Iran:The Next War

[Rasputin]

'Forestall Iran Confrontation by Negotiation'

Some weeks ago, when a study was published by Judith Yaphe and Colonel Charles D. Lutes from the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington, I asked Yaphe, a former CIA analyst and distinguished research professor, for an interview. She agreed. We conducted the interview via email.

This study (PDF) is important as it recommends the United States not stop Iran from pursuing it's nuclear ambitions with military force.

In your recent analysis, published by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, you have emphasized that compromising with a nuclear Iran government is a better choice for the United States than a military strike or a regime change policy. What are the factors ascertaining U.S. policy in this field?
The views expressed in the book just published are mine and my co-authors, and do not represent the policy of the United States government. In our opinion, the best and most effective options for the U.S. in dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran would be to try to forestall a confrontation by negotiation. We believe that a pre-emptive military strike would delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons technology but not convince it to end fuel enrichment. A military strike on a nuclear-ready facility would be dangerous for Iran, the region, and the U.S. regime change is best left to the Iranians.

Now, you tell me two things: Why do you neglect to note that our study focuses on nuclear weapons concerns and not on nuclear energy? And, how do the Iranian people perceive their new president's position on nuclear weapons development? U.S. policy focuses on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons--the European Union has the same concern.

I focused on exactly what the study was about. In response to your other question, most Iranians are against nuclear weapons development. However, I believe that utilizing nuclear energy will be necessary for my country in the next few decades. What is the role of internal factors pushing U.S. policy toward Iran?

If you mean domestic American politics, then I would say most Americans are against the spread of nuclear weapons and see no reason why Iran must have them. Americans remember when Iran supported terrorism against U.S. nationals and interests -- including hostages taken in Tehran and Beirut, hijackings, etc. Americans do not understand Iranian reasoning that it is Iran's right to possess these kinds of weapons of mass destruction. And they are uncertain the Iranian leaders understand a deterrence strategy, if that is why they want them. It appears to Americans and to Iran's neighbors that Iran wants to gain respect and attention and legitimacy by being the pre-eminent regional power and that nuclear weapons are necessary to "prove" Iranian leadership. Is that true? If sudden change should occur in Iran, it is up to Iranians to decide what to do.

What is the United States' position on two splinter groups in Iran known as Mojahedin-e-khalgh (MEK) and Monarchists.

The MEK is a terrorist group that sold out to Saddam Hussein and killed Americans, Iraqis, and Iranians; the monarchists are as unpopular in Iran as the Hashimite monarchy is in Iraq. To my knowledge, the U.S. officially recognizes the MEK as a terrorist group.

The U.S. cannot attack Iran without domestic supporting groups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. counted on domestic forces to change the regimes. Now, the American neo-conservatives believe in supporting the aligned forces. What similarities and differences do you see between these forces used in Iraq; Afghanistan and Iran?

The U.S. long assumed that Iraqis would overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein; they could not and did not. After the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. was determined to strike where Al Qaeda lived. There was no legitimate government for Afghanistan under the Taliban. You must know how the Taliban government attacked Iranian diplomats and Afghan Shia tribes. Did Iran hope for less than the U.S. in Afghanistan? The U.S. clearly supported elements opposed to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein -- so too did Iran. The Bush administration may not like the government in Iran, but recent comments by Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice and our Ambassador in Baghdad suggest they are looking to talk in Iraq on issues of mutual concern and not to be confrontational. The real issue here is what is in our mutual interest.

How serious is the idea of the United States changing the regime in Iran or performing a military strike and occupying it? Do U.S. lawmakers and statesmen support this idea?

The idea of the U.S. trying to do regime change in Iran by military strike and occupation is absurd. Americans tend think in straight lines, they will give you an honest answer; they are not accustomed to the kind of calculated ambiguity that seems to mark Iranian policy formation.

Some believe Iran has a plan to misdirect outside agencies while secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon by 2007. Is diplomacy failing?

Do you think Iran is stalling the EU and IAEA in order to complete its construction of fuel enrichment facilities? Shocking!

In fact, in these recent weeks many experts and analysts have repeated such worries about the Islamic Republic's nuclear policy. Some of them mentioned a possible limited air attack on Iran, but military targets are scattered and hidden throughout Iran. How serious do think Israel is about intervening with its military?

Israel is certainly worried by President Ahmadinejad's call for its destruction and fears that a nuclear-armed Iran would act without restraints and attack it with a nuclear weapon. Contrary to popular opinion, there is little anyone can do to sway Israel should it decide on a course of action. The U.S. is not able to dictate to Israel what it should do and not do, but I doubt you will believe this.

Of course, I believe it, but even Israeli journalists talking about a U.S. green light to attack Iran. The Israel news agency mentioned it.

It seems U.S. politicians are not in agreement on Iran and have expressed different ideas since Ahmadinejad became president. The idea of regime change or reform has actually failed. As a security analyst, what do you think about the United States' knowledge of Iran, its internal mechanism and the possibility of a domestic revolution?

There is no single point of view regarding Iran. Some favor talking to Iran and others oppose negotiating with Tehran under its current government; Americans do not have unelected leaders like the Ayatollah Khamenei in charge of official decision making and we do not vet political candidates on their religious loyalties. You should examine the reaction to President Bush's efforts to appoint a Christian fundamentalist to the Supreme Court; many Americans viewed this as an inappropriate qualification for someone to sit on the highest court in the country. The key point is this: Iran and the U.S. and Iran and Israel have no communications or direct contacts; unless you talk to the other, you cannot know what they think, if they understand you, or if they know what your "red lines" are. A red line is a point on which there can be no negotiations or when crossed will create confrontation. If Iran and Israel, if Iran and the U.S. do not talk, then the risk of a deadly mistake arises.

It seems that a military strike on Iran is not that easy as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan and even puts the U.S. in a risky situation. Do you think Iran's regime knows this and will try to take advantage of the United States' vulnerability and construct a nuclear bomb?

If you are asking will Iran construct a nuclear weapon because it believes the U.S. intends a military strike, then I think that is dangerous thinking and proves my earlier point about non-communication. Iran does not understand the U.S. and the U.S. does not know Iran.

My next question was on prohibition by the U.N. Security Council and how effective would sanctions be to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals, regarding the present supporters of Iran such as China and Russia. So far, unilateral U.S. sanctions and efforts to stop suppliers from providing Iran with nuclear weapons training and components has not prevented Iran from acquiring what it wants.

As with Iraq under sanctions, however, sanctions voted by the UN Security Council would have a deeper impact on Iran, increase its isolation, and cost it international support and sympathy.

What are the most important weak points of the United States confronting Iran?

In U.S. approaches towards Iran, it is the lack of communications, refusal to acknowledge the mutual interests in regional security, and refusal to deal with the government of Iran.

If you are looking for Iran's weak points, they are:
1. Refusing to admit to the real intent behind fuel enrichment (nuclear weapons the only result);
2. Continuing to support Hezbollah, Hamas, and other extremists in anti-Israeli attacks, which only inflame the situation and ignore the welfare of the Palestinian people;
3. Meddling in Iraq as a way to annoy the U.S. and keep Iraq weak.

[Rasputin]

Iran:The Next War

Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran.


BY JAMES BAMFORD

A few blocks off Pennsylvania Avenue, the FBI's eight-story Washington field office exudes all the charm of a maximum-security prison. Its curved roof is made of thick stainless steel, the bottom three floors are wrapped in granite and limestone, hydraulic bollards protect the ramp to the four-floor garage, and bulletproof security booths guard the entrance to the narrow lobby. On the fourth floor, like a tomb within a tomb, lies the most secret room in the $100 million concrete fortress—out-of-bounds even for special agents without an escort. Here, in the Language Services Section, hundreds of linguists in padded earphones sit elbow-to-elbow in long rows, tapping computer keyboards as they eavesdrop on the phone lines of foreign embassies and other high-priority targets in the nation's capital.

At the far end of that room, on the morning of February 12th, 2003, a small group of eavesdroppers were listening intently for evidence of a treacherous crime. At the very moment that American forces were massing for an invasion of Iraq, there were indications that a rogue group of senior Pentagon officials were already conspiring to push the United States into another war—this time with Iran.

A few miles away, FBI agents watched as Larry Franklin, an Iran expert and career employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, drove up to the Ritz-Carlton hotel across the Potomac from Washington. A trim man of fifty-six, with a tangle of blond hair speckled gray, Franklin had left his modest home in Kearneysville, West Virginia, shortly before dawn that morning to make the eighty-mile commute to his job at the Pentagon. Since 2002, he had been working in the Office of Special Plans, a crowded warren of blue cubicles on the building's fifth floor. A secretive unit responsible for long-term planning and propaganda for the invasion of Iraq, the office's staffers referred to themselves as "the cabal." They reported to Douglas Feith, the third-most-powerful official in the Defense Department, helping to concoct the fraudulent intelligence reports that were driving America to war in Iraq.

Just two weeks before, in his State of the Union address, President Bush had begun laying the groundwork for the invasion, falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had the means to produce tens of thousands of biological and chemical weapons, including anthrax, botulinum toxin, sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. But an attack on Iraq would require something that alarmed Franklin and other neoconservatives almost as much as weapons of mass destruction: detente with Iran. As political columnist David Broder reported in The Washington Post, moderates in the Bush administration were "covertly negotiating for Iran to stay quiet and offer help to refugees when we go into Iraq."

Franklin—a devout neoconservative who had been brought into Feith's office because of his political beliefs—was hoping to undermine those talks. As FBI agents looked on, Franklin entered the restaurant at the Ritz and joined two other Americans who were also looking for ways to push the U.S. into a war with Iran. One was Steven Rosen, one of the most influential lobbyists in Washington. Sixty years old and nearly bald, with dark eyebrows and a seemingly permanent frown, Rosen was director of foreign-policy issues at Israel's powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Seated next to Rosen was AIPAC's Iran expert, Keith Weissman. He and Rosen had been working together closely for a decade to pressure U.S. officials and members of Congress to turn up the heat on Tehran.

Over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton, Franklin told the two lobbyists about a draft of a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive that dealt with U.S. policy on Iran. Crafted by Michael Rubin, the desk officer for Iraq and Iran in Feith's office, the document called, in essence, for regime change in Iran. In the Pentagon's view, according to one senior official there at the time, Iran was nothing but "a house of cards ready to be pushed over the precipice." So far, though, the White House had rejected the Pentagon's plan, favoring the State Department's more moderate position of diplomacy. Now, unwilling to play by the rules any longer, Franklin was taking the extraordinary—and illegal—step of passing on highly classified information to lobbyists for a foreign state. Unable to win the internal battle over Iran being waged within the administration, a member of Feith's secret unit in the Pentagon was effectively resorting to treason, recruiting AIPAC to use its enormous influence to pressure the president into adopting the draft directive and wage war against Iran.

[Rasputin]

It was a role that AIPAC was eager to play. Rosen, recognizing that Franklin could serve as a useful spy, immediately began plotting ways to plant him in the White House—specifically in the National Security Council, the epicenter of intelligence and national-security policy. By working there, Rosen told Franklin a few days later, he would be "by the elbow of the president."

Knowing that such a maneuver was well within AIPAC's capabilities, Franklin asked Rosen to "put in a good word" for him. Rosen agreed. "I'll do what I can," he said, adding that the breakfast meeting had been a real "eye-opener."

Working together, the two men hoped to sell the United States on yet another bloody war. A few miles away, digital recorders at the FBI's Language Services Section captured every word.

In recent weeks, the attacks by Hezbollah on Israel have given neoconservatives in the Bush administration the pretext they were seeking to launch what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls "World War III." Denouncing the bombings as "Iran's proxy war," William Kristol of The Weekly Standard is urging the Pentagon to counter "this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." According to Joseph Cirincione, an arms expert and the author of Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats, "The neoconservatives are now hoping to use the Israeli-Lebanon conflict as the trigger to launch a U.S. war against Syria, Iran or both."



But the Bush administration's hostility toward Iran is not simply an outgrowth of the current crisis. War with Iran has been in the works for the past five years, shaped in almost complete secrecy by a small group of senior Pentagon officials attached to the Office of Special Plans. The man who created the OSP was Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy. A former Middle East specialist on the National Security Council in the Reagan administration, Feith had long urged Israel to secure its borders in the Middle East by attacking Iraq and Iran. After Bush's election, Feith went to work to make that vision a reality, putting together a team of neoconservative hawks determined to drive the U.S. to attack Tehran. Before Bush had been in office a year, Feith's team had arranged a covert meeting in Rome with a group of Iranians to discuss their clandestine help.

The meeting was arranged by Michael Ledeen, a member of the cabal brought aboard by Feith because of his connections in Iran. Described by The Jerusalem Post as "Washington's neoconservative guru," Ledeen grew up in California during the 1940s. His father designed the air-conditioning system for Walt Disney Studios, and Ledeen spent much of his early life surrounded by a world of fantasy. "All through my childhood we were an adjunct of the Disney universe," he once recalled. "According to family legend, my mother was the model for Snow White, and we have a picture of her that does indeed look just like the movie character."

In 1977, after earning a Ph.D. in history and philosophy and teaching in Rome for two years, Ledeen became the first executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a pro-Israel pressure group that served as a flagship of the neoconservative movement. A few years later, after Reagan was elected, Ledeen had become prominent enough to earn a spot as a consultant to the National Security Council alongside Feith. There he played a central role in the worst scandal of Reagan's presidency: the covert deal to provide arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages being held in Lebanon. Ledeen served as the administration's intermediary with Israel in the illegal-arms deal. In 1985, he met with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a one-time Iranian carpet salesman who was widely believed to be an Israeli agent. The CIA considered Ghorbanifar a dangerous con man and had issued a "burn notice" recommending that no U.S. agency have any dealings with him. Unfazed, Ledeen called Ghorbanifar "one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known." The two men brokered the arms exchange—a transaction that would result in the indictment of fourteen senior officials in the Reagan administration.

"It was awful—you know, bad things happened," Ledeen says now. "When Iran-Contra was over, I said, ?Boy, I'm never going to touch Iran again.' "

But in 2001, soon after he arrived at the Pentagon, Ledeen once again met with Ghorbanifar. This time, instead of selling missiles to the Iranian regime, the two men were exploring how best to topple it.

"The meeting in Rome came about because my friend Manucher Ghorbanifar called me up," Ledeen says. Stout and balding, with a scruffy white beard, Ledeen is sitting in the living room of his white-brick home in Chevy Chase, Maryland, smoking a Dominican cigar. His Airedale terrier, Thurber, roams the room protectively. In his first extensive interview about the covert Pentagon operation, Ledeen makes no secret of his desire to topple the government in Tehran. "I want to bring down the regime," he says. "I want the regime gone. It's a country that is fanatically devoted to our destruction."

When Ghorbanifar called Ledeen in the fall of 2001, he claimed, as he often does, to have explosive intelligence that was vital to U.S. interests. "There are Iranians who have firsthand information about Iranian plans to kill Americans in Afghanistan," he told Ledeen. "Does anyone want to hear about it?"

Ledeen took the information to Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser at the White House. "I know you're going to throw me out of the office," Ledeen told him, "and if I were you I would throw me out of the office too. But I promised that I would give you this option. Ghorbanifar has called me. He said these people are willing to come. Do you want anybody to go and talk to them?"

Hadley was interested. So was Zalmay Khalilzad, then the point man on Near East issues for the National Security Council and now the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. "I think we have to do this, we have to hear this," Hadley said. Ledeen had the green light: As he puts it, "Every element of the American government knew this was going to happen in advance."

[Rasputin]

Weeks later, in December, a plane carrying Ledeen traveled to Rome with two other members of Feith's secret Pentagon unit: Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode, a protégé of Ledeen who has been called the "theoretician of the neocon movement." A specialist on Islam who speaks Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish and Farsi, Rhode had experience with shady exiles like Ghorbanifar: He was close to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi dissident whose discredited intelligence helped drive the Bush administration to invade Baghdad. According to UPI, Rhode himself was later observed by CIA operatives passing "mind-boggling" intelligence to Israel, including sensitive information about U.S. military deployments in Iraq.



Completing the rogues' gallery that assembled in Rome that day was the man who helped Ledeen arrange the meeting: Nicolò Pollari, the director of Italy's military intelligence. Only two months earlier, Pollari had informed the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had obtained uranium from West Africa—a key piece of false intelligence that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

To hide the shadowy rendezvous in Rome, Pollari provided a well-protected safe house near the noisy espresso bars and busy trattorias that surround the Piazza di Spagna in central Rome. "It was in a private apartment," Ledeen recalls. "It was ****ing freezing—it was unheated." The Pentagon operatives and the men from Iran sat at a dining-room table strewn with demitasse cups of blackish coffee, ashtrays littered with crushed cigarette butts and detailed maps of Iran, Iraq and Syria. "They gave us information about the location and plans of Iranian terrorists who were going to kill Americans," Ledeen says.

Ledeen insists the intelligence was on the mark. "It was true," he says. "The information was accurate." Not according to his boss. "There wasn't anything there that was of substance or of value that needed to be pursued further," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later conceded. "It went nowhere."

The men then turned their attention to their larger goal: regime change in Iran. Ghorbanifar suggested funding the overthrow of the Iranian government using hundreds of millions of dollars in cash supposedly hidden by Saddam Hussein. He even hinted that Saddam was hiding in Iran.

Ledeen, Franklin and Rhode were taking a page from Feith's playbook on Iraq: They needed a front group of exiles and dissidents to call for the overthrow of Iran. According to sources familiar with the meeting, the Americans discussed joining forces with the Mujahedin-e Khalq, an anti-Iranian guerrilla army operating out of Iraq.

There was only one small problem: The MEK had been certified by the State Department as a terrorist organization. In fact, the White House was in the midst of negotiations with Tehran, which was offering to extradite five members of Al Qaeda thought to be of high intelligence value in return for Washington's promise to drop all support for the MEK.

Ledeen denies any dealings with the group. "I wouldn't get within a hundred miles of the MEK," he says. "They have no following, no legitimacy." But neoconservatives were eager to undermine any deal that involved cooperating with Iran. To the neocons, the value of the MEK as a weapon against Tehran greatly outweighed any benefit that might be derived from interrogating the Al Qaeda operatives—even though they might provide intelligence on future terrorist attacks, as well as clues to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

Ledeen and his Pentagon cabal were not the only American officials to whom Ghorbanifar tried to funnel false intelligence on Iran. Last year, Rep. Curt Weldon, a Republican from Pennsylvania, claimed he had intelligence—from an "impeccable clandestine source" he code-named "Ali"—that the Iranian government was plotting to launch attacks against the United States. But when the CIA investigated the allegations, it turned out that Ali was Fereidoun Mahdavi, an Iranian exile who was serving as a frontman for Ghorbanifar and trying to shake down the CIA for $150,000. "He is a fabricator," said Bill Murray, the former CIA station chief in Paris. Weldon was furious: The agency had dismissed Ali, he insisted, "because they want to avoid, at all costs, drawing the United States into a war with Iran."

After the Rome rendezvous, Ledeen and Ghorbanifar continued to meet several times a year, often for a day or two at a time. Rhode also met with Ghorbanifar in Paris, and the Iranian phoned or faxed his Pentagon contacts almost every day. At one point Ledeen notified the Pentagon that Ghorbanifar knew of highly enriched uranium being moved from Iraq to Iran. At another point, in 2003, he claimed that Tehran was only a few months away from exploding a nuclear bomb—even though international experts estimate that Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons. But the accuracy of the reports wasn't important—what mattered was their value in drumming up support for war. It was Iraq all over again.

[Rasputin]

Such covert efforts by Feith's team in the Pentagon started to have the desired effect. In November 2003, Rumsfeld approved a plan known as CONPLAN 8022-02, which for the first time established a pre-emptive-strike capability against Iran. That was followed in 2004 by a top-secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" that put the military on a state of readiness to launch an airborne and missile attack against Iran, should Bush issue the command. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," said Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes in half a day or less."

But as the Pentagon moved the country closer to war with Iran, the FBI was expanding its investigation of AIPAC and its role in the plot. David Szady, then the bureau's top spy-catcher, had become convinced that at least one American citizen working inside the U.S. government was spying for Israel. "It's no longer just our traditional adversaries who want to steal our secrets, but sometimes even our allies," Szady declared. "The threat is incredibly serious." To locate the spy sometimes referred to as Mr. X, agents working for Szady began focusing on a small group of neoconservatives in the Pentagon—including Feith, Ledeen and Rhode.

The FBI also had its sights on Larry Franklin, who continued to hold clandestine meetings with Rosen at AIPAC. Apparently nervous that the FBI might be on to them, the two men started taking precautions. On March 10th, 2003, barely a week before the invasion of Iraq, Rosen met Franklin in Washington's cavernous Union Station. The pair met at one restaurant, then they hustled to another, and finally they ended up in a third—this one totally empty. As an added precaution, Franklin also began sending faxes to Rosen's home instead of to his AIPAC offices.

A few days later, Rosen and Weissman passed on to Israeli-embassy officials details about the draft of the top-secret presidential directive on Iran, saying they had received the document from a "friend of ours in the Pentagon." They also relayed to the Israelis details about internal Bush-administration discussions on Iran. Then, two days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Rosen leaked the information to the press with the comment "I'm not supposed to know this." The Washington Post eventually published the story under the headline "Pressure Builds for President to Declare Strategy on Iran," crediting the classified information to "well-placed sources." The story mentioned Ledeen, who helped found the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, a pressure group dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, but gave no indication that the leak had come from someone with a definite agenda for planting the information.

That June, Weissman called Franklin and left a message that he and Rosen wanted to meet with him again and talk about "our favorite country." The meeting took place in the Tivoli Restaurant, a dimly lit establishment two floors above the metro station in Arlington that was frequently used by intelligence types for quiet rendezvous. Over lunch in the mirrored dining room, the three men discussed the Post article, and Rosen acknowledged "the constraints" Franklin was under to meet with them. But the Pentagon official placed himself fully at AIPAC's disposal. "You set the agenda," Franklin told Rosen.

In addition to meeting Rosen and Weissman, Franklin was also getting together regularly with Naor Gilon, an Israeli embassy official who, according to a senior U.S. counterintelligence official, "showed every sign of being an intelligence agent." Franklin and Gilon would normally meet amid the weight machines and punching bags at the Pentagon Officers Athletic Club, where Franklin passed along secret information regarding Iran's activities in Iraq, its missile-testing program and even, apparently, New York Times reporter Judith Miller. At one point, Gilon suggested that Franklin meet with Uzi Arad, Mossad's former director of intelligence and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's foreign-policy adviser. A week later, Franklin had lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria with the former top Israeli spy.

[Rasputin]

Larry Franklin, it turns out, wasn't the only person involved in the Pentagon's covert operation who was exchanging state secrets with other governments. As the FBI monitored Franklin and his clandestine dealings with AIPAC, it was also investigating another explosive case of espionage linked to Feith's office and Iran. This one focused on Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, the militant anti-Saddam opposition group that had worked for more than a decade to pressure the U.S. into invading Iraq.

For years, the National Security Agency had possessed the codes used by Iran to encrypt its diplomatic messages, enabling the U.S. government to eavesdrop on virtually every communication between Tehran and its embassies. After the U.S. invaded Baghdad, the NSA used the codes to listen in on details of Iran's covert operations inside Iraq. But in 2004, the agency intercepted a series of urgent messages from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad. Intelligence officials at the embassy had discovered the massive security breach—tipped off by someone familiar with the U.S. code-breaking operation.

The blow to intelligence-gathering could not have come at a worse time. The Bush administration suspected that the Shiite government in Iran was aiding Shiite insurgents in Iraq, who were killing U.S. soldiers. The administration was also worried that Tehran was secretly developing nuclear weapons. Now, crucial intelligence that might have shed light on those operations had been cut off, potentially endangering American lives.

On May 20th, shortly after the discovery of the leak, Iraqi police backed by American soldiers raided Chalabi's home and offices in Baghdad. The FBI suspected that Chalabi, a Shiite who had a luxurious villa in Tehran and was close to senior Iranian officials, was actually working as a spy for the Shiite government of Iran. Getting the U.S. to invade Iraq was apparently part of a plan to install a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Baghdad, with Chalabi in charge. The bureau also suspected that Chalabi's intelligence chief had furnished Iran with highly classified information on U.S. troop movements, top-secret communications, plans of the provisional government and other closely guarded material on U.S. operations in Iraq. On the night of the raid, The CBS Evening News carried an exclusive report by correspondent Lesley Stahl that the U.S. government had "rock-solid" evidence that Chalabi had been passing extremely sensitive intelligence to Iran—evidence so sensitive that it could "get Americans killed."

The revelation shocked Franklin and other members of Feith's office. If true, the allegations meant that they had just launched a war to put into power an agent of their mortal enemy, Iran. Their man—the dissident leader who sat behind the first lady in the president's box during the State of the Union address in which Bush prepared the country for war—appeared to have been working for Iran all along.

Franklin needed to control the damage, and fast. He was one of the very few in the government who knew that it was the NSA code-breaking information that Chalabi was suspected of passing to Iran, and that there was absolute proof that Chalabi had met with a covert Iranian agent involved in operations against the U.S. To protect those in the Pentagon working for regime change in Tehran, Franklin needed to get out a simple message: We didn't know about Chalabi's secret dealings with Iran.

Franklin decided to leak the information to a friendly contact in the media: Adam Ciralsky, a CBS producer who had been fired from the CIA, allegedly for his close ties to Israel. On May 21st, the day after CBS broadcast its exclusive report on Chalabi, Franklin phoned Ciralsky and fed him the information. As the two men talked, eavesdroppers at the FBI's Washington field office recorded the conversation.

That night, Stahl followed up her original report with "new details"—the information leaked earlier that day by Franklin. She began, however, by making clear that she would not divulge the most explosive detail of all: the fact that Chalabi had wrecked the NSA's ability to eavesdrop on Iran. "Senior intelligence officials were stressing today that the information Ahmed Chalabi is alleged to have passed on to Iran is so seriously sensitive that the result of full disclosure would be highly damaging to U.S. security," Stahl said. "Because of that, we are not reporting the details of what exactly Chalabi is said to have compromised, at the request of U.S. officials at the highest levels. The information involves secrets that were held by only a handful of very senior intelligence officials." Thanks to the pressure from the administration, the public was prevented from learning the most damaging aspect of Chalabi's treachery.

Then Stahl moved on to Franklin's central message. "Meanwhile," she said, "we have been told that grave concerns about the true nature of Chalabi's relationship with Iran started after the U.S. obtained, quote, ?undeniable intelligence' that Chalabi met with a senior Iranian intelligence officer, a, quote, ?nefarious figure from the dark side of the regime, an individual with a direct hand in covert operations against the United States.' Chalabi never reported this meeting to anyone in the U.S. government, including his friends and sponsors." In short, the Pentagon—and Feith's office in particular—was blameless.

[Rasputin]

Soon after the broadcast, David Szady's team at the FBI decided to wrap up its investigation before Franklin leaked any more information. Agents quietly confronted Franklin with the taped phone call and pressured him to cooperate in a sting operation directed at AIPAC and members of Feith's team in the Pentagon. Franklin, facing a long prison sentence, agreed. On August 4th, 2005, Rosen and Weissman were indicted, and on January 20th, 2006, Franklin, who had earlier pleaded guilty, was sentenced to twelve years and seven months in prison. In an attempt to reduce his sentence, he agreed to testify against the former AIPAC officials. The case is set to go to trial this fall.

So far, however, Franklin is the only member of Feith's team to face charges. The continuing lack of indictments demonstrates how frighteningly easy it is for a small group of government officials to join forces with agents of foreign powers—whether it is AIPAC or the MEK or the INC—to sell the country on a disastrous war.

The most glaring unindicted co-conspirator is Ahmed Chalabi. Even top-ranking Republicans suspect him of double dealing: "I wouldn't be surprised if he told Iranians facts, issues, whatever, that we did not want them to know," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who chairs the House subcommittee on national security. Yet the FBI has been unable to so much as question Chalabi as part of its ongoing espionage case. Last November, when Chalabi returned to the United States for a series of speeches and media events, the FBI tried to interview him. But because he was under State Department protection during his visit, sources in the Justice Department say, the bureau's request was flatly denied.

"Chalabi's running around saying, ?I have nothing to hide,' " says one senior FBI official. "Yet he's using our State Department to keep us from him at the same time. And we've got to keep our mouth shut."

In the end, the work of Franklin and the other members of Feith's secret office had the desired effect. Working behind the scenes, the members of the Office of Special Plans succeeded in setting the United States on the path to all-out war with Iran. Indeed, since Bush was re-elected to a second term, he has made no secret of his desire to see Tehran fall. In a victory speech of sorts on Inauguration Day in January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney warned bluntly that Iran was "right at the top" of the administration's list of "trouble spots"—and that Israel "might well decide to act first" by attacking Iran. The Israelis, Cheney added in an obvious swipe at moderates in the State Department, would "let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."

Over the past six months, the administration has adopted almost all of the hard-line stance advocated by the war cabal in the Pentagon. In May, Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, appeared before AIPAC's annual conference and warned that Iran "must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences." To back up the tough talk, the State Department is spending $66 million to promote political change inside Iran—funding the same kind of dissident groups that helped drive the U.S. to war in Iraq. "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared.

In addition, the State Department recently beefed up its Iran Desk from two people to ten, hired more Farsi speakers and set up eight intelligence units in foreign countries to focus on Iran. The administration's National Security Strategy—the official policy document that sets out U.S. strategic priorities—now calls Iran the "single country" that most threatens U.S. interests.

The shift in official policy has thrilled former members of the cabal. To them, the war in Lebanon represents the final step in their plan to turn Iran into the next Iraq. Ledeen, writing in the National Review on July 13th, could hardly restrain himself. "Faster, please," he urged the White House, arguing that the war should now be taken over by the U.S. military and expanded across the entire region. "The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it," he concluded. "There is no other way."

James Bamford is the author of "A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies." His story for RS on consultant John Rendon, "The Man Who Sold the War" [RS 988], won the 2006 National Magazine Award for reporting. Plus: Join a reader debate -- Is war with Iran unavoidable?

[Rasputin]

در مورد حمله آمريکا و اسرائيل به اهداف مشخص در ايران، ظرف يکسال گذشته اخبار، گزارشات و مقالات متعددی در رسانه های جهان درج شده است. گرچه عوامل متعددی تا به حال اين حمله را به تاخير انداخته است، اما با توجه به مقاصد دراز مدت آمريکا برای کسب منابع انرژی جديد و حاکميت بر نقاط سوق الجيشی در مقابله با رقبای بين المللي،بنظر می آيد تعقيب اين اهداف تا به زانو درآوردن جمهوری اسلامي، ادامه خواهد يافت. در اين ميان آمريکا و ساير کشورهای غربی حقوق بين المللی مردم ايران را زير پا گذاشته و سعی دارند با وجه المصالحه قرار دادن اين حقوق با جمهوری اسلامی ، مردم کشورمان را از حقوق قانونی خود در زمينه , انرژی هسته ای, بازدارند. رهبران جمهوری اسلامی ايران هم با عنايت و اتکا به حقوق قانونی مردم ايران ديپلماسی خارجی خود را بر اصل خاموش کردن آتش با نفت قرار داده و در زمانه ای چنين حساس با اعمال نابخردانه و ريسک به مقابله با چنين خطر دهشتباری که مردم ايران را تهديد می کند، می پردازند. ايالات متحده آمريکا که در جريان حمله به عراق، پشتيبانی اروپا را نداشت، همين اينک با زمينه سازی های بسيار از کشورهای مسلمان و بويژه ايران تصويری را بدست می دهند که افکار عمومی خود را برای چنين حمله ای آماده کنند. جريان کاريکاتورهای محمد دقيقا با همين نيت پس از چند ماه از درج آنها، رو می آيد. با توجه و آگاهی نسبت به اينکه ملل اسلامی عکس العمل ناموافق و حتی خشونت بار در برابر آن نشان می دهند، با تحريک آنان به چنين اعمال خشونت باري، قصد دميدن در تبليغات خود بر عليه اين ملت ها را داشته تا در برابر افکار عمومی خود زمينه های هجوم نظامی را به ديگر کشورها و از جمله و در وهله اول ايران آماده سازند.
يک خاصيت ديگر انعکاس اخبار و گزارشات از حمله به ايران از طرف دول غربي، که در دنيا منتشر می شود ايجاد روحيه ياس و دلمردگي، انتظار، فرار سرمايه، فرار مغزهای متفکر و غيره در ميان مردم ايران است. اين مسئله بهيچوجه از ديد کارشناسان و طراحان نظامی دول غربی دور نيست و بخشی از جنگ روانی است که بر عليه مردم ايران راه انداخته اند.

در يک حمله به ايران ده هزار نفر کشته خواهند شد

گروه تحقيقاتی آکسفورد در گزارشی تحت عنوان , عواقب يک جنگ, می نويسد : يک حمله آمريکا به مراکز اتمی ايران تا ده هزار نفر کشته بجا خواهد گذاشت، که آغاز جنگ جديدی در خاورميانه خواهد بود. آکسفورد در ادامه گزارش خود می نويسد:" صدهادانشمند وتکنسين تاسيسات اتمی ايران در اولين مراحل اين حمله موردهدف قرار خواهند گرفت و نابود می شوند،چرا که هدف اوليه امريکا بر اين تمرکز يافته است که جلوی گسترش هر گونه برنامه و ظرفيت برنامه های هسته ای ايران را گرفته و آنرا نابود نمايد."

انتشار اين گزارش مصادف با انتشار گزارشاتی از اين دست است که استراتژيست های پنتاگون در حال تهيه نقشه ای تحت عنوان , آخرين چاره, هستند که در صورتيکه اتخاذ روش ديپلماتيک موفق از آب در نيايد، به اين چاره متوسل شوند. اين گزارش می افزايد که نقشه برای حمله به ايران بعنوان , بزرگترين فوريت, در ماههای اخير در دستور کار بوده است.


کارشناسان نظامی در مرکز ,فرماندهی و استراتژی, که به دانلد رامسفلد وزير دفاع آمريکا گزارشات خود را تحويل می دهند، هدفهای مورد نظر را که می بايستی مورد حمله قرار گيرند و همچنين نوع سلاح هايی که برای اين حمله مورد نياز است را در گزارش خود به رامسفلد ذکر کرده اند.
گروه آکسفورد در ادامه می نويسد:" اگر انگلستان اجازه استفاده از پايگاههای نظامی خود يعنی پايگاه Fairford/Glos و پايگاه ديگو گارسيا در اقيانوس اطلس را به بمب افکن های 2 B آمريکايی بدهد، که هر کدام قادرند 40000 پاوند ,بمب دقيق, حمل نمايند، عملا انگلستان نيز به کام اين جنگ کشيده خواهد شد.

پرفسور پل راجرز از گروه تحقيقاتی آکسفورد و تهيه کننده اين گزارش می نويسد:" , بمباران دقيق, می تواند برنامه های هسته ای ايران را بين 5 تا 10 سال عقب بياندازد، اما در عوض پيامد اين حمله در ظرف يکماه به ,يک موقعيت فوق العاده خطرناک, در منطقه تبديل خواهد شد. در نتيجه اين حمله می تواند ,يک درگيری نظامی طولانی مدت, را به همراه داشته باشد که اسرائيل و لبنان و بعضی از کشورهای خيلج فارس را نيز در آن درگير خواهند شد. "

در اين گزارش همچنين آمده است :" بيش از 100 بمب افکن امريکايی که بيشتر آنها هم اينک در خليج فارس مسقر هستند، دريک حمله برق آسا به 20 نقطه حساس و کليدي، تاسيسات هسته ای و نظامی ايران را نابود خواهند کرد."
اگر اهداف نظامی شامل تاسيسات هسته ای بوشهر، که در سال جاری کاملا به محل ذخيره مواد سوخت هسته ای تبديل و مجهز می شود، بمباران شود، اين بمباران می تواند موجب انتشار تشعشات راديو اکتيو بر روی خليج فارس شود.
نيروی دريايی کوچک ايران که شامل سه زيردريايی است نيز ممکن است توسط آمريکائيان بمباران شود، زيرا که اين نيروی دريايی می تواند تهديدی برای خطوط کشتيرانی (حامل نفت) در خليج فارس و تنگه هرمز شوند. با اين حال احتمالا ايران نيز قادر خواهد بود در پاسخ و در عملی انتقام جويانه با قايق های حامل بمب انتحاری خود به کشتی های حامل نفت حمله کرده و به نوبه خود باعث افزايش قيمت نفت شود.
پروفسور راجرز که استاد مطالعات صلح در دانشگاه برادفورد انگليس است، می گويد که عمل نظامی آمريکا می تواند پيامد اتحاد در ميان حکومت ايران و همراهی با احمدی نژاد رئيس جمهوررا هم داشته باشد و دشمنی و احساسات ضدامريکايی درميان ملت های مسلمان را تشديد کند.
اين گزارش ادامه می دهد :" حمله زمينی به ايران آسان نخواهد بود،چرا که نيازمند شرکت حداقل 100 هزار نفرات نظامی آمريکا برای چنين حمله ای است،و اين درحالی است که هم اکنون آمريکا 130 هزار نفر سرباز درعراق و 18 هزار نفر در افغانستان دارد. "
ايران احتمالا از قرارداد " منع سلاح های اتمی" بيرون خواهد آمد و برنامه سری هسته ای خود را سرعت خواهد بخشيد.
اين گزارش در نتيجه گيری خود می نويسد:" يک حمله نظامی در جواب به بحرانهای جاری ، گزينش بسيار خطرناکی است که نبايد انتخاب شود. گزينه های راهبردی ديگر بغير از جنگ هر اندازه سخت، می بايستی در افق ديدگاهها به حساب آيند."
گروه تحقيقاتی اکسفورد قبل از حمله امريکا به عراق در سال 2003، نيز پيش بينی کرده بود که دراين حمله رژيم صدام حسين براحتی سرنگون می شود، اما اين کشور به , کانون مقاومت, تبديل خواهد شد.

[Rasputin]

پيمان نفتی- نظامی تركيه، اسرائيل، آذربايجان و گرجستان
جنگ بزرگ و طولانی
بزودی به ايران خواهد رسيد
حاكميت ساده لوح ايران
دنبال حزب الله بازی است و فاجعه درحال تكامل



بمباران لبنان بخشی از يك نقشه راه نظامی است كه به دقت طراحی و هماهنگی شده است. گسترش جنگ به سوريه و ايران نيز مدتهاست كه ازسوی برنامه ريزان نظامی آمريكا و اسرائيل درمد نظر قرار داشته است. خط لوله نفتی استراتژيك جهان، همزمان با بمباران لبنان افتتاح شد. يك روز پيش از حمله هوائی اسرائيل به لبنان، سهامداران پروژه اين خط لوله، متشكل ازتعدادی از روسای دولت ها و مديران شركتهای نفتی دربندر جيحان تركيه گرد آمدند. واشنگتن با كشيدن خط لوله تا مديترانه، عملا بلوك تازه ای از آذربايجان، گرجستان، تركيه و اسرائيل را بوجود آورده است. پرشدن هرچه بيشتر انبارهای سلاح كشتارجمعی آمريكائی دراسرائيل حكايت از جنگ وسيع تردر داخل و خارج از مرزهای لبنان دارد. به اين ترتيب، اسرائيل بازيگر پرقدرت تازه دربازارجهانی خواهد شد.



عكس های بالا و پايين مسير خطوط لوله نفتی از باكو به سيحان و
مسيركنسرسيوم خزر را نشان می دهد

[Rasputin]

طرح 3 مرحله ای بمباران
نظامی، اتمی، ارتباطی ايران




همزمان با گسترش جنگ لبنان و رسيدن آن به مرزهای سوريه و همچنين صدور قطعنامه مهلت 4 هفته ای به ايران برای تعليق غنی سازی اورانيوم و تاسيسات آب سنگين اراك، يكبار ديگر گمانه زنی های اينترنتی در باره طرح های حمله نظامی به پايگاه های اتمی ايران آغاز شد. سايت خبری.... نوشت:



منابع نظامی و اطلاعاتی ايالات متحده و كشورهای خارجی از نشانه هايی سخن می گويند كه حكايت از مراحل آمادگی نهائی برای يك حمله نظامی ايالات متحده به تاسيسات نظامی و هسته ای ايران دارد.

در اين حمله ممكن است از سلاح های هسته ای تاكتيكی استفاده شود. آماج های بمباران ها شامل نيروگاه هسته ای بوشهر است كه در آن صدها روس و ديگر تكنسين های خارجی حضور دارند، معدن ارانيوم سغند نزديك شهر يزد، تاسيسات غنی سازی ارانيوم نطنز و تاسيسات آب سنگين اراك و تاسيسات اردكان و اصفهان، مركز تحقيقات هسته ای تهران، لابراتوار "جابربن حيان" در تهران، مركز برچيده شده لشكر آباد، و واحد راديواكتيو كرج و انارك از جمله تاسيساتی هستند كه در فهرست حمله قرار دارند.

ديگر آماج های اوليه عبارتند از سايت های پرتاب موشك های شهاب 1، 2 و 3. فرودگاه بزرگ بينالمللی مهرآباد نزديك تهران، تاسيسات دريايی در خليج فارس و دريای خزر، تاسيسات فرماندهی، ارتباطات و اطلاعاتی.

آماج های بعدی عبارتند از فرودگاه های غيرنظامی، راديو و تلويزيون، مراكز مخابراتی، ساختمان های دولتی، نيروگاه ها، پل ها، خطوط راه آهن.

تاسيسات بهره برداری نفت و بندرهای تجاری احتمالا مورد حمله قرار نخواهند گرفت تا در جهت منافع تجاری و نفتی آمريكا بعدا استفاده شوند.

بدين منظور آموزش نيروها سرعت گرفته و شماری از تاسيسات نظامی آمريكا كه قرار است در حمله هوايی اوليه شركت داشته باشند در حال آمادگی هستند. پنتاگون دستور داده تا "فورت راكر" آلاباما حدود 50 تا 60 هزار تن را آموزش دهد كه در عمليات نظامی در ايران بكار گرفته خواهند شد. علاوه بر آن "هالبروت فيلد" در آلاباما، مركز فرماندهی نيروی عمليات ويژه هوايی آمريكا آمادگی خود را افزايش داده است. حمله آمريكا به ايران درمرحله نخست از طريق هوايی و با استفاده از ناوها، نيروی هوايی و يگان های عمليات ويژه صورت خواهد گرفت.



همچنين فعاليت مركز جنگ دريايی زمينی در "تونيتين پالمز" كاليفرنيا فعاليت خود را بنحو محسوسی افزايش داده است. اين مركز نيروها را برای فعاليت در محيط صحرايی و كوهستانی نظير شرايط ايران آموزش داده است.

منابع اطلاعاتی اروپايی نيز گزارش داده اند كه ايالات متحده به متحدان خود در ناتو گفته است كه برای يك حمله نظامی به تاسيسات هسته ای و نظامی ايران آماده باشند.

مقامات نظامی و سياسی آمريكا ملاقات هايی در بحرين، عربستان سعودی، پاكستان، اردن، عمان و اذربايجان داشته اند تا پشتيبانی آنان را از حمله به ايران بدست آورند.

[Rasputin]

شبح جنگ بر فراز ايران
دو هواپيما اسرائيلی و امريكائی
در آسمان تهران ديده شده اند
مردم نزديك شدن جنگ و مرگ را احساس كرده اند

در اتوبان ها و ميادين، پوسترهای سيد حسن نصرالله بجای نيكی كريمی بيليبوردها را اشغال كرده است و تعدادی از پاسدارهای ايران در لبنان كشته شده اند. در ميادين ايستگاه های مقاومت داير شده( و دربرخی شهرها بلندگوهای آژير جنگی نصب كرده اند.) پرچم زرد حزب الله بتدريج جانشين پرچم سه رنگ ايران می شود.







امروز در هر كوی و برزن كه بروی چشمان مضطرب مردم را خواهی ديد كه نگران از جنگی ناخواسته اند و دائما مورد سوال قرار می گيری كه آيا جنگی در راه است ؟ و آيا دوباره بايد منتظر آژير قرمز از راديو باشند تا چراغهای خانه را خاموش كنند تا خمپاره ها بر سر منازل آنان فرود نيايد ؟ آری مردم نگرانند، نگران از آن دو هواپيما اسرائيلی و آمريكايی كه هفته گذشته بر فراز آسمانهای تهران ديدند، نگران از آتش افروزی های حاكميت در منطقه اند. مردم هرگاه رييس جمهورشان سخنی بيان می دارد دلشان می لرزد كه نكند با اين سخنان ديگر كار تمام است و بايد از زمين و آسمان شاهد خمپاره های آمريكايی باشند . امروز ديگر مردم ايران خواب آرامی ندارند و هر لحظه آماده شنيدن خبرهای ناگوارند . مردم در اتوبانها ديگر شاهد بيليبوردهای گلزار و فروتن و نيكی كريمی نيستند چه آنكه آنها جای خود را به سيد حسن نصرالله دادند تا با تفنگی در دست به ايرانيان بگويد كه آماده باشيد تا به ما ملحق شويد و آن عملياتی كه نيرو هايش در كشور ما آموزش ديدند در ايران به كار بنديم . واز آن سو در بهشت زهرا عمليات انتحاری آموزش می دهند تا قبر های باقی مانده خالی نماند . واز همه اينها گذشته، خبر هايی هم از شهيد شدن چند تن از پاسداران ايران در لبنان زمينه را برای جنگی ديگر بيشتر آماده می كند . در ميادين هم ايستگاه مقاومت برپا می كنند تا با پرچم های حزب الله مردم به آرامی سه رنگ سبز و سفيد و قرمز را از ياد ببرند. و در كنار تمام اين موارد پرونده هسته ای نيز با كمك روسيه در شورای امنيت مراحل پايانی قعطنامه فصل هفتمی را می گذراند تا در كنار" جنگی ناخواسته از سوی ملت" تحريم های آنچنانی هم صورت پذيرد تا ايران اتيوپی ديگر شود. آری مردم نگرانند چون شهر بوی جنگ می دهد.

[Rasputin]

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a little-known clandestine Islamist group remerged from the ashes. Formed in 1953 with a radically anti-Bahai and anti-Sunni ideology, the Hojjatiehs flourished during the Revolution that ousted the Shah. The fiery, respected Sheik Hamud Halabi urged the Hojjatiehs to vote in favor of the Velayat-e-Faqih form of government in the referendum mainly due to fear of a communist takeover.

Velayat-e-Faqih, the "guardianship of the jurisconsult", is the modern political doctrine set out by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In his book of Jurist governmental rule, he addressed the role of the clergy in the government. Under this doctrine, he proclaimed himself and his successors as Supreme Leaders of a purist Islamic nation.

In spite of propaganda purported by apologists and the naïve attention to Iran's presidential elections, virtually all authority lies with an absolute dictatorship under the Velayat-e-Faqih government: a concept dearly advocated and embraced by the founders of the Islamic Republic. Due to disagreement over the Velayat-e-Faqih system, the Hojjatiehs were banned in 1983. Ayatollah Khomeini was adamantly opposed to the Hojjatiehs‚ conviction that Shiites should advocate a more progressive arrival of the 12th Imam.

The Imam is a core concept in the teachings of Shiite Muslims. Born Muhammad Al-Mahdi, the Imam ventured into a cave in 941 AD hidden by the Gate of Occultation. Shiites believe that the Twelfth Imam will one day return to lead the religious battle between good and evil when the world has become consummately nefarious. They argue that it is only at that stage that a genuine Islamic Republic will emerge.

Since the arrival of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the group has seen a mass resurgence in the government. Recently a former chief of staff of Khomeini claimed that the Revolutionary Guards and many of the cabinet positions had been filled by Hojjatiehs who control Ahmadinejad. Although it is disputed whether Ahmadinejad is himself a member of the society he has shown strong support for their Armageddon message. He was quoted as saying that "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," and that "Today we should define our economic, cultural and political parties based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return we should avoid copying West's politics and systems".

Ahmadinejad's clerical spiritual advisor Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi is also an ardent Hojjatiehi. He has taught at the Hojjatieh-founded Haqqani Theological School in Qum. Qum is the central religious central of Iranian as well as many other international Shiites. During the last presidential elections he issued a fatwa urging all two million members of the hard-line volunteer basin Islamic Militia to support Ahmadinejad. Along with many other Hojjatiehs he advocates the hastening of the arrival of the 12th Imam leading to the battle between good and evil.

The arrival of Ahmadinejad was a domestically calculated power grab by the Hojjatieh adherents. Several signs point to the resurgence of this clandestine group, such as the recent call of Ahmadinejad for wiping Israel off the map, their harsh confrontational approach towards the West, their intermeddling in neighboring countries, increasing in the support of terror groups, the suppression of ethnic minorities at home, the lessening of the appearance of Khamenei and the increase in the oppression of the Bahais and Sunnis.

Perhaps wanting to circumvent the brash and naïve foreign policy agenda of Ahmadinejad on June 25th, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei created the Strategic Council for Foreign Relations. The prime objective of the council, which includes seasoned foreign relation veterans such as Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign minister and former Islamic Revolution Guards Corp admiral Ali Shamkhani, is to facilitate the countries foreign policy objectives.

Intellectuals need to engage in debate about the possibility of the commingling of the two factions and whether this will lead to a deepening disagreement between the ideological beliefs of the Velayat-e-Faqih system originally endorsed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and followed by his successors such as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the even more radical Hojjatiehs. Ultimately their preservation may be more important than squabbling between factions with too many similarities and not many differences.

Strategic political maneuvers within the Islamic Republic may lead some to conclude an imminent conflict between the two factions but it's more feasible to conclude that, in the end, the two ideological factions will cooperate to preserve the system. At a time when the regime is under immense domestic and international pressure the last thing the Ayatollahs need is internal squabbling and resounding divisions.

The logical conclusion points in the direction of the combination of forces between the current Jurist run dictatorial system and the anti-Bahai, radically aggressive policies of the Hojjatiehs in order to preserve the Islamic system. Either way the regime will remain the world's leading sponsor of terrorism - the question is whether the Hojjatiehs concept of hastening the arrival of the 12th Imam by causing war and chaos across the world will take form.

Most analysts rightfully contest our best weapon in Iran are the pro-American people who in recent years have consistently poured out into the streets in pro-democracy demonstrations only to be arrested, tortured, and often times murdered. We should invest more aggressively in their liberation before we have to deal with a fanatical regime armed with nuclear weapons with a potent desire to drive the world towards Armageddon.

[Rasputin]

فرمانده كل سپاه پاسداران
برای جنگ با امريكا و اسرائيل
بسيج و سپاه آماده
فرمان جنگی رهبر باشند
شبكه فراخوان بسيج كشورافتتاح شد

رحيم صفوی فرمانده كل سپاه پاسداران طی سخنانی در مراسم افتتاح شبكه فراخوان بسيج سراسر كشور در حوادث غيرمترقبه طبيعی، با جدا كردن مسلمانان از غير مسلمانان دركشورهای منطقه گفت:

چهار سال است كه آمريكا و انگليس مشغول مسلمانكشی در عراق و افغانستان هستند و اسرائيل هم 60 سال است كه در لبنان و فلسطين مسلمان ميكشد. آيا نبايد رئيس جمهور آمريكا و نخست وزير انگليس و رئيسجمهور اسرائيل به عنوان جنايتكاران جنگی به محاكمه كشيده شوند؟ آيا آمريكا و انگليس و اسرائيل بزرگترين تروريسم دولتی و جهانی نيستند؟ آيا اينها محور واقعی شرارت نيستند؟ »

رحيم صفوی بجای آنكه بگويد تكليف جهان را امريكا و اسرائيل چيست، گفت: «تكليف مسلمانان چيست؟ آيا عزتشان اجازه ميدهد كه خون كودكان مسلمان به دست كفار و مشركان صهيونيست به زمين ريخته شود؟ اگر مسلمانان جهان تشكلی مانند بسيج داشتند و اگر رهبر شجاعی مثل آيتالله خامنهای داشتند كار به اينجا كشيده نميشد.»

رحيم صفوی در بخش ديگری از سخنان خود كه در ارتباط مستقيم با مراسمی بود كه در آن شركت كرده بود، سخنانی گفت كه آن را بايد آمادگی های جنگی درايران تلقی كرد. او گفت:

«اگر خدای ناكرده در كشور حادثهی غيرمترقبه و يا ناامنی روی دهد سيستم ارتباطی به سرعت ميتواند برای كمكرسانی به اقصی نقاط كشور اطلاعرسانی كند. »

رحيم صفوی دربخش ديگری از سخنان خود گفت:

«بسيجيان و سپاهيان قدرتمند ايران خود را برای يك تسويه حساب اساسی با صهيونيستها و آمريكاييها آماده كنند؛ زمان اين تسويه حساب را رهبر انقلاب اعلام ميكند. »

[Rasputin]

مذاكرات محرمانه در باكو
برای جلب حمايت آذربايجان از حمله به ايران




براساس گزارش های منابع خبری در خاورميانه، يك مقام بلند پايه دولت آذربايجان و مقامات امنيتی و اطلاعاتی اين كشور انتظار يك حمله همه جانبه امريكا به ايران را دارند. دولت بوش ، سفيرسابق امريكا ، "استنلی اسكودرو" برای جلب حمايت دولت آذربايجان از اين حمله به آذربايجان سفركرده است. وی كه درسالهای 97 تا 2000 بعنوان سفير در جمهوری آذربايجان خدمت كرده اكنون سرپرستی كمپانی فلوريدايی را برعهده دارد كه پايگاه ان درآذربايجان است و يك كمپانی امريكايی مشاور امورنفتی در آذربايجان محسوب ميشود. او همچنين عضو اتاق بازرگانی آذربايجان- امريكا است. درهيئت مشاور اين اتاق بازرگانی هنری كيسنجر عضو افتخاری آن است. ريچادپرل مسئول امورمالی اين كمپانی را برعهده دارد. ادسكودرو همچنين عضو هيئت كمپانی اسيای ميانه به نام انرژی كاراسو، كمپانی اينترنشنال مونوكريف است. دراينجا پيوند كمپانيهای نفتی و طرح حمله به ايران بيشترروشن ميشود.

[Rasputin]

حمله پيش گيرانه به ايران
درصدر اخبار مهم جهان




درحاليكه اخبار جنگ در لبنان و بمباران بی وقفه و وحشيانه اسرائيل در اين كشور طی سه هفته گذشته در صدر اخبار جهان بوده است، بتدريج خبر جانشين در صدر قرار گرفته است: حمله به ايران!

از دو روز پيش به هر سايت خبری و يا عناوين مهم هر خبرگزاری كه مراجعه شود، خبر اول نه لبنان، بلكه ايران است. هر كدام از اين سايت ها و خبرگزاری ها به بهانه ای، ايران را به صدر اخبار كشيده اند. در صدر اين بهانه ها "اتم" و "خطر توليد بمب اتمی درايران" قرار دارد و انواع خبرها در همين ارتباط به يكباره كشف و به تونل خبرگزاری ها راه يافته است. از كشف محموله های اتمی ايران در افريقا تا خطر انتقال موشك های دارای كلاهك اتمی به منطقه جنگی در خاورميانه. سخنرانی تلويزيونی نخست وزير اسرائيل كه روز سه شنبه و در پی گسترده ترين بمباران بيروت پخش و در آن مستقيما ايران را بعنوان پشت جبهه تداركاتی حزب الله لبنان اعلام داشت اين سمت گيری خبرگزاری ها تشديد شده است. حيرت آور آنست كه در داخل ايران نيز خبرآفرينی های حكومتی نيز همين سمت و سو را دارد. يعنی هيزم زير همين ديگ گذاشته می شود. معروف ترين و پر رفت و آمدترين ميادين و خيابان های پايتخت مزين به پرچم حزب الله لبنان شده، پايگاه های جنگی برپا شده و ثبت نام داوطلبان جنگ در لبنان، حتی بصورت شهادت نامه و وصيت نامه در برخی زندان ها توزيع شده است كه خبر آن را مستقلا دراين شماره پيك نت می خوانيد. همين اين فعاليت ها كه تاكنون با سكوت محافل خبری جهان همراه بود اكنون بلافاصله و با تفاسير مختلف مخابره می شود. اين درحالی است كه نگرانی از حمله غافلگيرانه به ايران در كشورهای مختلف جهان رو به تشديد است، چنان كه برخی مطبوعات مترقی اين كشورها نيز بصورت "هشدار" مطالبی را منتشر می كنند، كه خبر و تفسير دو نشريه كانادائی و آلمانی را در همين ارتباط می خوانيد.