Tough Talk on Impeachment

From the Bill Moyers Journal:

 

~ link ~

 

The Federal Reserve: debunking the conspiracy 'myths'

By: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.  

 

Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

 

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

 

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

 

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

 

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

 

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

 

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

 

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

 

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

 

BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.  
Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.  
Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, so the Act is null and void.  
Myth# 3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional.  
Myth# 4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.  
Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.  
Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.  
Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.  
Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.  
Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it.  
Myth #10. The Legendary Tirade of Louis T. McFadden

 

~ link ~

 

'Impeachment: If not now, when?'

Lawmakers need to stand up for the Constitution and support impeachment

 

By LINDA BOYD
GUEST COLUMNIST

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. -- Article II, Section 4

 

On Nov. 6, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on the floor of the House of Representatives. For one shining moment the will of the majority of Americans and the promise of this nation's founders were truly represented.

 

The detailed charges were solemnly read from the House podium and televised on C-Span. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer made a motion to table the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lobbied hard for votes to table.

 

In a stunning turnaround, House Republicans changed strategy and voted decisively to prevent tabling the impeachment resolution.

 

Pelosi was defied by 85 Democratic members who voted against tabling the impeachment resolution. This includes John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and six committee members. The resolution was quickly voted back to the Judiciary Committee, where it is not resting quietly.

 

Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, "The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration."

 

Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.

 

After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law.

 

Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing.

 

Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney. "Never in our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it," writes local author Richard Behan.

 

Kucinich has targeted Cheney first, but investigations will implicate the president as well. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50 percent of respondents say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48 percent, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974. With these numbers, why aren't Bush and Cheney gone already?

 

The vice president is accused of:

 

purposely manipulating intelligence to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an attack on Iraq;

 

deceiving Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida;

 

threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States.

 

These violations of the Constitution and international treaty are just the tip of the iceberg. More articles of impeachment can be added at any time, and ample evidence to convict is on the public record. Representatives need to introduce articles regarding:

 

illegal war, in violation of both international treaty and the Constitution;

 

widespread domestic wiretapping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony. Bush already has admitted to this;

 

condoning torture in violation of federal laws and international treaties;

 

rescinding habeas corpus, the cornerstone of Western law since the Magna Carta;

 

obstruction of justice regarding U.S. attorney firings;

 

subversion of the Constitution, abuse of signing statements and rescinding habeas corpus.

 

It's astounding that our representatives to Congress carry on with business as usual knowing that Americans lack habeas corpus and a working code of law. I want my representative, Dave Reichert, to block the doors of the House until habeas is restored as a basic human right in this nation!

 

In light of Bush's steady drumbeat for war with Iran, Kucinich said he will consider an impeachment resolution against him.

 

"Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran," he says.

 

"The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power. Centuries of experience substantiated that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Constitution embraced a separation of powers to keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches in equilibrium," Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in the October 2006 edition of Washington Monthly.

 

If Congress were serious about oversight, there already would be dozens of bills and resolutions calling for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The "Unitary Executive Theory" violates the principle of balance of power in the Constitution. The president cites this "unitary" power in hundreds of signing statements that say he can ignore laws passed by Congress.

 

The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are all now subject to the caprice of government officials. The Military Commissions Act allows U.S. citizens to be detained without due process if they are declared enemy combatants. Without our permission, this country has become an exporter of torture.

 

Congress has failed to provide oversight and exercise its authority to rein in a criminal administration. Only swift action on impeachment can redeem it now. The people have done the heavy work of bringing impeachment forward. Representatives need only ask if the allegations are serious enough to warrant investigations.

 

George Bush and Dick Cheney promote an imperial presidency. They assert that the executive is the most powerful branch of government, undermining the judiciary and Congress in violation of the Constitution's bedrock principle of shared power among three co-equal branches. This subverts the very nature of our system of government.

 

"This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy. ... That's a big problem because that's essentially a dictatorship," Fein said.

 

Washington For Impeachment and Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney are working to inform the public, collect signatures to petitions, provide forums, and lobby representatives. Washington was the second state to sponsor a bill for impeachment in the state Legislature.

 

Washington State Democratic organizations have passed resolutions in 11 Democratic legislative districts, five counties and the Washington State Democratic Central Committee. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, has received impeachment resolutions from almost every legislative district within his congressional district. When will he represent the will of his constituents and honor his oath to protect the Constitution?

 

The national movement to impeach is a non-partisan effort to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. People across the political spectrum can unite to preserve the Constitution and civil liberties given to us by the founders. Impeachment is the peaceful, orderly, constitutionally prescribed way to rid ourselves of a lawless administration.

 

The issue is not about removing Bush and Cheney as much as it is about preserving the Constitution and redeeming the office of the executive. The Constitution is the contract of governance between the people and the government. What happens when major portions of the contract are violated?

 

Congress has failed to call the president and vice president to account, so citizens must turn up the heat. Members of Congress who fail to demand investigations are covering for criminals. Every elected official has sworn an oath to "support and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic." Anything less than impeachment and a full repudiation of the Bush administration's crimes and violations of the law is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the public trust.

 

If we want our democracy back, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work to clean out the House.
Linda Boyd is director of Washington For Impeachment, www.washingtonforimpeachment.org. Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney, in Olympia: www.citizensimpeach.org

 

~ link ~

 

Reverend Billy's Shopocalypse

'What Would Jesus Buy?'
- the movie: http://wwjbmovie.com/

- the trailer:

US steps up plans for military intervention in Pakistan

by Bill Van Auken
Global Research

22 Nov 2007

In the midst of public statements of support for "democracy" in
Pakistan and the recent visit to Islamabad by the American envoy John
Negroponte, Washington is quietly preparing for a stepped-up military
intervention in the crisis-ridden country.

According to the New York Times Monday, plans have been drawn up by
the US military's Special Operations Command for deploying Special
Forces troops in Pakistan's frontier regions for the purpose of
training indigenous militias to combat forces aligned with the Taliban
and Al Qaeda.

Citing unnamed military officials, the newspaper reports that the
proposal would "expand the presence of military trainers in Pakistan,
directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now
has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agreed to fight
Al Qaeda and foreign extremists."

American military officials familiar with the proposal said that it
was modeled on the initiative by American occupation forces in Iraq to
arm and support Sunni militias in Anbar province in a campaign against
the Al Qaeda in Iraq group there.

According to the Times report, skepticism that the same strategy can
be adapted to the deteriorating situation in Pakistan centers on "the
question of whether such partnerships can be forged without a
significant American military presence in Pakistan." The newspaper
adds that "it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the
tribes."

While the Pentagon admits to only about 50 US troops currently
stationed in Pakistan as "advisors" to the Pakistani armed forces,
that number would swell substantially under the proposed escalation.
The Times cites a briefing prepared by the Special Operations Command
that claims the beefed-up US forces would not be engaged in
"conventional combat" in Pakistan. It quotes unnamed military
officials as acknowledging, however, that they "might be involved in
strikes against senior militant leaders, under specific conditions."

In other words, American Special Forces units would be used to carry
out targeted assassinations and attacks on strongholds of Islamist
forces.

In addition to the plan to recruit and train new paramilitary militias
in the frontier region, Washington has developed a $350 million
program to train and equip the existing 85,000-member Frontier Corps,
a uniformed force recruited from among tribes in the Pakistan border
region.

There is also considerable skepticism about the prospects for this
program. "The training of the Frontier Corps remains a concern for
some," the Times reports: "NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan
have often blamed the Frontier Corps for aiding and abetting Taliban
insurgents mounting cross-border attacks. 'It's going to take years to
turn them into a professional force,' said one Western military
official. 'Is it worth it now?'"

There are growing concerns in Washington that the martial law regime
imposed by the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, at the
beginning of this month might unleash revolutionary convulsions that
could topple the military regime, which has served as a lynchpin for
American interests in the region.

The Bush administration has repeatedly demanded that Musharraf take
action against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the areas bordering
Afghanistan. Residents on both sides of the border are ethnic
Pashtuns. The latest US National Intelligence Estimate released last
July charged that Al Qaeda had reestablished "safe havens" in
Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

Taliban-aligned forces have been able to extend their influence from
the Waziristan region along the Afghan border further into Pakistan,
establishing control to the north over a large portion of the Swat
valley in the North West Frontier Province.

According to press reports, over 1,000 civilians, members of the
security forces and Islamist fighters have been killed in fighting in
the region over the past five months.

Senior Pakistani military officials announced over the weekend that
the army had massed nearly 20,000 troops backed by tanks and artillery
for a major offensive in the Swat district aimed at wresting control
from militias loyal to Mullah Maulana Fazlullah, a pro-Taliban cleric.

Such offensives have proven ineffectual in the past, however, in no
small part due to the support that the Islamists enjoy within
influential sections of the Pakistani military and intelligence
apparatus, a relationship that was solidified during the CIA-backed
war against the Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

These forces have also gained strength as a result of popular
hostility to the slaughter unleashed by the US occupation in
neighboring Afghanistan, combined with resentment over the poverty and
social inequality produced by the economic policies of the Pakistani
regime.

A clear indication of the depths of concern in Washington over the
unraveling of its client regime in Pakistan came Sunday in the form of
an op-ed piece published by the New York Times under the bylines of
Fred Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon. Kagan, a member of the right-wing
American Enterprise Institute, is a longstanding supporter of the US
war in Iraq and was a signatory of the Project for a New American
Century letter in 2001 demanding that the Bush administration invade
the country in response to 9/11. He drafted a document that served as
a blueprint for the recent "surge" that sent 35,000 more US troops
into Iraq.

O'Hanlon, a member of the supposedly more liberal and
Democratic-oriented Brookings Institute, has also emerged as a
prominent supporter of the "surge" in Iraq and last April co-authored
a paper with Kagan setting out a "grand strategy" for US imperialism.
This envisioned a war against Iran as well as interventions in North
Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. The document urged
"finding the resources to field a large-enough standing Army and
Marine Corps to handle personnel-intensive missions."

The Times piece, entitled "Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem,"
advocates the immediate consideration of "feasible military options in
Pakistan."

It states: "The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete
collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist
movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over the
outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a
struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority
sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a
state sponsor of terrorism."

The article cautions against complacency that the Pakistani military
command and the country's ruling elite will manage to maintain
stability. "Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime in Iran
until it was too late," it warns.

The two military analysts lay out alternate "scenarios" for US
interventions. The first, consisting of a full-scale intervention and
occupation, would, they say, require more than a million troops,
making it politically and militarily unfeasible.

Instead, they suggest a possible Special Forces operation aimed at
seizing control of Pakistani warheads and nuclear materials.

They put forward an additional "broader option" that would involve the
deployment of "a sizable combat force" with the mission of propping up
the Pakistani military and waging war on the pro-Taliban forces in the
border regions.

"So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would
they do?" the article asks. "The most likely directive would be to
help Pakistan's military and security forces hold the country's
center?primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the
populous areas like Punjab Province to its south."

It adds: "If a holding operation in the nation's center was
successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the
parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the
state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving
terrorists of the sanctuaries they have enjoyed in Pakistan's tribal
and frontier regions."

Whatever limited lip service the US State Department gives to the call
for ending the martial law regime imposed by Musharraf in Pakistan,
the real aims and methods of the American ruling
establishment?Democratic and Republican alike?emerge clearly in the
Kagan-O'Hanlon article.

What is now being seriously contemplated is yet another colonial-style
war in a region that stretches across the Middle East and Central and
South Asia, from Iraq to Pakistan, with the objective of salvaging,
with or without Musharraf, the Pakistani military?the corrupt and
repressive instrument with which Washington has been aligned for
decades.

The crisis in Pakistan is symptomatic of the ever-widening instability
created by the two wars?in Afghanistan and Iraq?which Washington has
waged to tighten the US grip over the region's energy resources.

Now, with open and simultaneous discussions of possible military
interventions in Iran and Pakistan, what is emerging is the growing
threat of a global military conflagration.


Bill Van Auken is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global
Research Articles by Bill Van Auken

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7402

'A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above'

A bombing campaign has been in the works for months - a blistering air war that would last anywhere from one day to two weeks

By Paul Koring
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

11/23/07 "Globe and Mail" -- -- WASHINGTON — Massive, devastating air strikes, a full dose of "shock and awe" with hundreds of bunker-busting bombs slicing through concrete at more than a dozen nuclear sites across Iran is no longer just the idle musing of military planners and uber-hawks.

Although air strikes don't seem imminent as the U.S.-Iranian drama unfolds, planning for a bombing campaign and preparing for the geopolitical blowback has preoccupied military and political councils for months.

No one is predicting a full-blown ground war with Iran. The likeliest scenario, a blistering air war that could last as little as one night or as long as two weeks, would be designed to avoid the quagmire of invasion and regime change that now characterizes Iraq. But skepticism remains about whether any amount of bombing can substantially delay Iran's entry into the nuclear-weapons club.

Attacking Iran has gone far beyond the twilight musings of a lame-duck president. Almost all of those jockeying to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush are similarly bellicose. Both front-runners, Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani, have said that Iran's ruling mullahs can't be allowed to go nuclear. "Iran would be very sure if I were president of the United States that I would not allow them to become nuclear," said Mr. Giuliani. Ms. Clinton is equally hard-line.

Nor does the threat come just from the United States. As hopes fade that sanctions and common sense might avert a military confrontation with Tehran - as they appear to have done with North Korea - other Western leaders are openly warning that bombing may be needed.

Unless Tehran scraps its clandestine and suspicious nuclear program and its quest for weapons-grade uranium (it already has the missiles capable of delivering an atomic warhead), the world will be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned.

Bombing Iran would be relatively easy. Its antiquated air force and Russian air-defence missiles would be easy pickings for the U.S. warplanes.

But effectively destroying Iran's widely scattered and deeply buried nuclear facilities would be far harder, although achievable, according to air-power experts. But the fallout, especially the anger sown across much of the Muslim world by another U.S.-led attack in the Middle East, would be impossible to calculate.

Israel has twice launched pre-emptive air strikes ostensibly to cripple nuclear programs. In both instances, against Iraq in 1981 and Syria two months ago, the targeted regimes howled but did nothing.

The single-strike Israeli attacks would seem like pinpricks, compared with the rain of destruction U.S. warplanes would need to kneecap Iran's far larger nuclear network.

"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq," said John Pike, director at Globalsecurity.org, a leading defence and security group.

"Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States," along with warplanes from land bases in the region and carriers at sea, at least two-dozen suspected nuclear sites would be targeted, he said.

Although U.S. ground forces are stretched thin with nearly 200,000 fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the firepower of the U.S. air force and the warplanes aboard aircraft carriers could easily overwhelm Iran's defences, leaving U.S. warplanes in complete command of the skies and free to pound targets at will.

With air bases close by in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan, including Kandahar, and naval-carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, hundreds of U.S. warplanes serviced by scores of airborne refuellers could deliver a near constant hail of high explosives.

Fighter-bombers and radar-jammers would spearhead any attack. B-2 bombers, each capable of delivering 20 four-tonne bunker-busting bombs, along with smaller stealth bombers and streams of F-18s from the carriers could maintain an open-ended bombing campaign.

"They could keep it up until the end of time, which might be hastened by the bombing," Mr. Pike said. "They could make the rubble jump; there's plenty of stuff to bomb," he added, a reference to the now famous line from former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Afghanistan was a "target-poor" country.

Mr. Pike believes it could all be over in a single night. Others predict days, or even weeks, of sustained bombing.

Unidentified Pentagon planners have been cited talking of "1,500 aim points." What is clear is that a score or more known nuclear sites would be destroyed. Some, in remote deserts, would present little risk of "collateral damage," military jargon for unintended civilian causalities. Others, like laboratories at the University of Tehran, in the heart of a teeming capital city, would be hard to destroy without killing innocent Iranians.

What would likely unfold would be weeks of escalating tension, following a breakdown of diplomatic efforts.

The next crisis point may come later this month if the UN Security Council becomes deadlocked over further sanctions.

"China and Russia are more concerned about the prospect of the U.S. bombing Iran than of Iran getting a nuclear bomb," says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Tehran remains defiant. Our enemies "must know that Iran will not give the slightest concession ... to any power," Iran's fiery President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday. For his part, Mr. Bush has pointedly refused to rule out resorting to war. Last month, another U.S. naval battle group - including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman with 100 warplanes on board and the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown as one of its screen of smaller warships - left for the Persian Gulf. At least one, and often two, carrier battle groups are always in the region.

Whether even weeks of bombing would cripple Iran's nuclear program cannot be known. Mr. Pike believes it would set back, by a decade or more, the time Tehran needs to develop a nuclear warhead. But Iran's clandestine program - international inspectors were completely clueless as to the existence of several major sites until exiles ratted out the mullahs - may be so extensive that even the longest target list will miss some.

"It's not a question of whether we can do a strike or not and whether the strike could be effective," retired Marine general Anthony Zinni told Time magazine. "It certainly would be, to some degree. But are you prepared for all that follows?"

Attacked and humiliated, Iran might be tempted, as Mr. Ahmadinejad has suggested, to strike back, although Iran has limited military options.

At least some Sunni governments in the region, not least Saudi Arabia, would be secretly delighted to see the Shia mullahs in Tehran bloodied. But the grave risk of any military action spiralling into a regional war, especially if Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to make good on his threat to attack Israel, remains.

"Arab leaders would like to see Iran taken down a notch," said Steven Cook, an analyst specializing in the Arab world at the Council on Foreign Relations, "but their citizens will see this as what they perceive to be America's ongoing war on Islam."

***

Building tension

The confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program has been simmering for more than five years. These are some of the key flashpoints.

August, 2002: Iranian exiles say that Tehran has built a vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak without informing the United Nations.

December, 2002: The existence of the sites is confirmed by satellite photographs shown on U.S. television. The United States accuses Tehran of "across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction." Iran agrees to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

June, 2003: IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei accuses Iran of not revealing the extent of its nuclear work and urges leaders to sign up for more intrusive inspections.

October, 2003: After meeting French, German and British foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment.

November, 2003: Mr. ElBaradei says there is "no evidence" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The United States disagrees.

February, 2004: An IAEA report says Iran experimented with polonium-210, which can be used to trigger the chain reaction in a nuclear bomb. Iran did not explain the experiments. Iran again agrees to suspend enrichment, but again does not do so.

March, 2004: Iran is urged to reveal its entire nuclear program to the IAEA by June 1, 2004.

September, 2004: The IAEA orders Iran to stop preparations for large-scale uranium enrichment. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell labels Iran a growing danger and calls for the UN Security Council to impose sanctions.

August, 2005: Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is installed as Iranian President as Tehran pledges an "irreversible" resumption of enrichment.

Jan. 10, 2006: Iran removes UN seals at the Natanz enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.

February, 2006: The IAEA votes to report Iran to the UN Security Council. Iran ends snap UN nuclear inspections the next day.

July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council demands that Iran suspend its nuclear activities by Aug. 31.

Aug. 31, 2006: The UN Security Council deadline for Iran to halt its work on nuclear fuel passes. IAEA says Tehran has failed to suspend the program.

Dec. 23, 2006: The 15-member UN Security Council unanimously adopts a binding resolution that imposes some sanctions and calls on Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities and to comply with its IAEA obligations.

March 24, 2007: The Security Council unanimously approves a resolution broadening UN sanctions against Iran for its continuing failure to halt uranium enrichment. Iranian officials call the new measures "unnecessary and unjustified."

April 10, 2007: Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs says Iran will not accept any suspension of its uranium-enrichment activities and urges world powers to accept the "new reality" of the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

May 23, 2007: The IAEA says in a new report, issued to coincide with the expiration of a Security Council deadline for Tehran, that Iran continues to defy UN Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment and has expanded such work. The report adds that the UN nuclear agency's ability to monitor nuclear activities in Iran has declined due to lack of access to sites.

Oct. 24, 2007: The United States imposes new sanctions on Iran and accuses the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps of spreading weapons of mass destruction.

Sources: BBC, Reuters, Financial Times, Radio Free Europe

***

Target: Iran

Despite continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran. In addition to nuclear installations, other likely targets include ballistic missile sites, Revolutionary Guard bases, and naval assets.

***

Syria: Earlier this year, Israel bombed a site in Syria's Deir ez-Zor region that it suspected was part of a nascent nuclear program.

Osirak: Israel in 1981 had its aircraft bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor before it became operational.

Natanz: Believed to be Iran's primary uranium-enrichment site and a key target of any attack.

***

B1: A supersonic, intercontinental bomber, capable of penetrating deep into defended airspace and dropping more than 50-tonnes of conventional bombs on a single mission.

B2: America's biggest stealthy long-range bomber, capable of flying half-way around the globe to deliver up to 23 tonnes of bombs on multiple targets.

F-117: The original stealth fighter, almost invisible on radar, was used to drop the first bombs in both Iraq invasions.

F-18: Carrier-borne fighter-bomber capable of many roles from air combat to bombing missions.

EGBU-28: The newest of the U.S. "bunker busters," it uses a GPS guidance system and can penetrate six metres of concrete to deliver four tonnes of high explosives.

SOURCES: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS, GLOBAL SECURITY.ORG, ASSOCIATED PRESS

~ link ~

 

'A Day of Terror Recalled'

1979 Embassy Siege In Islamabad Still Haunts Survivors

By Cameron W. Barr

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A20

Marine Master Sgt. Loyd G. Miller stood in the lobby of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and deployed his troops. Outside the locked gate of the 32-acre embassy compound, bus after bus after bus disgorged crowds of student protesters.

"Kill the American dogs," some shouted.

~ continue reading... ~

 

1979: Mob destroys US embassy in Pakistan

From the BBC, 'On this day, 21 November':

 

A mob in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, has burned the US Embassy to the ground, killing a US marine.

The five-hour siege began as an organised student protest outside the locked gates of the embassy compound.

But the demonstration grew violent as protesters pulled down part of the outer wall and broke into the compound itself.

Gunfire broke out, and the marine, who was standing on the roof of the building, was shot.

Radio report

The attacks are believed to have been triggered by a radio report from the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, saying Americans were behind the occupation of Islam's holiest site, the Great Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, yesterday.

The US State Department has described the broadcast as "irresponsible, outright, knowing lies".

The Saudi Arabian authorities have also issued statements saying the Mecca incident was the work of Muslim fundamentalists and no Westerners were involved.

American relations with Pakistan are already at a low point after the US cut off aid in April over Pakistan's nuclear ambitions, and criticised the human rights record of Pakistani leader General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq.

Trapped

As the protesters began smashing windows and setting fire to the building, more than 100 embassy staff took refuge in a steel-lined and windowless vault on an upstairs floor.

Those trapped in the room included US diplomats, Pakistani staff members and a visiting journalist from Time magazine.

The Ambassador, Arthur W Hummel Junior, was outside the building when the attack began.

Staff inside were able to contact him, and it was Ambassador Hummel who raised the alarm and requested help from Pakistan's government.

Meanwhile, protesters found their way onto the roof of the building, and staff members later said they began firing bullets down ventilation shafts.

Rescue

General Zia ordered the Pakistan Army to rescue the trapped Americans, and soldiers brought the situation under control at about 1800 local time (1300 GMT), about five and a half hours after the attack began.

Several other American institutions in Pakistan were also targeted in what appears to have been an orchestrated day of anti-American violence.

Tensions are running high since 66 American citizens were taken hostage by Iranian radical students, who seized the US embassy in Tehran just over two weeks ago.

President Carter yesterday threatened the use of force for the first time after the Ayatollah Khomeini accused the American hostages of being "spies" - effectively handing down a death sentence on them.