Melody Moezzi, a contributor to the Huffington Post, explains the the deep significance of martyrs in Shia culture. In Farsi, they are now saying on the streets of Tehran "Give me the power of Neda."
The Israeli press is reporting today, during a White House meeting today, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will urge President Bush to prepare an attack on Iran:
Citing sources close to the Israeli prime minister, Yediot Achronot reported on its front page Wednesday that Olmert, who is due to hold closed-door talks with Bush in Washington, will say that “time is running out” on diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin writes that “there are some signs that [Olmert will] have a receptive audience” in his White House meeting. Speaking at AIPAC yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered an “unusually sharp” verbal assault against Iran. Olmert himself told the audience, “We must stop the Iranian threat by all possible means.”
Despite Bush and Olmert’s mutual agreement on the possible need for force, Yediot Achronot reports that a variety of factors are weighing against such a course of action:
It is doubtful whether such decision, under such circumstances, has a precedent in American history. Almost everything is working against it: The Iranians are not threatening the United States. They are careful about not initiating an incident that would give the Americans a pretext to attack. Such operation has no international support, not openly at least, and most of all, following the entanglement in Iraq most Americans strongly object to opening yet another front in the Middle East and treat any military initiative by Bush with suspicion.
Nevertheless, as time ticks down on Bush’s presidency, the rumors of a possible last-minute military strike on Iran are increasing. The Jerusalem Post reported last month that a senior administration official told Israeli officials to anticipate such an attack.
While the White House has dismissed these reports by claiming they are “not worth the paper they’re printed on,” neoconservatives are getting a very different message. Asked recently whether he could imagine Bush attacking Iran before the end of his term,” John Bolton said, “I think so, definitely.” Norman Podhoretz has made a similar claim. Richard Perle has said he has “very little doubt” that Bush could order a strike before he leaves office.
The ramped up rhetoric on Iran is deafening lately. To say the least, claims of Iranian meddling and fomentation in Iraq have reached an unprecedented level. But as vociferous as those claims have been, this time -- as opposed to the runup to the invasion of Iraq -- there seems to be some blowback swirling around up on Capitol Hill. They want evidence this time. Imagine that.
The truth is, the only difference between the runup to the Iraq invasion and the current buildup to a war with Iran is that this time we are the wiser. We have the benefit of hindsight this go around. We're more familiar with the modus operandi of the Bush regime now, and, we know how Dick Cheney & company will resort to bold-faced lies and slick obfuscation in making their case for perpetual war.
This time though, every piece of trumped-up evidence against Iran that Cheney comes up with or every time one of his acolytes hypes the threat, it seems to be falling more and more on a skeptical Congress. In addition, the notion of another war seems to be bombing (no pun intended) in general with the American people as well.
John Conyers’ letter is a direct shot across Cheney’s PNAC-powered bow. Now, whether Conyers’ stark warning is due directly to his aversion to war or it goes straight to a proverbial line in the sand regarding the separation of powers is unclear. But at this point it simply doesn’t matter. America wins either way.
David Swanson over at AfterDowneyStreet.org posted Conyers’ letter:
May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States." Nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress.
In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, "[t]he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress."
Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran. Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.
Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.
As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs". As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."
Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president.
We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.
Sincerely,
The Honorable John Conyers
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Conyers is showing some real guts lately and once again I think we need to let him know that we have his back. He sent a letter to his fellow congress critters asking them to co-sign the letter to Bush. Please contact both the Judiciary Committee and your district representative to urge them to sign onto Conyers' letter.
Conyers is on a roll, folks. Let’s get behind him and give him a push.
Peace
Major crude producer Iran has completely stopped carrying out its oil transactions in dollars, Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said on Saturday, labelling the greenback an "unreliable" 
"At the moment selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.
"The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses," he added.
The world's fourth largest oil exporter, Iran has massively reduced its dependence on the dollar over the past year in the face of US pressures on its financial system.
The United States has successfully encouraged major European and Asian banks to cut their dealings with Iran in a bid to make the Islamic republic give way on its controversial nuclear programme.
Washington has also blacklisted major Iranian banks for alleged support of terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons, charges denied by Tehran.
Iran has reduced its assets in dollars held in foreign banks and urged
The fall of the dollar, which has weakened considerably against the euro and other currencies in the past 12 months, has affected the revenues of OPEC members because most of them price and sell their oil exports in the US currency.
Four former CIA officials who provided intelligence information to past presidents described as preposterous President Bush's claim that he was unaware until very recently that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
"It's unbelievable," said Melvin Goodman, who worked for the CIA from 1966 to 1990 and now is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy.
Goodman's assessment of Bush's assertions were very similar to those of Larry C. Johnson, who worked at the CIA from 1985 to 1989 and from 1989 to 1993 served as Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism; Ray McGovern, a former CIA official who gave daily intelligence briefings to George H. W. Bush while he was vice president; and Bruce Riedel, who spent over two decades at both the CIA and National Security Council and is the former National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs
At a December 4 (Tuesday) press conference, Bush asserted:
I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell [Director of National Intelligence] came in and said, 'we have some new information.' He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
McGovern was totally incredulous: "The notion that the head of National Intelligence whispered in Bush's ear 'I've got a surprise for you and it's really important, but I'm not going to tell you about it until we check it out' -- The whole thing is preposterous," he said in an interview with The Huffington Post.
Riedel agreed, saying "the president either chose to ignore what he heard or his director of national intelligence is not doing his job." Riedel said he doubted McConnell failed to "do his part of the bargain."
"To me it is almost mind boggling that the President is told by the DNI that we have new important information on Iran and he doesn't ask 'what is that information?'" said Riedel, who is now a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center For Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
He said it wasn't the DNI's responsibility to tell the President to "stop hyperventilating about the Iranian threat."
"The President and his policy advisers - National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in particular - have the responsibility of keeping their eye on the intelligence and to take into account new information as it comes along," Riedel told The Huffington Post.
Bush and Cheney have repeatedly warned of the dangers of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, with no mention of the intelligence findings that Iran had stopped its program in 2003. On October 17, Bush was asked at a press conference, "But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?" He replied
I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.
White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto declined Wednesday to discuss what McConnell told Bush at their August meeting.
Q ...Was there any indication from McConnell of the nature of the intelligence in the meeting in August?MR. FRATTO: I can't give you more detail on what Director McConnell said to the President.
Larry Johnson pointed out that the National Intelligence Estimate is actually the result of an analysis of information from all intelligence agencies. The material on which the NIE report was based had been acquired well before the report itself was issued to the public.
When that information first became available to the CIA and other agencies, it would automatically have been included in the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) months before the NIE report, Johnson said. The President, Vice President, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State are all given daily accounts of the PDB, Johnson said. McGovern and Goodman agreed.
December 03, 2007 11:51 AM
ABC News' Martha Raddatz, Jonathan Karl, Luis Martinez and Kirit Radia Report: In a stunning reversal of Bush administration conventional wisdom, a new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program over four years ago.
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program," reads a declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate key findings.
"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009."
The entire NIE report will remain classified, however the office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of the key findings that can be read HERE.
The new intelligence report could create an embarrassing situation for the United States as it pushes for a third United Nations resolution against Iran for its nuclear activities.
The Bush administration reacted swiftly Monday, arguing that while the latest intelligence report is "positive news," they won't abandon their strategy of applying "intensified international pressure" on Iran.
"It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons," read a statement by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley about the NIE report. "It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem."
Hadley urged the international community to "turn up the pressure on Iran" using diplomatic isolation, financial pressure, and UN sanctions. President Bush may speak about the new intelligence report findings in a press conference scheduled for Tuesday.
A senior U.S. official who has read the intelligence report told ABC News that while the NIE concludes "there has been a halt when it comes to weaponization" of Iran's nuclear weapons program, that doesn't mean Iran might not try to resume weaponization of their nuclear program in the future.
It's "an intentions judgment, not a capabilities judgment," said a senior U.S. official. In other words, the Iranians could restart this aspect of there program, but for whatever reason, they have halted it for now.
The Iranian government has admitted they are maintaining a nuclear enrichment program. IAEA reports confirm Iran continues to work on perfecting centrifuge technology that could be used to create highly enriched uranium that could eventually be used in a nuclear weapons program.
The finding that Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is based on new intelligence gathered this year. The NIE report was scheduled to be completed in the spring and sent to Congress, but was delayed because of the new information.
ABC News' Jennifer Duck contributed to this report.
By all indications, the United States is about to attack Iran. Expect a regional catastrophe to follow, propelled by impotent diplomacy and inane media.
