Here is an Action Plan for you to help to defeat the western belligerent lose-lose strategy and promote the peaceful win-win strategy; the aim is to raise awareness and mobilise the public, and bring a motion against sanctions and war on Iran in the House of Commons to defeat the current hawkish stance of the government ››read more

The current US stand-off against Iran, like the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, was instigated by the neoconservatives of the Bush Administration based on their doctrine of “maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests”. In the case of Saddam’s regime, its fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and its alleged links to Al-Qaida were used in the US propaganda war to first impose UN sanctions and eventually invade Iraq for a regime change. We now have a déjà vu situation in which the US and its allies, prodded by Israel, demonize Iran as a threat to world security and accuse it of having a nuclear weaponisation programme. The same Israeli lobby and “hawks” who pushed for the invasion of Iraq under the Neo-Conservative Bush administration, are now succeeding in browbeating Obama administration on to the path of most crushing sanctions and military attack on Iran. ››read more

European diplomat based in Islamabad says Israeli strike would force Pakistan to support Iranian retaliation, while EU official says 'political and economic consequences of attack would be catastrophic for Europe'. ››read more

In a high profile interview on NBC, President Barack Obama said that Israel hadn’t yet decided on whether to attack Iran, but assuring that the US was committed to remaining “in lockstep” with Israel whatever it decides and describing Israel’s security as his “top priority.” ››read more

President Barack Obama said on Sunday that Israel has not yet decided how to respond to its concerns about Iran's nuclear pro-gram and said there was no evidence that Iran has the "intentions or capabilities" to attack U.S. soil.

››read more

Most important, when asked whether it would be better for both Israel and Iran to have the bomb, or for neither to have it, 65 percent of Israeli Jews said neither. And a remarkable 64 percent favored the idea of a nuclear-free zone, even when it was explained that this would mean Israel giving up its nuclear weapons.Despite all the talk of an “existential threat,” less than half of Israelis support a strike on Iran. ››read more

But even though the administration is undoubtedly concerned about that Israeli threat, the Panetta leak had a different objective. The White House was taking advantage of the current crisis atmosphere over that Israeli threat and even seeking to make it more urgent in order to put pressure on Iran to make diplomatic concessions to the United States and its allies on its nuclear programme in the coming months. ››read more

Gareth Porter, investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy, discusses Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s warning to Israel’s government that the US would not be dragged into war with Iranby a unilateral Israeli attack; why Iran might hold the US accountable for an Israeli strike anyway, and counterattack US targets in the region; Mossad’s general agreement with the US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (that there is no evidence Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapons program); and why Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to think Israel isn’t ready for military action.

MP3 here. (19:50)

››read more

If this is the case that Iran has not decided to build the bomb, why is the U.S. government conducting economic warfare against Iran with sanctions and vigorous efforts to get other nations to cease all contact with that country’s central bank? Why is the U.S. House of Representatives attempting to stop the Obama administration from using diplomatic channels to defuse the situation? ››read more

Despite the near consensus that Iran has not yet chosen to have a nuclear weapons program, the United States has heaped a crippling set of sanctions on Iran, partially to satisfy Israeli concerns and pressure. This is unlikely to have any effect on Iranian nuclear policy and has already had terrible consequences for ordinary Iranians in a struggling economy. ››read more

Read the mission report. Conclude what you will. But admit that possibly the worst thing that can be done at this critical juncture is to suspend the Arab League mission’s investigations and interventions. If the mission is halted, civilians will lose protection in this conflict, facts will be hard to come by, and intermediaries on the ground in Syria will be nonexistent. Violence escalated after the mission took its leave to file the report. Inserting them back into the ring is unarguably the right course of action, particularly as it appears the UN Security Council is, today, at an impasse. ››read more

The language sounds ominously like Libyan Resolution 1973. It authorized "all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian population areas under threat of attack. NATO intervened belligerently. Many tens of thousands died. Western intervention assures Syria the same fate and perhaps Iran if it's targeted next. Washington wants governments in both countries replaced by pro-Western ones. Doing so gives it unchallenged regional control, including over its valued oil and gas resources". ››read more

The Arab League Observation Mission Report acknowledges the existence of an "armed entity" integrated by the Syrian Free Army and "armed opposition groups". The Mission report of the Arab League confirms that these armed groups have committed terrorist acts including the indiscriminate killing of civilians. ... Earlier reports confirm that these armed groups are supported covertly by several foreign powers, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Turkey in liaison with NATO in providing weapons to opposition forces. ››read more

We will consider below various strategic and political factors affecting an Israeli decision to attack Iran. The immediate, tactical variable driving Israel’s apparent push toward war is the ongoing installation of centrifuges in the new enrichment facility at Fordo, near Qom. ››read more

A broad spectrum of U.S.-based anti-imperialist and anti-war organizations, including the IAC and CASMII, agreed on a Jan. 17 conference call to hold coordinated protests across the country on Saturday, Feb. 4. The demands will be: “No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations against Iran.”
››read more

Asked how the United States would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral attack on Iran, Panetta first emphasised the need for a coordinated policy toward Iran with Israel. But when host Bob Schieffer repeated the question, Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about." ››read more

"We are committed to resolve all the outstanding issues and the Iranians said they are committed too," Herman Nackaerts, IAEA deputy director general, told reporters after returning from Tehran. ››read more

Four IAEA inspectors at Iranian nculear facilityIt may be asking a lot of our leaders that they swallow their words, lower their sights and focus on a realistic target. They could do it, though, and the talks due to take place shortly in Turkey could be the setting for a change of course. What is much more likely, unhappily, is that we will continue to see a variant on the devil having the best tunes. Far too many American politicians see advantage in whipping up fear of Iran. I can almost hear them sneering that the NPT is for wimps. The odds must be that they will continue to propel the West toward yet another Gulf war. Still, nothing is inevitable. ››read more

Any rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the insistence on crippling it is nothing more than a US attempt to force regime change for one more receptive to maintaining the hegemony of the petrodollar.
The world now knows the truth about the US and how they conduct their affairs. US hostilities toward Iran have nothing to do with nuclear weapons development. If that were the case, then North Korea and Pakistan would be facing similar sanctions and threats, but they aren’t. The difference of course is in what lies beneath the ground – oil. Iran has it and the other guys don’t. ››read more

In serious breach of the BBC’s codes of fairness and accuracy, David Dimbleby allowed disproportionate time to Jeremy Brown and to Melanie Phillips who made many alarmist and untrue claims regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, Iran’s responsibility for international terrorism and Iran’s threat to regional and global peace. At no point, did David Dimbleby, as he routinely does in Question Time, corrected, questioned these claims or asked for evidence:
››read more