Thursday, September 06, 2012

Getting it Right; Naval Power projections


            Today when describing the combat capability of any Navy most people use the terms blue water, green water, and brown water navies to describe the combat capability of a fleet.  While seemingly convenient this form of classification does cause some confusion, as it is based on geographical region rather than on combat capability.  For instance countries like Iran, Germany, Thailand, Sweden, Taiwan, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey are classified as brown water fleets despite the fact they have capabilities equal and superior to countries like Chile and Singapore which are classified as green water fleets.  Similarly the Russian and Chinese Navies, which are more powerful than the fleets of France and Great Britain, are often rate4d as green water fleets to the latter’s blue water fleets.  If anything, these examples show that the geographical location does not determine combat capability.  To add further confusion the term green water fleets has been used by governments to describe the fuel efficiency of their ships, and the criteria for blue water fleet has changed repeatedly over the past few decades as strategy and tactics change.

            Almost a century ago the Navies of the World based their strength ratings entirely on combat capability, namely who had how many Capital Ships, could they support a fleet away from their home shores while protecting their native land, and could they produce weapons independent of any outside power.  This criteria should be applied rather than a geographic location for more accurate assessments of Naval power.  Consider how many Fleets classified as green water navies like Brazil and Chile are dependent on imports, the latter having no Naval industry whatsoever, which is a hindrance in a conflict, as the Argentines found out during the Falklands War.  Consider how countries like Russia, China, and India tend to be classified as green water fleets despite the fact they possess many Capital Ships and can send their forces anywhere in the World, not to mention the fact that their navies are larger and more powerful than the blue water fleets of France and the UK, and that Russia and China can match the US navy in terms of power projection.

            Interestingly enough the German Navy is not often mentioned as a green water fleet, despite the fact that they can deploy their forces anywhere in the World, and that countries like India, South Korea, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Greece, South Africa, Argentina, Peru, Nigeria, Israel to name a few use and in some cases are dependent on German technology in their fleets.  One reason for this lack of inclusion is that Germany, like Japan, has a constitution imposed on it at the end of WWII which prevents it from having offensive weapons.  While Japan has to deal with perceived threats from China and North Korea, allowing it to have Aircraft Carriers, though under the classification of “Helicopter Destroyer” the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the communist regime in Russia Germany has no proper threats, which explains why it’s Brandenburg, Sachsen, and Baden-Wuerttemberg classes of Destroyers are called “Command Frigates” and plans to acquire Juan Carlos I class Aircraft Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ships or Johan de Witt class Amphibious Assault Ships have met with opposition from German politicians.  The Netherlands, though having a relatively small Navy, has advanced equipment and has exported their weapons to countries which continue to use their material including Indonesia, Morocco, Peru, Chile, Portugal, Belgium, Malaysia.  The Spanish Juan Carlos I Aircraft Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ship has received attention from the US Navy which has begun to incorporate features in the new America class of Amphibious Assault Ship, and the French have worked with the Russians in building a more heavily armed version of the Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ship.

            The last two instances are important for it shows that larger fleets can learn and be taken to task by smaller fleets, the Spanish/American example of a smaller fleet familiarizing a larger one with new innovation, the French/Russian example of a smaller fleet familiarizing a larger one with a new weapon concept it is unfamiliar with.  Certainly such sharing of technology goes beyond the scope of geographical boundaries and magnify the projection of the Naval power of that country by making other nations, including those superior in capability, dependent on them for basic needs.

            It is even prudent to rate the capabilities of Fleets as well as the Fleets overall.  For instance the Navies of Germany and Iran have second rate battle fleets but first rate military industrial capability, while the Navies of Brazil and Australia have first rate battle fleets but second rate military industrial capability.  Many publicly overrated Navies, like those of Israel, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, Saudi Arabia have second rate battle fleets but third rate military industrial capability.

            One has to be careful in using new methods of rating the Navies of other countries, and the more one looks at methods that have stood the test of time one learns not to question them.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

New threat in Khalj Fars from UAE

With all the attention that is focused on Iran in Khalj Fars people forget about the UAE.  Recently the UAE has been building it's own FFG's of the Baynuah class, which are smaller versions of the Iranian Jamaran class FFG.  Below is a satellite image of one of the ships in Abu Dhabi
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=482525015093266&set=a.188934704452300.49716.169376436408127&type=1&theater
Interestingly enough they use the nato classification of Corvette despite the armament of this ship.  Bear in mind that the bulk of the Saudi Navy is at Jiddah closer to the zionists and Saudi plans to acquire more Warships have been slovenly.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Iranian secuity menaced by america in Azerbaijan

This action by rohrbacher is a violation of Iranian sovereignty and done with the intention to destabilize Iran, as have calls during the last decade for Baluchi and Arabistan, and Mazendarani independence.  Additionally rohrbacher  forgets that today's country Azerbaijan, along with today's country of Armenia and Russian states including Chechenya and Dagestan were conquered by Russia in 1828, which has destabilized the Caucasus region since.  This letter is nothing more than printed toilet paper.
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=304840
Contact: Tara Setmayer 202-225-2415

***PRESS RELEASE*** Rep. Rohrabacher Urges Secretary Clinton to Back Freedom From Iran for Azeris



Related Documents

Letter to Sec Clinton 7-26-12


Washington, Jul 26 - Today, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) sent a letter to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton urging the United States to back freedom for Azeris from Iran. Rohrabacher’s letter was prompted by recent news stories concerning a budding military cooperation between Israel and the Azerbaijan Republic.

“It would be wise for the United States to encourage such cooperation, as the aggressive dictatorship in Tehran is our enemy as well as theirs,” writes Rohrabacher. “The people of Azerbaijan are geographically divided and many are calling for the reunification of their homeland after nearly two centuries of foreign rule.”

Almost twice as many Azeri live in Iran as in the Azerbaijan Republic. Their homeland was divided by Russia and Persia in 1828, without their consent. “The Azerbaijan Republic won its independence in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed,” continues the letter. “Now it is time for the Azeris in Iran to win their freedom too.”

“Aiding the legitimate aspirations of the Azeri people for independence is a worthy cause in and of itself,” says Rohrabacher. “Yet, it also poses a greater danger to the Iranian tyrants than the threat of bombing its underground nuclear research bunkers.”

Rep. Rohrabacher is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

My curse on corsi, noory, and their disinformationist pals


I heard that bullshit artist corsi once again giving credibility to the lies about Iran being attacked.  This tradition of yours of giving credibility to disinformationists like corsi, bill forstchen, that bullshit artist frak wuco who that dead ringer for a pedophile john b welles interviewed is disgusting and inflammatory.  In doing so you are distorting the truth, inciting the very violence you calim you want to stop, and rob others of the real work they have done by giving credibility to those who rip them off.
Since you are so obsessed with doom and gloom and ensuing violence I predict that you and your fellow disinformationists will suffer physically and emotionally as you are exposed for the frauds you are and that you and yours will end up on the ash heap of history as you wish to those you rip off.  That you will suffer and loose al you hold dear is my curse on you.

Saturday, August 04, 2012

Iran war bill backed by zionist lobby

This confirms what the Iranians have known since the reign of Mohammed
Reza Shah and the Arabs since the days of Herzl, the zionists are
NOBODY's ally and are intent on attacking Iran for any reason.
 
 
 
 Tuesday, 31 July 2012 15:23
AIPAC pushes bill that will establish virtual state of war with Iran
Featured
Written by  CNI


This message was sent to all members of Congress from AIPAC this
morning. The bill it describes establishes a virtual state of war with
Iran, even though Iran has no nuclear weapons program. (For more
information see "Targeting Iran")

July 31, 2012

Vote Yes – The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act
(H.R.1905)
Dear Representative,
We write in strong support of H.R. 1905, The Iran Threat Reduction and
Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. The legislation, authored by
Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman, will be
considered by the House on Wednesday. We strongly urge you to vote YES.

In an effort to dissuade Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability, the House overwhelmingly passed in December the Iran Threat
Reduction Act which tightened sanctions on Iran. The version that has
now emerged from House-Senate negotiations includes the strongest set of
sanctions ever enacted to isolate any country with which we were not in
armed hostilities. H.R. 1905 incorporates legislative initiatives of
many members from both the House and Senate and will:

    place virtually all of Iran’s energy, financial, and transportation
    sectors under U.S. sanction. Companies conducting business with Iran
    in these sectors face losing access to U.S. markets;
    impose sanctions designed to prevent Iran from repatriating any
    proceeds from its oil sales, thus depriving Iran of 80 percent of
    its hard currency earnings and half of the funds to support its
    national budget;
    impose tough new sanctions on the National Iranian Oil Company
    (NIOC), the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) and Iran’s
    Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC);
    target Iran’s use of barter transactions to bypass sanctions, the
    provision of insurance to Iran’s energy sector, and the provision of
    specialized financial messaging services to the Central Bank of
    Iran;
    click here to learn more about the legislation and how it will raise
    the pressure on Iran.

In the past six months, the United States and our international partners
have substantially increased the economic pressure on Iran and engaged
in several rounds of talks with Tehran. Unfortunately, Iran has rebuffed
the opportunity for serious negotiations while stepping up the pace of
its nuclear program.

America and our allies must unite in a tough response to Iran’s
belligerent approach. We must continue to send a strong message to
Tehran that it will face unremitting pressure until it complies with its
international obligations and end its nuclear weapons quest.

We strongly support The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act
(H.R. 1905) and urge you to vote YES on Wednesday.
Sincerely,
                
                
Howard Kohr
Executive Director
                
Marvin Feuer
Director, Policy &
Government Affairs
                
Brad Gordon
Director, Policy &
Government Affairs

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Iran wongly ordered to pay for 9/11

Not only is Iran NOT responsible for 9/11, the ruling of this judge is unenforceable   Why doesn't america compensate the victims of flight 655, or apologize for guadeloupe and backing khomeini and creating this mess in the first place?



 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57483418/judge-to-al-qaeda-iran-taliban-pay-$6b-for-9-11/

July 31, 2012

Judge to al Qaeda, Iran, Taliban: Pay $6B for 9/11



(AP) NEW YORK - A federal magistrate judge says al Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran should pay $6 billion to relatives of Sept. 11 victims for aiding in the 2001 terror attacks.
The magistrate's recommendation is largely symbolic since it would be nearly impossible to collect any damages.
But plaintiff Ellen Saracini tells the Daily News that she is happy about Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas' recommendation Monday. Her husband, Victor, was the captain of one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center.
Last year, Judge George Daniels signed a default judgment on the lawsuit brought by family members of 47 victims. He found al Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran liable and asked the magistrate to determine damages.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied any Iranian connection in the attacks.
Last October, Maas recommended that al Qaeda be assessed $9.3 billion for the damage done to properties and businesses in the attacks. In a ruling, Maas sent the recommendation to a district judge presiding over a lawsuit brought by several insurance companies.
The companies in 2003 sued various defendants, seeking damages for the 2001 terror attacks, which demolished the World Trade Center's twin towers. Al Qaeda never responded to the lawsuit and was found in default in 2006. Maas determined the actual damages and then tripled them as allowed by law.
At the time, the companies were only seeking an assessment of damages against al Qaeda.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Marsha B. Cohen
Miami, FL

Monday, July 30, 2012

Is Iran fucked? Op-ed: Mitt Romney’s Jerusalem Speech Panders to the Right-Wing (Beeman)

Thanks for this piece Bill. This latest action, combined with panetta's visit, shows that if either the mormon or the nigger win the 2012 presidential election, Iran and Iranians are fucked.
Peter Khan Zendran
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 03:05 PM, William Beeman wrote:

http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/mitt-romneys-jerusalem-speech-panders-to-the-right-wing.php#

Mitt Romney’s Jerusalem Speech Panders to the Right-Wing

Story tools
Comments

New America Media, Op-ed, William O. Beeman, Posted: Jul 30, 2012

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech to the Jerusalem Foundation in Israel on Sunday qualified him to be President—of Israel. His observations were as remarkable for what he didn’t say as for what he did. They could have been written by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, for they parallel his thinking almost exactly, and they were sharply at odds with current U.S. policy toward the region.

Mr. Romney didn’t mention the Palestinians (although he later made an invidious comparison of Palestinians to Israelis that was deemed racist by Palestinian officials), nor did he offer any remarks on the settlements in the West Bank—arguably Israel’s most pressing problem. Indeed, he explicitly called for Americans not to engage in any criticism of Israel at all, since Israelis seemed to be capable of self-critique.

What Mr. Romney did do in his talk was primarily to lambaste Iran.

He trotted out a laundry list of accusations against Iran, virtually all of which have been discredited fabrications or shown to be wildly exaggerated caricatures of Iranian thought and behavior. Among these was the hoary old accusation that Iranians had threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”—a fabrication so well known that it has its own Wikipedia page. He also repeated the old saw that Iran is the “chief State supporter of terrorism,” an unsupported assertion left over from the Bush administration. He also cited the discredited claims that the Iranian government supplied weapons used to attack Americans in Iraq—something the U.S. military tried desperately to prove with absolutely no success.

He said, “When Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust . . .” branding them as Holocaust deniers. Iran’s leaders, in fact, have never denied the Holocaust. To be sure, they have questioned its causes and results in ways that are inaccurate, but they never denied that it happened. There was even a widely applauded popular film in Iran dealing with the Holocaust and an Iranian historical figure who saved Jews from being killed.

Of course, no one denies Iran’s dismal domestic human rights record—something that should be of concern to the whole world—but Mr. Romney barely touched on this one legitimate accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the Iranian government.

These broad swipes at Iran would be just garden-variety neoconservative palaver if it weren’t for the additional steps Mr. Romney took in advancing a case for armed conflict against the Islamic Republic—steps that were both reckless and ignorant. The case is based on the favorite neoconservative hobby-horse: Iran’s nuclear program.

Mr. Romney hinted broadly that the United States would support a military strike against Iran. This would not be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon as is current U.S. policy, but rather to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capacity. This is code for shutting down or destroying Iran’s entire nuclear development program.

Mr. Romney seems unaware of the complexities of the Iranian case. Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) along with all other states with nuclear development, except for Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The treaty grants all signatories the inalienable right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran is engaged in uranium enrichment to provide fuel for nuclear generation of electricity. However, Iran is not alone in doing this. Nineteen other world states who are signatories to the NPT do so as well, and at least two, Japan and Brazil, have stated openly that they are prepared to manufacture nuclear weapons if the need arises. Even if there were any proof that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, they are far from producing even nuclear reactor fuel. Mr. Romney said, cagily, they are “five years closer” to producing a nuclear weapon—but those attacking Iran have been saying this every year since 1990, and Iran is no closer.

The history of nuclear development in Iran also involves the United States directly. The U.S. government urged the Iranians to start their program in 1970 as a move toward modernization. The nuclear facilities they are now developing are a direct outgrowth of those mutually approved plans.

The complexity of this issue is apparent to the Obama administration, which is why diplomacy has been urged by every foreign policy adviser as a means of creating confidence and settling misunderstandings and differences between Iran, the United States and its allies. Brute force designed to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities has been decried as dangerous and useless by American and Israeli military and intelligence officials.

The most ironic part of Mr. Romney’s speech came toward the end when he stated: “If you want to hear some very sharp criticisms of Israel and its policies, you don’t have to cross any borders. All you have to do is walk down the street and into a café, where you’ll hear people reasoning, arguing, and speaking their mind. Or pick up an Israeli newspaper – you’ll find some of the toughest criticism of Israel you’ll read anywhere. Your nation, like ours, is stronger for this energetic exchange of ideas and opinions.”

If Mr. Romney had taken this observation to heart and showed even a modicum of nuance in his remarks, he might have appeared statesmanlike. As it was, his speech was little more than a screed of right-wing slogans designed to please his Israeli host, and the Americans who support the most extreme right-wing policies of the Israeli government. His need to pander may go even further. Part of his live audience in Jerusalem was Israeli-supporter, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who is bankrolling Mr. Romney’s campaign with unlimited amounts of money.

William O. Beeman is Professor and Chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota. He has lived and worked in the Middle East for over 40 years. He visited Iran last November, and Israel in June of this year. He is the author of The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs”: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. (University of Chicago Press, 2008).

--
William O. Beeman
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology
University of Minnesota
395 HHH Center
301 19th Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-3400

Monday, July 23, 2012

Possibility of Iranian-zionist conflict during olympics

Having met with British military personnel recently I can say that while they are unable and unwilling to go to war with Iran, the collateral damage from an Iranian-zionist conflict is something the British are worried about.

 London braces for Israeli strike on Iran during 2012 Games Olympic planning committee fears a military showdown during the largest sporting event in the world By Aaron Kalman July 18, 2012, 11:57 am
Taking into account the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran during the 2012 Summer Games, the Olympic committee in charge of the London event has formed a special team to prepare for the contingency. According to the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth on Wednesday., the team — consisting of politicians, diplomats, security officials and organizing committee personnel — wrote in a report that such a strike was entirely possible. Yedioth reported that the team was also preparing for the possibility of an earthquake or volcanic eruption. England is thought to be within the range of Iranian missiles and UK officials believe that a military confrontation between Jerusalem and Tehran could involve the country against its will. The special team listed a number of steps that would need to be taken in the event of such a conflict, among them: opening a special command center, providing secret safe houses for foreign leaders wishing to meet for diplomatic purposes, and preparing for emergency evacuations of dignitaries. The team said England would have to guarantee the safety of the athletes and the continuation of the Games, as well as make sure Israeli and Iranian athletes are kept away from each other. Yedioth reported that the recommendations were passed on to the police, who practiced dealing with the mass protests that could erupt if war broke out.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Russia stands against those behind Syrian uprising

It is good to see Russia, Lavrov particularly, finally has had the courage to stand against foreign powers meddling in Syrian affairs. After all, those doing the uprising against Assad are all western educated and connected.


 Russia accuses West of inciting Syrian rebels UN postpones vote on a Western-backed resolution that threatens Syrian authorities with sanctions after suicide bombing. Last Modified: 18 Jul 2012 18:15 Lavrov says Western powers are unwilling to compromise on a solution to the Syrian conflict [EPA] The United Nations Security Council has postponed until Thursday a vote on a Western-backed resolution that threatens Syrian authorities with sanctions in a bid to end the 16-month conflict, Russia's UN envoy said. "A possible vote has been postponed until tomorrow morning," Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador, told reporters after a meeting of the envoys of the council's five permanent members, adding that further talks on the measure would be held on Wednesday. International envoy Kofi Annan had requested the delay amid differences between Moscow and the resolutions's Western sponsors over whether Damascus should be threatened with sanctions. Russia has vowed to veto the resolution drawn up by Britain, with the backing of France, United States, Germany and Portugal. The resolution proposes non-military sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter if President Bashar al-Assad does not halt the use of heavy weapons within 10 days of a resolution being passed. Russia accused the West of inciting the Syrian opposition after the defence minister and Assad's brother-in-law were killed in a bomb attack, arguing that a proposed UN resolution amounted to support for the rebels and would lead to more bloodshed. In-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria "Instead of calming the opposition down, some of our partners are inciting it to go on," Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, was quoted as saying by the RIA Novosti news agency on Wednesday. Supporting the Syrian opposition "is a dead-end policy, because Assad is not leaving voluntarily," he said. Despite the probable delay in the vote there was no sign that Russia has withdrawn its veto threat. "We cannot accept Chapter VII and the section about sanctions," Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said in Moscow on Wednesday. 'Need to act' Foreign ministers from the five permanent Security Council members - Russia, United States, France, Britain and China - were negotiating the future of the resolution, diplomats said. UN ambassadors from the five countries held talks at the Council on when the vote would go ahead. The mandate of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) ends on Friday and without a resolution the UN may have to hurriedly withdraw the nearly 300 unarmed observers now in Damascus. The Western countries will "seriously consider" Annan's request, said Peter Wittig, UN envoy for Germany which is currently a non-permanent member of the council. "We want to give diplomacy a chance but there has to be meaningful engagement on the side of Russia and China with our resolution," Wittig told reporters. Russia, Assad's main ally, and China have vetoed two council resolutions which just hinted at sanctions. "We just don't want business as usual. We want a strong signal with that resolution and the events in Damascus today of course dramatically highlight the need for the council to act at long last," Wittig added. Rare insights into life in Homs under daily shelling "We have a responsibility. Syria is sliding into chaos," the Germany envoy said. More than 17,000 people have been killed since a popular uprising against Assad began 16 months ago, activists say. "Decisions should be taken by people in Syria, the Syrian people," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said during the press conference in Moscow with Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday afternoon. "This process being prolonged is resulting in more and more massacres being committed by Assad, just like his father." Following the Russia-Turkey press conference, Al Jazeera's Jennifer Glasse noted that both Russia and Turkey had said that they were backing the option preferred by the Syrian people. "Russia believes what the people want is no intervention," she said, while Turkey says the majority of the Syrian people are calling for international intervention. "Russia is very clear that it wants its resolution passed, and that it will not back any resolution that will impose sanctions." 'Terrorist action' Ali Akbar Salehi, the Iranian foreign minister, condemned a suicide bombing which killed three Syrian security chiefs on Wednesday, in a telephone call with his counterpart in Damascus. "Salehi condemned the terrorist action committed today in Damascus during a telephone conversation with Walid Muallem," the official IRNA news agency reported. Tehran is the main regional ally of Assad's regime, advocating dialogue between the government and opposition. According to IRNA, Salehi called for "an immediate end ... to foreign interference and arms shipments ... to Syria and the support of some regional and international parties for terrorist action". "The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns all violence and destructive action and believes that dialogue is the only solution to end the Syrian crisis," the minister said. Meanwhile, the White House said Wednesday that President Bashar al-Assad was losing control of Syria, after a deadly attack on his inner circle, and that the United States was working urgently with international partners to push for a political transition there. "There is real momentum against Assad, with increasing defections, and a strengthened and more united opposition that is operating across the country," Tommy Vietor, the spokesperson for the White House, said after Wednesday's suicide bombing in Damascus. "With the Assad regime losing control, it's time for the Syrian people and the international community to focus on what comes next," he said. "We are working urgently with our international partners to push for a political transition in Syria. The international community, including the opposition, has met several times to begin this process and it must continue."

Anti-Iranian missile radar to be installed in qatar

Once again, qatar shows what an imperialist pawn it has become by allowing america to put this piece of shit on its territory. The real aggressor and backer of aggression in Khalj Fars since the 1970's has been america, and Iran even today is acting only defensively.



 US 'building missile defence radar' in Qatar Pentagon says it is seeking to 'build greater cooperation' and address security interests in region. Last Modified: 18 Jul 2012 05:26 The Pentagon is building a missile defence radar station at a covert location in Qatar, The Wall Street Journal has reported. The site will be part of a system intended to defend the interests of the United States and its allies against Iranian rockets, unnamed officials told the US newspaper on Tuesday. "We have a number of allies and partners in the region with whom we seek to build greater cooperation, and our goal is to address a wide range of US security interests there," the Pentagon said in reply to Al Jazeera’s question on purported radar site. A similar radar has existed on Mount Keren in the Negev Desert since 2008 and another is installed in Turkey as part of NATO's missile defence shield. Officials told the newspaper that the US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, wants to deploy the first Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in the area in the coming months, possibly in the United Arab Emirates. The newspaper also reported that the US was preparing for its biggest-ever minesweeping exercises in the Gulf in September, calling them the "first such multilateral drills in the region".

Monday, July 16, 2012

Khalj Fars provocation against Iran

Notice that the Enterprise is scheduled to retire, and the eisenhower and lincoln have aging hulls and equipment, and two carrier groups in the region is provocative enough witht the recent drone deployment. Notice they also do not report what type of Iranian PT boat came close to the lincoln. This is provocation, as americ ahas no business in Khalj Fars and america's political leadership even now is playing a backstabbing game with Iran. Peter Khan Zendran US aircraft carrier has close encounter with Iranian patrol boat An Iranian patrol boat approached a U.S. aircraft carrier, backing down within two miles from the USS Abraham Lincoln. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports from the USS Abraham Lincoln. By NBC News and msnbc.com news services ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN – A U.S. aircraft carrier sailing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz had a close encounter with an Iranian vessel Tuesday. The Iranian navy patrol boat came within two miles of the USS Abraham Lincoln, part of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, as it sailed through the strait with the destroyer Cape St. George and a guided missile cruiser. The Iranian military came out for a look at the ships, first sending a reconnaissance flight and then sending the Iranian patrol boat. The commander of the USS Abraham Lincoln, Capt. John Alexander, said such close encounters “could eventually lead to a fatal miscalculation.” “They have the ability to take a shot at me at some point, and I worry about it,” Alexander told NBC News. Because of strong U.S. sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, Iran has threatened to shut down the strait and attack U.S. warships. Oil tankers carry a fifth of the world's oil supply through the strait, only about 30 miles across at its narrowest point. Iran has also amassed Revolutionary Guard fast boats, submarines and, along the shoreline, anti-ship cruise missiles. Vice Admiral Mark Fox, commander of the 5th Fleet, said, “We’re ready today. This is the world we live in.” Fox said Sunday that Iran had built up its naval forces in the Gulf and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks, but the U.S. Navy could prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet always has at least one supercarrier at sea accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers. Panetta Accelerates Stennis Carrier Strike Group Deployment Story Number: NNS120716-20 7/16/2012 image: Top News Story By Jim Garamone Jim Garamone Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy will deploy the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and its strike group four months early and shift its destination to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, DOD officials said at the Pentagon July 16. The deployment late this summer is in response to Central Command's requirement for an extended carrier presence, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said. The move affects 5,500 sailors aboard the Stennis and the Aegis cruiser USS Mobile Bay. Last week, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta approved a request from Central Command commander Marine Corps General James N. Mattis to accelerate Stennis' deployment. "The decision will help support existing naval force requirements in the Middle East and reduce the gap caused by the upcoming departure of the USS Enterprise Strike Group," Little said. "It is in keeping with our long-standing commitments to the region." Aircraft carrier strike groups provide commanders with ample and flexible air assets to enhance interoperability with partner nations and maintain strong military-to-military relations as well as respond to a wide variety of contingencies, Little said. The Bremerton, Wash.-based Stennis strike group was due to deploy at the end of the year to U.S. Pacific Command. The group returned from duty in the Middle East in March. The accelerated deployment to the Central Command area of responsibility is not aimed at any specific threat. "In keeping with Centcom's requirements, this is a very important region for our defense strategy," Little said. "We've had a presence in the region for decades and we have a range of interests that this extension of our capabilities will support." Nor, he said, is the deployment a direct response to tensions with Iran. The U.S. military is "always mindful of the challenges posed by Iran, but ... this is not a decision based solely on the challenges posed by Iran," Little said. Currently the USS Enterprise and USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike groups are deployed to U.S. Central Command. The USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group is due to relieve the Lincoln group shortly. The Stennis group will relieve Enterprise. The Navy continues to operate at a high operational tempo in order to meet U.S. security needs around the world,. "Our deployment strain is as great as or greater today than it has been at any time in the past 10 years," a Navy official said. Sailors and their families have been informed of the change, Little said. Navy officials looked at a wide range of options to ensure Navy commitments and combatant commander mission requirements are met and to lessen the impact of schedule changes. The carrier strike group will be ready to deploy even given the accelerated timeline, Little said. "The U.S. Navy is well-equipped to ensure our sailors are trained and ready for this deployment," he said. Navy leaders understand the operational and personnel impacts this accelerated deployment will have. These include training cycle adjustments, crew and family uncertainty and reductions to quality of life port visits. As more information becomes available, the Navy will release it, officials said, noting defense leaders are "committed to keeping sailors and their families informed about current and future deployments to the best of our ability." For more information, visit www.navy.mil, www.facebook.com/usnavy, or www.twitter.com/usnavy. Enterprise Conducts Mass Casualty Drill Story Number: NNS120714-02 7/14/2012 By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Brian G. Reynolds, Enterprise Carrier Strike Group Public Affairs USS ENTERPRISE, At Sea (NNS) -- The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) conducted a mass casualty drill July 13 as part of a continued commitment to mission readiness. A mass casualty is any instance in which the level of casualties is greater than the Medical department alone can support. "This could be anywhere from 10 to 100 people," said Lt. Darcy Guerricagoitia, Enterprise's nurse. "It depends on the injuries, resources and personnel available. It enables us to exercise and evaluate the ship's response during a mass casualty scenario." During a mass casualty, there are four levels of casualties used by Medical personnel to categorize the injured who are then taken to one of four corresponding triage stations. "For example, a red casualty requires immediate medical attention and will not survive if not seen relatively soon," said Guerricagoitia. "Any compromise to the casualty's airway, hemorrhage control or untreated shock could be fatal." Another aspect of a mass casualty event is the activation of the walking blood bank. The walking blood bank is comprised of a minimum of 300 people - or, at least 10 percent of the ship's company - who are enrolled and eligible to donate blood in the event of a mass casualty. "Right now, we have 333 people enrolled," said Guerricagoitia. "Ideally, everyone would be a member of the walking blood bank. It can save your life and the life of your shipmate." A mass casualty event doesn't just affect the Medical department, as the cause of such massive damage and injury is generally a ship-wide catastrophe. In addition to Medical, the drill involved the Air Department Training Team and Security. The Medical department hopes to incorporate more departments in the future. During the drill, several scenarios were played out to test the readiness of the crew. One of these scenarios included an aircraft fire in the hangar bay. After the fire was distinguished, but reflashed injuring 13 people. "We, the Medical Training Team, are not only evaluating the Medical department's response to the casualties, we are also evaluating the ship's response," said Guerricagoitia. The main focus of a drill like this is mission readiness and the overall ability of Enterprise to carry out its operational missions in the event of a mass casualty. "Yes, it is a training requirement to do mass casualty drills," said Guerricagoitia. "It is also important to assess our preparedness as a ship to deal with a mass casualty." Needless to say, real-life situations like the one played out during the drill are not unheard of. Guerricagoitia believes that it is imperative that the ship's crew be able to act - and act swiftly - in the event that a worst-case scenario occurs. "This is important," said Guerricagoitia. "There is certainly the potential for it to happen. Communication, participation, knowledge and safety are all important in the drill, and during a real event." For more information, visit www.navy.mil, www.facebook.com/usnavy, or www.twitter.com/usnavy. For more news from USS Enterprise (CVN 65), visit www.navy.mil/local/cvn65/.

Sunday, July 01, 2012

New shit u president-Zendran connection

Notice the past history of shit u's choice to replace nigress simmons.  The wilson school at princeton and the watson institute are closely connected, so this shows that shit u will not end it's beef with me with simmons out of the top spot.
Peter Z


March 2, 2012

A Princeton Dean Is Named to Lead Brown

Christina Hull Paxson, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, will become president of Brown University on July 1. She succeeds Ruth J. Simmons, who said in September that she would step down.
Dr. Paxson, 52, is an economist who began teaching at Princeton in 1986. In 2000, she founded the Wilson School’s Center for Health and Wellbeing, serving as its director until 2009, when she became dean. Her work in recent years has focused on the relationship of economic factors to children’s health and welfare.
Dr. Paxson has served as chairwoman of Princeton’s economics department. She is also a senior editor of The Future of Children and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She is probably best known in the popular media for her research, with Anne Case, on the relationship of children’s height to status, intelligence and earnings.
Chancellor Thomas J. Tisch, who led a search committee, said Dr. Paxson’s record at Princeton and her success at the Woodrow Wilson School showed that she was the right candidate. Dr. Paxson, he said, had “taken the school and made it a happy place. If she can make Brown any happier, I think we’d burst the thermometer.”
Coincidentally, he said, Chung-I Tan, who led a campus advisory group that helped in the search, had taught Dr. Paxson’s older brother, a 1975 Brown graduate, and had written his recommendation for architecture school.
Dr. Paxson said it was her brother who provided her first impression of Brown. “My big brother, this clean-cut, studious kid, went off to Brown and came back at Thanksgiving vacation to Pittsburgh,” she said. “He had long hair, he was listening to new music and he argued with my mother about the ethics of eating meat.”
An alumna of Swarthmore College who earned her graduate degrees at Columbia, Dr. Paxson is married to Ari Gabinet, executive vice president and general counsel of Oppenheimer Funds. They have two sons, ages 14 and 22.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

New threat in Asia/Pacific/Khalj Fars region from australia, thanks to Spanish business

I recently obtained images of the new Amphibious Assault Ships Spain has built for the australian navy.  While officially called Amphibious Assault Shipsthese ships are based on the Spanish Aircraft Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ship Juan Carlos I, and therefore can be readily converted to an Aircraft Carrier.  Below is a link to specifications of the ships from the australian navy so one can see the true nature of these ships
 http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class
Despite the timetable work is progressing fast on these ships as the images I have uploaded below show.  Here is a recent satellite image of hmas canberra
 http://www.myspace.com/zendransnavalimages/photos/2655324
Here is a recent satellite image of hmas adelaide
http://www.myspace.com/zendransnavalimages/photos/2655325
These ships and other nato projects have helped keep Spain's economy afloat until recently, as many countries in Asia, particularly Iran, have been the target of aggression, and the australians have been notorious troublemakers in Asia and the Pacific.  Remember, the missile frigate hmas adelaide was detained by Iranian Fath class Fast Attack Craft after provoking an incident with Iran, and a few months later was decomissioned.  Plus the british monarch is head of australia's military, and with the new british Supercarrier's still under construction, the ex-hms ark royal being scrapped in Turkey where Iranians can study the design, and the canadians still debating whether to acquire 2 French Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ships and 2 Dutch Joint Support Ships the australians may test these ships out by provoking a conflict with Iran.

Friday, June 01, 2012

More american aggression against Syria and Iraq

This news shows that america still has a presence in Iraq, otherwise Tariq Aziz would be free like his colleague Mohammad Said. Also notice the news about Syria, america wants war and must be stopped. Peter Khan Zendran Obama plans war on Syria 31.05.2012 16:02 by Stephen Lendman Obama plans war on Syria. 47231.jpeg Guilty of war crimes multiple times over, Obama plans more death, destruction, conquest, colonization, resource control, exploitation, and dominance. Syria is target one, then Iran, then other nations. It follows Washington's longstanding pattern of waging war on humanity. Iran's peaceful nuclear program is pretext for post-November war. Syria's Houla massacre draws it closer against Assad. Since early last year, thousands of Syrian civilians and security forces died. Daily body counts mount. Western-enlisted insurgents bear most responsibility. Assad is wrongfully blamed for their crimes. Houla represents the largest incident so far. At least 109 deaths were reported. Most were killed at point blank range. According to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) spokesman Rupert Colville, over 80% "were summarily executed in two separate incidents." "What is very clear is that this was an absolutely abominable event that happened in Houla and at least a substantial part of it was summary executions of civilians, including women and children." Entire families "were shot (in cold blood) in their houses," or murdered other ways. Western-enlisted death squad assassins, not Assad, bear full responsibility. Spurious accusations blamed pro-Assad Alawites. Claims about tanks and artillery "pounding" Houla were exaggerated. Bodies found were intact. Bullet, stab, and other wounds reflect close-range killing. Insurgents went house to house. Victims had no place to hide. Nonetheless, Washington, Britain, France, and rogue partners reacted as expected. Ambassadors were expelled. Syria hasn't had one in Washington since last year. Its charge d'affaires got 72 hours to leave. A White House statement condemned Assad for killer gang crimes he tried to stop, saying: "These acts serve as a vile testament to an illegitimate regime that responds to peaceful political protest with unspeakable and inhuman brutality." Since violence erupted last year, Washington orchestrated events on the ground. Obama officials bear full responsibility for mass murder, destruction, mayhem and instability. America is directly or indirectly involved in virtually all regional conflicts. It's the world's leading human rights abuser. Longstanding war plans target Assad. Houla may be used as trigger to launch it. Inflammatory scoundrel media reports make war more likely. It wouldn't be the first time. Former New York Times writer Judith Miller fell from grace. She was directly complicit in promoting war against Iraq. Her daily front page features read like Pentagon handouts. She sacrificed journalism for warmongering. Times editors let her. She's gone, but they're still at it. Last year they targeted Gaddafi. This year they promote war on Iran and Syria. Shameless propaganda encourages what they should oppose. Times' correspondents, op-ed contributors, and editorial writers comprise a virtual Noah's Ark of scam artists. Journalistic ethics aren't tolerated. Subservience to wealth and power is mandated. So is lying for a living. On May 30, several featured articles and one inflammatory editorial targeted Assad. One headlined "Western Nations, Protesting Killings, Expel Envoys," saying: On Tuesday, Washington "joined with 10 nations...." They expelled Syrian diplomats. Fingers pointed the wrong way. Heated rhetoric substituted for truth. War drums were clearly audible. Journalism is support to accurately inform, agenda-free. Advocacy shouldn't be tolerated. Taking sides veers far from good reporting. Too often it's featured on Times pages. Calling Houla "a tipping point" comes dangerously close to advocating war. Blaming Assad for insurgent killings draws it closer. No publication has more global influence than The Times. Government officials follow its articles, commentaries and editorials. Agendas they advocate affect policies. Promoting war makes it more likely. The Times strayed far from June 13, 1971. It became the first broadsheet to begin publishing the top secret Pentagon Papers. At the time, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said, "What was revealed, had to be revealed....people had the right to know." In a 1996 article, The Times said: The Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public, but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance." Did misreporting about nonexistent Iraq WMDs matter less? Were lies about Gaddafi acceptable? Was getting the Afghanistan wrong good journalism? Are rule of law principles unimportant? Is sanitized news without truth and full disclosure proper on Times' pages? Obvious questions go answered. Another headline read "Romney Calls for Action on Syria, but His Party Is Divided," saying: He and other congressional hawks want war on Syria. John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham are especially belligerent. They bluntly support air strikes. Romney stops short of their rhetoric but not their agenda to topple Assad. Most others in Congress support it. So does Obama. Romney wants faster action. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said: "Of course, there is always a military option....It may come to a point with Syria because of the atrocities." He added that Friday's massacre made intervention more likely. War plans were prepared months ago. They're also ready against Iran. Key NATO partners and regional allies support it. So do the Turkish-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Syrian National Council (SNC). Another Times article headlined "Israel's Defense Minister Calls for More Action Against Assad," saying: Houla "compel(s) the world to take action - not just talk, but action," he said. He stopped just short of urging war, but imagine what's said privately. Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said: "The West must intervene, either directly, or indirectly." He added that Israel must get involved. These type comments suggest war draws closer. When rhetoric gets this heated, bombs away usually follows. At this point, it looks almost certain. Whether Russia and China can prevent it remains to be seen. On May 30, a Times editorial headlined "The Massacre at Houla," saying: Expelling Syrian diplomats stops short of tougher measures needed. Russia remains a "roadblock." Fingers pointed solely at Assad. Houla "was just the latest evidence that he never intended to" pursue peace. The editorial suggested "shabiha, or government thugs" did "at least some of the killings by shooting people - including entire families - at close range." The most obvious question went unanswered: Cui bono? Clearly not Assad. Like previous hostile editorials, this one stopped short of urging war. Given its tough rhetoric, it's just a matter of time. Calls overall grow louder. On May 29, a Washington Post editorial headlined "Time for US leadership on Syria," saying: Body counts mount. An "illusory cease fire" exists. Houla wasn't unique. It's "just better documented than (other Assad) crimes....in towns and cities across Syria." "The Obama administration persists, too, in declining to exercise the U.S. leadership that would be required to stop the massacres. For the past two months it hid behind Mr. Annan. Now....his plan has become an embarrassment...." "The reality is that the killing in Syria will continue, and the threat to vital U.S. interests across the Middle East will grow...." The Washington Post also barely stopped short of urging war. At issue is how much longer? Harsh commentaries and political rhetoric suggest what peace advocates fear most. A hawkish Haaretz article intensifies it. Headlined "On Syria, the world prattles on," saying: "The Syrian threat doesn't just hover over Syrian cities and towns; it is also warming up the engines of Israel's fighter jets" to attack Iran. Full of misinformation, it feigned concern for regional security and stability. When irresponsible commentators and political officials promote wars, spurious reasons are given. Deception substitutes for truth and reason. Bad policies usually follow. Only imperial interests gain. People on both sides lose. One conflict begets others. Endless turmoil and violence persist. Advocating them is unconscionable. Calls for war grow louder. A large-scale false flag attack blamed on Syria could cinch it. It wouldn't be the first time America manipulated events to wage war and won't be the last. Odds look like it's coming. A Final Comment For months, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been under house arrest in London. Sweden wants him extradited on spurious charges. They include unlawful coercion, sexual molestation and rape. Allegedly it's for having sex without a condom. Since when is condomless or consensual sex illegal? A honey trap snared him. At issue isn't sex. Washington wants him extradited to stand trial for whistleblowing. Obama officials want him put away and silenced. Sweden is a way station. On May 31, Britain's Supreme Court ordered Assange extradited to Stockholm. Its 5 - 2 decision rejected his argument about an invalid European arrest warrant. His lawyers got two weeks to contest. Earlier, two lower courts ruled for extradition. Washington exerted pressure and got what it wanted. Summary judgment awaits Assange in America. Maybe Guantanamo or Bradley Manning-style. Kid gloves treatment won't await him. Claims about putting lives at risk are spurious. At issue is silencing whistleblowers. Assange and Manning are best known. Assange may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Doing so could delay extradition for months. Per Samuelson, one of his lawyers, said whether he'll appeal isn't decided. At the same time, he believes he'll be cleared in Sweden. Whether true or not won't matter if authorities there order him extradited to America. At this point, it looks likely, but resolution may be months away. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War" http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. Дмитрий Судаков Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors. Tareq Aziz: A Son's Plea 30.05.2012 23:13 by Felicity Arbuthnot Tareq Aziz: A Son's Plea. 47227.jpeg Source: AsiaNews.it "We don't need spectators to witness our suffering and tell us they feel with us. We need help to put a stop to it." (Raja Shehadeh, 1951-: "When The Birds Stopped Singing.") "Madam Felicity, when I was ten years old, I was handing out leaflets on the streets of Baghdad, putting them through people's doors, to stop the British getting hold of our oil. I am not about to give up on Iraq now." (Tareq Aziz in an interview, 1999.) Iraq's former Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Tareq Aziz (76), who largely ignored his already ailing health before the illegal 2003 invasion of his country in order to travel and argue eloquently against the embargo's crippling toll on the population, and later to attempt to avert invasion, has now been imprisoned - in the country he loves and for which he fought verbally, with passion and tenacity - for nine years. His son Ziad, who with his family, in addition to the pain of his father's incarceration, now bears the burden of exile, has fought tenaciously for his father's release, but very rarely speaks publicly of the family's ongoing grief at his plight. It is a measure of his fears for Tareq Aziz that he has sent a letter expressing deep fear and concern for his father, following his family's visit to Iraq to see him, to a group affiliated with the Brussels Tribunal (i) including human rights, legal and medical organizations, asking for all possible assistance in resolving the situation. His words are quoted with permission: "I just want to update you on my father's health condition. My mother and sisters visited him last Friday (25th of May) in the Iraqi prison in which he is being held in Khadimiyah." ( Khadimiyah is part of Baghdad Old City, on the eastern side of the Tigris.) "They thought he had deteriorated since their last visit, he has a strange cough and he is still not able to walk on his own. He asked to be seen by a doctor about the cough, but the prison officials have yet to decide on that." "The heat is not an easy thing for him to endure, it really worsens his health condition and lowers his spirits." (This is May. Baghdad's sweltering Augusts can bring temperatures of 140 farenheit - 60 celsius.) " ... time is not on our side (ii.) I am afraid that his deteriorating health condition won't last him the summer with the suffocating heat and lack of medical attention. "Time is of the essence" and speedy resolution critical. "I realize these things take time, but as I said earlier, time is not on our side. My family and I are ready to help in any way we can, if there is anything we can do. "Respectfully yours, Ziad Tareq Aziz." It is a measure of the precarious health of a proud man, from a proud family of the proudest of nations that his son should near plead to those of us from nations responsible for the destruction of his. The letter ended graciously: "Lastly, I would like to thank you again for all your efforts." Tareq Aziz and his incarcerated colleagues never did give up on Iraq, never fled as they could have, before the impending invasion. They are paying a terrible price, meted out in kangaroo courts. The vengeance and lawlessness of the liberators and their puppet government, equals - and indeed largely exceeds - those they decry as tyrants and dictators. Sadly, the West's paper thin, sham democracies, nevertheless make all their nationals of conscience equally culpable. i. http://www.brussellstribunal.org/ ii. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31055 Prepared for publication by: Lisa Karpova Pravda.Ru Дмитрий Судаков Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

Iranian cyberattacks ordered by the nigger

This is only more proof that the nigger in the white house wants war with Iran. This is an attack and every Iranian is justified in doing anything to any ameircan government member anywhere as reprisal. Peter II, Khan-e-Mazendaran June 1, 2012 Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON — From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet. At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised. “Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room. Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium. This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day. These officials gave differing assessments of how successful the sabotage program was in slowing Iran’s progress toward developing the ability to build nuclear weapons. Internal Obama administration estimates say the effort was set back by 18 months to two years, but some experts inside and outside the government are more skeptical, noting that Iran’s enrichment levels have steadily recovered, giving the country enough fuel today for five or more weapons, with additional enrichment. Whether Iran is still trying to design and build a weapon is in dispute. The most recent United States intelligence estimate concludes that Iran suspended major parts of its weaponization effort after 2003, though there is evidence that some remnants of it continue. Iran initially denied that its enrichment facilities had been hit by Stuxnet, then said it had found the worm and contained it. Last year, the nation announced that it had begun its own military cyberunit, and Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran’s Passive Defense Organization, said that the Iranian military was prepared “to fight our enemies” in “cyberspace and Internet warfare.” But there has been scant evidence that it has begun to strike back. The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them. There have been reports of one-time attacks against personal computers used by members of Al Qaeda, and of contemplated attacks against the computers that run air defense systems, including during the NATO-led air attack on Libya last year. But Olympic Games was of an entirely different type and sophistication. It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country’s infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives. The code itself is 50 times as big as the typical computer worm, Carey Nachenberg, a vice president of Symantec, one of the many groups that have dissected the code, said at a symposium at Stanford University in April. Those forensic investigations into the inner workings of the code, while picking apart how it worked, came to no conclusions about who was responsible. A similar process is now under way to figure out the origins of another cyberweapon called Flame that was recently discovered to have attacked the computers of Iranian officials, sweeping up information from those machines. But the computer code appears to be at least five years old, and American officials say that it was not part of Olympic Games. They have declined to say whether the United States was responsible for the Flame attack. Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks. “We discussed the irony, more than once,” one of his aides said. Another said that the administration was resistant to developing a “grand theory for a weapon whose possibilities they were still discovering.” Yet Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice. If Olympic Games failed, he told aides, there would be no time for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran to work. Israel could carry out a conventional military attack, prompting a conflict that could spread throughout the region. A Bush Initiative The impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President George W. Bush saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America’s European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took reporters on a tour of the plant and described grand ambitions to install upward of 50,000 centrifuges. For a country with only one nuclear power reactor — whose fuel comes from Russia — to say that it needed fuel for its civilian nuclear program seemed dubious to Bush administration officials. They feared that the fuel could be used in another way besides providing power: to create a stockpile that could later be enriched to bomb-grade material if the Iranians made a political decision to do so. Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results. For years the C.I.A. had introduced faulty parts and designs into Iran’s systems — even tinkering with imported power supplies so that they would blow up — but the sabotage had had relatively little effect. General James E. Cartwright, who had established a small cyberoperation inside the United States Strategic Command, which is responsible for many of America’s nuclear forces, joined intelligence officials in presenting a radical new idea to Mr. Bush and his national security team. It involved a far more sophisticated cyberweapon than the United States had designed before. The goal was to gain access to the Natanz plant’s industrial computer controls. That required leaping the electronic moat that cut the Natanz plant off from the Internet — called the air gap, because it physically separates the facility from the outside world. The computer code would invade the specialized computers that command the centrifuges. The first stage in the effort was to develop a bit of computer code called a beacon that could be inserted into the computers, which were made by the German company Siemens and an Iranian manufacturer, to map their operations. The idea was to draw the equivalent of an electrical blueprint of the Natanz plant, to understand how the computers control the giant silvery centrifuges that spin at tremendous speeds. The connections were complex, and unless every circuit was understood, efforts to seize control of the centrifuges could fail. Eventually the beacon would have to “phone home” — literally send a message back to the headquarters of the National Security Agency that would describe the structure and daily rhythms of the enrichment plant. Expectations for the plan were low; one participant said the goal was simply to “throw a little sand in the gears” and buy some time. Mr. Bush was skeptical, but lacking other options, he authorized the effort. Breakthrough, Aided by Israel It took months for the beacons to do their work and report home, complete with maps of the electronic directories of the controllers and what amounted to blueprints of how they were connected to the centrifuges deep underground. Then the N.S.A. and a secret Israeli unit respected by American intelligence officials for its cyberskills set to work developing the enormously complex computer worm that would become the attacker from within. The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel’s Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.’s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program. Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called “the bug.” But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran’s P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. When Colonel Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, he turned over the centrifuges he had bought from the Pakistani nuclear ring, and they were placed in storage at a weapons laboratory in Tennessee. The military and intelligence officials overseeing Olympic Games borrowed some for what they termed “destructive testing,” essentially building a virtual replica of Natanz, but spreading the test over several of the Energy Department’s national laboratories to keep even the most trusted nuclear workers from figuring out what was afoot. Those first small-scale tests were surprisingly successful: the bug invaded the computers, lurking for days or weeks, before sending instructions to speed them up or slow them down so suddenly that their delicate parts, spinning at supersonic speeds, self-destructed. After several false starts, it worked. One day, toward the end of Mr. Bush’s term, the rubble of a centrifuge was spread out on the conference table in the Situation Room, proof of the potential power of a cyberweapon. The worm was declared ready to test against the real target: Iran’s underground enrichment plant. “Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers,” Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., said, declining to describe what he knew of these attacks when he was in office. “This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction,” rather than just slow another computer, or hack into it to steal data. “Somebody crossed the Rubicon,” he said. Getting the worm into Natanz, however, was no easy trick. The United States and Israel would have to rely on engineers, maintenance workers and others — both spies and unwitting accomplices — with physical access to the plant. “That was our holy grail,” one of the architects of the plan said. “It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn’t think much about the thumb drive in their hand.” In fact, thumb drives turned out to be critical in spreading the first variants of the computer worm; later, more sophisticated methods were developed to deliver the malicious code. The first attacks were small, and when the centrifuges began spinning out of control in 2008, the Iranians were mystified about the cause, according to intercepts that the United States later picked up. “The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence,” one of the architects of the early attack said. The Iranians were confused partly because no two attacks were exactly alike. Moreover, the code would lurk inside the plant for weeks, recording normal operations; when it attacked, it sent signals to the Natanz control room indicating that everything downstairs was operating normally. “This may have been the most brilliant part of the code,” one American official said. Later, word circulated through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, that the Iranians had grown so distrustful of their own instruments that they had assigned people to sit in the plant and radio back what they saw. “The intent was that the failures should make them feel they were stupid, which is what happened,” the participant in the attacks said. When a few centrifuges failed, the Iranians would close down whole “stands” that linked 164 machines, looking for signs of sabotage in all of them. “They overreacted,” one official said. “We soon discovered they fired people.” Imagery recovered by nuclear inspectors from cameras at Natanz — which the nuclear agency uses to keep track of what happens between visits — showed the results. There was some evidence of wreckage, but it was clear that the Iranians had also carted away centrifuges that had previously appeared to be working well. But by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush’s advice. The Stuxnet Surprise Mr. Obama came to office with an interest in cyberissues, but he had discussed them during the campaign mostly in terms of threats to personal privacy and the risks to infrastructure like the electrical grid and the air traffic control system. He commissioned a major study on how to improve America’s defenses and announced it with great fanfare in the East Room. What he did not say then was that he was also learning the arts of cyberwar. The architects of Olympic Games would meet him in the Situation Room, often with what they called the “horse blanket,” a giant foldout schematic diagram of Iran’s nuclear production facilities. Mr. Obama authorized the attacks to continue, and every few weeks — certainly after a major attack — he would get updates and authorize the next step. Sometimes it was a strike riskier and bolder than what had been tried previously. “From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,” a senior administration official said. “And it’s safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule.” But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games — General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. — to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users. “We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.” Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.” In fact, both the Israelis and the Americans had been aiming for a particular part of the centrifuge plant, a critical area whose loss, they had concluded, would set the Iranians back considerably. It is unclear who introduced the programming error. The question facing Mr. Obama was whether the rest of Olympic Games was in jeopardy, now that a variant of the bug was replicating itself “in the wild,” where computer security experts can dissect it and figure out its purpose. “I don’t think we have enough information,” Mr. Obama told the group that day, according to the officials. But in the meantime, he ordered that the cyberattacks continue. They were his best hope of disrupting the Iranian nuclear program unless economic sanctions began to bite harder and reduced Iran’s oil revenues. Within a week, another version of the bug brought down just under 1,000 centrifuges. Olympic Games was still on. A Weapon’s Uncertain Future American cyberattacks are not limited to Iran, but the focus of attention, as one administration official put it, “has been overwhelmingly on one country.” There is no reason to believe that will remain the case for long. Some officials question why the same techniques have not been used more aggressively against North Korea. Others see chances to disrupt Chinese military plans, forces in Syria on the way to suppress the uprising there, and Qaeda operations around the world. “We’ve considered a lot more attacks than we have gone ahead with,” one former intelligence official said. Mr. Obama has repeatedly told his aides that there are risks to using — and particularly to overusing — the weapon. In fact, no country’s infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran. This article is adapted from “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” to be published by Crown on Tuesday.