and the world"
Last fall 1,800 U.S. physicists repudiated new U.S. nuclear policies that include pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against others.

Call Nuclear Weapons Against Iran ‘Gravely Irresponsible’
Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.”

It has been more than a week now since the Iranian government announced that it had "joined the nuclear club" by successfully enriching uranium , albeit for nuclear fuel, not a weapon. Once a nation has the capacity to enrich to the former, enrichment to the latter is simply a matter of time; the technology is the same. Iran's declaration immediately made headlines around the world, with stunned punditry engaging in wild speculation about the potential ramifications of this turn of events. From a simple laboratory-scale enrichment experiment, a massive nuclear weapons program grew Pheonix-like from the ashes, prompting dire warnings from US Government officials such as Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Stephen Rademaker, who told a press conference in Moscow, where he was visiting to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue with Russian officials, that Iran "...may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days."

Washington's political timetable may turn harsh rhetoric into military escalation, unless voices of restraint in both the United States and Iran can prevail.
Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker article on the risk of war between the United States and Iran contained many insights into the current thinking of US political and military leaders. The one that has attracted most attention was the desire of figures on the political side to keep the "nuclear option" on the table, even in the face of reported opposition from some military planners (see "The Iran plans", New Yorker, 17 April 2006).     more from Paul Rogers

.... Nuclear weapons are believed by the public to be unthinkable except as a last resort, because the use of them would probably escalate out of control and become a global holocaust.

The world avoided nuclear catastrophe during the cold war, but the era's real history has an ominous lesson for the period of "war on terror".

This article shows that people are being conditioned to accept the potential use of nuclear weapons and to trust President Bush to make the right decisions in this regard, and that there is nothing immoral or peculiar about this, or any use of nuclear weapons that the President decides is right, and that it is permissible and just, to use them. The possibility that huge numbers of Iran men, women and children might be killed and maimed and that the U.S. has no right or reason to commit such crimes, and that events could spiral into global nuclear war, are not questions that were considered by the article.

President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.
Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely peaceful, told world powers it would pursue atomic technology, whatever they decide at a meeting in Moscow later in the day.

It's a never-ending mystery why so many Americans allowed themselves to be conned into supporting this barbarous war.
A deeper mystery is why they continued to support the war even after they learned that Bush and his associates had told a series of lies to get their support.
Having his lies and excuses exposed about the reasons for war, did not result in Bush withdrawing from this illegal war and paying reparations to the Iraqis. Indeed, as the situation worsens, Bush steps up his assault and prepares to make war on Iran.

Of all the war crimes that have flowed from the originating crime of President George W. Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq, perhaps the most flagrant was the destruction of Fallujah in November 2004. Now, as ignominious defeat looms for Bush's Babylonian folly, some of the key players in fomenting the war are urging that the "Fallujah Option" be applied to an even bigger target: Baghdad.
What these influential warmongers openly call for is the "pacification" of Baghdad: a brutal firestorm by U.S. forces, ravaging both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in a "horrific" operation that will inevitably lead to "skyrocketing body counts," as warhawk Reuel Marc Gerecht cheerfully wrote last week in the ever-bloodthirsty editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal.

More nuclear weapons and more manufacturing facilities. Combine that with the new nuclear weapons doctrines of pre-emptive nuclear war and using these weapons as an optional part of conventional warfare. There is also the 2002, U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, in which 7 or 8 countries including China and Russia, were named as potential enemies requiring the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Almost any nation can become a U.S. target, especially oil producing nations like Iraq and Iran.

The Bush administration Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the nation's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.
The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War.

Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops
British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable. The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said.
The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council.

The Assault on Democracy
Noam Chomsky discusses U.S. policies in Latin America, subverting elections in Haiti, and why American elections are like toothpaste ads.

It is regrettably clear that the American and British governments are preparing for war, this time against Iran. It is equally clear that the American and British people believe neither that their governments should start another war, nor that this particular war would be in their nations' best interests. Moreover, the public hasn't heard any serious debate about the reasons for and against another war, so nothing like a national consensus exists. And it is unclear exactly who is pushing us into this ill-advised war.

The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

If the U.S. was sincere, and not embarked on a global conquest, it would welcome talks with it's chosen enemy with a view to finding a peaceful solution to their disagreements, rather than resort to a major war with many disastrous consequences.
However the evidence is that the U.S. has prepared for war based on false accusations and false justifications. For a number of reasons,I believe that this very costly dangerous choice is preferable to the Bush-con Administration rather than a peaceful resolution.

Iran has prepared a high-level delegation to hold wide-ranging talks with the US, but the Bush administration is resisting the agenda suggested by Tehran despite pressure from European allies to engage the Islamic republic, Iranian politicians have told the Financial Times.

He believes the U.S. is preparing for a war on Iran - that it would be sudden and without warning and could happen anytime. He reminded us that most commentators before the Iraq war, believed a peaceful diplomatic solution would be found. How wrong they were.

The timing and nature of a United States attack on Iran can be gauged by a close look at air traffic and base security in western England.

IRNA-The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei said here Thursday night his agency has not seen any indication that nuclear material in Iran has been diverted or is being diverted to develop nuclear weapons.
ElBaradei, who is currently here to attend a meeting of UN agency chiefs, made the remark in a joint press conference with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos.
There is still time for negotiation, diplomacy, and preventing the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) from imposing sanctions against Iran, he added.
The IAEA inspectors visit Iran's nuclear facilities as of Friday, said ElBaradei urging Iran to clarify some unsettled issues.

Four New Essays On War With Iran:
Is The USA Bluffing; Is There A Better Alternative; Why Can't We Debate The Reasons For This War Beforehand?

The Whitehouse memo shows Bush and Blair had lots of testimony based on UN inspection that there were no WMD or a nuclear weapons in Iraq. But they decided to make war based on the lie that there were WMD in Iraq, even though that would not be a valid excuse for war in any case. Some of the other lies invented to justify the war were that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and that Saddam was connected to the attack on 9/11, and that Saddam was a threat to the US, UK. None of this was true and Bush and Blair had no evidence for their lies.
Nevertheless both lied to their publics and governments in order to get support for their war.
Now they are planning to do it again to justify a war with Iran.

It's extremely rare, to get this kind of an insight of an extremely private, we should say secret meeting between two leaders preparing for a coming war. Tell us what you think are the main insights to be gained from the so-called White House memo?

If Professor Jorge Hirsh is right, the U.S., claiming an Iranian biological warfare threat, will attack before April 30, 2006.
This ties in with other papers warning about a U.S. - generated war on Iran starting about this time.
The decision to develop the mythology of a biological warfare threat from Iran, is because a U.S.-alleged lie that Iran is a nuclear threat had lost all credibility. It was a cunning step and more difficult to expose that the phoney nuclear threat.
People must act now to prevent this nuclear genocide against a non-nuclear state, for invented reasons.

Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292
H istory repeats itself, but always with new twists. We are back to the good old days when a Declaration of War preceded the start of a war. Such declaration occurred on March 16th, 2006. Reversing the old order, we are now in the "Sitzkrieg", to be followed shortly by an aerial "Blitzkrieg" in the coming days.

How can this much evidence be ignored or dismissed

Nobel Laureates and other prominent figures petitioned the U.S. Congress not to nuclear bomb Iran "regardless of whether Iran is in any way involved in an attack on the U.S." This plan is very much like the Pentagon's "Operation Northwoods" to blame and then bomb and invade Cuba in 1962, after a faked attack on the U.S. using U.S. covert action.
Petitioners were appalled at the Bush-Pentagon plan, which was justified with their Nuclear Posture Review, Dec 2001, and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, March 15, 2005 to "use nuclear weapons as a tool in warfare like any other".

In an August 2005 issue of The American Conservative, former CIA officer Philip Girarldi raised the alarm over in-process Pentagon contingency plans drafted in preparation for another terrorist attack in the United States. The response includes a plan for a massive air assault on Iran with the use of both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons regardless of whether Iran is any way involved in such an attack against the U.S.
One month after the publication of Giraldli's warnings, physicists from around the world, including numerous Nobel laureates and prominent figures, signed a petition expressing their dismay at seeing the architects of Bush administration policy embrace the use of nuclear weapons as a tool in warfare like any other. The new US policy to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries has been officially formulated in two US government documents Nuclear Posture Review delivered to Congress in December 2001 and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations dated March 15, 2005.

.....We seem to never learn from our past mistakes. Today’s neo-cons are... idealistically misled and aggressive in remaking the Middle East..... Even given the horrendous costs of the Iraq War and the unintended consequences that plague us today, the neo-cons are eager to expand their regime-change policy to Iran by force.
The obvious shortcomings of our regime change and occupation of Afghanistan are now readily apparent. The Taliban was ousted from power, but they have regrouped and threaten the delicate stability that now exists in that country. Opium drug production is once again a major operation, with drugs lords controlling a huge area of the country outside Kabul.

Impeachment is the only recourse that can bring a halt to the madness in Iraq, and the insanity being planned in Iran and elsewhere.
As America reaches the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq, there is for the first time the unsettling realization brought about by the clarity of acts that emerges only after the passage of time that something horrible has happened.
This awakening of collective awareness on the part of the American people is reflected not only in the numerous polls which show ......read on

The new 49 page Security blueprint sounds like a formula to initiate pre-emptive war whenever and on whoever the U.S. decides - and Iran is next on their list.
The U.S. even tells Russia and China they must increase whatever the U.S. says is "freedom" and warns that the U.S. is "hedging" if they don't meet U.S. specifications.
This formula for endless war, and possibly nuclear war soon for Iran, could become a quick ending of the human race.

Making no apologies for the war in Iraq, the United States reaffirmed its strike-first policy of pre-emption and warned that Iran may pose the biggest threat to US national security.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the White House said in a 49-page blueprint called "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America."
The report drew up a balance sheet of what it called US President George W. Bush's foreign policy successes and remaining "challenges" like bloody violence in Iraq and tense standoffs over nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.