by Ray McGovern, TomPaine.com Exclusive

A former CIA analyst on Cheney's habit of playing fast and loose with the facts about Iraq -- and now Iran.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reining_in_cheney.php

by Ivan Eland

Independent Institute

01/24/05

As unbelievable as it might seem, despite its disastrous martial adventure in neighboring Iraq, the administration appears to be once again leaning toward using the military option to deal with a country that it believes is attempting to get nuclear weapons. U.S. government intelligence agencies believe that Iran is still three to five years from getting such a weapon, but given their recent track record of failure on the Indo-Pakistan nuclear tests, the September 11 attacks, and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, no one can be sure if they are correct...

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1453


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

The Age [Australia]

01/24/05

The British Government has moved to curb American enthusiasm for an attack on Iran by issuing a dossier outlining the cause for military peace, it was reported in London yesterday.In marked contrast to Britain's publications in support of the Iraq invasion, the dossier has been released quietly but makes no secret of the Blair Government's preference for a 'negotiated solution' to Iran's nuclear program. ...

Speculation about an imminent U.S. attack on Iran was refreshed last week by President George Bush's inauguration speech promising that he would use his second term to spread democracy and freedom across the globe 'by force of arms if necessary.'

Vice-President Dick Cheney reinforced that undertaking. 'You look around at potential trouble spots. Iran is right at the top of the list,' he said...

http://tinyurl.com/4veos


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

The Democrats and Iran
http://counterpunch.org/frank01202005.html


Informant: Friends

Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said, after President Bush said he would not rule out military force against Iran over its nuclear program. "We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying Tuesday. "We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

In October, Iran announced successful trials of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile with a range of 1,250 miles, putting parts of Europe, as well as Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, within reach.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S14453C4A


From:
Aftermath News
Top Stories - January 24th, 2005

For the past three years the central war game of the U.S. armed forces has been centered on Iran. But what exactly will await them there, even they do not purport to know.

http://www.w3ar.com/a.php?k=1302


From Information Clearing House

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has drawn up a report stating Britain's case against a military strike on Iran. According to media reports, in his 200 page dossier Straw argues against an attack on Iran amidst rising fears that President Bush may seek support for this new conflict.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6835
http://snipurl.com/c8d5


From Information Clearing House

by Steve Weissman

TruthOut

01/20/05

For months before taking his second oath of office, the resolute Mr. Bush has done exactly what he promised he would. He has raced full-throttle to expand his Middle East Crusade, this time against Iran, number two on his Axis of Evil. As many of us in the chattering classes have long warned, and as Sy Hersh reports in this week's New Yorker, the president is already marching to war. ... Perhaps as early as his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush will promote this pre-emptive attack as the cutting edge of his 'War on Terror.' In fact, he knows that Iran and its Ayatollahs had nothing to do with 9/11. But neither did Saddam Hussein...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012005A.shtml


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp