http://www.debka.com/article/21615/

Originally Posted by DEBKA

In another heated escalation over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, Iran Tuesday, Jan. 3, threatened to take action if the US aircraft carrier which "moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill returns to the Persian Gulf." Army chief Lt. Gen. Ataolla Salehi said:" Iran will not repeat this warning."

He referred to the USS Stennis as "the enemy's carrier," which "I recommend and emphasize… not return to the Persian Gulf."

Tuesday, this claim proved to be the prologue in advance of Iran's virtual closure of the Strait of Hormuz against the return of the USS Stennis into the Persian Gulf and appropriation of its "right" to open and close the waterway at will.

Gen. Salehi said: "We are not seeking to act irrationally, but are ready to confront any threat." Another Iranian commander said that Iran's Revolutionary Guards are preparing another military exercise in the Persian Gulf. He did not offer a date.

Our military sources add that two more American warships, the USS Bataan and USS Makin Island, are cruising in the area. They are small Marine Corps amphibian craft carrying jets and helicopters. The big air craft carrier USS Carl Vinson, deployed in the Pacific from the third week of December, is on standby to advance to waters opposite Iran in an emergency.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

http://www.debka.com/article/21615/

I have many major concerns for 2012. Iran is at the top of my list.

From the Debka site:

We pioneered intensive news coverage and analysis of global terror before it hit the front pages as the looming threat to world security.

http://www.debka.com/about/

Should this site be regarded as a front site for the powers that be?

I find the provocative and irrational behavior on part of the Iranians as reported in the Persian Gulf difficult to explain. Do they seek war and thus defeat?

Fortunately, Justin Raimondo is there to sort it out:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...-persian-gulf/

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Fortunately, Justin Raimondo is there to sort it out:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...-persian-gulf/

From the article you posted:

This dissent, however, comes a little too late, since we are already at war with Iran: the

economic sanctions

we’ve imposed are in themselves acts of war, and the

latest version

– sanctions on banks that do business with Iran – are already having their effect:

a drop

in the value of Iranian currency.

How many of us will own this truth?

Wow, Obama sure got a lot accomplished while most of Americans were ringing in the New Year. At least China is paying attention. Not to mention that they make more sane recommendations in dealing with Iran.

China has voiced strong opposition to the US-led push for unilateral sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, reiterating that Tehran's nuclear issue must be resolved diplomatically.


"China has consistently believed that sanctions are not the correct way to ease tensions or resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear program," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a news briefing in Beijing on Wednesday.


"The correct path is dialogue and negotiations. China opposes putting domestic law above international law to impose unilateral sanctions on another country," he said.


Hong also defended China's oil and trade ties with Iran and criticized the Western sanctions that could frustrate such relations.


"China and Iran have normal and transparent trade and energy exchanges that do not contravene UN Security Council resolutions. The dealings in question should not be affected (by sanctions),” the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman pointed out.


On December 31, US President Barack Obama signed into law fresh economic sanctions against Iran's Central Bank in a bid to punish foreign companies and banks that do business with the Iranian financial institution.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/219268.html

Originally Posted by Deb C

From the article you posted:



How many of us will own this truth?

Good question. How many will dare reveal they own them? I just hope there won't be any war this time around either.

Did I ever say anything about the Straits of Hormuz?

This crap sounds all too familiar.

The drumbeats of war are on the rise this week as the United States and Israel exchanged threats with Iran and prepared for joint 'wargames' - used to simulate future wars.

Shortly before retiring, the former top-ranking US officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, worried a lack of communication between the [US and Iran] could turn an incident into a potential conflict. "We are not talking to Iran. So we don't
understand each other," Mullen said in September. "If something happens, it's virtually assured that we won't get it right, that there will be miscalculations."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/05-3

"Tensions continue to rise between Iran and the United States. With new sanctions coming down on the Iranian economy – and the European Union debating an embargo on Iranian oil – Iran is sticking to its threats to block the Strait of Hormuz – out of which 40% of the world’s oil travels.

On Sunday – Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned Iran that such an action would cross a “red line” and that the United States would “take action and reopen” the critical supply route. Maybe Ronald Reagan shouldn’t have torn down Jimmy Carter’s solar panels on the roof of the White House 30 years ago – because our nation’s addiction to foreign oil has put us in this tense situation on the brink of a worldwide incident."

http://www.truth-out.org/news-thom-h...0-years-and-mo

Originally Posted by Deb C

because our nation’s addiction to foreign oil has put us in this tense situation on the brink of a worldwide incident.

I hope you are monitoring the "Good Economic News" thread. Our vulnerability to foreign oil is going down every day. If we could go ahead and build the Keystone pipeline, we would be even less vulnerable.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I hope you are monitoring the "Good Economic News" thread. Our vulnerability to foreign oil is going down every day. If we could go ahead and build the Keystone pipeline, we would be even less vulnerable.

James50

At what price are you willing to keep feeding our addiction to oil? There is evidence that the pipeline would be destructive to so many natural elements, and ultimately, people's lives. We just can't keep destroying our planet for the sake of the black gold.

Few of us actually realize just how dependent our military, for example, is operated on huge amounts of oil to function. Sure, we are getting more joy stick weapons (drones), but ultimately, we are still fueling our carriers of weapons with the black stuff.

The USA needs oil and they are willing to do just about anything to secure it. That's called addiction.

Car bomb kills Iranian nuclear scientist (fifth such attack in the past two years).

The "Company" and/or the Mossad have been busy.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Car bomb kills Iranian nuclear scientist (fifth such attack in the past two years).

The "Company" and/or the Mossad have been busy.

And yet it was considered proof of Saddam Hussein's evil-ness that he wanted to assassinate an American.

Isn't Iran heading toward a 2nd turning? It seems that way to me and so I don't see us heading toward war with Iran, only because I don't see anyone's heart being in it. I've heard personal accounts from people who have been to Iran and talked to the people there. Iranians don't hate the US, it's the government that hates the US.

Iranians like their blue jeans and rap music, they don't want to give that up for "National Unity." I also don't see anything "crisis-like" in the atmosphere of Iranian politics, or even that of an Unravelling.

China is definitely a threat in the near future, but I think Iran will be more like Russia was during WW2

I think the US's opinions of Iran seem to be like that of a crisis-like xenophobia, whereas Iran's paranoia of the US is reminiscent of the US and Russia during the cold war.

Russia seems a bit concerned about a US strike on Iran.

Russian Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev warned that military escalation is likely in Iran, with "real danger" of a US strike, in an interview published on Thursday.

He added that Syria, which has refused to break its ties with Tehran, could also be a target for Western intervention. "There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, and Israel is pushing the Americans towards it," said Patrushev said in an interview published on the website of the daily Kommersant."There is a real danger of a US military strike on Iran," the senior Russian security official said.

"At present, the US sees Iran as its main problem. They are trying to turn Tehran from an enemy into a supportive partner, and to achieve this, to change the current regime by whatever means," he added.

"They use both economic embargo and massive help to the opposition forces."

Patrushev said that "for years we have been hearing practically next week that the Iranians are going to create an atomic bomb, (but) still nobody has proved the existence of a military component of Iran's nuclear programme."

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/re...ussia/898881/0

I finally came up with an idea as to why we are so focused on Iran right now.

Way back in the day, Iran and Iraq were paired, sort of, and a balance of power existed between them that a wise superpower should probably have kept its fingers out of. Then we invaded Iraq and left it in the usual condition of a nation that has been invaded and occupied (except for the Marshall Plan in postwar Europe, a major anomaly).

This left Iran, which was still intact and on its feet, much stronger than Iraq -- and so it began to look like a menace to us.

People -- if there are two sharks in the pool busily circling each other, what happens when you try to kill one of the sharks?

U.S. combat forces quietly surge into Middle East

By David S. Cloud

TRIBUNE CO.

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has quietly shifted combat troops and warships to the Middle East after the top American commander in the region warned that he needed additional forces to deal with Iran and other potential threats, U.S. officials said.

Marine Corps Gen.

James Mattis, who heads U.S. Central Command, won White House approval for the deployments late last year after talks with the government in Baghdad broke down over keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, but the extent of the Pentagon moves is only now becoming clear.

Officials said the deployments are not meant to suggest a buildup to war, but rather are intended as a quick-reaction and contingency force in case a military crisis erupts in the standoff with Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons program.

The Pentagon has stationed nearly 15,000 troops in Kuwait, adding to a small contingent already there. The new units include two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit — a substantial increase in combat power after nearly a decade in which Kuwait chiefly served as a staging area for supplies and personnel heading to Iraq.

The Pentagon also has decided to keep two aircraft carriers and their strike groups in the region.

Earlier this week, the American carrier Carl Vinson joined the carrier Stennis in the Arabian Sea, giving commanders major naval and air assets in case Iran carries out its recent threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint in the Persian Gulf, where onefifth of the world’s oil shipments passes.

It's not if, but when.

It appears that we have to look behind the curtain of every speech the president makes. Half truths do not equal honesty.

Pentagon’s New Strategic Guidance

The Grim Implications of Obama’s New Defense Plan
by JOSEPH GERSON

The new doctrine places China and Iran at the center of U.S. “security” concerns. It thus prioritizes expansion of U.S. war making capacities in Asia and the Pacific and Indian Oceans, by “rebalanc[ing] toward the Asia-Pacific region…empahsiz[ing] our existing alliances.” This means Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and now Australia and India as the U.S. “pivots” from Iraq and Afghanistan to the heartland of the 21^st century global economy, Asia and the Pacific. The implications for Okinawa and Japan should be clear: Washington will be doing all that it can to ensure that Japan remains its unsinkable aircraft carrier, including pressing for construction of the new air base in Henoko.

For more truth than what you will hear out of our president's mouth:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/...-defense-plan/

I was listening to NPR this afternoon, when the film critic mentioned this Iranian movie, which is sweeping the awards circuit around the globe & recently was released here in the US in theatres.

From the sound of it, it's part Ibsen's A Doll's House & part Kramer vs. Kramer. This is the kind of movie a society entering a 2Ting makes... it's not a 4Ting kind of movie. I can't wait to see it.

A Separation (2011)

~Chas'88

A newspaper article mentioned Romney's anti-Iran rhetoric. If elected, could he emulate Nixon and realign the USA with Iran? The USA would get continued access to Persian Gulf oil; the Iranian regime would be spared a war.

It appears the tension is building.

Iran 'definitely' closing Strait of Hormuz over EU oil embargo

Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil.Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, issued the warning in respone to a decision by the European Union on Monday to impose an oil embargo on Iran over the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

“The pressure of sanctions is designed to try and make sure that Iran takes seriously our request to come to the table,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said.

However, with Washington’s decision to deploy a second carrier strike group in the Gulf, the EU’s attempt to pressure Iran economically could greatly increase the likelihood of all-out war in the region.The Strait of Hormuz is the vital link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

More: http://rt.com/news/iran-close-strait...z-embargo-455/

703. War on Iran in February (1) (1/21/2012)

In last December I learned that my brother and sisters would have a trip to India and Dubai between Feb. 2 to Feb 15, 2012. Since my relatives used to be arranged for a trip when the Feds has a new plan, that means there will be a new framed case in February and it always comes with big events as distraction- false flag terror attack, war, natural disaster or all of them.

A news proved my allegation. It will be Iran war this time.

Russian military experts say the U.S. is likely to war against Iran in early February
Date:2012-01-17
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/72360

Why does the Feds choose February as operation time? Because there was a president election in Taiwan on Jan 14. National Party competed with Democratic Progressive Party for that seat. National Party is pro-China while D.P.P. pushes for independence of Taiwan. Of course, Beijing wants to see the National Party to win the presidency of Taiwan.

On the other hand, China is a key component in war on Iran. China is a big customer of Iran. It shares 20% of exported oil of Iran. China opposed war on Iran for its own interest. So if US wants the Iran war, it must buy the agreement of China. The D.P.P. of Taiwan became the chip of the deal and was sacrificed in 1/14/2012 presidential election.

On 1/10, Treasury Secretary Geithner visited China to confirm the secret deal.

1/14, Payment confirmed

Taiwan's China-friendly president wins re-election
January 14, 2012 A.P.
|

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01...ns-re-election

1/15, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao started his trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United A.E. (all are US allies) to pick up other payments from the secret deal.

China, Saudi Arabia and the New Oil Alliance - 16 January 2012
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/china_oil_011620126

1/19, China confirms the deal to turn against Iran.

China Begins to Turn Against Iran

January 19, 2012 2:26 PM
During Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to the Persian Gulf, he struck deals with a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, many of whom are worried by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. China, which has long been one of Iran’s only allies and a major customer for its oil exports, now seems to be turning its back on Tehran. From the Telegraph:

“China adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons,” [Wen] said.

China appears to have sent a message to Iran that it could not rely on Beijing’s unstinting support by reducing its imports of oil at a time when the US and Europe are promoting an embargo on the country.

The Washington Post reported that China trimmed its oil imports from Iran in January from a daily average of around 550,000 barrels to 285,000 barrels a day.

Chinese foreign policy experts said the statement demonstrated that Beijing would not allow its international position to end up beholden to Iran.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2012/01...-against-iran/

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I finally came up with an idea as to why we are so focused on Iran right now.

Way back in the day, Iran and Iraq were paired, sort of, and a balance of power existed between them that a wise superpower should probably have kept its fingers out of. Then we invaded Iraq and left it in the usual condition of a nation that has been invaded and occupied (except for the Marshall Plan in postwar Europe, a major anomaly).

This left Iran, which was still intact and on its feet, much stronger than Iraq -- and so it began to look like a menace to us.

People -- if there are two sharks in the pool busily circling each other, what happens when you try to kill one of the sharks?

You nailed it and that is one reason that the Iraq was a horrible mistake.